Obama's Questionable Citizenship Challenges Status Subverted by House

For Any And All Constitutional Conserve-atives

Yesterday it was reported in some of the mainstream media news sources that the continuing questions with respect to the actual citizenship status of Barack Obama, who is currently holding the Office of the Presidency in the Unied States was finally "resolved," at least in the "House of Misrepresentatives."

And how was this "resolution" of this contentious issue resolved?

One of the House members from Hawaii, Dean Abercrombie, attached a "rider" to one of the House's ludicrous "official acts" in effect congratulating and acknowledging Hawaii's 50th Anniversary as a state with a little introductory paragraph which stated: "Whereas the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii...."

The "resolution" passed 378-0, with a few of the Republican Global Neocon Socialists who are up for re-election in 2010 "abstaining" rather than actually exhibiting some backbone and voting "nay," until some verifiable proof has been produced due to the fact that Mr. Obama spent much of his youth outside the United States in his formative years and received much of his education also outside the United States, and one of his parents was never a United States citizen.

The founders included that provision for a very specific reason. You cannot "pledge allegiance" and loyalty to the United States if you are either not a natural born or naturalized citizen. And actually it was their intent and belief that those provisions, as this country grew and there were fewer and fewer foreign born individuals immigrating and progressive generations of Americans after the first generation, that in order to hold the highest office in the land, the deeper the roots, at least in the formative years, the better.

Thus the 14 year requirement. Most successive generations then would have been educated in this country prior to the customary "European tour" that most of the gentry engaged in during their teen years in order to learn languages and cultural differences. That was what was behind the original provisions. Since geographic ties are built during the formative years most of all.

Mr. Obama has hired a team from three different law firms to block the continuing challenges to his natural born or naturalized status.

And an "Act of Congress" cannot "resolve" that question independently actually, in a government of the people, without evidence and proof if there is even the remotest possibility that he does not even meet those minimum requirements.

And since they have not changed since that first generation by any legal amendment of the people, they are very, very minimal.

If the past eight years alone are not proof of just how treasonous and "misrepresentative" those now holding Congressional office have truly become and how blatantly contemptuous they are to the actual true law in this country, the United States Constitution, then this attempt to circumvent the people once again is simply another piece of documented evidence that they are all in violation of their oaths of office, which actions are increasing at a rather rapid rate in this now Obama Administration, and thus guilty of treason under it.

The highest criminal action also under it, and in accompanying codified federal statutes in accordance with it.

So when IS that Sargeant at Arms going to start earning his taxpayer paid salary anyway and start arresting these traitors? Or at the very least, the Electoral College serving their function since they are also taxpayer funded and require verifiable proof to the public since it is the public that funds those election campaigns also, although the two mainstream political parties have clearly hijacked our election process.

There have been AT LEAST six different lawsuits filed over this issue, also politically refused by the United States Supreme Court for various "technical" reasons. And it appears that they were running out of excuses, so this little subterfuge instead by the House is clearly nothing more than an attempt to give the Supreme Court somehow an excuse to continue to do so. And any Supreme Court decision then would also become a matter of public record, and the evidenciary material also legally required to be produced under the Freedom of Information Act, since "natural security reasons" could hardly be used to circumvent public disclosure laws in such instance.

Maybe this is one of the moves of the House similar to many which have occurred recently on unconstitutional legislation, such as the Patriot Act, Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Act, Cap and Trade, Economic Recovery Act, and a host of others.

The newest legal maneuver is to pass unconstitutional measures in the House, but leave them in the hopper in the Senate and thus they are not "officially" laws, but are then enacted through the various regulatory bodies as if they were. According to my research, such is the case with the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Act. Since the Senators actually represent the states themselves, this is an attempt to absolve the states also from their liabiity for some of these Acts enforcements against Americans which take state compliance and assistance to enforce.

Another piece of evidence in the treason that is going on. They are now blatantly skirting around the Constitution more and more each session using legal manuevering and technicalities, the media and their regulatory bodies in order to purposely violate it.

This now cannot even be blamed on ignorance anymore, it is "willful" criminal conduct using such measures.

Which is nothing more than tyranny. Another treasonous act under the Constitution.

So when ARE those criminal warrants going to be issued?

America: Returning To Constitutional Representative Government Again

Since Barack Obama assumed the Office of Presidency in January, there has been much activity going on in Washington in attempt to reportedly "fix" the economic and other problems which were facilitated under the former Bush administration and salve the discontent in the United States that the majority of the citizens now have with the goings on in our nation's capitol.

While Obama has been on whirlwind tours of the United States and Europe promoting his economic solutions, and throwing money right and left at whatever fire springs up (such as the GM bailouts, and his "foreclosure" solutions), his policies have left much to be desired and actually have further sunk this country into an economic quagmire without truly addressing any of the problems which lead to this.

Self-serving politicians who have consistently for decades acted for their own political interests and benefactors, rather than the Constitution and citizens of the nation in their proscribed duties and functions.

It is difficult in this day and age to get elected to state of federal offices without a huge campaign war chest. This was not so in prior generations and it got me to investigating just why, particularly in this last half century, most campaign elections have become more and more costly, and yet less and less effective in bringing about any true change in governmental policies, or even sound and Constitutional government.

And the answers I found were actually quite simple and enlightening.

You cannot have a true Constitutional Republic and "representative" government when those "representatives" are not "representatives" of the districts of citizens they are elected to represent.

And this has been the case now for well over seventy-five years.

How did this distortion of our true intended form of representative government come about?

By veering from the "intended" provisions of the founders of the country in the election of the leaders at both the state and federal levels. Although not "written in stone" in the Constitution, it was a very simple restriction and gentlemen's agreement that the founders felt didn't even bear inclusion in the Constitution at all, since it was assumed within the framework of the document itself.

Any and all donations to candidates running for elective office for any seat in any public service position throughout the country would necessarily have to be both a resident of the district in which he represented, and also restricted to financing and promotion by only those living within his respective district.

In other words, a candidate could not accept any sponsorship or donations from outside his legislative district, in order that he truly was a representative of his constituency within that district.

And returning to those "legal" yet unstate provisions once again would turn help also dilute the influence of the "corporate" and special interest groups that reside on K Street and hang around the Halls of Congress with their hands out seeking their "corporate" welfare on the backs of the American people rather than working for a living.

Such as those now in the energy and health care field, and Wall Street, who are looking for handouts at the American public's expense, when they have already made a good portion of the population right now literally homeless and jobless.

Congress had no inherent authority to institute "campaign finance" laws at all, other than to restate the obvious: Any and all candidates for federal or state office must both reside in their districts, and were precluded from accepting ANY outside donations other than from those in their own representative district. And for any and all "corporate" donations (which were precluded since "corporations" were not people actually at all), then the address of the principal or statutory office would be used as their district.

Wake up, America. These Congressman and Senators have been accepting unlawful campaign donations and been in violation of the true campaign finance laws for literally decades, in order to pick and choose which industries will benefit them personally the most and ensure their political survival.

And rewinding to the "intent" within the framework of our Constitution, might just bring about true change, rather than the Obama (Bush in drag) version.