Americans left in the dark

The vast majority of Americans do not know who he is, but someone surely does. Someone paid for his travel expenses to Pakistan and Indonesia. Someone engineered legal challenges to all of  his election opponents for the State Senate and had them disqualified. Someone straightened and leveled his path to the U.S. Senate when a Democrat Judge made public the child custody records of his Republican opponent. When he was a candidate for the U.S. Senate, someone arranged for him to speak at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. Someone saw to it that all of his records were sealed, both at home and abroad. Someone assembled the massive organization for his run for the Presidency. Someone knows all about him.
Who?
- Savior or Saboteur? Obama in a Realistic Light

Dump Toxic Obama!

Obama’s death isn’t the solution
To pray or not to pray for Obama?
Obama doesn’t deserve any respect!
President Usurper Obama
Obama’s failure

Savior or Saboteur? Obama in a Realistic Light
Treacherous Obama and DNC comrades
President Barack Obama sound good to you?
Joe Biden and Obama’s Birth Certificate

Sherrod Brown on Obama’s Birth Certificate

Senator Shelby questions Obama eligibility

Obama’s Identity Theft & Terrorism

Demand proof Obama’s a natural born citizen!

If Obama’s the Messiah…

Obama in the flesh

Emperor Obama

Obama’s African Coup in America

Shame on conservative cowards!

Off color inaugural prayer

BLACK DAY IN AMERICA: Obama Wins, America Loses

www.davidbenariel.org

President usurper going down!

Nile Gardiner

Nile Gardiner is a Washington-based foreign affairs analyst and political commentator. He appears frequently on American and British television and radio, including Fox News Channel, CNN, BBC, Sky News, and NPR.


The stunning decline of Barack Obama: 10 key reasons why the Obama presidency is in meltdown

************
The President usurper, the fraud and foreigner, the bastard from Africa, the con man from Kenya, reveals his shady character by refusing to be transparent with many important documents from his educational records to long form birth certificate. Emperor Obama must go!

Obama failing numerous natural-born tests

Worldnetdaily Exclusive Authors: Obama likely not eligible Study cites Constitutional framers, Supreme Court rulings

