Natural Born Citizenship: Free and Clear

:: Cruz’s Dilemma

– By: Larry Walker, II –

The concept of natural born Citizenship is clear and concise, to anyone with a rational mind. Although some may wish to contort its meaning to fit the presidential candidate of their choice, natural law is incapable of such bias. It takes two parents to produce a child, one male and one female, but you would never know it if your source of information is the lamestream media. By its logic, only one parent is sufficient.

Epigrammatically speaking, if both of your parents were U.S. Citizens at the time of your birth, you are without question a natural born Citizen of the United States. The location of your birth matters little. You could have been born in Kenya, Canada, Panama, or perhaps on the Moon, but as long as both parents were U.S. Citizens, at the time of your birth, you are without question a natural born Citizen.

According to Vattel’s Law of Nations, Chapter 19 § 212: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights… The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.”

You can think of natural born citizenship as free and clear citizenship. In other words, the rights of the parents (plural) are passed to their children. Thus, when both parents are U.S. Citizens, their offspring are natural born U.S. Citizens, free and clear. No other country has a claim of right. Comprende?

However, if at the time of your birth, your father was a Citizen of Kenya and your mother of the U.S., this would pose a problem. Oh no! What’s the problem? The problem is duality. Under such circumstances, the child would be a Citizen of Kenya (a British subject pre-1964) by virtue of its father, and equally a Citizen of the United States by virtue of its mother. There’s nothing free and clear in this circumstance. Upon the age of consent, such a child may claim citizenship with one country or the other; however, citizenship does not equal natural born citizenship.

You might not like the result of the above graphic, but that’s simply the way it is. Here are some recent examples.

Is John McCain a natural born Citizen? John McCain’s parents were both U.S. Citizens at the time of his birth, thus he is a natural born Citizen. It matters not that he was born on a military base in Panama. He could have been born in Siberia. No matter where he was born, McCain is a natural born American Citizen by virtue of his parent’s common nationality, at the time of his birth. You got that?

Is Ted Cruz a natural born Citizen? Ted Cruz’s father was a Cuban Citizen and his mother a U.S. Citizen, at the time of his birth. Thus, whether born in the U.S., Cuba, or Canada (where he was actually born) he is not a natural born Citizen of either.

Cruz was born with citizenship rights to Cuba, Canada and the United States. Although he may have chosen U.S. citizenship, at the age of majority, natural born citizenship is not something one chooses. Natural born citizenship is a right passed from one’s parents at birth. As such, Ted Cruz is no more a natural born Citizen than is Barack Obama.

The U.S. is filled with undocumented aliens, birthright Citizens, permanent residents, dual status Citizens, naturalized Citizens, and natural born Citizens. Whether the children of undocumented foreigners, born on U.S. soil, are U.S. Citizens by birthright is questionable. However, without question, such children are not natural born Citizens of the United States.

The main issue is this. According to Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, “No Person except a natural born Citizen shall be eligible to the Office of President.” So where does that leave Ted Cruz? Is he a U.S. Citizen? Sure, if he affirmed. Is he a natural born Citizen? Due to the citizenship status of his parent’s, at the time of his birth, he clearly is not.

Is Ted Cruz eligible to run for the presidency? Technically no, since he is not a natural born Citizen. But since you allowed Barack Obama, who is plain as day not a natural born Citizen, why stop Ted Cruz or anyone else for that matter? If it weren’t for that confounded Constitution, we could nominate whomever we yearned, without conscience. But, since we do have a blessed Constitution, it’s up to us, rather than fainthearted federal judges, to see that it is upheld.

Reference: #NaturalBornCitizen

Mitt Romney’s Defining Moment | Indexing the Minimum Wage

Is Mitt Romney a Liberal?

By: Larry Walker, Jr.

As Economist Thomas Sowell relays, in his piece entitled, A Defining Moment, “Mitt Romney has come out in support of indexing the minimum wage law, to have it rise automatically to keep pace with inflation.”

But according to Dr. Sowell,

“We have gotten so used to seeing unemployment rates of 30 or 40 percent for black teenage males that it might come as a shock to many people to learn that the unemployment rate for sixteen- and seventeen-year-old black males was just under 10 percent back in 1948. Moreover, it was slightly lower than the unemployment rate for white males of the same age.”

