Friday, 31 August 2012

Republican & Other Eunuchs

This blog opens with comments under a World Net Daily article headed 'Savage: Republican 'Eunuchs' Avoiding Big Issues' by radio talk show host Michael Savage (8/30); as an indication of how difficult I am finding it to let Obama's purloining of the American presidency go.  I am incensed at that business, and at his successful passing it off.  Do the American people think so little of their form of government that they don't understand the ramifications of the successful undercutting of the Constitution??  Apparently so.  Sigh......

Poor Fella, My Country.

(If you had been one of the Founders, or their wives, you would know what I mean.  Or someone on the other side, helping them get the nascent constitutional Republic off the ground...
     and N.B.:  I am 'kibitzer3'.  Or 'kibitzer2' on other sites.  Just observing what's going on in the country, and occasionally lobbing in a comment on the passing scene.)


  • jhep3304
    Flamethrowers and Drone attacks may win military battles but elections are won by winning the hearts and minds of electors.

  • Even the military needs an Officer in Charge to direct the assault and ya don't get to be an Officer in Charge until you convince someone that you have what it takes.
    I'm not a Romney fan but the electorate rejected the rantings of Paul and Guingrich.  If there is any chance to get the Obamaites out of office it's not going to be accomplished by scaring off the Independents and the Democrats who are dis-enchanted. Those of us old enough to remember (and voted for) Goldwater saw and are still experiencing the disaster that came about because his opponents made the crazed warhawk label stick.  I'm not willing to go down that road again just to hear "tough talk".  I'll take my chances with tough actions once in office.

    • Like
    • Reply

  • noavatar32.png
    "Those of us old enough to remember (and voted for) Goldwater saw and are still experiencing the disaster that came about because his opponents made the crazed warhawk label stick."  And this is precisely the point, jhep: The conservatives - who are the ones who are supposed to have learned things from history - should have learned a lesson from that debacle, about the control of 'the high ground' of the media.  It's all a page out of Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, about attacking your opponents not by the facts (whereby you could easily lose the 'debate') but by ridicule.  The Right should have been ready to anticipate such tactics, and have responses ready and overwhelmingly so.  If the Left's MSM tries that tactic, thousands if not millions of responses should be immediately forthcoming; to the stations/papers themselves, and to letters to the editor sites, talk show hosts, Internet bloggers, etc etc etc.  There is nothing wrong with a Ron Paul, e.g., telling it like it is; he just needs to be backed up immediately by an alert citizenry, without whom we lose our freedoms.

  • The RNC was a joke; a hollow, castrated shell of a political party's statement to the Public.  It stood for Motherhood and Apple Pie.  This is not how you alert & wake up the citizenry to the terrible dangers of the moment.  "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism."  Thomas Jefferson had it right; and especially for our day, when it is all on the line for the American Republic.  Wake up, Citizenry.  You have been co-opted, by experts in the field of 'public relations'.  Aka propaganda.  And it is all your fault, for thinking to 'let George do it' far too long.  He has done it, all right.  To you; and to our country, while you slept with your beer in hand and the TV on nearly 24/7.         

    • Edit
    • Reply
    • 0 minutes ago
    • in reply to jhep3304

There was a reply to my comment:

Dolphieness wrote, in response to kibitzer3: [8/31]
So your solution is to vote 3rd party, write-in or not vote. 

When we lose - due to non-thinkers like yourself - and are plunged into a dictatorship pushing Marxism - we will be happy to let you crumble with the others.

Anyone who is voting as you are talking - are cultists who do not see the bigger picture.  They do not know history. They do not comprehend that the President is for ALL of the USA  ... not just the left or right .......... BO forgot that point when he catered to the extreme left.

We need exactly what is happening at this point in time.  Next election or two - we could veer more right to re-balance the damage the left has done *IF* this incoming administration does not fix it.

What we need to focus on is filling congress with conservatives.  We need to give the President tools to get things done.  We need to get rid of traitor Reid and the other corrupt sell outs.

But - no... let's play the loser game like you want and keep BO in office. That is a great solution.   I will not vote 3rd candidate and the majority of voters out there will not either.  That guy you mention is an unknown quantity to the majority of us. 

But - go ahead and create the Perot effect... then when you want to whine about the consequences - step over with the left as you will have sold us out as much as they have. 

I tried to get back on to that thread for a Reply, but for whatever reason, the site wouldn't let me access it in its archives. (It may have been me; I'm not very expert at this sort of thing.)   If I could have gotten back in there, I would have responded in somewhat the following manner:

"You, and the public, need to think in terms of a larger scenario: It all hinges on The People calling BHO and the Democrat Party on his ineligibility; hinges , that is to say, on a particularly significant constitutional crime having been committed.

"Justice needs to be served in this matter.  Since it is not happening through the judicial branch of government -  for whatever all reasons - a final, game-changing recourse (before violent revolution) is for The People to Assemble, in non-violent civil disobedience, in Washington, D.C. - led by Oathkeepers and (unarmed) Militia and Article Twoers and Tenth Amendmenters and Second Amendmenters and Tea Partiers and those Occupy Movement people who understand what is really going down, and just your average Citizen, mad as hell and not going to take it anymore; and spelling each other in the ranks of The Assembled, until the Usurper vacates the office, for - at the very least - the posting on the Internet of a fraudulent document, that he and his coterie tried to palm off on the American people, and treating them like country bumpkins in the process, too stupid to tell the difference.   That forgery crime alone - which is not a minor one, is, in fact, a felony - disbars him from the office.  So -  out he must go.

