One of the favorite terms that is thrown around by conservatives to describe Barack Obama is the word “Dictator.”
Is this just more hyperbole or is there a good case of truth in naming here?
Obama is scrapping our Constitution, moving towards a type of government our forefathers not only loathed but also warned us against. This is a government with a strong, central chief executive.
Obama’s blatant disregard of the law made another appearance this week as Obama decided he did not like the Welfare Reforms that were signed into law in the 1990’s.
These reforms were very successful in getting people off of the welfare rolls and getting them back to work.
Obama did not like this so what does he do? He did what he always does. He ignores the law.
Prior to the 1990s, welfare was easy and expansive. People could live endlessly on welfare and make no attempt to get off of it. The Welfare reforms on the 1990’s required that welfare recipients work.
Now, the Department of Health and Human Services has notified the states that if they want a waiver from the work requirement, all they have to do is ask.
Wham! Just like that a law enacted by Congress and signed by another President is set aside. Yes, it remains on the books, but it is effectively gone.
In dictatorships, Dictators make decisions and rule by decree. In a Republic, the legislature makes laws and the executive simply carries them out.
Not in the world of Obamaland. Now, in the People’s Republic of Obama, the Constitution no longer matters. If Obama does not want his top people to be confirmed by the Senate, he simply declares them Czars and puts them into positions without bothering to send them to the Senate for confirmation. He does not like the Defense of Marriage Act, he declares it unconstitutional and says he will not defend it from legal challenges.
Obama’s favorite mantra when he speaks to his adoring faithful is, “we can’t wait.” That’s his excuse. The legislative branch has the good sense to stop his stupid ideas. He does not like it so instead of compromising, he simply imposes by fiat.
Anyone remember when the Republicans went to the White House in 2009 and complained about Obama’s agenda? He simply announced, “I won.”
That is Obama. I won therefore I can do what I want.
In the last 70 years, almost all Presidents have tried to expand the power of the Presidency. Obama is not simply trying to expand the powers of the Presidency. He is trying to make it, not one of three coequal branches of government, but the dominant branch of government to which all must bow down before.
Barack Obama is the most dangerous man ever to have stepped into the Oval Office. If the GOP goes ahead and nominates Romney we will have a Republican candidate who will probably not expand the powers that Obama assumed but also will do nothing to roll them back to their Constitutional limits either.
For those of us who are baby boomers, we grew up in the greatest, freest nation this world has ever known. Now it is our freedom that may soon be on the endangered species list.
Permalink Reply by Thomas Nunn on Ps 9:17 The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God.
What do you expect from a "Generation", who grew up as teenager with LSD, if it feel good, do it, free love, flower power,
then in the 70's authorized to murder the babies they didn't want, the children they did keep started murdering their classmates, even in grade/middle school,
those who took over the management of corporations support/promote Homosexuality, mismanage and rob the firms/stockholders they're entrusted to serve.
Evil has become so "commonplace" voting for the "lesser evil" it's now accepted as the only choice people have.
The only "Bright spot" in the whole situation is that "THIS GENERATION" is prophesied not to pass until all be fulfilled prophesied in scripture, of course that means Heaven for some, Hell for others.
Permalink Reply by Steve Johnson on The GOP should impeach him when he is re-elected in November. Better yet, they should censure him and write him a nasty letter telling him how bad he was.
When the GOP refuses to stand up and oppose Obama's dictatorship, who should we blame?
Permalink Reply by Barbara Jean Puszert on It is my HO that no matter the results of the election, if he loses take him straight to jail and press charges of treason, If he wins..............he should NEVER be allowed back in the WH again. While they are out celebrating the movers should be backed up to the WH doors and moving them out
Permalink Reply by Richard Harper on He can not be impeached. He has never legally been President. Only a legally sitting President can be impeached. If you try to impeach him, you would cause a legal morass that would only benefit him.
You can, however Force Congressd to Inavalidate him. Look for my web site in a coupel of weeks.