You may read the full text at Jewish World Review.

So what happened? Liberals imposed a series of minimum wage laws, virtually assuring today’s devastating rates of black teenage unemployment. So is Mitt Romney a Liberal? I can’t say for sure, but he’s most definitely not a conservative.

That’s right, lie to us Mitt. For we must defeat Obama at all costs – even if that means deceiving and destroying the Conservative movement, in the process. Will a real conservative please stand up and challenge this walking disaster before it’s too late?

Will Mitt Romney Repeal Obamacare?

* Does a President have that authority?

* By: Larry Walker, Jr. *

In his Nevada victory speech, Mitt Romney once again publicly declared, “I will repeal Obamacare”. How so? Will Willard Mitt Romney single-handedly repeal Obamacare?

Although I am in favor of repealing Obamacare, and replacing it with a free-market solution, the last time I checked the Constitution, I wasn’t able to locate any passage granting the President of the United States the sole authority for repealing any law. Frankly I’m tired of hearing the same old false promise over and over again.

The truth is that in order to repeal or amend any federal legislation, Congress is required to follow the same procedures used in passing any new legislation. In other words, a new bill must be introduced by Congress either repealing or amending the existing law, and then it must pass both Houses of Congress, before being signed by the President.

So although the currently Republican controlled House of Representatives would favor repeal, the Democratic controlled Senate would not. And unless the Republican Party is able to win the presidency, along with a substantial majority in the Senate, while maintaining its present majority in the House; Mitt Romney won’t be repealing anything (i.e. He won’t be signing any repeal legislation.). As far as I’m concerned it’s just words.

What’s disheartening is that while Romney has made this bold proclamation publicly, literally hundreds of times, offstage as Ben Domenech notes in his Transom, Mitt Romney’s advisors have now advised him to support not repealing Obamacare. Norm Coleman, an advisor to Romney, went on record saying:

“We’re not going to do repeal. You’re not going to repeal Obamacare… It’s not a total repeal… You will not repeal the act in its entirety, but you will see major changes, particularly if there is a Republican president… You can’t whole-cloth throw it out. But you can substantially change what’s been done.”

Now I took Romney’s ridiculous blurb about fixing any holes in the safety net that exists for the very poor, for whom he is otherwise unconcerned, as a joke. Thanks Mitt, for keeping the very poor out of the way, and in everlasting poverty [sarcasm]! But his ongoing pandering plea to conservatives, that giving him the nomination will somehow empower a president Romney to repeal Obamacare, or any other law, is outright dishonest.

It’s hard to see how Romney’s practice of discrediting Newt Gingrich, alienating hundreds of thousands of Reagan conservatives in the process, can aid in the party’s winning or maintaining substantial majorities in both houses of Congress, let alone winning the presidency. I haven’t heard Romney mention anything about that. All I’ve heard him ramble on lately is what he will do by his lonesome, whether or not it’s reasonably possible, or even constitutional.

But aside from that, in the remote possibility that Republicans were able to win substantial majorities in both Houses along with a Romney presidency, what would a Romney Administration replace Obamacare with? Wouldn’t we just wind up with fifty state-run Romneycare’s?

Talk is cheap. Dishonesty is worthless.

That’s right, lie to us Mitt. For we must defeat Obama at all costs – even if that means deceiving and destroying the Conservative movement, in the process. Will a real conservative please stand up and challenge this walking disaster before it’s too late?

Mitt Romney’s Pro-Immigration Rant

* Leading with the chin. *

* By: Larry Walker, Jr. *

Mitt Romney argued haphazardly, in the January 26th GOP Debate, that he is pro-immigrant, because his father was born in Mexico. Ah, so that’s it. He shouted, “Mr. Speaker, I’m not anti-immigrant. My father was born in Mexico…” That little proclamation was worse than his implication that Swiss and Cayman Island bank accounts somehow help create jobs in America. When I heard the former, my first thought was, ‘what does that have to do with being pro-immigrant’? And upon hearing the latter, I laughed out loud.

Was Romney’s father a Mexican immigrant who waited in a long line to cross the U.S. border “legally”? Well, not exactly. I believe Mitt’s grandparents sprinted across the border twice; once as felony fugitives of the United States government, and the second time to escape a band of Mexican marauders. So it sounds more like a matter of self-deportation followed by an act of forced-deportation than anything else.

Frankly, I would have countered Mitt with, “And why don’t you explain to us all exactly how your father came to be born in Mexico, since you chose to go there?”

And what could Mitt say?

I mean, come on! When we think of American immigrants, we think of men and women who journeyed from afar seeking liberty, and a better way of life. But that’s not exactly the story of the Romneys.

Actually, Mitt Romney’s father George was born in a Mormon colony in Chihuahua, Mexico. This may mislead one to the assumption that his parents were down there doing some kind of missionary work when he was born, right? But, that’s not exactly the way it went down. So how did Mitt Romney’s father come to be born in Mexico?

The Romneys wound up in Mexico due to an act of self-deportation from the United States. And although it may be true that the Romneys immigrated from the U.S. to Mexico in the 1800s, fleeing as fugitives and likely forfeiting their rights to U.S. citizenship in the process, it would be false to imply that his father was ever an immigrant to the United States. That is, unless the Romneys actually did forfeit their rights to U.S. citizenship. And you know what that would mean.

The fact is that when Mitt Romney’s great-grandparents fled the U.S. for Mexico in the 1800s, they were actually “felony fugitives” of the United States government. And when they returned to the United States in 1912, they were running for their lives from Mexican Revolutionaries, who also despised the practice of polygamy. One could make the case that the Romneys re-entered the U.S. illegally, more so than that his father was a bona fide legal immigrant.

How Self-Deportation Works

The Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act was a federal enactment of the United States Congress that was signed into law on July 8, 1862 by President Abraham Lincoln. The act was designed to target the Mormon practice of plural marriage and the property dominance of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the Utah Territory.

In 1882 the Edmunds Act, also known as the Edmunds Anti-Polygamy Act of 1882, was passed by the United States Congress replacing the Morrill Act. This was part of what by then was a 20 year struggle by the US government to curb the LDS practice of plural marriage in Utah Territory and other locations in the American West. Among other things, the law made the practice of polygamy a felony and disenfranchised polygamists. As a result, over a thousand Latter-day Saint men and women were eventually fined and jailed. Some were sent as far away as Michigan to fulfill their terms.

The Edmunds Act not only reinforced the 1862 Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act but also revoked polygamists’ right to vote, made them ineligible for jury service, and prohibited them from holding political office. Wow, that’s deep!

The Edmunds Act was later replaced by the Edmunds–Tucker Act of 1887. The new act prohibited the practice of polygamy and punished it with a fine of from $500 to $800 and imprisonment of up to five years. It also dissolved the corporation of the LDS church and directed the confiscation by the federal government of all church properties valued over a limit of $50,000. The act was enforced by the U.S. marshal and a host of deputies.

So to be straight up about it, Mitt Romney’s great-grandparents were polygamous Mormons who fled with their children from the United States to Mexico because of the federal government’s opposition to polygamy. Mormon genealogical records, among the most detailed and complete of any religion, show that two of Mitt Romney’s great-great grandfathers, Miles Romney and Parley Pratt, had 12 wives each. His grandparents, American born Gaskell Romney and Anna Amelia Pratt, immigrated to Mexico with their polygamous parents as children, were married in 1895 in Mexico, and lived in Colonia Dublán, Galeana, in the Mexican state of Chihuahua, where Mitt’s father George was born on July 8, 1907.

When the Mexican Revolution broke out in 1910, the Mormon colonies were endangered in 1911–1912 by raids from marauders. The Romney family then fled Mexico and returned to the United States in July 1912, leaving their home and almost all of their property behind. Mitt’s father George would later say, “We were the first displaced persons of the 20th century.”

Hogwash! The Romneys weren’t displaced, but were rather the first self-deported American citizens of the 19th century, and perhaps the only such in all of U.S. history. That is to say, they self-deported from their native country, after refusing to follow U.S. law for nearly two decades. And then were subsequently run out of Mexico by a group of well armed patriotic Mexicans. So if anything, the Romneys were self-displaced.

