Why Alex Jones;’ message works

Much to the chagrin of fake libs like most of MSNBC and fake conservatives like Daughter of Zion Debbie Schlussel, the Texas Tornado of Talk has a message that needs to be heard…OLIGARCHY IN MEDIA BE DAMNED!

Introducing the speech, fellow talk radio host Lionel explains how Alex has seized every broadcast medium possible and used it as a platform for the Infowar, including the legendary Google bomb, which prompted Google to change their whole algorithm process in a bid to stop Alex from making certain topics go viral through the power of his listeners. Lionel humorously emphasizes how people like Alex are pivotal in keeping alive the format of spoken word in an environment where millions of You Tube users with minuscule attention spans have little other interest than watching clips of a “a duck playing a piano”.

Alex Jones then commences his speech by discussing the how the landscape of communications is being transformed right now as the powers that be attempt to seize control of the Internet and strangle all alternative voices as a quickening towards technological singularity advances. However, with the establishment now so discredited and untrustworthy, Alex explains how their attacks are actually having blowback and making people turn to the alternative media to an even greater extent.

Alex addresses the assault on the First Amendment, down to the level of other major talk show hosts who publicly announced their refusal to attend the Talkers conference simply because Alex would be speaking, and passionately argues how free speech – a rare commodity in much of the world – is treated like toilet paper by a lot of Americans who believe themselves to be part of the crony establishment.

Alex then unveils the basic truth behind the growing popularity of his message – talk about real issues and do so from a position of honesty and veritas – ignore temptations to join the system and just become a parroter of the controlled consensus and the managed paradigm – become a maverick, look at issues from different perspectives and never follow the herd. Most of our readers are fully cognizant of this, but for a lot of the individuals in the Talkers audience listening to Alex’s speech, this would have been something of a revelation.

<object style=”height: 390px; width: 640px”><param name=”movie” value=”http://www.youtube.com/v/d5nyxkv9c18?version=3″><param name=”allowFullScreen” value=”true”><param name=”allowScriptAccess” value=”always”></object>

<object style=”height: 390px; width: 640px”><param name=”movie” value=”http://www.youtube.com/v/hLd3RIPa-EQ?version=3″><param name=”allowFullScreen” value=”true”><param name=”allowScriptAccess” value=”always”></object>

Adobe Expert..YEP IT’S FAKE

OKAY CORPORATE FASCIST MEDIA, YOU HAVE BEEN SCOOPED AGAIN!  Before the National Press Club, Mara Zebest, an expert on Adobe software (Illustrator and Reader for PDF, Audition for digital editing, etc) explained why the so-called birth certificate is just that…SO-CALLED.





Oh but friends, there is more.



WND sues Esquire for faked report; ‘You can’t just make up words and put them in people’s mouths’ -Details here.

Birthers Sue Esquire for $120 Million Over Satirical Article -Ridicule starts here.

Birthers Sue Esquire Over Parody, Seeking More than $200 Million -And here.



And more video here.


Alex Jones at his YouTube channel has an expose on the chemical BPA as well as an article from the London Telegraph on the dangers of this chemical called Bisphenol-A or the Gender Bending drug.  The video from the YT channel is broken into three parts below.


Bisphenol-A (BPA), known as the “gender bending” chemical because of its connection to male impotence, has now been shown to decrease sperm mobility and quality.

The findings are likely to increase pressure on governments around the world to follow Canada and ban the substance from our shelves.

BPA is used widely to make plastic harder and watertight tin cans.

It is found in most food and drink cans — including tins of infant formula milk — plastic food containers, and the casings of mobile phones, and other electronic goods.



At the comments section of the Infowars page, chemnate seems to know first hand about BPA…


They’re starting to rule out BPA from food grade plastics because it can act as an estrogen agonist, which i thought was general knowledge by now.. How would I know? I work for a company that makes plastic.   The amount of BPA was probably in 60% of consumer food grade plastics 8 years ago, but today… maybe 10%. If you care worried you can look at the ‘recycling code’ on the bottom of bottles and containers. 1,2,4,5,6 don’t contain any BPA. While 3 and 7 might have some in it.


If you ask me BPA should be DOA!


Your mission, should you chose to accept it and if ye believe in the Constitution, is to give THIS to your congressional critters!

And let’s add this to the fire as well.

This video explains everything you need to know about “natural born Citizen.” Through the research of Mario Apuzzo and Leo Donofrio, we can conclude that there is Supreme Court precedent regarding the definition of “natural born Citizen” in Minor v. Happersett (1875). That precedent is NOT affected by the 14th Amendment or by any other case law, including U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. For more visit http://www.deanhaskins.wordpress.com




Is US fighting a war in Libya?

The decision to go to Libya has become the center of conversation in Washington.   It’s not just a political issue, however, but also a point of contention in the power struggle between the legislative and executive branches.   This morning there was a hearing with senators on both sides of the aisle questioning the State Department’s top lawyer Harold Koh.   Koh is urging US lawmakers to vote for a resolution authorizing America’s role in the NATO-led mission in Libya. Lawmakers say that, under the War Powers Resolution, President Obama should have come to Congress for authorization a long time ago. Vijay Prashad of Trinity College (Hartford) speaks to RT’s Kristine Frazao.

Same Sex marriage…DOES NOT EXIST

Especially in the eyes of one Devvy Kidd.  In her explosive News With Views commentary (Warning: Explicit language…Reader discretion advised.  If ye be offended by this because you are homosexual…well too bad perhaps on your part.)  The story goes a little like this…


A man sent me an email after my last column on the queering of America’s churches saying I shouldn’t be so explicit in my use of words. Wrong. This country needs some reality and not just more propaganda wrapped up in fuzzy, politically correct words like “gay.” Oh, John and Bill are wonderful gays. Sam and Tom are gay. Well, exactly what does that mean? That the sum total of their sexual preferences are kissing and holding hands? Do people understand how they are being manipulated by words, images and repeated lies?

Is describing what homosexuals do offensive? I have yet to hear one single person say that having sex in someone else’s rectum and feces is normal and healthy. Criticizing the filthy practice of sodomy is called “hate speech.” How else should one describe sodomy practiced by “gays”? Perhaps I should call it buggery, but it doesn’t change the act.

Late Friday night, June 24, 2011, New York became the sixth state of the Union to “legalize” marriage for sexual deviants. The world was immediately flooded with live media feeds of debauchery in several major cities. New York City saw “lots of celebrations.” Men who have sex in each other’s feces were kissing and groping. Females who slobber in each other’s vaginas and other perversions, kissing and hugging. I find that highly offensive. Oh, I know the old argument on this issue about “tolerance” – especially from Libertarians. My personal opinion, which always gets me in trouble with libertarians, is that they confuse licentiousness with liberty.

The cultural war regarding sexual deviants has been waged with increased fervor since AIDS came to the attention of the American people. THAT is when the push really began for “tolerance” and “social justice” regarding sexual deviants. A deadly disease that was infecting and killing thousands spread by men having dangerous sex. Of course, the spread of AIDS and HIV could have come to a near complete stop had men stopped the practice of sodomy. They didn’t back in the 80s, and, sadly, the rest is history.


Sen. Mark Grisanti, a GOP freshman from Buffalo who also had been undecided, also voted for the bill. Grisanti said he could not deny anyone what he called basic rights. “I apologize to those I offend,” said Grisanti, a Roman Catholic. “But I believe you can be wiser today than yesterday. I believe this state needs to provide equal rights and protections for all its residents,” he said.” Grisanti is a Catholic in name only because he spit in God’s face with his vote. It was a no brainer morally bankrupt Gov. Andrew Cuomo would sign the bill calling it “social justice.”

Senator Grisanti, I am a Catholic and am deeply angered by your reasoning.  But then again, there are sexual miscreants within the church who need to answer for their misgivings and NOW!  There were also many reasons I do not believe the praise Il Ducecito Cuomo is getting for his so-called handling of the economy there.  Mr. Grisanti, you are a CINO…Catholic In Name Only!

Kidd justifiably names communists as the reason why such misrepresentations take place in society as it is part of their goal of world domination.

