Search

HOME U.S. WORLD ECONOMY SCI/TECH CULTURE OPINION FREEDOM INDEX PRINT MAGAZINE DONATE VIDEOS PODCAST

Friday, 06 March 2015

Obama Unveils Plan to Further Nationalize Local Police

Written by Alex Newman

Tweet Share Like 1.4K

font size   Print Email

The Obama administration and its “Task What nger Featured Videos:
Force on 21st Century Policing” are under
fire after unveiling an unconstitutional plot to
impose federal “standards” on state and
local police forces, which critics say is in
effect an underhanded plan to further
nationalize and federalize law enforcement.
Widely lambasted as “Common Core” for
police, the Obama plan outlines dozens of
controversial “recommendations” to be foisted on state and local law-enforcement agencies using
federal tax dollars as bribes — the same unconstitutional process used to impose the hugely Tucker DEBUNKS The Black Lives
unpopular national “Common Core” standards on states and schools nationwide. Opponents say it Matter Narrative With Data, Media is
is part of a dangerous long-term plan that must be opposed. lying and it is easy to see....

The controversial Obama administration demands for national standards for police come a few
months after United Nations boss Ban Ki Moon called for American police to obey “international
standards.” The efforts to further nationalize and federalize law enforcement — a state and local
responsibility under America’s constitutional system — are also in line with Obama’s campaign
rhetoric about building a “civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just
as well-funded” as the U.S. military. Of course, as Congress revealed in an official report, the
Communist effort to nationalize American police forces goes back decades.

The Justice Department agency that would be responsible for bribing and bludgeoning police
agencies into submission to Obama’s “national standards” is also among the outfits that have been Ben Shapiro DEBUNKS Viral
Systemic Racism Explained Video...
abused to militarize law enforcement all across America. As The New American reported last year
amid the George Soros-funded chaos in Ferguson, Obama attacked the militarization of law
enforcement — even though his administration has played a crucial role in militarizing police
departments nationwide. The federal government, of course, has no constitutional authority to
meddle in state and local law enforcement to begin with.

After meeting with his “task force” on “21st century policing,” created via executive order, Obama
celebrated the scheme to bring law enforcement further under the control of his administration. He
also argued that it must be done quickly. “I’m going to be asking Eric Holder and the Justice Mark Dice - It's Come to This...
Department and his successor to go through all of these recommendations so that we can start
implementing them,” Obama explained. “I know one area that’s going to be of great interest is
whether we can expand the [DOJ Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS)]
program that in the past has been very effective, continues to be effective, but is largely
underfunded.”

To Obama, of course, virtually every unconstitutional bloated federal agency and program is
“underfunded.” However, in reality, the Constitution he swore to uphold does not authorize a
“COPS” program or anything like it, so any funding at all is too much funding based on the obective
standard laid out in the Supreme Law of the Land. As the interim report was being released on
Ingraham: Choreographing chaos.
March 2, though, Obama glossed over those issues, saying the plot offered a “great opportunity” to Clips show how Democrats and
“really transform how we think about community law enforcement relations.” “We need to seize that media are only playing for video...
opportunity,” Obama added, echoing the “never let a crisis go to waste” rhetoric of other statists.
“This is something that I’m going to stay very focused on in the months to come.”

According to the interim report by Obama’s task force, two DOJ tentacles, the COPS scheme and
the Office of Justice Programs, “should provide technical assistance and incentive funding to
jurisdictions with small police agencies that take steps toward shared services, in return for
receiving federal funds.” Why the federal government cares whether small police departments
share services was not entirely clear, though critics see a transparent effort to further strip local
communities of their right to self-government and local accountability. The Office of Justice
Programs recently came under fire for providing taxpayer-funded grants to a “community group” in
New York that participated in the production of a rap video literally promoting the murder of police
officers.

The stepped-up federalization of law-enforcement scheming also involves bribing state and local
law enforcement with U.S. tax dollars to feed even more information on citizens to Washington,
D.C., bureaucracies already infamous for abusing sensitive and private information. “There is a
lack of uniformity in data collection throughout law enforcement, and only patchwork methods of
near real time information exists,” the controversial report complained. “These problems are
especially critical in light of the threats from terrorism and cybercrime.” The Justice Department
came under major criticism in 2012 after it was exposed training state and local police to link
mainstream political activism with terrorism — including just the display of political bumper stickers!

