The very idea of “a law” that had merit and meaning beyond the mere wishes of those in power was one of the great gifts of Israel, embodied in the Old Testament. It was a new idea, never before practiced in human history.
The very idea that such a law could be embodied in a Constitution, and that every individual citizen in a Republic could be equal before the law was also a new invention in human history, first practiced in the United States of America.
Now as to the correct definition of a “natural born Citizen,” here it is: A “natural born Citizen” is a child born in a country to parents who are its “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth. This is the settled definition of the clause under American national common law.
The Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers required that future Presidents and Commanders in Chief of the Military be “natural born Citizens.” They required this because they wanted to protect these unique and singular and all-powerful civil and military offices from monarchical and foreign influence. For the sake of the safety of those offices and the national security of the nation, they wanted to make sure that all future Presidents and Commanders be born with sole allegiance, faith, and loyalty to the United States. Barack Obama (maybe born in Hawaii, but born to a U.S. "citizen" mother and a non-U.S. “citizen” father), Ted Cruz (born in Canada to a U.S. “citizen” mother and a non-U.S. “citizen” father), Marco Rubio (born in Florida to two non-U.S. “citizen” parents), Bobby Jindal (born in Louisiana to two non-U.S. “citizen” parents), and Nikki Haley (born in South Carolina to two non-U.S. “citizen” parents) were not born in the country (BIC) to citizen parents (BCPs). Because they acquired foreign allegiance from either being born to one or two alien parents (all of them) or from being born in a foreign nation (Cruz and maybe also Obama), none of them were born with sole allegiance, faith, and loyalty to the United States. Under all of the above logical statements, none of these individuals are “natural born Citizens.”
The inescapable conclusion is that since Obama, Cruz, Rubio, Jindal, and Haley are neither “natural born Citizens” nor “Citizens of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution,” they are not eligible to be President.
Who should pay for your health care? For your education? For your retirement?Richard W. Rahn is chairman of the Institute for Global Economic Growth and Improbable Success Productions.
“Socialism,” we are told by the pollsters, is gaining in popularity at least the romanticized versions of it. It would be a world without poverty where people have everything they need, and all are equal.
The fact that such a system has never existed anywhere ever is attributed to either bad motives or incompetence of those who were supposed to bring it about. Sweden and many other democratic countries who flirted with it for a short period of time all backed away as they quickly recognized its failings.
Advocates for socialism have a problem naming the specific person who is supposed to pay their medical, school, and food and shelter bills. They often say the “rich” — as if there were millions of random rich people floating around just waiting to have their wealth plucked by some student or snowflake.
As an experiment, the next time you are in a “group” or classroom of people, and someone in the group is promoting socialism, ask them to assume that the “group” or class is the full population, and from that group ask the socialist to identify the specific person by name who they think should pay their medical bills. The named person is almost certain to be unhappy with the idea.
As children, most of us lived under socialism — that is, our parents paid the bills and provided for us. But good parents let their children know that this arrangement does not go on forever, and at some age both daughters and sons are told that they are supposed to get off the sofa in front of the TV, get a job and provide for themselves.
Jeff Bezos is the world’s richest man (at least until his divorce is finalized), and some claim that he is not a particularly nice person — but that is not illegal. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and many other well-known Democrats want to make Mr. Bezos their slave — despite the fact that he supports them with his Washington Post.
Now they don’t want to make him a 100 percent slave because they know that “would be wrong,” as well as unconstitutional — so, according to Miss Ocasio-Cortez, a mere 70 percent slave will do (the income tax rate proposed by Miss Ocasio-Cortez and others).
When socialists are interviewed by members of the press, they are prone to say things like “every American deserves free health care.” In fact, Mayor Bill de Blasio of New York has said that even illegal immigrants deserve free health care.
Somewhere, I have missed the explanation of why some deserve free health care to be paid by hard-working taxpayers under the threat of asset seizures and prison time.
If we are all equal, as the socialists tell us, why are some involuntary slaves to others, at least part time? Fortunately, I don’t have to figure this out because, back in 1945, the English author George Orwell did it for me and everyone else in his classic book “Animal Farm.”
The American Founding Fathers, who had a good grasp of history, understood the dangers of unrestrained democracy — yet now there is the general view that everyone should vote, no matter how uninformed they may be about history, the issues of the time and even the names of the candidates and their positions on the issues.
The socialists sell “free stuff” — in reality, the theft of labor from others, which has great appeal to the uninformed and the lazy.
Restrictions on who was allowed to vote, based on property ownership or even literacy, were over time viewed as unfair and eventually abolished, leading to the current crop of elected officials — no more needs to be said.
