See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: OBAMA DON'T NEED NO STINKIN BIRTH CERTIFICATE:
Source:
Legal Reality
URL Source: http://n/a
Published: Mar 15, 2009
Author: Harmon Taylor (Ex-Lawyer)
Post Date: 2009-03-15 20:59:36 by noone222
Keywords: None
Views: 696
Comments: 36
15 March A.D. 2009 First Part. This first part is a message to those who are obsessing over the obama-nation's Kenyan (British) nationality. If that's not you, just skip right over the first part and go to the second part. Yes, we're all being lied to about this. You are 100% correct; the obama-nation was not born in Hawaii. Now, please try to understand our legal reality: THERE IS NO ARTICLE II "RESIDENCY" OR "NATIONALITY" REQUIREMENT FOR ANY EXECUTIVE OFFICE IN THE "FEDERAL GOVERNMENT." Welcome to an insidious, wicked paradigm shift. Welcome to the Legal Reality confronting us in our immediate present. Second Part. Let's also address something even more obvious that these obsessing "residence requirement" litigants have clearly never read, much less reflected upon. Let the "constitutionalist" who is an obama-nation "residency requirement" obsessor show me in Article II, or anywhere else in his coveted Constitution for that matter, where a "popular vote" for President of that "constitutional Government" is even a remote part of the PROCESS, and I'll show him a "qualification" requirement from Article II regarding where one is born for that very same governmental system and structure. (And, then I'll show him that it's completely irrelevant, even in that context.) For those who may want to be some better versed in how to address this obsession in their own communities, let's go over some basics, which we may have covered previously, but which will be good to cover, again, for the new members to the list. A mere cursory review of our nation's political history reveals the following. There were NINE, count them, NINE, "elections" that applied the Article II PROCEDURE, the "Electoral College" PROCEDURE. The last "election" that followed the Article II PROCEDURE was in 1820. Starting in 1824, the election process took a turn from which no correction has been made to date. In 1824, for the very first time, there was a concept, and a PROCEDURE, of a "popular vote" for "president." So, we see the rather obvious, stark-naked obvious, question: If the Constitution called for a "popular vote," then why were the first NINE elections, count them, NINE, by way of the Electoral College PROCESS? And, we see instantly the answer. The "popular vote" was never even remotely contemplated as the PROCESS by which any executive office would be filled. Given that no executive office for the "constitutional Government" is to be filled by ANYthing even remotely resembling a "popular vote," we arrive at this fork in the road. Based on the sage advice from Yogi Berra, we're going to take that fork. Either we've got a "constitutional Government," or we don't. Where there's nothing relevant about Article II that applies, then we're NOT dealing with a "constitutional Government." This shocks the conscience, but not because this is intellectually difficult to grasp. The "rebellion" against the reality is the emotional response. Nonetheless, (A) there is nothing relevant about the Electoral College PROCESS, and (B) there is no "residency requirement." So, the logical conclusion is just not that difficult to make. Article II is completely irrelevant to our present legal reality. Said another way, Article II has nothing, whatsoever, to do with the "federal government." What makes the reality so difficult to see is that we have to admit that we've "been had." No one likes to admit "being had." And, most will never allow themselves to see that we've "been had" for 220+ years; hence, as advertised, it IS a wicked paradigm shift. There's a very good reason, then, WHY no court in this system is doing anything to interfere with the obama-nation's candidacy or office-holding. That reason is this: No executive office in the "FEDERAL Government" has any such residency requirement. [It's impossible to have a legitimate governmental system with an illegitimate "money" system.] What the courts understand on this issue that the "residency-requirement"-obsessed "citizenry" don't (yet) understand is that "federal" means "federal." "Federal" does not mean "national." "Federal" most certainly does not mean "constitutional." "Federal" means "federal." At the level of a "state," "federal" means "by compact" or "by treaty." At the level of the individual, "federal" means "by private obligation." Let's apply this reality so that those who may also want to help these "residency-requirement"-obsessed people find something constructive to do with their time will have something constructive to share when the topic comes up. It simply doesn't make one bit of difference who is the "president" of the "federal government." Why not? Ok. Can the "president" of the "federal government" compel anyone to enter into any of the private obligations that are used to vex us? No. So, it doesn't matter who holds that office. Until we see the commercial nature of the problem, we won't see the commercial nature of the solution. To see the commercial nature of the problem is to see that there are no political solutions to our commercial problems. This "residency requirement" obsession is just as much "bread and circuses" as the obama-nation's recent head-on collision with Rush Limbaugh. Those who refuse to think and analyze the matter commercially need the political "bread and circuses." So, there's plenty of political "bread and circuses" for the politically minded. Just listen to or read the "news." Plenty of non-solution, "you have no control" information provided there. Political activity matters, and you'll never hear me say otherwise. However, as mentioned again very recently, if that's ALL we do, if that's ALL we focus on, then we're wasting our time, "money," and energy, for if we don't act commercially, nothing is going to change (for the better). So, as the "residency requirement" issue shows up in your neck of the woods, feel free to pull out your pocket-sized Constitution and either read to them or have them read the WHOLE of Article II. And, don't just read it; read it OUT LOUD. Then, ask where the concept of a "popular vote" is anywhere mentioned. If the response is, "Well, it's got to be in there somewhere," feel free to read to them, OUT LOUD, or have them read, OUT LOUD, the entirety of that document. When they see/hear that the Constitution in absolutely, positively no conceivably remote way comes anywhere NEAR even breathing a word about a "popular vote" for the selection process for the Office of President, they're going then also to see that along with the change in