Rich TAkes on Natural Born Citizens

I enjoyed an interesting discussion recently, revisiting Barack Obama’s birth certificate, or lack thereof. It is my studied opinion that both were poor forgeries, especially considering the defects present in both as well as the manner of presentation. The first was by author unknown on the photo sharing site photobucket, and the second was a digital pdf which is easily shown to be highly manipulated.

Whether the Obama COLBs are real or not is beside the point.

Even if real, neither establishes Natural Born status.

The Framers were concerned about foreign influences in the Office of President,

and so required that any President born after ratification of the Constitution must be a Natural Born Citizen. They didn’t define it further, as the term had a universal meaning at the time. They deliberately did not use the term “citizen”, so there is a special, super-citizenship requirement for the highest office in the land.

The place of birth is not important, the parents citizenship status at the time of birth is, and this is the only Natural Born requirement. Both parents need to be citizens is the long and short of the difference between citizen and natural born citizen.

Simply being born on native soil of the USA does not confer citizenship status. Congress has never passed a bill to such effect, although the Courts have twisted the 14th Amendment to the point that we all go along with it. A topic for a separate discussion I guess. The only true citizens have at least one parent who is a citizen, or who have been legally naturalized. Natural Born Citizens have both parents as citizens, regardless of place of birth.

This is why Chester Arthur and Barack Obama are not Natural Born. This is also why Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are not Natural Born either, as well as why John McCain is.

I posted briefly about this at Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 168. in March 2012.

The following is edited from a conversation also around March of 2012. It is a good place to start your research, so please click to read more.

H/T to Jo, thanks!   Continue reading Rich TAkes on Natural Born Citizens

Keynes v Hayek, Obama v Romney

I initially posted this at maclectic/Forums/politics on Jan 29, 2010. Barack Obama had just completed his first year, and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid set the stage in Congress:

Yesterday the Senate approved raising the debt ceiling another 1.9 Trillion across a party-line vote. Had it not passed, the fall-back plan was to approve the 635 Billion already approved by the House. Naturally, raising the ceiling again wouldn’t look good next fall right before the mid-term elections, so our fearless Senate simply doubled down on the ceiling.

Following WWI, two major and opposing “schools” of economics appeared. 

The first was known at the time as “classic liberalism” today we know it as the Austrian School. Ludwig Von Mises and F.A Hayek were major proponents. The prime tenets of this economic theory was that individuals, and their contributions can create wealth and add value to society more efficiently with the least amount of government interference and control. The Chicago School which Milton Freidman spear-headed is an off-shoot in a sense of the Austrian School of thought. Today in the US at least, most folks who align with this theory are generally regarded as conservatives in an economic sense. In parts of Europe and academia they are still known as “classic liberals” which should not be confused with the progressive movement.

Second, at about the same time, John Maynard Keynes was developing his progressive economic theories in London. He believed that money or wealth would always be in a constant fixed supply, and that governments could control markets by controlling the money supply. This theory punished producers with excessive taxes, a policy which created a self-fulfilling prophecy, and producers found ways to reduce their output, since punitive taxes also reduced individual incentive to create and produce goods and services.

Keynesian Economics also held that governments could artificially stimulate an economy by pumping up the money supply, also known as printing money. Governments also used such gimmicks to deflate the value of their currency in order to pay international debts at lower than agreed to rates. This is known as monetizing debt. The US, England and Germany all used the Keynesian theory to print money to prop up their respective economies after the Great Depression (in Germany’s case beforehand). The Weimar Republic printed so much currency in order to pay off punitive WWI war-debts that the government finally collapsed which led to the rise of the Third Reich.

Sadly, the Keynesian School was known as gospel in most governments in the West for much of the 20th century with a few exceptions. It is making a strong come-back today. We are monetizing our debt, something that the Chinese and Arabs are not looking fondly upon, since they now hold such a large part of it.

Today, our government is creating the most forceful shift to failed Keynesian theories since the days of FDR and his progressive vision which we are all still paying for today. Governments can not create wealth, they can only confiscate it regardless of the amount of currency they are printing. 

It still takes individuals and producers willing to risk, to create and innovate to create wealth, it is not a static target. We should go back to creating an environment which rewards instead of demonizing the risk-takers, and the producers of the world. We will all be richer for it in the long run.

I’m not a big fan of hip-hop, or rap as we used to call it. This is a very entertaining rap production of an imagined meeting of Keynes and Hayek during current times. It is very well produced, and brings into contrast the two major economic schools of thought in a creative way. I hope you enjoy it.

In Fear the Boom and Bust, John Maynard Keynes and F. A. Hayek, two of the great economists of the 20th century, come back to life to attend an economics conference on the economic crisis. Before the conference begins, and at the insistence of Lord Keynes, they go out for a night on the town and sing about why there’s a “boom and bust” cycle in modern economies and good reason to fear it.

About 6:30 running time with an additional 60 seconds of credits.

Hit the read more for lyrics, and additional links.

Continue reading Keynes v Hayek, Obama v Romney

Special 11th 911 eXtra Edition

Rich TAkes!

here is a special edition of links about the recent September Eleventh Acts of War in Libya

U.S. military suspends joint patrols with Afghans – CBS News

prior to the 911 attack, Afghani military have been turning on and murdering their US training counterparts

NightWatch 20120913 – KGS

 an open-sourced intelligence analysis of the attack

Obama to Condemn Christian Filmmaker Before United Nations

 the apology tour continues

Caroline Glick :: The 9/11 attacks on the US embassies were not about a movie

Inside the US consulate in Benghazi: material and human damage laid bare

The Rape of Christopher Stevens

warning: graphic copy

Reports: Marines Not Permitted Live Ammo

What’s Worse: No Marines, or (Possibly) Unarmed Marines?

The Day Obama Became Toxic: After Libya, We Cannot Trust Him—Barack Must Fall

Al Qaeda, ex-Gitmo detainee involved in consulate attack, intelligence sources say

 we released this guy in 2007 on the condition that he remain incarcerated. He was released in 2008?

Libya: We gave US three-day warning of Benghazi attack

Was Obama too busy with fund-raising to care?

Why Did The White House Take So Long To Admit Libya Attack Was Terrorism?

it’s easier to blame a very bad movie clip than to admit that somebody screwed up

Republican senators decry ‘useless, worthless’ Clinton briefing on Libya attack

Senate GOP furious newspaper got better briefing on Libya

A complete Senate briefing wouldn’t have had as good a reception as the NY Times or the WSJ

German Press Review on Middle East Violence against US Embassies – SPIEGEL ONLINE

The Europeans got it long before the US Press. A round-up of Euro press reports following the attack

Foreign Media: US Foreign Policy under Obama in Ruins

Revealed: inside story of US envoy’s assassination

CNN Hides Facts: Cairo Riots Not About ‘Offensive’ American Movie, But Freedom of Blind Sheik

~ In Other News ~

New iOS 6 Loses Google Maps, but Adds Other Features –

President Obama Issues Executive Order on Carbon Emissions and Industrial Efficiency

Obama’s war on energy continues

Pro-Choice? It’s Really No-Choice

“The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.” 
Margaret Sanger, Women and the New Race 
(Eugenics Publ. Co., 1920, 1923)

What you are about to see might make you ill, or at least re-think your position on abortion. The abortion racket became a lucrative sales industry feeding off of the emotions of young girls at the point of sale, and procedures were often being performed using un-sterlized and sometimes rusty instruments. Emergency hospital trips due to botched abortions were often falsified by attending physicians. In any case, there comes a point in a woman’s life that she realizes that she was (is) a mother, and she consented to murder her own child. The mental anguish for the mother must be unimaginable.

This movie explains the riches and motivations involved for abortion providers at an abortion mill, churning out 20-30 abortions per HOUR! It also reveals how young women who may or may not actually be pregnant have been confronted with a sales pitch to do “the right thing”. As long as their money is green.

Carol Everett, former abortion provider and clinic operator, speaks about abortion in the film Blood Money. Pick up the film narrated by Ms. Alveda King, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s niece at

Margaret Sanger is widely regarded as the founder of Planned Parenthood, and she was a self acknowledged Eugenist. Read more after the jump.

Continue reading Pro-Choice? It’s Really No-Choice

The Fate Of Our Nation Rests in Obamacare Decision

There is more to the coming Supreme Court decision expected to be handed down as early as next June than merely whether all or part of Obamacare will be upheld. This decision will actually decide whether the Constitution actually means anything today or not. The Constitution is a document which limits federal power, and without the limitations spelled out in the Articles, and the first ten amendments, commonly known as the Bill of Rights, our country, and the Constitution would never have been ratified in the first place.

That’s right, the first ten amendments were added to the Constitution before it was ratified by the 13 States, which were then operating rather poorly under the Articles of Confederation.

Here is an interesting article from American Thinker:

. . . In a 2006 interview with PBS, Roberts discussed the most revolutionary aspect of the American Constitution, which is that it is the law over government and not merely a political document melded at will by political leaders.  Chief Justice John Marshall’s landmark opinion in Marbury v. Madison, Roberts notes, “says, what is the Constitution?  It’s law.  It’s law that the people have established to control this new government.”

In this regard, the ObamaCare case is very much about more than just ObamaCare.  It is about the extent to which the Constitution is binding as law that controls government, and what the Supreme Court will do to enforce that law on government.

Thomas Paine wrote, “A constitution is not an act of government, but of the people constituting a government, and a government without a constitution is power without right.”  Political thinker Sir Kenneth C. Wheare referred to a constitution as “the collection of rules which establish orgovern the government.”

In Marbury v. Madison, Marshall called the United States Constitution our paramount law — so much so that laws passed by the people’s representatives are void if repugnant to that fundamental, supreme law.

Earth Day 2012: An Economic Suicide Pact?

It’s difficult . . .

to put things in perspective at times. A little over 150 years ago we fought a great Civil War. Armies of foot soldiers walked, and teams of horses hauled the supplies. Oil had not yet been discovered near Titusville, PA, and Thomas Edison and NikolaTesla were not yet exploring the wonders of AC and DC electrical current. Tiny Wabash, Indiana became the first electrically lighted city in the world a mere 132 years ago.

Such wonders of advancement, dare I say progress,  that we have witnessed in such a short time since then. America has been blessed with huge supplies of coal, oil, and natural gas, which allowed us to harness energy beyond the simple mill-dam crushing wheat seed into flour. Coal was easily mined, which heated our houses and buildings much more efficiently than using wood as our predecessors did, and with the discovery of electricity, coal could be used to make steam to efficiently drive electrical turbines and distribute power wherever a power-line could reach.

We owe our current modern way of life to these early and unencumbered scientists and pioneers.

Why are some in our society doing their best to convince us to enter into a suicide pact? Here is what I would do if I wanted America to fail. What would Henry Ford say if he were alive today?

Plentiful, cheap energy is what has allowed and driven our nation to be great.