Bartiromo Grills RFK, Jr.
5 hours ago
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Exponential increase in M1, Recipe for disaster
Here is a graph of the exponential increase in M1 (money supply) that is sure to cripple this economy, first with deflation, then with hyperinflation. The rise in unemployment will keep inflation at bay for awhile, but it (hyperinflation) is 100% sure to come, and the devaluation of the dollar has already begun. It is an intended result, designed to create the crisis that allows Obama to institute the Socialist model, it is not an accident. Jeffrey Taylor (District Attorney for D.C) has resigned (5/29), probably over pressure from the public and threats from the administration from his unique position as savior of the Republic due to his ability to institute Quo Warranto (by which authority do you hold this office). It may have been the only constitutional avenue to question the qualification of this Usurper as Natural Born Citizen (born in the US of Citizen mother and father). Attorney Mario Appuzo believes that the QW does not have to be instituted by the Attorney General (Holder-fat chance) or the DC US Attorney as long as it is part of another action. His Kerchner et al v. Obama seeks QW and also sues the Political Parties and Dick Cheney (as President of the Electoral College) for knowingly presenting unqualified candidates (see Puzo1).
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
National Tea Party 9/12 /09
Sign up for the 09.12.09 Protest at the Capitol! (6)
April 17, 2009 • Category: Featured
It’s time to take the tea party movement directly to Washington, D.C. Please join thousands of local organizers and grassroots Americans from across the country as we gather in our nation’s capital to deliver a message to the politicians: Enough!
We are gathering on 9-12-2009 to deliver our message in person that we’ve had enough!
http://912dc.org/
Quo Warranto request to D.C District attorney Jeffrey Taylor
D.C District Attorney Jeffrey Taylor needs the will of the people to force his hand to institute the Constitutional avenue of Quo Warranto in the District Court of the District of Columbia. Write him a respectful letter, and show up at the HISTORIC Tea Party Protest in Washington D.C on September 12. Sign up here http://912dc.org/ . Oust the USURPER Obama.
Jeffrey Taylor
United States Attorney’s Office
555 4th Street N.W.
Washington, D.C 20530
Dear Mr. Taylor,
I am sure that you have been made aware of the Constitutional Crisis that is festering within the District of Colombia. The central Government of the U.S has been marching towards an ever increasing control over American Citizens by ignoring the tenets of Limited government as set forth by our Constitution. The political parties have usurped the state’s control of assuring a Presidential Candidate’s Constitutional qualifications to run for the office. You are probably aware of the deceptive nature of Resolution 511, an attempt by congress to legislate the meaning of Natural Born Citizen with a resolution that has no force of law. At the hearings for that Resolution Michael Chertoff and Senator Leahy agreed that a Natural Born Citizen was born of CITIZEN PARENTS. They got that part of the equation correct, but what about the jus soli part? Senator McCain, who’s Natural Born Citizen status the resolution was addressing, was born in Colon, Panama according to his Birth Certificate. How does Senator Leahy and the rest of Congress, who were all part of the hearing, support Barack Obama as a candidate for president, and now elected president, when it is well known that his father, Barack Obama Sr., was a Kenyan national? On Barack Obama’s “Fight the Smears” website he admits that due to his father’s Kenyan citizenship Barack Obama’s Citizenship was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1949. Barack Obama’s dual citizenship at birth (US and Great Britain) should disqualify him from holding the office of President.
In my home state of Florida State Statute 99.21 requires that candidates for all National political office take a candidate Oath that attests to the candidate’s constitutional qualification for the office he is running to attain. However Fla. state statute 103.11 institutes The Presidential Primary Selection Committee presided over by the Secretary of State of Fla., in which 10 members of the political parties and Congress select candidates to be on the State Ballot. Only a Presidential candidate’s own party member can raise a question as to the qualification of any presidential candidate. There is nothing in the wording of either statute that precludes a national candidate from taking the candidate oath of Fl. SS 99.21, yet that step is bypassed. The Citizens of Florida have effectively been shut out of the vetting process. The Secretary of state of the various states have said that they only perform a ministerial duty, and that the Political Parties verify the qualifications of their candidates, yet the Socialist Candidate, Mr. Calero, born in Nicaragua, was kicked off the ballot by the SOS’s of 5 states. Is this only selective enforcement?