Permalink Reply by Barbara Jean Puszert on have sent friend request? would like to have you send me web site direct to be sure I get it? Thank you
Permalink Reply by Sergey on I disagree.
If you lie on your job application, get the job, and later the company finds out that you lied, they can fire you. In other words, you don't have to be eligible for a job before a company can fire you. On the contrary, ineligibility for a job is one of the best ways, if not the best, to get fired.
In addition, since he claims to be legitimate president, he would have to accept that he is eligible for impeachment too.
Permalink Reply by Debrajoe Smith-Beatty on So it is up to the citizens to stop Obama, Congress won't.
Permalink Reply by James F. DeWulf on And how do you propose "We the People" do this? Where are the leaders for this effort? Will you start? What will you do first? I am with you but someone "THAT IS RECOGNIZABLE" needs to stand up and say this is enough and here is what "We the People" are going to do. And we have to recognise that "We the People" are willing to put our lives on the line to do it as that is what it is going to take, COMMITMENT OF OUR PHYSICAL LIVES!
Permalink Reply by Richard Harper on By August 1at I hope to have a web site up that will allow all members free faxing to all members of Congress. If the word can get out quickly enough, the House can be forced to investigate "natural born". Just like "Fast and Furious", once Congress invesstigates, the press has to report, the public knows the truth and Congress can be forced to act (fax them into submission. If they each get several thousand faxes over a couple of days from their constituents, they tend to pay attention.). Once the majority of Americans know for a fact that Obama has never legally been President, then we he can be INVALIDATED through an action of "Quo Warranto". Do you know how great that would be for this country? Everything he has signed and every appointment he has made just gone, like never there. No fuss or muss of an impeachment, just gone.
If anyone wants the extensive research on every facet of the term that proves this is correct, go to these sites:
Research Sites Defining "Natural Born" and It's Origin
A to Z, compactly in one fell swoop, in chart form:
http://www.theobamafile.com/obamanaturalborn.htm
Newest, great article summarizing all information covered in this list of sites (except that it only quotes from the Minor vs Happersett Supreme Court decision, when there are five others:
http://amilimani.com/2012/04/the-biggest-cover-up-in-american-history/
Ben Franklin's letter to Dumas on 1775 edtion of de Vattel's book being used by Constitutionak Convention:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/04/benjamin-franklin-in-1775-thanks....
Thomas Jefferson, also known to have made margin notes in his personal copy of The Law of Nations:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/05/thomas-jefferson-founder-of-our-n...
This is an actual copy of the note sent by John Jay to Washington during the Constitutional Convention on using "natural born" as a requirement "for the commander of our armies". (You have to go almost to the end to find it, so scroll down.) http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2322977/posts
Davis Ramsay, founder and great historian from South Carolina:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/04/founder-and-historian-david-ramsa...
This one is the most conclusuve and convincing about the Founder's using deVattel's "The Laws of Nations" to determine the meaning of "natural born"
http://nobarack08.wordpress.com/2009/11/30/vattels-law-of-nations-a...
This one really lead to the one above:
http://socialismisnottheanswer.wordpress.com/2011/01/27/george-wash...
Proves they used deVattel's definition, and not Blackstone's
http://www.birthers.org/USC/Vattel.html plus
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2711155/replies?c=1457
And, another on the same subjects from the International Judicial Monitor: http://www.judicialmonitor.org/archive_fall2010/editorial.html
This will introduce you to Canada Free Press, who does a better job about reporting on what is really going on in America than any of our own media:
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/22262
Plus another article by them:
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/22221
This is a good, basic discussion of the term, plus all the Supreme Court cases on the term:
http://larrymwalkerjr.blogspot.com/2009/01/citizen-vs-natural-born-...
This is an article plus reference listing down the side of the page by one of the attorneys who submitted one of the first cases to the Supreme Court and is still fighting that battle. Thank God we have citizens who are willing to devote this kind of time and energy for our country:
To learn why he must not be impeached under any circumstances: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=321969 To learn about “Quo Warranto” go here” http://www.devvy.com/new_site/obama-conundrum-051111.html and here:
http://www.devvy.com/new_site/quo-follow-up-051211.html and here; http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd531.htm
And last, go here to read the most professional brief written on the entire subject of getting rid of Obama by attorney Leo Donofrio of New Jersey (who came out of retirement to fight legally for our country) who filed with the Supreme Court before Obama’s inauguration to stop him from becoming President and where the “Quo Warranto” idea started: http://devvy.net/pdf/mar09/leo_all_parts.html (Be sure to go to all links in the brief to get the entire picture. This is basic, excellent legal breifing done by a superb attorney, so be prepared that it will read that way
And the latest blog:. http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
And three new additions by Puzzo:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/11737124/Citizenship-Terms-Used-in-the-US...
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/08/law-of-nations-and-not-english-co...
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/04/article-ii-natural-born-citizen-m...
Case Submitted To Supreme Court for Misconduct of Clerk on original submission by Leo Donofrio in November, 2008. This is listed to show how early this issue caused "illegal" reactions in high places:
http://thenaturalborncitizen.blogspot.com/
Permalink Reply by Juls on Wow Richard this is wonderful! You've obviously spent a great deal of time thinking on and researching this subject. What a great source of information. Thank you!
All that I have read thus far on the subject keeps pointing in the same direction. When regarding the status of 'natural born' citizen, it is not so much where as it is to whom. The commonality here is the citizenship of the father. Now if anyone can figure out exactly who fits the bill on that in terms of Obama then we might be on to something!
Permalink Reply by Richard Harper on Thanks. The good news is that even if Frank Marshall Davis is Obama's father, then he lied and presented false evidence to run for office (who would run for President if everyone knew his father was a Communist - just what the Founders were afraid of), and although he would not be able to be invalidated for being ineligible, he can be prosecuted for fraud and getting campaign money for it. I don't know enough about law to know if running fraudulently invalidates your term or not.
In Revolutionary times, the father was the detemining factor of most things. The mother became the citizen of whichever country the husband was citizen (I beleive I am remembering that correctly), but with the women's suffrage movement, it became an individual thing.
The key to me is, the Founder's were concerned about loyalty through upbringing. They did not want to take the chance If one parent had loyalties to another country (through their own upbrining, origianal nationality, etc.),, that the child could be raised with mixed loyalties. Obama is the perect illustration that they were correct. His mother and her parents were communists, and his father and step-father were anti-colonialists (since both were raised in colonial countries), which is essentially anti-American (through our connection with British colonialism). Therefore they believed the least chance of any risk of corruption of loyalty of beliefs in a child to the U.S., the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, was that both parents be citizens at the time of the person's birth and that the person is born in the country of which the parents are citizens (I have noted that "naturalized citizens" have a greater appreciation for our country than those born here, because they have a direct comparison between what they grew up under, and what they have now - that is why they became citizens - unless, of course, they are subversive's.)
In colonial days, the Founders had to exempt their generation (as stated in the Constitution), because so many were not "natural born" themselves. But, of course, they knew who were loyal and who weren't, just from their going through gaining independence. They were extremely exceptional men, in my opinion, and they were used to thinking things through completely. When the argued a subject, they didn't just present their point of view, they discussed the subject 360 degrees and then supported their conclusion from the facts. Most spoke and wrote Greek and Latiin, and read of the rise and fall of the Greek and Roman Empires in the native languages. That is why they understood the human nature of man that made those empires fail, and why they were so perpicacious in arguing out and creating our Declaration of Independence and Constitution. Madison, even after finishing college, had a special one-on-one course under Rev. Witherspoon for six months, studying Hebrew and politics (it is said that he studied Hebrew government under Moses, the first representative government in the history of the world !!).
Didn't mean to write so much, but I have studied this for a long time, and my passion gets the better of me on occasion.
Permalink Reply by Debrajoe Smith-Beatty on The person who gave the sperm for wonder boy is not important. The law states, if Ann was married to Obama, then Obama is the legal father of little spoiled wonder boy.
© 2013 Created by Judson Phillips.