[L]et me quote Jeri Lynn Ball from her book, Masters of Seduction:

“Communist masters who ran the “former” Soviet Union and East Bloc nations during the Cold War are still in control of these hapless countries today and that they are waging psychological warfare, using the same powerful secret weapon to subjugate Americans that they used to enslave their own people. The Russian totalitarians, Red Chinese, and their globalist American “partners” are using this secret ideological weapon, among other things, to achieve world domination….

“Nikolai Bukharin had previously written “that the revolution’s principle task was to ‘alter people’s actual psychology.’” In 1928 Bukharin stated that “one of the first priorities is the question of the systematic preparation of new men, the builders of [totalitarian] socialism.” In his book, Soviet Civilization, Andrei Sinyavsky states that the “idea of the new man is the cornerstone of Soviet civilization.”

The communists have never wavered from their goals:

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”

27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion.

Change the way people think and believe. Destroy the traditional family and marriage between only a man and woman. Replace with two daddys or two mommies. 

And so on.  Though I am a Constitutionalist, I put family ahead of everything.  To me, family=freedom, freedom from the tyranny of the world driven by the Illuminati and misgivings in the media.  And as one would expect, the injustice system is not spared from deviating from that which God gave us.

Of course, lawsuits followed and a preliminary injunction from the trial court prevented the will of the people from ever being law. That injunction was upheld by the Colorado Supreme Court, who along with the trial court, sided saying the rights of sexual deviants was violated regarding participation in the political process. All based on a lie: Born that way.

Next up in the judicial cesspool we had Lawrence v Texas. A total set up to test sodomy laws here in Texas. I read Sex Appealed: Was the US Supreme Court Fooled? by Judge Janice Law. She accurately describes how sexual deviants staged a sodomy event so they would be arrested. Now, this is important: If you read no other book on this, read How to Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary by Dr. Edwin Vieira. It’s not one of this 1,000 page tomes, but it is critical in understanding how the courts have driven a stake through the heart of traditional morals in this country. Oh, and that other “out dated” argument about God calling sodomy and women who defile their bodies with each other as an abomination.

READ that book to clearly and fully understand what that U.S. Supreme Court did to this country AND the subversion of our laws. Part I of Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary is: The Illegitimate Insinuation of Foreign Law and Amorialty Into America’s Constitutional Jurisprudence. For those conservatives who think Sandra Day O’Connor was a “great” justice of the Supreme Court, I submit that you don’t have a clue. Quoting from page 26: “On the other side, Justice O’Connor did not deny that homosexuality is a voluntarily chosen lifestyle…”

There you have it. It doesn’t matter sodomites and lesbians are not “born that way” as screeched by the sluttish pop diva “Lady” Gaga. I guarantee you that once you are finished with Edwin’s book, you will have a complete education on our rotten judicial system and why favorable decisions to promote sexual deviants is rampant. SHAME on the “conservative” Republicans in the Outlaw Congress (most still in office) who have done nothing to throw activist federal judges off the bench when they’ve had complete control of Congress over the Democrats.

Devvy, like myself is not goo-goo for that tranny piece of Illuminati crap Lady Gaga.   And to Sandra Day O’Connor, for once in your leftist life YE SPOKE THE TRUTH!  Can this so-called law be challenged?  Yes, but it won’t be easy.

How about business owners who refuse to recognize “same sex marriage”? Let’s say Countryside Bank (fictional name) in Madison, NY refuses to open a bank account for Mr. and Mr. Sexual Deviants because the owners of the bank refuse to flush their moral code down the commode. Or, a family who owns a motel refuses to rent a room for the night for Mr. and Mr. or Mrs. and Mrs. Sexual Deviant. The first thing that will happen is the America hating ACLU will jump in and sue. That is why you must read How to Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary.

Sites in Massachusetts where gay marriage is legal like Mass Resistance, headed by the warrior of New England Culture Brian Canemaker have been all over this like the cliched stink on feces.  Perhaps NY passed this so-called law as a payback against those who hated disgraced leftist Congressman Anthony Weiner, who attended a gay pride parade a few years ago.  Oh and one other thing, the oligarchy helps finance the Luciferian activity of queer nation.

