web analytics
≡ Menu

Obama abandons Founding Fathers’ Dream

In my latest article for WND.com I reflect on Obama’s speech this week at the UN. As always, I’d be interest in what you think, so some back here and leave a comment after you’ve finished reading it. Thanks.

StumbleUponLinkedInFacebookDeliciousRedditDiggEvernoteTwitterTumblrShare
{ 12 comments }

{ 14 comments… add one }

  • Jedi Pauly February 18, 2011, 12:34 pm

    Dear Dr. Keyes

    I wanted to take this opportunity to once again explain the scientific facts of life to you and Orly Taitz.

    Although Obama does not qualify under Article II as a “natural born Citizen” it is clear to me that neither you, nor Orly Taitz, nor Mario Apuzzo, nor any one else I have ever heard or read about seems to know or understand the true legal meaning and interpretation of Article II “natural born Citizen”. I have come to realize that people in general, and this includes you and Orly Taitz, hold onto your false beliefs of the meaning of Article II “natural born Citizen” with a religious fervor that is devoid of reason, history, Law, and observations of Natural Reality. It is one thing to point out that Obama is not qualified under the Constitution and it is quite another thing to show people why he does not qualify. You and Orly Taitz have not shown why as a matter of Law.

    I have tried over and over again to enlighten you and Orly and the population at large to the correct meaning and interpretation of Article II, without success. I can only conclude that you and Orly and Mario Apuzzo and the general population have a mental condition formulated from baseless beliefs that prohibits the acceptance of truth and/or Natural Reality. For what it is worth I provide this simple legal outline below that shows the true meaning of Article II “natural born Citizen” in the hopes that you will be able to overcome your mental impediment and become enlightened to the truth. Here are the facts of life that define and describe Article II “natural born Citizen”:

    1) The Constitution embodies only two jurisdictions from where authority is derived, a Natural Law jurisdiction and a Positive Law jurisdiction.

    2) Article II “natural born Citizen” is a unique construct that is not defined in English Common law, or U.S. Positive Law, but is defined solely in Natural Law and just declared in the Positive Law at Article II in order to be protected. Article II “natural born Citizen” derives its authority solely from the Natural Law jurisdiction of the Constitution as meaning one who is born a native sovereign of the country. Sovereign political rights are Natural Rights that are inherited from males (father) under the Natural Law jurisdiction, because it is males who create the Positive Law (government) to secure the natural political rights and membership in the father’s society that is inherited. (Explained by Vattel and declared as a self-evident truth of Nature in the Declaration of Independence.) This is probably due to the natural fact that under the Natural Law jurisdiction, males are physically superior in strength and aggression and no female can physically prevent a father from securing the political rights and membership of his children into his society.

    3) When it comes to citizenship and political rights, the jurisdiction of foreign soil or a foreign mother are only considered to be a Positive Law jurisdiction in contrast to that of the father’s Natural Law jurisdiction. The soil is obvious because soil is always a Positive Law jurisdiction. A foreign mother might seem to be a Natural Law jurisdiction that is equal to the father’s, but upon investigation you will see that this is not so. Whenever there is a foreign father, then the political rights and membership of the children in the mother’s society are in question, and must be adjudicated and secured solely by the Positive Law via statute. Any citizenship or political rights must be defined by statutory authority due to the competing superior Natural Law jurisdiction of the father. The father’s Natural Law jurisdiction is always considered to be the superior controlling jurisdiction and forces the mother to be under the Positive Law jurisdiction for describing or securing any political rights or membership in the mother’s society.

    Since the Natural Law jurisdiction is superior to and controlling over that of the Positive Law jurisdiction, it makes no difference where you are born or the citizenship status of a foreign mother, as both jurisdictions will only be Positive Law jurisdictions that will define the citizenship rights or political rights which will not compete with the father’s pre-eminent Natural Law jurisdiction no matter whether the father is native or foreign. Therefore your place of birth or the status of your mother are irrelevant as long as you have a citizen father.

