Saturday, February 13, 2010
"We are a sovereign nation. It’s time we started acting like one." ...by the way, "Can you define, 'citizenship' ?"
Birthright Citizenship and Dual Citizenship: Harbingers of Administrative Tyranny
Edward J. Erler
Professor of Political Science, California State University, San Bernardino
Edward J. Erler is professor of political science at California State University, San Bernardino, and a senior fellow of the Claremont Institute. He earned his B.A. from San Jose State University and his M.A. and Ph.D. in government from Claremont Graduate School. He has published numerous articles on constitutional topics in journals such as Interpretation, the Notre Dame Journal of Law, and the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. He was a member of the California Advisory Commission on Civil Rights from 1988-2006 and served on the California Constitutional Revision Commission in 1996. He has testified before the House Judiciary Committee on the issue of birthright citizenship and is the co-author of The Founders on Citizenship and Immigration.
The following is adapted from a speech delivered at a Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar on February 12, 2008, in Phoenix, Arizona.
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP—the policy whereby the children of illegal aliens born within the geographical limits of the United States are entitled to American citizenship—is a great magnet for illegal immigration. Many believe that this policy is an explicit command of the Constitution, consistent with the British common law system. But this is simply not true.
The framers of the Constitution were, of course, well-versed in the British common law, having learned its essential principles from William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England. As such, they knew that the very concept of citizenship was unknown in British common law. Blackstone speaks only of “birthright subjectship” or “birthright allegiance,” never using the terms citizen or citizenship. The idea of birthright subjectship is derived from feudal law. It is the relation of master and servant; all who are born within the protection of the king owe perpetual allegiance as a “debt of gratitude.” According to Blackstone, this debt is “intrinsic” and “cannot be forefeited, cancelled, or altered.” Birthright subjectship under the common law is thus the doctrine of perpetual allegiance.
America’s Founders rejected this doctrine. The Declaration of Independence, after all, solemnly proclaims that “the good People of these Colonies. . . are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved.” According to Blackstone, the common law regards such an act as “high treason.” So the common law—the feudal doctrine of perpetual allegiance—could not possibly serve as the ground of American (i.e., republican) citizenship. Indeed, the idea is too preposterous to entertain!
James Wilson, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and a member of the Constitutional Convention as well as a Supreme Court Justice, captured the essence of the matter when he remarked: “Under the Constitution of the United States there are citizens, but no subjects.” The transformation of subjects into citizens was the work of the Declaration and the Constitution. Both are premised on the idea that citizenship is based on the consent of the governed—not the accident of birth.
Who is a Citizen?
Citizenship, of course, does not exist by nature; it is created by law, and the identification of citizens has always been considered an essential aspect of sovereignty. After all, the founders of a new nation are not born citizens of the new nation they create. Indeed, this is true of all citizens of a new nation—they are not born into it, but rather become citizens by law.
Although the Constitution of 1787 mentioned citizens, it did not define citizenship. It was in 1868 that a definition of citizenship entered the Constitution, with the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. Here is the familiar language: “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.” Thus there are two components to American citizenship: birth or naturalization in the U.S. and being subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. We have somehow come today to believe that anyone born within the geographical limits of the U.S. is automatically subject to its jurisdiction. But this renders the jurisdiction clause utterly superfluous and without force. If this had been the intention of the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment, presumably they would simply have said that all persons born or naturalized in the United States are thereby citizens.
Indeed, during debate over the amendment, Senator Jacob Howard of Ohio, the author of the citizenship clause, attempted to assure skeptical colleagues that the new language was not intended to make Indians citizens of the U.S. Indians, Howard conceded, were born within the nation’s geographical limits; but he steadfastly maintained that they were not subject to its jurisdiction because they owed allegiance to their tribes. Senator Lyman Trumbull, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, rose to support his colleague, arguing that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant “not owing allegiance to anybody else and being subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States.” Jurisdiction understood as allegiance, Senator Howard interjected, excludes not only Indians but “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.” Thus “subject to the jurisdiction” does not simply mean, as is commonly thought today, subject to American laws or American courts. It means owing exclusive political allegiance to the U.S.
Consider as well that in 1868, the year the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, Congress passed the Expatriation Act. This act permitted American citizens to renounce their allegiance and alienate their citizenship. This piece of legislation was supported by Senator Howard and other leading architects of the Fourteenth Amendment, and characterized the right of expatriation as “a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Like the idea of citizenship, this right of expatriation is wholly incompatible with the common law understanding of perpetual allegiance and subjectship. One member of the House expressed the general sense of the Congress when he proclaimed: “The old feudal doctrine stated by Blackstone and adopted as part of the common law of England . . . is not only at war with the theory of our institutions, but is equally at war with every principle of justice and of sound public policy.” The common law established what was characterized as an “indefensible doctrine of indefeasible allegiance,” a feudal doctrine wholly at odds with republican government.
In sum, this legacy of feudalism—which we today call birthright citizenship—was decisively rejected as the ground of American citizenship by the Fourteenth Amendment and the Expatriation Act of 1868. It is absurd, then, to believe that the Fourteenth Amendment confers the boon of American citizenship on the children of illegal aliens. Nor does the denial of birthright citizenship visit the sins of the parents on the children, as is often claimed, since the children of illegal aliens born in the U.S. are not being denied anything to which they have a right. Their allegiance should follow that of their parents during their minority. Furthermore, it is difficult to fathom how those who defy American law can derive benefits for their children by their defiance—or that any sovereign nation would allow such a thing.
There is no Supreme Court decision squarely holding that children of illegal aliens are automatically citizens of the U.S. An 1898 decision, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, held by a vote of 5-4 that a child of legal resident aliens is entitled to birthright citizenship. The Wong Kim Ark decision, however, was based on the mistaken premise that the Fourteenth Amendment adopted the common law system of birthright citizenship. The majority opinion did not explain how subjects were miraculously transformed into citizens within the common law. Justice Gray, writing the majority decision, merely stipulated that “citizen” and “subject” were convertible terms—as if there were no difference between feudal monarchy and republicanism. Indeed, Chief Justice Fuller wrote a powerful dissent in the case arguing that the idea of birthright subjectship had been repealed by the American Revolution and the principles of the Declaration.
The constitutional grounds for the majority opinion in Wong Kim Ark are tendentious and it could easily be overturned. This would, of course, require a proper understanding of the foundations of American citizenship, and whether the current Supreme Court is capable of such is open to conjecture. But in any case, to say that children of legal aliens are entitled to citizenship is one thing; after all, their parents are in the country with the permission of the U.S. It is entirely different with illegal aliens, who are here without permission. Thus repeal of the current policy of birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens would not require a constitutional amendment.
We have seen that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment unanimously agreed that Indians were not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. Beginning in 1870, however, Congress began to pass legislation offering citizenship to Indians on a tribe by tribe basis. Finally, in 1923, there was a universal offer to all tribes. Any Indian who consented could become an American citizen. This citizenship was based on reciprocal consent: an offer on the part of the U.S. and acceptance on the part of an individual. Thus Congress used its legislative powers under the Fourteenth Amendment to determine who was within the jurisdiction of the U.S. It could make a similar determination today, based on this legislative precedent, that children born in the U.S. to illegal aliens are not subject to American jurisdiction. A constitutional amendment is no more required now than it was in 1923.
Dual Citizenship and Decline
The same kind of confusion that has led us to accept birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens has led us to tolerate dual citizenship. We recall that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment specified that those who are naturalized must owe exclusive allegiance to the U.S. to be included within its jurisdiction. And the citizenship oath taken today still requires a pledge of such allegiance. But in practice dual citizenship—and dual allegiance—is allowed. This is a sign of the decline of American citizenship and of America as a nation-state.
