Introduction
Old-stock Americans need to understand the metapolitical significance of the Presidential election in 2012. On a strict reading of the Constitution (i.e., in accordance with the “original intent” of the framers and as described more fully below), there can be little doubt that Barack Hussein Obama has never been eligible to the Office of President.
During the 2008 election campaign neither the GOP candidate Senator John McCain—whose own eligibility had been questioned as a consequence of his birth in Panama—nor the globalist mainstream media had the incentive or inclination to compel candidate Obama—so obviously a progressive and cosmopolitan citizen of the world—to establish that he is a natural born American citizen as required by Article II, section I of the Constitution.
But such negligent disregard for foundational constitutional norms is no longer surprising among political, corporate, and legal elites in the United States. Already in the early Eighties, when I was a graduate student at Harvard Law School, such formalistic constraints were being reduced to fossilized irrelevance. Decades of legal realism combined with the nascent critical legal studies movement to foster the legal amnesia implicit in the progressive ideal of the “living constitution.”
Three decades on, bien pensant contempt for “originalism” is even more deeply entrenched upon the commanding heights of the Constitutional Republic. We can be sure, therefore, that the apparently “unconstitutional” re-election of putative President Obama will not be a story of politics as usual. It will mark instead yet another momentous turning point in American constitutional history; namely, the inauguration of the Fourth (Transnational) Republic.
The American Republic is the world’s oldest and most successful revolutionary regime. The American Revolution began with the War of Independence waged against Great Britain by rebellious colonies loosely united under the Articles of Confederation. It has continued for more than two centuries.
The radicalism of the American Revolution engendered several major mutations in the body politic of the Republic. Inspired by the secular humanist ideology of the European Enlightenment, America’s constitutional faith strove to incarnate the principles of liberty, equality, and fraternity, one after another, in a series of revolutionary republican moments. A distinctively American political theology emerged to justify no less than three metapolitical transformations in the religion of the Republic.
The first generation of American revolutionaries transformed their petty colonial rebellions into a singular and unprecedented symbol of liberation for all mankind. The “first new nation” emerged as a centralized and expansionist Constitutional Republic; its legitimacy derived not from history and tradition but from the sovereign will of the people of its several states.
The idea of a sovereign people was, of course, a novel one; neither in England nor in the thirteen colonies did the sovereign people exist as a constitutional actor in their own right. Sovereign authority was vested in the King and Parliament. The break with Britain meant that the sovereign “people-at-large” had to be invented in every state of the newly independent Republic. Do not imagine, however, that the creation of the American Republic brought the Revolution to an end.
Several constitutional coups d’état have punctuated the long history of the American Revolution, down to the present day. The first of these was the ratification of the federal Constitution of 1787.
Under the Articles of Confederation, constitutional amendments required unanimous approval by state legislatures. Inconveniently, the consolidated commercial republic favoured by Federalists—progressive lawyers, merchants, and bankers—faced strong resistance from back-country populists entrenched in the lower house of several state legislatures.
Accordingly, the Federalist founding fathers set out boldly to circumvent the legislative power base of the anti-Federalist movement. They called upon specially elected constitutional conventions acting in the name of the sovereign people-at-large in each state to ratify the new Constitution.
Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity
The constitutive principle of the First (Federal) Republic was liberty. But the festering contradiction between the progressive ideal of liberty and the reactionary realities of Negro slavery unleashed another wave of revolutionary dynamism, found in its most extreme form in the rise of the abolitionist movement.
Eventually, the First (Federal) Republic was overthrown. When the War for Southern Independence was lost, the federal principle which licensed the secession of the slave states was subordinated to the colour-blind ideal of personal liberty. It was clear that sovereign authority had passed from the citizens of the several states into a consolidated Union-dominated government under the direction of Northern commercial and industrial interests.
But formal legal recognition of the Second (Bourgeois) Republic required another constitutional coup d’état. The revolutionary Fourteenth Amendment was adopted by Radical Republicans to subordinate the states to the federal government and to create a uniform national citizenship.
According to Article V of the federal Constitution, however, amendments require the formal consent of three quarters of the states. The South was still under military occupation by Union troops. Fraud and coercion were employed freely to compel Southern legislatures to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868. In effect, white Southerners were made an offer they could not refuse: ratify the Fourteenth Amendment or be denied re-admission to the Union.