    4) Loyalty and Allegiance considerations. Any loyalties or allegiances that are derived from foreign soil or a foreign mother at birth, are only statutory in nature due to the Positive Law jurisdictions that are controlling in such matters, and so they are not inherited loyalties or allegiances from a citizen father due to the Laws of Nature for the reasons outlined above. Therefore, it makes no difference whether one is born into the Positive Law with foreign loyalties and allegiances or if one develops foreign Positive Law loyalties and allegiances after birth through migrating to some other country. Both situations are easily remedied by the repatriation requirements of Article II, that requires one to be born a native citizen of the country which is secured solely by a citizen father under Natural Law jurisdiction (Vattel), and the 14 year residency requirement in Article II that causes one to sever any foreign loyalties or allegiances that are derived solely form the Positive Law jurisdiction and repatriate and reestablish the loyalties and allegiances of the native father, that one is born inheriting as a function of the Laws of Nature which is the Natural Law jurisdiction. Patriot is derived from the Greek/Latin “patros” meaning “father”, so to repatriate means to return to the land of your father and take up his loyalties and allegiances. This is what Article II requires and provides for.

    5) The term “natural born citizen” that is defined under the 14th Amendment and by U.S. case law and Supreme Court decisions is only referring to “subject” status as in one who is “subject to the jurisdiction of” the Positive Law, and so it is only a Positive Law construct of a “legal right” or privilege, not a Natural Right; and any political rights that are derived from “natural born citizen” status are thus only legal political rights and not natural political rights. This term is defined and borrowed from English Common law as a citizen “subject” of the King/State whose authority is derived solely from the king’s/state’s soil jurisdiction that the king/state claims dominion over. This is solely a Positive Law jurisdiction, as the King/State is not the source of Natural Rights only Positive Law “legal rights”. This is what differs “natural born citizen” from “natural born Citizen” . The former is a function solely of Positive Law and is a privilege of soil only, where a citizen father is not even required, and the latter is a function solely of Natural Law where ONLY a citizen father is required and the soil is irrelevant. Article II is a unique construct that has nothing at all to do with Positive Law or English Common Law, but rather represents the break with England and the form of monarchy political system that caused an automatic involuntary allegiance to the King/State by being born under the king’s/state’s soil jurisdiction. Instead the construct “natural born Citizen” is defined solely under Natural Law to represent the Natural Sovereign authority that all People inherit and are entitled to, that was the purpose of the Declaration of Independence and the war of 1776 that secured the recognition of these natural sovereign political rights to be inherited from our fathers that the King had refused to recognize.

    6) One can see that not only is there a big legal difference, as defined by the Constitution and by Supreme Court cases, between “natural born citizen” and “natural born Citizen”, as just outlined in 5 above, but also between “Citizen of the United States” and the 14th amendment “citizen of the United States”. The term “Citizen of the United States” is referring to a sovereign State Citizen. The term “citizen of the United States” is referring to a citizen “subject” of the State that is declared in the 14th amendment to be a citizen “subject” of the State jurisdiction, as in a ward of the State, and not a sovereign State Citizen who is not a “subject” of State jurisdiction without voluntary consent and who is not a ward of the State. Here is a link with Supreme Court references that helps to clarify this distinction: http://usa-the-republic.com/mark%20of%20beast/AppendixC.htm

    As you can see, a correct understanding of the Natural Law jurisdiction and the Positive Law jurisdiction –both of which are well-defined in law to be opposite and “opposed” jurisdictions, with the Natural Law jurisdiction being superior– perfectly defines and describes Article II “natural born Citizen” as only requiring a citizen father who creates you, and your place of birth and the status of one’s mother are both irrelevant. One need only claim the natural political rights in order to be a sovereign representative of the sovereign citizens of the country and then repatriate for 14 years to sever any foreign allegiances or loyalties, in order to qualify under Article II for the Office of President.

