Anyone serving the country must take an oath of office.

President: “ I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Military enlistees: “I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”

Military Officers: “I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.”

On Military.com, it is explained that anyone who joins the military will be defending the Constitution – not a person. This is not a new idea. At this country’s inception, it was understood that this was to be a nation of laws, not men.

There is no good government but what is republican. That the only valuable part of the British constitution is so; for the true idea of a republic is “an empire of laws, and not of men.” That, as a republic is the best of governments, so that particular arrangement of the powers of society, or in other words, that form of government which is best contrived to secure an impartial and exact execution of the law, is the best of republics. –John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776

Recently, NBC News reported, “The Army may be forced to court-martial a lieutenant colonel who refused to deploy to Afghanistan because he considers orders from President Barack Obama to be illegal.”

This is because Lt. Col. Terry Lakin believes that President Obama is not a natural born citizen. Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution says, “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.”

Many of those reporting or following this story have dismissed him as a “birther”, a derogatory term assigned to those who believe that the president’s natural born status was not properly vetted before being allowed to run for or hold office. However, because Lt. Col. Terry Lakin has taken an oath to the constitution, he is demanding proof.

Should the president be able to withhold that proof by keeping the record which would verify his eligibility sealed? Before another presidential election is held, it is certainly worth considering a method which would assure that any candidate running for office provides the proper credentials and makes these available to those who would certify the election, at the very least.

Regardless of what anyone believes about the current president, the requirement for holding office is not a small matter.

Malinda Seymore writes in The Presidency and the Meaning of Citizenship,

“The Natural-Born Citizen Clause seems motivated by fear that foreign-born, naturalized citizens’ loyalty could not be assured.”

She explains that Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, John Adams and George Washington feared that foreigners would be disloyal.

Thomas Jefferson believed, “they will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave,” and transmit “these principles, with their language,” to their children.

Alexander Hamilton desired “every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue and corruption,” from “foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.”

John Adams considered foreign influence the “angel of destruction to elective governments.”

George Washington required any sentry be “Native of this Country, or has a Wife, or Family in it, to whom he is known to be attached.” Furthermore, “In his farewell address, President Washington,” warned “history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican Government.”

She concludes, “The Natural-Born Citizen Clause reflects the Founders’ fear that foreigners�even those who became citizens of the United States through naturalization�would not have the unquestionable loyalty to the United States necessary to the office of President.”

Going back to 24, probably the most chilling aspect of this particular episode was a conversation between Charles Logan the former president and President Taylor.

Logan: “The power to make a difference, that’s why we came into politics… Is the situation ideal? No. But you have a real chance to make the world a better place. There is a tide in the affairs of men, / which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune.”

Taylor: “It means now or never.”

It is this reasoning that compels President Taylor to rely on moral relativism, not allowing Jack Bauer to expose the extent of the Russian involvement in an assassination attempt, fearing it would destroy the “greater good.”

One might wonder at this juncture, does life imitate art more than art imitates life?

The Framers feared that the citizens of this country could not always be counted upon to critically examine the motivation and influences compelling a candidate to seek office before casting a vote. It is for this reason they created checks and balances, on who can hold office and how candidates are elected. It is also for this reason that we are a government of laws and not men.

Those with an unconstrained vision believe the restraints of the constitution prevent them from being able to accomplish their vision for this country or the world. Those with a constrained vision understand the importance of the constitution for preventing the will of those in power to compromise our liberties or freedoms in pursuit of some “greater good”. Constrained or unconstrained visions do not follow party lines.

According to Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development, at Stage 5 people understand the importance rule of law holds for maintaining our society and that these standards, are to be agreed upon by its members.

Is it acceptable to arbitrarily decide that some parts of the constitution are no longer relevant?

At Stage 6, people may follow internalized principles of justice, even if they conflict with laws and rules. In other words, a doctor who believes in the sanctity of life might not perform an abortion even if it is legal.

Should there be any moral dilemmas involved in adhering to the Constitution?

Certainly, instead of disparaging those who believe they are following the law of the land, we should instead entertain their questions and provide some answers.

The Framers fully expected that some of the brightest minds and upstanding citizens would be representing our interests in government. They also expected these people could be easily corrupted so they took great pains to prevent any one person or branch of government from being able to inflict any lasting damage, but none of these measures can prevent death by a thousand cuts if we refuse to ask the tough questions that would yield the answers that some might not want to hear.

After exchanging hugs and kisses, we got down to the business of setting out the food and carving the turkey. Sitting around the dinner table, we gave thanks for our family, friends, the meal before us and voiced our hope that the soldiers spending this Thanksgiving away from their loved ones would be kept safe in the months to come. Then, in what seemed like an inordinately short amount of time – in contrast to the time it took to plan and prepare the meal – we toasted to each other and plowed through the turkey, stuffing and other fixings, eventually chasing it all down with dessert. Now we were ready to play games.

We began with the new “politically correct” version of the time-honored game, Risk. I do not like playing Risk by the new rules; rules which no longer require world domination for the winner or the same effort by each player. Instead, everyone is assigned a different mission, which means that one person might need to take over an entire continent, while another need only win 1 territory to end the game. We spent too much time setting up a board to have the game end before everyone even had a turn to roll the dice.

Putting Risk aside, we eased into cards with King’s Corners, a family tradition at our holiday gatherings. Upon reaching 150 points, it was time to let the real games begin. We would be playing poker for pennies and we had a novice amongst us. She would be learning how to play the game.

My mother-in-law produced a huge collection of pennies and issued each of us a stack of 50. The first round was Screw Your Neighbor. Everyone anteed up 3 pennies and very quickly a pot was accumulated in the middle of the table. We played winner take all, alternating between games: Bishop’s Pride, Baseball, Dime Store, 5 Card Stud, 5 Card Draw, and variations where we assigned wild cards such as One-Eyed-Jacks, black 7′s and such. Some of us, noticing our stacks of pennies were becoming depleted, simply reached into the penny jar and took more pennies to stay in the game.

At first, my mother-in-law told us to keep count of what we were withdrawing but that rule was soon abandoned. As we played well beyond midnight, our novice and her brother, whose stacks of pennies were getting higher or at least not becoming depleted (beginner’s luck), began to wonder aloud about the practice.

Our novice asked, “How can it be fair if you can just reach in and grab more pennies when you are running low or run out? How can there be a winner?”

To which my sister-in-law responded, “Think of it as a no interest loan to be paid back when you have the money. There are plenty of pennies in the jar.”

“Yeah, it’s Obama money,” my husband, Frank, said.

Our novice looked confused.

Now we had an opportunity to really begin having fun with her.

Frank elaborated, “Remember that YouTube video, taped in Michigan, of the woman who was waiting in line, who when asked by the reporter why she was there, answered, ‘I’m here for Obama money.’ Remember? The reporter asked her where she thought the money came from and she answered, ‘I don’t know. Obama. I think it’s from his stash. That’s why we love him, that’s why we voted for him. It’s Obama money.’ She was there for some of that free Obama money. Well, that’s essentially what this penny jar is, for our purposes, Obama money.”

My sister-in-law mockingly began to chant, “Obama, Obama, Obama.” We joked that it sounded like an ACORN protest outside a mortgage bank.

“Hey, I want some more of that Obama money. It’s free, isn’t it? Hand over some of that Obama money,” I said, jokingly.

