Desperate and Reeling Once Again, The Clinton Campaign Reaches for “Birtherism”… (like they did in 2008 when they started it)

by Scott Creighton

In the wake of Donald Trump’s recent rising tide at the polls and more importantly, Hillary Clinton’s slide, the Clinton advocates have resorted to a tactic they used 8 years ago but this time with a slightly different twist. It’s still a variation on race baiting, which is pretty the lowest form of campaign re-balancing acts any staff weasel has ever come up with. It reeks of desperation and like that of death, it’s a stench registered independent voters are sure to notice.

You have to be living under a rock these days if you don’t know Hillary Clinton’s comfortable lead from a month ago has slipped from her clutches. The trends are pretty staggering considering who she’s running against and everyone from AlterNet , to the Atlantic to Fox News is reporting on it. This is especially true in the battleground states and as of 6 days ago, Trump was even making up ground among Hispanics and African Americans, two demographics that the Clinton people thought would be theirs no matter what she did.

What we are seeing is a sort of repeat of the 2007/2008 campaign of Hillary Clinton when she was running against a little known senator from Illinois, Barack Obama. Toward the end, he started surging as well and Hillary and her supporters became desperate.

What resorted from that state of panic, without any debate, was the birth of “Birtherism”

What I mean by “without any debate” is that there is no debate: Clinton supporters started “Birtherism” as a reaction to their candidate becoming desperate in the 2008 Democratic Party Presidential Nominee contest. That’s a fact. It started in an email chain and no one really knows the original source which means it could have easily started in her campaign offices. We don’t know.

That theory first emerged in the spring of 2008, as Clinton supporters circulated an anonymous email questioning Obama’s citizenship.

Barack Obama’s mother was living in Kenya with his Arab-African father late in her pregnancy. She was not allowed to travel by plane then, so Barack Obama was born there and his mother then took him to Hawaii to register his birth,” asserted one chain email that surfaced on the urban legend site in April 2008.” Politico, April 2011

As the story goes, this email was never tracked back to one single primary source so no one really knows who started the “Birther” thing but a former Clinton volunteer at the time, Linda Starr (or Linda Sue Belcher) ended up taking credit for it later.

“John Avlon, editor-in-chief of the Daily Beast, explored the roots of the birther movement in his book  Wingnuts: How the Lunatic Fringe Is Hijacking America. Avlon described a posting on the PUMA website with the heading “Obama May Be Illegal to Be Elected President!” He wrote that a Clinton volunteer in Texas, Linda Starr, played a key role in spreading the rumor.” Politifact

Once Clinton was defeated and she finally endorsed Barack Obama, a group of angry women Clinton supporters decided they were never going to vote for the Democratic Party candidate. They became known as the PUMAs and according to reports, they continued to push the “Birther” thing on their website hoping they could get Barack disqualified. They also became known as Democrats for McCain which is yet another odd similarity between these two elections as we now have Republicans for Hillary and 48% of Sanders supporters refusing to support the party nominee.

Linda Starr hooked up with a lawyer named Phil Berg who had previously made a name for himself by doing things like filing suit against three Supreme Court justices for interfering in the 2000 Presidential Election recount and against George W. Bush for 9/11. Berg was “all in” on the “Birther” thing and he and Starr did what they could to take it to the next level.

In the end, Berg ended up suing Starr and he lost his license to practice law and as of 2009, from reports I read, he was driving a cab or something like that. Starr faded away as well.

All that said, it’s not like the “Birther” thing was without basis. Sometime during the early stages of the 2008 Republican campaign, I think it was John McCain when asked about the possibility of running against Obama said something like “Oh I don’t worry about him. We got something on him that will end his candidacy in an instant. I hope he becomes the candidate” or something to that effect.

And another issue came to light some time later which was falsely reported as coming from the Harvard yearbook when it fact it came from a publisher who represented young Barack Obama back in 1991:

I can only imagine that the authors they represented had to approve of the bios they did for them, but again, that was never made clear. If anything, this little clip of a biography shows that there have always been a number of stories relating to his background but perhaps not coincidentally, it confirms at least part of the “Birther” narrative, that he was in fact born in Kenya and then raised in Indonesia and Hawaii.

