Archive for April, 2010


Posted: 04/30/2010 by Lynn Dartez in Land of The Free

NewsWithViews Logo

By Attorney Jonathan Emord
April 26, 2010

Having fought and won the American Revolution, the first citizens of this country with few exceptions considered individual liberty an inalienable birthright and committed this nation to preserve that liberty at all cost. Now, over two hundred years later, the struggle for freedom has faded into the distant memories of nearly every politican and the desire to be free at all cost has been replaced by the desire to be provided for at all cost.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi are remarkable not for their understanding of our nation’s original principles and their commitment to preserve and protect them but for their zeal to expend the nation’s treasure on all manner of entitlements for special interests, transforming a limited government dedicated to liberty into an unlimited one dedicated to control and the divvying up of spoils, rendering all commerce that was once private into commerce so heavily regulated that it is inescapably public. To them, while their own liberty may be precious, they have little respect for everyone else’s; their every public act and their every vote is for measures that to one degree or another sacrifice individual liberty for political control.

To a mind that loves liberty, the prospect of subjecting entire sectors of the economy to federal bureaucratic control (the banking, automobile, and health care sectors) is unacceptable. The appetite of Reid and Pelosi to achieve those ends is, however, insatiable. If you scour all of their public statements, you will not find any that recite basic tenets of the founding generation: the view that political power is evil and corrupting and must be limited; the view that each person who labors is entitled to the fruits of his own labor; the view that just governments are instituted among men to protect the rights of the governed; the view that legislative, executive, and judicial powers may not be combined into single hands without giving rise to tyranny; or the view that legislative power invested in Congress by the Constitution may not be redelegated outside of Congress consistent with the doctrine of separation of powers. Either Reid and Pelosi have not read the great works of the Enlightenment philosophers; the writings of the Federalists and Antifederalists; the Declaration of Independence; the Constitution of the United States; and the major histories of the political, legal, and military movements to establish this country, or they have read them and disapproved of them.

Nothing in their political careers and nothing in their public speeches or writings reflects any commitment to defend America’s Constitution of liberty or advance the founding principles that give it life. To the contrary, one is hard pressed to find in their acts anything but advocacy for the establishment here of federal power over all private initiative. Their ideal involves a regulatory state that knows no bounds to its powers to intrude into commercial affairs and organize them.


If Reid and Pelosi were alone in their views, we might well consider this a sorrowful but temporary dereliction, but they are joined in this anti-constitutional sentiment by almost every Democrat and a considerable number of Republicans. Those who love individual liberty are thus confronted with a takeover of government by those who have little respect for liberty beyond their own (and no respect for liberty that conflicts with their plans for regulating America and spending America’s money).

While this situation is bleak, it includes within it the seeds for dramatic transformation. I am not one who subscribes to the view that the typical American loves regulation more than he or she does his or her own liberty. I believe most Americans appreciate that what makes America unique and that holds out the greatest promise for our future advancement is the extent to which our laws defend individual liberty—the personal quest of each of us to build an empire of greatness free of government coercion and constraint. Unleashed from prior restraints, there is no limit to the power of the individual to excel, achieve, and advance this nation to the greatest heights possible. We have much to fear from those in government who paternalistically believe they can decide for us what is in our own best interest. We have two centuries of proof that when we keep those in government at bay, servants to us and not our masters, we can raise the standard of living of the entire world through the independent actions of millions, each seeking his or her own rewards from innovation, advancement, and achievement. The lesson of world history is that governments never succeed when they endeavor to replace private initiative with state planning, and that, conversely, nations always progress when they eliminate state planning in favor of private initiative.

We are very near to the tipping point, the point at which those in government who presume to know better than we do what is in our own best interest so regulate and tax private initiative as to force the typical American into action. Whether it is this coming election or the one after it, I do not know, but I do believe genuine change in the direction of liberty is coming. There is much anger in the land, and people are anxious for the opportunity to remove arrogant officeholders from power. They are looking for people who will cut government out of their lives and restore individual liberty and the freedom of choice that enabled us to make America great. They are unwilling to accept that we must all be reduced to a common level of mediocrity if government takeovers become permanent fixtures, and they are unafraid to accept the consequences of their own inherently volatile market choices—whether that is success or failure.

The lie of the government promise—to relieve us from all earthly troubles without the need to pay for the federal leviathan that promises to change the earth—is becoming clear, even to those who once believed the promise. People are now asking routinely, how can our nation afford this monstrous government, and who will the tens of trillions actually help? National polls reveal little confidence in Congress, waning support for a President who has little love for the private sector, and the rise of a national political constituency favoring restoration of a Constitution of liberty.

The pendulum appears about to swing back in favor of liberty. The destiny of mankind is tied to that movement. At this critical moment in world history, we will either rise to the occasion and free the genius of American industry or we will fall from our position as a global superpower replaced by others who have learned from us that freedom is not only the birthright of every citizen, it is the indispensable basis for all human progress.

© 2010 Jonathan W. Emord – All Rights Reserved

Jonathan W. Emord is an attorney who practices constitutional and administrative law before the federal courts and agencies. Congressman Ron Paul calls Jonathan “a hero of the health freedom revolution.” He has defeated the FDA in federal court a remarkable six times, four times on First Amendment grounds. He is the author of The Rise of Tyranny.

E-Mail: Not Available


Obama Confirmed Ineligible for Office?

Posted: 04/30/2010 by Lynn Dartez in Obmamaaaaa File

By JB Williams  Thursday, April 29, 2010

Were ANY of the Founding Fathers “natural born citizens” of the United States?

No… they were not. Not even one of the Founding Fathers was a “natural born citizen” of the United States of America, even though some of them had indeed been (native) born on what would become U.S. soil.


None of them were “natural born citizens” because all of the Founding Fathers were born prior to the existence of the United States of America. No one could be the “natural born citizen” of a nation that did not yet exist.

America declared its independent status as a sovereign nation on July 4, 1776, breaking away from England and British rule. But the United States of America was not formed until September of 1787, with the ratification of the U.S. Constitution. The Founders had no choice but to exempt themselves from Article II—Section I—Clause V of the Constitution they wrote and ratified. But there would be no other exemptions or exceptions from that moment forward.

So, how could any of them become President of the United States?

The Founders made this possible with this portion of Article II—Section I—Clause V; – “or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution;”

They included a grandfather section in the clause pertaining to constitutional qualifications for the office of President, – A ONE-TIME exemption from the “natural born citizen” requirement for president.

They clearly separate themselves “citizens” from others who had to be “natural born citizens” in order to hold the office of president. Citizens, who were not “citizens” at the time of the Adoption of the Constitution, would forever after need to be “natural born citizens” to reside in the Oval Office.

Excluding citizens at the time of the Adoption of the Constitution, who shall be eligible for the office of president?

“No person except a natural born Citizen”

We know why they had no choice but to exempt themselves, but why did they exempt only themselves? What was so important about “natural born citizen” status that they made it possible for only a “natural born citizen” to hold the office of president after the adoption of the constitution?

What did the Founders mean by the term “natural born citizen?”

