Palin drops the other shoe (Alan Keyes)

Recently I ran across a video interview in which Sarah Palin enthusiastically declares "I support Michael Steele…I think he's doing a great job. Michael Steele is an outsider. The machine, I think, is tough to penetrate--I think it's been good to have an independent outsider trying to create some change in the Republican Party."

Michael Steele has from the first day of his tenure been a spokesman for the RINO, pro-abortion, amoral, 'money is god' elite minority that presently controls the Republican Party. The statement that Steele is an outsider is an outright lie. He has for some years now made himself the tool of the elite RINO clique. There's only one sense in which Steele is an outsider. He's outside the purview of the conservative views of the pro-life, God-fearing grassroots' majority of the GOP's voting base.

Last week Steele went so far as to validate Obama's ugly abuse of the racism charge. To cover what he himself admits to be his "mistakes" he paired himself with Obama as a black being judged by a higher standard than whites. Obama has lied, broken every election promise, hidden all aspects of his background and never been called to account. No politician in American history has been held to a lower standard of accountability. So what is Steele talking about? Just like Obama and his verbal terrorists, Steele brandishes the charge of racism in order to intimidate his critics, and distract from the fact that their criticisms have a solid basis in fact. This gives aid and comfort to some of the worst elements of the Obama faction's media and political thugs. Will Steele stop at nothing in the effort to protect himself and silence his critics? How then does he differ from the arrogant Obama intimidators that as RNC Chairman he purports to oppose?

He imitates the Obama faction verbal terrorists, and Sarah Palin's response is to praise him for doing a good job. How can people who claim to be conservative go on blinding themselves to the truth about Sarah Palin? Just as they did when she was governor of Alaska, her actions belie her superficially constructed conservative image. In the critical area of her personnel choices she blithely promotes the wrong people, as she did when, as Governor, she boasted about putting a pro-abortion Planned Parenthood leader on the Alaska Supreme Court. Now she backs McCain, and heaps prevaricating praise on Michael Steele, though the words and actions of both men confirm their deficiency in anything that more than superficially resembles sincere, consistent conservative principle.

If Sarah Palin was authentically committed to the restoration of political integrity Tea Party people long for, she would be calling for Steele's resignation, not trying to use her popularity to shield him. I'm sure my words will merit shushing and the usual rotten tomatoes from people once again determined to hand the RINO GOP leadership another triumph of hope over experience. Do Sarah Palin's supporters want people to treat her the way the Obama's media clique treats him? Are we to be mesmerized by her words, but by no means analyze her actions? This kind of mentality herded people into supporting the betrayal of conservatism that characterized the locust eaten years of the Bush faction's preeminence. It's what created the void that Obama stepped into. The last thing America needs is more of the same, sweetened with a change of gender.

Sarah Palin's actions more and more confirm that she is pure and simply a 'Judas goat'. Her assignment is to gain some credibility with the disaffected conservatives in the GOP's grassroots base, then lead them over to RINOs like McCain and Steele (or Mitt Romney and Mitt Romney clones like Scott Brown.) She is a fabrication of the GOP's elite RINO leadership; a tool intended to help them survive what would otherwise be their certain political demise in the tidal wave of anger that is poised to sweep socialists, liberals, RINOs, CINOs (conservatives in name only) and other liberty threatening flotsam and jetsam out of their seats of power and influence. If this is the objective of the move to make Palin an icon of the Tea Party movement, many of the anguished, deeply sincere people who are pouring their hearts and hopes into the movement are simply being set up for another episode of heartbreak and betrayal, and this perhaps the last. If they truly wish to save America's liberty, they should first take care to save themselves this disappointment. It may be we have but one more shot at stopping the elitist juggernaut that means to overturn America's democratic republic. We must aim to make it count.

It is not just my opinion. But I don’t find fault with folks like you who don’t know the truth.

The definition of the term, “natural born citizen”, was entered into the Congressional record of the House on March 9, 1866, in comments made by Rep. John Bingham on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was the precursor to the Fourteenth Amendment. He repeated Vattel’s definition when he said: “[I] find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen. . . . ” — John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866).

In other words, anyone born in the U.S.A. to citizen parents is a natural born citizen.

Here is the true precedent from a most liberal professor:
In a recent Illinois Public Law & Legal Theory written by Professor Lawrence B Solum of the U of IL, College of Law, Chicago, Solum further explains why the English common law definition of ‘natural born subject was not the definition adopted by the Framers for the Sovereign citizens of the United States of America.