Knowing we could just grab more pennies, our bets became more and more outrageous and we played more carelessly, staying in on a bluff or with a low pair of 3′s.

After awhile, Frank began to win big and announced, “Here, this pile of pennies is to put back into the Obama money jar. I pay back my bailouts.”

Now our novice started to tease me, “I won all my pennies but you keep taking them from the penny jar. When will you pay it back?”

Her brother, who had a big cache of pennies in front of him, chimed in, “Yeah, I haven’t taken any pennies. I earned my money fair and square.”

“You don’t understand,” I said. “That’s how it works. Let me try to explain. You win your pennies; I get mine for free because it’s Obama money. That’s how it works. It’s free, and if it runs out I get more and you have to supply them to me!”

Frank mused aloud, “Maybe we should do our shopping tomorrow with Obama money. What a concept. When it’s time to pay for our purchases, we’ll just say, ‘Do you take Obama money?’ Or better yet, ‘Just use some of that Obama money out of your register. Since we don’t have any, we get what we want here for free at your expense.’”

My husband, still educating our novice, ended the lesson with, “Imagine…if we were playing for real money, if you were using your own money, this game would be entirely different. Free money makes all the difference in how the game is played, doesn’t it?”

“Give me some more of that Obama money,” I giggled. “I could get used to this. Yes, I like this Obama money. It’s free, because you give it to me.”

This holiday season, as we look at many of the economic policies being embraced by the Obama Administration, the fact of the matter is Obama money isn’t a joke. Many, including those on Wall Street, in the union halls and at so-called community organizations, are gambling with Obama money – taxpayer’s hard-earned money – and they don’t fear the consequences of their bets, and why should they, it’s free money.

Merry Christmas

Today, I read how our government has set aside a multi-million dollar technology fund for Islamic countries. Our education system would thrive if that kind of money could be used to provide free online courses to adults wanting to earn a terminal degree or specialize in a shortage area. Instead, tuition goes up, taxes go to fund free money for those who qualify for the Pell grants which will supplement the cost of a college education, and more and more graduates (and many who won’t graduate) will leave their post-secondary experience with an accumulated debt that will make it even more impossible to chase the elusive American dream. Many will not find jobs that require their advanced education.

The “bright shiny thing” continues to distract Americans from what is truly important. FOX News is using the administrations’ comments about their station to boost their ratings instead of reporting on the news stories that make them such an important voice that the administration needs to discredit them or more importantly, distract FOX News from their mission.

Should universal health care pass? Ought certain aspects of the proposed legislation be given more consideration than others? This is a complicated issue that is being broken down into misleading sound bytes. Policy wonks need to be provided a forum to explain the nuances of the proposed legislation in a way that would allow legislators to make informed decisions.

Do citizens and representatives truly understand how this branch of the government actually functions? If a neutral observer could ask any representative what he or she sees as most important in regards to this critical issue, what is written inside the bill or how his or her vote will affect his or her chances of reelection, the answer would probably provide an interesting lesson in civics. The first question that needs to be answered is what is driving the vote? Do constituents and their representatives understand each others’ roles in the legislative process? Do we truly understand each others’ positions or why we hold them? Does ideology or constitutional illiteracy affect our understanding of what is involved? How can we make sure that a majority or a minority with a loud voice in their zealousness to do what they believe to be best for our country doesn’t compromise our individual rights under the Constitution or in the long run work against what is best for our society? I would sleep better at night if I truly believed that these questions were driving the debate.

How did our society come to this point? Is it because the special interests which hold powerful sway over our education system are more concerned with molding the attitudes of successive generations to embrace moral relativism, engage in sexual promiscuity and to dismiss our Founders as white hypocritical patriarchs whose ideas are no longer relevant in today’s society? Is it because generations are being taught that the government should take care of them and that they are entitled to the fruit of other peoples’ labor? Is it because reporters are given the latitude to let their opinions on issues drive the news cycle? Worse, will the current administration be successful in preventing those who disagree with them from reporting their findings? It should not surprise us then that so many graduates leave school lacking in the ability to look at all sides of an issue and formulate a fact based opinion. How many people are blindly unaware or unconcerned that this is the case?

It’s harder and harder to find the motivation to go the extra mile on my “off hours” to write about the philosophy and history behind the Constitution and why it is so important to preserve this republic. We are not a Democracy even though millions of people believe this to be the case. Why does this matter? Do people understand why this is an important issue? It is hard to compete with “Dancing with the Stars.” However, it is critical to the well being of our society that people see as their responsibility to become informed citizens.

Unfortunately, those elected to office don’t understand their role either. Are they delegates, expected to represent their constituencies opinions? Are they trustees, exercising their own ideas because their constituents aren’t expected to understand such matters? Are those who are acting as trustees qualified to perform this role? Do their constituents have any influence over how their interests are represented? Must anyone involved in the political process pay to play? Do the people still have a voice or have we already lost it? Was I not paying attention during a bait and switch?

Imagine what it would be like if everyone’s lives were determined by the government. It can’t be too far of a stretch. We’re already being told what to think, aren’t we? Wouldn’t it be so much simpler to just let someone else make all the decisions for us? Would this be Utopia or a Dystopian nightmare? Who will decide?

Money may not really buy love or make the world go round, but it certainly does help society to function efficiently. Money, which is assigned a value, is the item of exchange we use if we want to purchase something. The work we do to earn money is also assigned a value and the amount something costs reflects the value in producing or developing it. Most people would agree that the reward of money is the incentive they need to invest their time and labor into many of the tasks that demand their attention. While there may be additional reasons for applying ourselves to projects, a surplus of money allows us more freedom to devote our energy to additional pursuits.

In answering whether money is the root of all evil, Ayn Rand wrote, “Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?” Money incentivizes those who produce and there is nothing wrong with that. Heritage Foundation’s Rebecca Hagelin writes that “wealth and economic freedom go hand in hand.” In countries where there is economic freedom, there is more wealth. It can be argued that there is something inherently wrong with de-incentivizing those who produce by making it more difficult to be productive or rewarded.

The Founders understood that those with property have a vested interest in protecting the fruit of their labor. When people think of the Founders, they usually think of the names most associated with writing the founding documents, however, it is just as important to remember those anti-Federalists who feared giving too much power to the federal government and who refused to ratify a Constitution without a Bill of Rights. These founders gave voice to prevailing concerns and greatly influenced what was included in the final document. Cato, in letter 62 wrote,

“By liberty, I understand the power which every man has over his own actions, and his right to enjoy the fruit of his labour, art, and industry, as far as by it he hurts not the society, or any members of it, by taking from any member, or by hindering him from enjoying what he himself enjoys. The fruits of a man’s honest industry are the just rewards of it, ascertained to him by natural and eternal equity, as is his title to use them in the manner which he thinks fit: And thus, with the above limitations, every man is sole lord and arbiter of his own private actions and property. A character of which no man living can divest him but by usurpation, or his own consent.

“The entering into political society, is so far from a departure from his natural right, that to preserve it was the sole reason why men did so; and mutual protection and assistance is the only reasonable purpose of all reasonable societies.”

