Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? — Patrick Henry

That Which is Impossible to Ignore

June 25, 2012   ·   By   ·   2 Comments

Photo credit: Pete Souza)

Photo credit: Pete Souza)

The election results from 2008 represented the second exception to the rule, the first being Clinton’s innocent boy hoodwinking of the voting public. In both cases, Clinton and now Obama, the road to the Oval Office traveled through and was filtered by our main stream media (MSM). Given these two exceptions, stemming largely from public emotion rather than logic, our MSM has forever turned the corner into large disbursements of governmental propaganda. Harsh is the word yet appropriate since the product they are snake oil selling now owns a record; one which turns their false news reporting into that unpleasant genre.

In retrospect, many good-hearted and patriotic Americans voted for Obama; in all probability from ascertaining that a McCain Presidency would only continue down the same old establishment path.

It was generally theorized that this new addition to our Senate represented the fresh air of change. Few took note of Obama’s specialized type of offering. In probably his only truthful admission, one that now may represent equal parts of truth and defiance, he boldly promised to “fundamentally change” our Country. Our liberal media ignored his version of change, and instead, commenced with saturating the voting public with their endless and mind numbing Obama’s Messiah like fluff.

In retrospect, this pro-Obama protection policy went so far as to actually question McCain’s citizenship. Today, after three plus years of the MSM outlets either ignoring or assigning scant coverage, Obama’s citizenship qualifications appear to have been swept under the carpet. This revealing instance of MSM complicity emerges rather openly verses Obama’s own written accounts declaring that his father was never an American citizen.

While the media continues to denounce any “birther” inquiry, it glaringly ignores the more provable charge that Obama lacks the Constitutional requirement of being a “natural born citizen.”

Joining this suppression of truth are the scholarly revisionists who immediately point to the Constitution’s lack of definition to that Presidential qualification. This flimsy objection commits a disservice to our Founder’s purpose and intellect since it was an understood and commonly used term in their day.

It’s been generally accepted that our Founding Fathers read and researched many political philosophers, of their era and before. Many Constitutional safeguards originated from these references. While Paine, Burke, Locke and Montesquieu are often cited, others such as Emerich de Vattel were included.

It is this usage from that era which today’s revisionist conveniently ignore, and for good reason.

In Vattel’s Law of Nations, he defines his “natural born citizen” term as that of being born by parents who were both citizens. This all revolved around the question of upholding national loyalty. Most recently this arose with the candidacy of John F. Kennedy. Maintaining the highest standards for ensuring that the leader of our Country and the Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces is loyal beyond a sliver of doubt comes as a logical step and is served well by this “natural born” stipulation.

In retrospect, it might just be that our Founders assigned way too much credit to the intelligence of those who would follow. Prevailing logic should point to the need for understanding a word’s meaning from the meanings of that particular era. During the intervening two hundred plus years, many definitions and even spelling have affected words in the every day usage of our language.

The adage, “a picture is worth a thousand words” has never held so much relevance as the one photo appearing the Wall Street Journal’s Book Review section on June 16-17. This had to do with a review of David Maraniss’ 641 page, Barack Obama: The Story.

In my lifetime, the magnitude of this one photo erases that long ago media highlighting of the General pointing his pistol at the head of the Viet Cong prisoner. And yes, not to diminish its impact, the general discharged his weapon into the enemy.

However, this one photo of a 1980 slicked down yet a pensive Obama, just seventeen years prior to his illegal Presidential run, may well serve to eliminate and erase all the manufactured propaganda that we are sure to endure from this day till November. As I already mentioned, this one photo sums it all up, and more!

This one picture connects all the dots. Who cannot now understand his preference for golf over the intimidating duties of his office? Who having squatted in a corner, with a head hung low and cigarette in hand would not jump at the chance to fly off, and I mean “fly off,” for a New York City dinner or authorize jetting off to Europe for an extravagant vacation? From that corner of despair to the much sought after seclusion from the pressures of national leadership which Martha’s Vineyard offers. Especially if one is in over his head! In approximately twenty years, this transition from nothing to knowledge, from aimlessness to leadership over generals! And our media approves more of the same!