President Obama may not fit the Constitutional eligibility requirement that stipulates only "natural born" citizens can serve as U.S. president, concluded the authors of a recently released book. An investigation by the authors found that according to correspondence from the original framers of the Constitution as well as multiple Supreme Court rulings and the legal writings that helped establish the principals of the Constitution, Obama is not eligible to serve as president since his father was not a U.S. citizen.  With nearly 900 endnotes, the book, "The Manchurian President: Barack Obama's ties to communists, socialists and other anti-American extremists," was written by WND senior reporter Aaron Klein and r esearcher Brenda J. Elliott. To receive a review copy or interview the authors, please contact Tim Bueler at (530) 401-3285 or media@wnd.com     The authors concluded Obama may not be eligible regardless of his place of birth. The book recommends further legislative and judicial debate. "It is undisputed that Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen," wrote Klein, "a fact that should have led to congressional debate about whether Obama is eligible under the United States Constitution to serve as president." Obama was born on August 4, 1961, to Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack Obama, Sr. Dunham was an American of predominantly English descent from Wichita, Kansas, and was 18 years old at the time of Obama’s birth. Obama Sr. was a member of the Luo tribe from Nyang’oma Kogelo, Nyanza Province, Kenya, which at the time was still a British colony. Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution stipulates presidential eligibility, requiring the nation’s elected chief to be a “natural born citizen.” That clause 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.” The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitut ion specifically defines "citizen” but not "natural born citizen" A "citizen" is defined as: “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.” However, no definition of “natural born citizen” -- which is only used in the presidential requirement clause  --was provided anywhere in the Constitution, and to this day the precise meaning of the term is still being debated. There are no records of any definitive discussion on the matter during the Constitutional Convention. That—coupled with the absence of definitive Supreme Court rulings and a wide array of opinions th roughout the centuries—has only further confused the question of what “natural born” actually means. Still, the authors found that according to the framers of the Constitution as well as Supreme Court rulings, Obama does not fit the eligibility requirements. 'Natural born' defined The first U.S. Congress passed a law that began to define “natural born.” The Naturalization Act of 1790 rejected the condition of being born on U.S. soil, and referred only to parentage: “The children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States,” the Act states, “shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, t hat the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.   Five years later, however, Congress repealed the Act. "Still, it was clear that the intention of the Constitution’s 'natural born citizen' qualification was to ensure the country would not be led by an individual with dual loyalties," wrote Klein in "The Manchurian President." On July 25, 1787, Founding Father John Jay, one of the three authors of the Federalist Papers, wrote to George Washington, who was at the time presiding over the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. Jay discussed the dual loyalty concern, writing: “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.” Jay, however, also did not define “natural born.” 'According to John Bingham, guiding tome, Obama not eligible' Representative John Bingham of Ohio, a principal framer of the Fourteenth Amendment, offered some definition for presidential qualifi cations in a discussion 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 not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” "So according to Bingham, as well, Obama would not be eligible to serve as president," wrote Klein. In trying to understand what the Founding Fathers meant by “natural born,” the authors wrote in "The Manchurian President" that some have turned to prominent legal tomes of the day. The Law of Nations, a 1758 work by Swiss legal philosopher Emmerich de Vattel, was read by many of the American Founders and informed their understanding of the principles of law, which became established in the Constitution of 1787. De Vattel writes in Book 1, Chapter 19, of his treatise, “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. . . . 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. "So by de Vattel’s standards, Obama arguably would not be eligible to serve as president," wrote Klein. Obama not eligible according to some Supreme Court decisions Numerous Supreme Court decisions have yielded conflicting views of citizenship and what it means to be a “natural born citizen.” In Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), for example, the Court ruled that citizenship is acquired by place of birth, not through blood or lineage. But much of that case’s decision—which had notoriously excluded slaves, and their descendants, from possessing Constitutional righ ts—was overturned in 1868. Another case, Minor v. Happersett, in 1874, mentions the “natural born” issue: States that case: "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 [plural] who were its citizens [plural], 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. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficien t, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens. Writes Klein: "According to this definition, and scores of other Supreme Court rulings, Obama may not be eligible to serve as president." The authors conclude that a "reading of readily available legal resources regarding the definition of 'natural born citizen” clearly indicates a series of legitimate questions about Barack Obama’s eligibility for the presidency, given that Obama’s father was not an American citizen." "The resources warrant further debate," wrote Klein. "The Manchurian President" points out despite these glaring eligibility issues, the legislative and judicial bodies of the U.S. government have held no formal discussions, nor did they conduct a single formal investigation into whether Obama is eligible to serve under the Fourteenth Amendment. Congress did, however, question the "natural born" qualifications of Obama's 2008 presidential opponent, Senator John McCain. The scion of distinguished U.S. naval officers, McCain was born to two American parents in the Panama Canal Zone. On April 30, 2008, the U.S. Senate sought to answer the question by passing a nonbinding resolution, which states, "Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it resolved, that John Sidney McCain, III, is a 'natural born citizen' under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States." Obama called 'Manchurian President' Meanwhile, "The Manchurian President" bills itself as the most exhaustive investigation ever performed into Obama and his radical background and ties. Among the many finds of "The Manchurian President": A coalition of extremists, including a founder of William Ayers' Weather Underground domestic-terrorist organization, helped craft Obama's "stimulus" bill; Obama's health-care policy, masked by moderate populists rhetoric, was pushed along and partially crafted by extremists, some of whom reveal in their own words that their principal aim is to achieve corporate socialist goals and a vast increase in government powers; Extremists are among Obama's "czars" and other top advisers. New information links top advisers Axelrod and Valerie Jarrett to communist activists. The book uncovers correspondence in which a communist confesses to mentoring and educating Axelrod and helping the top Obama aide to secure his first job. Obama then later worked with the same communist, the book finds; Copious research reveals more about Obama's deep ties to Ayers, uncovering for the first time where and how Obama first met Ayers - and it is much earlier than previously believed; Important aspects of Obama's carefully covered-up college years, with new details of his student career at Occidental College and later at Columbia University, are revealed; Obama's early years, including his previously overlooked early childhood ties to a radical, far-left church, are documented; Obama's association with the Nation of Islam, Black Liberation Theology and black political extremists are also revealed, with extensive new information on the subjects; Obama's deep ties to ACORN, which are much more extensive than previously documented elsewhere, are covered. The book also crucially descries how a socialist-led, ACORN-affiliated union helped facilitate Obama's political career and now exerts major influence in the White House. To receive a review copy or interview the authors, please contact Tim Bueler at (503) 401-3285 or media@wnd.com