[Blackstone Commentaries (1765): When I say, that an alien is one who is born out of the king’s dominions, or allegiance, this also must be understood with some restrictions. The common law indeed stood absolutely so; with only a very few exceptions: so that a particular act of parliament became necessary after the restoration, for the naturalization of children of his majesty’s English subjects, born in foreign countries during the late troubles. And this maxim of the law proceeded upon a general principle, that every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once. Yet the children of the king’s ambassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held (by a kind of postliminium) to be born under the king of England’s allegiance, represented by his father, the ambassador. To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband’s consent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception;...]

[F.E. Edwards, Natural Born British Subjects at Common Law, 14 Journal of the Society of Comparative Legislation 314 (1914): The pro- position that British Protectorates, and consequently any less interest of the Crown, should be excluded from our definition of the King’s protection, is supported by Sir William Anson, who declares that birth within such a region is not sufficient to found a claim for British natural-born status. The real test of whether a given territory is part of the British Dominions is that it must have passed openly, completely, and unequivocally into the possession of the Crown.]

[Solum: If the American conception of “natural born citizen” were equivalent to the English notion of a “natural born subject,” then it could be argued that only persons born on American soil to American parents would have qualified. This might lead to the conclusion that McCain would not be a constitutional natural-born citizen, because the Panama Canal Zone was not the sovereign territory of the United States, but was instead merely subject to its administrative control.

The language of the Constitution recognizes a distinction between the terms “citizen” and “subject”. For example, in Article III Section 2, which confers “judicial power” on the federal courts, “citizens” of the several states are differentiated from “citizens” or “subjects” of foreign states—corresponding to the distinction between diversity and alienage jurisdiction. In the framing era, these two terms reflected two distinct theories of the relationship between individual members of a political community and the state.

In feudal or monarchical constitutional theory, individuals were the subjects of a monarch or sovereign, but the republican constitutional theory of the revolutionary and post revolutionary period conceived of the individual as a citizen and assigned sovereignty to the people.

The distinction between citizens and subjects is reflected in Chief Justice John Jay’s opinion in Chisholm v. Georgia, the first great constitutional case decided after the ratification of the Constitution of 1789: [T]he sovereignty of the nation is in the people of the nation, and the residuary sovereignty of each State in the people of each State…

[A]t the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects…]

As you can see, in England there are two very distinct meanings of ’natural born’ subject. In one hand there is the broader view & in the other there is the view of the laws of nations. What the liberal progressive constitutionalists use is the broader view and thus disregard the fact that at some point, even England used the law of nations. The Framers also knew of Englands use of the law of nations and were very aware of its importance when establishing a new nation. It has also been proven that the Law of Nations was in the hands of the Framers at the time of the drafting of the Declaration of Independence.

And as pointed out above, please do not come back with the same old lame references to Blackstone & English common law, we know for a fact from the very 1st SCOTUS Justice Washington appointed, a Justice who was only 2nd to Madison in the drafting of the Constitution that the definition for US citizens was not derived from English common law, but on the law of Nations which is the law of nature: “The law of nature, when applied to states and political societies, receives a new name, that of the law of nations. This law, important in all states, is of peculiar importance in free ones. The States of America are certainly entitled to this dignified appellation…But if the knowledge of the law of nations is greatly useful to those who appoint, it surely must be highly necessary to those who are appointed…As Puffendorff thought that the law of nature and the law of nations were precisely the same, he has not, in his book on these subjects treated of the law of nations separately; but has every where joined it with the law of nature, properly called so…the law of nature is applied to individuals; the law of nations is applied to states.”

Wilson, in his 1st commentaries, blasts Blackstone’s theory by citing that the definition of ’subject’ per English common law according to Blackstone was not the definition of ‘citizen’ as adopted by the framers of the US Constitution. A ’subject’ is ruled by an all powerful central government/monarchy and the under the new Constitution of the United States, the central government’s power is derived from the people, the citizens.

Wilson also wrote the very 1st SCOTUS decision in Chisolm which is cited to this day as to the powers of the central government. He also was no right-wing conservative where the limits of the central government were concerned. Wilson felt that the Constitution did not go far enough in giving broader powers to those in Washington, but he KNEW the premise of the Constitution and stood behind it in every decision he made, regardless of his political philosophy.

As to it not standing up so well, SCOTUS has many times in the past discussed it’s importance, just not this particular Supreme Court. And now that Kenya’s Minister of Lands, Mr. Orengo, stood up in the National Assembly this past April, 25, 2010, and clearly stated that America’s President was born in Kenya, well, I think the shit will hit the fan long before 2013.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.