"And the Democrat Party itself is rendered a criminal entity (it's called a RICO offense), for being a party to the crime.  And so too is the Republican Party, for obviously colluding with the Democrat Party in the cover-up, and in this whole sorry mess, and constitutional crisis.  Indeed, the sitting Congress itself needs to be dissolved, by The People, Assembled, at the same time, a) for being an accessory to and after the fact of the constitutional crime, and b) for not engaging in their constitutional responsibility, when the Executive goes rogue; it being Congress's constitutional job to call the Executive on his criminality, and moral turpitude.  That sin of omission put the ball back into the court of The People, who are, of course, the Congress's Masters.*  

"And with the dissolution of the sitting Congress by The People, they should appoint an Officer OF The People (this is all constitutionally allowed for), to call for elections within a time certain (which could be the ones already scheduled for November), and hold the Executive office in the interim; duly authorized by The People to clean out the Executive branch of the federal government of all those individuals in it who are the placemen and -women of the very corporations and other bodies that they are supposed to be regulating.  It being housecleaning time in the Republic of the United States of America.

"Before we all realize, wake up to the fact that we have just been playing parts, in a drama of our making; are not 'us' and 'them' but one another - just exchanging roles, in life after life, until we get rounded enough in our consciousnesses to move up the spiritual pathway towards our Higher Selves.  Which is now going to happen en masse.  Because it's time to leave the play-acting behind, and move up into a higher level of consciousness, more in resonance with 'the real thing': our Oneness with our Creator.

"All of this, to allow now for that wrapping-up, of the preliminary stages of our individual, and collective, development.  As we move - in perfect timing - now with Gaia, our lovely home away from Home, into a stage of Ascension. 

"The real stage we are on.  To say: in.  And in it up to our eyeballs, as it were.  For it is happening this year, in earthly time - is happening as we speak. 

"Welcome to the last stages of our long, long journey, in 3D; going now for Gold."

I might have said this.   

However, I'll - we'll - never know, now.

We will never know a lot of things.  Because our karma is being released, through divine Grace, as we call it a wrap, and head for - or at least, closer to -



* We needn't be involving the Judicial branch of the federal government at this point; unless it can be proven that the Supreme Court failed in its duty to honor legal challenges to the eligibility status of BHO.  I
      would assume it would be up to the several States to get involved in judicial questions at their level of responsibility.            


P.S.  And as a sort of footnote to this blog; this, from another article on WND, this one of today  (8l/31), titled 'Scalia Flummoxed About Natural Born Citizenship' by Larry Klayman; who, I understand, is trying to bring one of the several 'eligibility' claims to court.  His blog told about a chance encounter he had with Justice Scalia, in which Klayman asked him :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 under that requirement of office).  As Klayman reports:"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?'"  Klayman seemed to lose heart at this 'attitude' of one of the most conservative Supreme Court Justices.  Hence the background to some of the commentary below (reminder: I am kibitzer3):

  • kibitzer3
  • I like your basic article, Larry, but you are jumping to conclusions.  Just because Scalia evidenced non-understanding of the meaning of the term doesn't mean that he wouldn't be open to a well-developed argument on the subject.  
  • It's not time for revolution. Yet.
  • Edit
  • Reply
  • 0 minutes ago

  • Are you kidding?  "That means born in the United States to two American citizen parents."-   what? Nowhere is there any reason to come to that conclusion.  Not only do you not provide any evidence for your argument,  there isn't any evidence anywhere of what you say. That makes you a liar.  Now when I'lI see the name Larry Klayman, I'll recognize it as a reference to a dishonest person.
  • Like
  • Reply
  • 42 minutes agp

  • avatar32_1.jpg
  • genie
  •  So, when Justice Waites referenced NBC as being someone born here of parents who are citizens in  MINOR v. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S. 162 (1874) he was just pulling that out of his backside?
  • Like
  • Reply
  • 10 minutes ago
  • in reply to tom1020

  • avatar32.jpg
  • tom1020
  •  Read the case. It doesn't define an NBC at all, it only implies that one or the other (native birth or citizen parents ) are a prerequisite.
  • Like
  • Reply
  • 1 minute ago
  • in reply to genie

  • noavatar32.png
  • kibitzer3
  • You are misquoting the decision, and I presume - because of your stance - on purpose.  We're talking the natural born category, not native born.  Besides, judicial investigators like Leo Donofrio and Mario Apuzzo have demonstrated in spades the understanding of the term at the time of its inclusion in the Constitution of the new Republic.  There is also the letter to G. Washington by John Jay asking him to make sure that the term got into the document being discussed at the C. Convention, as a PARTICULAR requirement for that PARTICULAR federal office, said person also to be the Commander in Chief of the new republic's military forces.  They all wanted to make damn sure that any candidate for that PARTICULAR office never had DUAL LOYALTIES OR ALLEGIANCES.  Are you lacking in intelligence, or are you just a troll?      


Relief - And Congratulations

Finally getting around to reading an article in a recent copy of the bi-weekly National Review has made me realize that perhaps I should comment in a little more detail about my reference in my last blog to the elimination of private property in the New Dispensation; the Great Turning that we are heading towards, as we speak.  Let me explain.

In reading the article - which was, in my estimation, a sort of prologue to the article that I was initially drawn to (which I have commented on before: an article on Supreme Court precedents, by Richard A. Epstein and Mario Loyola, titled 'By the Roots', and which I can also highly recommend) - a feeling of relief came over me.  Titled 'The Line That Held'  - by Jonathan H. Adler and Nathaniel Stewart1 - it was 'deep and brief' summary of the ramifications of the ObamaCare law and decision.  That decision was a bit of a fudge; but an important constitutional principle held under considerable political pressure.  Hopefully, this will prove to have been an historic high-water mark.  From now on, the tide towards centralization - and in the current instance, socialism/communism - turns, and federalism wins the day.  Well done, all involved in this line-holding,.  You bent; but you did not break.

A pertinent section from the article, before I proceed with my essential point:

"Since a mandate to make purchases from a private company was unprecedented, the case did not require the Court to revisit its earlier Commerce Clause decisions.  The challenge was a rear-guard action, not a frontal assault on existing doctrine.  Nevertheless, the stakes were high.  The federal government's theory of the Commerce Clause, if adopted by the Court, would have dealt a serious new blow to the principle that the federal government has limited and enumerated powers [my emphases].  In ruling that the mandates was unconstitutional, the Eleventh Circuit had concluded that the government's Commerce Clause theory would 'obliterat[e] the boundaries inherent in the system of enumerated congressional powers'.  A majority of the Supreme Court endorsed this view.  Chief Justice Roberts wrote that the government's position 'would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority,' warning that it would 'fundamentally chang[e] the relation between the citizen and the Federal Government'." Indeed.  But to wrap this quote up:

"The conservative dissenters agreed with the chief justice on this point, observing that the Commerce Clause justification for the mandate 'threatens [our constitutional order] because it gives such an expansive meaning to the Commerce Clause that all [authors' s emphasis] private conduct (including failure to act) becomes subject to federal control, effectively destroying the Constitution's division of governmental powers'."  [my emphasis]   

So, a good summary of what was at stake here, in this case: a fundamental transformation of the form of government in America.  Now, I know that some Democrats have honorable reasons for wishing for such a fundamental transformation; feeling that as things stand, they're not getting a fair deal, that the only winners are the guys with big bucks, who can buy their way into even more power than they already have, in too-big-to-fail bank loans and 'middle class welfare' and such.  So I do understand the thinking on the classic Left.  But I also understand the thinking of others 'over there', who do not have such honorable intentions in mind.  

What's really going on here?   What's going on here, essentially, is the consciousness battle between mere materialism and a larger perspective on the purpose of the life experience.  Consider.

Just because socialism/communism - belief in 'equality' over 'liberty'2 - contain some ''good' elements in them, like an attitude of cooperation over competition, doesn't mean that they are ideal (rather than merely idealistic).  A for-instance.  If I were living in a communist country, just working for the state - with no purpose to life really except survival - why should I put myself out for more than sheer survival?  At some point the system will break down, with individual subjects saying, 'If you want more from me, pay me more.  I would be worth more to you then; would have more value to the state.'  And that person would be right; because there is no other point to the life experience in such an ideological state.  Sheer Darwinism; sheer survival of the fittest.  Sheer Marxism; sheer materialism.  Some value in cooperative living.  But mere survival nevertheless, as the point.

And there are people in the West in general, and America in particular, who want to impose such an ideology on the country.  For whatever reasons.  Many blacks, and other minorities, who feel that they don't get 'a fair shake' in a system honoring 'essential liberty' , where the citizens can ignore the needs of the minorities because they are free to do so; to say, the state can't force them to 'be good'.  And many women, who feel that they are oppressed in a patriarchal society, and want 'the state' to force others to give them 'a fair shake'.  And so forth.  Including  a large welfare-class population, that has largely been created by the very interference of 'the state' that they want more of,3 because they are living in a sea of relative prosperity (from just such a free society as they are complaining about) and don't have the financial wherewithal to 'keep up with the Joneses'.  And so, pressure for free education ('It's a right!'), and free healthcare ('It's a right!') and so forth and so on.  The 'entitlement' mentality at work - precisely because those expressing it have been seduced into doing so, and have given in to that emotional/mental pressure.  

Life ain't fair.  So I'll vote for somebody who will make it more fair, for me…

And just so, do we lose sight of the larger picture.  The picture, that tells us that life wasn't supposed to be this way.  And doesn't have to be.  If we will 'lift our eyes unto the hills,' as it were.  Understand, that the universe has Purpose and that purpose is Good.  And come back into alignment with that energy, of Good, and Purpose.

Live, to say, a Godly life.  Not a material one.  And 'all else will be added unto' us, in the Abundance and Joy of life lived with Purpose.  With a higher purpose than just survival.      

And a major danger of overthrowing the form of government that we have in America - that is, a government that guarantees the individual essential liberty - is that it will cause us to discard the notion of the importance of the individual - as having a soul; and being personally responsible for his or her actions in life - and submerge the individual into just being a cipher in the collective, living only to serve the collective.  Not his/her own soul's development.

And (and here I come to the point that I have been circling around for a bit in this article) it is only the Constitution in this country that stands between the rule of law and the rule of men - between individual rights, and unlimited governmental power.  And socialists, with their beady ant eyes, glowing collectively in the dark of their twilight-time almost-takeover, can hardly wait to consolidate that total overthrow.  Which would have happened by now, if the Supreme Court had not come up with the decision that it did on ObamaCare.  And saved the day, from totalitarian takeover.  For make no mistake.  This was not essentially about healthcare.  It was about power.  

And not power TO The People.  But power OVER The People.  For the state than can give you everything, can take everything away from you.  

And on that note: Also to point out that it is not that the so-called Right has been any better in this matter, of trying to overthrow the Constitution, for their purposes.  A proposed New World Order from the Left under the Marxist Obama has been counterbalanced by a similarly-attempted NWO from the Right, in the hoped-for takeover under the George the Second regime of the fascists - collectivists in their own right.  And 'right', only so to speak.   Too many people seem to think that the 'right' in politics means the big bugger - the politician in cahoots with the corporate-world, monopolistic-minded power brokers.  They are at as much of a distance from the legitimate Right in politics as the more ideological socialist-communists are from the legitimate Left.4 There is legitimate difference of opinion in the battleground of the centrist Left and Right; the classic battleground, tug-of-war between 'the little guy' - the worker - and 'the country-club pal' - the owner class.  At the extremes of each political polarity are birds of a similar feather: collectivists.  Totalitarian-minded ideologues. 

Shoo them away.  And let's get together in the middle.  With the common cause, of going up, now, in consciousness, to a higher level of being.   One that recognizes our essential identity, as sparks of the One Holy Being, that has allowed all of this, and this sort of thing, to happen.  For a purpose.

The Purpose of our growth, and continued growth, in consciousness.  Approaching, now, a state of Unity.  As we leave the old battlegrounds behind (and their purposes).  And unite, in service to the true One.  And, because we are part of the One: in service to ourselves as well.

But in that order.     

Just a closing comment on the Constitution; to give it its full due.         

I will confess that I have a really hard time with the liberal mentality that a) tries to make of the Constitution a wet noodle - excuse me; a 'living document', subject to the mere 'interpretation' of the Supreme Court justices, simply from their personal political proclivities; and, in furtherance of their attempts to weaken that document, which is the law and the rule of law in the nation, b) disparages the Founding Fathers in terms of slavery and the lack of the vote for women, and so forth and so silly on.  I happen to feel and think that the Founders of the American experiment in self-government did an excellent job, given their time and place.  And as the collective consciousness in The People rose over the years, changes in their basic rule of law were made.  As these sorts of things do unfold.  So I for one do not see leftwing complaints about 'the ruling class of the time' as holding much water.  If you want to change specifics in your rule of law in this nation, you can certainly do so.  It is not made easy; no.  For good reason.  So that it is not for light and transient reasons.  The American Republic intended - by its Founders - to last the tests of time.  And well done to them, say I, for that intention.  The intention, to keep the citizenry in this experiment of personal responsibility from falling prey to the old political vices, of government by monarchy or theocracy or oligarchy or strong-man rule, and treating The People as mere subjects of the power elite, rather than sovereigns in their own right.  Responsible for themselves, as befitting souls with free will - to determine their own destiny; not have it done for them, by an all-powerful state, whatever its nature.  

'We hold these truths to be self-evident…'  They may have been, to them.  But times change.

Don't we know.   

So be careful about fooling around with the Constitution.  As was done under the rule of George the Second, in giving unconstitutional powers to the Executive in terms of the detention of citizens without due process, and so forth.  And as was done by the nomination for the national presidency of the man who now in his life calls himself Barack Hussein Obama; who was clearly not eligible for that august office, in not being a 'natural born' citizen, as opposed to any other kind of citizen, native or naturalized;' that is to say, was not born of two citizen parents, was subject to dual loyalties/allegiances.  Precisely what the Founders did their best to avoid, in that particular office, which is also of the Commander in Chief of the military forces of the nation.  

Those bewigged boys were not dummies; knew, from history, whereof they deliberated.

And decided.

And if you want to change their decisions: do so.

With all due respect.  To say:

By the numbers.  So to speak.  Which are clearly spelled out in the document in question.  

The contract, in question.     

And under attack.

As we speak.

And which I will defend; to the utmost.

Until we supersede it, in going up to a new level of reality, and leave 'the old' behind.  The old paradigm of separation  and its illusion.  And realize - fully get - that We Are One.  

The classroom over.  To dissolve, into our memories.

Lest we forget. 




1 Adler is a professor and the director of the Center for Business Law and Regulation at the Case Western Reserve University School of Law; Stewart is an attorney and a co-author of the Heritage Foundation legal memo 'Why the :Personal Mandate to Buy Health Insurance Is Unprecedented and Unconstitutional'.

2 I had my eyes opened to what was going on in the world when I read an article about the Brown v. Board of Education decision by the Supreme Court, back in 1954, that led to desegregation of schools in the South - that were deliberately segregated, by the State, in what was/is called de jure style, i.e., by law, rather than de facto, i.e., by fact of living circumstances - where the parents lived, which, if not determined by the State, was simply a matter of life circumstances; was not the domain of the federal government to regulate - yet.  I understand that some on the Left want people to be regulated to within an inch of their lives, and so support forced integration, i.e., de jure style.  I am arguing against that fundamental change in the form of the U.S. government.   But I'll continue with all that in the main body of this article. 
      Here I just want to comment on that eye-opening of mine, when I read that the Supreme Court of the time - the so-called Warren Court (which got the reputation for being involved with 'judicial activism', a form of oligarchical ruling over the people that has come down in controversy to this day, and is part of what I am speaking about) - had taken 'on board' in their deliberations on the issue the writings of a Swedish socialist scholar/educator by the name of Gunnar Myrdal, who had written a book on this general subject, of education.  I forget the name of his book; but I remember well reading in it the following eye-opening sentence:
     "In the battle between liberty and equality, equality is slowly winning.'
     So this is , indeed, a fundamental transformation of the U.S. form of government that is going on, in some people's minds.  And no wonder, then, the high pitch of the battle: On the one hand, those who want 'essential liberty' - i.e., the default position of that type of governance, to prevail in the country; and on the other, those who want 'equality' to rule the day - literally.   Meaning, as ruled on and determined by the state.
     Heavy-duty stuff, this 'governing style' we are involved in.    

3 'Created by' in the sense that 'the government' foolishly - or intentionally; by the extremists - in essence, paid single females to have babies; and so, of course, they did.  And more.  And more.  And then their children started down the same road.  In a case of misdirected 'heart'.
     Let's be clear.  No one is 'entitled' - as a matter of right - to the earnings of any other person.  Some taxes are necessary, for roads and infrastructure and so forth.  But not to hand out to people who are not pulling their weight.  And especially not to have babies on the taxpayers' dime, many of whom can't afford to have their own babies, and are being responsible citizens in not doing so.
     No wonder so many people have started figuring out how to avoid income taxes.  I don't blame them.  The government has gotten too cavalier with their money.  
     In military overspending as well.  But ALL the boondoggles going on; and that go on, when the mentality of 'easy pickings' takes over.  And the nation begins its descent into collapse.  
     Not to go into the scam of the 16th Amendment, and the creation of the so-called Federal Reserve, here.  For another time.    

4 I remember a conversation with a 'leftist' state senator, in California, in the Bay Area, who held a get-to-know-each-other meeting at some public venue, where I got talking to him afterwards.  I forget the specifics of the conversation; but it involved this difference, between the 'soft' left and the 'hard' left.  He was a very nice guy, and no fool, and agreed with me as to the difference, and even mentioned how people like him would be the first ones to be taken out 'comes the revolution', after they had served their purpose.  I don't think he called himself 'a useful idiot', in the words of Lenin; but the idea was there - that they were the ones who would be looked on as paving the way for the overthrow.  But he was willing lo stand in that fire, because he believed in the essence of his position; the 'legitimate' aspect that I refer to.  And good for him in that; he was, after all, reflecting the sentiments of his electorate.          

Wednesday, 29 August 2012

The Ideal State...

...Of Human Affairs.

The John Birch Society has a near-ideal take on that, in my opinion.

To the extent that the JBS believes in taking personal responsibility for one's actions, first and foremost, and therefore in smaller government - letting the people get on with their lives as they see fit, not as the state sees fit for them - I am for them.  If they ever started believing in the likes of monopoly, with the state siding with particular players against others in a free and fair market, or in untrammeled liberty to the point of licentiousness - intruding upon the free-will rights of others -  I would be against them.

I haven't seen any sign of that yet in their literature.  But it could happen; because they seem sometimes to side for Business over reasonable regulation, like reasonable environmental constraints, against pollution of air and water and soil, e.g. - our Commons.  I am not for a totally withered state.  It has a role to play in human affairs.  Just not a totally dominant one.  You might just as well 'phone your part in', in such a sterile society.  So: moderation in all things.

Except belief in the sacredness of all life.   There, I want to see zealotry.

But then, when the profit motive is eliminated, and we do things - share goods and services with one another; and give of our best in the process - out of a higher motive - out of the highest motive there could ever be; which is: out of gratitude to our Creator for life with meaning; out of, in a word, Love - then we won't be tempted, e.g., to pollute the environment anyway.  For we will realize, then - really get - that all is 'God'.  Is sacred.  And that we are a part of the whole, of God.

If anybody ever asks you, Who are you, I suggest that you reply: 'I am you.  As you are me.  As we are One: the All That Is; the That I Am.'  In which we live and move and have our being.  A Being that is now going up, in consciousness, and vibratory rate, to a new, higher level of being - each of us, in our 'part of the whole' individuality,* and of Being - the Whole of Us.  Because

It's time.

So the concept of private property - as it has been known - is to end.

But only in this sacred scenario.

And don't let anybody tell you different.  Or force you to make things different, on purely a material level.  The old ways of being on this planet - with just a linear, in-your-face vision of life - now to end.  For the larger, wholistic awareness of What It's All About to kick in, in earnest.

Imagine, that.

And join the move up.

To the ideal state of being:

At One with your Creator.

And so be all of Us.


* I like the words of John Donne in this regard, in his XVIIth Meditation; the famed 'For Whom The Bell Tolls' meditation:

'No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main..."

But there is a part of that meditation - an earlier part - that speaks to me even more profoundly.  May I share it with you at this point: 

'The bell doth toll for him that thinks it doth; and though it intermit again, yet from that minute that that occasion wrought upon him, he is united to God.'

It is my hope that you have had one of those moments in this life.  And will join me - and millions; billions of others - in the next, and major, step of our journey Home.  Just about to be taken. About which, read on. 

Tuesday, 28 August 2012

Couldn't Help Myself

Still, today, stewing over what has happened in America to awareness of its form of government, and its commitment to its Constitution; to say, to the rule of law.  This (as cleaned up a little punctuation-wise) to a site at World Net Daily, a blog by Lord Christopher Monckton, titled 'A Sad Farewell to the U.S. Constitution'

  • kibitzer3
    Lord Monckton is to be congratulated for his care about and in-depth investigation of this matter.  (And what is this, that a British Lord has to point out these things to the American public??  How embarrassing.)  But his investigation needs to go a little further.  Some specific points in that regard:
    * The NBC issue is not just about jus soli (born of the soil).  It is about jus sanguinis (born of the blood; i.e.,, of two citizen parents).  Of the two aspects, the latter was the more uppermost in the minds of the Founders: in particular to make sure that the presidential candidate did not have parental ties to Great Britain (ironically, in the instance).  And the "friend" of our first president was not our first attorney general, but the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court - of all things; conspicuous by their absence in this current mess.  (As to the issue of the definition of an NBC, Lord Monckton may be confused between English common law and that applicable here at the time.)  So it doesn't matter if he was born in Hawaii or not.  By his testimony, he is not an NBC.  (That his true birth father may not have been Obama Sr. does not change the fact that crimes have now been committed, that he is responsible for; whether they were committed by others for him or not.  'The Buck Stops Here,' as Pres. Truman was wont to say.)  
    * In his review of the concerns about the LFBC, he really should have noted, in particular: a) the insert of 'African' for Obama Sr.'s race (not a term used, then or now); b) the name of the Local Registrar.  'U.K.L.Lee' - as in ukelele.  Is somebody pulling our legs??  I wouldn't put it past the forger, in particular because of the 'smiley face' he or she drew in the 'A' of the name stamp of the State Registrar at the bottom of the document.  (Check it out.)  So, the American public is being laughed at to our faces, by these misfits; obviously in the security that the MSM is in the tank with them.  So it will take a major effort by those who believe in Truth to expose these rascals.  They are obviously betting that we don't have it in us to do so.  So far, they have been proven right.
    As for questions about the Republican Party and Congress: a) Obviously the Republican Party honchos were involved in this scam, because the Repubs were involved with the Dems in the five attempts leading up to 2008 to get an amendment to the Constitution over this very NBC issue going through Congress, and they failed even to get it out of committee.  So the Repubs have been on board with the end-around play that ensued; obviously hoping to have a quid pro quo out of it, and put one of their own up for either Pres or VP in the future, via this doorway that they helped create - basically trashing the Constitution in the process.  So they are as guilty of a RICO crime as the Dems are.  
    Which is the answer to jgsr's curiosity about "how Mr CMOB 'thinks' bo can be removed from Office...".  The sitting Congress itself is up for criminal charges, for being an accessory to and after the fact of the one committed by BHO and his cronies.  So what needs to happen - should happen - is a march on Washington of The People, Assembled, 1) calling on the Usurper to vacate the office forthwith; 2) dissolving the sitting Congress, for not doing their job - and 'not' doing it in a criminal manner (for which particularly knowing members therein need to face criminal charges, like Nancy Pelosi); and 3) appointing an Officer OF The People, who will call for elections within a time certain (it could coincide with those already scheduled), and in the meantime, clean out the Augean stables of the executive branch of the federal government of all those placemen and -women who are there looking after the interests of the bodies that they are supposed to be regulating.
    But not to get into too much of the detail of the answer here.  Except to point out that this is all legal, that is to say, constitutional.  We The People are not stymied for Justice to be served just because the sitting Congress does not do its job.  We are their masters.  They work for us.  We can fire them wholesale, if they have committed a crime wholesale.
    If the Americans of this day and age are up to the task of saving their country. 
    What say YOU, Citizen??    
    show less
  • jgsr
    Mr. Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, is obviously a successful and intelligent man. The major weakness of Intelligence as a credential, for all things opined, is the knowledge void regarding the recognition that "something" is wrong and actually being able to DO something about the recognized "wrong". Impeaching bo by the House of Representatives, could most definitely be done...BUT, an Impeachment STILL requires a Trial in the "remove" bo from office would require a 2/3rds vote in the Senate Trial.That is the ONLY way to remove a sitting other legal method is available.
    I'm extremely curious to know EXACTLY how Mr. CMOB "thinks" bo can be removed from Office because of his fictitious background information....if it requires 2/3rds of the Senate?
    The ability to "point out" a problem, is certainly not a exhibition of intelligence.
    Identifying a problem, followed my problem resolution, IS a display of intelligence.
    Is it possible, that Mr. CMOB actually thinks criticizing Romney, IS the solution to the problem of bo's manufactured background?
    A Question for Mr. CMOB?
    Exactly how much Romney criticism would it take to insure that 2/3rds of the Senate will vote to remove bo from Office...?
    ....and another little "pesky" problem....70 days until the Election....Clinton's Impeachment Process took over 6 moths of Congress' focus.
    I personally believe two realities: 1) bo's background is fabricated. (2) getting a 2/3rds vote in the Senate to remove bo from office ABSOLUTELY will not work....a 2/3rds vote to remove bo is not going to happen, regardless of how many times Mr. CMOB criticizes Mitt Romney for not running his election as Mr. CMOB is convinced is the right way...of course Mr. CMOB has NEVER run for President himself, but that shouldn't be all that important
    show less


The Democrats seem to have captured the high ground, in succeeding to demonize anybody who questions BHO's birth and background by calling them - labeling them - 'birthers'.  The establishment Republicans throw up their hands in horror at the very idea of submitting themselves to being thus labeled the equivalent of (successfully implanted in their minds by the Dems) a 'pointy-headed crackpot'.  And just so, has the Saul Alinsky 'Rules for Radicals' technique of ridiculing your opponents, rather than engaging with them in debate, won the day.  A terrible day for democracy.  And a day to be remembered.  As the demise of the American Republic.

At least, almost......What will it take to salvage it??

Ignore the Republicans.  They have sold out the country.  Stand up for what you believe is right.  Why should you care what someone calls you?  Is your ego so big that you can't take an attempt (a calculated attempt) at ridicule?  Stand for what you believe, and others will respond to that position as they will.  And if someone calls you names - e.g., as I have heard, 'racist' and 'birther' and whatever all for various positions; the first, for being anti-illegal immigration - which covers an awful lot of honest, legal immigrants who are opposed to those coming into the country illegally; and so forth and so on - that just demonstrates the paucity of their position. If all they can do is call you names, you have won the debate, hands down.  But apparently, big-ego Republicans need not apply, for such common sense.

If someone calls you a 'birther', say in response: "I'm not sure precisely what you mean by that term.  Personally, I consider myself a constitutionalist.  Do you want to debate on that term?  For, one is either a constitutionalist or an anti-constitutionalist; one is either for the rule of law or the rule of men.  Which are you for??"

Come on, folks.  Let's have the debate.  Let the Republicans go.  They have had their day.  They no longer speak for the grassroots of America - if they ever did.  Well, they did, in part - as the party of 'the big tent', trying to hold all those opposed to big-spending Democrats.  But that tent won't hold all those constituencies anymore.  Once the Republican Party itself proved to be pusillanimous, it can no longer serve that role.  It's time for a change.

He said, who believes a big, BIG change is on the way anyway...

...but I feel strongly about how we get there.  The consciousness with which we approach The Cosmic Unveiling.  Or The Great Awakening.  However one might 'label' it.

Speaking of labels......                

Some Thoughts Recently About (the) US

I title this blog this way, to draw attention to the fact/idea that I'm not just talking about the United States, but about US - Humanity, as a whole.  Sovereign souls (not just sovereign citizens of a particular nation; as opposed to subjects of a monarchy or theocracy or oligarchy or other dictatorial regime), with free will as our birthright, as souls.  Not just servile tenders of our material Masters' estates.

And so, to a couple of Comments that I have made recently, on different blog sites, with my dander up. The first, to a blog on World Net Daily, about a politician who 'put his foot in it' on an issue, that is not the real, most apposite aspect of that issue that should be being addressed by the American public.  In  my opinion; as someone more concerned about the rule of law in America than personal aspects of the subject addressed:

WND: 'Akin Not Far Off Base In Rape Comment'  - by Jane M. Orient, M.D.   8/27

A conservative web site, and a conservative political party, shouldn't be wasting their time on such distractions.  The real political issue here is that the federal government should never have been given a role in the issue of abortion - and THAT'S where the national conservative position should be aimed at: the repeal of Roe v. Wade.  The subject of abortion is a state issue in the (federal) form of government that the United States embodies - should be.  It is beyond the parameters of  the powers invested in the federal government, which are LIMITED and DELEGATED - "few and defined," in the words of the Father of the Constitution, James Madison.  To allow it to become a federal issue is to buy into the position of the liberals, that the Constitution is "a living document".  Of course it is.  It covers all manner of issues of the day; and if you want to change it, there is a clear protocol by which to do so.
Wake up, conservatives.  You're being had by people who want to make of the Constitution "just a damn piece of paper" - and that goes for people on both sides of the current political aisle.  And whether they want a socialistic New World Order or a fascistic one, they should be opposed strenuously by anybody who presumes to call themselves conservative.
If 'conservative' is the new liberal (with the Democrat Party having moved so far left, and political nature apparently abhorring a vacuum), maybe true conservatives should jettison the term, and call themselves, more accurately, constitutionalists.  Because that is what the debate is getting down to: the U.S.form of government as it has been historically, i.e., under the rule of law, or the form to be changed, to one under the rule of men.
I know which one I prefer.  Having read history.  And agreeing with the Founding Fathers.  Who were not just a bunch of pretty wigged faces.    [They fought a revolution; remember??]      

And then this contribution to 'the debate'; late last night:

American Thinker: 'The Birther Issue Comes Up in Debate' - Jack Cashill - 8/27

Terry Gain
With respect, I don't like Cashill's script at all. Romney should simply say he accepts that Obama was born in HA ( even if, like me, he has no idea where Obama was born) but he should say that it's incredible that both Obama and his wife have stated he was born in Kenya. It's weird why Obama would do that, but no less weird than his approach to budgets and the economy.
show more show less

  • Like
  • Reply
  • 9 hours ago
  • in reply to FeralCat

kibitzer3   [8/28]
This is all so silly, and aggravating. Romney should say that "even if Mr. Obama WAS born in Hawaii - which we don't know, because the BC he posted on the Internet has been proven to be a forgery; and why is that, Mr., er, President? - just being born in the country doesn't make a person a "natural born citizen", which is the specific citizen-type requirement for the office, which requires having been born of two citizen parents" - and let's get this issue OUT THERE.

The Constitution is dangling by a thread, because the Republicans have allowed themselves to be castrated by the Saul Alinsky Rules for Radicals' 'ridicule your opponents' offensive. Come ON, people. Grow a pair. Time's a'wasting. The Republic has been just about shot down, from both sides of the current political aisle.

It's time for a change, all right REAL change. And that means in the Republican Party, too. As the Democrat Party moves to the Left, its main opposition in America should become an outright constitutionalist party. Before we lose it forever, to s.o.b.'s on BOTH sides of the aisle. Which is becoming an artificial barrier as we speak.

Sigh...I suppose I shouldn't let myself get so carried away, on current political issues; since we're facing a major 'revolution', and going up, to a higher level of consciousness, for both Humanity and Gaia - this 'unit of celestial consciousness' (as the Earth has been well and truly described) that has been our home away from Home, and given us such a bounteous and beautiful place to 'strut and fret our hour upon the stage, and then be heard no more', until our next go 'round, opportunity to 'set things right', in the reincarnational clearing-of-karma and consciousness-raising process that we have been involved in - that we agreed to.  But I get so tired, at the level of inattention to detail, the wandering of our eye from the ball, that humanity engages in - and even now; so close to Ascension out of the theater, the ball park that we have been given to clean up our act - gain the degrees of awareness that we need to in order to ascend...

Come on, folks.  We can do better than this.  I'm counting on you to do better than this...

And then it's another day.  And I'll calm down.  And trust the process...

But there's always going to be that little wiggle in there; that little concern, about US.  If enough of US are going to make it.  To make the cut.  To use another theater, and sporting, metaphor......

Let's go, team.  Let's GO.

Let go.  To go.  

Monday, 27 August 2012

Words Have Meanings - & Power

Listening to the Ron Paul speech last night outwith the Republican Nominating Convention, and the fervor of his audience's response, I was moved to write (as 'kibitzer3', one of my nom de plumes on the 'net) the following on the Comments thread to the particular email site I accessed that carried it (a 'spiritual' site, dedicated to the Ascension of humanity):

2 Responses to Ron Paul Speech, Tampa Florida, August 26, 2012
  • a63491ea0be6096d6c37d344bd317b2d.png
  • DrinkDeep says:
    August 27, 2012 at 1:42 am
    Ron Paul hit it out of the park again! icon_wink.gif 

  • I’m so glad you posted this…it’s a great speech, and when he said that if he were president, 3000 people wouldn’t have died on 911…holy cow! Enjoy, folks – thanks so much, Jean*

  • 45017dc20ce2dd468632e1029df454c2.png
  • kibitzer3 says:
    August 27, 2012 at 3:09 am
    "In a legitimate and high-conscious world, neither the Democrat nor the Republican Parties would be in business right now, and the public would have a wider choice than they have now of a number of political parties, some newly organized to fill the vacuum left by the dissolution of these two entities, laid low by their criminal actions. 

  • I refer to the role both Parties played in the candidacy in 2008 of the man who in this day and age calls himself Barack Hussein Obama (there is serious question about the man even about his name, let alone so many other things about him). The Democrat Party knew he was constitutionally ineligible for that particular office, as signaled by the way their Nominating Convention Chair Nancy Pelosi worded her statements to the various states’ election officials; and the Republican Party also knew he was ineligible, because both parties had tried numerous times in the five years leading up to that election to get a constitutional amendment started through Congress to allow less than a “natural born” citizen to run for that office. All of those efforts failed even to get out of committee. So TPTB of both political parties obviously colluded in a decision just to quietly do an end-around of the Constitution, and fake their way into their Brave New post-constitutional World.  This was not only deceitful.  It was illegal. And when BHO finally – under pressure – posted an alleged copy of his long-form BC on the Internet, which has, according to detailed analysis by a number of electronic-document experts, turned out to be a forgery (and not even a good one at that, according to them, and anybody reviewing their analyses), he committed a crime right there. And not just a minor crime: a felony. Bingo.

  • And the sitting Congress itself would be out on its ear right now in such a world of legitimacy and rules – after a march on Washington of The People, Assembled – for being the party of legal ‘standing’ to this serious matter, of the overthrowing of the U.S. Constitution. But I’ll keep this summary of the case, of major national significance, strictly to the issue of the two main political parties. They signed off on this crime, each for their own purposes; the Republicans, obviously looking for a quid pro quo: for the chance to run one of their own ineligible people for that office (or the vice-presidency, now being constitutionally covered by the same requirement), and slipping him/her through the same door as had been opened by the candidacy of BHO. It’s all enough to have had every one of the Founding Fathers turning over in their graves, and calling out for justice to be served – and a similar voice from every citizen who has ever sworn an oath of allegiance to the Constitution of the United States, that it be protected from all enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC. 

  • How did we become such a generation of failures to The Dream, of a nation of self-governed sovereign citizens, taking responsibility along with the authority?? Another subject, for another time, perhaps. For this time, I just point out that a) the man currently occupying the office of the presidency of the United States is there under false pretenses, plus has committed crimes while in that position, and so needs to be made to vacate the office forthwith; b) the sitting Congress should have been dissolved, for being an accessory to and after the fact of the original crime, and new elections held by now; and c) both political parties involved in the crime should have been up before a court on, at the very least, RICO statutes. So we could now have been having decent, more clear-cut choices for federal political office, representing the will of The People. Not of special interests. 

  • If we had done our job, as self-governing individuals; holding the torch of Liberty high, for all humankind to gain inspiration from.  Alas. We have blown a major opportunity to prove our worth, in the court of simple human justice.

  • Perhaps there is still time, to salvage SOMETHING from this embarrassing debacle…"

  • I continued to think of this issue overnight, and find this morning that I am still incensed over this matter.  The matter, essentially, of the purloining of the U.S. presidency.  But as to the specific matter, of how it happened, and the lesson, hopefully, learned from it; the lesson, that words have meanings, and you tamper with those meanings at your peril.  So take, e.g., the meaning of the phrase 'natural born citizen.' as appears in the Constitution as a qualifying requirement for a candidate for the office of the presidency - and only that particular federal office, which not so incidentally is as well of the Commander in Chief of the nation's military forces.*
It was very clear what the meaning of the term was at the time and in the minds of those who put it in the Constitution and ratified that document - that compact; and if you're going to change the meaning of a term in a contract, you have to obtain the permission of both/all parties to the contract.  And there has yet to be an amendment to the Constitution in this regard.  As indicated above, that approach has been tried; but the attempts, to get such an amendment through the Congress - the appropriate, legislative branch of the federal government, to present to the States for sufficient ratification - have all failed.  And you can't obtain by chicanery what you haven't obtained by legal means.  You can try.  But you should be slapped down for your ignominious efforts.

So, in short: Just declaring unilaterally that you have changed the definition of a term in a contract doesn't cut it.  That is not legality.  That is tyranny.  And it must not be allowed to stand.  In this instance, or any other such instance.  For, to move from the rule of law to the rule of men is a decision fraught with significance, and peril. 

I urge you, America: Do not go there.  We have already seen, in the pages and experience of history, what that sort of decision can lead to.  The result has consistently been not pretty.  Has been, in point of fact: extremely ugly.  I abjure you to reconsider the path you have started down.  For a people have not only a right, but a duty - to humanity - to overthrow tyranny.  And every form thereof; in the words of Thomas Jefferson.  In his statement of principle; to wit: "I have sworn upon the Altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."  

I add the whole quote here because it is my impression that the country's public schools have done a poor job of passing on to the generations the basics of United States History and Government, and many citizens these days may well not know some of the stirring statements of the statesmen and women of our past.  It appears to be, sometimes, to my observation, a matter of many citizens these days being 'strangers in a strange land',** that they know little about.  A pity.  And an insight, as to why so many citizens seem not to have an affinity with what has happened in this country, in its history, to give many other citizens such tender feelings for their home country, and its Constitution, that others seem not to have any real understanding of.  To the point where they would go along with the labeling of those true citizens 'terrorists', for standing up for it so staunchly, against those who would overthrow it, for a little 'temporary safety' - in the words of another of its Founding Fathers.

Oh dear.   Do I really have to spell this one out?  Apparently so.  This, from Benjamin Franklin (and I refuse to spell out who he was.  Look it up):

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

And there is an interesting point here, in giving this quote, that I will end my little jeremiad on.  That is, that this quote has taken a number of forms over the years, as people have misquoted it, and others have picked up on the misquotes.  Thus, it also appears as 'They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little...' etc.  And the point I want to make, and end on, is that those misquotes, though 'changes' from the original, have changed nothing of substance about his original statement.

Unlike the modern rendering, by people with an agenda, of the term 'natural born citizen'.   A crucial term, with a specific meaning, to and for a proper reading of the Constitution.    

And those who would finagle with it, to serve their expedient ends, need not apply.  Or there will be the devil to pay.

The devil being in the details.

P.S.  And a further comment, here, of mine, on another thread, just because it feels appropriate, to end this sharing with; this from David Wilcock's 'divine cosmos' blog:

August 25, 2012
Anonymous @August 24:

Thanks much for the links to the Darryl Robert Schoon story.

Some people feel that the corruption we are faced with is so pervasive, and TPTB so powerful, that the truth of things will never come out. But it will. It will. 'All the hidden things will be revealed.' Because the party's over. The play has been the thing by which to capture the conscience of the king, and have every soul prove its worth. Some are worth far more than others; and they will be rewarded. The others? Ah, well. They have made their bed; and they will have to 'lie' in it, as it were. In the meantime: may other good sources continue to come out, as you have drawn our attention to. As things now come to a head, and we 'head' for Ascension.

To say: The role-playing has had its day.  It's time for the real thing.

And a bit further to that, and then I'll make this a wrap; this, in response to my opening posting:

Jean says:
Let me suggest that Mother Earth is not one bit interested in ‘saving this embarrassing debacle.” She is creating something entirely new and different, and we would make better use of our time were we to envision what sort of a world we want to co-create with her, rather on dwelling on our present problems and issues. When all is said and doen, very few of these people presently in government will remain. Our government will not look the same or be the same – so why are we dwelling on it!
  • kibitzer3 says:
    Fair point. I would just say, briefly, in reply: Because we can learn important things from such things. Things about ourselves; things about the need for higher consciousness & awareness than we have often demonstrated, along the way. But: point taken.



* The office of the Vice Presidency has subsequently been constitutionally altered to require the same qualification (12th Amendment).  Non-natural born citizens need not apply.  I don't care from which political party.
     And neither should you. 

** familiar with the expression?  Any idea where it comes from??  Look it up.  A clue: Robert Heinlein.