Thursday, February 17, 2011


The notion that federal government officials are necessarily opposed to efforts by states and local communities to nullify federal law is provably wrong. In fact, there is one area of national policy where the fedgov actively encourages nullification.

We are talking "sanctuary states" and "sanctuary cities" here. Over one half of US states either provide "sanctuary" to illegals outright or contain cities and counties that do: You can see a map by following this link.

Federal law prohibits entry into the US without a proper passport and visa or other entry permit.  Since the fedgov actively encourages local violation of its immigration laws, how can it argue that other areas of the law are "off limits" to nullification?

What's good for the federal goose is also good for the local gander. This brings into play what is known in equity (a legally recognized doctrine based on moral concepts of fairness rather than positively enacted and case-specific law) as the "doctrine of unclean hands". After consciously and deliberately allowing this practice to continue for this long, the fedgov cannot now be heard to complain when state and local governments take it up on the offer and use the principle of Nullification to resist the enforcement of other federal laws. In essence, it has "waived" its argument. It is "estopped" from making its claim in any court of law.

There is no federal law that actually authorizes local communities to establish sanctuary to illegals. That means sanctuary communities are illegal. The federal government's open acquiescence to this blatant violation of its own laws in the area of immigration - and therefore of national security - therefore prevents it from opposing such efforts in other areas - like health care.

It would probably be helpful for those state attorney generals that are currently embroiled in legal battles with the federal government over their efforts to nullify Obama(Don't)Care, for example, to use this argument to their advantage. It will be very interesting to watch federal courts scrambling to craft a line of legal reasoning that would support the federal government's not only illegal but contradictory practice.

Wednesday, January 26, 2011


Obama is Either Ineligible or He Lied - or Both

Synopsis: The new, Obama-friendly governor of Hawaii now admits he can't find proof Obama was born there. Even if he could find such proof, Obama still cannot be US president because his father was admittedly a non-citizen, and only the children of two US citizens who are born on US soil can be natural born citizens. There is only one other option under which Obama could conceivably be eligible, and that is if he lied from beginning to end and his father was not Obama, Sr. but an undisclosed US citizen and if he was born in a US state other than Hawaii. In either case, he is exposed as a pathological liar. That alone makes him unfit to be President.

Accordingly, Obama just can't win. Not now, not again, and not in 2012. You will be able to witness how the Democratic party slowly begins to publicly disassociate itself from him. George Soros, who unofficially rules its members through large-scale donation to selective progressive outfits, already has.

It is useful to go through these propositions point by point:

A. There is No Proof OBama Was Born in Hawaii.

Hawaii's new governor, Neil Abercrombie, has publicly set out to "prove" that Obama was born in Hawaii - and has famously and just as publicly failed.

What does that prove? Does it prove Obama was not born there? No, it does not. It is at least theoretically possible that he was born there, but without proof, he could not have proved to the Democrat party leadership that he was eligible, which makes their affidavits swearing he is eligible patently fraudulent. Can you imagine them testifying in court and saying "Well, we simply believed him" as a defense?

Under the federal perjury statute, all it takes is for someone to swear that something is true when he (or she) doubts the truth of the statement. If the affiant doubts it, it's perjury. If they had no proof, they must have had doubt. Belief in the absence of proof may be justifiable in religion, but certainly not in politics.

The upshot of it all: Obama cannot prove that he was born in Hawaii - and without proof, he can't be deemed to be eligible under the theory that birth in Hawaii qualifies him. But, alas, that's just an unproved theory.

B. Even if He Was Born in Hawaii, His Alien Father Disqualifies Him

At the time of the drafting and ratification of the Constitution, only one legal writer had used the term "natural born citizen". His name was Emmerich de Vattel. De Vattel's stated definition of the term he himself coined is this: "natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens." No one else qualifies. See

Since the founders used de Vattel's term, they by force of reason adopted his definition of the term.
Obama's father was obviously not a US citizen at his birth, so Obama was not "born of parents who are citizens."

Case closed.