My fantasy solution is that before being allowed to register to vote, potential voters must present evidence that they have read the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, and are able to understand the English language.
They also should give evidence of having an understanding of the themes of “Animal Farm” and F.A. Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom (1944).” For those who have not learned to read in English, listening to the documents and books on tape versions will suffice.
And for those who can neither read nor understand spoken English, they should not vote in U.S. elections until they learn the fundamentals of the language.
This fantasy proposal is not a panacea for all that ails the political system, but it would reduce the number of uninformed and lazy voters — yet, not discriminate against anyone who truly wishes to spend the time to prepare to vote.
And for those who say this fantasy proposal is too much of a burden — somewhere between 100 million and 200 million people were killed by their own socialist governments during the 20th century.
That is the real burden of what the ignorance of socialism has wrought.
| |||
|
By the 1770s, the generation of Colonial leaders who fought the American Revolution and passed and ratified the Constitution embraced the concepts of popular sovereignty, individual free choice, and need for covenantal agreements–expressed in writing and clearly understood by all to either accept or reject–that Roger Williams and John Lilburne had first advanced more than a century before as natural continuations of their Christian faith to the civil realm.READ MORE
"I would expect this decision to result in another stay, if not from the 9th Circuit, then from the Supreme Court.READ MORE
There is a constitutional crisis in progress, one in which the Judiciary wrestles policy decisions away from the Executive Branch. Elections matter on policy decisions, unless that election is won by Donald Trump.
Seven years before Barack Obama’s “spread the wealth” comment to Joe the Plumber became a GOP campaign theme, the Democratic presidential candidate said in a radio interview the U.S. has suffered from a fundamentally flawed Constitution that does not mandate or allow for redistribution of wealth.President Obama's Top 10 Constitutional Violations Of 2013
In a newly unearthed tape, Obama is heard telling Chicago’s public station WBEZ-FM in 2001 that “redistributive change” is needed, pointing to what he regarded as a failure of the U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren in its rulings on civil rights issues in the 1960s.
The Warren court, he said, failed to “break free from the essential constraints” in the U.S. Constitution and launch a major redistribution of wealth. But Obama, then an Illinois state lawmaker, said the legislative branch of government, rather than the courts, probably was the ideal avenue for accomplishing that goal.
OBAMA RIPS U.S. CONSTITUTION!
The left is quite explicit: Borders are fascist and racist, and thus the organizing principle of the world for the last four centuries - the nation state - is an illegitimate concept. The globalist establishment is not that upfront about it: they're more of the view, publicly, that the nation state is an obsolescent and increasingly irrelevant concept. This is, in fact, "burning the Constitution", and even the very concept of constitutions, and of the Peace of Westphalia - for the two most fundamental aspects of any state are borders and citizenship. If there are no borders, there are no citizens, only competing tribes of identity politics - like Dreamers. And, if , as his name surely suggests, a Dreamer trumps a citizen, and if anyone on the planet is a potential American, then American citizenship is objectively worthless.READ MORE
Words matter. Which is why seeing too many of the conservative commentariat meekly swallow the open-borders crowd's framing of the issue is so dispiriting. In this case, the Dream is a nightmare - of the end of nations, and of ordered societies.
The rise of progressivism and the growth of the administrative state go hand in hand. Administrative power is an anti-democratic and illiberal means by which intellectual elites and political professionals have transferred legislative and judicial power to bureaucrats insulated from democratic accountability.
From the conservative point of view, the Fourth Circuit’s blocking of Trump’s executive order illustrates the typical progressive attitude that formalities of law and constitutional government must yield to policies that advance progressive ends. The relentless growth of the regulatory and welfare state, according to the conservative critique, stems from progressives’ putting their partisan preferences ahead of the Constitution’s clear and explicit commands.READ MORE
Legal scholar Philip Hamburger believes the conservative critique is nearer to the mark, even as it underestimates the invidious legal mechanisms by which the federal government regulates Americans’ lives and redistributes their wealth. In “The Administrative Threat,” a brisk pamphlet published by Encounter Books, he distills the central argument of his daunting 2014 scholarly work, “Is Administrative Law Unlawful?” His chief contention is that “administrative power evades governance through law and thereby circumvents constitutional process and procedural rights.” A professor at Columbia University Law School and perhaps the nation’s premier historian of the American constitutional tradition, Hamburger comes to the drastic conclusion that we should “reject all administrative power” and “consider it the civil liberties issue of our time.”
Alias Barack Obama: a lie is born: The greatest identity fraud in history Paperback – July 10, 2012