It should surprise no one then that those with money would want to use that money to influence the representatives who are elected to office. It is not unreasonable that those with propertied interests would want to protect their investments and maximize their ability to produce. And well they should. It is wealth and investments that create jobs. The more freedom they have to pursue wealth, the wealthier our society will become. Those are just the facts. The Founders expected that those elected to office would understand the need to maintain a balance between the needs of the individuals and the welfare of the community, always keeping in mind the reason why anyone would willingly enter into a political society. They were not naïve in their expectations, though.

Scott Stripling writes in The Founders’ View of Character and the Presidency,

“In the opinion of the Founders, the question of the best form of government cannot be separated from the question of human nature, for it is in human nature that government has its origin and purpose; and, the limits of human nature set limits to what may reasonably be expected from politics…”

Stripling warns us to “take seriously their reservations about the capacity of human nature for self-government.”

George Washington, himself, is quoted as saying, “”Few men have virtue to withstand the highest bidder.”

The Founders expected that those who are elected to office would take an oath to uphold the Constitution. In their role, they should be able to step back from the passion that sometimes drives the people and thoughtfully consider any and all effects of what is being asked and make a determination about legislation that may prove contrary to the Constitution or to the individual rights it was designed to protect. They also put in place a system of checks and balances to prevent any office or individual from amassing too much power. One would expect that those corrupted by their own power and influence would be voted out of office.

The Founders also expected that those with the power to vote people into office would take their civic responsibility seriously enough to elect people who understood the Constitution and whose actions would reflect this understanding. Today, it is hard to say who is more at fault, the electors or the elected, but clearly a large amount of those representing the constituents do not understand the purpose of our Constitution or are simply drunk with power and influence. How else can a stimulus package which has created trillion dollar debt and was designed to redistribute wealth be passed? How can anyone believe that giving the government more power and control over how to spend our money is what the Founders intended?

Thomas Jefferson wrote,

“To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, ‘the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, and the fruits acquired by it.’”

Our current President believes, “This is the moment when we must build on the wealth that open markets have created, and share its benefits more equitably. Trade has been a cornerstone of our growth and global development. But we will not be able to sustain this growth if it favors the few, and not the many.”

Ayn Rand wrote about this very idea in Atlas Shrugged, a book which foretells what would happen if those who do all the producing were incentivized enough to stop producing and all that was left were the Moochers, or as the Progressive left calls them, “The Underserved.” Eventually, it would all come down to one man. Thus, what if Atlas Shrugged?

Or, what if everyone is just corrupt and drunk with power and stimulus money, enough to curry favors and continue their re-election to office for years and years? Mike Royko writes about this phenomenon, known as “Machine Politics” or “The Daley Machine” in Boss. People are too afraid to buck “The Machine” or do not have the power or influence to beat Machine politics. Read the book to understand better the corruption in politics.

While we ponder these possible scenarios, think about this. The debt we pass down to future generations will de-incentivize them. Their money will go to the government to pay for the debt we’re inflicting upon them today, money being made available to corrupt politicians for redistribution, money which will assure their re-election by those benefitting most from the dispersal of these funds. Future generations of producers (Capitalists) will not be able to accumulate the wealth or be rewarded for their industry. We can stop saddling future generations with debt and clean up the corruption now, or to borrow the words of Pink Floyd, “Welcome to the Machine.”

Fundamental law is so important to this society that the justices working in our federal judicial system are sworn to uphold it. Every case that comes before the Supreme Court brings into question fundamental law. If a law or decision contradicts fundamental law, it is to be overturned. The only way to change the fundamental law of our nation is through the amendment process and in the history of our country, this has only occurred 27 times, including the first 10 amendments to the US Constitution -which are encompassed in the Bill of Rights.

Every President and every US Representative and Senator take an oath of elected office, swearing to uphold the US Constitution.

President:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

House of Representatives and Senate:

“I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

This oath is mandated by Article VI of the Constitution and its text is set by statute (5 U.S.C., Sec. 3331).

In light of the importance of fundamental law, it may strike one-and rightfully so- as disingenuous that the media is trying to downplay the importance of the primary requirements of one who aspires to the highest office of the land, by that; I’m referring to the provision that is addressed by Article 2, Section 1 of the United States Constitution that states the President of our country be a “natural born citizen.” The 14th Amendment says “all persons, born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States”. Note there is a deliberate difference between natural born citizen and citizen. The issue of the importance of the requirement is not going away.

Still, the media persists in trying to malign those who would like to see whether or not President Obama satisfies the requirements under Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States. To date, he has provided a certificate of live birth. Should it be proven that President Obama is not a natural born citizen, it is likely we would witness one of two scenarios. The first possibility is that we would have a constitutional crisis on our hands because everything that transpired under this man’s leadership would have to be reevaluated since he would be considered a usurper, translation: fraud. The second scenario is the likelihood there would not be enough votes to remove him from office. His party holds the majority in both Houses and either didn’t properly vet him in the first place or is not willing to disclose the truth. What could be so hard about presenting a birth certificate, again, not to be mistaken with a certificate of live birth? While the President has spent personal money on lawyers to keep those documents sealed, his defenders have waged a campaign to discredit those who won’t let the issue die. The citizens who have tried to bring this omission before the federal judiciary system have been told they have no standing to have this case heard.

Probably the most frustrating aspect of this situation is that when any aspect of fundamental law is disregarded, then we have embarked on a slippery slope, in which no aspect of the fundamental law will any longer be considered sacred. This has been witnessed already with federal and state statutes that aren’t considered fundamental. Who doesn’t wonder why celebrities and those with money and influence are often treated differently under the law? Who doesn’t wonder why Professor Henry Louis Gates could verbally assault a police officer and the police officer is the one who is called into question?

Senator John Edwards campaigned on the idea that there are two Americas. Perhaps he was right. There is the America for which “We the People” ordained and established the Constitution of the United States and there is the America currently run by a minority faction of oligarchs.

“And he took out his pencil and he wrote 2+2=5.” (I’m taking liberty with this quote from George Orwell’s 1984 because it is nowhere to be found on Google) 2+2=5…2+2=5. If a statement such as this is heard long enough, people will believe it. 2+2=5 is the party line…as is the idea that the birth certificate isn’t in question…the birth certificate isn’t important. Only right wingnuts who hate the President keep bringing up the issue of the birth certificate. Bill O’Reilly calls fanatics those who demand to see the evidence so IT MUST BE SO. Therefore, fundamental law, it’s not such a big deal, it’s just a minor technicality.

You say you want a revolution? Well, you know, we all want to change the world. It must be so. We voted for this change.

“Based on the principles of international law, respect for the sovereign equality of States and in full respect of the principle of the right of freedom of navigation consistent with the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention,” this agreement was superseded by a more comprehensive agreement in 2004 (US State Department).

Ten years after this initial agreement ,the United States Coast Guard and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police implemented an experimental “Shiprider,” program designed to thwart a potential high profile terrorist attack during the Super Bowl, an anticipated launch from a maritime vessel on the Detroit River, outside Detroit (The Ottawa Citizen).

According to an article in Law and technology resources for legal professionals, the Agreement Making Process follows these rules:

â–ª Secretary of State authorizes negotiation

â–ª U.S. representatives negotiate

â–ª Agree on terms, and upon authorization of Secretary of State, sign agreement

â–ª Three types of agreements

â–ª Agreement enters into force

â–ª President transmits agreement to Congress (pursuant to Case-Zablocki Act)

Fast forward just a few weeks ago to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano’s controversial remarks, in which “she suggested the 9-11 terrorists entered the U.S. through Canada,” and has since rescinded yet maintains “other terror suspects have crossed south over the border.” CTV.ca

Today, it was announced that Secretary of Homeland Security Napolitano signed a Shiprider Agreement with Canada. The National Post reported one week earlier Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s comments that our northern border is “too porous” and [since 9/11] “we have been working with our friends in Canada to try to harden that border,” and that “our Department of Homeland Security will continue to do so.”

Just six months ago, The UN Council issued a resolution calling on “States and regional organizations fighting piracy to conclude agreements with countries, especially in the region, willing to take custody of pirates to put their own law enforcement officials on board as “ship riders” to prosecute detained suspects.”

Convenient? Opportunistic? It seems to be the norm for this administration to follow a “One-World” mindset. Yes, It can be argued that the Bush Administration implemented such a measure in order to thwart a potential terrorist attack, but it can also be debated that this was a response to an imminent threat. In peacetime, the Obama Administration uses every possible means to implement policy that circumvents the legislative branch of government, those officials elected to represent our interests and instead moves to take its place as one of the cogs in the new world order by trading away our nation’s sovereignty…

North Korea

A 2008 report published by the Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College states that, “North Korea has also established itself as the Third World’s greatest supplier of missiles, missile components, and related technologies.” North Korea is one of the principal providers of missiles to Iran, Pakistan, Syria, Egypt, Libya, and Yemen.

Faced with the prospect of North Korea launching a Taepodong-2 intercontinental ballistic missile, missile technology capable of hitting Alaska and Hawaii which Kim Jong il claimed was a test of their civilian satellite program and which was in direct violation of United Nations Resolutions 1695 and 1718, President Obama reacted by stating, “Should North Korea decide to take this action, we will work with all interested parties in the international community to take appropriate steps to let North Korea know that it can’t threaten the safety and security of other countries with impunity.”

Meanwhile, North Korea let it be known that any attempt to shoot down or interfere with its missile test would be construed as an act of war.

After the launch, our president stated, “We will continue working for the verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula through the Six-Party Talks. The Six-Party Talks provide the forum for achieving denuclearization, reducing tensions, and for resolving other issues of concern between North Korea, its four neighbors, and the United States.”

Governor Sarah Palin issued a press release in response to the launch affirming, “Alaska’s commitment to protecting America from rogue nation missile attacks. She stressed the importance of continued funding for the Missile Defense Agency in Alaska which U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates’ proposed to reduce by $1.4 billion. “Its strategic location in the Pacific allows for maximum security and development of the country’s only ground-based missile defense complex.”

LTC Raymond Millen of the Strategic Studies Institute writes, “Any initiative that lowers the credibility of nuclear retaliation (e.g., ballistic missile defense, retaliation with precision guided conventional munitions, or inclusion of chemical and biological weapons in this category for retaliation) increases the likelihood that nuclear weapons will be used. In short, if Iran or North Korea perceives the U.S. threat to retaliate with nuclear weapons is not credible, the greater the likelihood they will misjudge during a crisis.”

Russia

The Obama administration believes that Iran’s nuclear threat can be reduced though diplomacy with Russia and our NATO allies. President Obama wrote Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, requesting Russia’s aid in resolving the threat from Iran. He offered to scrap plans to build the system in Poland and the Czech Republic saying that if the threat was eradicated the missile defense shield would become unnecessary.

By their actions, the Obama Administration has placed their faith in Vladimir Putin’s Russia, making an assumption that Putin could put United States interests before his own. This is the man who “consolidated Moscow’s grip on political speech, the economy, religion, and the press” and steered “a state takeover of major Russian oil companies (some suspect that the Kremlin engineered the sentencing of oil tycoon Mikhail Khodor-Kovsky to nine years in a Siberian jail).”

The Middle East
In order to begin to understand the Israeli/Palestinian issue inherited by the Obama Administration, we need to seriously examine the terms of the “road map for peace” introduced by President Bush in 2003. It was designed to create a Palestinian state that exists in peace with Israel. According to the terms of the peace process, Israel was to immediately dismantle settlement “outposts,” built in the Palestinian territories and Palestinian leaders were to “immediately curb terrorism and take steps toward a democratic, accountable government.” Needless to say, it’s hard to forget the images of Israeli Settlers being forced to leave their homes. No one can argue that, “the Palestinians failed to rein in the suicide bombers and gunmen of Hamas and other extremist groups.” Each side can provide reasons why the other side has not met the benchmarks. However, Israel made a good faith effort, and they were dumped on. When they defend themselves or say they’re not playing the game anymore, they’re condemned.

News Daily recently reported, “Palestinians say building in what Israel calls E1, an area of occupied land between Jerusalem and the Dead Sea, would deny them a viable state by cutting the West Bank in two and isolating Arab East Jerusalem, which they want as their capital… Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat urged U.S. President Barack Obama to intervene with Israel to prevent any construction from going forward, calling it the “last nail in the coffin for peacemaking…the Obama administration has lobbied Israel to remove restrictions on aid shipments to the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip and has criticized the demolition of Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem.”

The actions of the current administration directly interfere with the sovereignty of one of our nation’s greatest allies, an ally that is likely to be the only thing that stands between our country and a nuclear Iran. Benjamin Netanyahu has said that the United States, “must stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons—and quickly—or an imperiled Israel may be forced to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities itself.”

President Obama addressed the Arab world on a partially Saudi-owned cable network, al Arabiya.

“You’ve been saying that you want to pursue actively and aggressively peacemaking between the Palestinians and the Israelis. Will you be proposing ideas, pitching proposals, parameters, as one of your predecessors did? Or just urging the parties to come up with their own resolutions, as your immediate predecessor did?”

Dr. Walid Phares, Senior Fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and the author of The Confrontation: Winning the War against Future Jihad, points out that the question ignores “the elephant in the room” which is that the peacemaking is really between Iranian-backed Hamas and Israel.

Dr. Phares writes, “Since we already know what is the position of Israel, Mahmoud Abbas, Egypt and Saudi Arabia from the Oslo agreements; and since we know that Israelis and the Arab League have already consented to discuss the Saudi-sponsored Arab initiative, who should we listen to in the region? Who hasn’t spoken yet? Who can make the “deal” possible? I would suppose it is those who are blocking the Peace Process, ineluctably Iran and its acolytes.”

President Obama’s answer is revealing.

“I do think that it is impossible for us to think only in terms of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and not think in terms of what’s happening with Syria or Iran or Lebanon or Afghanistan and Pakistan. These things are interrelated. And what I’ve said, and I think Hillary Clinton has expressed this in her confirmation, is that if we are looking at the region as a whole and communicating a message to the Arab world and the Muslim world, that we are ready to initiate a new partnership based on mutual respect and mutual interest, then I think that we can make significant progress.”

Frank Salvato, Director of Terrorism Research at BasicsProject.org, describes in the New Media Journal how President Obama allocated 20.3 million to relocate members of Hamas, al Fatah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and other radical Islamist groups to the United States. Under Section 2(c)(1) of the Migration & Refugee Act of 1962, President Obama allocated $20.3 million to “unexpected and urgent refugee and migration needs” as they relate to “humanitarian needs of Palestinian refugees and conflict victims in Gaza.” This money derives from the United States Emergency Refugee & Migration Assistance Fund and was allocated to the Bureau of Population, Refugees, & Migration of the Department of State.