I am sure that Mr. Obama had questions about his qualification as a Natural Born Citizen. He is after all a constitutional Lecturer and Harvard Law grad. There is not a clear on point Supreme Court decision that sets the meaning in stone as it relates to Presidential qualification, although Perkins v. Elg does define a Natural Born citizen as the product of a child born in the US of citizen parents, it is not a decision about who can run for president. The dicta of the case though does point to a Mr. Steinkauler born of naturalized American citizens in the US as being able to run for president of the US if he so chooses.
The argument has been made that the qualification for Natural Born Citizens to run for President is an antiquated relic of a time passed, or that it is discriminatory, or that it is not defined anywhere in the constitution. The Founders put the requirement into the constitution virtually without discussion. It was a well known term in the late 1700’s from a treatise on Natural Law by Vattel, a contemporary of the Framers, called “Law of Nations”. It is also well known that the framers used Vattel’s work in formulating their thoughts on Natural god-given rights of individuals. In breaking away from England, the Framers sought to break from the English Common Law dictatorial practice of England claiming as it’s citizens all those born within England’s territory, regardless of parent’s nationality. The only sensible way to avoid dual allegiances was to determine nationality of newborns by the nationality of the parents. Vattel said that “the natives, or Natural Born Citizens, are those born in a country to parents who are it’s citizens”. To the framers this was a common sense way to assure the highest probability of complete allegiance to the United States, and was a very well known term at the time, requiring no debate. In light of the framers well documented desire to assure allegiance to the US, and no other foreign power, could they possibly have thought that children born in the US of illegal aliens could be president or VP? This is not saying that Barack Obama’s father was an illegal alien, I only point to the belief that “Born in the US alone equals a Natural Born Citizen” as simply illogical in light of the founders well known reason for the requirement, as documented in the Federalist Papers. The qualification for Natural Born citizenship is certainly not discriminatory, as it comprises the highest percentage of US Citizens, and also does not require Native citizen parents, Naturalized Citizen parents can also produce Natural Born Citizens. Although the passage of time, lack of education, judicial activism, and congressional manipulation have blurred the meaning of the term “Natural Born Citizen”, there is much documentation as to the meaning of the term from a variety of sources over time. You can point to the hearings for Resolution 511 (4/2008), where Mr. Chertoff and Sen. Leahy agreed that a Natural Born citizen requires citizen parents (but prevaricated on the fact of McCain’s place of birth), Perkins v. Elg (1939), John Bingham’s statements during the Congressional hearings for the 14th Amendment, the Naturalization Act of 1790, and it’s repeal by the Naturalization Act of 1795 (passed by many of the members of the Constitutional Congress), and of course Vattels “Law of Nations”, all pointing to the born on US soil to citizen parents definition.
By the text of the Constitution itself we know what a Natural Born Citizen is NOT. Article 2 Section 1 clause 5 requires a president to be a Natural Born Citizen, “or a citizen at the time of the ratification of this constitution”. It is clear that the framers, although born British Citizens, trusted themselves since they fought for emancipation, but not others. Barack Obama and John McCain were certainly born after 1788. It is clear by the text of the Constitution that Natural Born Citizen is different from “Citizen”. Defenders of the “Born in the US equals Natural Born Citizen” argument may point to the Wong Kim Ark case, however that case is not about the requirements to become President, and Judge Gray also refused to deem Wong a Natural Born Citizen, although in deeming Wong a “citizen” he went diametrically against his own definition of 14th Amendment “jurisdiction” made 14 years earlier in Elk v. Wilkins. His Wong Kim Ark definition of “citizen” goes to a more Common Law view of jurisdiction that defenders of the “Born in the US equals Natural Born Citizen” notion tend to hold onto. However, as you well know, Justice Scalia has recently said that the Common Law is Dead. Defenders of the “Born in the US equals Natural Born Citizen” definition also point to the 14th Amendment, saying that it amends the Natural Born Citizen requirement. You will note that the words “Natural Born Citizen” are not in that Amendment, and that it is well documented that the writers of the Amendment meant it to reinforce the Bill of Rights and to give citizenship rights to negroes. Furthermore the seminal Marbury v. Madison case states that all Constitutional Phrases have an effect, and any argument that serves to make that effect moot is INADMISSABLE. If a 14th Amendment “Born” citizen is deemed to be a Natural Born Citizen, then Article 2 Section 1, clauses 4 and 5 are moot.