The Second Republic was founded on the principle of equality. But it eventually foundered upon the multiplying contradictions between the formal legal ideal of equality and the substantive social realities of race, class, and gender.
Seventy years after the Civil War, the New Deal ushered in the Third (Managerial/Therapeutic) Republic which radically expanded the powers of the federal government. No effort was made to obtain the formal consent of the states to this constitutional revolution.
Indeed, in 1937, the Supreme Court, too, was compelled to abandon its early resistance to repeated and sweeping federal usurpations of state jurisdiction by making the famous “switch in time that saved nine.” Faced with Roosevelt’s threat to pack the court, the judiciary simply turned a blind eye to the Article V amendment procedure, choosing instead to place its imprimatur on the Third American Revolution.
The Third Republic based itself upon the revolutionary ideal of fraternity among American citizens of every class, race, and gender. While allowing Congress a free hand to regulate the economy, the Supreme Court brought every so-called “discrete and insular minority” under its own wing. In the Forties and Fifties, the Court waged its own revolutionary war against discrimination in landmark cases such as Shelley v Kraemer and, most famously, Brown v Board of Education.
By the Sixties, it was obvious that the principle of fraternity stood in stark contradiction not just to individuals’ freedom of association but also to the exclusionary character of allegedly “racist” immigration laws. Accordingly, the progressive leaders of the Republic launched a demographic revolution which extended the blessings of American citizenship to millions of non-Whites drawn from every corner of the Third World.
As a consequence, the principle of fraternity quickly morphed into the celebration of diversity as an end in itself. But demographic diversity stands in clear contradiction to the ancient republican ideal of a body politic in which citizens unite in pursuit of the public interest and the common good.
Homo americanus long ago renounced his historic allegiance to throne and altar. Soon afterward, the blood faith that his colonial ancestors had shared with their kith and kin across the Atlantic was replaced by the civil religion of the Republic. Americans had also become hopelessly addicted to endless economic growth and territorial expansion. Within that future-oriented, novus ordo seclorum, it was impossible to define the constitutional abstraction known as the sovereign people-at-large in backward-looking, traditional terms of shared blood, language, and religion.
Natural Born Citizenship
The most the American Adam could do was to limit citizenship to White people. Given the ever-expanding population of foreign-born citizens, the framers sought to guarantee the undivided loyalty of those who occupied the highest office in the land. Only a “natural born citizen” was eligible to occupy the Office of the President.
In 1875, Minor v Happersett, the only Supreme Court decision to pronounce upon the issue, defined a natural born citizen as a person born in the United States to parents (i.e., mother and father) who are both citizens of the American Republic.
Natural born citizens are bound, therefore, by both blood and soil to the American body politic. So long as the President is a natural born citizen, the American Republic is not wholly and completely a “proposition nation.” Under the rule in Minor v Happersett, it is clear that Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen of the United states.
Birthers have worked long and hard to bring the eligibility issue into the public area, if only by attracting the unmitigated scorn and ridicule of the media. As a result, no longer can either the states or the people claim ignorance of the doubts as to whether Obama is a natural born citizen of the American Republic.
Unlike the 2008 campaign, therefore, the Presidential election of 2012 will amount to nothing less than a de facto referendum on whether the formal constitutional provision requiring the President to be a natural born citizen is to be nullified by the sovereign people. Obama’s re-election will present both the States and the Supreme Court with a fait accompli, the fourth and final constitutional coup in the history of the American Republic.
Ironically, having spent the past four years denying that Barack Obama is a natural born citizen, the so-called “birther” movement may be hoist upon its own petard. Once he has been re-elected, challenges to President Obama’s eligibility following his re-election will encounter the objection that the sovereign people knew or ought to have known that, even on his own account:
- Obama may not have been born in the United states (see the biography circulated by his literary agent which claims that he was born in Kenya); and
- he does not have two citizen parents (see his autobiography which identifies his father as a British subject from Kenya); and
- he may have lost his American citizenship (whether natural born or otherwise) as a consequence of his adoption by an Indonesian citizen married to his American mother.