Salvato explains, “Nowhere in the United Nations Relief & Works Agency (UNRWA) prerequisites for designation as a “Palestinian refugee” does it exact disqualification for members of Hamas, al Fatah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad or any other radical Islamist group. In fact, the only declared prerequisites for Palestinian refugee status are:

â–ª Any person whose normal place of residence was Palestine during the period 1 June 1946 to 15 May 1948

â–ª That said person lost both home and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 conflict

â–ª Or that said person be a descendant of a father fulfilling the definition

By the UNRWAs definition, members of Hamas living in Gaza – in light of the fact that Hamas has unscrupulously transformed itself into a political organization even as it remains a terrorist entity – would be eligible for UNRWA aid.”

When speaking in Turkey, President Obama stated, “We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation; we consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values.”

Not only is our nation built on Judeo-Christian morality, ideals and values, Dr. Paul L. Williams reminds us that “There were no Muslims among the passengers on the Mayflower or the settlers at Jamestown. Muslims were conspicuously absent from the ranks of George Washington’s Army of the Revolution and played no role in the creation of the American republic – save for the fact that the new country’s first declaration of war was against the forces of Islam represented by the Barbary pirates.”

Pakistan
Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. During his campaign, Obama said, “If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and [former] President Musharraf won’t act, we will.”

Michelle Levi (ABC) more recently reported, “When asked if he might order U.S. forces across the border into Pakistan to attack or capture insurgents hiding in safe havens there,” by Face The Nation host Bob Schieffer,” President Obama answered, “If we have a high-value target within our sights, after consulting with Pakistan, we’re going after them. But our main thrust has to be to help Pakistan defeat these extremists.” He elaborated further, “Our plan does not change the recognition of Pakistan as a sovereign government. We need to work with them and through them to deal with al Qaeda. But we have to hold them much more accountable.”

The Obama administration has publicly warned the Pakistani government “that failure to take action against the extremists could endanger its partnership with the United States.” At the same time, it has been reported that the Obama Administration has been, ‘considering switching allegiances from President Zardari and his Pakistan People’s Party-dominated government to his rival, former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif.”

President Obama wants Pakistan to believe they are our allies, our friends, yet, “the popular perception in Pakistan is that, instead of the Taliban, the United States poses the principal threat to Pakistan’s territorial integrity and its nuclear program, surpassing even India,” writes Mohammed Yousuf, a lawyer based in Karachi. He believes, “If any major military action against the Taliban, with its own brothers in faith and Nation, is ordered at the behest of the United States, the Pakistani troops will fight under great strain and stress. Such decision may be at the peril of even defections and desertions.”

President Obama did not make it a priority to visit Pakistan during his European Tour, perhaps out of fear for his safety? In any event, the president of Pakistan is scheduled to come to the White House, despite fear that while he is away there could be a military coup or government overthrow.

Of particular interest, the Obama Administration requested Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) to “sever all ties with extremist’s groups including al-Qaida, the Taliban and Lashkar-e-Taiba, which it called an “existential threat” to Pakistan itself.” The Obama Administration has finally admitted that all these groups are linked together, something American intelligence understood even when President Clinton was in office, though it was denied or played down by media and the political left the entire two terms of President Bush’s tenure.

According to Pakistan’s Shamshad Ahmad, a former foreign secretary of the UN, “After the Soviets were forced out of Afghanistan,” the US, “ left us in the lurch with all the problems stemming from the war: an influx of refugees, the drug and gun running, a Kalashnikov culture.” The United States has a record of being very opportunistic when utilizing the services of non nation state organizations and for President Obama to expect the ISI to do his bidding is the height of arrogance or naiveté.

Robert Burns (AP) reports that Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton believes that Pakistanis are “basically abdicating” to the extremists. Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is “concerned and frustrated at the progression of the danger,” after meeting with Pakistani officials in Islamabad. According to Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo, Pakistan has “enough fissile material for between 55 and 90 nuclear weapons.” Gen. David Petraeus, the Central Command chief whose area of responsibility includes both Afghanistan and Pakistan, told the House Appropriations subcommittee on defense ,”Pakistani state failure would give transnational terrorist groups and other extremist organizations an opportunity to acquire nuclear weapons and a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks.”

New Media Journal’s Frank Salvato writes, “As the argument continues on whether or not then Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage actually told then Pakistani President Musharraf that unless he sided with the United States his country would be “bombed back to the Stone Age,” one thing is abundantly clear, Pakistan was not an enthusiastic volunteer in forging the US-Pakistani anti-jihadist alliance. In fact, as is the status quo for most cooperative measures between two or more parties in Pakistan, Musharraf had to be financially enticed to join the United States and the Coalition of the Willing.”

Salvato continues, “Troublingly, even as the United States apportioned over $10 billion to Pakistan, the bulk of which was to finance Pakistan’s engagement in the war against radical Islamist aggression, the existence of Taliban and al Qaeda flourished in the FATA while public sympathies for fundamentalist Islam advanced among the Pakistani people. Evidence to this affect is provided in the fact that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Ramzi bin al-Shibh were both captured in Pakistan (Rawalpindi and Karachi, respectively) before their detainment at the Guantanamo Bay Military Detention Facility in Cuba. Further, credible intelligence from multiple sources indicate that both Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahiri – al Qaeda’s number one and two – are currently hiding in the North-West Frontier Province of the FATA.”

This being said, it should be of great concern that President Obama plans to give more money and arms to Pakistan given their record of non achievement in the war against radical Islamist aggression.

Europe

While on his European Tour, President Obama attended three summits– London at the G20 summit, followed by the NATO summit in Strasbourg and the EU-U.S. summit in Prague. The final stop, Turkey, was Obama’s first visit to a Muslim country. The President asked America’s allies to send more troops to Afghanistan. Prime Minister Gordon Brown offered extra soldiers to provide security during the August elections and Belgium and Spain offered military trainers. No other help was forthcoming.

On the Home Front
Let’s start with Obama’s recent nomination of, “Harold Koh, a former dean of Yale Law School… to be the State Department’s legal adviser.” Koh advocates a “transnational legal process” and “argues that the distinction between U.S. and international law should vanish.”Indeed, Koh believes it to be, “appropriate for the Supreme Court to construe our Constitution in the light of foreign and international law”. There are so many things wrong with this type of thinking that it would take a whole separate article to address the issues. Jeremy Rabkin explains it best in an interview published in National Review. “The Constitution makes federal law (and the federal Constitution) “supreme law of the land.” States don’t even have the last word on their own constitutions (or when they can adhere to their own constitutions). All of the Founders would have been appalled at the thought that the federal government, in turn, would be subordinate to some supranational or international entity, which could claim priority in this way over the American Constitution and American laws.

Nile Gardiner, blogging in the London Telegraph, establishes a connection between the President’s most recent appointment, “Ex-Los Angeles Times columnist and Georgetown law professor Rosa Brooks,” Harold Koh and George Soros. Although she has no qualifications, Brooks is now “adviser to Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Michelle Fluornoy.” Brooks previously worked as, “Special Counsel for George Soros’s Open Society Institute in New York,” and, “as a former adviser to Harold Koh, the hugely controversial nominee for Legal Adviser to the State Department.”