It is remarkable that 85 percent of all immigrants arriving in the U.S. come from countries that allow—and encourage—dual citizenship. Dual citizens, of course, give the sending countries a unique political presence in the U.S., and many countries use their dual citizens to promote their own interests by exerting pressure on American policy makers. Such foreign meddling in our internal political affairs has in fact become quite routine. Thus we have created a situation where a newly naturalized citizen can swear exclusive allegiance to the U.S. while retaining allegiance to a vicious despotism or a theocratic tyranny.
Elite liberal opinion has for many years considered the sovereign nation-state as an historical anachronism in an increasingly globalized world. We are assured that human dignity adheres to the individual and does not require the mediation of the nation-state. In this new universe of international norms, demands on the part of the nation-state to exclusive allegiance or for assimilation violate “universal personhood.” In such a universe, citizenship will become superfluous or even dangerous.
Those who advocate open borders tend to share this cosmopolitan view of transnational citizenship. Illegal immigrants, they say, are merely seeking to support their families and improve their lives. Borders, according to them, should not stand in the way of “family values”—those universal “values” that refuse to recognize the importance or relevance of mere political boundaries. Somehow, for those who hold these views, political exclusivity and the requirement of exclusive allegiance are opposed to these universal “values” if not to human decency itself.
Mexican President Felipe Calderon was in California recently pushing for more liberal immigration policies. He assured his fellow citizens who reside in the U.S. that he is “actively working to defend their human rights.” “No matter their immigration status,” Calderon said, “they are human beings with dignity and rights that should be respected. We are working, with the full effort of the [Mexican] government, to bring a halt to the campaigns that harass migrants.” However much Calderon may be worried about the human rights of his fellow citizens, he is fully cognizant of the fact that Mexico’s economy depends on the remittances of its citizens working abroad. These remittances have become Mexico’s second largest source of revenue, trailing only its rapidly declining oil revenues. It is far easier—and politically safer—for Mexico to export its poverty than to reform its own political and economic system.
We must constantly remind ourselves, however, of the historical fact that constitutional democracy has existed only in the nation-state, and that the demise of the nation-state will almost certainly mean the demise of constitutional democracy. No one believes that the European Union or similar organizations will ever produce constitutional government. Indeed, the EU is well on its way to becoming an administrative tyranny. Nor would the homogeneous world-state—the EU on a global scale—be a constitutional democracy; it would be the administration of “universal personhood” without the inconvenience of having to rely on the consent of the governed. The doctrine of birthright citizenship and the acceptance of dual citizenship are signs that we in the U.S. are on the verge of reinstituting feudalism and replacing citizenship with the master-servant relationship. The continued vitality of the nation-state and of constitutional government depends on the continued vitality of citizenship, which carries with it exclusive allegiance to what the Declaration calls a “separate and equal” nation. Unless we recover an understanding of the foundations of citizenship, we will find ourselves in a world where there are subjects but no citizens.
Immigration and National Security
The following is excerpted from a speech delivered at a Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar on May 20, 2008, in New York City.
Michelle Malkin, a columnist for Creators Syndicate since 1999, has also worked at the Los Angeles Daily News and the Seattle Times. A graduate of Oberlin College, she blogs on michellemalkin.com and is founder and co-editor of hotair.com. In 2002, she published Invasion: How America Still Welcomes Terrorists, Criminals, and Other Foreign Menaces to Our Shores.
WE ALL KNOW what happened on September 11, 2001. But how many of us recall what happened on February 26, 1993? That was the date of the first World Trade Center attack, the precursor to 9/11 carried out by a cell of Middle Eastern jihadists. Key members of that cell were illegal aliens.
Mahmud Abouhalima was an Egyptian illegal alien working as a cab driver in New York. He falsely claimed to be an agricultural worker under the 1986 illegal alien amnesty law and snagged a green card that allowed him to travel back and forth to Pakistan for al Qaeda training. Abouhalima said he was a strawberry picker, even though he had never been anywhere near a strawberry field. Overwhelmed INS workers—who are driven to reduce backlogs by simply shredding or rubber stamping applications—failed to vet his claims.
Mohammed Salameh, the operative who rented the truck used in the 1993 bombing, was denied amnesty after filing a bogus claim. But because the INS didn’t have the resources or the will to deport him, he was able to work and plot freely right under our noses.
The mastermind of the 1993 plot and of another foiled plot to bomb New York landmarks, Sheik Abdul Rahman, won asylum here based on a fraudulent claim and was allowed to remain thanks to a deadly combination of immigration and intelligence lapses. Seven people died and thousands were injured in the first World Trade Center bombing, which amounted to a trial run for the attack that would lead to the deaths of another 3,000 innocent men, women, and children eight years later.
All of the 9/11 hijackers entered the country with short-term visas issued by State Department consular offices abroad. Fifteen of the 19 came from Saudi Arabia, where a special program allowed them to get fast-track visas. The program, called Visa Express, was hatched by American bureaucrats who were concerned about wealthy Saudis waiting in long lines. So no one bothered to double-check the hijackers’ applications, which were so sloppy that they made no sense. To give you a couple of examples, one of them put “Washington hotel” as his address and another described his occupation as “Teeter.” Thus, despite obviously lying on their applications, they gained entry to plot mass murder on American soil.
Once in the U.S., several of the hijackers needed fake government documents. They hooked up with illegal alien day laborers who hung out at a Virginia convenience store near the Pentagon. After waiting around with a couple of $20 bills, an illegal alien from El Salvador was willing and able to give them the documents that they needed to board the planes they flew on 9/11. The local cops whom I interviewed admit knowing that those people hanging around the convenience store were here illegally, but they did nothing about it.
The lesson is this: Lax immigration enforcement enables enemy foreign agents to exploit a system that was intended to welcome those who want to make better lives for themselves on our terms. Before 9/11, our nation convinced itself that it could afford massive, systematic abuse and undermining of immigration laws. After 1993, in an age of Islamic terrorism and nuclear threat, we should have been permanently disabused of that notion. But we continued in our folly. And we continue in it still today.
Let’s look at some facts:
- There are now upwards of 20 million illegal aliens in the U.S.
- Roughly 1 million legal immigrants are admitted to the U.S. every year.
- Some 400,000 illegal aliens have been ordered to be deported, but are on the loose in the U.S. after being released by federal immigration courts.
- There are only 20,000 detention beds in the entire country to hold illegal aliens.
- There are only 2,000 federal agents employed by the Department of Homeland Security to track down the estimated 12-20 million illegal aliens who are living, working, going to school, getting driver’s licenses and, yes, committing crimes and plotting terrorist attacks in America as we speak.
- Border fences to our north and south are a joke, even while we’re sending money to Egypt and Mexico to help them build fences on their southern borders.
Despite the fact that Congress created the behemoth Department of Homeland Security, there is still no systematic tracking of criminal alien felons across the country; sanctuary for illegal aliens—that is, deliberate non-enforcement of the laws— remains the policy in almost every major metropolis; and “catch and release” remains standard operating procedure for untold thousands of illegal aliens who pass through the fingers of federal immigration authorities every day.
My book, Invasion, argued in great detail that our current immigration and entrance system is in shambles, partly by neglect and partly by design. From America’s negligent consular offices overseas, to our porous air, land, and sea points of entry, to our ineffective detention and deportation policies, our federal immigration authorities have failed at every level to protect our borders and preserve our sovereignty.
The argument of my book was simple: Immigration in a post-9/11 world must be treated as a national security issue. Enforcement of immigration laws must be clear and consistent. Lawbreakers must be punished, not rewarded. Illegal aliens must be deported, not naturalized. And the national interest, not special interests—whether Big Business or liberal multiculturalism—must drive immigration policy.
I agree with the late Texas congresswoman Barbara Jordan—a liberal black Democrat and respected immigration authority—who said that credible immigration policy rests on three simple principles: “People who should get in, get in; people who should not enter are kept out; and people who are deportable should be required to leave.”
Contrary to the misguided claims of today’s open-borders lobby, the demand for a more discriminating immigration policy—one that welcomes American dreamers and bars American destroyers—does not stem from fear or hatred of foreigners, but from the idea of self-preservation and from love of country.
Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution states clearly: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion.” We are not a boarding house for the world. We are a sovereign nation. It’s time we started acting like one.
"...and we did not come from Islam nor do we subscribe to the ideology of the United Nations or want to take part in any of Obama's plans..."
The following quote is from Britain's equivalent of America's Homeland Security:
"Moslem and terrorist are two words that do not go together"
What happens on the ground within Great Britain has a direct influence on the American homeland because we are the stepping stone into what the Islamic Worlds perceives as the greatest battlefield of the 21st Century, the Great Satan...
Cross posted from Radarsite
Afghani Islamic militants on UK streets
ITS NOW OFFICIAL!!!
Trained British born Moslem Al Qaeda terrorists and foreign fighters from the War zone in Afghanistan are now walking British streets, actively engaged in their Jihad against the West from the safety and security of British society.
It has been revealed that the British Security Service MI5 are now using spy planes over densely populated Moslem strongholds within Great Britain in an effort to try and pick up voice signatures of Islamic militants on the ground there whose voices have been recorded in the war zone of Afghanistan fighting alongside Al Qaeda and the Taliban against Coalition troops.
It was reported that Islamic militants on the ground in Afghanistan were breaking into broad Birmingham and Yorkshire accents whilst speaking Pashtun and Urdu which proved that British Moslems were leaving Britain to fight for the Taliban, and now we know that they have returned.
We even have British Moslems who are claiming benefits from the State going door to door amongst their communities to raise funds for Moslems to fight against Coalition troops in Afghanistan – What do you think about that?
A pause for thought.
Military spy planes flying over areas of Great Britain in a desperate search for Islamic terrorists on the ground?
Sounds like something that happens over in the war zones of Iraq and Afghanistan as spy planes search for Islamic militants on the ground there amongst the civilian population, not the once safe shores of England where across the land "Islamic terrorism is anti-Islamic activity" as prescribed by the Home Secretary who is in charged with over seeing the National Security of the British homeland, and "Moslem and terrorist are two words that do not go together" as prescribed by Brian Padick Deputy Commissioner of Scotland Yard.
Islam's Holy War against the Western World is well and truly upon our British shores now make no mistake about it. There is a 3+ million strong Islamic Kingdom camped the length and breadth of the Nation that has a military wing assigned to it that is comprised of the British born Moslem youth who believe that fighting and dying in the way of Jihad for Allah and their religion is the highest obligation for any Moslem and the only sure way of attaining their paradise with the 72 Virgins who will be waiting there for them as martyrs. This same military wing of the Islamic Kingdom of Great Britain is joined to the global military wing of the Islamic religion that has declared, and is at War with our Western Civilisation.
Pretty serious stuff to have spy planes flying over Great Britain searching for Islamic militants from the war zone in Afghanistan on the ground don't you think?
The real urban guerilla Civil War within Great Britain has not even started yet, the Islamic militants on the ground spread throughout the Country are just in preparation stage, recruiting, training, raising funds and preparing their Moslem brothers and sisters for what is to come.
Digging in and fortifying their positions through the street Jihad and cultural Jihad for the future Civil War against the kuffar for rule of the British Isles, and they are plundering and raping society at every turn to finance their Holy War against us.
The rich pickings of Jihad from soft touch Britain.
Where as the British non-Moslem population like myself cannot even talk about this Islamic enemy that has surrounded us who is already conducting a low level Civil War against them without the fear and threat of arrest because the days ruling Liberal Elite tell everyone there is no problem in our society with regards to Islam's Global Jihad, and that the British citizens who say there is are racist right wing bigots who should be locked up.
For Brigadier Ed Butler who was former head of the SAS to say: 'There is a link between Kandahar and urban conurbations in the UK. This is something the military understands but the British public does not,' means there is a very serious threat to the life of the Nation from a hostile military force in our midst do you not think?
The urban guerilla Islamic militants are out there.
We have our hands tied behind our backs by British law while the Islamic enemy seeking our conquest digs in and prepares for an all out assault and Holy War for the future conquest of our Nation, so it does not bode well for the British people in the days that lay ahead does it when we cannot even prepare for what is coming.
We have to keep out heads down and our mouths shut, or we become outcasts in society, possibly arrested by our own people for speaking out, or murdered by some raging lunatic Moslem.
In any conflict zone the one who controls specific areas on the ground is the one who is in charge in that locality, winning that part of the War front. Across Great Britain it is common knowledge amongst the population that the Islamic Kingdom controls large parts of our land, living as a State within a State, with a paramilitary wing on the ground that is made up of trained terrorists, criminals, drug pushers and the wider community who support this part of the Jihad, then you have the ruling religious authorities and then those who are playing politics within the democratic system, all with the one aim in mind which is the furtherance of the goals of their Islamic religion within our British non-Islamic society.
There can only be one winner in war, them or us no middle ground, so what do you want it to be for the sake of your children and grandchildren.
There hasn't been all out Civil conflict yet because the Islamic Kingdom of Great Britain is taking our Country over without a fight, we have had Abu Qatadar and another Al Qaeda terrorist freed from prison with Abu Hamza on his way to being freed after threats of violence from the military wing of Islam, we have some of the top voices in the land saying we must adopt Sharia law into our legal system, and wherever there is a large encampment of Moslems they control the ground through their criminal networks and the drugs trade, namely heroin from the fields of Afghanistan. These are just a few examples of the Islamification and take over of the British homeland.
Why rock the boat when its sailing just fine?
It is only a matter of time though until it all blows up and when it does the British people are not ready.
What happens on the ground within Great Britain has a direct influence on the American homeland because we are the stepping stone into what the Islamic Worlds perceives as the greatest battlefield of the 21st Century, the Great Satan, unless you close your borders to those entering your shores with British passports that is, but I cannot see that happening in the immediate future can you. So the American borders are porous to Islamic militants entering your shores originating from Great Britain who carry the Queens Crown on their passports.
To think that no attacks have been planned against America or no terrorist activity facilitated from Britain that has escaped the eyes of the Security Services both sides of the Atlantic is naïve.
In December 2007 there was a News of the World undercover investigation into a passport scam involving Moslems working as British lawyers within the justice system. This group of lawyers offered to sell fake passports to undercover reporters who were posing as Islamic militants which shows how easy it is if you know the right people, for international Islamic militants to obtain British passports and then enter the American homeland at will. Look at Diren Barot for example, Al Qaeda's British General who is now serving 30 years for terrorist activity who amongst other things had planned to blow up the American stock exchange, or Richard Reid the shoe bomber, both Moslems originating from Great Britain intent on harming the American people as part of the global Jihad.
There is no National Security within Great Britain, the heart of the Nation has been penetrated and we now endanger the international community because of the Islamic Kingdom of Great Britain that currently resides within our land and their Liberal Elite State facilitators who are nurturing their growth in our midst, denying there is a problem and handing the Nation over to the Islamic religion bit by bit, piece by piece.
The Russian government told the Liberal Elite who are in power that the British Moslem community in the UK were raising funds and recruiting for the Jihad in Chechnya against the Russians and they denied it. They said that if it was true they would shut it down. Then the video evidence emerged that the likes of Abu Hamza, Abu Qatadar, Omar Bakri and Abu Izzadeen where in fact recruiting and raising funds for the War against the Russians, thus exporting Islamic terror to Russia with a British trade mark.