Such concerns have been broadcast far and wide, both by birthers and those who ridicule their claims. Birthers have also mounted numerous legal challenges in several states to Obama’s eligibility to appear on the ballot. Once he has been re-elected, it may be said that states that allowed Obama to contest the election effectively ceded their higher lawmaking authority to the sovereign people. (See, for example, the decision by Arizona Secretary of state Ken Bennett to place Obama on the ballot after accepting Hawaii’s non-verification verification of Obama’s birth certificate.)
If neither the People nor the states care whether a re-elected President Obama is an American citizen, natural born or otherwise, the Supreme Court is unlikely to countenance any constitutional challenge to his political legitimacy.
Andrew Fraser studied “advanced” constitutional law at Harvard Law School. He taught American constitutional history at Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia. His latest book is The WASP Question: An Essay on the Biocultural Evolution, Present Predicament, and Future Prospects of the Invisible Race (Arktos Media, 2011).
The Joys of Jihad: Islamentable, Isatrocious, Isbetrayal
Nordics versus Implicit Jews in "The Switch"
I can tell you what happened to this issue. The Zionist media labeled birthers as tinfoil hat nutcases, the same way they labeled Ron Paul. The media is nearly all powerful and can convince people of most anything. They kept repeating nothing to see here just move along, and it worked.
You state: “Inspired by the secular humanist ideology of the European Enlightenment, America’s constitutional faith strove to incarnate the principles of liberty, equality, and fraternity, one after another, in a series of revolutionary republican moments”
Wait, no mention of the influence of the Bible and the Ten Commandments?! Yet, these leaders were overwhemingly inspired by the Bible as evidenced by an army of relevant sources. Here’s a cursory list:
“Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for a government of any other.” John Adams..1798 in letters to the Massachusets Militia.” Secular Humanism is a dogmatic religion, but not the one Adams was speaking of.LOL
“It is equally undeniable …that the Ten Commandments have had a significant impact on the development of secular legal codes of the Western World.” – U.S. Supreme Court, Stone v. Graham, (1980) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting) Here we have biblical doctrine directly influencing secular legal codes- Secular morality is a self-defeating proposition thereby explaining the need for an objective source for morality.
“The fundamental basis of this nation’s laws was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul. I don’t think we emphasize that enough these days.” – Harry S Truman, Feb. 15, 1950,
Attorney General’s Conference.”
Note to author: Where is your source list? Is the entire piece self-referenced? Should we just take your word for it?
Suggested Reading: The Ten Commandments & their Influence on American Law.
Question: How does Secular Humanism support ideals of equality and liberty? Its a self-defeating proposition by definition.
The PDF copy of the birth certificate was CLEARLY fraudulent.
Not even a pretense of trying to hoodwink the goyim. They are that confident.
Andrew you really need to watch John Carpenter’s They Live a 1988 film. That is how it is, the “glasses” are necessary for the average White lemming but they don’t have them. Big J owns the USA, plain and simple, and perhaps the rest of the “West”
Andrew, even though you are 100% on the law, history and custom, I can’t get excited about Romney whose grandfather immigrated to Mexico so he could have multiple wives.
Candidate Romney’s father was born in Mexico.
This maybe the year that White voters don’t vote.
“This maybe the year that White voters don’t vote. ”
False.
Vote for Gary Johnson (http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/).
Not only does the decision in Minor v. Happersett (1875) not hold what Mr. Fraser claims, either dishonestly or incompetently, that it does; it explicitly rules out ruling on that very issue!
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”
This particular piece of legal dicta is itself quite ambiguous, as to whether those who are native-born to one citizen-parent and one alien-parent, rather than two citizens, would or would not be considered natural-born citizens, for constitutional purposes. Since it was but dicta, regardless, it is merely an academic question, as to the case that was being decided– and which here has been falsely cited for the contention that a native-born person with only one citizen-parent, at the time of birth, is not a natural-born citizen, for constitutional purposes.