    • loyaltoliberty February 18, 2011, 1:38 pm

      The natural law understanding you rely on was the basis for the case made by people like Filmer for absolute monarchy, which the Founders emphatically rejected.  They followed thinkers like John Locke (2nd Treatise of Government, Chapter VI, “Of Paternal Power”. Some wording in the American Declaration of Independence was taken almost verbatim from Locke’s 2nd treatise.) who clearly argues that by natural right mother and father have equal authority from God over their children.  “”…for it will but very ill serve the turn of those men who contend so much for the absolute power and authority of the fatherhood, as they call it, that the mother should have any share in it; and it would have but ill supported the monarchy they contend for, when by the very name it appeared that that fundamental authority from whence they would derive their government of a single person only was not placed in one but two persons jointly.”
      The notion you mention that the father’s superior strength is the Natural Law basis for paternal jurisdiction is again a reiteration of the despotic understanding the Founders rejected when they declared that the just powers of government are derived from the consent of the governed (not superior force.)
      Thus you are right to point out that the Founders principles followed a different understanding of the natural law, but wrong when you yourself fail accurately to take account of it. In “The eligibility case Obama wants no one to hear” I believe I make a case that more consistently adheres to America’s founding principles. In that article I also explain why the current elitists in both parties don’t want to consider the eligibility issue- it would force them to admit that US Constitution refers to and is based on principles of natural right and natural law.
      By the way, both the fight against slavery and the battle for women’s sufferage accurately followed through on the logic of natural right Locke and the Founders relied on in principle.

  • commentspamming November 26, 2009, 4:07 am

    This is bad. The founding fathers set things the way they are with money, legal, job descriptions. Now think how many people they killed for this. They all lived from natural things here on earth (food) which containt nutrients. No reason they shouldve implemented money or military. no need the people who died because of what they built should have died since they all lived from, food, water, sleep, sunlight.

  • Dawg_em September 29, 2009, 7:47 am

    Governments must reflect the will of the people? The people have said they want their borders secure and don't want national socialism in health care or anything else.

    Human rights must be respected? Like leaving a child to die in a bucket or on a countertop?

    Obama is a liar and a barbarian. The link between the Nazis and national socialism as envisioned by him are inseparable. Does such despicable evil really come down to that least of common denominators? Apparently so.

    Congratulations, America. We have set ourselves on a path that will end much like Berlin in 1945. But then, that's not the end, is it?

  • Dawg_em September 28, 2009, 9:11 am

    Obama lies all the time. Know how you can tell? His lips are moving. Unfortunately, that's no joke.

  • WingletDriver September 27, 2009, 9:44 am

    Dr. Keyes,

    Not only does BHO abandon the dreams of the Founding Fathers, his election is the antithesis of the MLK "I have a dream" speech:

    I say to you today, my friends, so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream. (Is BHO's dream deeply rooted in the American dream?)

    I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal." (Except the helpless or anyone who opposes BHO.)

    I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood. (Unless they oppose BHO, then they are racists.)

    I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice. (Now Mississippi has Black politicians who employ the same type of racial injustice against White voters, and they do it with impunity.)

    I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. (Let's face it, a lot of people Black and White voted for BHO based solely on the color of his skin.)

    I have a dream today.

    I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification; one day right there in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers. (But only to exalt BHO like those kids in NJ.)

    I have a dream today.

    I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together. (Replace "Lord" with BHO and it fits with BHO's speeches not just to the UN.)

    Sadly, Dr. King gave this speech at the Lincoln Memorial for obvious reasons, (e.g., the Gettysburg Address and Lincoln's second inaugural [which are the two texts inscribed within the memorial and which everyone should read]). BHO has so utterly bastardized Lincoln's and King's dreams that you wonder if it is his goal that government of, by and for the people will perish from the face of the earth.

  • IONU September 26, 2009, 7:49 am

    Dr. Keyes' post is ostensibly about our alleged President but the bigger picture concerns the "American despotism" of the "New Party" with Comrade Obama at the helm. The "New Party" is a conglomeration of those (from every corner) who have abandoned in deeds if not words the principles that our Republic were founded on.

    American despotism is of course being implemented for the "greater good" – remember, we are "citizens of the world" now – under the auspices of the U.N.

    Contrast Obama's speech to PM Netanyahu's the very next day:

    http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=4494

    Remember, the U.N. is the greater evil. Hitler was nothing without the Nazi Party, Stalin was nothing without the Communist Party.