Critics say Obama’s plan ought to be ringing alarm bells. “Americans everywhere should be very
concerned about federal oversight of local police agencies,” explained former detective Jim
Fitzgerald, the national field director for The John Birch Society, the parent organization of this
magazine. The constitutionalist group, which has chapters in all 50 states, has been running a
campaign for decades called “Support Your Local Police and Keep them Independent.” The effort is
meant to, among other goals, protect local communities from having their police departments
turned into tentacles of an all-powerful federal government.

“These steps to exercise and take control over police departments should raise a red flag among
police officials and give deep concern to anyone who understands the history of national police
forces,” continued Fitzgerald. “Have we so soon forgotten the Gestapo or the KGB, both national
police agencies, that terrorized the citizens of Germany and Russia and led to the imprisonment
and deaths of tens thousands of innocent men and women? Has there ever been a national police
force that benefited the citizens who live under it? Never!”

Of course, as readers of The New American know well, the Department of Justice has long been
criticized for its efforts to hijack control of local law enforcement from citizens and communities.
The current head of the DOJ, Attorney General Eric Holder, remains in criminal contempt of
Congress for trying to cover up his “Fast and Furious” arming of Mexican drug cartels — a plot that
official documents showed was being exploited to advance more attacks on the gun rights of
Americans. Several of the Obama administration’s “Fast and Furious” guns have turned up at
crime scenes in which U.S. law-enforcement officers were murdered.

In 2013, meanwhile, the Justice Department was exposed working with an extremist anti-Christian
group, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which inspired a deranged homosexual activist to
attempt a mass-murder terrorist attack on a pro-family organization. The year before that, the DOJ
was exposed demonizing Americans as potential terrorists for their political views in controversial
“training programs” for state and local police. The abuses are almost endless, with more than two
thirds of Americans saying the federal government is “out of control” and a threat to liberty.

The history behind efforts to nationalize police forces should also spark alarm over Obama’s plan.
It is worth recalling that Communist efforts to nationalize local police forces across the United
States date back to at least the 1960s. Toward that end, communist agitators, along with their front
groups and useful idiots, have long created problems or exploited existing ones to drum up hatred
and violence against police. In recent anti-police marches, communist-made signs and slogans
were visible everywhere. But it is hardly a new development.

In an official 1961 report entitled “A Communist Plot Against the Free World Police,” the Judiciary
Committee of the U.S. Congress explained how communist agents across the West were working
to nationalize and federalize police forces — with a special focus on the United States. The
explosive study documents, among other elements of the strategy, the forming of mobs to attack
police. Obama’s own radical background and associations with communist terrorists — including
launching his political career in the home of Castro-backed terrorist leader Bill Ayers — should
provide further cause for concern. His racialist anti-police comments, blurted out every time a
suitable incident emerges to be exploited, should also offer warnings of the true agenda.

In the end, the Constitution does not authorize Obama’s “national standards” for police, or the
taxpayer-funded bribes being used to spread them nationwide. That means the scheme is
unconstitutional on its face. Even if it were constitutional, though, history shows that it would be a
terrible and dangerous idea. Police departments should be responsible to the communities that
fund them and that they are supposed to serve — not Obama, Holder, or the UN and its
“international standards.” To allow further federalization of America’s police agencies is a sure
recipe for disaster.

Photo of President Barack Obama: AP Images

Alex Newman is a correspondent for The New American, covering economics, education, politics,
and more. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU. He can be reached at

anewman@thenewamerican.com

Related articles:

Justice Department Grants Linked to Cop-killing Rap Video

Obama Flooding U.S. Streets With “Weapons of War” for Local Police

UN Boss Pushes “International Standards” for Ferguson Police

After Militarizing Police, Obama Urges “Peace” in Ferguson

Federalized Police and a Police Czar?

Cop: We Need Military Equipment Because of “Constitutionalists”

Obama’s Political Career Began With Castro-backed Terrorist

Why Is Homeland Security Taking Control of Local Police?

Extremist Group Exposed Working With Obama’s Justice Department

Ferguson, New York Cases Used to Push Nationalized Police

Obama Justice Department Pushes to Target "Thought Crime"

Justice Department Trained Police to Link Political Activism With Terror

Amid Cloud of Scandal, Attorney General Holder to Resign

Police Consolidation: The End of Local Law Enforcement?

Obama Adm. Targets Pro-life Activists as Terrorists

Please review our Comment Policy before posting a comment

ALSO ON THE NEW AMERICAN MAGAZINE

Dissenting From the Report: Antifa Building NYC Mayor Caters to New Zealand Declares Deep S
Panic Attack a Heavily Armed … Left's Demands, … Itself Free of … Comm

a day ago • 2 comments a day ago • 20 comments a day ago • 26 comments a day ago • 6 comments 2 days
A growing body of scientists Antifa, the violent anarchist Democratic leadership is All is apparently well Topics s
and medical professionals is group that has taken to the bent on showing the concerning the COVID-19 crime, p
beginning to dissent from … streets to help Black … criminally violent … virus in the land of kiwis … judicial

192 Comments The New American Magazine 🔒 Disqus' Privacy Policy 

1 Login

 Recommend t Tweet f Share Sort by Best

Join the discussion…

LOG IN WITH OR SIGN UP WITH DISQUS ?

Name

TEXAN • 5 years ago

This is what hitler did....obummer must idolize him.
20 △ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

Jim Fitzgerald > TEXAN • 5 years ago

I think we will find the Islamo-Marxist is every bit as brutal as Hitler.
15 △ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

Jerry Odom > Jim Fitzgerald • 5 years ago

worse
△ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

Drew P. Weiner > Jim Fitzgerald • 5 years ago

Duh?
△ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

Rachel Verdon > TEXAN • 5 years ago

Yes. Hitler's useful idiot.
7△ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

Eileen Kuch > TEXAN • 5 years ago

Actually, Germany was never a Constitutional Republic; so, the Hitler analogy doesn't apply here; neither would the
Stalin analogy. The best analogies would be with more recent dictators, closer to home; case in point, Augusto
Pinochet.
△ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

Kansas Bright > Eileen Kuch • 5 years ago

Germany had a Constitution.

This comment below is about Nazi Germany, from the "Opening Statement" Nuremberg Trials. Basically it is
describing what is now called warrantless searches, SWAT teams and the actions they are using here in
America, all of which are unlawful, illegal here in the USA.

Justice Robert Jackson, Chief U.S. Prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials:

“Uncontrolled search and seizure is one of the first and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every
arbitrary government. Among deprivations of rights, none is so effective in cowing a population, crushing the
spirit of the individual and putting terror in every heart.”

The chief instrument of keeping cohesion in plan and action was the National Socialist German Workers Party,
known as the Nazi Party. First they were to infiltrate the legitimate government and from within bring about
“change” {As is happening here, the replacement of our legitimate government with Domestic Enemies.}.

So began the first part of the “plan” which was to subvert the Weimar Republic. {Communist party and some
Nazism taking over the Democratic party but renaming themselves as “Progressives”. Because if they use
Nazi or Communist Party name many of the American people would be horrified because – they may not
know all the facts, but know enough to recognize they do not want what happened in Germany to repeat itself

see more

△ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

Eileen Kuch > Kansas Bright • 5 years ago

Actually, the Hitler analogy doesn't apply. The most applicable analogy has to be with that of Hitler's
contemporary in Italy - Benito Mussolini - but a Mussolini on steroids. The WWII-era Italian dictator was
an extreme narcissist who fantasized being another Julius Caesar and wanted to recapture the old
glory days of Rome. He militarized the police forces to suppress the citizenry and terrorize opponents.
Barrack Obama is also an extreme narcissist with fantasies of America ruling the world, as Rome had
in ancient times. He's been militarizing state and local police for some time now, and plans to
completely nationalize them; while, at the same time, building up more military bases worldwide. And,
just like Mussolini, he is going way over his head, leading the US toward disaster.
△ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

Kansas Bright > Eileen Kuch • 5 years ago • edited

Oh, you are right, because we do not have warrantless raids on the peoples homes, doors kicked in
with no warrants, no crimes committed, etc. Yeah right.