The American public was sold a bill of goods from a slick talker who with MSM backing hoodwinked the American voter. The sad part to this is that we are not talking about buying a used car or even purchasing a house. If these items fail to provide, we have options. Not so with one who manages the most threatening scam in American history. Can anyone doubt the motive for granting 800,000 illegals amnesty? Or how about the give away of “Obama phones?” Is there any question that this fraud will continue his attempt to buy the election? His must not hold the average citizen in high esteem.

And what of the media’s continued complicity? I can give the unsuspecting and honest voter a pass, we all have been taken in at one time or another. But to consistently ignore the obvious by an entity which supposedly seeks out truth? First, this effort to place an undeserving and unqualified person into our most responsible position of leadership and authority has brought disastrous results. Now, to continue with this scam, by helping to ensure his re-election? At what point do we as concerned Americans dissolve our trust from this mobster enterprise?

In closing, the difference between 2008 and now is Obama’s record. Bucking common sense, this ideologue remains unmoved. His intent is reflected through his policies and his policies have each contributed to the weakening of our national fabric both at home and abroad. Simply put, it’s not only we the people but America which cannot afford his re-election.

Obama’s not inept, he is totally committed to our Country’s decline. If from no other example, continuing with his dysfunctional budget completes the folder on his anti-American commitment.

In essence, we have elected the enemy. In Korea and Vietnam, politics were put aside as both democrat and republican covered each other’s back. What is taking place today is a peaceful revolution from that same communist mindset that we, as Americans, confronted so long ago.

Our Founders had a simple belief. Their sentiment, “Don’t Tread On Me” will serve us well for that’s exactly Obama’s next term intentions.

Note: Reader comments are reviewed before publishing, and only salient comments that add to the topic will be published. Profanity is absolutely not allowed and will be summarily deleted. Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will also be deleted.

Similar Posts:

Jim Bowman is a 67 year old drafted Vietnam veteran, and a retired boiler maker with 31 years of service. He has been published in numerous newspapers in Florida and Philadelphia, is the author of This Roar of Ours, and the publisher of the Americanism of our Founders website. He is the proud father of a son and daughter, two grandsons and one granddaughter.
Jim Bowman
View all articles by Jim Bowman
Print Friendly
Clip to Evernote
  • Ellen

    The writers of the US Constitution did read Vattel, but they read a lot of other things too. There is no evidence that they used Vattel in the definition of Natural Born Citizen because Vattel is not even mentioned once in the Federalist Papers, while the common law was mentioned about twenty times.

    The evidence is overwhelming from the rulings of the US Supreme Court, in particular the Wong Kim Ark case, and from historical research, that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen refers to the place of birth, not to the parents. The source of the term Natural Born Citizen is the common law, not Vattel.

    “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli,
    persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children
    of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus,
    those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens”
    and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether
    children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born
    citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al,
    THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald
    Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known
    Conservative organization.]

    “Based on the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the
    guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within
    the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article
    II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their
    parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a
    natural born-born subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S.
    Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United
    States [ ] natural-born citizens.”— Ankeny v. Governor of the State of
    Indiana, 916 NE2d 678, 688 (2009), (Ind.Supreme Court, Apr. 5, 2010)

    There have now been four state courts and one federal court which have
    ruled SPECIFICALLY that Obama is a Natural Born Citizen due to the
    ruling in the Wong Kim Ark case. Here is one:

    Here is another:

    addition to these five cases, there are a handful of others that have
    stated that the US-born children of foreigners are Natural Born

    For example:

    Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice,
    179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999) (children born in US to two Romanian
    citizens described as “natural born citizens” of the US):

    Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their
    petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who
    are natural born citizens of the United States.”

    Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983) (child born in US to Mexican citizen is “natural born citizen” of US):

    Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally [from
    Mexico] in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that
    time. *** The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA,
    and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife
    and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are
    natural-born citizens of the United States.”