Starve the sponsors. Earlier this month, “Gay” Pride Week in Boston paraded in the streets; photos here. Think those types of parades will only stay in the big cities like SF and Boston? Think again. Where was Cardinal Sean O’Malley from the Archdiocese of Boston? The only response to the toxic “same sex” marriage “law” in New York from the Catholic Church was they found it “disturbing”. By all that’s holy, Cardinal O’Malley should have been out there on the street at that parade denouncing sin!

Need I remind you there are miscreants in the Catholic Church who need to be exposed and embarrassed?

If you in Queer Nation think Devvy Kidd hates you…think about this…

As for the issue of hating homosexuals and lesbians, that is not in my heart. I feel pity and great sadness for those who have been lured into a dangerous and immoral “alternative lifestyle.” I hope you can read the uplifting story about Michael Glatze and why he left the homosexual lifestyle.

YES PEOPLE CAN QUIT THE GAY LIFESTYLE…if not you are 50 TIMES AS LIKELY to get AIDS if you are a homosexual male.  I wouldn’t want that on my conscience.

The numbers keep rising

For those who want the truth about Obama/Soetoro’s eligibility.  According to World Net Daily

Half of Americans would like to see Congress investigate Barack Obama’s eligibility for the presidency and nearly that many believe the definition of the constitutional term “natural born citizen” means both parents must be U.S. citizens, according to a new scientific poll.

“There’s no marginalizing those who want this matter investigated by Congress,” said Fritz Wenzel of Wenzel Strategies, who conducted the WND/Wenzel Poll telephone survey June 16-19. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.85 points.

Even among Democrats, more than one in four – 28 percent – said they now want an inquiry, as do 43 percent of independents and 77 percent of Republicans. Interestingly, men are much more skeptical than are women about the question of eligibility – only 42 percent of men said they think Obama proved his eligibility by releasing the electronic birth certificate, compared to 59 percent of women.”


And to those who still think Marco Rubio can run for President or Vice President…THINK AGAIN!  Courtesy of Give Us Liberty by way of Commander Kerchner.

Senator Marco Rubio’s father was not a naturalized citizen when Marco was born in May 1971 per National Archives data. His father applied for naturalization in Sep 1975. Marco Rubio not constitutionally eligible to run for President or VP.

A natural born Citizen of the United States is one born in the United States to two U.S. Citizens who were Citizens of the United States either by birth or naturalization at the time of the birth of the child.  A natural born Citizen of the United States is a child born with sole allegiance to the United States, a person born without Citizenship in any other country other than the USA at the time of their birth.  A natural born Citizen has no foreign influence or claim on them by another country at the time of their birth under U.S. law and the Law of Nations.  That is why the founders and framers chose the legal term of art “natural born Citizen” for the eligibility clause for the singular most powerful office in our form of government, the President and Commander in Chief of our military. They did not wish command of our military forces to ever devolve to a person born with dual allegiances.

Senator Marco Rubio of FL has been evasive and not been forthcoming about his exact citizenship status upon his birth in the United States in May 1971.  Phone calls, emails, and letters to his office by various volunteers over the last year have gone  unanswered on the question of whether his parents (who were immigrants from Cuba) had become naturalized citizens of the USA by the time of Marco’s birth in the USA.
We have given Senator Rubio long enough to be voluntarily forthcoming on this information.  A phone call last week by a volunteer researcher assisting my efforts to learn more about Senator Marco Rubio’s exact birth citizenship status was made to the National Archives (NARA) to learn the facts about Senator Marco Rubio and certain other individuals who are mentioned in the media as potential candidates for President or Vice President.  That is, are they constitutionally eligible, i.e., “natural born Citizens of the United States” as is required in Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.
According to the information conveyed to the volunteer during the phone calls to NARA about Senator Marco Rubio of FL, his father did not petition to become a naturalized citizen of the United States until Sep 1975, a full four years after Marco Rubio was born.  A natural born Citizen of the United States is one born in the United States to two U.S. Citizens at the time of the birth.  Thus Senator Marco Rubio is NOT a natural born Citizen of the United States.  He is a native born Citizen under the 14th Amendment and/or the Wong Kim Ark (1898) Supreme Court decision which grants basic citizenship to individuals born in the USA.  But Senator Marco Rubio is NOT a natural born Citizen under Article II, Section 1.  Thus Senator Marco Rubio is NOT constitutionally eligible to serve as President or Vice President of the United States per Article II, Section 1, and the last sentence of the 12th Amendment to the Constitution.  Senator Marco Rubio has obviously known this for a long time.   His silence in response to the American electorate and avoidance to answering the questions put to him over the last year about this issue says a lot about Marco Rubio and indicates that when it comes to his own personal political objectives he is in the progressive school of thought about following the fundamental law of the land, our U.S. Constitution.  To people of the progressive school of thinking the Constitution says and means whatever one wants it to mean to allow one to achieve their personal political power and goals, i.e., what John McCain did in the 2008 presidential election cycle in making a deal with Senator Obama and the U.S. Senate so that McCain could run unmolested about questions by the Democrat Party operatives and their allies in the major media as to his natural born Citizenship status.