Mr. Taylor, as a citizen of this great nation I urge you to once and for all settle the question of Barack Obama’s qualification as a Natural Born Citizen through a Quo Warranto proceeding in the District of Colombia. The decision to bring this action rests with you and Attorney Holder (who may have a conflict of interest). It is the only constitutional avenue to address this Constitutional Crisis that is not going away. Members of our brave military need to be assured that they are taking orders from a legal President, collateral attacks (by death row inmates, for instance) are sure to pick up steam. I know that this issue must weigh heavily upon your mind, but I think that you are a patriot and you will see that it is right to go against the political winds and settle the question once and for all.
Sincerely and Patriotically,
Jeffrey Taylor
United States Attorney’s Office
555 4th Street N.W.
Washington, D.C 20530
Dear Mr. Taylor,
I am sure that you have been made aware of the Constitutional Crisis that is festering within the District of Colombia. The central Government of the U.S has been marching towards an ever increasing control over American Citizens by ignoring the tenets of Limited government as set forth by our Constitution. The political parties have usurped the state’s control of assuring a Presidential Candidate’s Constitutional qualifications to run for the office. You are probably aware of the deceptive nature of Resolution 511, an attempt by congress to legislate the meaning of Natural Born Citizen with a resolution that has no force of law. At the hearings for that Resolution Michael Chertoff and Senator Leahy agreed that a Natural Born Citizen was born of CITIZEN PARENTS. They got that part of the equation correct, but what about the jus soli part? Senator McCain, who’s Natural Born Citizen status the resolution was addressing, was born in Colon, Panama according to his Birth Certificate. How does Senator Leahy and the rest of Congress, who were all part of the hearing, support Barack Obama as a candidate for president, and now elected president, when it is well known that his father, Barack Obama Sr., was a Kenyan national? On Barack Obama’s “Fight the Smears” website he admits that due to his father’s Kenyan citizenship Barack Obama’s Citizenship was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1949. Barack Obama’s dual citizenship at birth (US and Great Britain) should disqualify him from holding the office of President.
In my home state of Florida State Statute 99.21 requires that candidates for all National political office take a candidate Oath that attests to the candidate’s constitutional qualification for the office he is running to attain. However Fla. state statute 103.11 institutes The Presidential Primary Selection Committee presided over by the Secretary of State of Fla., in which 10 members of the political parties and Congress select candidates to be on the State Ballot. Only a Presidential candidate’s own party member can raise a question as to the qualification of any presidential candidate. There is nothing in the wording of either statute that precludes a national candidate from taking the candidate oath of Fl. SS 99.21, yet that step is bypassed. The Citizens of Florida have effectively been shut out of the vetting process. The Secretary of state of the various states have said that they only perform a ministerial duty, and that the Political Parties verify the qualifications of their candidates, yet the Socialist Candidate, Mr. Calero, born in Nicaragua, was kicked off the ballot by the SOS’s of 5 states. Is this only selective enforcement?
I am sure that Mr. Obama had questions about his qualification as a Natural Born Citizen. He is after all a constitutional Lecturer and Harvard Law grad. There is not a clear on point Supreme Court decision that sets the meaning in stone as it relates to Presidential qualification, although Perkins v. Elg does define a Natural Born citizen as the product of a child born in the US of citizen parents, it is not a decision about who can run for president. The dicta of the case though does point to a Mr. Steinkauler born of naturalized American citizens in the US as being able to run for president of the US if he so chooses.