As with all written laws or contracts, they are a collection of carefully chosen written words of known specific meaning or definition. Any time you study documents, you must use definitions of words as they existed at the time the document was written, as words occasionally change definition over time. In the case of a document as important as the U.S. Constitution, it is vital that we have the proper meaning or definition of those words at the time of the writing and ratification of the document, in order to properly interpret the document.

I am using Webster’s 1828 First Edition Dictionary to define the written words, as it is the closest I have access to for the era 1776-1787.

The word BORN is defined by this dictionary as“To be born, is to be produced or brought into life”

This word is simple enough and few people want to debate what the word means.

The word Citizen is defined by the 1828 Dictionary as“The native of a city, or an inhabitant who enjoys the freedom and privileges of the city in which he resides; the freeman of a city, as distinguished from a foreigner, or one not entitled to its franchises.”

This word is also widely accepted and seldom debated. However, ONLY as it relates to the current resident of the White House, Barack Hussein Obama, there seems to be great confusion over the meaning of the word “natural,” as it relates to whether or not Barack Hussein Obama is constitutionally eligible to be president of the United States.

Yet the word NATURAL is no more complicated than the words born or citizen.

Clearly, due to the Founders grandfather clause, any “citizen” could hold the office of president at the time of the adoption of the constitution. But after that, “No person except a natural born Citizen” could hold the office of president, or vice president for that matter.

The word NATURAL is defined as follows, in the 1828 Webster’s dictionary“Pertaining to nature; produced or effected by nature, or by the laws of growth, formation or motion impressed on bodies or beings by divine power. Thus we speak of the natural growth of animals or plants; the natural motion of a gravitating body; natural strength or disposition; the natural heat of the body; natural color; natural beauty. In this sense, natural is opposed to artificial or acquired.”

Natural (Pertaining to nature – In this sense, natural is opposed to artificial or acquired)

Born (To be born, is to be produced or brought into life)

Citizen (The native of a city, or an inhabitant who enjoys the freedom and privileges of the city in which he resides)

As these were likely the actual definitions in play at the time these words were drafted into the U.S. Constitution, this is most likely exactly what the Founding Fathers meant by these words.

In case you have the urge to challenge the 1828 definition of “natural,” the current definition of “natural” is essentially the same—“existing in or formed by nature (as opposed to artificial)”

As a quick aside, for those having trouble with Obama’s alleged birth place, it is only the term “NATIVE” which refers to place of birth.

Native“Conferred by birth; as native rights and privilege – Pertaining to the place of birth; as native soil; native country; native graves – One born in any place is said to be a native of that place, whether country, city or town.”

Is Barack Hussein Obama a “Natural Born Citizen” of the United States?

Although NO authenticated evidence has been offered to support the claim, those who claim that Obama was born in Hawaii would be claiming only that Obama is a “native born citizen” of the United States. As “native born citizen” is NOT the requirement for president in the Constitution, this is an argument of no real consequence.

Being born in Hawaii would make Obama a “native born citizen,” but not necessarily a “natural born citizen” of the United States.

Even if we accept the notion that Obama was “native born” to Hawaii, which was a U.S. state at the time of Obama’s alleged birth in August 1961, we would only be accepting the notion that Obama is a “native born” citizen, not a “natural born citizen.”

If Article II—Section I said – “No person except a native born Citizen” shall hold the office of president, an authentic birth certificate from Hawaii would indeed solve the problem, although no such birth certificate has ever been offered by Obama. This terminology would have qualified some of the Founders as well, without the need for a grandfathered exemption.

However, “No person except a natural born Citizen” shall be eligible for the office of president.

As a result, a Hawaiian birth certificate would not be enough to qualify Barack Hussein Obama, II – as eligible for the office he currently holds. Something else would be required…something more.

Obama supporters shouldn’t feel unfairly singled out however, as without the grandfather clause, no Founding Father could have held the office of president either, and they were all white men. In fact, all white men would have to meet the exact same requirements as Obama today. Article II—Section I mentions nothing about color or race.

What is required to be a “natural born citizen?”

In a word, nature… as in, natural law, or as the 1828 Webster’s dictionary puts it—“Pertaining to nature; produced or effected by nature, or by the laws of growth, formation or motion impressed on bodies or beings by divine power.”

WOW!—“impressed on bodies or beings by divine power.”—“produced or effected by nature, or by the laws of growth”

In terms of “nature’s effect” on human beings, what we know is the reproductive system and time honored natural laws pertaining to “birthrights.”

Webster’s 1828 definition establishes birthright as—“Any right or privilege, to which a person is entitled by birth, such as an estate descendible by law to an heir, or civil liberty under a free constitution.”

Such as, a child inherits his/her father’s name automatically at birth, as well as heir to his fortune and his citizenship.

No man-made laws are needed. In every civilized nation on earth, the “natural born child” automatically inherits their father’s name and all other related birthrights upon birth, with no statute required.

If Barack Hussein Obama’s father had been a legal citizen of the U.S. at the time of Barack II birth, Barack II would enjoy not only his father’s name, but his citizenship in the United States as well, and no man-made law could block his birthright to status as a “natural born citizen” of the USA.

However, Obama’s father was at no time a citizen of the USA. He was at all known times in his life, a citizen of Kenya, which at the time was still under British rule.

Barack Hussein Obama II father was a legal citizen of Kenya. As the “natural born” son of Barack Hussein Obama I, Barack Obama II is the “natural born citizen” of Kenya, which is why his family, friends and the press referred to him as “Kenyan Born” all the way up until he decided to run for the office of president.

From that moment forward, Obama, his friends and the press has denied that he was a “natural born citizen” of Kenya, and claimed that he was a “natural born citizen” of Hawaii.

But here’s the problem—Even if Obama was born in Hawaii, a “native born” citizen of the United States (which has yet to be proven), he was still the “natural born citizen” of his father, and Kenya.

This would have made Barack Obama II a “dual citizen” of both the USA and Kenya.

And this is why the Natural Born Citizen clause exists in the U.S. Constitution.

Barack Hussein Obama is the poster-child for why the Founding Father’s placed Article II—Section I—Clause V in the U.S. Constitution.

Dual citizenship means dual or divided national loyalties. That’s why the qualification for the highest office in the land is “natural born citizen.” An individual with NO reason for dual or divided national loyalties…

It is on the basis of this research and further research into the history of the term “natural born citizen”—that I wrote The Bottom Line on Natural Born Citizen and make the claim that DC Knows that Obama is Ineligible for Office.

American citizens had better wake up and take action fast, as there is little time left to right their ship!

An investigative report detailing the Obama eligibility  controversy

By Douglas J. Hagmann, Director

27 April 2010: I cannot think of any other subject in recent American history that has been so mired in controversy, so factually misrepresented, mischaracterized and so misunderstood than the matter of the eligibility of Barack Hussein OBAMA II to hold the office of President of the United States. Despite its importance, the topic has been summarily dismissed as fodder for conspiracy theorists by many, while others insist that the question of OBAMA’s citizenship has been “asked and answered.” But has it really been answered, and if not, why not?

In consideration of the controversy that continues to plague Barack Hussein OBAMA over his citizenship status and his well documented sustained pattern of refusal to provide authenticated documentation of his birth records and numerous other pertinent records, I’ve conducted an in-depth investigation into the matter in an effort to separate fact from fiction, myth from reality. My approach was the same I’ve used as an investigator over the last 25 years on behalf of Fortune 100 companies in their selection of corporate executives, conducting due diligence background investigations. In this case, however, I was not afforded direct and unfettered access to the “applicant’s”, or in this case, OBAMA’s original records. Nonetheless, I conducted inquiries and a lengthy investigation researching the information directly or indirectly disclosed by OBAMA, as well as collections of documents, court records, official federal and state documents, verbal statements, utterances and other documents determined to be of authentic provenance.

At issue is whether Barack Hussein OBAMA or any of his representatives have furnished sufficient documentation to prove his eligibility for the office of President of the United States under Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution that 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.”

Presently, OBAMA occupies the White House as the Chief Executive Officer of the United States of America. As president, he is the commander-in-chief of our armed forces and ultimately responsible for the security of the United States. Any person of reasonable sensibilities would logically believe that his eligibility status has long been established by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) or those in positions of oversight for such matters. But has it?

In order to be as comprehensive as possible, my investigative findings include important background information into the legal definition of a “natural born citizen” as applicable to Article II of the U.S. Constitution. This background information is provided to clear up many common misconceptions about the eligibility controversy, and to explain why so many people are confused and easily mislead over this issue. After thoroughly investigating this matter, I have found demonstrable evidence that this confusion is a deliberate and highly effective tactic used to divert attention from a constitutional issue and thus, the rule of law, to the detriment of American citizens.

This report will also provide insight into the reasons for the largely ignored yet unprecedented legal fight by Barack Hussein OBAMA II, his representatives and assigns, against any release of the authenticated copy of his long form birth certificate and a multitude of other relevant historical documents.

Natural Born Citizen Qualification: The Facts

Based on extensive research, there are two separate but equally relevant legal issues that involve the specific eligibility of Barack Hussein OBAMA II to legally serve as President of the United States. First is the U.S. Constitution which was adopted into law on 17 September 1787. As noted by Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution, an individual born after 1787 cannot legally or legitimately serve as U.S. President unless that person is a “natural born citizen” of the United States.

The second issue is the precise definition of a “natural born citizen.” The Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, adopted on 9 July 1868, furnishes a rather broad definition of who qualifies as a “natural born citizen.” Specifically, who qualifies as a natural born citizen legally qualified to hold the office of President of the United States under Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution lies at the core of the eligibility argument. For the sake of clarity in advance of potential ancillary arguments, it is noted here that the Twelfth-Amendment to the U.S. Constitution mandates that Vice-Presidents possess the same qualifications as Presidents.

Obviously, there is no legitimate controversy over the eligibility status of Barack Hussein OBAMA in terms of his age and length of residency within the U.S. Despite popular belief by many to the contrary, there is, however, an unresolved issue over his status as “a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States.”

While many constitutional scholars hold different beliefs over the intent of the natural born citizen qualifier, I submit that an extraordinarily prescient illustration of logic behind this qualification can be found in a brief letter from John JAY, a founding father of the United States and the first chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court to George WASHINGTON dated 25 July 1787:


Dear Sir,

Permit me to hint whether it would not 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 command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.

I remain, dear sir,

Your faithful friend and servant,

John Jay.


A study of the Federalist Papers and the writings of our founding fathers clearly indicate a concern for the security of the United States stemming from “threats from within,” or to prevent foreign enemies from becoming commander-in-chief. Given the nature and various enemies we currently face, the brief but ominous note to George WASHINGTON would certainly appear as relevant today, if not more so,  as it was over 200 years ago.

Three years after that note was written, Congress affirmed in 1790 that a person born abroad whose parents are both citizens of the U.S. is, in fact, a U.S. citizen. In the years that followed, there have been many legal arguments to further define a natural born citizen. Based on extensive research, it would appear that the “next best” definition originates from an 1874 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Minor v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162 (1874). The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that if an individual is born in the United States and both parents are U.S. citizens at the time of birth, that individual is, in fact, a natural born citizen. That same Supreme Court decision also addressed the issue of a person born in the United States where one of the parents is not a U.S. citizen at the time of the birth of the child. The ruling noted that in such a case, the child’s natural born citizenship status is “in doubt.”

In any event, subsequent rulings by Congress and enacted by federal statute affirm that children born abroad by parents who are both U.S. citizens are not only U.S. citizens themselves, but are recognized as “natural born citizens.” On the other hand, individuals born in the United States or elsewhere by one or more parents who are not U.S. citizens are not likely to be eligible to hold the office of President of the United States absent of federal statute affirming their eligibility. Therein lays the current situation of Barack Hussein OBAMA II and the need to establish his citizenship status through authenticated documents.

Presidential eligibility; historical & current oddities

Since the U.S. Constitution was adopted into law, every elected U.S. president who was born after 1787 was born in the United States of parents who were both U.S. citizens except two: Chester Alan ARTHUR and Barack Hussein OBAMA II. It is interesting to note that when Chester Alan ARTHUR was born, his father, William ARTHUR was a British subject and not a U.S. citizen. There is ample authenticated historical evidence to substantiate that ARTHUR deliberately and publicly misrepresented his family lineage during his campaign and following his election in 1880 as the 21st President, took steps to destroy evidence, including family and birth records.

Barack Hussein OBAMA II has publicly admitted that his father was a Kenyan native and a British citizen who never became a U.S. citizen. Based on that admission and further verification of his father’s nationality, OBAMA’s status as a natural born citizen and thus, his eligibility to hold the office of President of the United States is questionable at best, at least according to the aforementioned Supreme Court ruling of Minor v. Happersett. This issue becomes more prescient and ominously nefarious when one investigates the overt and covert behavior of OBAMA as a candidate, his actions following his election, the duplicity of the media, members of the U.S. Congress, the Federal Elections Commission and other factors by those who appear to be working individually or in concert to purposely misdirect the core Constitutional argument.

It is obvious that not all presidential candidates are treated equally in terms of their eligibility, as illustrated during the 2008 election. During the 2008 campaign, a lawsuit was filed petitioning the removal of Presidential candidate John McCAIN from the ballot. Ironically, the suit stemmed from the questions over McCAIN’s constitutional eligibility as his natural-born status was in doubt.  To put to rest any doubt, McCAIN responded by providing an authenticated copy of his long form birth certificate to the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) and Congress. Despite the early rumblings of controversy over OBAMA’s origins, OBAMA did not.

Although McCain provided his long form birth certificate and took proactive measures to ensure his eligibility to hold office, many political and media pundits remained unsatisfied. Before the term “birther” became synonymous with racist conspiracy theorist, an article published on 28 February, 2008 in The New York Times titled McCain’s Canal Zone Birth Prompts Queries About Whether That Rules Him Out questioned McCAIN’s eligibility.

On that same day, Senator Claire McCASKILL, a Missouri democrat introduced a bill titled Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act. Oddly, the bill was co-sponsored by both Senators Barack Hussein OBAMA II and Hillary Rodham CLINTON, both who were running against McCAIN at the time the bill was introduced. Despite the specificity of its title, the bill (SB 2678) was an attempt to change the legal definition of a natural born citizen as referenced by Article II, Section I, clause V of the U.S. Constitution, a move that by default, would arguably and preemptively take away any constitutional challenges against the eligibility of Barack Hussein OBAMA II.

Although the bill failed to progress in the Senate, the same lawmakers introduced a non-binding resolution (Senate Resolution 511) on 10 April 2008 to again ostensibly recognize McCAIN as a “natural born citizen,” the resolution contained broad language that could be applied to OBAMA.

The controversy surrounding the eligibility of John McCAIN to hold office continued, at least in the media. On 11 July 2008, an article was published in The New York Times under the title A Hint of New Life to a McCain Birth Issue. The article cited a law professor from the University of Arizona who concluded, in a detailed analysis “that neither Mr. McCain’s birth in 1936 in the Panama Canal Zone nor the fact that his parents were American citizens is enough to satisfy the constitutional requirement that the president must be a “natural-born citizen.”  The law professor cited in that article, Gabriel J. Chin, published a sixty-two page discussion paper in August 2008 titled Why Senator John McCain Cannot be President: Eleven Months and a Hundred Yards Short of Citizenship (Arizona Legal Studies, Discussion Paper 08-14).

The status of Barack Hussein OBAMA, however, remained unquestioned by the majority of academia.

Arguments over importance & relevance: “Birthers” are born

Like the layers of an onion, one must peel back the layers of hyperbole, political agendas, accusations of racism, and other types of detractions and distractions to arrive at the very core of the argument, which is simply this: Is Barack Hussein OBAMA in fact legally eligible, under the United States Constitution, to serve as President of the United States?

There are many who claim that the issue of Obama’s eligibility is unimportant and irrelevant, or an unnecessary distraction to the “real” crises facing America, including but not limited to OBAMA’s policies and actions as President. It is an interesting dichotomy that some of the most vocal proponents of the first amendment are the same who appear to disregard the fourteenth amendment, a practice especially virulent among those in the media. There are also those self-proclaimed conservative media pundits who have the collective audience of millions of Americans who flatly refuse to discuss, let alone demand answers to a legitimate legal question as defined by the U.S. Constitution.

Others claim the argument is moot, as the President was duly elected by the will of the people. Those people are in need of a history lesson as that argument is technically flawed at the most fundamental level.  Others assert that questioning the eligibility issue is rooted in racism and bigotry, at which point the rule of law is ultimately lost in a flurry of deliberate distractions presented in the form of incendiary accusations.

Perhaps the most calculated and methodical approach in use today to dissuade people from addressing this issue is the labeling of anyone who believes that American citizens deserve to know whether Barack Hussein OBAMA meets the eligibility requirements as a “birther.” The negative connotations of this label are vast and incisive, and the evolution of this term has grown to include ancillary questions of OBAMA’s past.

The popular but erroneous perception is that “birthers,” often lumped together with “9/11 truthers” and others who have legitimate questions and concerns about important issues either live in a world where conspiracies dominate their thoughts, or are simply branded as kooks seeking answers to non-existent questions. The fact is that there are indeed legitimate unanswered questions about the events of 9/11 as there are legitimate unanswered questions about the background and overall eligibility of OBAMA. Individuals asking rational, fact based questions about either subject are intentionally combined with others whose questions are obviously well beyond the realm of reason.

In particular, it is not only the absence of authenticated evidence regarding OBAMA’s citizenship status at birth that cause rational people to question his eligibility status under Article II, Section I of the United States Constitution, but the manner in which OBAMA and those in positions of government oversight have responded to legitimate inquiries. It is also how some members of the media have chosen to report on this issue, misreport or otherwise distort the issue, or not report on it at all.

Whatever arguments are used to understate or even mock the importance of this matter, it cannot be denied that the rule of law is being ignored and as a result, the Constitution of the United States is being trampled. If the fourteenth amendment is permitted to be exploited, ignored or violated, it might not be long before other amendments, along with the entire Constitution, become nothing more than a footnote in American history. As such, questions surrounding this matter must be taken seriously.

The Obama eligibility issue: has it already been answered?

No. It has been a common tactic to refute questions about OBAMA’s eligibility by citing the Internet publication of a Certification of Live Birth (COLB), also known as a “short form birth certificate” purportedly issued by the state of Hawaii. The controversial document was originally posted on the Internet at, a political website on or about 12 June 2008 as questions about OBAMA’s place of birth and eligibility status began to become a popular Internet topic. As there was no certification of authenticity that accompanied the alleged document, its provenance could not be established.

Subsequent to the document being posted on the aforementioned website, the “Fight the Smears” website reproduced the document here.  While many believe “Fight the Smears” website is an independent organization dedicated to separating fact from fiction, it is actually owned and operated by “Organizing for America,” the successor organization to “Obama for America.” Clearly, it is far from independent.

Yet another website purported to be an independent arbiter of truth is “,” which claims that the eligibility status of OBAMA has long been satisfied. Like the previous site, it is important to understand who owns or operates the site in order to assess the reliability of the site. The Fact Check website is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania. It receives its primary funding from the Annenberg Foundation. It is relevant to note that Barack Hussein OBAMA II was a founding member, chairman, and past president of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which was also funded by the Annenberg Foundation. Accordingly, it is reasonable to challenge the neutrality of the information provided by that site.

Since then, the image, including variations of the image, have appeared on the Internet to “prove” that Barack Hussein OBAMA meets the eligibility requirements under Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution.

Since its original posting, numerous individuals and websites have sought to disprove the authenticity of the document, which was posted as an image in JPEG format, through analysis of the image or by other means (e.g. sequencing of certificate numbers, absence of state seal, etc.).  Although there appears to be sufficient evidence suggesting the document is not a valid certificate and has been falsely created or the image has been deliberately altered, limiting discussion at this time to the merits of the COLB detracts from a much larger issue: OBAMA’s massive and unprecedented campaign to keep sealed his actual birth certificate (and other relevant records) from public view.

This is not to say that the publication of the COLB document is unimportant. In fact, quite the opposite is true if the matter of legal eligibility is ever properly and thoroughly investigated by a legitimate court of inquiry within the United States. As agents, representatives or the assigns of Barack Hussein OBAMA have publicly asserted that the question of eligibility has been officially answered by the publication of the COLB as listed on officially sanctioned web sites, and it is ultimately proven that the document is deliberately deceptive by any means, an inquiry into violations of the United States Crimes Code, 18 USC Section 1028 encompassing fraud and other related activity involving identification documents might apply.

Since the initial COLB was first published in June 2008, there have been at least two additional incarnations of the document, each containing revisions that bear additional information allegedly “supporting” its authenticity. Accordingly, the Certification of Live Birth is consistently cited by individuals, the media and others to prove the constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein OBAMA.  Nonetheless, even an authenticated and genuine Certification of Live Birth is legally insufficient for the purpose of proving eligibility, as it merely represents that OBAMA’s birth record is on file in the state of Hawaii. It falls short of providing the information necessary to determine constitutional eligibility in at least two areas: it does not offer any information regarding who supplied the information, nor does it confirm the authenticity of the information provided. Again, it merely indicates that the information is “on file.”

Hawaii officials declare Obama eligible

Yet another deception levied against the American people is the assertion that the Hawaiian officials have confirmed Barack Hussein OBAMA’s “eligibility” through a statement issued on 27 July 2009 by Dr. Chiyome FUKINO, Director of the Hawaii Department of Health, which declared Obama Hawaiian-born and a “natural-born American citizen.” Those who claim that the 2009 press release by Dr. FUKINO must understand that FUKINO has absolutely no statutory authority to make such a statement. Accordingly and based on the rule of law, that statement cannot be considered as evidence or legal documentation either to support or deny OBAMA’s eligibility status.

Hawaii birth announcements: anecdotal evidence of eligibility

Many who argue that Barack Hussein OBAMA II was born in Hawaii not only point to the COLB as direct evidence of eligibility, but they also point to two separate birth announcements that appear in the Honolulu Sunday Advertiser and the Star-Bulletin in 1961. Those doing so either fail to understand the legal definition of a natural born citizen as it applies to the eligibility factor, or are guilty of intentionally misdirecting the core issue. A birth announcement is simply that – a public announcement that a baby was born. The birth announcements do not provide any information about the child’s citizenship, cannot be authenticated, and hold no weight of evidence to support either side of the eligibility argument.

Coming next: Legal Stonewalls & identifying the money & people behind the fight

This report is available for downloading in PDF format: Click here.

by DFX April 26, 2010 14:52

Senate Bill S510 Makes it illegal to Grow, Share, Trade or Sell Homegrown Food, or Even to Produce Your Own Food !!
S 510, the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2010, may be the most dangerous bill in the history of the US. It is to our food what the bailout was to our economy, only we can live without money.

“If accepted [S 510] would preclude the public’s right to grow, own, trade, transport, share, feed and eat each and every food that nature makes. It will become the most offensive authority against the cultivation, trade and consumption of food and agricultural products of one’s choice. It will be unconstitutional and contrary to natural law or, if you like, the will of God.” ~Dr. Shiv Chopra, Canada Health whistleblower

It is similar to what India faced with imposition of the salt tax during British rule, only S 510 extends control over all food in the US, violating the fundamental human right to food.

Monsanto says it has no interest in the bill and would not benefit from it, but Monsanto’s Michael Taylor who gave us rBGH and unregulated genetically modified (GM) organisms, appears to have designed it and is waiting as an appointed Food Czar to the FDA (a position unapproved by Congress) to administer the agency it would create — without judicial review — if it passes. S 510 would give Monsanto unlimited power over all US seed, food supplements, food and farming.

In the 1990s, Bill Clinton introduced HACCP (Hazardous Analysis Critical Control Points) purportedly to deal with contamination in the meat industry. Clinton’s HACCP delighted the offending corporate (World Trade Organization “WTO”) meat packers since it allowed them to inspect themselves, eliminated thousands of local food processors (with no history of contamination), and centralized meat into their control. Monsanto promoted HACCP.

In 2008, Hillary Clinton, urged a powerful centralized food safety agency as part of her campaign for president. Her advisor was Mark Penn, CEO of Burson Marsteller*, a giant PR firm representing Monsanto. Clinton lost, but Clinton friends such as Rosa DeLauro, whose husband’s firm lists Monsanto as a progressive client and globalization as an area of expertise, introduced early versions of S 510.
S 510 fails on moral, social, economic, political, constitutional, and human survival grounds.

1. It puts all US food and all US farms under Homeland Security and the Department of Defense, in the event of contamination or an ill-defined emergency. It resembles the Kissinger Plan.

2. It would end US sovereignty over its own food supply by insisting on compliance with the WTO, thus threatening national security. It would end the Uruguay Round Agreement Act of 1994, which put US sovereignty and US law under perfect protection. Instead, S 510 says:


Nothing in this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) shall be construed in a manner inconsistent with the agreement establishing the World Trade Organization or any other treaty or international agreement to which the United States is a party.

3. It would allow the government, under Maritime Law, to define the introduction of any food into commerce (even direct sales between individuals) as smuggling into “the United States.” Since under that law, the US is a corporate entity and not a location, “entry of food into the US” covers food produced anywhere within the land mass of this country and “entering into” it by virtue of being produced.

4. It imposes Codex Alimentarius on the US, a global system of control over food. It allows the United Nations (UN), World Health Organization (WHO), UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), and the WTO to take control of every food on earth and remove access to natural food supplements. Its bizarre history and its expected impact in limiting access to adequate nutrition (while mandating GM food, GM animals, pesticides, hormones, irradiation of food, etc.) threatens all safe and organic food and health itself, since the world knows now it needs vitamins to survive, not just to treat illnesses.

5. It would remove the right to clean, store and thus own seed in the US, putting control of seeds in the hands of Monsanto and other multinationals, threatening US security. See Seeds – How to criminalize them, for more details.

6. It includes NAIS, an animal traceability program that threatens all small farmers and ranchers raising animals. The UN is participating through the WHO, FAO, WTO, and World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) in allowing mass slaughter of even heritage breeds of animals and without proof of disease. Biodiversity in farm animals is being wiped out to substitute genetically engineered animals on which corporations hold patents. Animal diseases can be falsely declared. S 510 includes the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), despite its corrupt involvement in the H1N1 scandal, which is now said to have been concocted by the corporations.

7. It extends a failed and destructive HACCP to all food, thus threatening to do to all local food production and farming what HACCP did to meat production – put it in corporate hands and worsen food safety.

8. It deconstructs what is left of the American economy. It takes agriculture and food, which are the cornerstone of all economies, out of the hands of the citizenry, and puts them under the total control of multinational corporations influencing the UN, WHO, FAO and WTO, with HHS, and CDC, acting as agents, with Homeland Security as the enforcer. The chance to rebuild the economy based on farming, ranching, gardens, food production, natural health, and all the jobs, tools and connected occupations would be eliminated.

9. It would allow the government to mandate antibiotics, hormones, slaughterhouse waste, pesticides and GMOs. This would industrialize every farm in the US, eliminate local organic farming, greatly increase global warming from increased use of oil-based products and long-distance delivery of foods, and make food even more unsafe. The five items listed — the Five Pillars of Food Safety — are precisely the items in the food supply which are the primary source of its danger.

10. It uses food crimes as the entry into police state power and control. The bill postpones defining all the regulations to be imposed; postpones defining crimes to be punished, postpones defining penalties to be applied. It removes fundamental constitutional protections from all citizens in the country, making them subject to a corporate tribunal with unlimited power and penalties, and without judicial review. It is (similar to C-6 in Canada) the end of Rule of Law in the US.

[link to]

Crime and Complicity

Posted: 04/27/2010 by Lynn Dartez in Criminals to We The People

by Tim Case
by Tim Case
Recently by Tim Case: When Utopianism Is Shattered By Reality

“The punishment of the criminal is measured by the degree of astonishment of the judge who finds his crime incomprehensible.”

~ Friedrich W. Nietzsche (1844–1900)

You would think that if the present administration with its adoring minions is going to rule by the Machiavellian code, as outlined in the The Prince, they would at least take to heart the admonition that “as princes cannot help being hated by someone, they ought, in the first place, to avoid being hated by every one, and when they cannot compass this, they ought to endeavor with the utmost diligence to avoid the hatred of the most powerful.”

That is unless Obama et al. are convinced that all the dissention and anger is nothing more than the cries of the ‘idiot du village; which seems to be the case.

Just before he died, Herodian of Antioch reports that the Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius cautioned his son, Commodus, and the young man’s advisors: “…No amount of money is large enough to compensate for a tyrant’s excesses, nor is the protection of his bodyguards enough to shield the ruler who does not possess the good will of his subjects. The ruler who implants in the hearts of his subjects not fear resulting from cruelty, but love occasioned by kindness, is most likely to complete his reign safely…[I]t is not those who submit from necessity but those who are persuaded to obedience who continue to serve and to suffer without suspicion and without pretense of flattery. And they never rebel unless they are driven to it by violence and arrogance…”

As most know the death of Marcus Aurelius transferred to his young son, Commodus, the full title of emperor.

Dio Cassius, (73.1.2) tells us that Commodus was “not naturally wicked but, on the contrary, as guileless as any man that ever lived. His great simplicity, however, together with his cowardice, made him the slave of his companions, and it was through them that he at first, out of ignorance, missed the better life and then was led on into lustful and cruel habits, which soon became second nature.”

Regardless of his character, Commodus had not heeded his father’s words. As such his unrestrained brutality aroused massive unrest resulting in, among other things, a civil war which aided in a continuing erosion of the empire’s stability and prosperity.

Herodian confirms for us that Commodus’ end came when it was discovered that he had sentenced his loyal, loving mistress, Marcia; his praetorian prefect, Laetus; his bedroom steward, Eclectus, and a long list of prominent senators to be put to death.

Marcia “poured the poison into the cup, mixed it with a pungent wine, and gave it to him to drink. Since it was his practice to take a cup of friendship after his many baths and jousts with animals, he drained it without noticing anything unusual.” Afraid that Commodus would somehow live, Marcia, Laetus and Eclectus also persuaded a young nobleman, by the name of Narcissus, to strangle the emperor, just to be sure he really died.

The legacy of Commodus is fittingly coupled with his body being unceremoniously removed from the Imperial palace wrapped in bed linen as just another bundle of dirty laundry, then placed in a common wagon and taken to the outskirts of the city.

It is what happened next that has a lesson for us today.

Wanting to save their lives, because they had murdered Commodus, but also desiring to place a man on the throne that would rule Rome justly, Laetus and Eclectus settled on the most venerated of Commodus’ advisors and native-born Italian by the name of Pertinax.

Pertinax had never sought the purple robe and had had no part in any conspiracy against the emperor. Of Pertinax it can rightfully be said that he served both Marcus Aurelius and Commodus honorably. Even so, when Laetus came with Eclectus to Pertinax’s estate to offer him the position of emperor, his first reaction was to serenely accept the fact that Commodus had sent Eclectus and Laetus to kill him.

“For a long time now,” Pertinax said, “I have been waiting for my life to end in this fashion, and I was surprised that Commodus was so slow to act against me, the sole survivor of the advisers his father appointed for him. Why do you delay? You will be carrying out your orders, and I will be relieved from degrading hope and constant fear.”

It took some time, but Laetus and Eclectus eventually convinced Pertinax they were not there to take his life, but rather to offer him the Roman throne. This, they argued, was because of his age, proven wisdom, distinguished service as a senator and his love for justice.

As word of Commodus’ death spread the Roman people reacted as if the Roman Empire had suddenly found itself translated upward into orbit in the empyrean. Herodian of Antioch explains:

“When these events became known, the people milled about in a frenzy of joy, like men possessed, and everyone took delight in telling the news to his neighbors, especially if they happened to be men of wealth and position, for Commodus was particularly dangerous to such men. Rushing to the temples and altars, the people united in giving thanks to the gods, shouting all sorts of things: ‘The tyrant is dead!’ ‘The gladiator is slain!’ and other blasphemies more scurrilous. All the insults which had hitherto been left unsaid through fear were now voiced openly, with freedom and safety restored.”

The Praetorian Guard was not nearly as easily swayed, but due to the passion of the people, the Praetorian Guard’s knowledge of Pertinax’s courage, his temperate life, his honorable military service, and his acceptance among the troops on the empire’s frontiers, they reluctantly accepted Pertinax as emperor. But first they had to be persuaded that Commodus’ death hadn’t been murder.

It fell to the Praetorian Prefect, Laetus, to address the Praetorian Guard and put their suspicions to rest.

Laetus did exactly that with these words: “Commodus, your emperor, is dead of apoplexy. In a case of this kind, the blame can be put on no one else. The emperor was responsible for his own death. He paid no attention when we urged him time and again to adopt a safer and saner course. You know the way he lived his life. Now he lies dead, choked by his own gluttony. The death he was destined for has overtaken him at last. As you are aware, the cause of death is not one and the same for all men. The most diverse causes bring us to life’s inevitable outcome…”

It was a lie but it roused the people to the point that they accepted it as fact, and while the praetorians were still not convinced, they realized they were surrounded by a mass of the people, and the people had decided the issue by declaring Pertinax their new emperor.

Even with the backing of the people, and the unenthusiastic consent of the Praetorian Guards Pertinax wasn’t sure that the Roman senators would be willing to confirm him as emperor. His concern resided not in his own safety but rather the “abrupt change from the autocracy of Commodus, and about the noble ancestry of certain of the senators. He suspected that these senators, after having been ruled by the most nobly born of all the emperors, would not be willing to let the reins of government fall into the hands of a man who came to the high office from humble and undistinguished antecedents.”

Pertinax’s worries were put to rest when the senate enthusiastically accepted him, then conferred on him the full title of emperor along with “every honor and every token of respect.” The senators then accompanied their new emperor to the temple of Jupiter and the rest of the shrines, subsequently completing their journey by ushering Pertinax into the imperial palace.

What Emperor Pertinax did to try and right the Roman Empire in the next three months can only be described as extraordinary.

Pertinax’s first act was to curb the praetorian’s arrogant, cruel treatment of people. He outlawed their carrying of axes (probably the fasces) and their arbitrary striking of anyone they wished. This order “delighted the older people, and won the good will of the others without difficulty…” Pertinax’s sense of justice freed the people from the savage and oppressive tyranny of which they had become accustomed, allowing them to again live a relaxed, efficient life.

The unique sense of justice exhibited by Pertinax included the banishing of informers who had been accustomed to stealing property by false witness. He even went to extraordinary lengths to see to it that no one could be threatened by false accusations, and to prosecute those who engaged in such practices.

