Scalia flummoxed about natural born citizenship

Exclusive: Larry Klayman asks Justice Scalia for definition of term used in Constitution
Larry Klayman is a former Justice Department prosecutor and the founder of Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch. His latest book is “Whores: Why and How I Came to Fight the Establishment.”

The Constitution is as clear as the nose on your face. According to Article II, Section 1, to be eligible to be president or vice president of the United States one must be a “natural born citizen.” That means born in the United States to two American citizen parents. The framers, concerned about destructive foreign influences at a time of the founding of the nation, were wary that the foreign biases of parents could tragically influence the country’s leadership, especially during its formative years. Being largely from England themselves, with British parents, the framers also knew and lived among Tories who did not want to see a new nation arise, but who, comfortable in their noble status and wealth under the British Crown, desired to continue to be ruled by King George III. They did their best to prevent the signing of the Declaration of Independence in 1776, and sought to undermine and subvert the ensuing Revolutionary War effort. Later, not willing to give up, British of their ilk attempted to retake control of the “colonies” and invaded Washington, D.C., in 1812, only to burn down the White House, among other dastardly deeds.

Indeed, as depicted in Dinesh D’Souza’s and John Sullivan’s new documentary film, “2016: Obama’s America,” the framers were also anticipating that adverse if not evil foreign influences could infest our body politic later in the nation’s history, such as has occurred with our current president, who identifies with his Kenyan, anti-neocolonialist, socialist, Muslim father. Obama’s father of his same name not only despised the United States (particularly after he was deported, having been here illegally on an expired student visa) but, consistent with his Islamic roots, also Israel, Jews and Christians in general.

It is no wonder that many, yours truly included, view Obama as not only our first “gay” but also our first “Muslim” president. I have taken to calling him the “mullah in chief,” given his all-too-apparent disdain for Israel and its leaders, his support of the Muslim Brotherhood, his endorsement of the Ground Zero mosque, his cancellation of White House celebrations of the National Day of Prayer, instead choosing to feast the Muslim holiday of Ramadan, his “slip of the tongue” reference to his “Muslim faith” in a 2008 television interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, his close associations with black Muslim leaders and anti-Semites, and a host of other anti-Judeo-Christian actions while in office. Obama can claim all he wants to be a patriotic Christian American, but anyone with half a brain and who is not comatose knows better. He is the Muslim version of the “Manchurian Candidate,” in effect an Islamic mole who – aided and abetted by communists, socialists, radical gays, lesbians and feminists, Muslims, white-haters and others on the subversive fringe of American society – defrauded his way into the White House. As a result, after four years of what in effect is Obama’s “reign of terror,” we find ourselves not only on the precipice of economic disaster, but living the nightmare of having a charlatan “Muslim” socialist impostor as the head of the greatest nation on earth. The framers are more than turning in their hallowed graves.

The framers, while not God, were divinely inspired men who, with His grace, envisioned that crises such as we now find ourselves in would likely arise. To try to avoid another violent revolution, which could tear the country apart at the seams, they put into effect a new republican form of government, one they thought had checks and balances. The legislative branch was given the power to impeach, convict and remove a president found guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors such as treason. The judicial branch was given the power to rule over the politicians and insure that the “Rule of Law” was respected. Indeed, our Founding Fathers did not want a nation of men, but of laws, where these laws would be carried out and enforced “on the merits,” not based on personalities and corrupt influences.

But our Founding Fathers also recognized that a government was only as good as the people who occupied it. John Adams, perhaps our greatest Founding Father and second American president, warned at the time of the signing of the Declaration of Independence that it does not matter how many times you change your rulers or forms of government – without ethics, morality and religion there will not be a lasting liberty.

Now, 236 years after its founding, our nation’s ethics, morality and respect for God have degenerated – Sodom and Gomorrah style – into a cesspool of corruption. Neither the legislative nor judicial branches of government can serve as a check and balance over the executive branch run by a president such as Obama, because they are themselves a part of a corrupt establishment that “circles the wagons” to protect itself. In short, We the People no longer have a republic, because our leaders represent only themselves, not us – and that goes for both Democrats and Republicans no matter what kind of sideshow they offer up at their 2012 political conventions.

Last week, I had the occasion to cross paths with “revered” Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Scalia has been for many years the darling of conservatives, a judge who they believed had the guts to enforce the Rule of Law and the Constitution in the face of corrosive influences, foreign and domestic. I took the occasion to ask him a simple question, one he would be able to answer. I asked the “constitutionalist” Scalia what he believed to be the definition of “natural born citizen,” without asking him to render an opinion on whether Obama was eligible to be president, given that Obama’s father was not a citizen of the United States at the time he claims falsely that he was born here.

Looking like a deer in the headlights and stuttering sheepishly, Justice Scalia responded, “I don’t know. Isn’t a natural born citizen a person born in this country?” I pressed on, asking “then why are there separate references to ‘citizen’ and ‘natural born citizen’ in the Constitution?” Again, Justice Scalia, pulling back out of apparent fright at having to give a straight answer, responded in the same fashion, “I don’t know.”

Lower court judges, in myriad cases where the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama has been challenged, have abdicated – for apparent political reasons to save their own standing in and among the establishment – their responsibility to rule that Obama is not a natural born citizen qualified to be president. Now, with the exit stage left of the one Supreme Court justice conservatives thought had the guts to enforce the will of the framers, and to protect We the People, it is clearer than ever that revolution can no longer be avoided.

Americans no longer have a government run by people with the ethics and courage to protect the nation, and we must now do it for ourselves, hopefully peacefully and legally and with minimal collateral damage to ourselves and our families. But, as the framers experienced in 1776 with a king who did not and would not take into account their grievances, we again have no choice.

I wrote “A Citizenship Primer for the Supreme Court”, but later changed the title, thinking that perhaps I wasn’t giving them enough credit, -credit that was due to “experts” in constitutional law.  I changed it to be aimed at “the American Public”.

Now it appears that the insulated and isolated members of the court live in such an informational bubble that I would be justified in changing it back.
Your discovery is disturbing if in fact he was ignorant of the meaning of NBC, but the possibility remains that he isn’t ignorant, but is psychologically incapable of admitting what he knows.  After all, which is worse, -admitting “I don’t know.” or admitting “I know full well but don’t have the courage to even admit that fact.”

It’s better to be thought to be ignorant than to be thought to be cowardly and afraid.  It’s one or the other.  Unfortunately, I’m afraid that it could actually be either.  No one in the high court has ever had to think about presidential eligibility, -much less that of a sitting president. They’ve never had to trace the source of citizenship back to its fundamental principle. They don’t want to think about it, and certainly don’t want to have to rule on it.  There is one or two cases headed their way though.  If I had to wager, I’d wager that they will not accept them and offer no explanation why, because the explanation would be fear like they’ve never had to confront while serving on the high bench.

I’ve authored many things that they need to read if they are in the dark, including one I re-edited earlier today.  Title is: National Ignorance & A Constitutional Travesty -It’s located on my blog at   (obama–

It explains the current state of ignorance in America regarding citizenship and doesn’t paint a rosy picture of how the situation can be corrected.  It gives the facts and the truth of the matter, along with the fact that a solution is nowhere on the horizon.
A.R. Nash


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: