This is Daniel Hannan speaking in the European Parliament on 3/26/09 and specifically to British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. He could as well as have been speaking to our Congress and President Obama. Daniel Hannan is a Conservative MEP for the South East of England and author of The Plan: Twelve Months to Renew Britain. I think he gets it.
Here’s an interesting (albeit ironic) discovery I made this week. You’re going to love it. Apparently, in our country there are rules for one group that do not apply to the other group.
It seems in April of 2008 our illustrious Senate convened to discuss the status of John McCain’s “natural-born” status, the status required by the Constitution in order to serve as President of the United States.
“In April of 2008 the U.S. Senate concurred with the definition of Vattel via Senate Resolution 511 stating that a ‘natural born Citizen’ is a child who is born of American citizens [with an “s”].
_____________________________________________ Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen. (Agreed to by Senate)
SRES 511 ATS 110th CONGRESS 2d Session S. RES. 511 Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES April 10, 2008 Mrs. MCCASKILL (for herself, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. OBAMA, Mr. COBURN, Mrs. CLINTON, and Mr. WEBB) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
April 24, 2008
Reported by Mr. LEAHY, without amendment
April 30, 2008
Considered and agreed to
Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.
Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen’ of the United States;
Whereas the term `natural born Citizen’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;
Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country’s President;
Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen’ clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen’;
Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders;
Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President;and
Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.
What I want to know is…where is the other resolution stating that Barack Obama is a “natural born” citizen? There is none. If we had THAT resolution, this birth controversy might not be swirling about us right now. The Senate took all this time and formality to meet, discuss and produce a resolution concerning Senator McCain’s qualification, but didn’t see fit to do the same with the other candidate? How can this be? Disingenuous at best. Of course, if I read through the list of names…it seems there were all Democrats…and Mr. Obama’s name is even attached to the resolution. Hmmm….and nobody thought to check Mr. Obama’s birth credentials? Or to pass a resolution declaring him to be a natural born citizen?
According to common law and Vattel (mentioned above) it seems the term “natural born” was and is and has always been understood to mean born to parents who are citizens (with an s) (and with emphasis on the father) of the United States. What we have in our current president is a man who is the child of a British national. This may present problems. If our current president does not meet the “natural born” requirements then we have a constitutional crisis on our hands.
I have been doing some reading on what “natural born” citizenship is and will post about my findings soon. I’ll get back with you about this because I’m finding the whole issue a bit confusing.
“Where There is No Religion, There Will Be No Morals”
On this question, the American Founders were explicit: Virtue is a necessary pre-condition for democracy, and religion is a necessary pre-condition for virtue. In his Farewell Address, George Washington famously said that “reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” Benjamin Rush said simply, “Where there is no religion, there will be no morals.”——-from Newt Gingrich letter, 12/30/2008
This is the wisdom of two of our founding fathers, men who had experienced enough of life in the Old World to know that there must be a better way. They were men willing to take risks to start a new country, with principles of religious freedom and laws guaranteeing the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to all men who were endowed by their Creator with these certain unalienable rights. Can you imagine the responsibility of that? Starting a new country…setting up a new government…writing new laws? Virtue is a necessary pre-condition for democracy, because virtue guarantees that the rights of others will be respected. “Democracy” puts it into laws, but virtue sees and causes the enforcement of those laws for the good of all.
Lately we seem to be calling wrong, right, and right, wrong. We see this in the belittling of Christians who believe the Bible and say that abortion is murder and homosexuality is an abomination to God. These beliefs are based on what the Bible says regarding these issues. The people didn’t make it up, they are merely siding with the God of the bible, agreeing that God really does know what is best. There are groups wanting to create new “rights”, such as the right for two people of the same sex to marry. What about bi-sexual people? Can they “marry”? What about other groups that deviate from the traditional definition? What will you tell them? Once the definition of marriage that has been around from the beginning of time is broken down, where do we stop? Some days when I get up, I am surprised that we still care about crime, even blue collar crime like what Illinois Governor Blagoevich has been accused of. I rejoice in it, but I’m still surprised. I really was amazed at the reaction of Washington to it because I’m sure there are many of them who are guilty of so many similar criminal actions themselves.
I believe that what goes around comes around…and with interest. That too is from the bible. It is a spiritual law and operates whether anyone believes it or not. And where does virtue come from? How do we know what is right and wrong? There is a conscience in the heart of man that talks to him. Again, the bible also tells us what is right and wrong. There are other religious books out there probably worthy of mention, but I am not a reader of those, so I cannot recommend them.
In our world today we see a “pushing” at the boundary lines of traditional right and wrong as well as the laws of our nation. People are throwing off restraint in greater numbers. In the 1960’s there was a mass movement…tune in and drop out..if it feels good do it. I’m sure none of us would deliberately train our children this way.
We are a nation that believes in freedom. We are free to live as we please, as long as we do not harm others. But that freedom has a price. A price was paid to achieve it at the founding of our nation. A price is paid to maintain it every time its principles are challenged. A price will be required to keep it today. The principles of freedom are being challenged in our country more than I have ever seen in my short years of life on this earth. There is a high price to pay for living right…and an even higher price to pay for living badly. Which will our nation choose? I know what I choose. What do you choose?
I love what Newt said about virtue in the paragraph above…it does take virtue to maintain a democracy, because you have to be interested in living right and caring about other people. My sidebar has a quote from John Adams…”Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” There is a loud and pushy far left who aren’t interested in virtue and morals. They aren’t interested in religion and democracy. They wish to turn over our foundations and make America into something completely different. They hate our country the way it is. My invitation to them is…they are welcome to go live somewhere else if they hate what we have. But America needs to stay America the great, the beautiful. If America is so bad, why are so many people wanting to come live here, even illegally? I think the truth is, America is not bad; it’s not like these far left say. America has given and still gives other nations hope and help. There’s a reason for our greatness and it is our foundations, the vision and wisdom of the great men who founded our country. I believe God was with them and I believe God helped them set up our system of government. America stays great because its people are willing to sacrifice to keep it great. Our country and its system of government has been good to us. Let’s not let the far left trash our Constitution, our country and our way of life.
This is from the 60 Minutes interview on March 22, 2009. Our normally stern president giggling like a schoolgirl. All this giggling has me baffled. Especially since they say we are in a very serious economic crisis and our progressive leaders are spending like there’s no tomorrow. I did look closely at his eyes to see if there was any evidence of pot smoking, but couldn’t ascertain for sure if that was what was wrong with him. What say you?
My friend over at the Conservative Pup wrote a post about some of the good things happening in our world. I would just like to add some for the record today.
Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) has announced from the Senate floor that he will not be voting for the Employee Free Choice Act (also known as Card Check), thereby frustrating the necessary 60 votes needed by the Democrats to push aside the privilege of the secret ballot for employees considering unionization. Read more here.
The prayers must be working. A sign of sanity in our Congress. Thank You, Lord.
Here’s another one…65 Dem Congressmen tell Obama ‘hands-off our guns’
Before anyone jumps on the mass hysteria (What? They already have?) that is this week’s headlines about AIG, perhaps we should shuttle on over to the Washington Post and read this article.
While our movie star president blithely skips town (man, I’d be smoking 2 packs of cigarettes a day at this point) and makes a late night appearance on the Jay Leno show, it seems the employees of AIG who were not even part of the original problem there and who were begged to stay on to try to untangle the mess, are now fearing for their very lives. They will give back the money they have been paid, but they will leave and AIG will probably collapse anyway now…and then where will that leave us? And who first broke this “story” about the $165 million contracted payments? I’d be very interested to know the answer to that.
…”the community organizer…must first rub raw the resentments of the people; fan the latent hostilities to the point of overt expression”–Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals
Rules for Radicals #13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it.
Does anyone have any doubts about where this is all heading? Has it been orchestrated? You tell me.