This does apply. And much more. Though all murdering dictators pretty much use the same play book.

“Uncontrolled search and seizure is one of the first and most effective
weapons in the arsenal of every arbitrary government. Among deprivations of rights, none is so
effective in cowing a population, crushing the spirit of the individual and putting terror in every heart.”

From the Nuremberg Opening statement:

The chief instrument of keeping cohesion in plan and action was the
National Socialist German Workers Party, known as the Nazi Party.
First they were to infiltrate the legitimate government and from within bring about “change” {As is
happening here, the replacement of our legitimate government with Domestic Enemies.}.

So began the first part of the “plan” which was to subvert the Weimar Republic. {Communist party and
some Nazism taking over the Democratic party but renaming themselves as “Progressives”. Because if
they use Nazi or Communist Party name many of the American people would be horrified because –

see more

1△ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

Guest • 5 years ago

I'm a retired LEO, and I have seen the militarization of the police in the last few years. but I took an oath like several of my
brothers and sisters and I WILL honor the oath because it never expires,never! And NO article V, We cannot trust the people
we elected to do the right thing,Its just us folks are you ready. Cowboy up.
9△ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

jugito > Guest • 5 years ago

I like that idea. Cowboy up. Someone from big brother might come to disarm you, but big brother will have a hard
time disarming everyone.

I also like the intention of the oath. No law punishes the violation of the oath to support the constitutions that everyone
must swear in order to become a voter, public employee, or bar member. However, laws exist in every state to punish
perjury such as falsely swearing an oath. The oath implies that one who swears or affirms the oath has read and
studied the constitution sufficiently to know, understand, and remember what it guarantees. But I seriously doubt that
more than 10% of those who have sworn it have ever read the US Constitution, and 2% have read their state
constitution.

So, to cull out the fakes, dingdongs, and bozos, I suggest that legislatures should enact a law requiring a choice of
voir dire after administering the oath, or competency exam before swearing. A person failing the voir dire should be
charged with perjury.

Bottom line, the oath never expires, but people lie when swearing it because you cannot support what you have not
read, do not remember, or do not understand.

And by the way, I mean to suggest that ALL voters must pass the test first. That will cull out many dingdongs. And
those seeking a Law making, interpreting, or enforcing job in government should have to pass a very HARD
constitution competency test with 80% correct answers.
5△ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

Guest > jugito • 5 years ago

OK! That works for me, you said everything very well. I like the idea!
4△ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

Kansas Bright > jugito • 5 years ago

Title 18 U.S. Code section 2381: “When in the presence of two witnesses to the same overt act or in an open
court of law if you fail to timely move to protect and defend the constitution of the United States and honor
your oath of office you are subject to the charge of capital felony treason, and upon conviction you will be
taken by the
posse to the nearest busy intersection and at high noon hung by the neck until dead…The body to remain in
state till dusk as an example to anyone who takes his oath of office lightly."

Relatively recently revised to now say this:

Title 18 U.S. Code section 2381: Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or
adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of
treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not
less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

“An officer who acts in violation of the constitution ceases to represent the government.” Brookfield
Construction Company V. Stewart 284 F Sup. 94

There are also these;

see more

△ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

Rachel Verdon • 5 years ago • edited

Where are the JOBS in Ferguson? Do you suppose there is any parallel between idle youths and unemployment and social
unrest?

Newman writes: "Obama’s own radical background and associations with communist terrorists — including launching his
political career in the home of Castro-backed terrorist leader Bill Ayers — should provide further cause for concern. His
racialist anti-police comments, blurted out every time a suitable incident emerges to be exploited, should also offer warnings
of the true agenda."

How do we get these socialist agent provocateurs out the White House and out of the Justice Department? Can't we
impeach them for violating the Smith Act - attempting to overthrow America by force and violence?

The good cops outnumber the bad cops 100/1. Getting rid of the bad cops is not going to solve the lack of JOBS in
Ferguson, Chicago, or Pittsburgh Pennsylvania. !@@#$%^&* these lying, deceiving Democrats.
8△ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

Independent Patriot > Rachel Verdon • 5 years ago • edited

Only Congress can impeach a President. You and I can "recall" him, but those in power have made sure to pass laws
that make recalls by voters almost impossible.

We have a simpler way of ridding ourselves of all of the tyrants in DC. It's called intelligent voting. Unfortunately most
Americans fall short in this category, thus explaining the Obaminations re-relection .
So our chance to "impeach" and "recall" the Obamination came and went when he was re-elected. Getting the fools
who elected him and then re-elected him again to sign a recall petition or getting them on board demanding that
Congress "impeach" him is slim to none.

Those jobs you speak of were run out of Ferguson when the rioting began. Every city that has major rioting never
comes back (see Detroit). Why does this happen? Would you take the time, make the effort, take the risk and spend
the money to rebuild something knowing that your community destroyed your business or home? I sure wouldn't.
2△ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

yogiman > Independent Patriot • 5 years ago

He can't be impeached because he is not in that office legally. Every action that has taken place would not
become null and void if he was in that office legally.

If he is arrested and tried for treason, every issue that has been put in place would become null and void.
2△ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

Rachel Verdon > yogiman • 5 years ago

This is most doubtful, but if it were true, Joe Biden, grinning like the Cheshire Cat on all the Post
Office's most wanted boards, would be orchestrating the commands from the White House.
△ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

Kansas Bright > Rachel Verdon • 5 years ago

No, he is a traitor to the USA, nor has he kept his Oaths either.
△ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

yogiman > Rachel Verdon • 5 years ago

Do a little study on the laws.
△ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

Kansas Bright > Independent Patriot • 5 years ago

The real problem is that Obama is not the US President. He was never a lawful presidential candidate so can
never be a US President, let alone not meeting the 3 (three) requirements for the presidential office.

The 2008 Democratic Nominating Committee (DNC) document did not include the normal language stating
that Obama was qualified to be a candidate. The 2008
Republican Nominating Committee (RNC) document did, as is normal. This shows that the DNC knew that
Obama was not qualified, or why change the form?

South Bend, Indiana jury found that Election Fraud put BOTH Obama and Hillary Clinton on the presidential
primary ballot in Indiana in the 2008 election.

It IS a crime to impersonate a US President.

We can remove every single person within the legislative branch. When an Oath is broken it IS at least one
felony.
△ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

yogiman > Kansas Bright • 5 years ago

Obama is only one man, Congress and the inferior Supreme Court aided and abetted his usurpation of
that office.
△ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

smrstrauss > Kansas Bright • 5 years ago

Dream on. IF you were to think a little about it before you post, which you have not done, you would
realize that if the Democrats (or for that matter the Republicans) did not provide sufficient information
to confirm Obama's (or the Republicans') eligibility for states that did not support Obama or the other
candidate, duh, those states would not have put him on the ballot. Yet all states put Obama on the
ballot, all 50. So, duh, the Democrats (and the Republicans too) provided exactly the legal
requirements to put their candidates on the ballot for all 50 states.

Where did you get the nutty idea that the Democrats (or for that matter the Republicans) did not
provide the legal requirements for all 50 states?
△ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

Rachel Verdon > Independent Patriot • 5 years ago • edited

Independent patriot, you write:
"We have a simpler way of ridding ourselves of all of the tyrants in DC. It's called intelligent voting.
Unfortunately most Americans fall short in this category, thus explaining the Obaminations re-election."

The public is intelligent, but everybody is operating on misinformation. We have a media monopoly that the
New American is attempting to break.

As far as Ferguson and Detroit destroying industries, not so; Obamacare and the Progressive politics that
crashed the economy are to blame for the 92 million unemployed and under-employed. How would you
remedy this problem of idle youths and no jobs?
△ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

wavetheshales > Rachel Verdon • 5 years ago • edited

And idle youth are EXACTLY what ISIS and the Moslems recruit.

Disenfranchised, unhappy, frustrated, semi-literate, ill-qualified, resentful youth, who are itching to "get back at the
system" or "the man" or "the one percent".

Go "occupy" one better: join ISIS.

Typical Devil's work - if you can't create, destroy.

