Sunday, November 29, 2009

The Audacity of Some

Now comes Barrack H. Obama President of the United States of America and Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces. Does anyone see the audacity of this? Does anyone expect the United States Congress to represent “We the People”, and not their self-interests? Does anyone expect the Supreme Court of the United States of America to uphold and protect the United States Constitution? Does anyone expect the Chief Justice of the United States of America to uphold and protect the United States Constitution?

At this point the answer is NO! Since the nominating committees of all the parties who had candidates in the 2008 elections proclaimed their candidates for president there have been questions about eligibility of some of the candidates. In particular both major parties Democrat and Republican.

John McCain was the first; John was born in 1936 in Panama while his father was assigned to a United States Naval Base in that country. While McCain’s father was on assignment to that country John McCain was born. We will leave it there for now.

Barrack Obama was never questioned about his eligibility; we do not know where he was actually born. His records are sealed by his hand. Obama claims to have been born in 1961 in Hawaii. Hawaii had joined the confederation of the United States of America in 1959. However, until Obama produces his long form hospital birth certificate We the People will never know the truth. We will leave it there for now.

Our country, the United States of American, was born over 233 years ago as a Constitutional Republic; which means we are a nation of laws. This means the United States Constitution is the primary, or basic, law of the United States of America from which all other laws of the nation are derived.

That in mind, we can look to our Constitution for guiding principles that were set in place to protect We The People and our Constitutional Republic. First it established three important, but separate, branches of government; in so doing the founding fathers set in place a means for checks and balances on the three branches. It was the founding fathers’ intention that no one branch of government would be able to control the entire government with not accountability to We The People.

The Executive Branch of Government is the branch charged with carrying out the nations business as dictated by congress through their enacted legislation once signed into law by the President of the United States who has veto power over the legislation, therefore a check against congress. If the President vetoes the legislation then is does not become law, and is returned to the House of Representatives for further consideration. Once the vetoed legislation is returned to the House of Representatives they have two options; 1) rewrite the legislation, and go through the approval of process of both houses of congress; or 2) override the president’s veto by a vote of ¾ of the sitting House of Representatives; in which cases it becomes law over the president’s veto. This ensures that the President cannot arbitrarily veto the law when it is in the best interest of the nation and its people and congress is in concurrence.

The Legislative Branch of Government is the representative branch elected by We The People of the various states, and charged with the responsibilities given them by the Constitution, and no other; so in that regard the congressional houses of congress legislate the laws of the United States of America based on the authority given to it by our constitution. The congress is comprised of a House of Representatives and a Senate. Each state is allowed two Senators without regard to it’s population; the House of Representatives however, is allowed representatives based on the population of the various states, therefore the more populace states may have many seats while the less populace states may have only one seat which is mandated by our constitution for those states with very limited population such as North Dakota for example which has one representative.

The Judicial Branch of Government is charged with the responsibility of uphold in the laws of our constitution, and the laws enacted by congress so We The People are protected, and able to live our lives in accordance with the laws so enacted. In that duty the Supreme Court of the United States of American and The Chief Justice of the United States of American are responsible to us, We The People, to ensure the laws enacted by congress and signed into law by the president are in accordance with the Constitution of the United States of America. The Chief Justice and the Supreme Court do not make law only enforce the laws on the books, and contained in our Constitution. They review laws of congress to make certain that they are constitutional before enactment.

Now let’s look at our constitution; while we could spend hours going through each article of our constitution; remember, for those of us who were able to study our constitution, both in high school and college, it took up most of a semester. For now we will concentrate on Article II for purpose of this writing.

I have insert Article II below for reference as I take up the issue of this writing.

When John McCain and Barrack Obama were nominated to run for President of the United States of America the nominating conventions and the delegates thereto did not vet either of these candidates for the Office of President, and why do I say that? Either of these candidates were, in my opinion eligible to seek the office, because neither of them could meet the qualifications set out in Article II Section I Paragraph 5 of our constitution which requires they be Natural Born Citizens, and not just citizens of the United States.

John McCain was born in Panama to a mother and father who were US citizens; therefore he was a citizen of the United States by birth; however, he was born on foreign soil, and therefore was not a Natural Born Citizen. We know this for sure because he produced his long form birth certificate as proof.

Barrack Obama on the other hand was born in Hawaii, maybe, to a mother who was a US citizen under the age of 18 years, this will be important later, and a father who was from Kenya, a British Crown Colony of Africa. Since his father was a foreigner, living Hawaii while attending college there, he could only convey the citizenship to which he was subject, that of a Subject of the British Crown and later Kenya. Begin a Subject of the British Crown, once attained, is for life unless renounced. Being a Kenyan citizen at birth only lasts until the age of majority at which time that citizenship lapses unless formally reaffirmed by the individual.

So if we look at the dictates of Article II Section I Paragraph 5 we now need to determine what did the founding father mean when the inserted Natural Born Citizen when they wrote it into our constitution. We also must remember that the only way to change our constitution is through amendment thereto which needs to be ratified by 2/3 of the various states to become law’ a length and laborious process.

To do this we need for read the many letters, articles and documents called the Federalist Papers written by our founding fathers to provide the answer to this question.