While most people associate Tim Geithner with the guy who was nominated for Treasury Secretary but failed to pay his taxes several years in a row, what people may not know is that his employer, the IMF, designated to their employees a special tax allowance with a form that employees had to sign agreeing to pay their taxes upon accepting the said money. Geithner’s failure to pay his taxes was not an oversight. With all the hullaballoo about his tax problems, people may have missed the conversation that took place when Rep. Michele Bachmann R-Minn asked him if he would renounce China and Russia’s suggestion that the United States move away from the dollar and move to a global currency in which he replied yes. This exchange resulted in Rep. Michele Bachmann introducing “H.J. Res. 41, proposing an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to prohibit the president from entering into a treaty or other international agreement that would provide for the United States to adopt as legal tender a currency issued by any entity other than the United States.” It was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary the day it was introduced. Most often when proposed legislation is referred to committee it ends up dying there.

Secretary Janet Napolitano of the Department of Homeland Security released a report on what was described as rightwing extremist activity in the United States that reads like satire. Cap and Trade reflects another genre, science fiction. By implementing a market-based cap, “the government would mandate carbon dioxide emission permits – which are essentially permits to use energy – that companies would then be able to sell among themselves” The tax, which would be paid by “we the people” would raise $650 billion in revenue for the government. President Obama plans to move forward, creating a “carbon cartel, restricting the supply and raising the price of fossil energy and thereby creating windfalls for the lucky holders of emission credits.”

Former CIA chiefs Michael Hayden, Porter Goss, George Tenet and John Deutch all warned the Obama administration that the release of the “torture memos” would compromise intelligence operations. This is because our enemies will now know exactly what we’ll do to extract information and exactly how long they have to hold out. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand the ramifications for our security. What is it exactly, that constitutes torture by the United States? Water Boarding, Sleep Deprivation, Food Deprivation, Continuous Music, Lights on all the time, Confinement to small area / cell. This is not torture. Torture is what Islamic Extremist/Terrorists do to those who defy them. Should a person find themselves facing such a fate, they would be subjected to such methods as being stoned with small rocks slowly while buried up to the neck, having their hands and face cut off, having their face sliced with a razor, having their throats slit slowly, being gang raped or sodomized, being beat with hands, whips, sticks, wire, having their eyes gouged out with red hot rods, being hung by the neck, having their ears and face pounded with fists, having their bones broken with brass knuckles, being strangled and drowned, being burned alive, or being Beheaded. Detained terrorists should not be treated “as soldiers under international law, which specifically excludes them from such a designation since they are waging war illegally… treating them as quasi-American citizens for the purpose of applying constitutional-like due process standards in determining in their fate, flies in the face of legal and historical precedent.” (Liberty and Tyranny, Levin)

On February 17, 2009, President Obama signed into law a $787 billion economic stimulus package which included increased federal spending, aid to states, and tax reductions. To understand just how much money this really is, if you can imagine spending $10,000 every second, it would take 2.5 years to spend it all. The bill passed through the House of Representatives without a single Republican vote. Members of the House were not provided enough time to read the 407 page bill because it was argued that delaying its passage would be catastrophic for tens of thousands of Americans.

Mark Levin writes in Liberty and Tyranny why the stimulus plan will not work. “The reason…is a fundamental reality of governance: The government does not add value to the economy by imposing taxes on one citizen and providing cash to another…It borrows money that would otherwise be used by investors and redistributes it elsewhere.”

Senior Analyst in Tax Policy in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation Curtis Dubay writes, “Increased government spending does not increase economic growth in the near term because Congress cannot create purchasing power out of thin air. Before it can spend, it must first take money out of the economy through taxes or borrowing. No new spending power is created; it is merely redistributed from one group of people to another.”

Most outrageous of all, there is no Constitutional authority, “for Congress to spend money on education, family planning, housing, unemployment, food stamps, infrastructure projects, scientific research, or any of the host of other programs in the stimulus package.”

Rep Charles Rangel introduced tax on bonuses received from certain Troubled Assets Relief Program TARP recipients on March 18th, which was passed by the House and is awaiting action by the Senate. H.R. 1586 would impose a 90% tax on bonuses received by employees of certain companies that received funds from TARP. The tax would apply to any bonus given after December 31, 2008.

Congress, acting with haste, passed poorly written law without thinking through the consequences of their actions. In The Constitution of Liberty, F.A. Hayek writes that if individuals know the law, they can base their actions upon established rules and that true law provides the general rules. Legislative enactments which do not satisfy these criteria are objectionable. The law must be general, known and certain, and apply equally to all. A necessary condition for the law to be known and certain is a prohibition on ex post facto laws. The U.S. Constitution forbids Congress from passing an ex post facto law, i.e. a law passed after the occurrence of an event or action which retrospectively changes the legal consequences of the event or action.

Worse, this particular law singles out a specific group of people. A legislative act (Bill of Pains and Penalties) that singles out one or more persons and imposes punishment on them without benefit of trial was regarded as “odious” by the framers of the Constitution. It was the role of a court, judging an individual case, to impose punishment.

As President Obama ends his first 100 days in office, we are left with the images of his deep bow to Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah, his hearty handshake with Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelan “strongman” President and his silence upon Daniel Ortega, the former Sandinista Nicaraguan President’s diatribe about terroristic U.S. aggression , and the list goes on. The honeymoon is over. It is obvious that the man holding the highest office in the land is enacting a socialist agenda and will use any excuse to move his ideas forward. He has exhibited no real understanding or respect for the Constitution, the highest law of the land. Isn’t ironic that he deems himself a “Constitutional Scholar”?

Next up: Executive Orders

The question that needs to be answered definitively is what exactly is a “natural born citizen”? To understand this phrase, we need to look at the context in which it was written.

It is clear that the Framers included that phrase in the requirements for Commander in Chief because they wanted to ensure loyalty to the US Constitution and not give undue influence to any one country, group, or person.

“On March 25, 1800, [Charles] Pinckney made the only documented statement by one of the Founders connecting the Electoral College and the presidential eligibility clause. The Founders “knew well,” he said that to give to the members of Congress a right to give votes in this election, or to decide upon them when given, was to destroy the independence of the Executive, and make him the creature of the Legislature. This therefore they have guarded against, and to insure experience and attachment to the country, they have determined that no man who is not a natural born citizen, or citizen at the adoption of the Constitution, of fourteen years residence, and thirty-five years of age, shall be eligible…” – Yinger

Hamilton wrote, in Federalist Essay 68,

“Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention. They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment. And they have excluded from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the President in office. No senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States, can be of the numbers of the electors.”

St. George Tucker wrote in St. George Tucker’s Treatise on the Constitution (1803),

“That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, whereever it is capable of being exerted, is to be dreaded more than the plague. The admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against; their total exclusion from a station to which foreign nations have been accustomed to, attach ideas of sovereign power, sacredness of character, and hereditary right, is a measure of the most consummate policy and wisdom. It was by means of foreign connections that the stadtholder of Holland, whose powers at first were probably not equal to those of a president of the United States, became a sovereign hereditary prince before the late revolution in that country. Nor is it with levity that I remark, that the very title of our first magistrate, in some measure exempts us from the danger of those calamities by which European nations are almost perpetually visited. The title of king, prince, emperor, or czar, without the smallest addition to his powers, would have rendered him a member of the fraternity of crowned heads: their common cause has more than once threatened the desolation of Europe. To have added a member to this sacred family in America, would have invited and perpetuated among us all the evils of Pandora’s Box.” – Blackstone’s Commentaries

George Washington, our 1st President, warned,

“Passionate attachment of one nation for another, produces a variety of evils…Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest, in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter, without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation, of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained; and by exciting jealousy, ill- will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld.