The argument has been made that the qualification for Natural Born Citizens to run for President is an antiquated relic of a time passed, or that it is discriminatory, or that it is not defined anywhere in the constitution. The Founders put the requirement into the constitution virtually without discussion. It was a well known term in the late 1700’s from a treatise on Natural Law by Vattel, a contemporary of the Framers, called “Law of Nations”. It is also well known that the framers used Vattel’s work in formulating their thoughts on Natural god-given rights of individuals. In breaking away from England, the Framers sought to break from the English Common Law dictatorial practice of England claiming as it’s citizens all those born within England’s territory, regardless of parent’s nationality. The only sensible way to avoid dual allegiances was to determine nationality of newborns by the nationality of the parents. Vattel said that “the natives, or Natural Born Citizens, are those born in a country to parents who are it’s citizens”. To the framers this was a common sense way to assure the highest probability of complete allegiance to the United States, and was a very well known term at the time, requiring no debate. In light of the framers well documented desire to assure allegiance to the US, and no other foreign power, could they possibly have thought that children born in the US of illegal aliens could be president or VP? This is not saying that Barack Obama’s father was an illegal alien, I only point to the belief that “Born in the US alone equals a Natural Born Citizen” as simply illogical in light of the founders well known reason for the requirement, as documented in the Federalist Papers. The qualification for Natural Born citizenship is certainly not discriminatory, as it comprises the highest percentage of US Citizens, and also does not require Native citizen parents, Naturalized Citizen parents can also produce Natural Born Citizens. Although the passage of time, lack of education, judicial activism, and congressional manipulation have blurred the meaning of the term “Natural Born Citizen”, there is much documentation as to the meaning of the term from a variety of sources over time. You can point to the hearings for Resolution 511 (4/2008), where Mr. Chertoff and Sen. Leahy agreed that a Natural Born citizen requires citizen parents (but prevaricated on the fact of McCain’s place of birth), Perkins v. Elg (1939), John Bingham’s statements during the Congressional hearings for the 14th Amendment, the Naturalization Act of 1790, and it’s repeal by the Naturalization Act of 1795 (passed by many of the members of the Constitutional Congress), and of course Vattels “Law of Nations”, all pointing to the born on US soil to citizen parents definition.
By the text of the Constitution itself we know what a Natural Born Citizen is NOT. Article 2 Section 1 clause 5 requires a president to be a Natural Born Citizen, “or a citizen at the time of the ratification of this constitution”. It is clear that the framers, although born British Citizens, trusted themselves since they fought for emancipation, but not others. Barack Obama and John McCain were certainly born after 1788. It is clear by the text of the Constitution that Natural Born Citizen is different from “Citizen”. Defenders of the “Born in the US equals Natural Born Citizen” argument may point to the Wong Kim Ark case, however that case is not about the requirements to become President, and Judge Gray also refused to deem Wong a Natural Born Citizen, although in deeming Wong a “citizen” he went diametrically against his own definition of 14th Amendment “jurisdiction” made 14 years earlier in Elk v. Wilkins. His Wong Kim Ark definition of “citizen” goes to a more Common Law view of jurisdiction that defenders of the “Born in the US equals Natural Born Citizen” notion tend to hold onto. However, as you well know, Justice Scalia has recently said that the Common Law is Dead. Defenders of the “Born in the US equals Natural Born Citizen” definition also point to the 14th Amendment, saying that it amends the Natural Born Citizen requirement. You will note that the words “Natural Born Citizen” are not in that Amendment, and that it is well documented that the writers of the Amendment meant it to reinforce the Bill of Rights and to give citizenship rights to negroes. Furthermore the seminal Marbury v. Madison case states that all Constitutional Phrases have an effect, and any argument that serves to make that effect moot is INADMISSABLE. If a 14th Amendment “Born” citizen is deemed to be a Natural Born Citizen, then Article 2 Section 1, clauses 4 and 5 are moot.
Mr. Taylor, as a citizen of this great nation I urge you to once and for all settle the question of Barack Obama’s qualification as a Natural Born Citizen through a Quo Warranto proceeding in the District of Colombia. The decision to bring this action rests with you and Attorney Holder (who may have a conflict of interest). It is the only constitutional avenue to address this Constitutional Crisis that is not going away. Members of our brave military need to be assured that they are taking orders from a legal President, collateral attacks (by death row inmates, for instance) are sure to pick up steam. I know that this issue must weigh heavily upon your mind, but I think that you are a patriot and you will see that it is right to go against the political winds and settle the question once and for all.
Sincerely and Patriotically,
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