Perhaps one (especially among those of us trained in the law) should not be all too surprised of such a baseless legal claim from a man who purports to have “studied ‘advanced’ constitutional law at Harvard Law School,” considering that he himself considers a p.r. release from a book agent to trump a certified birth certificate from the sovereign State of Hawaii, as legal evidence of the place of birth of the current president!?! To those of you who are credulous enough to believe the birther myth, despite the legal evidence to the contrary, how about applying some simple (albeit rare) common sense? Why would an impoverished young couple– she still a teen, and he an African peasant, studying in Hawaii on an international scholarship– have flown half way around the world so that she could give birth in a black Third World country, instead of Honolulu? Do you have any idea how expensive and dangerous that would have been, back in 1961?!? Even more mind-boggling is to think that the father-to-be would allow, let alone insist that, his young (white) bride fly to his own native hell-hole to have their baby– knowing that his legal (black) wife, and their own two young children, were still living there, along with his own extended family. It is a laughable, indeed demented, fantasy– the type of thing one would expect to hear from, say, a Tyron Robert Parsons or an Arlene Johnson!
Since President Obama was obviously a natural-born citizen, born of an American mother in an American hospital, he could only have been constitutionally ineligible to serve as president if (a) he had not yet reached his thirty-fifth birthday (he was, in fact, more than a dozen years older than that, already, upon his election); (b) he had not resided in the United States for at least fourteen years (he had lived most of his life in the United States, including being a legal resident of Chicago, Illinois, for all of the previous fourteen-plus years of his life, prior to his election as president); (c) he had previously been impeached by the United States House of Representatives, and subsequently convicted, and ruled ineligible to hold federal office thereafter, by the United States Senate (his only previous federal office held was as a United States senator, from Illinois; and, members of Congress themselves are never impeached, but are, instead, merely ejected from their seats, by their respective houses); or, (d) he had voluntarily relinquished his own American citizenship, prior to his serving as president.
The force of Indonesian law, of its own accord, could not have accomplished that final disqualification. Whether or not Barack Obama ever became known legally, in his temporary homeland, as Barry Soetoro, he still would have had to have gone to the American embassy, there, and formally renounced his American citizenship. No evidence of this has ever been produced. Nor has any evidence been produced of his being formally naturalized as an Indonesian citizen. Nor is there any evidence that the current president has been travelling on an Indonesian, rather than an American, passport, lo these many years. Even if young Barry had been naturalized as an Indonesian citizen, that by itself would not severe his status as a natural-born citizen of the United States– again, irrespective of what Indonesian law might state for its own domestic purposes. A formal renouncing of one’s preexisting American citizenship would still be required, as far as the American government itself would be concerned. There is no constructive renunciation of natural-born citizenship, as there might conceivably be for someone who was naturalized (e.g., a subsequent action that implies that either fraud or bad faith had been used to obtain citizenship through naturalization).
I must assume that Mr. Fraser is a foreigner, vis-a-vis the United States, despite his having earned two graduate degrees in the United States (per his Linkedin listing). As a former American lawyer, whose own American roots date back to the 1630s, I hereby invite any and all such foreigners to mind their own [EXPLETIVE DELETED] business!
@Darren Fisk: Bingo Darren. I couldn’t agree more. If it’s not in the “official” media, than it doesn’t exist in the minds of the majority of Americans. Once again, willfull ignorance is the problem more than anything else, which includes sthe realization, that believing anything the Main Stream News sources report, is being WILLFULLY IGNORANT.
To understand Obama’s rise, one essential reading is “OBAMA AND THE JEWS: A look at why some Jews love him and some don’t trust him; and at the key role Chicago Jews played in getting him to where he is”, which I believe has already been discussed here, yet it is worth
It is significant that the article was published in a Chicaco Jewish weekly mainly intended for its Jewish audience, which is why, one can assume, it provides candid insights into the decades-old Jewish associations that have shaped Obama’s education, professional career and ultimately his presidency. Such connections include Bettylu Saltzman, Abner Mikva, Rabbi Arnold Jacob Wolf, Lester Crown, the billionaire families Pritzker and Crown, or administration figures such as David Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett, Lee Rosenberg and Rahm Emanuel.
What mainstream media won’t say, but that Jewish paper reveals, is that Obama received tremendous support in his bid for the presidency from the powerful Jewish elite of Chicago. One might argue they even groomed to become president. However, while the article makes it quite explicit that members of the Jewish aristocracy zealously nurtured Obama’s career and rise in local politics, it is opaque as to what they expected in return, beyond their fawning talk of his leadership and intelligence.