Great Britain is headquarters for the global Jihad within the Western World, all known international terror groups have headquarters and networks in place here, including at one time Osama Bin Laden who had a headquarters in London. The Liberal Elite did a deal with the devil where they promised a safe haven to Islamic militants fleeing their terror exploits in other lands within our Country just so long as the militants did not attack Great Britain. This worked for a time when they had a free reign to recruit and raise funds upon our soil for the global Jihad but then that all back fired on 9/11 and 7/7 with the British people now paying the price for this National disgrace with an uncontrollable blood thirsty Islamic beast now in our midst just waiting for the right time to unleash hell upon the British people.
It is a lot wiser if you are a Moslem to fight Great Britain from within the safety and security of the Nation than to travel half way around the World and be bombed by the most advanced weapons known to man don't you think.
The danger the British homeland now faces is unquantifiable with the Security Services having absolutely no control over it – Civil conflict unfolds daily
For me as a British citizen what am I meant to do in relation to Islam's Holy War against my Country? Just sit back, keep my head down and my mouth shut about what is happening?
I hope that it is not too late before people realise the imminent threat we face.
God help you and all true Brits. - rg
Yes. S.2433, the language of the Bill says: "A bill to REQUIRE the President to develop and IMPLEMENT," "the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal." Senator Obama's S.2433 cannot be separated from the U.N. Millennium Development Goal.
Who implements S.2433 after the President "creates" a plan? The Secretary of State, Condoleesa Rice, her appointees with Congressional oversight by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the Senate Appropriations Committee, the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the House Appropriations Committee.
What do we know about the United Nations Development Program (UNDP)?
Follow the links and be prepared for sudden nausea.
Does the United Nations Accept the Rule of Law?
The UN's Gravy Train to Iran
Ros-Lehtinen Statement on UNICEF Ties to Saudi Extremist-Linked Charity Report Shows U.N. Development Program Violated U.N. Law, Routinely Passed on Millions to North Korean Regime
The UN Corrupting Itself - A Chavez Connection
Does S.2433 require a specific strategy (some believe that it does not)?
The Bill says that we [the U.S.] will IMPLEMENT the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal? Can it be any clearer?
Does The Global Poverty Act subjugate the United States to the will of the United Nations? Yes, and it does so through the United Nations' Millennium Development Goal. It is important to remember that the MDG is a U.N. program. The following is the proof that the MDG is a "tax on the world" levied by the United Nations. The text addresses only the requirements to be placed upon the U.S. and other countries, it leaves out most of the goal of eradicating poverty and disease, and focuses on how that eradication will be accomplished. Text taken directly from the U.N. General Assembly Millennium Forum.
The Forum (urges, advocates, calls upon or insists): The United Nations To introduce binding codes of conduct for transnational companies and effective tax regulation on the international financial markets, investing this money in programmes for poverty eradication.Here's a tax on international finances! Who are transnational companies?
To explore the feasibility of a legally binding convention on overcoming poverty, to be drafted in effective consultation and partnership with people living in poverty themselves.
To carry out the objective of moving towards the abolition of war by practical means, the United Nations Secretariat and interested Governments, or a separate group of Governments, should develop a draft proposal for global disarmament to be discussed in a fourth special session of the General Assembly on disarmament.Someone, I think Orwell, said War is evil, but it is often the lesser evil. The U.N. plans for globalism, with the U.N. at the head of the snake, to abolish war. They think they are God.
To respect national sovereignty and the prohibition of the use of force, which are fundamental in the Charter of the United Nations. This principle must not be undermined. In the solution of conflicts, all peaceful methods in accordance with Chapter 6 of the Charter must be tried before measures of force are undertaken in accordance with Chapter 7. The General Assembly should set up a broad commission to analyse standards for forceful action in cases where crimes against humanity, war crimes or genocide are committed.1) The U.N.'s "prohibition" of force is not to be undermined. 2) How does a global principle protect anyone's sovereignty? 3) "Peaceful method" means un-acted upon Resolutions - we have painful historical reminders. .
To expand the United Nations arms register in order to show the production and sale of small arms and light weapons. It should include specific names of their producers and traders.Our Second Amendment rights monitored by the United Nations.
Together with nearly all Governments that participated in the recent Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference, Forum participants consider that unilateral deployment of nationwide missile defence by any country could have dangerously destabilizing effects and create pressures to permanently retain high levels of nuclear weapons or even to increase existing levels. The deployment of theatre missile defences in Asia or other regions could have serious regional destabilizing effects. Such plans should be relinquished in favour of a worldwide missile launch warning system and a conference to review methods of ending production of long-range surface-to-surface missiles and long-range bombers
To establish a commission at the United Nations to devise ways of stopping the technological development of new and more advanced weapons that create new imbalances in global power relationships. The Conference on Disarmament should also establish a working group on this subject.The U.S. met their non-proliferation goals five years early, while the U.N. was enabling Iran to grow its nuclear program.
1) No long-range bombers for the U.S.
2) No surface-to-surface missiles for the U.S.
3) No missile defense for the U.S.
4) No new technological development
5) No more power to protect our nation
To initiate a worldwide freeze on armed forces and a 25 per cent cut in production and export of major weapons and small arms, and to that end to adopt an international code of conduct on arms exports, as the beginning of worldwide build-down of conventional forces.That's a "worldwide freeze" on armed forces - on our Marines, our Army, our Navy, our Reserves, our Coast Guard! AND an international "code of conduct" to implement a "build-down" of conventional forces.
To increase their efforts to promote and to comply with international humanitarian laws, limiting the methods and means of war and protecting non-combatants, civilian populations and humanitarian personnel.
The international community civil society, Governments and the United Nations has a responsibility to stop promptly any genocide, war crimes or any massive violations of human rights. All those involved should seek to avoid any confusion between humanitarian help and military intervention.Internationalism governs. Sovereignty is abolished. The United Nations Security Council reigns. Islam is implemented throughout the world.
If you are not familiar with the U.N. Security Council, here are some informative links:
Arabs Seek to "Halt" UN Security Council Meetings
The UN Security Council Takes Action Against Terrorism
Iran's 25-Year Atomic Program and the UN Failure to Launch Rape in War: Will the United Nations Walk its Talk?
For everything you need on the U.N. Security Council go to: Eye on the UN and UN Watch.
Globalization needs defining....it is transforming our world into a global village...We, of all ages, in particular our future generation the youth claim a space for that transnational civil society that even now is rising on the world scene with unprecedented ties, networking, exchanges and common action among peoples, groups, communities and organizations.The youth of the world will "claim a space" for "that transnational civil society" in the world's "global village..." Where might that "space" be? Do the people in that "space" have a say about the youth's claims? Again, for emphasis: a transnational civil society
To develop a legally binding framework for regulating the actions of transnational corporations (TNCs), respecting the international labour, human rights, and sustainable environmental standards set by the United Nations and its relevant specialized agencies. The regulatory mechanism should include the active participation of workers and communities directly affected by TNC operations in order to prevent abuses and to subordinate TNCs to democratic civil authority and community-based modelling of socio-economic systems.As I look around the web, I find no list of the evil-doing transnational corporations. If the U.N. plans to "subordinate" the transnationals to "civil authority" and "community-based modelling," we need to know who the culprits are. Could Google be on the list? Nah. Halliburton? I think so. "Big Oil" - oh yeah, but only careful "subordination" here, because the world needs "Big Oil" tax money, as well as its investment in exploration and drilling. Oh...there's always "nationalizing" the world's oil fields. The Islamic countries know how to drill for oil. They rule the U.N. Very convenient - but this is only a guess.
To examine and regulate transnational corporations and the increasingly negative influence of their trade on the environment. The attempt by companies to patent life is ethically unacceptable.What does this mean, and who is patenting the life of others?