PROCESS, there is also a change in the QUALIFICATIONS. Yes, a State may decide the process for selecting the Electors. This is true. Presume a bunch of States. (To presume them is the only way we'll see any of such bodies politic in our present reality.) If the selection process by which Electors are chosen had anything, at all, to do with the Constitution, there'd be no "political party affiliation" requirement. How do we know that there IS such a requirement, We know because we see that the "popular vote" that everyone focuses on doesn't elect Electors. We have no idea who the Electors are. We never even see their names. Their names are not supplied by a ballot. Their names are supplied by a political party. The "popular vote" process doesn't elect Electors. It "elects" a party, who then supplies a "slate" or group of "electors," based on a "winner take all" concept, all of which is 100% dependent upon the "political party affiliation" requirement. So, technically, the "popular vote" process doesn't elect a "president," either. It elects a political party. Given that there is a political party affiliation requirement, what is the obvious problem with such requirement? Remember that IF we're talking about the Office discussed in the Constitution, we're talking about a "constitutional" Office. So, where do we find the Requirements for such an office? There's one and only one place: the Constitution. Now, read the Constitution, top to bottom, with all the alleged Amendments, OUT LOUD, and stop where you find the language that says that the Office of Elector has a political party affiliation requirement. When you get to the end of the Amendments, and run out of words to read, you'll see that there is no such requirement. So, when the obama-nation "residency-requirement"-obsessed faction show me where their coveted Constitution has a "political party affiliation" requirement for the Office of Elector, I'll show them both the Electoral College PROCESS and the "residency requirement" for that very same governmental system. For a State to add a "political party affiliation" requirement to the qualifications for the Office of Elector is for a State to "legislate" an "amendment" to the Constitution. In short, these so-called "constitutionalists" are VERY internally confused. There's a "residency requirement," but none of the rest of this alternative process bothers them, whatsoever. Curious, to say the least. In sum, we're back to asking the exact same question: Are we dealing with a "constitutional Government" or not? The evidence screams at us that the answer is "or not." We don't have Electors, for the STATEs have added a "political party affiliation" requirement. We don't have the Electoral College process, for we're not electing Electors, but rather a unknown, undisclosed group/slate of political-party members. And, as those who understand the reality know, and as those who are being dragged kicking and screaming into the legal reality as we speak are coming to know, there simply is no "residency requirement" for the executive officeholders for the "federal government." The PROCESS we're looking at is not a "constitutional" process. It's a "federal" PROCESS. By way of this PROCESS, it is not a "constitutional" office that is filled; it's a "federal" office that is filled. The relevant qualifications are not the "constitutional" QUALIFICATIONs, but rather the "federal" QUALIFICATIONS, which makes perfect sense, since that office being filled is a "federal government" office, not a "constitutional Government" Office. The "constitutional" system HAS a "residency requirement." Yes. Absolutely Right! But the "federal" system has no such "residency requirement." It is the prayer by those of us at Legal Reality that the obama-nation's "residency-requirement"-obsessed part of our nation survive the shock of the very wicked paradigm shift that comes with realizing that we've "been had" for going on 220 years now. May they be able successfully to direct that time, "money," and energy into something that will do much more good for ourselves and for our nation, i.e., something based on our legal reality. A "federal government" operates "federally." What does that mean? "By private obligation." Those who are no longer interested in financing this scam that calls itself the "federal government" may want to start reading the law of trusts, because "taxpayer" means "fiduciary." We can't change "them." The obama-nation is "in," and that's that. All we can change is us, and that starts with realizing the commercial nature of the mechanisms being used against us. Commercial problems require commercial solutions. Harmon L. Taylor Legal Reality Dallas, Texas
Poster Comment: There ain't no Constitution in the FEDERAL GOVT.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 36.
#2. To: noone222 (#0)
then the oath presidents take is bogus too. i wonder what Edwin Vieira would think of this.
haaaaaaaaaaaahehehe!
That is every bit as good and just as real as that pos Obama had his disciples to post online.
I agree about the value, but yours made me laugh, not gnash my teeth. : )
Glad you enjoyed it.
Indeed I did and thank you!
You are most welcome.
Yeah, I saved it! There will be more than a few chances to stick the Obama Offishal Birth Certificat for HAWAII to some of his "Changelings". It'll be for my own amusement because they won't see it.
I have several pictures of (and about) the Obamasiah. You may like some of these. De Obamasiah bringin' dat bitch thru Afganystan.
With a collection of hits like that it's time you put out an album. :)
A fine thing ye be sayin' laddie. Maybe I can do just that and buy that Buick we were talking about on t'other thread. Or a model of one (if they would let me make payments, lol).
Wow, I damned near forgot about the red haired, shamrock kissing faction of the Deffenbach clan.
I don't know how you could be forgettin' that.
There are no replies to Comment # 36. End Trace Mode for Comment # 36.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#16. To: christine (#2)
#17. To: James Deffenbach (#16)
#18. To: litus (#17)
#19. To: James Deffenbach (#18)
#21. To: litus, HOUNDDAWG (#19)
#22. To: James Deffenbach (#21)
Glad you enjoyed it.
#23. To: HOUNDDAWG (#22)
#24. To: James Deffenbach (#23)
#26. To: HOUNDDAWG (#24)
(Edited)
#30. To: James Deffenbach (#26)
#33. To: Dakmar (#30)
With a collection of hits like that it's time you put out an album. :)
#34. To: James Deffenbach (#33)
A fine thing ye be sayin' laddie. Maybe I can do just that and buy that Buick we were talking about on t'other thread. Or a model of one (if they would let me make payments, lol).
#36. To: Dakmar (#34)
Wow, I damned near forgot about the red haired, shamrock kissing faction of the Deffenbach clan.
Replies to Comment # 36.