Legally, there is no other meaning that could be assigned to the term the Founders used in Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution. The British used the term "natural born subject", which quite obviously is not the same as a "natural born citizen." Americans are citizens, not subjects. In the Constitution, the phrase "natural born" cannot be divorced from the word "citizen." Otherwise, the Founders would have simply declared that a presidential candidate must be "natural born" to qualify. They did not. They used Vattel's full term - and thereby unavoidably adopted his full definition.

C.  If He Was Born to a Citizen Father in Another State, He Lied to Everyone:

If those who pushed Oby on us get too desperate, they may come up with a last-ditch effort to at least save his official "legacy". They may do this by conjuring up (or actually disclosing, who knows?) that his real father was some as yet concealed US citizen, not Obama, Sr., but it won't work.

In his book "Dreams of My Father", Obama wrote that he was born in Hawaii and that his father was Obama, Sr. You can already see where this is going: If Obama lied about his personal history in a book he wrote and published to the whole world, he does not deserve to be President of the United States. (If you argue he does, what does that say about you?)

Congress January 2009 vote (however unanimous) to accept his nomination and election was implicitly but necessarily based on his and the Democratic Party leadership's representations that he was born in Hawaii. Under these facts, if Obama (or anyone else) now tries to prove that he is indeed eligible, nevertheless, he must necessarily contradict that upon which Congress based its vote. Doing so will make him guilty of lying to Congress - a federal crime. Even though proving such would at least technically "qualify" him to be president from a legal and constitutional standpoint, all it would effectively accomplish is to also qualify him to be be impeached. (Only an eligible president is a real president, and only a real president can be impeached under the Constitution. An ineligible president is no president at all). As a result, he is either ineligible - or he is impeachable. Not an enviable position to be in.

After all of this is sufficiently digested in the public domain, the Democrats will have to make a decision. Stand behind him and go down with him, or ditch him and disassociate themselves from him. Their decision will likely be to discredit him completely and in that way to at least salvage his official acts as president (i.e., his signing of "ObyCare" and other federal legislation as well as all of his judicial and other appointments, including the regulations promulgated under his presidency). So, expect news to be leaked soon that he lied about everything, but that "he really is a natural born citizen", nevertheless. Magically, a birth certificate from some other state may pop up. Or maybe, just as magically, his real dad may emerge and prove via some donated DNA that Oby is his son, indeed. 

It won't be pretty, but it will at least save the day for the Democrats' agenda - or so they may think.

The inevitable result, however, will be that Democrats will lose nearly every election from here on out because they have, as a party, committed perjury and/or suborned perjury in falsely certifying that Obama is eligible. In other words, they have defrauded the American public to their own eternal discredit.

At the same time, our Supreme Court will lose whatever is left of its former "face" for having so obviously punted on the issue. The media will lose face for having demonized "birthers" all along for doubting his birth story. They will also lose face for not doing their actual job (to investigate and report on his past in a proper way).

The only other way will be for the current administration to silence all "Obama-deniers" for good by shutting down their websites and by making select individuals whom it deems to be the leaders of the movement "disappear". Why?

Obviously, ridiculing them by itself has not worked.

So, if you, dear reader, discover that certain "birther" websites are disappearing from the Internet, be afraid - even if you personally detest the birthers..

If you notice that certain individuals connected with thesewebsites are disappearing as well, be very afraid - for if that happens, it will mean that no one is safe anymore in these United States.

It will mean that, despite his public failure as our pretender-in-chief, Obama and those who supported him all along from behind the curtain will have achieved their goal of turning America into a perfectly controlled police state, not unlike Hitler's Germany, and turning you into a subject of its governing elite.

There is only one way to prevent the latter from happening, and that is to publicize and openly debate the hell out of this topic. The powers that be are still afraid of the masses, otherwise they would already be clamping down with full and lethal force. If the masses are informed, they will hide and pretend nothing happened. Therefore, any American who shrinks back from this topic will be complicit in the crime that has been perpetrated upon his country.

Whichever way this story will end up working itself out, it has no truly happy ending - but it also will never simply "go away" as so many have understandably wished and continue to wish. That train has left the station. In fact, that train has never stopped at the platform for anyone to board. Now it all depends on you, dear reader, and your reaction to the events as they unfold for all of us to see. Will you take absolute tyranny lying down, or will you fight?

It is no exaggeration to say that you will indeed decide the future of America.

One way - or the other.