1△ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

robocop33 > Rachel Verdon • 5 years ago

More like 1000/1 or better.
△ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

rivahmitch • 5 years ago

Lock and load folks. The Amerikan gestapo is coming.
6△ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

lakeside227 • 5 years ago

What the heck? How do we stop this?
4△ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

ThompsonSOS > lakeside227 • 5 years ago

I'm afraid we're rapidly running out of options. The elections are rigged so your congresscriminal doesn't care what
you say. We need to convince our local police chiefs and sheriffs not to take Ovomit's treason blood money.
3△ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

victoryman > ThompsonSOS • 5 years ago

Do not forget Obamas desire for a civilian "Army" of 100,000. Somewhere in China, a factory is running 24/7,
producing the brown shirts. And the "Republicans?" Boehner? McConnell? They are so far in the tank with
Obama they need scuba gear. We've already been sold out since the mid-term elections. ...........and who
does the state run media and the republican establishment want as the rebublican nominee in '16? Jeb-bama.
I rest my case.
5△ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

yogiman > victoryman • 5 years ago

Add everyone in Congress in that Obama tank. If not, why has no one in Congress raised the question
on his constitutional eligibility for that office?
3△ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

victoryman > yogiman • 5 years ago

If you mentioned "Constitutional eligibility" to congress half of them would not understand the words
and the other half wouldn't care. Obama has already ignred the Constitution multiple times and the
response from the (Republican) congress has been.......silence. Remember the promises during the
campaigns during the midterms.........cut off funding for the (Illegal) immigration plan, cut funding for
Obamacare, etc? Result. Repbs, as usual, led by McConnell and Boehner, folded like empty suits.
Obama ended up getting what he wanted, and then some. Now the state run media and the repub
"Moderates" are pushing Jeb-bama to be the POTUS candidate. Why is the state run media pushing
him? Because they know Hillary will beat him like a drum. can see the bumper sticker now...."Another
Bush? Say NO. Vote Democrat."
2△ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

yogiman > victoryman • 5 years ago

Google "evidence broadens obama natural born conspiracy", that pretty well tells it like it is.
△ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

TheAmerican > yogiman • 5 years ago

There are a couple of SENATORS on our side. One is Rand Paul.
△ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

yogiman > TheAmerican • 5 years ago

I'll repeat my question: Why has no one in Congress raised the question on Obama's constitutional
eligibility known his father was a British Subject?

Why did they question John McCain knowing his parents were citizens of the USA but declined to
question Barack Obama?

How could Obama become a natural born citizen after Indonesian citizenship? Where is that
acceptance in the Constitution?
1△ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

smrstrauss > yogiman • 5 years ago

Actually, Obama was never an Indonesian citizen---as a telephone call to the Indonesian Embassy will
confirm.

And dual citizenship at birth (or even dual citizenship when PRESIDENT---as James Madison was
having become a full voting citizen of France by act of the French legislature during the French
Revolution)-----has no effect on Natural Born Citizen status whatever.

BTW, the first Republican presidential candidate, John C. Fremont, was a dual citizen of the USA and
France (his father was a French citizen who never became a US citizen and did not intend to, intending
to return to France). And if there were any indication that dual citizen status had any effect on Natural
Born Citizen status, Fremont would not have proclaimed that fact in his campaign biography----which
he did.
△ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

Kansas Bright > smrstrauss • 5 years ago

John Jay: “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the
admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly
that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a
natural born Citizen.”

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Papers 65: “A president should be

impeached for “offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public
men, or in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which
may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately
to society itself.”

Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 69: “The one (a president) can confer no privileges whatever; the
other [the king] can make denizens of aliens, noblemen of commoners; can erect corporations with all
the rights incident to corporate bodies.”

Alexander Hamilton: “Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be
opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government
might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly
from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils How could they better
see more

△ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

smrstrauss > Kansas Bright • 5 years ago • edited

John Jay, who would become the first Chief Justice of the USA, was an expert in THE COMMON LAW,
and he was referring to the common law definition of Natural Born---which includes every single child
born on the soil of a country other than the children of foreign diplomats and members of invading
foreign armies.

“Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the

jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits,
or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law
Dictionary, Sixth Edition

“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories
is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)--Senator Orrin
G. Hatch (R-UT).

“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
see more

△ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

smrstrauss > smrstrauss • 5 years ago

More reading on the subject:

http://www.fredthompsonsame...

http://www.economist.com/bl...

http://www.obamabirthbook.c...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

http://tesibria.typepad.com...
△ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

yogiman > smrstrauss • 5 years ago

So that was just another lie he wrote, eh? But history is history, it can't be 'renovated'.

Why did our founders put that natural born citizen status in the Constitution? Obviously they didn't
identify a natural born citizen. So, why then, did the First Session of Congress put the definition of
natural born citizen into congressional law?

When was it abolished; or even amended? Don't we go by the constitution and the laws of congress
any longer?
△ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

smrstrauss > yogiman • 5 years ago

The fact that YOU do not know something does not change the world. It only shows that you do not
know.

You asked: "So, why then, did the First Session of Congress put the definition of natural born citizen
into congressional law?"

The answer is very simple---YOU really should look at the laws that you are referring to. You didn't---
and yet you try to convince people based on your not even looking at a law that you cite that the
Heritage Foundation book on the Constitution and 20 or so law articles and eleven or so appeals court
rulings are all wrong.

Here is the answer. Rational people will have grasped it already. (If you claim to be rational, you should
look at the law and determine it for yourself.) The answer is that that law referred ONLY to the children
of US citizens who were outside of the USA and not to the children of anyone who was born inside the
USA.

That's all. The law does not apply to the children of anyone born in the USA. There is no mention
whatever of children born inside the USA.
△ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

smrstrauss > smrstrauss • 5 years ago

Re: "So that was just another lie he wrote, eh? But history is history, it can't be 'renovated'."

Answer: Obama never wrote that he was an Indonesian citizen. What gave you the idea that he did?
1△ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

yogiman > smrstrauss • 5 years ago

Am I to presume he was lying when he claimed he was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and
Hawaii in an advertisement for his book for 16 years?

Am I to presume he was lying when he wrote about his mother marrying a fellow student from
Indonesia and "went home" with him when he left college?

Am I to presume he way lying when he wrote his stepfather adopted him so he could go to school in
Indonesia? If his stepfather adopted him, how could he be a "non-citizen" of the nation he adopted him
into?

You must have read different articles he wrote about himself than I.
1△ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

smrstrauss > yogiman • 5 years ago • edited

Re: "born in Kenya". That is not what you said. You said that he was born in Indonesia---and that
shows how accurate you are, he wasn't and he didn't say that he was . (And, BTW, if you think that
Obama might have been born in Indonesia or became a citizen of Indonesia, all you have to do is call
the Indonesian Embassy, ask for the press officer and ask, and they will tell you that he was not born
there and never became an Indonesian citizen.)

The literary agent wrote the "born in Kenya" , and she admitted to making that mistake and not
checking with him and not telling him when the bio blurb (which was part of a package of bios of
authors the firm represented) was published, so he could not fix it. The bio appears in that package of
bios, not on his book an not IN his book. In fact, Obama's first published book "Dreams from My
Father" says that he was born in Kapiolani Hospital in Honolulu----which is what his birth certificate and
the confirmations of the officials of both parties in Hawaii shows too.

Re: "wrote his stepfather adopted him."

Answer: Obama never wrote that, and it is not true. (Adoption in Indonesia requires the action of a
district court, and those papers are public papers, and no such document has ever been found---so,
duh, it is a birther myth).

In addition to his not having been adopted, he did not write it in his books or any article---and the notion
that he wrote it is either your mistake or your lie.
1△ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

yogiman > smrstrauss • 5 years ago

Apparently you've read different articles than I. If I wrote he was born in Indonesia I apologize, I posted
the wrong name. I meant he advertised he was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii for
16 years.

Following that, why did it come so convenient to change his birth place in 2007 when he entered the
race? Did it take him 16 years to "notice" that error of his birth place? It took his agent to "discover"
their error just before he entered the race? Gimme a break.

Why won't E-verify verify his SS number? Why is the number he is showing the number of an old dead
man assigned to him in Connecticut.

If he worked at that ice dream parlor in Hawaii when a boy as he claimed, how could he have been
allowed to work without a SS number?

I'm not a master forwarding "stuff" on this computer, but you might be interested in checking 'Barack
Obama's secret green card'.

There's too many questions still on the board.

△ ▽ 1 • Reply • Share ›

smrstrauss > yogiman • 5 years ago • edited

Re: "Why won't E-verify verify his SS number? Why is the number he is showing the number of an old
dead man assigned to him in Connecticut."

Answer: When someone's SS number has been published it is sensible to cancel it and get a new one
which is not published. Then, when someone checks with E-Verify the old number (and that is all that
they could check since the new one was not published), it no longer existed and so it failed.

Re: Connecticut.

Answer: The Connecticut SS number was caused by a data entry error.

SS numbers were generated by the zip code of the applicant’s address.

Obama’s address in Hawaii was in zip code 96814, and the zip code for
Danbury, CT. is 06814.

Millions of people have errors in their social security numbers and/or multiple social security numbers,
which were caused mainly by data entry errors:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/3867...

http://www.securityworldnew...

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301...
1△ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

smrstrauss > yogiman • 5 years ago

Re: " I meant he advertised he was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii for 16 years."

It is good that you are fixing your mistakes. However, you still have made the mistake of thinking that it
was OBAMA who "advertised." The fact is that the literary agent made the mistake, not Obama, and
there is no evidence whatever that Obama EVER said that he was born in Kenya.

She said it, not he, and she admitted to making the mistake. And, we know that Obama had said that
he was born IN HAWAII because that is what he told the New York Times in an interview in 1990 and
that is what he wrote in his book "Dreams from My Father" in 1995----so the notion that he told the
literary agent that he was born in Kenya in 1991 is farfetched.

She made the mistake based on what she read in Obama's unpublished book "Journeys in Black and
White" that the literary agent was representing. The book said that Barack Hussein Obama was born in
Kenya---and Barack Hussein Obama I, Obama's father was indeed born in Kenya. Obama was born in
Hawaii, and that is what he wrote, but her mistake was not to see that but to see than Barack Hussein
Obama was born in Kenya, and to assume that that Barack Hussein Obama was the same as the
writer.
1△ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

lindajoyadams > smrstrauss • 5 years ago

He was lied to by his own family and why I went online and told details starting in 7/26/12 and
continued through the FALL. so others can better understand. I was not on line before 08 election and
had no idea this was all going on as the media did not carry it and there had been some mention of
Topeka and I thought the media had the truth and did not use it? Then I got online to blow the whistle
on my own struggles and ran right into it all. Its not been easy as big money has been made off the
lies. David Mariness, his biographer admitted on Hardball after I went public he had the right info but
never asked Pres Obama and did not use it. It has hurt his credibility nd he wanted to rewrite the bio
but BIG MONEY ETC he will not be able to do so. I MAKE NO MONEY FOR THIS AND JUSTICE FOR
THREE DEAD AT THEHANDS OF OTHERS IS MY MAIN MOTIVE I think the 4000 lynching project
stores will help better than me to aid others to understand why he was not told the truth.
△ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

smrstrauss > lindajoyadams • 5 years ago

Poor Linda. She cannot stop making things up.
1△ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

JoInPeoria > lindajoyadams • 5 years ago

Do you understand what reality is?
△ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

yogiman > smrstrauss • 5 years ago

Tell me, you author a book (your first book, by the way) and you hire an agency to advertise to sell it for
you. You're a 21 year old, first publication, first advertisement... and you don't read your advertisement
for 16 years to find a error? BS.
△ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

Load more comments

✉ Subscribe d Add Disqus to your siteAdd DisqusAdd ⚠Do Not Sell My Data

More in this category: « Unanswered Questions in Hillary Clinton E-mail Scandal Hispanic Cop Kills White Man; Media,
Authorities Silent 18 Months »

back to top

AFFILIATES AND FRIENDS SOCIAL MEDIA ABOUT TNA

The John Birch Society About

Twitter
FreedomProject Media Staff

FreedomProject Academy Facebook Contributors

American Opinion Foundation Shop

YouTube
Character First Get Involved
RSS-Feed Advertise

Contact Us

Copyright © 2019 The New American