Posted on Aug 10, 2010

Long Live The Constitutionalist Sheriff!

Categories: Archived Columns, Columns by Chuck Baldwin

One of the tragedies of the current misled, uninformed, and otherwise preoccupied American citizenry is the seeming apathy regarding the importance and necessity of electing constitutionalist sheriffs. In many ways, State governors and county sheriffs just might be the most important elected offices in America. It is no hyperbole to say that State governors and county sheriffs form the last line of defense against tyranny and oppression. If our governors and sheriffs do not understand the principles of freedom and federalism, there is virtually zero protection against the abuses of liberty–save the right of the people to personally and individually defend liberty via the principles of God-given Natural Law.

Hence, a freedom-minded sheriff is invaluable to liberty’s defense. And perhaps at no time in America’s history has it been more necessary that we elect freedom-loving sheriffs than it is today, what with the ever-growing propensity of the federal government to trample and usurp State and constitutional protections of freedom.

For example, in an almost totally non-reported incident, an armed conflict between federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) agents and a Nevada Sheriff’s SWAT team was averted only by virtue of the fact that, at the last minute, BLM backed down from the impending confrontation.

For the record: federal police agencies have a long history of committing illegal searches and seizures (even assault and murder–can anyone say, “Ruby Ridge” or “Waco”?) against the US citizenry. But BLM might be the most notorious federal police agency of all. The tactics BLM employs against western landowners sometimes border on Nazi-like. When the late, great Helen Chenoweth was an Idaho congresswoman, she tried to raise awareness of (and opposition to) this out-of-control federal agency. I urge readers to read Rep. Chenoweth’s interview with Michael Reagan about this subject. See it at:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/blm.html

According to Rep. Chenoweth, “BLM is taking onto themselves law enforcement that is normally saved for the State, law enforcement over motor vehicles. They’ve written into the regulation without authority from Congress, the ability to stop vehicles or to search people, to search a place or a vehicle without warrant or process; to be able to seize without warrant or process any piece of evidence and to test people for potential DUI (driving under the influence).”

Chenoweth continued: “Our founders, when establishing our system of government wanted to make sure that law enforcement was closest to the people. You and I have talked before about how important it is to make sure that you elect the very best local county sheriff because he should be regarded as the highest law enforcement officer in the area because he is accountable to the voters. They really worried about a national, a federal, law enforcement. To federalize our law enforcement is to create a situation that the pilgrims were trying to escape.

“We are moving quickly to that. The Bureau of Land Management is taking onto themselves law enforcement authority that Congress never gave them. In the Federal Land Policy and Management Act that was passed in the early 1970s it made it clear that Congress said that, first, you must go to your local county sheriff for law enforcement activities.”

Chenoweth added, “In the BLM proposed rules and regulations, you can’t remove any plants or soil or pick up any rocks or minerals. You can’t drive on any vegetation or soil. You can’t disturb soil at all. Now you can’t set a foot on soil without disturbing it. You can’t set a foot on a ground plant without disturbing it.”
For the sheriff in Nye County, Nevada, BLM abridgments of liberty had gone too far. When BLM threatened to arrest the sheriff if he refused to go along with BLM’s illegal searches and seizures against Nye County citizens, Sheriff Tony DeMeo countered by telling BLM in no uncertain terms that should any agent attempt to enforce BLM’s unconstitutional policies, he would have his deputies arrest them.