Of course folks, the more the Mockingbird Media and complicit politicians remain silent, there may be only one alternative left.


It is the fear induced by such events that paralyzes Congress from challenging Obama and the subsequent inaction by authorities that is further degrading the rule of law.

Obama and his followers know this and will use every means possible to intimidate the opposition and sway the 2012 election in his direction.

Obama has already trampled on the Constitution, ruthlessly over-stepped his authority and is rapidly eroding our liberties. He is, in my opinion, an illegal President and, most likely, a multiple felon.

Unlike many of the political elite, patriotic Americans will wait no longer. We will stand our ground, fight to uphold the Constitution and restore sanity to the country.

Time’s up. Let’s roll.


Or to quote Thomas Jefferson…


The Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.



The Icon of Liberty

Ron Paul on Freedom Watch recently…


Obots continue to mislead

It comes as no surprise when it comes to Obama/Soetoro’s eligibility, you have trillion dollar corporations who run the global media, about 4 of them, and the CIA mix with communists in Operation Mockingbird.  Among those part of the conspiracy are the deliberate lies told by a so-called independent website snopes.com, which in reality, is one of many affronts for Obaoama/Soetoro and the New World Order.

At lawyer Mario Apuzzo’s blog (Apuzzo is one of many lawyers who have tried before corrupt and uncaring courts, as the courts are bought and paid for by Soros and the NWO.) he takes snopes to task for an article written by the site.


I. Snopes only addresses the on-line created story of French immigrant, Jean Paul Ludwig, who was born in 1890 and died in Honolulu in 1981. Snopes tells us that Mr. Ludwig’s number was 045-26-8722 which is different from Obama’s 042-xx-xxxx. How nice for someone to feed false stories into the “news” and then have Snopes debunk them.

II. Snopes does not address the question of whose Social Security number is Obama using. That he is using someone else’s Social Security number has been well analyzed by private investigators Neil Sanky and Susan Daniels. For a thorough explanation on Obama using a false Connecticut Social Security number, go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZlaIS5o9Vs in which Ms. Daniels explains that the Connecticut SS number belonged to a person born in 1890 whom she has not yet been able to identify. She also debunks the Jean Paul Ludwig theory. Ms. Daniels explains that the first three digits of the number were based on the location from where someone applied for the Social Security number. She clearly explains that it has nothing to do with one’s place of birth. She also explains that there is no evidence that Obama ever lived in Connecticut and that there is no other explanation that she has found showing why or how a 15-year-old Obama living in Hawaii would have applied for the Social Security number while using a Connecticut address on the application for that number. See also Ms. Daniels and Mr. Sanky’s response to this Snopes article at http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/06/private-investigators-respond-to-snopes.html.

In her video presentation and response, Ms. Daniels explains that based on the record, Obama would have had to obtained that false number in March or April 1977, when he was 15 years old. She arrives at that conclusion because the Social Security number that precedes his by one number was issued on March 21, 1977. She states: “Obama allegedly got his CT number of 042-68-4425 in March ’77, which can be proven since the person before him -4424 and after him -4429 both got theirs then.” But we should ask ourselves, what is a 15-year-old teenager going to high school in Hawaii in the Spring of 1977 doing obtaining a false Social Security number? Something just does not make sense.