    In stark contrast, the United States is nothing without allegiance to the U.S. Constitution.

    Down with the U.N.!

  • Digital Publius September 26, 2009, 1:52 am

    Brilliant article Dr. Keyes!

    Mr. Obama is as far away from the principles that drove the founders as it is possible to be, which places him even further away from the Divine Providence that inspired them. It is my daily prayer that Mr. Obama be delivered from evil personally, that he come to know the Lord Jesus Christ of the Holy Bible personally, then and only then will he move beyond his threadbare form of godliness. I pray this for his benefit, the benefit of his family and our nation.

    Digital Publius

  • gilbertabrett September 26, 2009, 12:40 am

    About your title Dr. Keyes, I respectfully disagree with one word. Only because I do not think you can abandon that which you have never adhered to or respected – or maybe even understood. I am not sure of ANY dream this cruel and evil man has besides a nightmare for us all.

    Maybe I am wrong with the context of the entire title? Either way I do not like that man period and everyday I pray to GOD that HE gives this country justice against this evil man next month. GOD bless you and Dr. Taitz. I hope and pray the judge will not cower to King Hussein.

  • IONU September 25, 2009, 9:35 pm

    Dr.Keyes,

    As former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. you know better than anyone the evil nature and intentions of the U.N.

    All I wish to add is that our Dictator In Chief has taken his pre-assigned place on the stage of the U.N. Puppet Theater, which is owned and operated by a league of the world's wealthiest, most powerful and secretive elitists who seek global domination, through tyrannical means, behind the facade of the U.N.

    Hmmm, on second thought, maybe we're not supposed to say such things, it's only conspiracy talk ;^)

  • Joshua September 25, 2009, 8:15 pm

    Dr. Keyes, I completely agree with your statement that Obama's speech should have been named after his book Dreams From My Father.I think that all of his speaches should be named after his book.Jesus said to those who were trying to kill him, "You belong to your father the devil and you will willingly carry out your fathers desires. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in truth,because their is no truth in him.When he tells a lie,he speaks in character,because he is a liar and the father of lies." John 8:44. If you are interested in evidence of how Obama follows his father who was a murderer from the beginning, I believe you should read the link on the left hand side of life site news.com entitled Obamas antilife record.

  • Jenny Hatch September 25, 2009, 2:34 pm

    I agree Alan, and am interested in your thoughts on the claims of Jane Bürgermeister: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PelTWCUmTsU

    Here was my blog entry on his speech: http://www.naturalfamilyblog.com/archives/001816.html

    Jenny Hatch

  • Ms. Cris Ericson September 25, 2009, 1:40 pm

    CRIS ERICSON says:
    PEOPLE WHO LOVE OUR U.S. CONSTITUTION!
    PEOPLE WHO WILL UPHOLD OUR FOUNDING FATHERS'
    DREAMS!
    REQUEST NEW FEC RULE
    REQUIRING ALL PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES
    TO PROVIDE THEIR
    ORIGINAL LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE!
    http://www.fec.gov

    TITLE 11 CFR (CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS) Section 105.3
    Place of filing; Presidential candidates and their principal campaign
    committees (2 U.S.C. 432(g)(4).
    All designations, statements, reports, and notices, as well as any
    modifications(s) or amendments(s) thereto, required to be filed
    under 11 CFR parts 101, 102 and 104 by a candidate for nomination
    for election or election to the office of President or Vice President
    of the United States or by his or her principal campaign committee
    shall be filed in ORIGINAL FORM with the FEDERAL ELECTION
    COMMISSION.

    11 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) Chapter 1, Subchapter A
    Section 111.4
    COMPLAINTS
    [2 U.S.C. Section 437g(a)(1)]
    (a) Any person who believes that a violation of any statute or
    regulation over which the Commission has jurisdiction has occurred
    or is about to occur may file a complaint in writing to the
    General Counsel, Federal Election Commission, 999 E Street,
    NW., Washington, DC 20463. If possible, three (3) copies
    should be submitted.
    (b) A complaint shall comply with the following:
    (1) It shall provide the full name and address of the complainant ; and
    (2) The contents of the complaint shall be sworn to and signed in the
    presence of a notary public and shall be notarized.

    The Federal Election Commission oversees all the money spent
    in campaigns for federal office.
    11 CFR Ch. 1 Part 101 Section 101.2 CANDIDATE AS AGENT
    OF AUTHORIZED COMMITEE [2 U.S.C. Section 432(e)(2)]

    QUESTION: BECAUSE THE CANDIDATE IS THE AUTHORIZED
    AGENT OF THE COMMITTEE, THEN, THEREFORE,
    SHOULD
    THE DUTIES OF THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
    INCLUDE DETERMINING IF EACH CANDIDATE FOR
    PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IS IN FACT A
    NATURAL BORN CITIZEN by providing their original
    long form birth certificate?

    11 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) Ch. 1, Subchapter B
    Part 200
    PETITIONS FOR RULEMAKING

    11 CFR Ch.1, SubCh. B, Section 200.2 PROCEDURAL
    REQUIREMENTS
    (a) ANY INTERESTED PERSON MAY FILE WITH THE COMMISSION
    A WRITTEN PETITION FOR THE ISSUANCE, AMENDMENT, OR
    REPEAL OF A RULE IMPLEMENTING ANY OF THE FOLLOWING
    STATUTES:
    (1) The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended, 2 U.S.C. 431 et seq.;
    (2) The Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act, as amended, 26 U.S.C. 9001 et seq.;
    (3) The Presidential Primary Matching Payment Account Act, as amended, 26 U.S.C. 9031
    et seq.;
    (4) The Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552; or
    (5) Any other law that the Commission is required to implement and administer,

    (b) THE PETITION SHALL
    (1) Include the name and address of the Petitioner or Agent. An Authorized
    Agent of the Petitioner may submit the Petition, but the Agent shall disclose
    the identitify of this or her principal;
    (2) Identify itself as a PETITION for the ISSUANCE, AMENDMENT, OR REPEAL of a rule;
    (3) Identify the specific section(s) of the regulations to be affected;
    (4) Set forth the factual and legal grounds on which the petitioner relies,
    in support of the proposed action; and
    (5) Be addressed and submitted to the
    FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL,
    999 E STREET, NW., WASHINGTON, DC 20463.
    (c) The petition may include draft regulatory language that would effectuate
    the petitionser's proposal.
    (d) The Commission may, in its discretion, treat a document that fails to
    conform to the format requirements of paragraph (b) of this section as a basis for a
    sua sponte rulemaking. For example, the Commission may consider whether to
    intitiate a rulemaking project addressing issues raised in an advisory opinion request
    submitted under 11 CFR 112.1 or in a complaint filed under 11 CFR 111.4. However, the
    Commission need not follow the procedures of 11 CFR 200.3 in these instances.

  • jaywine September 25, 2009, 11:14 am

    Words are a window into ones soul.
    And who we have voluntarily surrounded ourselves with speaks volumes to our true heart and true passion.
    We would do very well to remember the above as it puts into realistic perspective political motives of our elected leaders.
    The citizens of this county cannot choose and be apathetic during the current tipping point in this nation's history.
    Great article!

Copyright Regulations

All original material on Loyal To Liberty is copyrighted and you will need to observe these regulations when you plan to distribute or use content from this blog. Copyright Regulations for Content on Loyal To Liberty You are free to share, distribute or transmit any work on this blog under the following conditions: * Attribution. You must attribute any content you use to Loyal To Liberty by including a link back to the specific content page. You must not suggest that Loyal To Liberty endorses you or your use of the content on this blog. Even with attribution, you do not have permission to republish the entire blog post on a website. Only excerpts of less than 100 words from each blog post may be published on other websites. A link back to the specific blog post must be included. * Noncommercial Usage. You may not use this work for commercial purposes unless authorized to do so by Alan Keyes. * Derivative Works. Within the limits heretofore specified, you may build upon the contents of Loyal To Liberty as long as proper attribution (see above) is made. If you want to syndicate or distribute the full blog post on your website, permission must be obtained before you do so. For permission, please email alan@loyaltoliberty.com.
%d bloggers like this: