'Dear Senator Rubio [as I wrote back today in response to a letter of his; somewhat fleshed out for this more detailed version],
'Thank you for your letter soliciting funds for your campaign for a return to the Senate, as a demographic-aware Republican. As you can see, I have returned your request, with no response. Except a request of mine. And that is, to ask that if you will come out against the Usurper Obama as ineligible for the presidential office - because of his not being a 'natural born' citizen; that being one born on the soil (or equivalent) of two U.S. citizen parents - then I'll consider supporting you.1
'The man who calls himself Barack Hussein Obama has stolen the presidency and undermined the Constitution. It is a crime and a shame. Republicans: DO something about it!'
We will be a people governed by self-determination [my thought process goes on]; not by an oppressive state. Or you will not have a political base any longer. Take your pick of responses. Join us in 'essential liberty' - one of the founding principles of the American Republic. It suits you better, than dependency on, and under the massive control of, the state. Your parents entered into the spirit of this nation - the spirit of 'the land of opportunity' - and 'made it happen' for them, and you. You their children are, and bear, the fruit of their efforts, and actions, in the soil of a free country. The Left wants 'it' to happen magically, with the hammer of federal laws, regulating The People - the state's servants - to within an inch of their constricted lives. And that's why this usurpation must not stand.
And won't. Not if a free people have anything to say about it.
Which they still have. If barely. If only to utter quietly, but firmly, to the enemies of freedom, who now want to make their move, of attempted takeover of the Republic, and as part of that move, are trying to take away the ability of freemen to defend themselves against the state with sufficient weaponry:
Let's hope it doesn't comes to what that implies. That is, civil war. For something larger is afoot here. And it augurs well for all humankind.
What has happened to some on the Left, I surmise - the others having just taken to the lure of Power Over Others - is that they have overlooked a 'mere detail'. in sensing that there is a better world awaiting humankind (not just Americans), and it has to do with the thought and concept of 'equality'. Yes, we are all equal. But as sons and daughters of a loving Creator - NOT materialistic creatures, with there being no Purpose to life - to the whole life experience of mere higher primates - but simply in and for itself only, as the atheists think, and would have us believe. And it is in that recognition, of our true identity, that our 'salvation' comes; in that we can now move from a lower level of consciousness regarding 'community' - whereby we are either in constant competition with one another for scarce resources, or are ruled by tyrants, forcing us to behave according to the rules of the dominant class at the time and of the place - to a higher level, whereby we share goods and services with one another - and give of our best in the process - out of a correspondingly higher motive than the age-old one of making a profit on the transaction. Out of the highest motive there could ever be:
out of gratitude to our Creator for life with meaning.
Out of, in a word: Love.
And in that kingdom, there is no competing quality, of Force. So, what the Left has overlooked, is 'the little detail' of the motive behind the 'new reality'. Where the individual is honored, for being a piece of one's own Self, as part of a larger Plan in and Purpose to life.. Not a mere higher primate browbeaten by the slavedrivers of an all-powerful and oppressive state - the 'collective'.
And with that change in attitude - from Power Over (in a particular demographic constellation, of, say, the 'progressives'/socialists vote, and the African American vote, and the Hispanic/Latino vote, and the under 30s vote, and the welfare class vote, and the single moms vote, and the LGBT vote - people considered as classes) to Power Within - we can, indeed, have a New World. Just not the one envisioned for it by the hardcore Left. Or the sinister far Right, with their fascist dream of takeover.
What is this New World going to look like? The implosion of the established financial system, and with it, the current economic systems. Morphing into a time of Abundance. With free energy devices liberating the lot of us. And helping us eliminate the last remnants of' 'money'. As we move up also to a level where we can create our food and other items out of the energy of the universe, with what are known as replicators. Until we don't even need them; as we move up to a plane of consciousness where we exist - as "facets of the great diamond of Being"2 - in our Lighbodies. And from which we can travel instantly wherever we wish - literally.3
All of this, because we awakened to the fact that we are more (much more) than our bodies. That it is all a matter of consciousness.
Or you can have your competing versions. And stay on the level of the problem.
Take your pick, America.
But be aware, Your pick is the pick for all of us 'higher primates'. Or, more accurately: us 'spiritual beings having a human experience'.
And about to supersede it.
For most of us, at least.
For the rest?
Pray that they will join us.
When they are ready to.
But the rest, now have promises to keep.
And therefore, with the rest of Us.
For We Are All One.
And All IS One.
In the vast scheme of things.
Which we are about to go exploring in earnest.
Liberated from these 'meat bodies' as we will become.
In the Light, and Love, of our more perfectly reflected Being.
1 But not for a run for the presidency yourself [I would have added if I had had the room]. You do realize that you are not eligible either, don't you?? Or have you succumbed to the same sophistry that has kept the Republican Party from calling Obama on his ineligibility. Be forewarned: It won't wash with patriots And patriots are not going to be rolled over and stepped all over, and pacified, in their own political party, like the average American has, for not hearing clearly the details of the point, because the opposition party, the Republicans, have failed to make that point clear.
For their own purposes, no doubt - and which may have had you and your future as part of that picture. But hear me clearly: You are not eligible, either, for that particular office - or, subsequent to the original Constitution, the office of the vice president as well, by (the proper, constitutional use of) amendment - because you were not born here of two U.S. citizen parents. The intention of the Founders, in putting that requirement into the Constitution for that specific office - and that specific federal office only - was to make sure that the prospective candidate for the office, who would also be the Commander in Chief of the Republic's military forces, would not be someone with dual loyalties and/or allegiances - like a dual citizen. Like - precisely like - Barack Hussein Obama. (And so the fraudulent birth certificate is only a crime on top of a crime against the Constitution - the rule of law in the country- already having been committed.)
And please don't succumb to the siren song of those who would say 'Oh it doesn't matter; a person doesn't necessarily have a dual loyalty just because they're a dual citizen'. This is a legal matter. A dual citizen has a dual allegiance whether he or she 'succumbs' to it or not. Others can have such loyalties for other reasons; but they are not as subject to the mental state as one born in the legal state.
And if 'the people' of a certain time in the nation's history want to change their rule of law - i,.e., the Constitution - they can do se. The Framers were not fools in this matter either: they built in an amending process. But - being no fools - they made sure that any changes in the compact between the States and the new federal government were not to be for light or transient reasons, i.e., a simple matter; the Constitution being designed to last. And for a republic. Not a democracy, with all of a democracy's weathervane proclivities.
The Left - as is their wont (as in seducing the interpretation of the Constitution away from the 'black-letter'-law interpretation, the bedrock, of 'original intent,' into the wide open spaces of 'contemporary standards' of belief about issues) - have tried to weaken this factor by playing fast and loose with the principle of 'original intent' in order to get their way more easily in the nation's court systems. But even they tried to do things the correct, legal way in this matter, of the properly-understood definition of a 'natural born' citizen, by trying eight times between 2003 and 2008 to get an amendment on it going through Congress - and failed each time even to get it out of committee. So it's obvious what has happened: the Democrats and the Republicans have done a quid pro quo on the matter. And have tried to just slip it by the American people (since both parties want the Constitution gone around on the issue).
Some of whom - the true patriots of the American Republic - are mad as hell about this theft of the country by 'pragmatic politics'. And aren't going to take it.
So we have a showdown coming on.
2 As Sanat Kumara - known as the Planetary Logos - is reported to have described it, via a channeler going by the 'professional' name of tazjima.
If you're into that sort of thing. If not: use your own words, to describe the Body of which we individual souls are all a Part.
3 Oh - and along the way, where we will have experienced contact - called 'Disclosure' - with our galactic neighbors - and beyond! - and with assorted Ascended Masters. Almost forgot that little detail…of The Plan.
P.S. A great article on this general subject area on tenthamendmentcenter.com today/Saturday, titled 'Establishment Left and Right Agree on Nullification' - Michael Boldin - Aug. 2. He wrapped up his article thusly:
'James Madison, known as the Father of the Constitution, would certainly agree:
the states who are parties thereto have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose, for arresting the progress of the evil and for maintaining, within their respective limits, the authorities, rights, and liberties, appertaining to them.
Smart tactic? Absolutely. It’s the only one that has even a chance of stopping federal power. And that’s why the establishment hates it.'
For my part, I posted the article on my FB page, and added a comment that went something like this (I don't know how to access these things, to check it out now):
'Excellent article. Both the establishment Left and the establishment Right don't want this 'nullification' (constitutional) procedure to take off, wanting centralized control, each for their own reasons, both of which having the same 'principle' to them: Power Over. The New World Order need not apply. Both Hitler and Stalin have left the building.'
…and this, from tenthamendmentcenter.com again:
'Setting the record Straight on The Daily Show's Nullification Bashing' - Mike Maharrey - Aug. 2
On July 31, the Daily Show did a little piece ridiculing nullification. The sketch centered around a Second Amendment Preservation Act passed by the Kentucky Senate during the last legislative session. (The bill died in the House.) After they make the bill’s sponsor look foolish, they bring in a nullification opponent to make the principle itself look foolish. LaRue County Judge/Executive Tommy Turner serves that role. I should note that in Kentucky, a judge/executive serves as the chief executive of a county – essentially the mayor of the county. They are not judges, and the job requires no legal training.
The following is a letter I sent to Judge/Executive Turner
Dear Judge Executive Turner,
I saw your little spot on the Daily Show.
I admit it was mildly amusing. A total distortion of nullification, but amusing nonetheless.
I know it’s supposed to be comedy, but the piece was clearly intended to make a political point. Little does the Daily crew realize – the joke is on them.
Did you know that the “nullification” bill passed by the Kentucky Senate was absolutely constitutional - even according to Supreme Court opinion? The bill was a simple noncompliance bill that would have prohibited state cooperation with any federal attempts to enforce acts violating the Second Amendment. It made no provision for state interference with federal actions.
There is absolutely ZERO serious dispute about the fact that the federal government cannot “commandeer” the states (or their political subdivisions, local governments) to carry out its laws. None. Even the Supreme Court has affirmed this multiple times.
In the 1992 case, New York v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress couldn’t require states to enact specified waste disposal regulations.
In the 1997 case, Printz v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government could not command state law enforcement authorities to conduct background checks on prospective handgun purchasers.
In the 2012 case, National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, the Supreme Court ruled that a significant expansion of Medicaid was not a valid exercise of Congress’s spending power, as it would coerce states to either accept the expansion or risk losing existing Medicaid funding.
In each of these cases, the Supreme Court made is quite clear that in their opinion, the federal government cannot require the states to act, or even coerce them to act through a threat to lose funding.
Furthermore, the doctrine of nullification itself stands on solid constitutional ground. James Madison and Thomas Jefferson first formalized the principles. Madison actually gave us the blueprint for dealing with federal overreach in Federalist 46 – before the Constitution was even ratified.
Should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular States, which would seldom fail to be the case, or even a warrantable measure be so, which may sometimes be the case, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union, the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassment created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, very serious impediments; and were the sentiments of several adjoining States happen to be in Union, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.
So you see, while the Daily show clearly intended to ridicule those of us who advance the principles of nullification, they actually serves as the clowns in this scenario, because they obviously have no idea what they are talking about.
For further reading, I highly recommend this article. http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/03/24/nullification-for-lawyers/
It delves more into the legal ground nullification is built on.
To his credit, Judge/Executive Turner seems like the type of person interested in learning. He sent me a courteous thank you and expressed interest in reading Our Last Hope: Rediscovering the Lost Path to Liberty.