Is this why Mitt Romney is so passionate about the idea of self-deportation? I mean after all, out of every other presidential candidate, he would know a little more on this topic than anyone else, and certainly more than he lets on. I would contend that if Mitt Romney is somehow pro-immigrant, it has nothing to do with his legacy, but rather all to do with saying what voters seem to want to hear. But all this voter wants to hear is the truth.

That’s right, lie to us Mitt. For we must defeat Obama at all costs – even if that means deceiving and destroying the Conservative movement in America in the process. Will someone please stand up and challenge this walking disaster before it’s too late? When your opponent leads with the chin, that’s when you go for the jugular. And someone needs to do just that, because it’s starting to smell like 2008 all over again.

I honestly can’t get with Mitt Romney’s background anymore than I could ever get with the current abandoned anchor-POTUS’. If Romney is the best that conservatives can produce, good luck to you all with that. I would rather stake my last dollar on the real deal, even if it means defeat. I don’t know where you stand, but for me it’s principle over politics.

“When a man becomes a citizen of the United States under the Constitution, he cannot cease to be a citizen, except by expatriation for the commission of some crime by which his citizenship shall be forfeited.” ~ Sen. Jacob Howard

Also see:

Polygamy Prominent in GOP Presidential Hopeful Mitt Romney’s Family Tree


FAIR USE NOTICE: “Hope n’ Change” Cartoons may be freely reposted for non-profit use without additional permission, but must contain the full header, author’s name, and copyright information. Material from “Hope n’ Change” Cartoons may not be collected, printed, or sold in any form without specific permission from the author – who may be, for all you know, a bloodsucking parasitic lawyer just aching to file a lawsuit, take your life savings, and leave nothing more than your dried and desiccated carcass like a dead mayfly on a windowsill.

Eligibility Check: Romney vs. Gingrich

Caveat Suffragator – Let the voter beware.

– Updated!

– By: Larry Walker, Jr. –

When measuring the top GOP contenders in terms of eligibility under the U.S. Constitution, if I had to choose between the two, I have to admit that I am more inclined towards Gingrich than Romney. Like Mitt Romney, I too was born in Detroit, Michigan, but that’s where the similarities end. My parents and grandparents were all born in the State of Georgia, while Romney’s father was born in Mexico.

In contrast, Gingrich’s parents and grandparents, like himself, were all born in the State of Pennsylvania. So when it comes to the question of natural born citizenship, Gingrich clearly passes the test, while Romney’s qualifications are uncertain at best. I don’t believe that because Obama was somehow able to skirt the issue, that Romney, and everyone else who follows, should simply be given a pass. Since we learned the last time around, the issue, as it seems, is more in the hands of the voting public than the courts, it is only fair that we know the facts, and make an informed decision.

When Mitt Romney’s father, George W., made his presidential bid in 1967, questions were occasionally asked about his eligibility to run for President, due to his birth in Mexico, and given the ambiguity in the United States Constitution over the phrase “natural-born citizen”. But although questions regarding his presidential eligibility arose, the issue of his status as a U.S. Citizen was never fully addressed. The New York Times article, Celler Suggests G.O.P. Name Group to Investigate Romney’s Eligibility, published on May 15, 1967; lead off with, “Representative Emanuel Celler expressed “serious doubts” as to whether Gov. George Romney of Michigan is eligible for the Presidency.” On June 14, 1967, an essay entitled “Natural Born Citizen,” by the Hon. Pinckney G. McElwee of the Bar of the District of Columbia, was entered into the Congressional Record by Texas Representative, Mr. Dowdy. It was written more in the context of a possible candidacy of Governor George Romney (born in Mexico) for president, than regarding his citizenship. George Romney formally announced his withdrawal as a presidential candidate on February 28, 1968.

United States Constitution – Article II, Section 1

Article 2, section 1 of the Constitution states, “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.”

The addition of a grandfather clause in this paragraph says a lot as to the meaning of natural born. The first thing it says is that being born in the U.S. is not enough to be natural born; otherwise the grandfather clause would not have been necessary. The writers and delegates, having been born in the United States, wanted to be eligible for the presidency, but most were the children of British subjects. Knowing that this eliminated them from being natural born, and thus ineligible, they included the grandfather clause, which expired when the last person alive at the time of the ratification of the Constitution died. So, being a native born citizen is not the same as being Natural Born, for if it were, the framers would not have included the clause.