One first needs to put themselves in the time period of the founding fathers, reflect on where they had been and where they were trying to go. The new nation had just fought a bitter and costly war of independence with the British Crown, to throw of the yoke of oppression, which they had suffered under for many years. This was a Monarchy administered by the single hand of the King of England with no meaningful representation of the Colonies. Therefore, the founding fathers did not want to repeat the past and looked beyond England for the answers to form a new government. Almost to a man, the founding fathers were intellectually astute, most spoke several languages, had served in some capacity aboard representing the Colonies prior to the revolution, and very religious, with exceptions. Franklin, having served in France was familiar with a book written by Vattel call the Law of Nations. Vattel was a philosopher, a legal scholar and lived in Switzerland. Being familiar with the works of Vattel Franklin wrote to a friend in France and asked for three copies of Vattel’s writings to help frame our new constitution. This is documented in his letters and the Federalist Papers and therefore of knowledge. Franklin, upon receiving these books kept one for him and left two for the founding fathers to use as their reference. John Jay the first Justice of the Supreme Court and legal source for the founding fathers also used Vattel’s works extensively. When we look at Vattel’s influence on the founding fathers in their deliberations we can understand why the setup our Constitutional Republic, and not a Democracy, or some other form of government; the founding fathers wanted a form of government that could survive, not last a few years and them become something else at the whim of a few.

So if we look at Vattel’s works and see his definition of citizen and natural born citizen we can see what the founding fathers intended without explanation in Article II Section I Paragraph 5.

Read carefully the following:

E. Vattel stated in 1758, as translated into English in 1797:

"The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see, whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."

E. Vattel, The Law of Nations, Sec. 212 Citizens and natives. In Footnote 1 at the end of Sec. 212, Vattel stated that “as a general rule” the child inherits his father’s citizenship, or his mother’s but only if she isn’t married.

After reading this, and carefully reflecting on the intent of this writing, one can reasonably come to the conclusion that a Natural Born Citizen is one born of mothers and fathers who are already US citizens and in the country of their citizenship.

Some would have you believe otherwise, that all that is required is US Citizenship. They are wrong.

The founding fathers, if you read Article II Section I Paragraph 5 carefully, did, when drafting our constitution, exempt themselves from this requirement because most at that time they could not meet the requirements as most were either born abroad of parents not citizens of the new country, or had been born in the country of non citizens parents, and therefore would not be eligible to serve as president. You will also notice they restricted the waiver to those present in the country at the adoption and ratification of our constitution, and not beyond that time period. The founding fathers wanted citizenship purity of anyone to serve as President and Commander in Chief to ensure no outside influence on that office and its duties to the nation. This again is well established in their writings and documents.

Now lets go back and look at McCain and Obama, and their run for the office.

McCain was born abroad, Panama, and even though born of two citizen parents was born abroad, and even though his parents were US citizens he was born on Panamanian soil and not sovereign US soil; therefore not eligible for the office of president. One could argue that if he had been born at the United States Embassy in Panama that he would have been a Natural Born Citizens since embassy property is sovereign US soil. However, if born on a United States Military Base in Panama, the base is not sovereign soil, but merely leased ground, and therefore still Panamanian soil. The United States Senate in their resolution declared McCain a Natural Born Citizen, and therefore eligible to run for president erred; first because the senate violated our constitution since the constitution does not give them that authority; second they were in effect legislating that which they are not empowered to legislate.

Now Obama, even though the Senate took it upon themselves to weigh in on McCain’s eligibility they completely ignored Obama. Why, only history will answer that question.

When we look at Obama’s eligibility I see vast gaps in his claim of citizenship, because number one he, by his own admission in his book and speeches, acknowledges he is a dual citizen because of his father. Second, there is much controversy about his Hawaiian birth; yet to be conclusively proved. Given these two facts, why was he declared eligible to run for the Office of President of the United States of America without conclusive proof of his eligibility? The answer, I believe, is the complicity of those who wanted anyone, regardless of eligibility, who could win over We The People and wanted change at any cost because of philosophical and political differences. The old axiom is “be careful of what you wish for you may end up fulfilling your wish but not like it”.

Barrack Obama, in my opinion, is not constitutionally eligible to be President of The United States of America simply because he is a dual citizen at best, if in fact he was born in Hawaii; and further not eligible because he cannot meet the requirements of Article II Section I Paragraph 5 thereof.

We have not even delved into his other issues, a possible Kenyan birth, an apparent adoption and his citizenship of Indonesia, his falsification of records (Illinois Bar License Application, Selective Service Records, Passport, College Records} none of which are available for public review since he has ensured to this date they are completely sealed, having spent over one million dollars to keep them from the light of day. Executive Privilege does not even factor into this secrecy since his personal records are not a matter of national security and were created long before he ever ran or was elected to the office. A reasonable person would believe Obama has much to hide; and absolutely nothing to gain by releasing the records, which would clear up this matter and establish his legitimacy for the office.

Who lose if he is declare ineligible for the office, for starters all of those in his cabinet, all of those on his white house staff; and all those behind his nomination and election who wanted our government changed.

We the People are currently the losers in this, since those who voted for an ineligible person to be president were either duped or blinded by the lack of facts. We have all been asleep for too long. We are waking now and as we wake a new dawning is coming starting in 2010 when the mid term elections are held. When you go to the polls remember the ones now sitting in congress, both houses, are complicit in the cover up of Obama’s eligibility, regardless of their reasons. They knew it and did nothing about it out of fear. They took the oath of office, and swore to protect and defend the constitution and immediately thereafter abdicated that oath for their own self-interests not the interested of the nation and We The People. It’s time to vote them out of office starting in 2010.

For reference: Blue for emphasis!

Article II

Section 1.

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representatives from each State having one Vote; a quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.

The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.

The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be encreased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--''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.''

Section 2.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Section 3.

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information on the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

Section 4.

The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Sunday, September 27, 2009

Dumbing Down the Constitution the United States of America

Dumbing Down the Constitution the United States of America

As I start this article, I am overwhelmed by the magnitude of what has happened to our Constitutional Republic over the last eighty years. In that regard where do I start?

Let’s start in 1928; FDR was elected Governor of New York, after several government jobs, including Secretary of the Navy under Wilson. Then in 1932 Roosevelt was nominated and elected as President of the United States of America. Times were tough, the stock market had collapsed, people were in the streets, out of work, and out of money, and desperate for job or help. The churches and synagogues were unable, as in the past, to meet the needs of those hungry and out of work. Then enter the New Deal Program, Roosevelt’s first of many social(istic) programs. This is not to say this was wrong, it was needed at the time, since the states had already abdicated their responsibilities to their citizens to our federal government. Usher in the Social Democratic rule of man in the United States; our founding fathers are still turning over in their graves today.

Had Roosevelt had the New Deal Program enacted, and voted into law with a sunset provision which would have been triggered by some mechanism, i.e. a full employment benchmark of 6% or less unemployment, or a GDP of X, etc. it would have made sense in a Constitutional Republic, a nation of laws, with small d democratic principles. This did not happen; and therefore was the mechanism of the New Deal Program which the was replaced by other welfare program; which progressively became more expansive over the ensuing years since 1932. The Constitution and 10th Amendment does not give Congress the authority to create, and perpetuate a Welfare State.

Many believe Roosevelt was a genius, and pulled our nation out the deep depression; this is mistaken thinking. This nation went to war (WW II) under Roosevelt, it was that war, the massive need for weapons, armor, planes, ammunition, food supplies, logistics, etc. that began the expansion and resurrection of the industrial industries in the United States. Yes it was federal dollars, bond dollars, etc. that paid the price to industry for the necessary expansion, employment, and the means to do this, but one also needs to remember the government, although supporting capitalism, controlled prices, commodities, and the industries until the end of the war effort.

Now back to my main thought when did the Constitutional Republic of the United States start it’s Dumbing down in earnest?

Following WW II the nation need a transition from the war effort, Roosevelt had died, Truman was president, the transition was short lived because of Korea; our next war, excuse me Military Police Action, as mandated by the United Nations, they could not call it a war, even though men and women were dying in support of South Korea against North Korea’s attempt to expand its influence over South Korea. Our congress could not bring themselves to sanction a war, therefore Truman declare it a Military Police Action since he could not get approval for a declaration of war out of congress..

Liberalizing the conservative world through the world organization, the UN.

Truman, in my opinion, was not a socialist liberal, as socialists go; he was a farmer from Missouri, he had actually made a living by working and running his own farm business, and practicing law, therefore he understood the need to allow business to operate with limited government influence. However, congress did not agree, and Truman was not elected to a second term; but then he should have not been able to run again for the presidency since he could not have three terms under Article III of our constitution, having served out Roosevelt’s 4th term, and one of his own; which made two terms. Roosevelt was allowed by the United States Supreme Court and the United States Congress to serve more than two terms, in violation of the constitution; because of the war effort underway at the time. Another article for another day, about usurping the constitution, and not living up to the oath of office by all involved.

Enter Eisenhower, Ike was a good guy, filled a need, but was basically do nothing president, played golf, was a historic General of the Army, who had successfully waged war in Europe, who sat as a placeholder while the Republicans and Democrats where deciding the next course of action for the United States’ next President and Commander in Chief.

During Ike’s time in office the liberals were further establishing themselves in the halls of congress, the state legislatures and state capitals, while kissing the behind of the newly formed UN in the name of global security, which was a farce, and did not mean much to the average hard working US citizen at the time. It was the next step in the evolution of what has happened to date.

Keep this in mind, while reading further, The New World Order (now renamed Globalization) that you will hear much about from those well Socialists/Marxists entrenched in the ideology of those espousing its salvation for the world and at the expense of Liberty and Freedom for all.

The Russians warned us, at the end of WW II, that socialism of the world under communism would happen, without ever firing a shot.

The Cold War was a serious threat, but not the over riding agenda, it was a distraction that allowed the socialist agenda to advance around the world while we the United States was preoccupied with the threat of war with the USSR. Their road map had already been drawn; Russia became the United Soviet Socialist Republic as it claimed the countries to form that Republic, using Republic in its name was a farce since it was not, and was never intended to be a Republic. It was a totalitarian bunch of thugs with Lenin and Stalin as the master thugs.

The Cold War which kept us, the US, occupied for the next thirty five years trying to keep our nation safe while the socialist, marxist and communists around the world entrenched themselves in positions of power in every country on earth that was not already within their power or influence. This included most of Europe, Central America, the United States of America, Canada, Cuba, New Zealand, all of South East Asia, Africa, India, Pakistan, the Middle East, and South America, and the list goes on.

While we slept, most of us, our country was transformed, slowly, into a self indulgent society resting on the idea those we elected to congress, and the white house would watch out for “We The People” and the nation; while in fact the opposite was happening. Slowly, gradually, and methodically as congress, passed legislation, and the Presidents capitulate, and signed the legislation into laws that were clearly unconstitutional, with the intend to slow make the Constitution of the United States of America and its Amendments irrelevant, in their quest to change our nation from a Constitutional Republic to a Democracy without ever amending the constitution.

When the US Constitution was signed; and ratified by the various states, it set down the principles of how the Laws of the Republic were to be administered, who was to administer and under what principles they drew their powers to administer and represent the Federal Government for “We the People”; those directions are contained in the Articles of the Constitution and the Amendments thereto. The Federal Government has no other powers than those ordained in those documents.