To move towards democratic political control of the global economy so that it may serve our vision.The vision: The U.N. controlling a global economy - to serve the U.N.'s vision
How is a democracy defined within the hallowed halls of the U.N.? You and I don't have a clue but we know such democracies will be "subordinated" to the U.N.'s "civil society"
To develop migration policies, both emigration and immigration, in conformity with human rights standards, particularly to respect the global principle of freedom of circulation for all.This is terrifying, really. The goal is to remove the sovereignty of our borders. We need to get up each morning with the idea of the U.N.'s "global principle of freedom of circulation" vision, think about it again at noon, and let it be the last thing we think about before sleep, because surely we will offer up a prayer to the Almighty that our leaders will repel this disgusting organization.
To make serious commitments to restructure the global financial architecture based on principles of equity, transparency, accountability and democracy, and to balance, with the participation of civil society organizations, the monetary means to favour human endeavour and ecology, such as an alternative time-based currency.Restructuring the global financial architecture? Alternative time-based currency?
Sustainable funds could be raised through a currency transfer tax,...which could also help to reduce currency speculation, and a tax on the rental value of land and natural resources.Here's the tax on currency transfers and land. When has the MSM reported this. When has Barack Obama spoken of this?
Stop imposing economic sanctions, which deprive people of their basic economic, social and environmental rights and which make their struggle for survival, as well as for civil and political rights, more difficult.We can make the case that sanctions are worthless, as it is the U.N. which strengthens them. Iraq and Saddam Hussein comes immediately to mind, especially the Oil-for-Food Program. Then and now, there's Iran. How does the U.N., always wanting diplomatic solutions to prevail, propose that we deal with tyranny ?
To fully incorporate women into leadership at every level and gender perspectives into all its operations; to hold Governments accountable for their obligations to promote and protect the human rights of women and girls; and to act as monitors of the implementation of commitments to end discrimination and violence against women and girls.When it comes to Women's Rights, (or human rights for that matter) the worst offenders are Muslim countries. It's all is a matter of "degree," isn't it? I notice at the Millennium Development Goal monitoring sites, some Arab countries have shown some degree of improvement. What does that mean? How has it changed the life of women under the control of Islam and their Islamic male dominaters? The free world will finance achieving this goal? Think again.
To establish a global habitat conservation fund to purchase comprehensive protection of threatened, critical ecological habitat worldwide. The fund should accrue revenues from a nominal (0.5 -1.0 per cent) royalty on worldwide fossil energy production oil, natural gas, coal, collecting at least $5 billion to $10 billion annually.Here's the tax on fossil fuels that is continually denied.
End of text from Millennium Forum.
A tax on fossil fuels, land, currencies, etc.? Investor's Business Daily didn't make it up, Lee Cary at American Thinker didn't make it up. You can "monitor" the Millennium goals by country beginning here, although you won't learn much. Most of what we want and need to know falls into the "Insufficient Information" category. I reject the U.N. and everything it stands for, because everything it stands for is against the best interests of Americans and freedom anywhere, and usually is intent on feathering the nests of a U.N. diplomat and a cozy relationship with the worst of the terrorizing scums on the face of the earth.
The usual RHINO's support this traitorous Bill: Susan Collins, Chuck Hagel, Richard Lugar, and Olympia Snowe. Gordon Smith (R-OR) is also a co-sponsor and I do not have much information on him. He's from Oregon, so...
Obama's 16 Different Social Security Numbers
The Obama File ^ Feb 1, 2010 The Obama File
Posted on Monday, February 01, 2010 4:35:11 PM by opentalk
Private investigator Neil Sankey, using Intelius, Lexis Nexis, Choice Point and other public records, found around 25 Social Security numbers connected with Barack Obama’s name.
However, it may not be as many as 25, since Sankey also searched using closely related names such as: "Barak Obama," "Batock Obama," "Barok Obama," and "Barrack Obama." There may very well be some Kenyans living in America with the same last name and a similar first name. In any case, I will exclude these records for the purpose of this research and focus only on names spelled exactly like his name.
Moreover, we can verify many of the Social Security numbers as valid since they’re connected to addresses at which we know Obama resided. Needless to say, there are also a slew of address and social security numbers connected to addresses in states that Obama has no known connection to.
In Obama’s home state, Illinois, Sankey tracked down 16 different addresses for a Barack Obama or a Barack H. Obama, of which all are addresses he was known to have lived at. Two Social Security numbers appear for these addresses, one beginning with 042, and one starting 364.
In California, where Obama attended Occidental College, there are six addresses listed for him, all within easy driving distance of the college. However, there are three Social Security numbers connected to these addresses, 537 and two others, each beginning with 999, which are not valid SSNs.
There are no addresses listed in New York where he attended Columbia University, but there is one listed for him in nearby Jackson, NJ, with a Social Security number beginning with 485.
In Massachusetts -- where Obama attended Harvard Law School -- we find three addresses, all using the 042 Social Security number. After Obama was elected to the United States Senate in 2005, he moved into an apartment at 300 Massachusetts Ave NW; the Social Security number attached to that address is the 042 one. Yet, three years later, Obama used a different Social Security number for an address listed as: 713 Hart Senate Office Building. This was the address of his United States Senate office. This Social Security number began with 282 and was verified by the government in 2008.
This mystery grows even stranger as other addresses and Social Security numbers for Barack Obama appear in a dozen other states not known to be connected to him. Again, I am excluding those records names not spelled exactly like his name.
Tennessee, one address with a Social Security number beginning with 427
Colorado, one address, with a Social Security number beginning with 456.
Utah, two addresses, with two Social Security numbers beginning with 901 and 799.
Missouri has one address and one Social Security number beginning with 999.
Florida has two addresses listed for his him, three if you count one listed as "Barry Obama." One is connected to a Social Security number beginning with 762.
In Georgia there are three addresses listed for him, all with different Social Security numbers: 579, 420, and 423.
In Texas there are four different addresses listed for him, one is connected to Social Security number 675.
There are two addresses listed for Barack Obama in Oregon and one address listed for him in the states of Wisconsin, Michigan, South Carolina, and Pennsylvania.
All told, there are 49 addresses and 16 different Social Security numbers listed for a person whose name is spelled "Barack Obama." In some cases, the middle initial "H" is listed. If you were to expand the search to include closely related names such as: "Barac," "Barak," and "Barrack" Obama, you would find more than a dozen additional addresses and Social Security numbers.
Finally, the one Social Security number Obama most frequently used, the one beginning with 042, is a number issued in Connecticut sometime during 1976-1977, yet there is no record of Obama ever living or working in Connecticut. Indeed, during this time period Obama would have been 15-16 years old and living in Hawaii at the time.
Extracted from an article by Steve Baldwin. Read the whole thing here . . .
Susan Daniels, a second investigator filed an affidavit, with true and correct copies here, in the Barnett v. Obama case. Susan Daniels is a private investigator, licensed by the State of Ohio.
In her affidavit, Daniels states that she has located Barack Obama's Social Security Number. She states it was issued between 1977 and 1979 in the State of Connecticut. She states that it is the only Social Security Number Barack Obama ever used.
The number assigned to Barack Obama "appears to be associated with someone born in the year 1890."
And this just in... (Why does he spend so much time and and money fighting and delaying this issue? ...and what's that headline read? Obama AND Congress...! That should be very disturbing even to people like Ema Nymton.)
And there's a bunch more of stuff here...from Citizen Wells
(Why is this not all over the main stream media?)
Kerchner v Obama and Congress, Update, February 13 2010, Charles Kerchner lead plaintiff, Mario Apuzzo attorney, Obama and Congress Request and Obtain an Extension of Time to File Opposition Brief
February 13, 2010 · 45 Comments
From Charles Kerchner, lead plaintiff in Kerchner v Obama and Congress, last night, February 12. 2010.
“For Immediate Release – 12 February 2010
Obama and Congress Request and Obtain an Extension of Time to File Opposition Brief to Kerchner v Obama & Congress Appeal.