Could it be that Obama’s was intended to usher in the post-White America and far from being the uniter in fact drive Americans further apart on a whole range of issues (abortion, Israel, debt, taxes, gays, sharia, healthcare, UN etc.), with the help of the left and right-wing media that constantly engineers and hypes conflicts, driving a wedge even deeper between white traditional America and the emerging minority groups?
A whole industry of hate has developed, centered on the president of the nation. To the GOP base, Michele Malkin, Pamela Geller, Daniel Pipes, Glenn Beck, Norman Podhoretz, John Bolton constantly present Obama as the anti-American, anti-Israel, Jew-killing, Islamophile, terrorist-loving, anti-Christ socialist Muslim ineligible usurper President. I feel that a large section of America is very angry with someone they have been taught to see as an unAmerican president that is bent on destroying the US (and Israel).
America’s decline – not wholly attributable to Obama, but definitely accelerating under him – is both economic and spiritual, as whole industries continue to be offshored and outsourced to Asia or South America with huge profits for Wall Street nonetheless, while the former blue collar middle class is increasingly inebriated by consumerism, pornography and the fantasies of a wholly regrettable free for all in religious life (indeed, I would say that the fragmentation of Christianity in the US has reached dramatic and at times comical proportions, unmatched in Europe or elsewhere; whereas the Roman Catholic, Presbyterian, Eastern Orthodox churches provided clarity, communion and cohesion the myriad of neo/tele/evangelical sects, movements make a much more vulnerable prey to an enemy that for thousands of years has viciously defended its own orthodoxy).
So could it be that Obama’s (illegitimate) presidency was intended, by enemies within and without, as the catalyst of the dismantling of American society?
@Rob:
I’m not voting for a Libertarian ‘tard like Johnson—I’ve heard the guy, and I wasn’t impressed! He’s not going to do anything for White Americans.
If you want to not vote-vote, there’s the estimable Merlin Miller who is an explictly White Presidential Candidate, or former Congressman Virgil Goode who is an implicitly White, verging on being an explicitly White candidate.
Personally, I don’t see any reason to encourage people to vote. Why bother, neither Romney or Obama are going to do anything for White Americans, and all the rest (there are hundreds of candidates) don’t have a prayer.
Consider this professional advice.
Look, I may not have gone to Harvard, but I think I can make it country-simple for you.
Obama is a citizen.
How do I know that?
Because when the Powers That Be looked around for their next puppet, there was no reason at all for them to choose the one guy who could be shown [the this author, for example] as clearly ineligable. [sp?]
Why didn’t they choose a 12 year old? Or a dog?
It’s called “Occam’s Razor” and apparently I learned about it at a small Catholic college in Ontario, but you missed it at Harvard.
Democrats couldn’t care less if someone was born in the US. Such a thing has lost all meaning to the base of that party. It means nothing to blacks, browns or Asians, who I believe make up almost 40% of the that party. These are the type of people that re-elected Marion Barry after watching him smoke crack with a hooker.
The White voters within the Democrat party are made up of feminists, single moms married to the federal government, gay guys, and Great White Liberals. None of those groups would listen to a 30 second argument about Obama’s birth – they simply wouldn’t care. Indeed, most of them may think it is cool if he is non-American.
I don’t think it is quite right to say that the American people as a whole don’t care about Obama’s birth (or anyone else’s), but rather we are talking about a fragmented country now, with wildly different groups of people now called “Americans”. Some (the traditional White Americans) care deeply. Juan, Muhammad, and Jenny the Single Mom, not so much.
@James O’Meara:
“Because when the Powers That Be looked around for their next puppet, there was no reason at all for them to choose the one guy who could be shown [the this author, for example] as clearly ineligable. ”
Well it could be argued that they went with someone ineligible because he was the one who was most receptive to jewish rhetoric. Perhaps they had a hundred other blacks and mulattos but Obama proved to be the best candidate for pushing their agenda through, so they took a gamble and went with him.
Personally I couldn’t care less if Obama was born in Amerikwa or not. This country is run by the people who hate it the most: jews and self-loathing White marxists. And most White Amerikwans don’t care about anything as long as their TVs work; they’ll willingly sit by and watch jews and third worlders run the country into the ground. So screw ‘em I say, especially after what they did to Germany.