DeMeo even had his SWAT teams standing by to enforce the law AGAINST THE OUT-OF-CONTROL FEDERAL AGENCY. To put it in Sheriff DeMeo’s words, “We’d be standing between them [BLM] and my constituents [county residents].” At the last minute, BLM backed off and the confrontation between the Nye County sheriff’s office and the federal agency was averted.

See Sheriff DeMeo’s testimony on the incident at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoYtnoFn09Y

Now, Sheriff Tony DeMeo is exactly the kind of sheriff the Constitution requires! Unfortunately, it seems that the vast majority of sheriffs across the country have no idea as to what their constitutional authority entails, and seem to have no discernment and understanding of just what the federal government is doing to usurp State and local jurisdiction. Or if they do, they seem to lack the courage to act upon their power and authority. Or maybe they simply lust after federal monies (better known as bribes).
Of course, there are a few sheriffs across America who seem to be aware of what’s going on and have the guts to do something about it. A precious few. Along with Sheriff Tony DeMeo, there is Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Maricopa County, Arizona, Sheriff Shane Harrington of Wibaux County, Montana, Sheriff Paul Babeu of Pinal County, Arizona, and, of course, there are former Sheriffs Ray Nash of Dorchester County, South Carolina, Richard Mack of Graham County, Arizona, and Jay Printz of Ravalli County, Montana. Plus, if the good people of Larimer County, Colorado, will elect Carl Bruning as their sheriff, there will be another principled constitutionalist sheriff to add to the list of patriot sheriffs. To visit Carl’s campaign web site, go here:

http://carlbruning.com/

Readers should know, too, that Sheriff Mack has a plethora of outstanding books and videos relating to the role and duty of a constitutional sheriff on his web site. I highly recommend that you avail yourself to as much of Mack’s materials as you can. Here is his web site:

http://sheriffmack.com/

If liberty has any chance of surviving in the United States, it will be because the American people wake up to the importance and necessity of electing constitutionalist governors and sheriffs. Sheriffs, especially, are critical to the maintenance of liberty. It is a truism that, next to the people themselves, the sheriff’s office helps form the last line of defense against federal abuse of power. Long live the constitutionalist Sheriff!

P.S. We are trying to keep up with those requesting to be added to our new PATRIOT BUSINESSES web page, but are having a hard time keeping up with requests. Please be patient. We are adding them as fast as we can. My small staff is quite overloaded, but hopes to be caught up by the end of the week. To see the new PATRIOT BUSINESSES web page, go to:

http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?page_id=1921

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:
http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?page_id=19

(c) Chuck Baldwin

Disproportionate Black on White Violence

Black on White Violence and Debunking Popular Myths of Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King
It's past time the plain truth set us free at last from the popular myths of Rosa Parks (her stunt was staged), "Dr." Martin Luther King (their names pollute bridges and litter highways, etc.), and other forged heroes like terrorist Nelson Mandela and challenge their idolatry and demand apologies from those city councils (and politicians) who foisted such frauds upon us and insist they repeal such outrages.
(read more ...)

Most Israelites aren't Jews!

Feedback from Tom:

Reading your last commentary [The Triumph Of Jewish Survival] has reminded me you are a complete moron. You think America and England are Jews? LOL. You fool, read history, in fact, read the Bible. Your actions will come to bear you out when stand before Him. Think before you do.

You have been fooled to think this, you need to get on your knees and ask God to show this to you. There is just too much information on this matter. Nothing else to say about this.

Response to Tom:

How foolish you appear since you still don't recognize the difference between Jews (Judah) and Israel (the "lost 10 Tribes). Such ignorance is inexcusable. Satan hates this plain truth and works hard to keep folks in the dark. God knows I'm doing what I can to help spread the light about how God is faithful to Joseph and Judah and can also be trusted for His other prophecies to come true.

Israel in the Isles

The English-Speaking Nations of White Israelites

The Plain Truth about the Lost Ten Tribes of Israel

Joseph isn't Jewish!

Not All Twelve Tribes of Israel are Jewish?

Israel and Judah Must Get House in Order Before King Messiah Arrives

v