Congress is supposed to legislate, under the authority given to them by the United States Constitution and the Amendments thereto. The Executive branch is the administrative branch of government which is charged with carrying out the legislation as signed into law, the executive branch has only those powers given to it by the constitution and no other. If congress passes legislation, and the President signs it into law, but congress has not provided funds to administer the legislation then the legislation, by law, is moot (has no effect) until funding is provided.

Now the Judicial Branch of our constitutional government, they are charged by our constitution to ensure all legislation passed by congress is constitutional before the legislation is sent to the Executive Branch to be signed into law; somewhere along way the Supreme Court has neglected to scrutinize the legislation coming out of congress, and only gets involved if it is challenged directly by the states or comes to them on appeal from a lower court decision. It’s like putting the cart before the horse scenario when they should be looking at it before it reached a lawsuit.

Much needs to be done by “We the People”, and it starts at the Ballot Boxes across the nation. Our representation need to change, and change as often as needed until those we elect get the message, we are paying attention; and when elected they represent us, are elected to work for us, that States’ Rights are sovereign, and the constitution is relevant and guiding in how they administer their oaths of office once elected.

Our duties as citizens, going forward, are to be involved, even if the only thing each of us does is Vote.

We cannot allow our constitution to be usurped by those that do not have the interest of our nation, and We The People, first and foremost in their minds.

Being self-serving is disingenuous, and makes those elected hypocrites.

Jim Buzzell
Retired Senior Chief Petty Officer
United States Navy
“Going in Harms Way”

Sunday, August 23, 2009

More Constitutional Reflections for "We the People"

Why does the Constitution of the United States of America only apply to Congress when they find it necessary?

“We the People”, why is the federal government usurping states rights?

The answer can be found in the various Supreme Court Cases that have decided, under the “Commerce Clause” that the federal government can impose their wishes on the various states because the actions are interpreted to be “interstate commerce” when in fact it is intrastate commerce. The problem here is not just the Supreme Court, it is also the states that do not exercise their rights and challenge these usurping practices of the federal government. Why?

The answer lies in federal taxation. The residents of each state pay taxes to the federal government to fund various federal programs which the states then in return receive funds from the federal government to pay for federally mandated programs. If the state(s) decide they want to opt out of any of these federally mandated programs, as to restrictive on states rights, then the federal government simply withhold these funds from the state(s). This represent tax dollars paid to the federal government by the taxpayers of the state(s); and is basically extortion on the federal level. Why are the state(s) not challenging these federally mandated programs when the interfere with states rights; the simple answer if fear of the federal government; and complicity over the years.

The state(s) have the right to challenge the federal government on any legislation that it enacts that in their view violates state’s rights. If the government does not back down on implementation, and suit is brought by the state(s) against the United States of America the case automatically goes directly to the Supreme Court of the United States of America and to no other court. The constitution does not allow any inferior (lower) court to hear these cases, as they are between the state and federal governments.

If you really read and understand Article I Section 8, its subsections, and the 10th Amendment you will understand what the Founding Fathers really intended for control over the federal government, while protecting the various states, from over reaching their respective duties and responsibilities for the citizens of those states.
For those thing delegated to Congress, their was a means to carry out those things delegated which meant that if the legislation was passed and constitutional they could then allocated the funds necessary and reasonable to carry out the legislation.

Example, congress was authorized to raise and maintain a Navy, therefore once the legislation was passed and signed into law; they would need the funds to pay navy personnel, which was necessary and reasonable to stand up the Navy; then the Navy needed bases, ships, hospitals, etc. those things were necessary and reasonable to maintain the Navy therefore the funds were constitutionally authorized when legislation was passed to support the need. If you look at Article I Section 8, and the 10th Amendment and then use the reasonable and necessary doctrine you can see those things authorized. Then look at the legislation in acted and enforce today which do not meet the constitutional authorization test, which means these things are unconstitutional.

Another good example, and there are many, is the 1942 case:

The court decided: “ ” & ( ) added for emphasis

In Wickard v. Filburn (1942), in the context of the Second World War, the Court ruled that federal regulations of wheat production could constitutionally be applied to wheat grown for "home consumption" on a farm--that is, wheat grown to be fed to farm animals or otherwise consumed on the farm. The rationale was that a farmer's growing "his own wheat" can have a substantial cumulative effect on “interstate” commerce, because if all farmers were to exceed their production quotas, a significant amount of wheat would either not be sold on the market or would be bought from other producers (“foreign”). Hence, in the aggregate, if farmers were allowed to consume their own wheat, it would affect the interstate market in wheat.

It is my opinion that this case was wrongly decided by the court for the following reasons; it established wheat growing quotas on farmers which was meant by the federal government to control wheat prices, and thereby obviously means of controlling the commodity markets for wheat production. This was, and still, is a obvious interference with the free enterprise system, and a federal government invasions of the free market system. This practice continues today, under another program know as CRP where in the federal government pays farmers to take land out of production, pays them to do so with taxpayer dollars, and thereby interferes with the free market system for food crop production and thereby controls prices at the market.

During WWII there was a need to feed the troops, this was not the intent of the farm quota legislation for wheat production. Why do I say that; simple, there was rationing of many food products during the war, wheat and corn flour was one of the commodities rationed. Why then the controls on production? It was simply to prop up the wheat prices to protect the farmer from having to operate in the free market system where wheat prices would have been low because of high production, when the need was in fact great. If it was truly to support the war effort it could have been implemented under the War Powers Act, and then abandoned it at the completion of the war.

Congress did abandon quotes after the war but replaced it with CRP, basically still controlling prices, with the farmers being complicity in that effort by signing up to payment not to plant. Thereby ensuring market prices in their favor. If you did not have CRP, and the land was in production what would the commodity prices at the market place look like today? That loaf of bread may be less expensive.

Point of interest, the Tenth Amendment accomplished nothing as you read the earlier Articles of Confederation: "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."[1]
After the Constitution was ratified, some wanted to add a similar amendment limiting the federal government to powers "expressly" delegated, which would have denied implied powers.

However, the word "expressly" ultimately did not appear in the Tenth Amendment as ratified, and therefore the Tenth Amendment did not amend the Necessary and Proper Clause.

Another example of necessary and proper:

Article I authorizes congress to coin and print money, therefore it was necessary and proper to establish a bank to support this legislation:

"The necessary and proper clause is used to cover any governmental action not enumerated in the Constitution. Thus, it creates implied powers. These are powers that are not stated in the Constitution, but are implied by the government's need to carry out its functions. Strict Constructionists argue against the more liberal interpretation of this clause, claiming that Congress does not have the power to enact anything not enumerated in the Constitution. The issue came to a head in the case of McCullogh v. Maryland. Maryland claimed that the First Bank of the United States was unconstitutional, since its creation was not called for in the Constitution. The state proceeded to tax the Bank. John Marshall, writing for a unanimous Supreme Court, ruled that the actions of Maryland were unconstitutional, since it could not tax any part of the government. The Court also held that the Bank itself was constitutional under the "necessary and proper" clause.”

The arguments, for and against, the implied power, and reasonable and necessary varies depending how one comes down on this philosophically; and you can draw your own conclusions.

I, personally, come down as a strict constitutionalists, I believe state’s right preempt all, as long as the states are pre-disposed to making their own decisions, carrying them out, and not rely on the federal government as all knowing and all seeing.

The massive bureaucracy with one size fits all mentality usually get it wrong, and “We the People” end up paying for the inadequacies, wherein if it was left at the state levels the people are in control of their legislatures, and if they do not get it right recall is available, and more easily carried out.

Jim Buzzell
Retired Senior Chief Petty Officer
United States Navy
"Going in Harms Way"

Thursday, August 6, 2009

Battling the Progressives and Seculars who do not like our God Fearing Constitutional Republic of the United States of America!

I've been busy, but I have not forgotten our mission to save the Constitution of the United States of America.

Yes God is a constant reference in our Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America. Many are not comfortable with that, and try to separate church and state beyond the what the Founding Fathers wrote; yes they kept religion out of the legislative process; that did not mean keep God and references to God out of the government as established. If you read the founder’s papers and the history of the writing of the constitution you will find that religion played a very important part in the process.

First let me state the United States of America is a Constitutional Republic, a nation of laws, with Democratic principles; we are NOT a Democracy!

I realize there are those predisposed to bashing the Constitution of the United States of America, who denigrates the wars, which this nation has fought, and fights today, on behave of us and other nations. The freedoms our armed forces fight for in defense of the Constitution are the very reason these Liberal/Socialist/Marxist followers have the right to say what they think and feel about this nation; we, the constitutionalists, and the men and women who have taken the oath to protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States of America have provided that right for over 233 years after our founding. No other nation can match what the United States of America has provided the world and us.

We need to be aware that the New World Order movement is real; it raises its evil head every once in a while, now under a new label of Globalization; which means, by either term world domination. Stay alert be vigilant and stand against any movement in that direction.

Now to Article II of the United States Constitution, and Obama:

The fact that President of the United States is also the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States is the very reason the Founding Father wanted a "Natural Born Citizen" sitting in the Oval Office. Owing no other allegiance to any other country or nation, and most certainly because he or she is the CIC. If Obama proves to not meet the requirement for POTUS/CIC; then yes he needs to leave the office, either through resignation or impeachment. Will the nation suffer from his removal, yes; will there be riots, probably yes; will we survive the aftermath of his removal, yes; will this nation have learned a lesson, I hope so; all this aside, we are still a Constitutional Republic, a nation of laws; and can remain that as long as the citizens of this nation understand the importance of being a free nation for the people, by the people, and not by those we send to congress with no oversight from us the people.

Everyone who cares can help save our nation if they will just step up, and vote in the ensuing elections using the power of their own reasoning, deductions, and not what someone else tells them is right.

My personal feeling is Obama is an impostor, fraud, usurper and an illegal alien. We shall see, his long form birth certificates will tell the story. We know one thing already, again by his own admission he was, and probably still is a British Subject by his father's seed; if born in Kenya, he is a Kenyan, if born in Hawaii he would be a citizen; not a "Natural Born Citizen. If this proves to be the case he has duel citizenship, and therefore is not qualified to be POTUS/CIC.

Retired Senior Chief Petty Officer
United States Navy
"Going in Harms Way"

Sunday, August 2, 2009

The New Smoking Gun in the Obama Constitutional Game

The following is this blog owner's personal feeling and comments, taking no reference from any other blogger or contributor.

It is August already, where does the time go?

It is interesting that not only does Obama not want to produce any of his vital records from birth to now; but he continues to spend very large sums of money from his campaign to keep these record from the light of day. This cover up only fuels the smoking gun theory that fuels the fires for those of us who want the truth, not just for the sake of truth, but to confirm our constitution has not been usurped, and thrown under the proverbial bus.

Now comes the new smoking gun to add more fuel to the fire; Obama's purported Kenyan Long Form Birth Certificate posted on other attorney sites. If verified as an authentic certified copy of his Kenyan birth this country will be thrown into a turmoil never before seen.