Although the “Birther” issue is a legitimate one, there needs to be a move to take the mind-controlling power of the media out of the hands of so few. Yes, the word “Jew” needs to be loudly proclaimed in this discussion. If the media and financial institutions were 97% controlled by Muslims, we surely wouldn’t fear being overtly critical of them, would we? I know it’s a pipe-dream, but a move toward a federally-enforced quota system of media control would bring back what the framers saw as the ultimate bulwark against monopolistic tyranny – that is open and honest debate on EVERY issue.
The article raises an interesting point about the Confederacy and the 14th Amendment. I’d wager not many Americans are aware of this fact. Also, the real purpose of the amendment was to void the Dred Scott decision, not allow a pathway to citizenship for millions of illegal third-world immigrants.
With regard to Barack Hussein Obama, I’m inclined to believe that he was born in Hawaii. Regardless, I think our efforts would be better spent focusing on the mulatto’s genocidal anti-white agenda rather than whether he was born in Mombasa, Hawaii or Timbuktu.
“The radicalism of the American Revolution engendered several major mutations in the body politic of the Republic. ..The first generation of American revolutionaries transformed their petty colonial rebellions into a singular and unprecedented symbol of liberation for all mankind. ”
Bullshit. Who taught you “constitutional law” at Harvard, Barack O’Bama?
The 13 colonies were an intellectual backwater about 60 years behind the Mother Country’s political thinking. Sort of like how Southerners talk like Elizabethans and Australians talk like convicts.
How hard is it for Americans to notice that since 1776 NOT ONE COUNTRY ON EARTH has imitated our “divine” system of government? For Christ’s sake, we nuked Japan and forced their Emperor to abdicate divinity, and we STILL wrote them a British style constitution. Same with Iraq. Ever notice all those “prime ministers” running things? Hey, how about Israel? They’re real smart and run the world, so they must know a thing or two.
Most Americans drop out of school after learning about the Rev, so they don’t know there was this little thing called the French Revolution that kinda ADVANCED thinking about this ‘democracy’ thing [i.e., how to run things without a king].
EVERY democracy in the WORLD has adopted the British, or parliamentary, model. In REAL democracies, the people rule, not some old rag “interpreted” by some old rabbis — excuse, me, “constitutional scholars”.
The Brits don’t even HAVE a constitution, and for the rest, it’s a simple document that the people can vote onl any time. No muss, no fuss.
But go ahead, continue to worship the “original intent” [The Word] of your “founding fathers” [patriarchs] as embodied in their sacred writings [Torah]. Then wonder why the Jews are running rings around you.
Maybe you can get a “visiting scholar” job at Antonin Scalia’s Talmud Institute!
Institute for Talmudic Law Established in Washington D. C. with Approval of Three Supreme Court Justices http://jahtruth.net/freedman.htm
@Venona:
Yes, focusing on the Anti-White agenda is key. Mainstreaming terms like Anti-White and White Genocide is crucial.
Every now and then, the Universe or Bog or whoever does something to help the little folk out. Is it a coincidence that Obama is long lost twin of Akhenaten aka Moses? Let’s hope it goes a little better for for us this time.
Don’t dump on Scalia; his speech on Obama and SB1070 is pretty great. Roberts is the one who dropped the ball. Was he paid off or threatened? Very strange and sad that he would side with the Bolsheviks on SB1070.
I now hate Obama. before it was just a general dislike. Now, I realize that he is a total POS and worthy of intense hatred. His arrogance is beyond my comprehension. They allow and encourage sanctuary city laws, which violate federal law, yet when AZ tries to enforce laws that are identical to federal law, Obama has a fit. He makes me sick to my stomach.
@James O’Meara:
And how much freedom are those systems granting the European people? Do they have first amendments that even allow them to discuss their politically lives freely? Can they legally dispute the Holocaust? Are they free to write about racial differences?
In America, we catch hell for doing the above, but we aren’t locked up. We aren’t that European yet.
@Jason Speaks: Very well said. He has a real knack for missing or deliberately ignoring the obvious.