As Lead Plaintiff in this case it looks to me like the Defendants are having great difficulty finding a way to knock down the constitutional, historical, and legal arguments made by Attorney Mario Apuzzo in the Appellant’s Opening Brief to the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals filed in Philadelphia PA, the city where our U.S. Constitution was written in 1789.
The truth about Obama’s constitutional ineligibility for the office he sits in, and the fundamental law of our nation, the U.S. Constitution, will win the day in the end.
It is only a matter of time before the fraud of Obama in the 2008 election will be revealed. And because of that the progressives are trying to run out the clock to keep him in office as the putative president as long as possible. But in my opinion Obama’s days of deceit and fraudulently occupying the Oval Office are numbered.”
From attorney Mario Apuzzo:
“Friday, February 12, 2010
Obama and Congress Request and Obtain Extension of Time to File Opposition Brief to Kerchner Appeal
On January 19, 2010, I filed the Appellants’ Opening Brief in the appeal of Kerchner et al. v. Obama et al. which is currently pending in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia. In that appeal, we maintain that the New Jersey Federal District Court erred in dismissing our case by ruling that plaintiffs do not have standing to challenge Obama’s alleged eligibility to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military and that our case presents a non-justiciable political question. In our case, we have provided the Founder’s and Framers’ definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen” which is a child born in the country to citizen parents. We maintain that Obama is not an Article II “natural born Citizen” because he lacks unity of citizenship and allegiance from birth which is obtained when a child is born in the United States to a mother and father who are both United States citizens at the time of birth. Obama’s father was only a temporary visitor to the United States when Obama was born and never even became a resident let alone a citizen. Not being an Article II “natural born Citizen,” Obama is not eligible to be President and Commander in Chief.
We also maintain that Obama has failed to conclusively prove that he was born in Hawaii by publicly presenting a copy of a contemporaneous birth certificate (a long-form birth certificate generated when he was born in 1961 and not simply a digital image of computer generated Certification of Live Birth [COLB] allegedly obtained from the Hawaii Department of Health in 2007 which was posted on the internet by some unknown person in 2008) or through other contemporaneous and objective documentation. Having failed to meet his constitutional burden of proof under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, we cannot accept him as a “natural born Citizen.”
The defendants had 30 days within which to file their opposition brief. Defendants have requested and obtained from the Court an extension of time to file their brief. The Court has granted them until March 8, 2010 to file it. After that filing, I will then have a chance to file a reply brief within the next 14 days.
You may obtain a copy of my brief at this site . We will be posting here the defendants’ opposition brief after it is filed along with my reply brief. I hope that many of you will take the time to read these briefs so that you may learn first hand what the legal issues and arguments are regarding whether the plaintiffs have standing and/or are precluded by the political question doctrine to challenge Obama on his eligibility to be President and Commander in Chief, and what the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen” is.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
February 12, 2010
If you can, help the cause.
CDR Kerchner, Lead Plaintiff
Posted by Puzo1 at 4:56 PM “
→ 45 CommentsCategories: Accountability · America · Americans · Announcements · Attorneys · Barack Obama · Barry Soetoro · Birth Certificate · COLB · Circuit Court · Citizen · Citizens for the truth about Obama · Civil Complaint · Commander in Chief · Congress · Congress Watch · Constitution Hall of Shame · DC · Democratic Disaster · Democrats · Election · Election 2008 · Election Law · Election update · Federal Court · First Amendment · Founding Fathers · Government · Hawaii · Indonesia · John Bingham · Judges · Justice · Kerchner v Obama · Law firms · Lawyers · Liberalism · Lies · Mario Apuzzo · Military officers · Motion · Natural born citizen · News · Obama · Obama Nation · Obama administration · Obama indictment · Obama lies · Obama records · Politics · Senator Obama · Standing · The Case Against Barack Obama · US Constitution · US District Court · US House of Representatives · US Military · US Senate · United States · Usurper · Voter fraud · Washington DC · amended complaint · constitution · fraud · indictment · politicians · voters · white house
Tagged: Charles Kerchner lead plaintiff, February 13 2010, Kerchner V Obama and Congress, Mario Apuzzo attorney, Obama and Congress Request and Obtain an Extension of Time to File Opposition Brief, update
Obama and Rezko, Kenneth J Conner lawsuit, Update, February 13 2010, Whistleblower Conner fired by bank, FBI, Patrick Fitzgerald, Land appraisal, Obama Rezko real estate deal, Why has Obama not been indicted?
February 13, 2010 · 20 Comments
Forget Obama, not a chance.
As reported on this and other websites, Obama has long time close associations to crime and corruption in Chicago and Illinois. One of Obama’s longest and closest ties is to Tony Rezko, who of course has strong ties to Rod Blagojevich. On December 16, 2008, the Citizen Wells blog reported the following fallout from one of the Obama and Rezko real estate transactions.
“Since arresting Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald has renewed interest in convicted fundraiser Tony Rezko’s part in the purchase of Barack Obama’s Chicago mansion, according to a former real estate analyst who says he was interviewed by the federal prosecutor in the past 10 days.
Kenneth J. Conner told WND he was interviewed by investigators from Fitzgerald’s office regarding the purchase of the Obama mansion and the adjacent vacant lot that Rezko’s wife, Rita, purchased simultaneously. As WND reported last week, Connor filed a civil complaint in October with the Illinois Circuit Court in Cook County alleging he was fired by Mutual Bank of Harvey, Ill., because he objected to land appraisals submitted on behalf of the Rezkos and the Obamas, with the complicity of the bank.
Connor previously confirmed to WND that he told the FBI, months ago, when he initially was fired, that the bank and the Rezkos were engaged in “fraud, bribes or kickbacks, use whatever term you want,” to benefit the Obamas.
Connor said his lawyer, Glenn R. Gaffney, also has been interviewed by the FBI about the Rezko-Obama deal within the past 10 days.”
Here is what is believed to be the latest status of the Kenneth J Conner lawsuit.
Spindled is a Illinois courts term for the process of filing a motion, and filing the notice that the motion will be presented to the court for a hearing. The term derives from Cook County, Illinois, in which the court clerk had the practice of attaching the motion and notice papers o the clerk’s file with a needle, or “spindle.”
I have spoken to Kenneth J Conner on several occasions and will continue to monitor the lawsuit.
Many of us have wondered about Patrick Fitzgerald since he took the assignment from the Obama Administration. I must tell you that this continues to stink.
→ 20 CommentsCategories: Accountability · Announcements · Bailout · Banks · Barack Obama · Blagojevich · Blagojevich Impeachment · Chicago · Chicago machine · Circuit Court · Citizen · Citizens for the truth about Obama · Civil Complaint · Corporate accountability · Courts · FBI · Government · Illinois · Jerome Corsi · Law enforcement · Lawyers · Money · Mortgage crisis · News · Obama · Obama Nation · Obama administration · Obama indictment · Obama lies · Obama records · Obama thugs · Pay to play politics · Politics · Senator Obama · The Case Against Barack Obama · Tony Rezko · United States · corruption · indictment · politicians
Tagged: FBI, February 13 2010, Kenneth J Conner lawsuit, Land appraisal, Obama and Rezko, Obama Rezko real estate deal, Patrick Fitzgerald, update, Whistleblower Conner fired by bank, Why has Obama not been indicted?
Obama thugs, smrstrauss et al, Obama campaign, David Axelrod, Obama camp, Diversions, Disinformation, Paid bloggers, Left wing radicals
February 12, 2010 · 319 Comments
“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed
–if all records told the same tale–then the lie passed into
history and became truth. “Who controls the past,” ran the
Party slogan, “controls the future: who controls the present
controls the past.”…George Orwell, “1984?
We have entered the world of “1984″ that George Orwell prophetically wrote about in 1948. Those paying attention know why I regularly quote Orwell. After watching those like Larry Sinclair and then myself being attacked for asking simple questions about Barack Obama, I knew that history was repeating and that is why I began referring to Nazi Germany analogies and quoting Orwell.
