From an really old sailor; as we set sail from 2015 into
2016 its time to reflect on where we have been and what we did so we can attempt
to make sure we do not repeat those things that cause us, our families and our
nation great pain grief.
To better understand our Founding Fathers and their mind set
while deliberating our form of government, our Constitution and what they envisioned
for our new nation we need to look further for clarification of those
efforts. We know, by documented evidence
that our Founding Father use reference materials in order to provide them with
the means and forms of government so they could choose which form of government
that would best suit the new nation they were forming. It also must be remembered that most of our
Founding Fathers spoke, read and were literate in many foreign languages.
Amendment XIV
We have endured the ineptness of our Congress; it seems as
though they cannot get anything right after taking their collective oaths and seats
in the House and Senate, after having promised the people back home they would
work for the people back home’s benefit and not their own personal benefit while
sitting in the seats which collectively belong to We the People. Why it is Congress is so inept? There are many reasons most of We the People
realize but fail to do anything about each election cycle by continuing to send
the same inept people back to congress each time we have another election.
We all talk about term limits failing to realize that our
Founding Fathers built into our Constitution term limits to be exercised by We
the People every two and six years of each election cycle. Having said that, why do we then need another
law to take the responsibility out of We the People’s hands so that We the
People need not be inconvenienced to exercise our responsibility as US citizens
each election cycle?
Have We the People become so complacent that we rely on
others to do our Constitutional duties for us?
If so, then whose fault is it that we find our Constitutional Republic (a
republican form of government not the party) on the verge of becoming a
Democracy?
For those of you who want to challenge my statement on our
form of government I challenge you to read our founding documents and find the
word Democracy anywhere in those documents.
Republic appears many times, and is supported by Benjamin Franklin’s
statement when leaving the signing of our Constitution and asked, “what form of
government have you given us Mr. Franklin”?
His answer was “a Republican, as long as you can keep it”. If Congress cannot get it right who is left
to get it right?
Our Founding Fathers had much wisdom for us, and some of
that comes to us through the Federalist Papers written by most of those who
formed our new nation, however little of it resonates in We the People’s minds
today because it is no longer taught or referenced in our schools because of what
I call Social and Political Engineering over the years by those that want our
nation to become something other than it is and mandated by our Constitution, a
Constitutional Republic.
Think about this, we have a Republican Party and a
Democratic Party, I could understand the Republican Party since our nation is a
Constitutional Republic; but where did the Democratic Party come from? Both parties have their own agendas, when
formed and today, what are those agendas really about. We know the Republican Party says they are
conservative, but then why are they conservative right, moderate and centralist? While the Democratic Party says they are
left, moderate, centralist? Your guess
is as good as mine. Maybe we need a new
political party that is more representative of our Constitutional Republic
which the Republican Party of today is not.
During Woodrow Wilson’s term in office the Democratic
Progressive Movement was form to help foster the change of our form of
government to a Democracy.
T. Roosevelt formed the Republican Progressive Movement
after his unsuccessful try for another term as President failed and a conflict with
the Republican Party principles. Roosevelt
wanted changes that would not be brought about through the Constitutional
amendment process.
Those two movements today are now one (merged) and occupy
places in both political parties, and in most levels of our federal government.
People talk about the left and right of politics; I proffer
that there is not a right, left or moderate in politics today and these are messaging
terms used by the Progressive Movement who want our nation to be a Democratic
or Socialist government but cannot do it through the amendment process.
Today most of people believe our nation is Democratic, a
Democracy, it is not and was not the form of government our Founding Father
wanted for the new nation they formed during and after the Revolutionary War
with Britain.
For as long as our body of politics has been around there
are those that wanted something different for our nation and it runs the gamete
from Monarchy, Oligarchy, Dictatorship, Socialistic, Marxist and Communist,
anything other than the Republic our Founding Fathers gave us.
These conflicted souls are still here in our nation, many US
citizens, others not; but together their true focus is to change our
Constitutional Republic into another form of government and they have been at
it for a long, long time and they are very well organized and funded.
You may say, well I did not know that, the truth is that
most of us do not know this because we have been focused over the years on
making a living, raising a family, and trying to prepare for retirement, if possible. In that effort we have left the duties of We
the People up to others trusting they would get the job done for us and
preserve our nation.
I was once one of those people leaving it up to others, yes
I voted in every election I could, I “was” a registered Republican and the
process was made simple for me, I voted the party ticket every time except for
JFK. I finally retired eight years ago
and that is when it all changed for me because I could now focus on my (our)
country and what was going on in it.
After my many hours of research, re-reading our founding documents,
the Federalist Paper and getting into my legal discussions regarding the merits
of our Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and The Bill of Rights I
became aware that our nation was conflicted by the very people I had entrusted
to keep my nation safe while I worked to my benefit in order to provide for my
family and retirement.
Had I been selfish, probably, but what I saw appalled me
that I had become so complacent that I had let other people make decisions that
affected my family, my fellow citizens, our country and me.