There are those who will cause riots to protest the removal of Obama from office because they will not be able to fathom the first black man being removed no matter what his origin. These are the people who do not understand our constitutional system of government, and believe the people rule ahead of the laws of the land. This is unfortunate, but a reality.

Then there are those who will protest the racial inequality of the removal; should in come. Again this will be for the same reasons stated above except they will be strictly playing the race card that Obama and others have taught them to use when cornered on any perceived racial issue; which this is not.

Should it come to pass that Obama is not a citizen of the United States, and is an illegal alien posing as a citizen, and be removed from office; this nation will survive the turmoil and humiliation suffer from Obama's actions.

This nation as a result will learn a needed lesson on the need to protect and defend our Constitutional Republic from being overturned from within.

It is my opinion that all of this is part of the larger conspiracy to over through our form of government, and institute the form of government that fits the NEW WORLD ORDER (Globalization) agenda being tauted by the subversives inside and outside of this country.

Conspiracy, you bet. Real, you bet. Can we stop it, you bet we can.

Do Not be Fooled by those who feel our form of government is antiquated, and needs to be progressive.

Not so, and the Founding Father, in the infinite wisdom, saw this coming down the road over 233 years ago, and setup safe guards in the Constitution of the United States of America to prevent this if only the citizens would exercise that right through their elections, in the courts and in their state governments.

Retired Senior Chief Petty Officer
United States Navy

Wednesday, July 29, 2009

What were the Founding Father's thinking?

“Natural Born Citizen” as intended by the founding fathers is not difficult to figure out; first one needs to get past the fact that the founding fathers were moving beyond the influences of English Common Law and the King’s Law. Therefore the emphasis on the King’s subjects being Natural Born Subject was not synonymous with the new constitutional intent of “Natural Born Citizen” being included in Article II of the United States Constitution; no the founders did not specifically define what they intended with that insertion, but were influenced appropriately by Vatell’s definition of how a “Natural Born Citizen” takes shape and occurs. Some justices, based on their political philosophies and legal training prior to the ratification of the United States Constitution, have made reference in their decisions to English Common Law in trying to define “Natural Born Citizen” to thereafter be rebutted by other justices who see in their arguments the intent of the founding fathers’. Let look at some of the letters, correspondence excerpts to see if we can understand where the founders were coming from.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Before you read below, let also keep in mind: Congress shall make not laws not granted by the Constitution of the United States; that said please remember congress is empowered to right laws, the judiciary is empowered to review the laws and where constitutional legal then enforce the laws as written. In that context, the one law congress cannot write, pass and have signed into law is who is a “Natural Born Citizen”; the founding fathers reserved that to the constitution as written. The Supreme Court of the United States, and its subsidiary courts can interpret the constitution but cannot re-write it. Therefore in their interpretations they must look at the founding father’s intent and rule from there. The justices cannot be activists from the bench.

Now read and reflect on the some excerpts from the founding fathers; and when you get to the current congressional musing; keep in mind what I just wrote.

If congress does not like the constitutional provision, they have every right to offer up a constitutional amendment, but until that is done and affirmed the constitution remains as written.

I have highlighted some in blue.

§ 212. Cituyes & Natureles‘Les Naturels, ou Indigènes’.-Emer Vatell (original version 1758) http://www.greschak.com/essays/natborn/index.htm
I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author. Your manuscript "Idee sur le Gouvernement et la Royaute" is also well relished, and may, in time, have its effect. I thank you, likewise, for the other smaller pieces, which accompanied Vattel.-Ben Franklin (December 9, 1775), \Letter 459: Benjamin Franklin to Charles William Frederic Dumas. http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/DelVol02.html

My dear Friend,Philada. Mar. 24. 1776 Inclos'd is an Answer to the Request from the Inhabitants of Dartmouth. I have comply'd with it upon your Recommendation, and ordered a Post accordingly. (1) I have put into Mr Adam's Hands directed for you, the new Edition of Vattel When you have perus'd it, please to place it in your College Library. (2) I am just setting out for Canada, and have only time to add my best Wishes of Health & Happiness to you & all yours. Permit me to say my Love to Mrs Bowdoin, & believe me ever, with sincere & great Esteem, Yours most affectionately B Franklin-Ben Franklin (March 24, 1776),Letter 454: Benjamin Franklin to James Bowdoinhttp://etext.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/DelVol03.html

Qu:1. Can an American citizen, adult, now inherit lands in England? Natural subjects can inherit – Aliens cannot. There is no middle character -- every man must be the one or the other of these.A Natural subject is one born within the king's allegiance & still owing allegiance. No instance can be produced in the English law, nor can it admit the idea of a person's being a natural subject and yet not owing allegiance.An alien is the subject or citizen of a foreign power.- Thomas Jefferson (1783),Letter 151: Jefferson Notes, http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/DelVol21.html

http://etext.virginia.edu/washington/delegates/


Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expresly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.-John Jay (July 25, 1787 ) to George Washingtonhttp://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=1876http://wwwapp.cc.columbia.edu/ldpd/app/jay/item?mode=item&key=c...

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.-US Constitution (adopted September 17, 1787) Article II, Section 1, Clause 5http://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm#a2_...

And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens:- Congress’ Rule of Naturalization (March 26,1790; but changed in 1795, to read as “citizens”)http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1617002/posts

§ 212. Citizens and natives.The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.-Emer Vatell (English language version, 1797)
http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel.htm


They well knew, 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.-Senator Charles Pinckney, (March 28, 1800). Records Federal Convention 1787 CCLXXXVIII p 385, 387 http://nationalwriterssyndicate.com/content/view/964/2/1/5/

Vatell 455, speaking of the rights of conquest by war says, a Prince taking a town or province from an enemy,…-WILLIAM L. CHEW vs. ALEXANDER CALVERT & OTHERS. Adams County, MS Archives Court.....Chew, William L June 1818http://files.usgwarchives.org/ms/adams/court/chew14gwl.txt

I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that 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 -Rep. John Bingham, framer of the 14th Amendment, before The US House of Representatives ((Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291, March 9, 1866 )http://grou.ps/zapem/blogs/3787

“All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.” - Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes, 1868 http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/expatriation-RS1999-...

[If a "citizen" cannot be subject to a foreign power, how can a "natural born citizen" be subject to a foreign power?]All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. 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.-Circuit Justice Swayne, in United States vs Rhodes (1866)http://www.thecommentary.net/1861-circuit-justice-swayne-defines-na...

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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 parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.-Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett (1875)http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_Z...

“In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the fourteenth amendment now in question, said: 'The constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.' And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision.”-Justice Grey, in US v Wong Kim Ark (1898)http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=169&invol=649“Miss Elg was born in Brooklyn, New York, on October 2, 1907. Her parents, who were natives of Sweden, emigrated to the United States sometime prior to 1906 and her father was naturalized here in that year [1906] . In 1911, her mother took her to Sweden where she continued to reside until September 7, 1929. Her father went to Sweden in 1922 and has not since returned to the United States. In November, 1934, he made a statement before an American consul in Sweden that he had voluntarily expatriated himself for the reason that he did not desire to retain the status of an American citizen and wished to preserve his allegiance to Sweden.”[snip]“The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants.”- Chief Justice Hughs, in Perkins v Elg ( 1939) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=3...

My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen,” Chertoff replied.“That is mine, too,” said Leahy-Homeland Security SecretaryMichael Chertoff and Senator Patrick Leahy, (April 03, 2008) http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200804/041008c.htmlWhereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be itResolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen' under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States. -110th Congress, SR 511http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-sr511/text

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the 14th Amendment, confirms that understanding and the construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:" ... I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents (plural, meaning two) not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen..."Bingham is also quoted saying in the Spring of 1868 some serious warnings:"May God forbid that the future historian shall record of this day's proceedings, that by reason of the failure of the legislative power of the people to triumph over the usurpations of an apostate President, the fabric of American empire fell and perished from the earth!...I ask you to consider that we stand this day pleading for the violated majesty of the law, by the graves of half a million of martyred hero-patriots who made death beautiful by the sacrifice of themselves for their country, the Constitution and the laws, and who, by their sublime example, have taught us all to obey the law; that none are above the law..."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Keep in mind where the founding fathers thoughts were with regard to the British Empire and the King while they set about the business of drafting our constitution. English common law was the furthest thing from their minds and intent. The pre-constitutional legal system in the colonies was obviously English Common Law; but not the basis by which the framers envisioned US laws after the constitution was ratified.
My Personal opinion obviously!

Saturday, July 25, 2009

Putting the pressure on congress!!!

This is a recent email I sent to Senator Byron Dorgan; with a copy to Senator Kent Conrad, Representative Earl Pomeroy, and Governor John Hoeven of North Dakota. And I thought I would share it here.

Byron -- First, your duty is to the State of North Dakota and the Constitution of the United States of American; that you are failing to carry out.

I can appreciate your not wanting to revisit Obama's birthright; but, not doing so makes you complicit in his cover up of his true citizenship status.

You again state that he was born in Hawaii, and therefore he is a "Natural Born Citizen", I disagree, at best he could only be a Citizen of the United States of America, that is NOT a Native or Natural Born Citizens by any stretch of the imagination; from what legal source do did you determine he is in fact a "Natural Born Citizen"?

If you will read Article II of the United States Constitution, and then look at Vattel's Law of Nations which the founding fathers used in their drafting of the constitution you will find volumes on native/natural born citizenship.

To be born a native/natural born citizen it cannot be bestowed on any one by a act of legislation, or a court of law; this can only be by birth to two (2) United States Citizens.

I know you, along with the other members of both houses of congress as still in denial. Your candidate won, but it is not about the issue of candidates or who won it is about the Constitution of the United States of America.

It is being extensively reported that Congress was well aware of the eligibility issue before they ever came to a conformation vote. All 535 of you, because of this knowledge, were in fear of overturning the election because of the riots that would certainly have occurred; and because you did not want to be labeled Racists; while in fact ignoring your constitutional duty.

Dick Chaney was as much to fault for this occurring as was every member of the certifying congress. You all, the entire congress and President of the Senate, Dick Cheney, violated your oaths of office; by basically wimping out when you should have stood up or our constitution. It is part of your oath of office.

Now, read this, Obama, even if he was born in Hawaii, can never be a "Native/Natural Born Citizen" you cannot get there by legislation; it has to be a procreation act by two (2) already United States Citizens; that is a natural act as Vattel describes it in the Law of Nations. Therefore, even if Obama was born in Hawaii only one of his parents considered a United States Citizen; One is not Two (plural). His father was a Kenyan, a British Subject, by Obama's own admission, though well documented in research, therefore there is a missing citizenship link here.

Many will argue that Common Law says otherwise, but remember this, English Common Law had no effect on US Laws or Statutes since the founding fathers did not use English Common Law as a reference tool while drafting the constitution of the United States of America; and guess why, they were throwing of the yoke of British oppression, and the King's Law.

International Law has not place in the United States Legislature or the Judicial System as much as the liberal/socialist/Marxists of this country would like it to be a deciding factor in our legal system.

By Constitutional Law none of you in congress or Dick Cheney can be held liable for your failures, and cannot be arrested or prosecuted while sitting, going and coming from congress; but you al can be held liable by the people who elect you and that my friend is coming home to roost. Also remember treason is punishable for acts or lack of acts committed in legislative sessions; and is not exempt from being carried out when discovered and prosecuted in the federal courts.

So when you tell (me) you do not want to revisit Obama's ineligibility again, I can understand where you stand on the Constitution of the United States of American; and that you are unwilling to defend it when it does not suit your needs, or the need of the liberal/socialist agenda that has been building over the last 50 years.

For me, I am, 1st a Constitutionalist and, I believe the founding fathers had it right when the held that the legislature would try to meddle in the very constitution they were about to ratify, that they need(ed) safeguards, and they were right; 2nd I am a Capitalist/Free Enterprise/Market person; I believe that any thing congress gets there hands on they will screw it up, management by committee never works, I believe that the wealth of the nation is in its people, who when left alone will get it right, and prosper; will they fail at times, yes; but it will be their failure and learning curve; will people get hurt along the way, yes; but again it is a learning experience; will be people get taken advantage of, yes, but that is also a learning experience, and if they learn anything from the experience they won't put themselves in that position again; can the people along the way have a redress to their problems, yes, but they need to take the initiative. Congress reminds me of the father and mother who ride herd over their offsprings to the point of not letting them fail at anything, and therefore direct their entire lives; this is what congress, and the president, are doing today, and have done in the past.

Too big to fail, I don't think so, let the free market place take care of the ills of capital wrongly placed or misdirected.

So will you hear from me again, yes, will I drop the Obama eligibility issue, no; the only way you can shut me up is to restrict my access to your eamil; then I will have to resort to snail mail and pay the postage, which by the way has gone up another $.02; good management by that organization; maybe we should out source this to the United Parcel Service; they have to turn a profit or their shareholders get real excited, I believe they are a little more efficient that the USPS could ever hope to be, even with a change in management; point to ponder.

As always, I am still here.

Jim Buzzell
Retired Senior Chief Petty Officer
United States Navy

Friday, July 24, 2009

As I start this blog, I will say that my constitutional education has been enhanced by the issue of Obama's eligibility to serve the office to which he was elected; not because his color, not because of his party affiliations (I did not vote for him), or his beliefs, but because he has sought to render the Constitution of the United States irrelevant. I therefore have taken the initiative to be vocally, and in writing involved in this matter at the state and congressional level.

I am a United States Constitutionalist including the Amendments thereto, and the Federal Papers from the founding fathers, a free market and enterprise supporter, and a supporter of the State's Rights.

Please feel free to comment in this blog, all are welcomed, I hope this will be educational and informative. I will answer your questions to the best of my ability and where I am deficient I will refer you to sites that can answer more fully than me.

That said I will share with you the letter I recently wrote to the editors of some local and national publications. Again feel free to respond, all are welcomed.

To the Editors -- I am very concerned, and am learning I am not alone, that the sitting president is an interloper and usurper to the office.

Obama has never produce a long form birth certificate, to prove he is a "Natural Born Citizen" of the United States of America. When he decides to provide the long form certificate it will, maybe, show evidence that he is a "citizen", and that would only be possible if his mother because of her age at his birth could bestow U.S. Citizenship. To date Obama has spent an estimated $900,000.00, or more keeping his vital records sealed from the public and those that have a need to know; interestingly presidents are not required to have a security clearance to be privileged to confidential and secret United States information. Why?

The United States Constitution is very clear in Article II that the only person eligible to be president or vice president be a "Natural Born Citizen". The framers were clear in their intention when framing the constitution to make sure 1) the United States would be a Republic, not a democracy, and 2) that the President of the United States and Commander in Chief would be a "Natural Born Citizen", with the exception of the first few presidents whom they exempted because of the early citizens would have had problems meeting that standard so early in the history of the United States. The framers took much of the framing from Vattel's Law of Nations, and intended his interpretation of "Natural or Native Born Citizen when writing Article II.

Obama can not meet the requirements for "Natural Born Citizen"; his father was Kenyan, by his own admission, and a British Crown Subject at the time of Obama's birth; therefore Obama citizenship at birth was as a British Crown Subject; this he could have renounced at the age of majority; there is no evidence that ever happened, and if he had done so he could have then claimed his US Citizenship or applied for naturalization; again there is not evidence thereto.

All of this is enough to provide reasonable doubt in his eligibility, without going into his Indonesian history; which is another story of Obama's assorted life.

The United States Senate found it necessary to provide a resolution on McCain's birth abroad in Panama to two United States Citizens on a military base; and in that resolution it was stated that he was born of two United States Citizens, and therefore qualified.

Why did the Senate find that necessary to pass that resolution, on McCain's as a "Natural Born Citizen" and give Obama a complete pass when he obviously could not meet the same standard at birth? Interestingly Senator Obama voted "yes" on the resolution; what hypocrisy.

I have much more to say on this issue, but this is enough for now. I really do not understand why the media is avoiding this issue; when there are several pending lawsuits across the country; and some that were dismissed, but others very viable,

One attorney is now receiving death threats, and her car was tampered with to make it catch on fire; had she not heeded the warning lights when she started it up in an airport parking lot it would have caught on fire or exploded. Her mechanic has verified the that the car was tampered with. Interesting, another side to Obamatics.

If you have any questions about my letter please contact me.

Jim Buzzell
Retired Senior Chief Petty Officer
United States Navy