Personally I find his connections to Business International Corporation more troubling than his place of origin. BIS is well understood to be linked to the CIA (if not owned by them) and they have a history of helping to overthrow countries across the world. For that matter, Obama’s mother worked for USAID in Indonesia under the brutal dictatorship of Suharto giving out “microloans” to citizens who snitched on their neighbors so they could build lists of dissidents to round up to give to the dictator (who Obama’s step father worked for). USAID is also heavily involved with the CIA.

And let me get this straight right off the bat: I do not know where he was born but if I had to choose one way or the other I would say Barack’s mother and father flew to Kenya to meet the family and spend time with them before the birth of their child and they accidentally remained in country past the point where the airline would allow her to fly back. They did that because they didn’t want children to be born mid-flight. That said, that does not make Barack Obama a Kenyan. Under such circumstances I believe the child born to a citizen of the States is definitely a citizen. There are much better cases to be made about Ted Cruz’s right to run for president than there are for Obama’s, that’s for sure.

However you wish to look at it, Donald Trump was NOT the leader of the “Birther” movement. And he certainly did not start it. Berg, Starr and a number of others (like Di$info Jone$ for instance) wear those crowns. And ultimately, no one knows who REALLY started that first email chain sent out to Clinton supporters. For all we know, it could have come from her office.

If you wish to be painfully honest about it, “Birtherism’s” roots are firmly planted in Hillary Clinton’s quest to become president back in 2008, a quest she pursued with vicious intent (she did insinuate he “might be” a secret Muslim at one point)

Not surprisingly, right now, at this tipping point in Hillary’s failing campaign, a Clinton surrogate working for the Washington Post (Robert Costa) decided to ambush Donald Trump yesterday with a question about “Birtherism” thus allowing for the Clinton apologists to harp on that response all day today as opposed to say talking about the new Wikileaks release of more hacked DNC emails which prove a “pay to play” mentality in the unDemocratic Party.

Once again we have the Democrats sinking to the basest form of political discourse possible, race-baiting, in order to attempt to control the emergency descent of their crashing campaign and once again it appears their efforts depend entirely on them considering their target audience to be too ignorant to remember WHERE IT ALL FUCKING STARTED!

You might think at a time like this the LAST THING Clinton staffers would want to do would be to remind their base of support about the “Birther” smear campaign that got it’s start from Clinton volunteers and the PUMA Clintonites.

You might think that, but you would be wrong.

Everyone talks about how Trump keeps shooting himself in the foot and yes, he has had a tendency to do that, but nothing like this. I even saw Mika “Tongue Up Hillary’s Butt” Brzezinski having to admit on Morning Joe today that it all started with Hillary’s previous flailing campaign in 2008 and trust me when I say this, that smug self-satisfied patented look on her face was no where to be seen while she was doing it.

How stupid do you have to be?

Yes, getting a candidate to roll-back a previously stated position is damaging to their base but honestly, is the net profit from that petty little act worth having African Americans remember Hillary’s people were the first in the national spotlight to suggest Barack was a “secret Muslim” and not qualified to run for the office of President… BECAUSE HE WAS AFRICAN!?

I doubt it.

But they don’t factor in the metrics of the information age I guess or maybe her peeps are stuck in the beeper-age… I don’t know.

Or maybe they’re just desperately clutching at the crumbling soil at the top of the hole they’ve dug for themselves with their lying, war-mongering, corrupt and RACE BAITING candidate as they slide into the shameful abyss of being the “qualified” candidate who ends up losing to The Donald and his Combover of Victory.

Whatever it is, the stench of decay is permeating the Clinton campaign at this point and perhaps it’s time for them to call in Rev. Al to administer the last rights.

Image result for weekend at hillary's

25 Responses

  1. “All that said, it’s not like the ‘Birther; thing was without basis.” ~ S.C.

    I agree. The way I see it, the money powers knew that the U.S. public would not tolerate another W. Bush clone, so they chose an African-American who was a “progressive” outside and a neoliberal inside. Obama’s birth in Kenya was an asset, not a liability. Obama secret would be safe as long as he obeyed his masters. If Obama grew a moral conscience while in the White House, the money powers could leak the truth about Obama’s birth, and use it as a pretext to remove him, like John McCain inferred.

    Of course, this is not a crucial issue, since everyone knows that the money powers install whoever they want in the White House, regardless of origin, and regardless of what the Constitution says. Indeed the Constitution means whatever the rich and powerful say it means.

    What I don’t like, however, is the smugness of people who follow the herd. If you question Obama’s birth, you are condemned as a “birther,” which is almost as bad as being called a “vaccine skeptic,” or a “9-11 conspiracy theorist,” or a “Putin supporter.” As Scott phrases it, you are met with that “smug self-satisfied patented” look on Mika Brzezinski’s face.


    The corporate media outlets have once again asked Trump about the “birther” issue. Trump now says that Obama was born in the USA.

    In response, the media outlets are headlining this as “Trump FINALLY admits Obama born in USA.”

    Will this hurt Trump? I don’t think so.

    From my perspective, no one likes Trump, but many people support Trump because they despise Killery and politics-as-usual. Therefore it doesn’t matter what Trump says, and it doesn’t matter how much or how little media coverage he gets. His supporters would rather have a mediocre clown in the White House than a lying sociopathic witch and her “Wizard of Oz” monkey demons.

    Quite simply, Killery is terrifying.

    • MSNBC and CNN are rabid right now. they have members of the Black Caucus in front of congress saying that we all have to rally against bigotry and racism and defeat Trump. One MSNBC reporter actually slipped up and said it was a good thing for the Dems because they would finally have their passionate rallying cry as Obama begins to surrogate full time for Hillary. It is the most despicable thing the Dems have done since they stole the nomination from Sanders supporters. Vile human beings. I will never vote Dem again no matter who runs. EVER. they are desperate, despicable, degenerate people at the DNC. Makes me ashamed I ever voted for one of them.

      • And I feel incredibly ashamed and stupid for even looking up to the Dems when I was much younger and much more naive. Thanks to people like you, though, I’ll never make the mistake of voting for them.

        • Don’t feel ashamed- there did used to be Democrats worth looking up to, Clinton and the DLC just intentionally drove them out of the party.

          • I wasn’t old enough to vote for Carter and I wasn’t alive when JFK ran. And you are correct, what the DLC (neoliberal Scoop Jackson dems) did to the party is basically destroy it from within. So I agree with you there. It used to be something worth supporting. not now though. those days are long gone.

  2. Whether the Kenyan Obama or Malcolm X was Obama’s real father, both were Muslims and that makes BHO a Muslim and if he isn’t; that makes him something worse: an apostate.

  3. “That said, that does not make Barack Obama a Kenyan. Under such circumstances I believe the child born to a citizen of the States is definitely a citizen.”

    scott it’s this type of assumption that got us in trouble w/barky-boy in ’08. PLEASE read the constitution a2s1c5!!! it’s parents –plural & to be a NBC you must be born of 2 american citizens ON u.s. soil.

    if you & others are truly interested to learn…go to:

    • Actually, the courts have never ruled on what NBC means, but I believe the commotion over Kenya v Hawaii was a red herring to distract from the fact his sperm donor was not, and never aspired to be, a US citizen.

      • crys, the current SCOTUS never wanted to explain the real meaning of NBC & a2s1c5….clarence thomas is even on tape ..laughing..saying “we don’t want to touch that”! trust me –they know damn straight what it means!!

        truly, there is no need for the courts to rule….a2s1c5 has NEVER been amended. …& trust me they have received ALL the research that went on to prove what NBC means & why it’s only listed under a2s1c5.

        …2 yrs of irrefutable research….research that dug up pertinent correspondence amongst the framers & what there concerns were/why concerns…hence “jus soli & jus sanguinis”

        glad you are aware of the “2 parents” 🙂

    • oh, and i agree that a NBC requires 2 citizen parents

    • Are you talking about the Natural Born Citizens Acts of 1790 and 1795?

      “Because of the large number of Framers who went on to serve in Congress, laws passed by the early sessions of Congress have often been looked to as evidence of the Framers’ intent. The Naturalization Act of 1790 stated that “the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”[40] This act was repealed by the Naturalization Act of 1795, which removed the characterization of such children as “natural born”, stating that “the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States” while retaining the same residency restrictions as the 1790 act.[40]”

      constitutional law is not my forte nor are the requisite laws that followed up the early framing of said law. That said, as was pointed out by another reader, it’s still unclear as to the subsequent court rulings on the matter so as far as I know, the Act of 1795 is the prevailing law on the subject?

      Keep in mind, according to the law, I was absolutely correct in my assessment of the part of the story that puts his birth in Kenya and his citizenship intact… however, the part that I missed was the citizenship of his father at the time. That does seem to be an issue.

      But remember, I’m not writing to reopen the “birther” debate, I am simply replying to the hubbub about his place of birth and I feel, as I did in the past, that he was indeed born overseas and as I stated, that fact does not disqualify him from serving as president. The NBC Act of 1795 says the same thing. His father is a different subject altogether.

      • not attempting to open a birther debate either….besides i was NEVER a birther…i was all about NBC/a2s1c5 & just had to interject 😉

        just so you know the constitution IS the law.

        regarding the naturalization act of 1790 & 1795…the constitution clearly differentiates the difference between, citizen, naturalized citizen & NBC.

        i won’t pound this here:)…yet maybe these links will help you out 🙂

  4. Today at a press conference, Trump said it was the Hillary camp that started the “birther” controversy.

    This enraged the corporate media outlets and their allies (such as Slate and the Huffington Post).

    In response, they all desperately shouted in unison, “Trump lied! He said Hillary started it!”

    “Trump lied!”
    Trump lied!”

    Meanwhile Hillary was briefly wheeled out of the hospital today to address a Black Women’s Agenda Symposium in Washington, DC.

    Braced by her staff members, Hillary (between coughs) slammed Trump for questioning Obama’s (bogus) US citizenship, saying Trump owes the American people an apology.

    “For five years, he has led the birther movement to delegitimize our FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT!”



    I heard that Glen Ford at Black Agenda Report (BAR) had a good post about how the “left” and the ruling class are together to support Hillary and her big tent of corruption.

    But when I clicked on the Bar at 4:06 pm EDT, the blog was suddenly down.

    I’m betting it will still be down when you read this.


  6. Kenyan birth citizenship is a clever misdirection. What Obama had was Indonesian citizenship.

  7. Hey Willy/Scott
    Blogger is censoring my post from this morning. it has not yet appeared in any of the blog rolls from my fellow bloggers
    Only my post from yesterday is showing up- I’m getting it out there
    hope you will not mind?

    It’s likely the content that’s the issue- the killing of civilians
    American flags flying in Syria’s annexed by the kurds territory

  8. Talk about desperation!

    The Washington Post (all Trump-bashing, all the time) is implying that Hillary’s ever-worsening ailments arose because she was poisoned by the fiendish Trump and Putin.

    The Post quotes Dr. Bennet Omalu, who was dramatized in the 2015 movie “Concussion.”

    Mr. Omalu says that Hillary’s blood should be tested for Russian poisons.

    Mr. Omalu is a Black Nigerian immigrant. Therefore any questioning of his nonsense is “racist” and “insensitive.”

  9. Amazon billionaire Jeff Bezos is the 3rd richest person in the world on the Forbes list of billionaires, bumping Warren Buffett to 4th.

    Bezos is a staunch neoliberal, and a close ally of Hillary.

    In 2013, Bezos bought the Washington Post.

    Trump accused Bezos of buying the Post as a tax write-off.

    Trump also hinted that Amazon should perhaps be broken up, or at least made to pay state sales taxes.

    This made Bezos into Trump’s enemy, which is one reason why the Washington Post is so fanatically pro-Hillary and anti-Trump.

    Bezos has a $600 million contract with the CIA to provide cloud computing services for the CIA.

    “This makes The Washington Post, via interlocking close corporate links, a de facto CIA contractor.” ~ Wayne Madsen

    Hillary and Bezos seem to have a thing for Nigerian doctors. Today Bezos quoted Bennet Omalu, who said that Hillary should have her blood checked for Russian poisons administered by Trump.

    “Omalu is not the only Nigerian doctor to provide advice to Mrs. Clinton. Her own personal neurologist, who is never far from Mrs. Clinton’s side during campaign events, is Nigerian-American Dr. Oladatun Okunola, who specializes in epilepsy and sleep disorders. Okunola carries two Diazepam auto-injector syringe pens while accompanying Mrs. Clinton. Diazepam is often used for patients experiencing epileptic seizures, and can also be used for those suffering from the effects of Parkinson’s disease.” ~ Wayne Madsen

  10. Dear sweet Jesus, how dumb can people be? If Trump is now saying that Obama was born in the US, disavowing his previous claims that he wasn’t, how does that make Trump look bad, racist, or a whore-monger (or whatever they are saying at this minute)? You’d think the media and politicians would be happy he joined the mainstream and tossed out his previous attitude. Instead, they’re acting like joining with them is somehow WORSE than any birther remark he made before.

    This country is retarded.

    • The corporate media outlets are desperate to have Hillary in the White House. Therefore they attack Trump no matter what he says.

      If Trump wants a new war, he is a “militant.” If Trump opposes war, he is a “Russian agent.”

      If Trump questions Obama’s birth, he is a “traitor.” If Trump stops questioning Obama’s birth, he is a “flip-flopper.”

      If Trump makes a profit in his corporate enterprises, he is a “greedy oligarch.” If Trump opposes corporate giveaways like the TPP, he is “anti-American.”

      And so on.


    “Progressive” blogs like Common Dreams echo all of Big Pharma’s lies that the harmless Zika virus poses a “global threat.”

    For example, the article below scolds the U.S. Congress for not (yet) giving another $1.1 billion to Big Pharma to fight this (harmless) “global threat.”

    “There were dire consequences for failure to provide funds to fight the Zika virus, as health officials had warned Congress there would be.”

    (Really? What “dire consequences”? The article doesn’t say.)

    “Of the 1,700 new cases of people infected by the Zika virus, Florida got a share.”

    (But no one died, or became seriously ill.)

    As you can see, Big Pharma rules both the right and the left.

  12. willy, sorry for just not being into the US election..
    and for going off topic
    but the US has just struck the Syrian Arab Army at their base- they’ve killed 62 and injured more then 100 in a blatant, blatant batch of airstrikes to support ISIS/KurdIShIS
    Meanwhile Israel is hitting syria too. at golan

  13. There are no official qualifications for becoming a Supreme Court justice. The Constitution spells out age, citizenship and residency requirements for becoming president of the United States or a member of Congress but mentions no rules for joining the nation’s highest court. The Constitution does not specify qualifications for Justices such as age, education, profession, or native-born citizenship. A Justice does not have to be a lawyer or a law school graduate, but all Justices have been trained in the law. In my view The reason America’s basic freedom has endured for more than 200 years, is not the amendments to the Constitution but the Constitution itself. I am in awe of the genius of the fore fathers and the foresite they had. “The genius of the American constitutional system is the dispersal of power,” “Once power is centralized in one person, or one part [of government], “To me the constitution is about setting structure; it is not about writing the preferences of special interest groups,” The sad thing is that the conservatives-Alexander Hamilton-initially rejected a Bill of Rights, for several reasons, of which the constitution being a bill of rights in and of itself being a prime reason. The Democrats, with their obsession with the “Rights of Man” wanted to add the Bill of Rights. However, if we maintain that our rights come from God, and not man, then why do we need a national document to tell us what our rights are? If we never authorized the federal government to violate our right to religion, then why do we need an amendment to prohibit such an action? A bill of rights necessarily implies that the government can do what it wishes, unless the people explicitly prohibit it: Bill of Rights. However, more relevant, we have found that the precious Bill of Rights cover certain rights never even imagined by our forefathers: Slavery (5th Amendment in Dred Scott v Sanford), privacy (9th Amendment in Griswold v Connecticut), contraceptives (9th Amendment in Griswold v Connecticut), abortion (14th Amendment in Roe v Wade; 9th Amendment in Doe v Bolton), homosexual sodomy (14th Amendment in Texas v Lawrence), homosexual “marriage” (several judicial activists in state and federal courts who usually use the 14th Amendment). It should be noted that even though abortion, homosexual sodomy and homosexual “marriage” are usually defended with the 14th Amendment, which is not part of the original Bill of Rights, they use the “due process clause” in that Amendment. There is also a “due process clause” in the 5th Amendment, which is what Roger B. Taney used in Dred Scott v Sanford. Therefore, the liberals would probably just use the 5th Amendment to advance their unholy agenda of immorality. Furthermore, those who shout for the glory of the Bill of Rights, it should be noted that before the Bill of Rights magically started to defend slavery, abortion, contraceptives, homosexual sodomy, homosexual marriage “rights,” The People” either through the Federal government or more likely through the state governments either totally outlawed or severely restricted these metaphysical and immoral “Rights of Man.” The facts are less done to the Constitution, the better. It was established to keep the politicians in line as well. Without that, politicians would have already gone completely “rogue”, as many have tried to do. Americans need to stop whining and start living up to what our forefathers set up for the people with all there hard work and sacrifice; one of the most unique and greatest system of rules for the peoples freedom in the world that made america the greatest country in the world must be respected and never abused. I would like to keep it that way for myself and all americans for all our children and grandchildren. i think the 17th Amendment changed the structure of the government. The Senate was designed to throttle the short-term knee-jerk responses of the House; and to protect the interest of the States from the central government. the Bill of Rights acknowledges that sovereignty resides in the individual; and that the individual possesses inalienable rights superior to any authority delegated to government. This is especially germaine as the SCOTUS presumes to establish regulations as superior to personal conscience. The Bill of Rights was demanded by citizens to establish clear limits to the powers delegated to the central government by the Constitution. The 9th and 10th Amendments are among the most abused as the central government surges ever-expanding authorities over the States and individuals. The Constitution is the basis of the entire republic. Without that we are just another third world dictatorship which is happening to a large degree right now. Since 1913, with the adoption of the 17th Amendment, when the States lost their representative voice in legislative affairs in the U.S. Senate, the representative democracy has gradually and almost unnoticeably deteriorated to the point that its being governed in a near post-constitutional era. The “strongest” of the three branches, the legislative branch, routinely defers its exclusive lawmaking authority while the “weakest” of the 3 branches, the judicial branch, legislates from the bench.
    The executive branch ignores the clause — “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” by selectively enforcing laws of its own choosing and legislates by executive fiat.
    All branches are frequently guilty of interpreting the Constitution in a manner inconsistent with the principles upon which the Constitution was drafted and ratified.
    The checks and balances, so wisely crafted by the Founders, are no longer effective. Even though the Constitution contains self defense mechanisms for each branch to protect itself against encroachment from the other branches, these mechanisms are seldom used. This is due, in part, to a lack of understanding of the Constitution by a majority of our elected officials. Of the elected few who do understand these self defense mechanisms; there’s an unwillingness to exercise such power for fear of retaliation and scorn by a media capable of manipulating public opinion at will. If america continue down this path – there will be no future generations of free Americans. The people of america to be guaranteed of freedom is because of the Constitution. the Constitution PROTECTS our God-given, unalienable freedom. The Constitution never GAVE us our freedom, we already have it, as the Declaration of Independence, a major source of original understanding of the Constitution, says. That said, however, we need to understand, as what Antonin Scalia is saying, that the Constitution is the only legal bulwark of freedom against the contemplated or actual tyranny of the federal government. This also needs clarification: the first ten amendments are not a “Bill of Rights”. They are a sampling of rights confirming some of the federal government’s limitations. This is easily seen in the wording of each amendment which always speak of rights and freedoms ALREADY IN EXISTENCE that Congress (meaning the federal government) may not “abridge” or “infringe” or “not violate.” The Ninth and Tenth Amendments explicitly state that rights and powers not mentioned are “retained” by the people. Totalitarian regimes like Communist Russia have huge lists of Bills of Rights in their laws and constitutions. But there, the government by law thinks it has given you your rights and can just as easily take them away. Here, the U.S. Constitution doesn’t “create” our rights, it creates the federal government and then DELEGATES via the states and the people, certain LIMITED, ENUMERATED powers to the federal government that, as Scalia says, has a mandatory structure to keep it power decentralized. Clearly there is a genius and quite frankly, without getting into “proofs,” a Judeo Christian inspiration for the structure of the federal government chosen by the Framers. They unarguably intended it to limit federal power and prevent overreach. if we had been following the constitution we would have closed the borders among other things. Your suppossed to take an oath to protect the constitution from exactly what they are doing to america at the moment. The Constitution specifies that no state shall be deprived of its representation without its consent. America were known as the land of the free, because of the GRACE of God. Something that Martin Luther and President Lincoln came to understand. Our Freedom, the peoples freedom derives from our Creator not man nor the creations of man; these freedoms are due to our natural-rights by virtue of our God-given life.
    The Constitution is supposed to limit interference with our lives by our governments by deliberately and severely limiting their ability to interfere with the lives of the “people”. The people are supposed to be subject only to common-law and equity, not the statutes and statutory law. US Citizens are subject to the statutes because they are subjects of the United States jurisdiction and are today defined as “enemy belligerents” by 14thA, Sect1 and the “Trading With the Enemy Act (TWEA) of 1917 with the Amendments added through 1933”.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: