The sitting President has stated that he has the authority to name an American Citizen, proclaim that person a “domestic enemy” and assassinate said person using a drone, dropping in from no-where, with no notice.
This is the man holding what has been long called “the most powerful seat in the world”, and is arguably the most powerful seat the world has ever experienced in Man’s time, yet the occupant is the single most questionable person to ever be elected to this office, with less public knowledge of his past than any other president in our history.
We are told this man is a serious and significant “Constitutional Scholar”, and this is said with a straight face, even as every aspect of his actual college has been carefully covered up. He is listed as having been contracted to teach constitutional law to undergraduates at University of Chicago, but there is no public record allowed.
He is said to have graduated from Harvard law, and to have chaired “the Harvard Law review”, while any possible contribution he may have made is entirely hidden from view. In short, this man is said to have as broad a constitutional education as any person who has graduated from such a prestigious law school, yet claims no constitutional constriction from summary assassination, decided solely by himself.
We are approaching the election, there is angry debate over the words used by various candidates in discussing the issue of abortion, whether there are any circumstances it is right, whether there are any circumstances where it is wrong, and on the other side of the world, we have American Service Members being executed by the very personnel they are training, showing obviously in their certain knowledge they too, will die, the sole intent of ending our presence there, and as our Soldiers and Marines try to figure out how to react, they are being locked in prison, when they kill someone, because the war is supposed to be over.
The world is asking the question, “can a Nation use a robot drone, cross into foreign Nations and kill a person or persons, including innocents, within the scope of international laws of war?”, and we listen and watch the president of the United States proclaim his authority to assassinate a Sovereign American Citizen on American soil.
My question is this: if an elected “public servant” whose sole authority comes from “the consent of the governed” has any rightful capacity to so declare, what is it based upon, where does this authority come from?
The entire purpose of the Constitution is to provide an exact and specific law over government, establishing exactly its purpose, its expanse, and its precise limitations. Every comment of our founders on the subject, suggests one loses one’s status as “a sovereign citizen” while holding office, and becomes exactly a public servant. If the public servant can choose without any authority or consent, to assassinate a Sovereign Citizen on his own determination, how much more authority does each and every Sovereign Citizen have to declare said public servant a criminal, one who has committed a continuous string of high crimes reaching well into High Treason, and bribery on an international scale, complete with an act of war committed against the Nation of Mexico?
With these facts before us, which “Sovereign Citizen” has less actual natural authority endowed upon us by our Creator, and with this Natural authority, do we not have the full authority to call down the assassination of a mere public servant? Is the Constitution only law over citizens?
How can an American President be allowed to run for re-election after claiming the summary right to execute any American Citizen on his own decision? How is his claim to power any different than Castro’s? Is there a Congress out there?
Copyright 8;29/12 by Gulf1.