From my research I found that over the last 100 years our
nation and our federal government, at all levels, has been slowly infiltrated
by the Socialists, Marxists, and Communists.
Leftists and Rightists are not a movement only a message that has been
promulgated by the other real movements to paint a friendly picture for the
public to consume.
Socialism has been around since before the founding of our
nation and they tried to take over those governments one state at a time and
failed.
Communism however was the big name of the game leading up to
after WWII, and became the focal point of Congress in their attempt to protect
our nation from Communism.
That congressional concern produced the House of Un-American
Activities Hearings in the late 1940s and early 1950s chaired by Senator Joseph
McCarthy and Richard Nixon. Those
hearing were labeled a witch hunt by the Communists, but those hearing drove
the Communist Party USA and its sympathizers underground for several years. Communism being outted nationwide cause their
movement a serious setback but it did not stop them from looking for a vehicle
to bring their movements back into operation nationwide. The vehicle they chose was the Progressive
Movement of both political parties, so today we have a Progressive Movement
controlled mainly by the Communist Party USA and affiliated groups. They made their inroads so covertly, that we
still have original Progressives today who still believe they are in control of
their movements.
I have talked to my fellow veterans and military retirees,
and I came away from those discussions being reminded that I took an oath when
I joined the US Navy in 1955, “to protect and defend the Constitution of the
United States of America against all enemies foreign and domestic” and that
oath never expires and there are millions of us in this nation who took that
oath and are still alive today. Enough
said on that point.
Having said all this, I remind you that we are headed into
what I consider the most crucial election of our time, since we have refused to
get it right over the last 80+ years.
In that effort let’s reflect on the state of our
government. We have all endured the
exploits of Obama; I cannot call him President since constitutionally he is not
and therefore does not represent me.
For those of you who immediately call me a racist, or
something else from the Socialist Democratic bag of tricks, let me state I have
access to documented proof therefore I ask you what verifiable proof (evidence)
do you have Obama meets our constitutional requirements to be President?
From Article II Section I of our Constitution:
“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.”
Because the Progressive Movement continues to want anyone
who is a US citizen to be qualified to serve as President and Commander in
Chief they interpret our Constitution to reflect their views and not the views of
our founding fathers.
Therefore we have a currently sitting president that lacks
the Natural Born Citizen status and is a usurper to the office with the
approval of Congress and Electoral College.
Why?
CHAPTER XIX: Of our Native Country, and
several Things that relate to it.
§211. What is our country.
The whole of the countries possessed by a nation and subject
to its laws, forms, as we have already said, its territory, and is the common
country of all the individuals of the nation. We have been obliged to
anticipate the definition of the term, native country (§122), because our subject
led us to treat of the love of our country,—a virtue so excellent and so
necessary in a state. Supposing then this definition already known, it remains
that we should explain several things that have a relation to this subject, and
answer the questions that naturally arise from it.
§212. Citizens and natives.
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. As the society cannot exist and
perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those
children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to [218] all their rights.
The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its
own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen,
on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming
members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children;
and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon
see, whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce
their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say,
that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a
father who is a citizen; for if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be
only the place of his birth, and not his country.
§213. Inhabitants.
The
inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners, who are permitted
to settle and stay in the country. Bound to the society by their residence,
they are subject to the laws of the state, while they reside in it; and they
are obliged to defend it, because it grants them protection, though they do not
participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which
the law or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants
are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind
of citizens of an inferior order, and are united to the society, without
participating in all its advantages. Their children follow the condition of
their fathers; and as the state has given to these the right of perpetual
residence, their right passes to their posterity.
§214. Naturalisation.
A
nation, or the sovereign who represents it, may grant to a foreigner the
quality of citizen, by admitting him into the body of the political society.
This is called naturalisation. There are some states in
which the sovereign cannot grant to a foreigner all the rights of citizens,—for
example, that of holding public offices,—and where, consequently, he has the
power of granting only an imperfect naturalisation. It is here a regulation of
the fundamental law, which limits the power of the prince. In other states, as
in England and Poland, the prince cannot naturalise a single person, without
the concurrence of the nation represented by its deputies. Finally, there are
states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born
in the country naturalises the children of a foreigner.
§215. Children of citizens, born in a foreign country.
It is
asked, whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens?
The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations
must be followed. By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of
their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§212); the place of birth
produces no change in this particular, and cannot of itself furnish any reason
for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say “of itself,” for civil
or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise. But I suppose
that the father has not entirely quitted his country in order to settle
elsewhere. If he has fixed his abode in a foreign country, he is become a
member of another society, at least as a perpetual inhabitant; and his children
will be members of it also. (Stop)
Many
learned scholars in the United States of America for their own reasons will
argue otherwise that citizenship simply follows either the mother or father,
this is codified nowhere in our Constitutional Laws. Yet others will argue that the 14th
Amendment changed all that, this is also a manufactured whim of those who want
our nation to be open to everyone born in our country the 14th
Amendment did not say that and therefore the want for “Anchor Babies” goes
hunting for affirmation at the quest of the Progressive Movement who for years
has tried to make citizens of everyone born here whether of US citizens of foreigner
visiting our sovereign soil legally or illegally. In my opinion this is flawed think based on
their wishes.
Amendment XIV
Section I.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens
of the United States and of the State
wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce
any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens
of the United States; nor shall any State deprive
any person of
life, liberty, or proper ty, without
due process of
law; nor deny to any per son within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the
laws.
The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified July 9,
1868, Senator Jacob M Howard (MI) 1866 author of the 14th Amendment wrote to
clarify:
“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
their jurisdiction, is by the virtue of natural law and national law a citizen
of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the
United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of
ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United
States, but will include every other class of persons.”
His
efforts here were to basically say that all freed slaves were US citizens and
did not extend to others entering our country for whatever reason. The Progressive Movement over the years have,
through their messaging techniques have managed to convince congress and others
that anyone born in our nation regardless of their parents citizenship were as
the message it “Anchor Babies” and this is simply not true, in my opinion. This assumption is not codified in law, and
would require an amendment to our Constitution to make it so, try getting that
through ¾ of the states for ratification.
To this
end I proffer the following, Obama’s verifiable records have never been
produced by him, or others and all of his records are under presidential seal,
so here are my points:
1.
Is Obama our first illegal alien president?
2.
Who is Obama, does anyone other than his dead
mother and grandmother really know for certain?
3.
Why did his handlers need to photo shop his BC?
4.
Was Obama registered Occidental, Columbia and
Harvard as a foreign student?
5.
Whose passport did Obama use to return to the US
for Indonesia, and where is that passport?
6.
Where is the passport Obama used to travel to
Pakistan, India and Indonesia when he was in college, what was its country of
origin?
7.
When was his name officially changed from
Indonesian “Barry Soetoro” to “Barrack Obama”?
8.
Why does Obama use a SSN issued to another?
9.
Why are Obama's Federal and State tax returns
filed with a SSN (042-68-4425) that belongs to someone else?
10.
Did Bill Ayers teach Obama how to hide his past
by using false IDs?
11.
Why does Obama continues to keep all his vital
and not so vital records sealed?
12.
How did Obama get a fraudulently back dated
Selective Service Card and Selective Service Registration form?
13.
Can anyone forensically prove Obama's
nationality, country of origin, paternal parentage?
14.
Where are Obama's documents, period?
15.
Is Obama truly a man without a country?
To verify some or all of these unanswered questions I offer
the following website, scribd.com, use by the legal profession to make their legal
postings available to those who wish to see them:
https://www.scribd.com/collections/3166684/Birth-Certificate-Other-Obama-ID-Docs-Forged-Expert-Reports
Today we are about to go down the road to the elections in
November 2016, of those candidates running it will be yours and my choice who
we vote for; I am a Constitutional Conservative, ex-Republican, voter, I know
who I will vote for when the elections slate is finalized. But, I also know who I cannot vote for no
matter what happens in the nominating process, and that decision is based solely
on our Constitution and not the party or candidate. Two candidates on the Republican side I
cannot vote for are Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio and here is why:
Cruz, and Rubio, both are attorneys who know better, and Cruz even clerk at
the Supreme Court, are they both these candidates simply self-serving their
egos, pandering to raise money or simply another covert Progressive furthering
their movement’s agenda?
As a Constitutional
Conservative I like Rubio and Cruz, I do not always agree with them which is my
choice; however, if they are nominated I cannot in good conscience vote for
either because they fly in the face of our Constitution by pretending they are
eligible for POTUS, which they are clearly not and they know it.
Our Constitution dictates
that to be President and Commander in Chief you must be a Natural Born Citizen
and therefore must be born of citizen parents on US sovereign soil, re. The Law
of Nations. That citizen parents is plural
not singular.
To elect another
ineligible POTUS would further destroy our Constitution one article at a time
which the Progressive Movement has been doing year after year for over 80
years.
We are a Constitutional
Republic not a Democracy but the Progressives want a Democracy without amending
our Constitution. The Progressive Movement of both political parties have work
tirelessly to achieve this end and today we have two candidates running for
office that fit the Progressive profile for accomplishing it once again and giving
us one more ineligible POTUS.
There was a reason our
Founding Fathers wanted an Natural Born Citizen for president to safe guard our
Constitutional Republic.
My writings will never
change the minds of those who espouse to the Progressive Movement Agenda which
is now a Socialist/Marxist/Communist Progressive Movement after years of
infiltration.
But my hope is I will at
least reach some who are uninformed, have forgotten what they learned in high
school Civics class and during their post-secondary education course before the
Socialist Liberals transformed our colleges and universities into
indoctrination centers.
So having said that, I
say, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio because of their birth citizenship makes them
ineligible for POTUS.
Have either published
their US verifiable birth certificates showing them born of US citizen parents?
