by Tom Arnold, ©2022

(Jan. 26, 2022) — George Floyd did not purposefully, or even accidentally, “change the world.”  What happened was a tragic set of circumstances which spiraled out of control.  It was not something which was commonplace, and it was not something which necessarily was motivated by racism or wickedness.  Convicted Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin also did nothing to change the world.

Michael Brown, who was shot by police and killed in Ferguson, Missouri on August 9, 2014, giving rise to the “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” slogan, did not change the world.

Years earlier, on May 1, 1992, in response to having been beaten by police, the acquittal of the officers accused, and the L.A. riots which followed, Rodney King famously asked, “Can’t we all just get along?”  Rodney King, however, did not change the world.  

Neither have any of the brutality or killings committed by Blacks on Whites, Blacks on Blacks, Whites on Whites, or other ethnic and racial groups against each other. 

So, you ask, WHAT IS MY POINT?  In short, it is that individuals do not change our country or the geopolitical world.  Some have tried, but with all due respect to George Floyd and others, they have never succeeded by themselves.  

Maybe more so than anyone else in recent history, however, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA is one individual who came close to “changing the world.”  It is likely that Obama never personally killed anybody (although I think it is probable that he, in fact, conspired with others to do so, i.e., the CIA).  What Obama did do, though, is STEAL the U.S. presidency and command of our men and women in the armed forces.  HE WAS NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY ELIGIBLE TO RUN FOR OR BECOME ELECTED PRESIDENT (not a natural born American citizen per Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, which begs the question: “How could he possibly meet these qualifications when he was a citizen of three different countries and had allegiances to each one of them?” 

Obama’s rise to the presidency was conceived of and brought about by the CIA, the Communist Party, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Democrat and Republican Parties, the U.S. Supreme Court in the person of Chief Justice John G. Roberts, the complicit “4th Estate” government-watchdog news media, and countless other co-conspirators.  Obama was every bit a Manchurian Candidate.  In my view, these facts and their consequences are no less than TREASONOUS.  It all began in 2007-08, if not earlier, and has lasted to the present and beyond.  Even CNN Senior Investigative Correspondent Drew Griffin recently stated in a television special titled, “Assault on Democracy:  The Roots of Trump’s Insurrection” that our country’s current problems began in 2008.  Evidently, Mr. Griffin didn’t know how right he was, although I suspect he did not intend to besmirch Obama.  I, on the other hand, am convinced that BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, in consort with others who opposed the American way of life, was the most instrumental individual in our constitutional democratic republic’s downfall.  

Obama’s racist views, divisiveness, and efforts with his fellow travelers to transform our country, gave birth to virtually all of the serious and anti-American problems being experienced by our society today.  These, then, are the people who arguably “changed the world!”

Let it be known that no one is above the law and that there is no statute of limitations on TREASON.  At least, that’s the way things used to be before we in America began living a lie (the big, real lie).  

Join the Conversation

21 Comments

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. GREAT DISCUSSION ABOVE! Too bad the Supreme Court is “evading” the issue. In fact, I say that what the “justices” are doing, or rather NOT doing, is harmful to our country and does not honor, protect , and preserve our U.S. Constitution. What say you, Chief Justice Roberts?

  2. Tom Arnold asks, “How could he possibly meet these qualifications when he was a citizen of three different countries and had allegiances to each one of them?”

    The answer is obvious enough: multiple citizenships and allegiances don’t preclude being a natural-born citizen; the U.S. Constitution says nothing about multiple citizenships and allegiances.

    It begs the question to suggest sole citizenship and allegiance are eligibility requirements.

  3. In early 2008, after bloggers raised questions about Republican nominee Senator John Sidney McCain III’s status as a natural born citizen, the Democrat majority Senate formed a sub-committee to investigate. On April 10, 2008, the full Senate issued a resolution saying (paraphrasing for brevity’s sake) “John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936, 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.”

    Soon thereafter bloggers began raising questions about Democrat nominee Senator Barack Hussein Obama II’s status as a natural born citizen, but the Democrat majority Senate did not form a sub-committee to investigate. The full Senate never did issue a resolution saying Barack Hussein Obama II was a natural born Citizen under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.

    Why the one born to and raised by cultural Americans but not the one born to or raised by non-cultural Americans?
    Why the POW & Disabled Veteran but not the Pot Smoker & Community Organizer?
    Why the multi-term Senator but not the first-term Senator?
    Why the Republican but not the Democrat?

    1. The obvious difference was that McCain was not born in the United States.

      The consensus of jurists and scholars is that, minor exceptions aside, everyone born in the United States is a natural-born citizen. But, at least in 2008, there was less certainty about those born outside of the United States. Which would explain why the candidates were treated differently.

      Obama’s natural-born citizenship was questioned before the introduction of S.R. 511 in support of McCain’s natural-born citizenship. And there was no Senate investigation into McCain, nor were there hearings. Just a simple resolution saying the Senate believed McCain was eligible.

      1. Key word: “simple”.
        SR511 had no weight of any law nor the US Constitution, especially when the Dame from Missouri and the SR511 text cited a repealed naturalization act of 1790, the rendering of it as repealed that is as desirable and legal as used toilet paper.
        SR511 merely was a hand-shake among CONgressional snakes.

        1. The “Dame from Missouri (my birth state)” is CLAIRE McCASKILL, an Obama worshiper and Deep Stater if there ever was one. I believe now she hangs out, or may be a “consultant” or “commentator,” at CNN. In my formerly constitutionally protected opinion, Ms McCaskill is nothing but a disgraceful political hack.

      2. Notice SR 511 got the definition of Natural Born Citizen correct, assuming McCain was actually born on an American Military base. This from SR 511:

        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
        That John Sidney McCain, III, is a “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.

        Using the same criteria for Obama he could not possibly be a “natural born citizen”….and he is not, even if he was born in Hawaii instead of Kenya or Indonesia. That explains why there was no resolution to look into Obama’s citizenship. No one in Congress wanted to be called “racist” and stop the possibility of, “America’s historic first black president” from being elected……….Obama was given a free pass to usurp America’s presidency and both parties are still protecting the fraud Obama to protect themselves……………Hillary was not supposed to lose as the after Obama cover president in 2016, and especially not to Obama’s biggest nemesis, Donald Trump.

        1. The definition of natural-born citizen is not those “born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936.” If that was the definition, no president or vice president has been a natural-born citizen.

          And commenter Nikita’s_UN_Shoe is correct: S.R. 511 had no weight; it was a non-binding resolution.

          Regardless, there’s no indication that any senator believed that Obama wasn’t a natural-born citizen. The closest perhaps was Richard Shelby (R-AL) who was quoted as saying he hadn’t seen Obama’s birth certificate. Shelby, who denied even making the remark, certainly didn’t say anything about the U.S. Constitution requiring two U.S. citizen parents.

          https://archive.ph/20120908113318/http://www.cullmantimes.com/local/local_story_052203445.html

      3. Another obvious difference was that Obama was not born to U.S. citizen parents.

        The consensus of SCOTUS Justices in The Venus, Shanks v Dupont, Minor v Happersett and Wong Kim Ark (for just four examples) is that, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, only those born in the United States to parents who were citizens of the United States at the time are natural born citizens. However, at least in 2008, “place of birth” was a much less difficult concept for John Q. Public to understand than “natural born citizen”. Which would explain why the nominees were treated differently.

        If, as you said, Obama’s natural-born citizenship was questioned before the introduction of S.R. 511 in support of McCain’s natural-born citizenship, and there was no Senate investigation into nor hearings about McCain, just a simple resolution saying the Senate believed McCain was eligible, then why didn’t the Senate simply include Obama in that resolution and put questions about his eligibility to rest also?

        Not every Chevrolet[citizen] is a red[natural] convertible[born] Chevrolet[citizen] but every red[natural] convertible[born] Chevrolet[citizen] is a Chevrolet[citizen].

        1. Obama’s mother was a U.S. citizen.

          And Obama, like every president before him (except for those born in British America), was born in the United States. If elected, McCain would have been the first president not to have been born in the United States (or British America).

          No court, in 2008 or at any other time, has ever read The Venus, Shanks, Minor, or Wong Kim Ark to say only those born in the United States to two U.S. citizen parents are natural-born citizens. (The Venus, for example, doesn’t even use the words “natural-born citizen.”) Courts, in fact, repeatedly rejected this claim about The Venus, Shanks, Minor, and Wong Kim Ark when they concluded Obama was a natural-born citizen. These courts actually cited Wong Kim Ark when concluding that Obama was a natural-born citizen because he was born in the United States.

          Obama’s natural-born citizenship was questioned before McCain’s, but the questions then were about where Obama was born, and not the role of his father’s citizenship. You would have to ask the senators why they didn’t sponsor a resolution in favor of Obama’s natural-born citizenship, but the obvious inference is that birthright citizenship has been such a maxim in U.S. law that there was no need to reiterate it. As Obama was the rule (birth in the United States) and McCain was the outlier (birth outside of the United States), it is unsurprising that, in the eyes of the Senate, only McCain warranted a resolution.

          No one disputes that not all citizens are natural-born citizens.

        2. “The consensus of SCOTUS Justices in The Venus, Shanks v Dupont, Minor v Happersett and Wong Kim Ark (for just four examples) is that, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, only those born in the United States to parents who were citizens of the United States at the time are natural born citizens.”

          Where in Shanks v DuPont does Justice Story make this statement?

          There are several interesting passages in Justice Johnson’s dissent.

          “By an act of the state passed in 1712, the common law of Great Britain was incorporated into the jurisprudence of South Carolina. In the year 1782, when this descent was cast, it was the law of the land, and it becomes imperative upon these appellants after admitting that their parent was a native born citizen of South Carolina, daughter of a native born citizen of South Carolina, to show on what ground they can escape from the operation of these leading maxims of common law.“

          The English Common Law was incorporated into South Carolina in 1712 and was the Law of the land in 1782.

          “ It is the doctrine of the American court that the issue of the Revolutionary War settled the point, that the American states were free and independent on 4 July, 1776. On that day, Mrs. Shanks was found under allegiance to the State of South Carolina as a natural born citizen to a community, one of whose fundamental principles was that natural allegiance was unalienable, and this principle was at no time relaxed by that state by any express provision, while it retained the undivided control over the rights and liabilities of its citizens.”

          On July 4th, 1776 Mrs. Shanks [nee Scott] became a “natural born citizen” of South Carolina.

      4. Mr Hobart: Everyone born in the United States is a NATIVE BORN citizen. But, a natural born American citizen is, in my mind, a big step above native born. And, would Chief Justice Roberts care to allow his esteemed Court to consider and/or define DUAL CITIZEN? May I suggest, Chief Justice, that you take a long, hard look at Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetoro! Of course, I am aware that Obama aka Soetoro also is probably a NATURALIZED CITIZEN. Still short of the natural born American citizen mark! As you might guess or already know about me, I am not a lawyer or a constitutional scholar. But, unlike SCOTUS, I do have the courage (if that’s the right word) to talk about what, I believe, is our country’s greatest, and at the same time most taboo, legal and national defense issue. You guessed it- NATURAL BORN AMERICAN CITIZEN.

        1. Every court that considered the matter concluded, minor exceptions aside, everyone born in the United States is a natural born citizen. No court has concluded, again minor exceptions aside, that someone born in the United States is not a natural born citizen.

          There’s no evidence that Obama, who was born in the United States, ever naturalized.

          The U.S. Supreme Court generally doesn’t explain why it declines to hear cases. But the obvious inference is there’s no need for the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in because every court has come to the same conclusion; it doesn’t accept cases just to tell the lower courts they all were correct.

    2. “the Democrat majority Senate formed a sub-committee to investigate.”

      If such a sub-committee was formed there would be record of it. It would even have a formal name, there would be transcripts of hearings and a report. Where is it?

      Got a link?

      1. Oooooops. “formed a” is a typo. Should read “referred to” Sorry, my bad. Here ya go…

        https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/sres511

        APRIL 10, 2008
        Introduced
        Bills and resolutions are referred to committees which debate the bill before possibly sending it on to the whole chamber.

        APRIL 24, 2008
        Ordered Reported
        A committee has voted to issue a report to the full chamber recommending that the bill be considered further. Only about 1 in 4 bills are reported out of committee.

        APRIL 30, 2008
        Agreed To
        The resolution was passed in a vote in the Senate. A simple resolution is not voted on in the other chamber and does not have the force of law. The vote was by Unanimous Consent so no record of individual votes was made.

        1. S.R. 511 was referred to the Judiciary Committee; it was not referred to any subcommittee.

          The Judiciary Committee did not investigate; it only referred the resolution to the full Senate.

        2. Background on Senator McCain’s eligibility.

          When McCain first ran for president in 2000, there were some questions about his eligibility. For example this 1998 Washington Post article and this January, 2000 Slate article.

          7/9/1998
          https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/junkie/archive/junkie070998.htm

          1/7/2000
          https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2000/01/is-mccain-eligible-for-the-presidency.html

          Fast forward to 2008. Again McCain’s eligibility was questioned. In late February 2008 several news stories about McCain’s eligibility were published.

          2/25/2008
          https://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/john-mccains-presidential-eligibility/

          2/28/2008
          https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/politics/28mccain.html

          2/29/2008
          https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna23415028

          On February 28, 2008, Senator McCaskill introduced legislation (S. 2678 (110th)). The bill’s title was “Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act.” The bill had four co-sponsors include Senators Clinton and Obama.

          https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/s2678/text

          The bill was referred to the Judiciary Committee and never voted on.

          On March 6th, 2008, a Republican lawyer Andrew Aames filed a complaint in Federal Court in Riverside, California. Aames said the purpose of the suit was to answer the question about McCain’s eligibility.

          3/11/2008
          https://www.heraldnet.com/news/can-mccain-legally-run-complaint-filed-in-court/

          3/13/2008
          https://abc7.com/archive/6016682/

          He dropped the suit several weeks later.

          On March 19th, Ted Olson and Laurence Tribe released their analysis of the eligibility question.

          http://journaloflaw.us/1%20Pub.%20L.%20Misc./2-2/JoL2-3,%20PLM2-2,%20Tribe%20and%20Olson.pdf

          3/28/2008
          https://www.cbsnews.com/news/lawyers-conclude-mccain-is-natural-born/#app

          On April 2nd, 2008, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on “Oversight of the Department of Homeland Security.” The only witness was Secretary Chertoff. The hearing lasted two and a half hours.

          https://www.c-span.org/video/?204674-1/homeland-security-oversight

          At about 38 minutes into the hearing Senator Leahy asks the Secretary about McCain’s eligibility. The entire exchange lasts about 50 seconds. There is no other discuss about eligibility for the remainder of the hearing.

          https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4999142/user-clip-mccain

          On April 10th, Senator McCaskill introduced Resolution 511 to Congress. Senator Leahy (a co-sponsor) attached his and Secretary Chertoff’s exchange to the record.

          https://books.google.com/books?id=BcrxJmO8YycC&pg=PA5818&lpg=PA5818&dq=senator+leahy+mccain+natural+born+citizen+hear+2008&source=bl&ots=_tYZd4OrXW&sig=ACfU3U2JEK5HSfNUsqJRDImeVH1XuuEPLg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjw1OmWnNL1AhVjkokEHYUxC8oQ6AF6BAg2EAI#v=onepage&q=senator%20leahy%20mccain%20natural%20born%20citizen%20hear%202008&f=false

          On April 24th the Senate Judiciary Committee took up Resolution 511 and passed it without amendment. Senator Leahy’s opening statement.

          https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/leahy_statement_04_24_08.pdf

          April 30th, Senate passes Resolution 511 by unanimous consent.

          https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/sres511/text

        3. Reiterated for reminder to everyone: SR511 debate cited a repealed naturalization act of 1790. If these 99 US Senators (JSM, III ab-STAINED) knew that and they probably did, then the debate should have been PROMPTLY halted and the continuance of this useless Senate Resolution should have stopped. Then the nasty 99 would never have been able to find another STATUTORY law document that cited the natural born Citizen phrase, other than in the US Constitution.

          But shirley, we must know that certain back-door dark forces pushed the US Senators to declare JSM, III a natural born Citizen, come hell or high water, while at-the-same-time ignoring the eligibility of the Keeeeenyan Kandidate. To question his eligibility would have been ray_cist and no shining star US Senator would have wanted that stain on their $700.00 Italian three-piece suit.

        4. Regardless of what you believe might have motivated senators in 2008, the baseless questioning of Obama’s place of birth (and, by extension, his natural-born citizenship) has since been critiqued as being motivated by racism.

          So fears about being labeled as a racist were well-founded because such critiques actually did happen.

  4. Using George Floyd as a role model for anything, besides being a bully and thief, is like using Ted Bundy as proper ‘First Date Etiquette.’

    Professor ‘Trash the masks’ Zorkophsky

    1. Isn’t it amazing how the Biden-Harris administration can be so totally wrong about everything? What are the chances?
      We were waiting for Trump to pardon Lt. Col. Terry Lakin, weren’t we?
      And as long as it apparently question time, when will Hillary ever see the inside of a jail?
      And speaking of Trump, as long as you have the corrupt Secretay of States apparates in place, you know, all the traitors who allowed Barry Soetoro’s name on the ballot in both 2008 and 2012, if Trump runs again we can all be amazed how he got more than one vote, and then the current ineligible VP can certify yet another fraudulent election.
      Hmmm, seems to be a trend, or am I just imagining it all?
      Last thought: I wish that the ‘War Room’ would push everyone being armed; I remember a 2012 presidential candidate pushing for every female, upon high school graduation, being awarded, along with her diploma, a lightweight .357 Magnum revolver. Still sounds like one heck of a good idea.

      Madam Shylock