On the domestic front the emperor also banned the unjust tolls; “fees collected at the banks of rivers, the harbors of cities, and the crossroads,” allowing people the freedom of movement that had been restricted under Commodus.

More importantly “Pertinax assigned all the land in Italy and the rest of the provinces not under cultivation, to anyone willing to care for it and farm it, to be his own private property; he gave to each man as much land as he wished and was able to manage, even if the land were imperial property. To these farmers he granted exemption from all taxes for ten years and freedom from government duties as well.”

The emperor would not allow “his name to be stamped on imperial property, stating that these effects were not the emperor’s personal property but the common and public possessions of the Roman Empire.”

Pertinax’s sense of justice also had international repercussions. Herodian confirms that “… the mildness of his rule became known everywhere, all nations subject to Roman rule or friendly to the Romans, and all the armies in the field as well, came to regard his reign as that of a god.”

Even the “barbarians who were formerly restless and rebellious mindful of his brilliant achievements in his previous campaigns, feared him and willingly submitted to him. They put their trust in his reputation for never purposely doing an injustice and always treating every man according to his deserts; improper conduct and savage violence were completely foreign to his nature. Embassies from all countries came to him, and everyone delighted in the rule of the Romans under Pertinax.”

Certainly it doesn’t take much imagination to realize what effect the domestic and foreign policies of Pertinax would have on domestic and foreign markets. There must have been an unbridled joy, coupled with a new enthusiastic fervor that swept over the import businesses along with permeating every sector of economic endeavor.

We will never know what Emperor Pertinax’s strategies would have had on the decaying Roman Empire. His sense of justice and sound fiscal plan had made his powerful enemies among the imperial bodyguard angry.

Those who had habitually supplemented their income through lies, mugging and pillage were not to be denied. The praetorians “who, being accustomed to live licentiously under Commodus,” writes Machiavelli, “could not endure the honest life to which Pertinax wished to reduce them; … having given cause for hatred, to which hatred there was added contempt for his old age” one day they assaulted the Imperial palace and murdered Emperor Pertinax.

The life flowing from the old emperor is equally symbolic of the life ebbing from Old Rome. This one act doomed the empire to years of military despotism, massive inflation and economic failures only to be exacerbated, codified and finally culminated in the edicts of Diocletian.

The instruction that can be gleaned from Pertinax’s short reign is almost legion. Beyond the obvious danger that is faced by all those good men and women who seek to reestablish justice and economic stability through government, there exists a far more ominous admonition.

For far too long we have allowed ourselves to be deluded into thinking that our fight resides with and is encompassed within the framework of political and social ideologies.

As such we use labels such as right and left; liberal and conservative; or socialist and communist to define either foes or ourselves. It is time we realize that these labels are smoke screens designed to justify and persuade us as to why we should be plundered.

Historically the real battle resides not in philosophical gibberish, but in the reality within society that there are powerful criminal elements that will always seek to justify their self-serving, selfish need to rob, maim, imprison and murder others. The conflict always has been between criminal action of the few and the resistance (and/or lack of it) by the mass of intended victims.

Pertinax is reported to have told the Roman senate on the day he was received as emperor, “…[T]hose who have grown accustomed to reveling in the extravagant excesses of a tyranny not only object to any change toward a more moderate and more economical way of life occasioned by a shortage of money, not terming it sensible economy or planned and judicious management, but they reject it as a mean and wretched way to live, oblivious to the fact that had it not been for the loot taken by pillage and plunder, they could never have enjoyed their luxurious way of life.”

Until the people of this nation become enraged at the brutal illicit activities being forced on them, the human, social and legal condition of the United States will continue to be consumed by a voracious criminal element with the same rapaciousness which was experienced by Roman society after the death of Emperor Pertinax.

In case you were wondering, the Roman people did riot for a few days after they learned of Pertinax’s murder, but the Praetorian Guard simply hid in their compound until the people settled down and accepted their fate. This took the Roman people from the state of victimization, to that of being complicit in their own destruction.

April 27, 2010

Tim Case [send him mail] is a 30-year student of the ancient histories who agrees with the first-century stoic Epictetus on this one point: “Only the educated are free.”

Copyright © 2010 by Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

The Arizona Uproar

Posted: 04/27/2010 by Lynn Dartez in AT

April 27, 2010

By Leo W. Banks

Listening to the national uproar, you’d be forgiven for thinking that Arizona has marched into the civil rights apocalypse with its new state law cracking down on illegal immigrants.

Last Friday, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed SB1070, making it a crime to be in the state illegally and requiring cops, where “reasonable suspicion” exists, to determine a person’s legal status.
Rev. Al Sharpton is promising to come to Arizona to march, the New York Times says that the state has gone “off the deep end,” and the Nazi references are flying. Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahony likened SB1070 to “German Nazi and Russian Communist techniques.”
Riding the noise for political advantage, President Obama is summoning his Justice Department to look into the matter, saying that the law would “undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans.”
But 70 percent of Arizona residents support the law, according to Rasmussen.
What’s going on here? Do we know something the rest of the country doesn’t?
Actually, we do. Context is everything, and it’d be nice if the national media provided some, rather than simply slamming Arizona as a redneck haven filled with nativists and bubbas with a hankering for racial profiling.
An estimated 500,000 illegal aliens live in Arizona, and many are decent folks, to be sure. But the border is still wide open, and many more are coming. Last year in Border Patrol’s 262-mile-wide Tucson Sector, agents arrested 241,000 illegal aliens, a drop of more than 130,000 from 2007.
It sounds great until you understand that gotaways outnumber arrests by three to one.
Does the country realize this, or have the people bought Janet Napolitano’s political fairy tale that border security has been “transformed” from where we were in 2007?
As Obama lectures Arizona, citizens here await his decision on an urgent request to send three thousand National Guard troops to the border. Senators John McCain and Jon Kyl recently asked for soldiers, as did Democratic Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, to bring some security to American citizens being hammered by cross-border smugglers and thugs.
Here’s an important bit of context: This isn’t your father’s illegal immigration, when polite farm workers offered to do chores in return for some water and a sandwich as they walked north. Today, the drug cartels have taken over the people-smuggling business. They own the trails into the country and dominate the land, the same way urban gangs control neighborhoods
Any group wanting in has to deal with them, and the going rate is $2,500 per person. If you don’t have the cash, the cartel coyote will offer to bring you in for free if you carry his dope. As Cochise County Sheriff Larry Dever testified to the Senate Homeland Security Committee last week, most of the groups coming up now have a gun behind them.
Along the Chiricahua Corridor smuggling route north and east of Douglas, Arizona, residents have been screaming for some time about break-ins, threats, intimidation, vandalism, and home invasions. But the feds did nothing to keep citizens safe. Instead, they talked amnesty. Then the inevitable happened.
On March 27, Cochise County rancher Rob Krentz was murdered on his land, presumably by a drug smuggler. The death occurred on a well-known drug trail, and trackers followed the killer’s prints back into Mexico. He is still at large.
Now, I can’t argue with those who say that SB1070 has some provisions that smack of desperation — such as making it a crime to stop your car to pick up a day laborer or to enter a stopped car to get temporary work. That sounds impossible to enforce.
But critics also say that it will have no impact on besieged residents of southern Arizona, and I disagree. It could help.
We have a huge problem with crooks coming up from Mexico to our cities and towns, committing crimes, and bolting back south of the border. Not long ago, I wrote a story that backtracked the records of two of these border coyotes and found that between them, they’d been arrested and released by either law enforcement or the courts a total of 35 times.
One was let go after a traffic stop, and the other had worked construction in Phoenix for years. If this law had been in effect, the police might’ve been able to get them off the street before they were able to lead more groups into southern Arizona, break into homes, and frighten citizens.
Civil rights? What about the civil right of American citizens to drive up to their homes at night and have some reasonable assurance that no one is inside?
On March 31, four hundred people gathered outside the one-room Apache School to tell their elected reps what it’s like to live in smuggler-occupied territory. The meeting was held there, in the cold, open air, in part because the nearest place to host a group that size inside was seventy round-trip miles away, and these folks didn’t feel comfortable leaving their homes for that length of time.
They live by a rule of thumb: If you leave your house empty, it will be occupied by illegals or drug smugglers. We’re not talking just about homes five miles from the international line. We’re talking about homes up to sixty miles north of the border.
Racial profiling doesn’t matter much when you’re in a fight to preserve your way of life and keep your family and property safe. Let me give you a different perspective on racial profiling. Now, when Border Patrol chases down and arrests illegals south of I-10, everybody says, “Atta boy. Good police work.”
But if these crossers put a toe north of I-10, they’re home free. Except for Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, nobody is looking for them, and if you do, it’s racial profiling.
The farther you get from the line, the more people want to make this problem about race. It’s the ground the left wants to fight on because it’s so effective. Political correctness shuts people up and keeps the border open.
Arizona has had enough and seen enough. This bill, admittedly flawed, motivated in part by anger and frustration, is an effort to step in and do something about a serious national problem on our southern border that grows more dangerous all the time.
But the national media largely ignore it because it offers up the wrong victims and the wrong politics. They don’t send reporters out to Arizona get the story, to walk the smuggling trails, to sit with beleaguered Americans at their kitchen tables and understand the torment their lives have become.
Instead, they adopt the preening pose of the self-righteous, screaming from a safe distance about the bubbas. All 70 percent of them.
It’s more fun than context.
Leo W. Banks covers the border for Tucson Weekly.

Renouncing American Citizenship

Posted: 04/27/2010 by Lynn Dartez in We The People

by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
Recently by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.: More Powerful Than Armies

Let’s be clear about something. A person who decides to give up his US citizenship is not guilty of disloyalty to America; quite the opposite. He could very well be more loyal to American principles than the regime is willing to tolerate.

It also does not mean that he is giving up hope for liberty; he may have great hope for liberty, in a different way and in a different place.

In any case, the rise of emigration, expatriation, and citizenship renunciation is a trend that is not going away. It is rising and will get more significant. In some ways, it is completely expected. When regimes over-control, over-tax, over-regulate, they gnaw at the innate sense of the right to be free. When this gets worse and worse, people tend to look around for better environments.

We’ve all known people who talk about it openly. It is becoming cocktail conversation, the once-unthinkable now standard fare. It’s not just an impression. State Department records show that 502 people gave up citizenship in just the last quarter of 2009. That is more than twice the total for 2008. That might not seem like a lot but what stands out here is the trend line, which is soaring. I also hear reports of year-long bureaucratic delays in approval, and, of course, plenty of people leave without permission.

The driving factors here are not cultural or social; they are economic. The US government is making it ever more difficult for Americans living abroad, taxing them wherever the bureaucrats can find them. The government makes it very difficult even to hold a bank account in the US unless the account holder can point to a US residency (thanks to the Patriot Act). And when the government finds a reporting error on income earned overseas, it can charge a 50% penalty.

Even when a person gives up US citizenship, and establishes citizenship with a freer country, the US government can still haunt him with continuing tax obligations and demands for military service. There is, at the least, a vast exit penalty. Any regime that would do things like this inspires people to want to stay at arm’s length.

Far more frightening is the sense that financial calamity is around the corner. A look at the data seems to suggest that. Vast reserves are sitting in the banking system, waiting to be unleashed to create what could be total destruction of the dollar. The deficit is rising so fast that it is hard to chart.

The jobs situation is terrible, especially for young people (and adults often make decisions based on what is best for their kids’ future). Personal income is falling and falling. Investment is not recovering after its cliff dive in 2009. The social welfare state is broke. Private debt is rising even though lending has not restarted.

The policies of the fiscal and monetary authorities are absolutely terrifying. The Fed is keeping rates at zero. The government is spending and spending beyond belief. Tax receipts are falling as never before, unleashing the greedy hand of the predator state to extract every last dime.

And look at what the US congress and president are doing about this terrible mess: they are working to socialize health care, start a war with Iran, impose tariffs on China, and otherwise tax, regulate, inflate, and control more more more. An economy that is heavily capitalized and driven by the entrepreneurial spirit can stand a surprising amount of abuse. But that reserve capital is being drained away into new bubbles, and the entrepreneurial spirit is being crushed at every turn.

Based on all these facts, the sense of impending doom is hard to avoid. And consider that most people are thinking only about today, this month, and this year. But among the rich and entrepreneurial we find a class of people who specialize in thinking outside the box, and for the very long term. It is among the ranks of these people that we are seeing the renunciation trend take hold. The smart money is giving up on the US political system.

What precisely is a person actually giving up when he walks into a US consulate and signs the renunciation oath? The right to vote? Yes, but just how much value are we supposed to place on the right to choose between dumb and dumber, and to have your vote cancelled out by the guy behind you in the line? No living person has ever swung a significant election. It is hardly a surprise that people put so little value on going through the motions of democracy.

There is much to give up in a cultural and social sense. It is not a decision to be made with a light heart. It is final and scary for that reason. What compels many people to do it now rather than wait is the sense that at some point, it might not be possible to renounce citizenship. As the controls grow ever tighter, so will the regulations on those who try to escape.

Every socialist and fascist regime in history has put up walls to prevent flight by people and capital. This is why people and capital are flying now, while they still can. In so doing, they are inspired by the writings of the American revolutionaries. The difference is that they have decided that living in the land of the free and the home of the brave means not being a slave of the US government.

The way to stop the brain and capital drain is readily at hand. Relinquish controls. Stop taxing people abroad. Adopt laissez-faire. Reinstitute freedom. Reject militarism and nationalism. Only that path will inspire optimism in the future of this country. Until that happens, we can expect this trend to continue, and to advise the young and successful families who ask us, to get out while the getting is good.

Books by Lew Rockwell

April 27, 2010

Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. [send him mail], former publications editor to Ludwig von Mises and congressional chief of staff to Ron Paul, is founder and chairman of the Mises Institute, executor for the estate of Murray N. Rothbard, and editor of See his books.

Copyright © 2010 by Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.