After the fall of the USSR the 5th column (behind anti war and civil rights movement of the 60′s} made their move to take power. Repeal of Glass Steigall was first to get more funds for 911 which gave us endless wars and a pretext to start stripping away the Bill of Rights. O’bama was elected with lies of ending the wars and more transparency and the total backing of the media. 30 lawyers check out Palin in Alaska but can’t find anything on Obama in Chicago. Both parties are now corrupted. Ron Paul offered a little hope but was easily neutralized by the media and Establishment. We may have to collapse like Russia to get our country back. @Jason Speaks:
@Jason Speaks:
The Russian Political Scientists Igor Panarin rightly predicted the break-up of America along racial zones. Here’s a quote from the good professor in a 2008 Interview. Notice how prophetic he was in his observations of America.
He based the forecast on classified data supplied to him by FAPSI analysts, he says. He predicts that economic, financial and demographic trends will provoke a political and social crisis in the U.S. When the going gets tough, he says, wealthier states will withhold funds from the federal government and effectively secede from the union. Social unrest up to and including a civil war will follow. The U.S. will then split along ethnic lines, and foreign powers will move in.
@49er:
How are we supposed to imagine this “splitting along ethnic lines” of the US?
There may be concentrations of Hispanics in the SW and Blacks in the SE who would like to “secede” but for the rest the ethnic minorities are spread all over the country living in their own neighbourhoods or at most their own cities. You cannot create new countries consisting of archipelagos of disconnected “ethnic islands”. ( how and where for example would the Japanese-Americans create their own country?).
Our dear Russian “prophet” thinks in terms of the old Soviet Union where ethnic minorities already lived in their own continuous territories.
The US is far more likely to become a kind of Brasil do norte ( half white, half coloured with great differences in wealth ). And just as unlikely it is that Brazil will be invaded by a foreign power, it is unlikely that the US will be invaded ( by whom?). Here a secret wish of the Russian scientist comes into play.
@Jason Speaks: We are getting closer everyday. It won’t be long before questioning the Holocaust or Race will be considered a hate crime. For now it is simply banned from the MSM as well as any talk of 911. . Watch RT to see all who are censored from our Free Speech
@Franklin Ryckaert:
For our sake, I hope you’re right.
@Jason Speaks:
‘And how much freedom are those systems granting the European people?’
Well in Greece Golden Dawn just entered the parliament!
I haven’t heard any members of Americas Congress sound like them…
Whites in America are falling behind the Nationalists of Europe.
If you’re going to study history, try looking beyond the shores of your own nation:
“The American Republic is the world’s oldest and most successful revolutionary regime.”
A similar claim can be made of Britain (Glorious Revolution, 1687-89) or indeed, of the world’s oldest democratic republic, Switzerland, which won its independence from Austria long before the creation of the US.
“Inspired by the secular humanist ideology of the European Enlightenment, America’s constitutional faith strove to incarnate the principles of liberty, equality, and fraternity, one after another, in a series of revolutionary republican moments.”
Dubious just how much “European humanism” influenced the War of Independence. Certainly the issue of “fraternity” never came up (try the French Revolution); as for “equality” that was owed more to Abraham Lincoln’s re-writing of American constitutional history at Gettysburg. Besides America’s founding fathers were not, as I recall, in favour of equality for either the black man or the red one.
Re: “The first generation of American revolutionaries transformed their petty colonial rebellions into a singular and unprecedented symbol of liberation for all mankind.”
Unprecedented? Britain’s former colonists took this very British idea — and core of the British national identity, “we are the land of liberty, unlike those poor continental Europeans” — and simply applied it to themselves. By the way, this British idea as being a land of liberty was adopted by other British settler societies like Canada, New Zealand and Australia (something you’ve either failed to notice in your time there or erroneously believes originates with the US)
This post is already too long, but a similar historical illiteracy marrs your piece on the Civil War and New Deal too.
Frankly, I don’t trust any argument based on historical illiteracy. And even when you’re right, you’re right for the wrong reasons: yes, under the American constitution as it was conceived, Obama is ineligble to be president.
That’s because the president of the US not only had to be be native-born, but he also had to be white (only white males had citizenship).
I’ve encountered better scholarship in a Black Studies seminar.
@celtthedog:
I laugh when I see people discussing who they are going to vote for. It should be MORE than obvious by NOW, that voting doesn’t matter, and THEY put in who THEY want.
With all of these White online sites, the enemy lets us rant and rave about what we think is wrong, because they know right now, we really can’t do anything. They have wrapped the box, taped it up, and tied the bow.
They are letting people have websites, laughing, essentially, because they control us economically. We can say what we think, but we cannot DO what we think.
Any of you who have been affected by the “economy” know what I mean when I say, “We are slaves”.
You hear people say there are WNs or NSs, but there are NO White nations. This is just all on the net, just mindsets, which, is better than nothing, and is at least educating some and waking up some.
But there are windows of time, and our window of time was long ago, when we had the power. We need to get the power back, and that is all about ECONOMICS. If anyone doubts that, you have to be rich and totally unaffected by the present economy. Many of us have slipped into a real state of struggle and know what it is like to work like a slave, with few choices and unreasonable employers.
“Personnel” is now “Human Resources” and firms teach companies how to manage their “Human Capital”.
People need to realize that their economic situation is very much at the heart of why things are like they are. The enemy would have very little control, if he didn’t control the dollar.
By the way that comment of mine should not have said, “@celtthedog”, I simply replied to the whole thread there. Sorry, Celt.
@Teutonic1: They control Congress by what i like to call the 4 B’s Brainwashing, Bribery, Blackmail and Bullets (JFK) among others. Your right about the dollar which is why Ron Paul’s auditing the Fed was such a threat. The media and Republican party made sure he would not win. It seems hopeless till you remember the USSR. It’s collapse transformed Russia and broke their ties. This is why they hate Putin who knows the truth. Watch RT to see all who are banned from our “free” media’, At a higher spiritual level things are even better but thats another story.
@D. K.: Minor did define a “natural born Citizen.” The argument that it did not is just a means by which Obama’s defenders seek to shield Obama from Minor’s disqualifying force.
Also, one U.S. parent at birth will not do it for someone wanting to be president and commander in chief. Born even to just one alien parent still causes the child to inherit in its full scope at birth a foreign allegiance and citizenship. In other words, whether it is one or two alien parents, the child still inherits a foreign allegiance and citizenship at birth. The Founders and Framers did not expect future presidents to be born not in the full and complete allegiance and jurisdiction of the United States.
@Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
“Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”
To conclude that this statement by the Court– which I have extracted from the full paragraph that I cited in my original response, above– amounts to the Court’s holding that those born in this country to alien parents are not “natural born citizens” of the United States, for the purpose of Article II or otherwise, is unadulterated nonsense! The entire decision makes no mention, whatsoever, of a person born in the United States to one citizen-parent and one-alien parent, irrespective of whether any foreign country considers that American-born child, as a result, to be a citizen of its own country. The entire brief discussion of children born in the United States to alien parents, in that 1875 Supreme Court case, is pure dicta, with no precedential value to future cases, whatsoever. Foreign laws as to granting citizenship cannot affect one’s citizenship status here, under the supreme law of the United States; nor is there anything under it, either in the Constitution itself or in the United States Code, that would prohibit someone with dual citizenship from serving as the president of the United States– let alone that would prohibit someone who merely had been born with dual citizenship, but whose alternate citizenship since had lapsed, long before, from serving as the president.
One’s political allegiance is determined by how one is raised and socialized. A descendent of the Mayflower who was taken from Boston to Moscow as a baby, eighty years ago, and raised as a Bolshevik by his Marxist parents would have had allegiance only to the Soviet Union and Communism– irrespective of his citizenship status, here or there. A child born in Moscow, at the very same time, who was brought to Boston by his Bolshevik-hating White Russian parents, would have had allegiance only to the United States, not to the Soviet Union and Communism– likewise irrespective of his citizenship status, here or there.
Article II did not even prohibit the foreign-born, no matter what the place of their birth, from serving as presidents of the United States– so long as they already were citizens of the United States, at the time that the Constitution was adopted, and also met the age and residency requirements of 35 and 14 years, respectively. Read it (Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 5) and weep!
@Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
P.S. By the way, where were you when Spiro T. Agnew– the son of a Greek-national father– was serving as the vice president of the United States, Mr. Apuzzo? Where were your ancestors when Chester A. Arthur was serving as the president of the United States, in the wake of President James A. Garfield’s assassination, despite being the son of an Irish-born Canadian-immigrant father, not of two American citizens?!?