Background: Newton Leroy Gingrich

Newton Leroy Gingrich was born on June 17, 1943, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. His mother Kathleen Daugherty and father Newton Searles McPherson divorced soon after Newt was born. Kathleen remarried to an Army officer named Robert (Bob) Gingrich, who adopted Newt at the age of 3. Gingrich has three younger half-sisters, Candace, Susan, and Roberta. Growing up, the Gingrich family moved around frequently, like many military families. Bob Gingrich served in Korea and Vietnam during Newt’s childhood and adolescence, so Newt had a close bond to his mother. In early years, he also spent a lot of time with Newt McPherson’s sister Loma and her husband, and with his grandmother, a teacher, who taught toddler Newt how to read.

In 1953, 10 year-old Newt loved reading and animals. He took a bus to Harrisburg, Pennsylvania to lobby the mayor to open a city zoo, for which he was written up in the local paper. In 1954, his father bought Newt an Encyclopedia Americana which he read night after night. In 1956, the Gingrich family moved to Europe — Orleans, France and Stuttgart, Germany, at the height of Cold War. In 1958, Newt had an “epiphany” at Verdun, France. At the age 15, he visited the battle site and says later this changed his life. It was at Verdun, that Newt Gingrich decided to become a politician who would prevent such carnage in the future.

Ancestry of Newt Gingrich

PARENTS – His father, Newton Searles McPherson, was born in Pennsylvania on February 24, 1923 and died in October of 1970. His mother, Kathleen Daugherty, was born in Enola, PA on November 20, 1925 and died in Harrisburg, PA, on September 23, 2003. His adopted father, Robert Bruce Gingrich, was born on July 22, 1925 and died on November 20, 1996.

GRANDPARENTS – His paternal grandfather, Robert Nelson Kerstetter, was born in Milheim, PA on August 30, 1888. His paternal grandmother, Louise S. McPherson, was born in Pennsylvania on August 1, 1905. His maternal grandfather, Jacob Leroy Daugherty, was born in Pennsylvania around 1890. And his maternal grandmother, Ethel M. Hendricks, was born in Pennsylvania around 1896.

GREAT-GRANDPARENTS – His great-grandparents were John H. Kerstetter, born in Pennsylvania on August 24, 1847, and Julia Kabel, born around 1849; Clarence Newton McPherson, born in Winfield, PA on August 16, 1872, and Hattie Treaster, born in Mifflin Co., PA in October of 1879; and Jeremiah H. Daugherty, born in Pennsylvania in December of 1859, and Rebecca J., born in Pennsylvania in November of 1852.

Background: Willard Mitt Romney

Willard Mitt Romney was born in Detroit, Michigan, on March 12, 1947. He was the youngest child of George W. Romney, and Lenore Romney. His mother was a native of Logan, Utah, and his father was born in a Mormon colony in Chihuahua, Mexico.

Mitt’s father, George Wilcken Romney was born to American parents in the Mormon colonies in Mexico, but events during the Mexican Revolution forced his family to move back to the United States when he was a child. Romney’s grandparents were polygamous Mormons who fled the United States with their children because of the federal government’s opposition to polygamy.

His maternal grandfather was Helaman Pratt (1846–1909), who presided over the Mormon mission in Mexico City before moving to the state of Chihuahua and who was the son of original Mormon apostle Parley P. Pratt (1807–1857). Romney’s uncle Rey L. Pratt (1878–1931) would in the 1920s play a major role in the preservation and expansion of the Mormon presence in Mexico and in its introduction to South America.

George Wilcken Romney’s parents were American citizens Gaskell Romney (1871–1955) and Anna Amelia Pratt (1876-1926). They married in 1895 in Mexico and lived in Colonia Dublán, Galeana, in the Mexican state of Chihuahua (one of the Mormon colonies in Mexico) where George was born on July 8, 1907. They are said to have practiced monogamy. George had three older brothers and would gain two more brothers and a sister. Gaskell Romney was a successful carpenter, house builder, and farmer who headed the most prosperous family in the colony.

The Mexican Revolution broke out in 1910 and the Mormon colonies were endangered in 1911–1912 by raids from marauders, including “Red Flaggers” Pascual Orozco and José Inés Salazar. The Romney family fled and returned to the United States in July 1912, leaving their home and almost all of their property behind. Romney would later say, “We were the first displaced persons of the 20th century.”

From here on, George Romney grew up in humble circumstances. The family subsisted with other Mormon refugees on government relief in El Paso, Texas for a few months before moving to Los Angeles, California, where the father worked as a carpenter. In kindergarten there, other children mocked Romney’s national origin by calling him “Mex”. This might explain how Mitt got his middle name, as the State of Michigan is shaped like a mitten.

While a sophomore in high school, Mitt Romney participated in the campaign in which his father was elected Governor of Michigan. George Romney was re-elected twice, and Mitt worked for him as an intern in the governor’s office. He was also present at the 1964 Republican National Convention where his moderate father battled conservative party nominee Barry Goldwater over issues of civil rights and ideological extremism.

Ancestry of Mitt Romney

PARENTS – His father, George Wilcken Romney, was born in Colonia Dublán, Galeana, Chihuahua, México, on July 8, 1907 and died in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan on July 26, 1995. His mother, Lenore LaFount, was born in Logan, Utah, on November 9, 1908 and died in Michigan on July 7 1998.

GRANDPARENTS – His paternal grandfather, Gaskell Romney, was born in St. George, Utah on September 22, 1871. His paternal grandmother, Anna Amelia Pratt, was born in Salt Lake City, Utah on May 6, 1876. His maternal grandfather, Harold Arundel LaFount, was born in Birmingham, Warwick, UK on January 5, 1880. And his maternal grandmother, Alma Luella Robison, was born in Montpelier, Idaho on August 19, 1882.

GREAT-GRANDPARENTS – His great-grandparents were Miles Park Romney, born in Nauvoo, IL on August 18, 1843, and Hannah Hood Hill, born in Tosoronto Township, Simcoe, Ontario on July 9, 1842; Helaman Pratt, born in a covered wagon during a one-hour stopover on the trail near Mt. Pisgah, Iowa on May 31, 1846, and Anna Johanna Dorothy (“Dora”) Wilcken, born in Dahme, Zarpin, Rheinfeld, Schleswig-Holstein, Germany on July 25, 1854; Robert Arthur LaFount, born in Belbroughton, Worcester, UK on March 9, 1856, and Emily Ethel Hewitt, born in Birmingham, Warwick, UK on January 19, 1861; and Charles Edward Robison, born in Nauvoo, IL on December 2, 1845, and Rosetta Mary Berry, born in Albion, Michigan on July 3, 1843.


If I didn’t research this matter, I would not only be uninformed, but a hypocrite. Now at the time of Mitt Romney’s birth was his father a United States Citizen? Based on publicly available information, he certainly did not appear to be. Did George W. Romney, Mitt’s father, become a naturalized citizen prior to his son’s birth? If he did, that information is not in the public domain. What I do know is that many Mormons became Mexican citizens, that Mitt Romney has more than 20 distant relatives going back three generations living in the region of Mexico where his father, George, was born, and that as the son of a Mexican born parent, Mitt Romney is entitled to dual citizenship under Mexican law. On the other hand, Newt Gingrich was clearly born to parents who were citizens at the time of his birth. So in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, that’s all I need to know to sway my opinion.


The DC Black List

This is a list of the top four politicians on the list for impeachment or removal from office, and some of the reasons. There are many more reasons for removing these four from office, so feel free to add to the list. There are also many more politicians who should be removed, in fact, most of Washington DC should be purged.

Nancy Pelosi

  1. Snubbed Republicans during the passage of the Bailout Bill. She openly blamed President Bush for the financial crisis. Everyone knows that the financial crisis has roots going back to the 1970’s so to pass the blame solely on Bush was not only untrue, but unfair.
  2. Rammed the Stimulus Bill through without allowing anyone time to read it.
  3. Lied about her knowledge of the CIA’s enhanced interrogation practices, and stated that the CIA misled Congress for the past seven years.