And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens, (who devote themselves to the favorite nation,) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearance of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.” – Washington’s Farewell

Fourteenth Amendment (1868)
The Fourteenth Amendment established that US citizenship is the primary citizenship in this country, and that state citizenship depends upon citizenship of the United States and the citizen’s place of residence. The States have no power to restrict their citizenship to any classes or persons.

The Fourteenth Amendment established a written national rule declaring, “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.”

The author of the citizenship clause, Senator Jacob M. Howard (MI) described the clause as excluding not only Indians but “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.”Full and complete jurisdiction precludes citizenship to any person who was beholden to any sovereignty other than a U.S. state or the federal government.

The author behind the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, Rep. John A. Bihgham (OH) referenced Section 1992 of the Revised Statutes.

“Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

Therefore, the status of “natural born citizen” would seem to be conditional upon being born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and not being born with more than one allegiance if understood within the context of the time when it was written. This would seem to prevent us from interpreting natural-born citizen under common law rules because it eliminates the possibility of a child being born with more than one allegiance. However, the courts set the precedent that under the common law rule of jus soli -the law of the soil- persons born in the United States generally acquired U.S. citizenship at birth. P.A. Madison

United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)
In delivering the opinion of the Supreme Court for United States v. Wong Kim Ark, when determining “whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution,” Justice Gray stated,

“In construing any act of legislation…regard is to be had not only to all parts of the act itself, and of any former act of the same lawmaking power of which the act in question is an amendment, but also to the condition and to the history of the law as previously existing, and in the light of which the new act must be read and interpreted.”

Because the Constitution does not define “natural born citizen” it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution.”

To defend his argument, Justice Gray cited several cases which established precedent for the court’s decision, “The question must be answered in the affirmative.”

United States v. Rhodes (1866)
Mr. Justice Swayne, said, “Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.”

“The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called “ligealty,” “obedience,” “faith,” or “power” of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King’s allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual — as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem — and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King’s dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King.”

Minor v. Happersett (1875)
Chief Justice Waite’s court opinion included a definition of natural-born citizens based on the common-law at the time of the US Constitution’s passage and subsequent legislation. His opinion diverges slightly from Justice Swayne’s.

“At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”

Dissenting Opinion in U.S.v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)
Chief Justice Fuller objected to the idea that the only thing “natural born” ever meant in the first place was that the individual in question was born on U.S. soil:

“[I]t is unreasonable to conclude that ‘natural born citizen’ applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances; and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay, or other race, were eligible to the presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.”

E. de Vattel’s Law of Nations (1758)
“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 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 a 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.”

At issue, then, is whether or not a parent must be a citizen in allegiance to the U.S. Constitution in order for a person born under the jurisdiction of the United States to be considered a “natural born citizen”.

The definition of “natural born citizen” as it currently stands takes the following into consideration.

State Dept. Foreign Affairs Manual
â–ª U.S. laws governing the acquisition of citizenship at birth embody two legal principles:

1. Jus soli (the law of the soil), a rule of common law under which the place of a person’s birth determines citizenship. In addition to common law, this principle is embodied in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the various U.S. citizenship and nationality statutes.

2. Jus sanguinis (the law of the bloodline ), a concept of Roman or civil law under which a person’s citizenship is determined by the citizenship of one or both parents. This rule, frequently called “citizenship by descent” or “derivative citizenship”, is not embodied in the U.S. Constitution, but such citizenship is granted through statute. As laws have changed, the requirements for conferring and retaining derivative citizenship have also changed.

Title 8, Section 1401, of the U.S. Code provides the current definition for a natural-born citizen.

â–ª Anyone born inside the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, which exempts the child of a diplomat from this provision

â–ª Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person’s status as a citizen of the tribe

â–ª Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.

â–ª Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national

â–ª Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year

â–ª Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21

â–ª Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)

Separate sections confer citizenship on persons living in US territories as of a certain date, and usually confer natural-born status on persons born in those territories after that date. Concerning the Panama Canal Zone and the nation of Panama, the law states that anyone born in the Canal Zone or in Panama itself, on or after February 26, 1904, to a mother and/or father who is a United States citizen, was “declared” to be a United States citizen. The terms “natural-born” or “citizen at birth” are missing from this section.

When Arizona Senator John McCain ran for president, some theorized that because McCain was born in the Canal Zone, he was not actually qualified to be president. However, it can be argued that section 1403 applied to a small group of people to whom section 1401 did not apply. McCain is a natural-born citizen under 8 USC 1401(c): “a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person.” Not everyone agrees that this section includes McCain – but absent a court ruling either way, the 2008 a resolution sponsored by Sen. Claire McCaskill and co-sponsored by Sen. Hillary Clinton, Sen. Thomas Coburn, Sen. Patrick Leahy , Sen. Barack Obama, and Sen. Jim Webb recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen and which was introduced and passed Senate without amendment stands. This resolution stated that John Sidney McCain, III, is a “natural born Citizen” under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States (Michigan Law Review).

Although President Obama has a Kenyan father, and was later adopted by an Indonesian National, the fact that his mother was a citizen should legitimize his being born a U.S. citizen. It is unlikely his birth certificate would indicate that he is born of some other lineage, however his birth certificate is sealed and the public does not have access to his records.

What is equally relevant to his current legitimacy as president is whether his citizenship was renounced when he moved to Indonesia with his mother and adopted father and attended a Muslim school.

In 2004, A bill (S.2128) to define the term “natural born Citizen” as used in the Constitution of the United States to establish eligibility for the Office of President was introduced by Sen. Don Nickles and was cosponsored by Sen. James Inhofe and Sen. Mary Landrieu. The bill never became law.

There is a need to have an acceptable definition of natural-born citizen that cannot be politicized. The definition must be ensconced in the Constitution. Whether common law ideas or Vattel’s ideas prevail, we need to define what is to be acceptable in our Commander in Chief. Furthermore, evidence of birth in allegiance to the United States must be required of all candidates for president of the United States. All of the arguments made by the Framers regarding foreign influence must be taken into consideration because they knew then as we know now; the sovereignty of our great nation is at risk.

Sources:

Yinger

http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/jyinger/Citizenship/myths.htm

Blackstone’s Commentaries

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a2_1_1s18.html

Washington

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Elbel

http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc1703/It_s_Time_to_Revisit_the_14th_Amendment.shtml

P.A. Madison

http://federalistblog.us/2006/12/us_v_wong_kim_ark_can_never_be_considered.html

GRAY, J., Opinion of the Court : SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
United States v. Wong Kim Ark

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html

P.A. Madison

http://federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined.html

WAITE, C.J., Opinion of the Court: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Minor v. Happersett

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html

Fuller

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZD.html

Vattel

http://www.thebirthers.org/USC/Vattel.html

ACQUISITION OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP BY BIRTH IN THE UNITED STATES

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86755.pdf

US Code

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1401.html

McCain’s Citizenship and Constitutional Method

http://www.michiganlawreview.org/firstimpressions/vol107/spiro.htm

Why Senator John McCain Cannot be President: Eleven Months and a Hundred Yards Short of Citizenship

http://www.michiganlawreview.org/firstimpressions/vol107/chin.htm

The Origins and Interpretation of the Presidential Eligibility Clause in the U.S. Constitution: Why Did the Founding Fathers Want the President To Be a “Natural Born Citizen” and What Does this Clause Mean for Foreign-Born Adoptees?

http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/jyinger/Citizenship/history.htm

The Revised Statutes

http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/expatriation-RS1999-1868.pdf

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.”