Ms. Daniels explains how she found Obama’s Selective Service registration record which also contains the same Connecticut Social Security number. She believes that the Selective Service registration was fraudulently done in 2008. She explains how someone floated in the public domain a letter allegedly from the Selective Service office in which it acknowledges Obama’s having applied and obtained the registration number in 1980. The problem that she identifies is that the government form which is the acknowledgement itself shows in small print at the bottom that it was not printed until 2007. Hence, the Selective Service letter, along with the Social Security number and Selective Service registration, is fraudulent also.


III. Snopes’ explanation (relying on Wikipedia) regarding the use of 042 and the claim that the number is “reserved for Connecticut residents” which Obama never was, also does not solve anything. Snopes concedes that before 1973 the first three numbers given to a Social Security number designated the location of the Social Security Office which issued the original Social Security card. It also explains that since 1973 (when all cards began to be issued from one central location in Baltimore), that number “‘has been based on the ZIP code in the mailing address provided on the application for the original Social Security card’” (quoting Wikipedia). It explains that a mailing address does not equate to someone’s place of birth or even place of residence. But Snopes provides no explanation how Obama ended up with the Connecticut 042 number, regardless of whether he obtained his number either before or after 1973. Why does Snopes not produce evidence that Obama’s original application shows that he provided a mailing address with a zip code that would generate the 042 assignment?

I do not see what the big mystery is. But then with Obama it is par for the course. Orly Taitz has asked the Social Security Administration through the Freedom of Information Act for a copy of Obama’s Social Security application documents. The documents, assuming they are real, can easily debunk any claim that Obama is using a false Social Security number. But, Obama, in his Obamaesque style, has not voluntarily provided a copy of those documents. I submit to Snopes that it would better spend its time investigating that and pressing Obama for a copy of those documents so that it can really debunk the claim that Obama is using a false Social Security number.

IV. Finally, we come to Snopes’ most incorrect statement. It says that since Obama is a “natural born Citizen,” his grandmother would have no reason to appropriate someone else’s Social Security number.

First, the veracity of the claim that Obama is using a fake Social Security number does not depend on proving that his grandmother appropriated it.

Second, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, provides: “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.” Under this eligibility clause, I have argued since December 2008 that one must show that he or she is not only a “citizen” of the United States to be eligible to be President, but also a “natural born Citizen” of the United States. http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2008/12/two-constitutional-obstacles-obama-has.html. I also made this argument in the case of Kerchner v. Obama/Congress. The case was first hear in the New Jersey Federal District Court and reported at Kerchner v. Obama, 669 F.Supp.2d 477 (D.N.J. 2009). Never reaching the merits of the questions of whether Obama conclusively proved that he was born in Hawaii or that he meets the constitutional definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen, the District Court dismissed the case because of standing and political question. I appealed the case to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, whose decision is reported at Kerchner v. Obama, 612 F.3d 204 (3rd. Cir. 2010). The Third Circuit, also not reaching the merits of the case, affirmed the lower court, saying the plaintiffs did not have Article III standing. Probably the most important statement that any court made in all the Obama cases is that made by the Circuit Court in footnote 4 of its decision where it stated: “We need not discuss Appellants’ contention that “the original common law definition of an Article II ‘natural born Citizen’ . . . is a child born in the country to a United States citizen mother and father’ . . . . That assertion goes to the merits of whether President Obama is in fact eligible to hold office, which we cannot address unless Appellants first establish Article III standing.” I then filed with the U.S. Supreme Court a petition for a writ of certiorari which the Court, again not reaching the merits, denied. The U.S. Supreme Court denial of the petition is reported at Kerchner v. Obama, 131 S.Ct. 663 (2010). In short, no court ever decided the merits of the Kerchner case in which I argued that Obama has yet to conclusively prove that he was born in Hawaii and that even if he was born in Hawaii, he is not an Article II “natural born Citizen” because when he was born he was born to a non-U.S. citizen father, hence not meeting the original common law definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen” which is a child born in the country to a United States citizen mother and father. In my briefs to the courts, I cited all the pertinent U.S. Supreme Court case law, Emer de Vattel, and many other historical sources which you will also find discussed by me in my many essays on “natural born Citizen” on this blog. No court has yet reached the merits of the question of whether Obama is an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Obama must therefore make that showing and Congress and each individual State should compel him to do so.