Barney Frank

  1. For his role in the botched oversight of Fannie Mae. Frank stated that there was no problem with Fannie Mae and that everything was just fine in the mortgage industry.
  2. About to authorize the funding of $8 billion to Acorn. When questioned, Frank simply states that President Bush gave Acorn $14 million over 8 years so Acorn must be a good organization.
  3. Ran a male prostitution ring from his DC apartment in 1989, was busted, but the Congress let him off the hook because he was deemed just a harmless weird gay guy.

Joe Biden

  1. Has added nothing to decision-making regarding foreign policy (his alleged specialty), or in any area.
  2. Spilled national security secrets. He is a joke and a laughing stock. They are not gaffs, but rather the remarks of an incompetent, insensitive, and ignorant man.
  3. When something happens to Obama, Biden will not be capable of leading this country.

Barack Obama II

  1. Still hiding his original birth certificate and his college transcripts from the public. Circumstantial evidence proves that Obama probably got into college as a foreign student and received foreign aid just like his father.
  2. Not a Natural Born Citizen by virtue of his father’s nationality at the time of his birth. Obama was born with dual citizenship. Article II, Section I of the US Constitution states that only a Natural Born Citizen can occupy the office of the Presidency.
  3. Dismantled the US auto industry, violated the rights of secured creditors, quadrupled the National Debt in only 4 months, and threatens to bankrupt the United States.

Natural Rights vs. Legal Rights

May 5, 2009

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

Natural rights (also called moral rights or inalienable rights) are rights which are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of a particular society or polity.

In contrast, legal rights (sometimes also called civil rights or statutory rights) are rights conveyed by a particular polity, codified into legal statutes by some form of legislature, and as such are contingent upon local laws, customs, or beliefs.

Natural rights are thus necessarily universal, whereas legal rights are culturally and politically relative.

All races of mankind are created equal. No race is superior to another because they are all of the same species, mankind. Therefore, Blacks, Whites, Hispanics, Asians, Indians etc… all have equal rights as endowed by their Creator. There is no need for a law to be written to endow Blacks with the same rights as Whites. The right already exists in nature.

Civil rights in the U.S. have given women equal rights with men, animals equal rights with humans, and now gays equal rights with heterosexuals. This is man’s law. With man’s law, each society is different. Man’s law is based on the desires of men, and is not necessarily in line with natural law (let God be the Judge).

Gay rights proponents often proclaim that there is no law against homosexuality in the bible. Although this is not true, I would counter to gay marriage proponents, that there is no law regarding marriage in the bible, and certainly not gay marriage. The bible speaks of marriage between men and women, but it does not command that one be married. As there is no biblical, nor natural law regarding marriage, it is a custom or civil right granted by civil societies.

What follows is ‘natural law’ from the Bible on the issue of homosexuality:

Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. Romans 1:24-32

If various States want to legalize gay marriage, that is their prerogative, and it has nothing to do with God’s law. However, I would warn that if homosexuality is against natural law, then the foundation of gay marriage is built on sinking sand. If a society wants to pass laws that are in opposition to natural law, that is their right. If a society believes that by condoning certain behaviors they are somehow granting natural rights, then that society is delusional. And if a society passes laws that are opposed to the laws of nature, then that society will perish.

I hereby formally reject the Civil Rights Act of the United States as having any force or effect regarding my equality as a Black man to any other race, creed, or color of man. I don’t need your law to tell me that I am equal, nor do I need your protection from those who would reject natural law. Whether or not the United States subscribes to natural law, I am free. However, if the United States has chosen to reject natural law, and has arrived at the ‘age of man’, then it has deviated from its original intent.

Just as businesses fail and are dissolved, nations fail and are dissolved. If the United States continues on its present course, [the rejection of natural law], then the United States will be replaced. Contrary to popular belief, America will meet its end, not at the hands of some violent revolution staged by proponents of natural law; but rather through natural law itself. External forces who believe in natural law will prevail, and will triumph over weak, watered down American’s, who place all their faith and trust in the laws of man. DHS can take proponents of the US Constitution, the Word of God, and Natural Law off the list. We are not the threat. Government itself is the threat.

You know the saying, ‘the strong survive’. There is no higher law, nor higher power, than following the course of one’s Creator. Although there is a purpose for civil laws, when the dictates of man begin to infringe upon natural law, know that the end is nigh.