Sadly, in today’s day and age, those elected to our legislature do not have to understand the law to represent their electors. Consequently, this Congress has proven to be the most constitutionally illiterate group of people ever elected to office.

To begin, one of the most difficult things to do is to enact a bill into law. The system of checks and balances was designed by the Founders and Framers to slow things down. They wanted creating and debating legislation to be a cumbersome process. Hamilton appealed to the people of New York,

“The legislature will not be infallible; …the love of power may sometimes betray it into a disposition to encroach upon the rights of other members of the government; that a spirit of faction may sometimes pervert its deliberations; that impressions of the moment may sometimes hurry it into measures which itself, on maturer reflexion, would condemn. The primary inducement to conferring the [veto] power in question upon the Executive is, to enable him to defend himself; the secondary one is to increase the chances in favor of the community against the passing of bad laws, through haste, inadvertence, or design. The oftener the measure is brought under examination, the greater the diversity in the situations of those who are to examine it, the less must be the danger of those errors which flow from want of due deliberation, or of those missteps which proceed from the contagion of some common passion or interest. It is far less probable, that culpable views of any kind should infect all the parts of the government at the same moment and in relation to the same object, than that they should by turns govern and mislead every one of them.

“It may perhaps be said that the power of preventing bad laws includes that of preventing good ones; and may be used to the one purpose as well as to the other. But this objection will have little weight with those who can properly estimate the mischiefs of that inconstancy and mutability in the laws, which form the greatest blemish in the character and genius of our governments. They will consider every institution calculated to restrain the excess of law-making, and to keep things in the same state in which they happen to be at any given period, as much more likely to do good than harm; because it is favorable to greater stability in the system of legislation. The injury which may possibly be done by defeating a few good laws, will be amply compensated by the advantage of preventing a number of bad ones.” – Federalist Paper #73

Yet, despite such an admonition -which holds as true today as it did when the U.S. Constitution was written- President Obama advised our country that if we do not act immediately to pass the stimulus bill, “Our nation will sink deeper into a crisis, that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse.” Rep Nancy Pelosi, a progressive leftist from CA, is quoted on Jan 8, 2009 as saying, “We must have a bill signed into law by the middle of February. Our economy requires it. The American people need it desperately.”

The $787 billion Stimulus Bill, passed quickly, before members of Congress had time to even read the entire text of the legislation, allowed some of the beneficiaries to hand out bonuses to their top executives. In reaction to the fury of the constituents, Congress set about enacting more hastily drawn up legislation to punish the beneficiaries of such bonuses.

“The Senate plans to vote next week on steep levies on employee bonuses after the House overwhelmingly approved a 90 percent tax on bonuses at American International Group Inc. and other companies receiving bailout funds.” – Bloomberg.com

Herein lays the problem. Congress, in acting with haste, is passing poorly written law without thinking through the consequences of their actions. In The Constitution of Liberty, F. A. Hayek writes that if individuals know the law, they can base their actions upon established rules and that true law provides the general rules. Legislative enactments which do not satisfy these criteria are objectionable. The law must be general, known and certain, and apply equally to all. A necessary condition for the law to be known and certain is a prohibition on ex post facto laws. The Cato Journal The U.S. Constitution forbids Congress from passing an ex post facto law, i.e. a law passed after the occurrence of an event or action which retrospectively changes the legal consequences of the event or action.

Worse, this particular law singles out a specific group of people. A legislative act (Bill of Pains and Penalties) that singles out one or more persons and imposes punishment on them without benefit of trial was regarded as “odious” by the framers of the Constitution. It was the role of a court, judging an individual case, to impose punishment.

Now, the House, the Senate and the Treasury Department are blaming each other for allowing this loophole. As “We the People” witness the unfolding saga of the bonuses, stimulus money is being put to use in programs long championed by the liberal elements of Congress and which have nothing to do with directly stimulating the economy. Congress is confiscating and redistributing our hard earned money as we watch stunned and amazed at what has transpired in President Obama’s first 59 days of office. It is our civic responsibility to put an end to this nonsense. We have 592 days until the 2010 midterm elections.

When will you add your elected officials’ telephone numbers to your speed dial list?

I used to enjoy reading James Taranto. I used to appreciate his sarcasm and wit. Not so much anymore.

Taranto writes,

“You might have heard of Hawaii, a southern North Pacific archipelago that almost half a century ago became America’s 50th state. It’s known for pineapples, palm trees and tropical weather, and while it’s said to be a lovely place to visit, hardly anyone goes there because it’s so expensive and far away–over 10 hours by plane from New York, and getting there by car literally takes forever.

It’s also the birthplace of President Obama, which has led to some confusion, with various conspiracy nuts, unaware of Hawaii’s statehood, insisting that he’s not a natural-born citizen. But for those who are in the know, Obama’s Hawaiian origins have been very helpful to the state:

Now with the administration of President Obama, who spent part of his childhood in Hawaii, there is a renewed interest for tourists to visit, travel experts say. Obama never ceases to amaze us. If we had told you just a few years ago that Hawaii would one day become a tourist attraction, would you have believed us in a million years?”

I’m starting to find it incredibly annoying that Taranto refers to himself as “us”. Worse, it’s his attitude that he knows more than the rest of “us” and that those of “us” who want to see our 44th President produce a legitimate birth certificate are right wing nuts. Admittedly, I’ve found myself accused of being a right wing nut in the “blogs” but anyone who reads me regularly would be hard pressed to find my work to be anything but “researched opinion.” Furthermore, I usually rely on respected sources, not blogs, so I never gave the accusation more than a passing thought.

According to Title 8 of the U.S. Code, “citizens of the United States at birth” include:

â–ª Anyone born inside the United States, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States

â–ª Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.

â–ª Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national

â–ª Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year

â–ª Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)

This is not an exhaustive list of the variety of ways one may fit into the category of natural born citizen, but one may conclude that there is every opportunity to ensure that if a child could remotely be considered as somehow affiliated with this country despite circumstances at birth, the child will be given that opportunity. The law was obviously written so as not to deny anyone what might be considered a natural birthright.

What perturbs the rest of “us” is that President Obama has failed to produce a legitimate birth certificate. He has a team of lawyers who are opposing the examination of his sealed records in Hawaii. What he produced was a certificate of live birth (which some believe to be altered) not a birth certificate. The rest of “us” are appalled at the lack of media examination surrounding the fact that there is no law requiring that a candidate for the highest office in our land produce an authentic birth certificate which proves natural citizenship.

Anyone who is concerned about this issue and wants to pass legislation requiring that future candidates for the office of President be required to prove their US citizenship, need only go to www.newsonsofliberty.us and be part of the solution. Jibes such as Taranto’s should not pass as journalism and should not warrant “our” attention. But sometimes “we” must stand up for what is right.