Included in this very in-depth post by Apuzzo are some examples of cases…for example…


(5) The Third Congress then passed the Naturalization Act of 1795 (Act of January 29, 1795, c. 20, 1 Stat. 414). The 1795 Act repealed the 1790 Act. This Act repeated the same language as the 1790 Act concerning children born to alien parents. The big change that it made was that children born abroad to U.S. citizen parents “shall be considered as citizens of the United States.” Hence, we can see that in the 1795 Act, Congress did not declare these children to be considered as “natural born Citizen” as it did in the 1790 Act, but rather left if up to those having interest to show that the child was born a “natural born Citizen.” With respect to children born abroad to U.S. citizen parents, this act removed their status as “natural born citizens” and replaced it with “citizens of the United States.” This shows how important it was to our early Congresses to distinguish between a “natural born Citizen” and a “citizen.”

The membership of the Third Congress included Oliver Ellsworth (April 29, 1745 – November 26, 1807) an American lawyer and politician, a revolutionary against British rule, a drafter of the United States Constitution, an the third Chief Justice of the United States; Roger Sherman (April 19, 1721 – July 23, 1793) was an early American lawyer and politician. He served as the first mayor of New Haven, Connecticut, and served on the Committee of Five that drafted the Declaration of Independence, and was also a representative and senator in the new republic. He was the only person to sign all four great state papers of the U.S.: the Continental Association, the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution; Rufus King (March 24, 1755 – April 29, 1827) was an American lawyer, politician, and diplomat. He was a delegate for Massachusetts to the Continental Congress. He also attended the Constitutional Convention and was one of the signers of the United States Constitution on September 17, 1787; and other Founders and Framers.

President George Washington signed both of these Acts. As we can see from the text of the early Naturalization Acts, our early Congresses did not distinguish whether the child born to an alien was born in or out of the United States. In either case, the child was not a citizen and had to naturalize, either derivatively from the naturalizing parent if done before the child reached the age of majority or on his or her own if done thereafter. Since wives followed the national character of their husbands, this law meant that the father of the child would have to naturalize which would cause both his children and his wife to then become “citizens of the United States.” These Acts show that during the Founding, a child born in the U.S. to aliens was considered a “foreigner” who needed to naturalize either derivatively through his or her parents before becoming of majority age or on his or her own thereafter. After all, under the law of nations, the U.S. expected foreign nations to honor its proclaiming that those born abroad to U.S. citizen parents were U.S. citizens. So the U.S. would have done the same for these nations for the children born in the U.S. to their citizens. And let us remember that Jay recommended to Washington that a “foreigner” not be allowed to be Commander in Chief but rather only a “natural born citizen.”

The language of the 1790 and 1795 Acts was also followed by subsequent naturalization acts that preceded U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). The same requirement of having to be born to citizen parents was followed in the Act of April 14, 1802, 2 Stat. 153, and Act of Feb. 10, 1855, 10 Stat. 604 and in the acts of . Additionally, by an Act of March 26, 1804, the widow and children of an alien who had declared his intention to become naturalized, became citizens upon their taking the prescribed oaths provided by law. Again, Congress did not specify whether the child had to be born in or out of the United States for the law to apply. Hence, the law also applied to any child born in the U.S. to alien parents.


And of course there are mentions of Emerich DeVattel, whom thanks to the neo-left teacher’s unions has not been taught about in the nation’s education gulags called government schools.


War on drugs kills 4 more

That’s what the so-called Mainstream Media should be telling you.  But instead they are spinning this as just another murder.  Showing how as always, the media loses any and all credibility thanks to the bottom line, corrupt politics and Communists.

Said media also focused on the victims, like CBS 2 New York.


A somber and bittersweet graduation ceremony was held Thursday night at Bellport High School, where Jennifer Mejia was a student. The 17-year-old was killed Sunday during the shooting rampage at Haven Drugs pharmacy in Medford.

Wearing purple ribbons on their gowns and writing tributes to Mejia on their caps, Bellport’s 2011 graduation class tried to have as normal a graduation as possible despite the tragic circumstances.


Perhaps in some way this lead the strangest of bedfellows, Ron Paul and Barney Frank to come up with what SHOULD BE the fatal blow to the failure called the War on Drugs.  Mike Adams, the Health Ranger and frequent guest on RT America and Infowars, someone whom the corporate fascist media needs to invite onto their airwaves, but won’t said in his publication Natural News…


Four decades of the so-called “War on Drugs” has led only to the suffering of millions of innocents, the crowding of our prisons with non-violent citizens, the utter waste of billions of dollars on law enforcement and the (in)justice system, and the enriching of underground drug gangs who thrive on violence. The outlawing of marijuana in America has been a disastrous political policy and an insane medical policy. It has labeled biochemical addicts “criminals” and thrown them in prisons to be treated like dogs.

The War on Drugs, through interdicting street supplies of drugs, has only made the drug gangs wealthier by driving up the value of the drugs that remain readily available. And it is now admitted that the ATF actually placed tens of thousands of weapons directly into the hands of Mexican drug gangs, giving rise to the very gang violence the agency claims to be preventing (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011…).

The U.S. government, it turns out, is actually contributing to the drug war violence!

Ron Paul, Barney Frank join forces to end the insanity

In an effort to end the insanity, Rep. Ron Paul has joined forces with Rep. Barney Frank to introduce legislation legalizing marijuana in America. President Obama, you may recall, promised voters on the campaign trail that he would do this, too, but it seems he’s been too busy bombing Libya and using the U.S. Constitution as a floor mat to bother keeping any actual promises. (GITMO is still open for business, too, in case you haven’t noticed…)

Ending the failed War on Drugs is not a conservative idea nor a liberal idea; it’s a principle of liberty whose time has come in America.

Because in observing the War on Drugs, the prison crowding, the drug underground economy and all the other unintended consequence of marijuana prohibition, we must ask the question: Is society served in any way by criminalizing marijuana smokers? How does taking a medical addict and throwing them behind bars accomplish anything at all?

The prohibition against marijuana accomplishes nothing for society.


Now of course pot wasn’t involved in the Long Island murders, but drugs, like alcohol during prohibition, are on the black market and crimes are on the rise because of the government.  Adams, called the Health Ranger, has some solutions to this phony war…and media it’s time to take a drug of your own…THE RED PILL.  Now these apply to Marijuana, but can to all drugs.


It is time to end those legal fictions and end the War on Drugs in America. The solution is to:

#1) LEGALIZE marijuana across the country.

#2) REGULATE marijuana and allow it to be sold through licensed retailers.

#3) TAX marijuana sales and use the tax proceeds to fund addiction support programs for those small percentage of users who end up addicted.


The result?  Again, this applies to ALL drugs


#1) A COLLAPSE of the drug gangs. If marijuana is suddenly legal, who would bother buying it from a street dealer?

#2) A COLLAPSE of drug profits. If it’s legal, the price goes down. Suddenly there’s no more money in trafficking the drug, either, so the drug gangs are instantly out of business.

#3) A HUGE INCREASE in revenues to the states from collecting taxes on the legal sale of marijuana.

#4) A REDUCTION in young people trying the drug. What teenager wants to try something if it’s LEGAL? Legalizing pot takes all the “fun” out of it for many young people. It’s no longer cool. Kinda boring, actually. And it makes you cough.

#5) A SAVINGS of billions of dollars off all the money states are right now spending arresting, prosecuting and incarcerating people for possessing marijuana. This money could be used to build schools, roads, job re-education programs and more. And don’t court judges have better things to do than sentence pot smokers?

#6) AN END to prison overcrowding. End the sentences for those incarcerated merely for marijuana possession. Set them free and end the prison crowding. Save the prisons for the real criminals such as murderers, child molesters and Wall Street bankers.

#7) A FREER, more just society that respects human dignity. If you treat addicts like criminals, you take away their dignity, and your entire society suffers a net loss. By recognizing the humanity behind the addiction, we can restore human dignity to the entire process of how we deal with drug addicts in society today.


Now would I try MaryJane?  Of course not.  But the Libertarian in me has big problems with government and their minions in the media thanks to Operation Mockingbird.  They don’t believe in freedom, I do.  Of course another solution, retrain cops (Citizens On Patrol) to respect the US Constitution and enforce Posse Comitatus.  In other words, cops these days need to join Oath Keepers.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.