    Here is an actual
    example of how the phrase Natural Born Citizen was used in the USA (not
    Switzerland) in 1803, shortly after the Constitution was written:

    to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the
    different states might be divided into two classes: natural born
    citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were
    born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all
    the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such
    as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to
    their emigration. …St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES: WITH

    you can see, the meaning of the phrase referred only to the place of
    birth, not to the parents. Natural Born Citizens were “those born within
    the state.”

    Other authorities:

    The American Constitution
    Herman Pritchett – 1968: “Every person born in the United States and
    subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen and, of course, a natural-born
    citizen. “

    The American Review, Johns Hopkins University,
    European Center of American Studies – 1960: “The Constitutional
    qualifications for President are astonishingly simple: he must be born
    in the United States and be thirty-five years of age. These are the only

    Still more:

    “And if, at common law, all
    human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King’s
    obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not
    perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all
    cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute
    declaration to the contrary. . . . Subject and citizen are, in a degree,
    convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen
    seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with
    the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally
    bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the
    land.” James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW, pg. 258 (1826)

  • EllenHancock

    With Florida’s ruling today there
    have now been five state courts and one federal court that have ruled
    specifically on Obama that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes
    from the common law and refers to the place of birth and that all
    children born in the USA are Natural Born Citizens except for the
    children of foreign diplomats. In addition, there was one case about
    McCain, Hollister v. McCain, that ruled the same way.
    Here is the Florida ruling:

Featured Articles


When We Don’t Want to Win

Bob Ellis

A friend sent me a good article by Eric Erickson at RedState. The article has a title which would astonish the RINOs we have passing for "Republicans," these days...astonish them and then make them pee their little boy pants: "We Can Win. But Only if We Fight to Win." Fighting for Republican principles would be too much for these pathetic jellyfish. Fighting to win? Not in their gutless nature.


Constitution Rally in Rapid City


There will be a rally in support of the U.S. Constitution in Rapid City on Saturday, May 4 at 12:000 noon at the Memorial Park Bandshell. The vent is sponsored by Citizens for Liberty and will feature a number of special guest speakers including Rep. Stace Nelson, Rep. Lance Russell, Rep. Chip Campbell, Stephanie Strong, and Scott Bartlett. Pastor Wayne Williams will be doing the Invocation to kick off the event.

Cadet Chapel at West Point (Photo credit: A. Hodges)

Over 100K Petitions Gathered Opposing Anti-Christian Bias in Military


Family Research Council (FRC) announced that almost 110,000 petitions have been gathered- all within the last 72 hours - in response to last Friday's Washington Post report stating that anti-Christian activists had met with senior Pentagon officials to press for the court martial of Christians in the military who "promote their personal religious beliefs to their subordinates or to extend preferential treatment for any religion." According to the Post, the activists were given assurances that an instruction booklet on proselytizing would be forthcoming within the next few weeks.


Getting ‘Creative’ With the Bible

Bob Ellis

This installment of Creation Magazine Live examines "creative" interpretations of the Bible, especially with regard to the creation account in Genesis. Most people understand that context is key when it comes to understanding any written text. Yet many seem to forget this when it comes to the Bible in general, and Genesis in particular. This stems from belief in false claims of scientific "fact" that are really nothing more than unproven assumptions.

Southern Poverty Law Center in Montgomery, AL (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Time for the SPLC Hate and ‘Hate Group’ Labeling to End


The Weekly Standard recently featured an article delving into the background and funding of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), whose donors, according to president Richard Cohen, are “aging Northern-state ‘1960s liberals’ who continue to associate ‘Southern’ and ‘poverty’ with lynchings, white-hooded Klansmen, and sitting at the back of the bus.” Cohen’s description is notable because this thought process has significant influence over how the SPLC creates its infamous “Hate Group” list, which ironically yet devastatingly stimulated the most recent hate crime at The Family Research Council (FRC) last year when an armed man entered FRC with over 50 rounds of ammunition and began shooting.


Other News

Other Commentary

Featured Blogs

"We don't intend to turn the Republican Party over to the traitors in the battle just ended. We will have no more of those candidates who are pledged to the same goals as our opposition and who seek our support. Turning the party over to the so-called moderates wouldn't make any sense at all." - Ronald Reagan, Nov. 10, 1964