Three major aspects of Orwell’s world of “1984″ emerged.
Internet scrubbing, changing history.
One of the hallmarks of the Obama campaign, the Obama camp, is diversions and disinformation. This blog has been bombarded with it’s share of attackers, diversionists and misinformation spinners. One of those was smrstrauss.
From Jefferson’s rebels, February 11, 2010.
“Expose: obot SMRSTRAUSS Finally Unmasked!”
“An individual using the tag smrstrauss has been an extraordinarily busy fellow and an annoying enigma on the internet since late 2008, but now his identity is known. Mr. smrstrauss has contributed countless hours, days, weeks, months, and thousands of comments to defend Barack Obama against everyone who questions the President’s eligibility. Smrstrauss sometimes writes long essay comments, and he often cites case law, so if you didn’t know better, you would be excused for thinking he’s an attorney. I can assure you he is not!”
“Such intense activity by smrstrauss would make sense if Obama is paying him to confuse people about his eligibility to serve as President, but I have no way to confirm this without filing a Freedom of Information request of the administration.
If smrstrauss is not being paid by someone, then his efforts must be a labor of love, and for that President Obama may eventually consider bestowing the Presidential Citizens Medal upon this gentleman for his obsessive/compulsive determination to defend The One, irrespective of the truth.”
“Even though the Obama administration, the media, left-wing blogs, and a fair number of befuddled conservatives would have you believe the eligibility question only refers to Obama’s place of birth, this couldn’t be further from the truth. By accepting that false premise, and considering no alternative, many people have been duped. As a result, they have fallen in line with the Alinskyites, and adopted their methodology of ridiculing dissenters to silence their opponent’s speech.”
(Citizen Wells comment to Glen Beck, pay attention)
“Ridiculing someone is a lot easier than trying to understand arguments that need to be heard in a courtroom. That’s the only venue where the eligibility question can be adjudicated, and that is all we constitutionalists request. ”
“Since at least October, 2008, smrstrauss has regularly commented about the eligibility question on virtually every conservative blog which raises the issue. He has also commented on mainstream media sites that discuss the controversy. In fact, smrstrauss has left so many comments on the internet that a keyword search for his tag returns a huge, and continuously growing, number of hits. For example, on January 29, 2010, the search returned 17,500 hits! Just ten days later on February 8, 2010, the search returned 18,900 hits. And today, February 11, 2010, the search returned 19,100 hits. Now to be fair to smrstrauss, some of those hits will be responses to his comments and thus cite his name. Not long after this article is published, I’m confident the number of hits will be even larger. Try a keyword search yourself to test the results.
Can one person be responsible for that much activity? Maybe, if that’s all he does with his time. Then again, maybe not. It’s equally possible that smrstrauss is coordinating with a small army of obots, all using his tag and perhaps sharing a password, since many sites require registration. If so, could this be a rogue operation of Obama devotees, or it could also be a paid disinformation campaign? Are tax dollars being used for this? Does anyone remember Cas Sunstein’s arguments for cognitively infiltrating “conspiracy” blogs? Perhaps smrstrauss is simply the managing director of a government-funded obot machine.
I met smrstrauss when he attempted to post comments on Jefferson’s Rebels that I viewed as disinformation. Recently, he has used three different ip addresses:
18.104.22.168 – located in Arlington, MA
22.214.171.124 – located in Arlington, MA
126.96.36.199 – located in Groton, MA (a sports facility about 35 miles from Arlington)
Based on his political donation records, it’s possible that smrstrauss presently may be unemployed. Furthermore, most of his comments have been written in the middle of a work day, although there are a number of comments recorded in the evening. If he is being paid, we might need to take a closer look at an employer he listed on his contribution forms. In previous years, Smrstrauss worked for IDC, Inc. This very large corporation is headquartered in Framingham, MA, about 19 miles from the home of smrstrauss. Business Week describes IDC as follows:”
Smrstrauss, was a regular disinfomation, diversionist obot on this blog. Soon after this “entity” began posting comments, it was apparent what their motives were.
→ 319 CommentsCategories: 1984 · Accountability · Alinsky · Announcements · Barack Obama · Big Brother · Bill of Rights · Birth Certificate · Birthers · Books · COLB · Citizen · Citizens for the truth about Obama · Civil Complaint · Community Organizer · Constitution Hall of Shame · Courts · Crime · DC · David Axelrod · Democratic Socialists of America · Democrats · Election · Election 2008 · Election Law · First Amendment · Founding Fathers · George Orwell · Glenn Beck · Government · Hate crimes · History · Hitler · Hitler Youth · Internet · Internet scrubbing · Journalism · Kerchner v Obama · Larry Sinclair · Larry Sinclair book · Leftist · Liberalism · Lies · Mario Apuzzo · Ministry of Truth · Natural born citizen · Nazi Brownshirts · Nazi Germany · News · Obama · Obama Nation · Obama administration · Obama indictment · Obama lies · Obama records · Obama thugs · Orwell · Orwellian · Politics · Senator Obama · Smear campaigns · Socialists · Speech · Terrorists · The Case Against Barack Obama · Thought Police · US Constitution · United States · Usurper · Voter fraud · Washington DC · constitution · fraud · indictment · media · politicians · voters · white house
Tagged: David Axelrod, Disinformation, Diversions, Left wing radicals, Obama camp, Obama Campaign, Obama thugs, Paid bloggers, smrstrauss et al
Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan, Update, February 11 2010, Lawsuit, Obama not eligible, North Carolina Board of Elections, NC Secretary of State, Elaine F. Marshall
February 11, 2010 · 315 Comments
From Lt. Col Donald Sullivan, February 9, 2010.
FYI – Following are the comments I made verbatim to the court in my last hearing on the Obama eligibility matter. The hearing was held in Superior Court in Roxboro, NC, on January 4, 2010, at 2:00. I have attached the motion to amend which was the subject of the hearing and the documents indicated below. The judge denied the motion, and I objected on constitutional grounds. I am not planning to appeal. That is bad news for Obama. In my opinion, the movement to unseat Obama due to his citizenship may be the only thing keeping him alive. When the last two cases go away, there will be no other way to get rid of this imposter than the old fashioned way. I, for one, hope that does not happen.
If any of you have any ideas for an appeal, I would like to hear them. Otherwise, this is the end of the road on this subject for me. The United States is on a dead-end road as far as I am concerned. In a conversation today with the opposing counsel for the State of NC, I was told that it didn’t look like there was any way for the court to get jurisdiction over this matter such that an order could be issued to accomplish what I was after. I told her that I agreed with that assessment if the court continues to disregard its constitutional authority and its oath to support and maintain the constitution. I could almost hear her sigh on the other end of the line.
It is worthy of note that this case was not dismissed for lack of standing, as were so many others. It would appear the “class action” status cured that. It’s just too bad we can’t find a constitutional judge.
My comments to the court – Sullivan v. NC Board of Education, Wake County File #08CVS21393, Motion to Amend, Vacate or Alter Order (attached), Superior Court Judge Osmond Smith, III, presiding:
Good afternoon, Your Honor, and thank you for hearing this motion to vacate your order in this matter today. Can I presume that you are familiar with my motion? First let me remind the court that I am here specially and not generally. I am not an attorney, nor have I been schooled in the practice of law. I ask the court to consider the substance of my pleadings and arguments and not the form; as the filings of a litigant acting on his own behalf, such as myself, are not to be held to the same stringent standards as those of a practicing lawyer, pursuant to Haines v. Kerner, 404 US 519. I appear at law and not of law. I don’t call myself a “Birther”. I call myself a “constitutionalist”. Without the Constitution, there is no lawful State or federal government. The Constitution of NC at Art. 1, Sec.5, requires us to follow the federal Constitution. The federal Constitution requires the office of President be held a natural born citizen at Article II, Section 1, Cl. 6. The key question before us today is the status of Barack Obama’s citizenship and whether or not this case can go forward to challenge it.
1. First, due to the ruling by Judge Cobb this past December in a prior case, I move to voluntarily dismiss the Secretary of State as a defendant, res judicata.
2. Presentation of “Born in the USA” – Wong Kim Ark – Three types of citizenship (attached).
3. My motion today is based upon new evidence not available to me in our earlier hearing. (Introduce and present exhibits A, B, C, and D as described in the motion.
4. I believe the evidence I have introduced today and previously presents a prima facie case that Obama is not eligible for the office of President and was not a viable candidate in the first place.
5. Discuss INS affidavit attached to original complaint, my interview with the Secret Service, and “Unintended Consequences”.
6. “Overwhelmed by events and by Time”. I became concerned that our government was no longer bound by the chains of the Constitution many years ago. But after my hearing before Judge Jim Fox in federal court on March 21, 2003, I knew we were in trouble. I had filed a case to prevent the war in Iraq due to the failure of the Congress to declare war. During the House International Affairs Committee review of the Resolution to Authorize the President to use Military Force in Iraq, the chairman, Henry Hyde, said in response to Ron Paul’s amendment that we declare war as required by the Constitution that, “The Constitution has been overwhelmed by events and by time. It is not relevant.” I took this denial of the Constitution personally and made it the crux of my complaint. Although Judge Fox agreed with most of my arguments, he denied my demand for a TRO to order Bush to stop the war which had begun two days earlier. During the hearing, he admitted that our Constitution was no longer viable, having been overwhelmed by events and by time. I read to you from the transcript of that hearing. This quote has been featured in a Hollywood Movie by Aaron Russo. [I read two pages from the transcript of “Sullivan v. United States, et al, 03CV039, USEDNC, March 21, 2003)
7. Read “Obama’s Own Words” (attached).
8. Read Judge Smith’s oath to support and maintain the US and NC Constitutions. Do not raise the “Oath Question”, although Judge Smith’s oath is improper. State: “The people elect their judges to support and maintain the Constitution of the United States and that of the State of North Carolina, where it is not in contravention thereto. An unconstitutional act is void from the beginning. It creates no office and grants no authority. (16AmJur2d)
9. Your Honor, failure to allow your order to be vacated and this complaint to move forward in a proper form to provide relief from this probable violation to our Constitutional law would be a treasonous act, a violation of our oaths to the Constitution and to the people of this country. There is a constitutional remedy for my complaint and this court at law has the authority to grant it. While I have admitted previously that the court has no equity jurisdiction in this matter, it does have jurisdiction at law under the Constitution and the authority to grant the relief I seek.
That having been said, it is apparent from the passage of more than a year since I filed this class action complaint for injunctive relief that this is no longer a matter seeking equitable relief, but instead one seeking a remedy at law, in this case constitutional law. That remedy must be in the form of common law mandamus authority rather than injunctive relief due to the overwhelming events of this past year and the judicial delays starting from day one. In any event, the relief I am seeking has not changed: An order to the remaining Defendant Board of Elections to validate the eligibility of Barack Obama to be the President of the United States of America. Therefore, I request this court vacate the order dismissing my complaint and grant leave to amend the complaint as a petition for the common law writ of mandamus in this matter. Thank you for listening, Your Honor.
[After denying my motion, off the record, the judge asked me if there were any more cases out there on the subject of Obama’s eligibility. I told him there were two that I knew of, the Barnett case in California federal court, and the recently filed Quo Warranto in DC.]
10. Jury demand after positive ruling. [The judge denied my motion, so I didn’t pursue this option.]
11. POINT OF ORDER – Oath question after negative ruling. [I presented the discussion of the impropriety of Judge Smith’s oath, along with nearly all other officers in the State, including attorneys and all grand and petit juries. He took home with him my written summary of the issue along with a copy of his oath, a proper oath by Judge Allen Cobb, a copy of the oath sheet used by the clerk of Pender County criminal court, copies of NCGS 11-11 and 11-7, and a copy of the oath given to attorneys written by the State Bar. He and the judicial officers in the court seemed genuinely interested in the arguments presented. I informed the judge that his privilege of immunity was not in effect until he is properly sworn and the oath filed with the county clerk of court. He assured me he would research my information and inform me as to what action he would take, if any.]
→ 315 CommentsCategories: America · Americans · Announcements · Attorneys · Barack Obama · Barry Soetoro · Bill of Rights · Birth Certificate · Board of Elections · COLB · Citizen · Citizens for the truth about Obama · Civil Complaint · Civil rights · Commander in Chief · Congress · Constitution Hall of Shame · Court of Appeals · Courts · DC · District Court · Donald Sullivan · Election · Election 2008 · Election Boards · Election Law · Election update · First Amendment · Government · Iraq War · Judges · Kenya · Lawyers · Lt Col Donald Sullivan · Military officers · Motion · NC · NC voters · Natural born citizen · News · North Carolina · Obama · Obama Nation · Obama administration · Obama indictment · Obama lies · Obama records · Politics · Presidential candidate · Secretary of State · Senator Obama · Standing · Sullivan v. NC Secretary of State · The Case Against Barack Obama · US Constitution · US Military · US Soldier · United States · Usurper · Veterans · War · Washington DC · amended complaint · constitution · fraud · indictment · politicians · voters · white house
Tagged: Elaine F. Marshall, February 11 2010, lawsuit, Lt Col Donald Sullivan, NC Secretary of State, North Carolina Board of Elections, Obama not eligible, update
Janice Okubo resigned?, 1981 Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth, Legitimate birth certificate vs COLB, Certification of Live Birth, Obama COLB, Obama birth certificate, Hawaii Department of Health, Miki Booth OK house candidate
February 10, 2010 · 185 Comments
Why has Obama employed a legion of private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?…Citizen Wells and millions of concerned Americans
From The Post & Email, February 10, 2010.
“OK Candidate releases son’s 1981 Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth”
“DOCUMENT CONFIRMS INVESTIGATORS’ SUSPICIONS, EXPOSES DOH AS LYING”
“Miki Booth, a native Hawaiian and candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives for the State of Oklahoma, shocked and awed Obama supporters during the recent Tea Party Nation convention in Memphis, TN, when she publicly disclosed the Certificate of Live Birth for her son, Alan Paliko Booth, born on Nov. 24, 1981, at 7:55 AM, at Kapiolani Children’s Medical Center, the same hospital that Obama has claimed to be his own place of birth,nearly 20 years before.
The actual document contains a wealth of information such as the signature of the attending physician or midwife, a field for evidence presented for an Amended Birth Filing, race of parents and child, and a signature and date stamp, certifying the copy as an authentic representation of the information on file with the Hawaii Department of Health.
Importantly, the actual document, which you can view through this link, contains the fields, “Date received by Local Registrar” and “Date accepted by the State” and the name of the Local Registrar. In recent months, Miss Janice Okubo has insisted that the terms mean the same thing and that she has no knowledge of what terms were used previously to the alleged Obama COLB.
The now widely recognized, crude forgery which Obama claims to be his own Certification of Live Birth bearing the date of 2007 but without the seal and confirmatory signature of the State Registrar, does not contain information regarding the race of the child or the date accepted.
This has led private researchers to speculate that Obama’s original vital records, which Dr. Fukino claims to have seen and which she herself admits are several, might contain a delayed birth filing, an amended birth filing, adoption record, or other changes regarding the name of the child and parents and location or nation in which the child was purported to be born.
The details of this actual 1981 “long form” “birth certificate” indicate more precisely the possible motives Obama might have for refusing to disclose his own real certificate, that is, if he was in fact born in Hawaii in the first place. Because the actual form might indicate:”