Friday, 28 February 2014

Thoughts, Reflections On Where We're At

Many of us still have a ways to go yet…to get to the I Am within us.

1) from 'Former VP Candidate: Democrats Won Through Voter Fraud In Swing States' - Wayne Allyn Root - Feb. 27 (orig. posted at Conservative Tribune)

Your comment is awaiting moderation. 

Thanks for posting this, Dom. This, really, is the key to the elections. Not so much which party spends the most money on advertising. But Election Integrity. Clean the registration rolls of all illegal voters, and go back to paper ballots with a clear paper trail – or watch the nation go down the gurgler. As just another tinpot, corrupt dictatorship.
This nation deserves better of its current citizens. We need to rise to the occasion - True the Vote, regardless of one’s political party – or hang our heads in shame. There is no more important work, now, than this. What good does it do to work for a particular candidate if the vote is a scam, a fraud, a deceit??? Get out and force the issue in your state. Time’s a'wasting.
2) from 2012: What's the 'real' truth?: 'The Way of Life in The Fifth Dimension' - Jim Self - Feb. 12; posted Feb. 27 
kibitzer3 says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation. 

Ah yes: the realm of Choice; exploring “the most divergent ranges of frequencies”. Of the likes of those on the one hand who want to vote themselves and ‘the poor’ money out of the pockets of others (rich or not), experiencing and expressing thereby such as envy, judgment, arrogance; and on the other hand, those who experience and express the likes of greed, indifference, and judgment and arrogance as well. Sentencing themselves, all, thereby to some more seasoning in the Land of Duality. (Wherever that will take place.)
The Separation of the sheep from the goats is taking place. Contrary to what is being said – promised? – on some ‘spiritual’ sites, not every soul is going to make the grade, pass the test. There will be no free rides in this contest. Because some energies will not be able to withstand the change of vibratory ‘climate’.

Wednesday, 26 February 2014

Things Are Hotting Up

from '"Surrender Your Firearms," Connecticut Tells Unregistered Gun Owners' - Feb. 25 (orig. posted on Info - Kit Daniels - Feb. 25/posted Feb. 26) 
('State orders owners of newly-banned, unregistered firearms to turn them all in')

Stan Stanfield · Top Commenter · Stanford University

I need some help with the law here. The Bill of Rights is a list of examples of the kinds of powers that were not being ceded to the federal government in the Constitution ("enumerated powers"). But the citizens of each state still had to secure their rights in their state constitutions. The D of I talks about "certain unalienable Rights" ("that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"), but they need to be secured by "governments" - in such as state constitutions dealing with state issues, and federal constitutions dealing with the national issues. 

For example, the Constitution disallows ex post facto laws - by the federal government (Art. 1, Sect. 9). But each state's position on such rests on its constitution. Does the CT Constitution bar ex post facto laws? 

This all may rest on the meaning of the section in the 14th Amendment that says:"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States…" We need to find out precisely what this means. The 14th Amendment didn't wipe out the 9th or 10th Amendments; so I'm in a bit of a quandary here. Any help appreciated.

Also, there may be some historical factor here, where some governmental issues - like the right for individuals to keep and bear arms - were simply understood to be the case amongst the thirteen colonies, and those rights didn't NEED to be specifically enumerated in the state constitutions. But I never learned any of this in school. Nor did many citizens, I'll wager. More's the pity.

 · 3 seconds ago  (Feb. 26)

Tuesday, 25 February 2014

The NBC Issue In Detail - 2


Duke-Jinx commented on Aubrey Lee Mason's blog post"Senate Resolution 511 (SR-511) and what it means for Americans" on Tea Party Command Center

Comment by Duke-Jinx 12 hours ago (Feb. 25)

Yes Stan, your three points are correct within my understandings and research.  So, I add this treatise... ( one I'm sure you have read ) to help others end the persistent confusion.

And yes sir. McCains BC does say Colon Hospital, Panama Railroad Co.

Citations following the textual part of this article are not simply to provide you the references that support our assertions. They also provide you citations to reading material that will help you understand the 1770 period in our History. To understand our reasoning, it is important that the reader understands the Colonial people, and especially the Founders with their educational backgrounds, their political fears and the nation’s interrelationship with other nations at the time leading up to the War of Independence. In this short article we could not provide all those dimensions, but we hope the reader will study the references to fully understand the time period during which these things took place. Unfortunately there are citations to books which are not available to download online, so to get the whole picture, the reader will need to find a library to borrow the needed materials.

1. In the time frame of 1740—1790, “Natural Law” had grown from the 17th century studies of the early enlightenment philosophers (Grotius, Pufendorf, Rousseau, Locke, de Wolf) into a reason-based concept that was based on the fact that all humans have inherent animal qualities that contribute to laws worldwide that are essentially the same.

2. Emer de Vattel, a Swiss scholar, published a now world famous work titled Law of Nations in French in 1758.  The Vattel work built upon the earlier philosophy of Natural Law, especially that of de Wolf.  But what made Vattel’s work so famous was his adoption of a more modern and easier-to-understand format, which was written like a scientific thesis. It started out with definitions that were worked into the initial textual material in a manner very different from the heavy, incomprehensible writing style of the earlier philosophers. His work is written like a modern do-it-yourself project where he captured the entire history and essence of Natural Law but mixed it into a means to build a new nation based on a new type of constitution or a way of establishing an acceptable set of rules for running a nation in a common sense manner based on the experience of political science as it developed over the centuries.

3. The delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention understood what they were voting on when they voted unanimously on Sept. 7, 1787 to add a clause to Article 2, Section 1, Paragraph 5 of the Presidential Eligibility Requirements. They had added an eligibility clause for anyone seeking the Office of the President that requires that they be a “natural born Citizen,” which means that both of his parents had to be citizens of the U.S. on the date of his birth.

4. In the period 1750-1770, the French language had become of growing interest in the world of American politics and had been of major importance to the academic world, especially for American attorneys and in particular how it relates to Natural Law in the time period 1730 and thereafter.

5.  The great majority of the delegates at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 was attorneys and at that time attorneys were primarily men from the upper classes who were typically very well educated at the few colleges and universities of merit in the U.S. For the most part the educational curricula in those schools followed the Classical Education model of Great Britain.

6. (a) After 1750, many leaders in the U.S. had become aware that the Classical Educational Model was not adequate for the times. This resulted in movements to modernize the curricula of American colleges and universities, in particular to introduce a new emphasis on the teaching of Law in the colleges and universities as opposed to the traditional apprenticeship programs being employed to qualify attorneys. Specifically, for many years prior to 1789, Thomas Jefferson, the then Governor of Virginia, had tried to pass a law in Virginia that would have placed William and Mary, an Anglican facility, in charge of the Virginia State University system and to modernize the curriculum. While his efforts were unsuccessful because of opposition from other church groups, Jefferson was instrumental in abolishing the Greek and Hebrew Professorships at William and Mary and initiating courses in Natural Law and Political Science; likewise, the College of Philadelphia (now Pennsylvania University) had initiated similar changes in the time period 1760-1780 which focused more specifically on legal areas, including Natural Law, to better prepare students to become attorneys. In the time period 1760-1780, the College of New Jersey (now Princeton) was only getting started with the new curriculum and was extremely focused on being a modern, more flexible educational facility compared to universities utilizing the Classical Model. Harvard and Yale were less rapid in modernizing in the time period 1760-1780, except that each had added the study of the French Language to their curricula.

6. (b) John Jay, subsequently the first  Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, had written a letter on July 25, 1787, to George Washington, who was then the President of the Constitutional Convention, which was in session.  In this letter, John Jay expressed a fear for the nation if the office of the President should fall into the hands of a person with an allegiance to a foreign power. To reduce the chance for this from occurring Mr. Jay recommended including the provision in the President’s Eligibility Requirements that the President must be a “natural born Citizen” in addition to the other age eligibility and term of residency requirements that would suffice to adequately protect the nation from a person with a foreign allegiance from ever becoming President.

6. (c) From the floor of the Constitutional  Convention on Sept. 4, 1787, a delegate voiced an objection to the then proposed  language for Article 2, the Presidential Eligibility Requirements, and Article 2 was sent back to the committee for further consideration. On Sept. 7 the Presidential Eligibility Requirements issue of Article 2 was again brought to the floor, was brought to a vote and unanimously approved. It included the “Natural Born Citizen” requirement initially proposed by John Jay.

7.  As noted above, the vast majority of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention were attorneys. They had attended the very best colleges and universities in the U.S., which had modernized their curriculum and that some of the delegate attorneys had attended British universities, which, in the time period-1770, also included the concepts of Natural Law in their Philosophy curricula.

8. Three copies of the 1775 version of the book Law of Nations, written in French by Emer de Vattel in 1758, had been sent to Ben Franklin by its publisher. Mr. Franklin had sent one copy to the Library Company of Philadelphia (LCP).  In that same year, Mr. Franklin had sent a letter to the publisher informing him that he had been often loaning his copy to other congressman and they were in admiration of Vattel. The LCP was located on the 2nd floor of the Constitutional Convention building in 1787, and arrangements had been completed to provide library membership rights in the LCP on the second floor to all the Constitutional Convention delegates. The 1775 French version of Law of Nations was in the LCP catalog (titled in French: Les Droit des gens), as well as the Law of Nations, 1760 English version. The catalog was also an  inventory of the books on the shelf in 1789 which encompass the dates of the 1787 Constitutional Convention.

9. (a) We contend that it is inconceivable that 53 of the most able and highly educated gentleman in the United States, including 33 attorneys educated at the finest universities, as a group would not understand the meaning of the term, “natural born Citizen” before they would have cast a unanimous vote to include the term “natural born Citizen” in the President’s Eligibility Requirements. Further it is our contention that the delegates understood that the term “natural born Citizen” had a connection to Natural Law at the time the convention delegates voted unanimously to include the “natural born Citizen” language in Article 2.

9. (b) The preamble of the Declaration of Independence issued by the majority of the Congressmen of this nation on July 4, 1776 made reference to Natural Law and was based on the Natural Law concepts as set forth by Vattel, Wolf and Pufendorf.

Thomas Jefferson, who authored the Declaration of Independence, had been previously responsible for writing the then new Constitution for the State of Virginia which was also based on the Natural Law principles of those same philosophers. In addition, shortly after the 1787 Constitutional Convention completed its work, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, then President of the College of William and Mary, in 1789 significantly changed that college’s Educational Model by eliminating the Greek and Hebrew requirements and created a new regime involving Natural Law and Political Science as the new curricula elements. James Madison had been the instructor for these courses prior to the 1789 educational regime change.

Thus, the concepts of Natural Law, set out in the Declaration of Independence, in the U.S. Constitution and in the State of Virginia Constitution, had never before in the history of the World been employed in the establishment of a representative republic.  It was the first time that a colony of a ruling power had set forth in a declaration to the sovereign that the sovereign had violated the Natural Rights of the colonists.

10. During the period that followed the Declaration of Independence in 1776 the principles of Liberty and Natural Law, as mentioned in the Preface of said Declaration, were frequently addressed by the American congressmen and that any interpretation of the term “natural born Citizen” at the time of the Signing of the Constitution in 1787 would be the position taken by Justices Fuller and Harlan in their dissent in the Wong Kim Ark  169 U.S. 715 case in which they wrote, “Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit, it is unreasonable that ...Natural Born Citizen applied to (just) anybody.” These Supreme Court Justices clearly meant that the Court must refer to a meaning under Natural Law because it cannot be that just any child born in the U.S. would become a citizen by birth here because that would not address the danger they then feared of persons with an allegiance to a foreign power could become citizens.

11. (a) On Sept. 4, 1787, during the consideration by the delegates of the Presidential Eligibility Requirements in Article 2, Paragraph 5, there was a very powerful OBJECTION expressed that had to have been heard and understood by the Convention. Specifically, the OBJECTION was: “NO NUMBER OF YEARS (of residence in the U.S.) COULD POSSIBLY PREPARE A FOREIGNER FOR THAT PLACE [the presidency].” Based on the widely felt fear of the damage that a foreigner could unleash on the nation if a foreigner filled the highest position of our government, a change was requested. To address this fear, the committee submitted a change to the Eligibility Requirements for the Office of the President in Article 2, Section 1, Paragraph 5, specifically that the president must be a “natural born Citizen.”

11. (b)(1) We contend that from the 6th Century B.C., known as the “Classical Period,” Greek and Roman prose literature was the basis for the Educational Model in the colleges in the American colonies during the 1740s, specifically as it related to the study of politics and nations. This field encompassed the “Natural Law”102 philosophy, and Law of Nations evolved under the influence of the Enlightenment.101

11. (b)(2) By 1760 the term “Natural Law” had become widely understood by the learned and that it had permeated to all201.  So suffused203 was a concern for natural law and its intellectual origins at the time of the Revolution that, as noted above, the opening line of the Declaration of Independence makes a direct reference to the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God as the initial appeal to mankind for the justness of the American cause. Natural Law was thus the ultimate antidote to British claims of supremacy.204

11. (b)(3) By 1770 Emer de Vattel had become world renowned for his wonderful work Law of Nations and that it was the most influential treatise for the colonists.301 Specifically, he helped them in many areas including partnering302 to the exclusion of the sovereign, defensive unions with weaker states303, formation of perpetual confederation, as well as strategy for growth by association.304

There is absolutely no question but that Vattel was unrivaled in his influence on the American founders306, most all of whom were fluent in French and fully understood the French version of Law of Nations.

11. (b)(4) In view of the widespread publicity and familiarity with Natural Law, it is our contention and belief that the words “natural born,” which are part of the term “natural born Citizen,” were selected by the drafting committee because the words “natural born” indicate to any legally informed person that this is a special type of citizenship which is recognized in the Natural Law and in Vattel’s Law of Nations.

11. (b)(5) Natural Law recognizes the term jus sanguinis as a special form of citizenship in which a child’s nationality is determined by the citizenship of both of the child’s parents. This is a special form of citizenship, which is closely related to the citizenship of a child under section 212 of Vattel’s Law of Nations.

11. (b)(6) Since the term “natural born Citizen” was added to the Article 2 Presidential Eligibility Requirements of the Constitution to address the fear of those with foreign allegiances ascending to the presidency, everyone familiar with Vattel’s Law of Nations would know that Section 212 of Vattel’s Book I, Chapter 19 was involved because that section defines in French “Les naturels ou indigenes” are those persons born in a country of parents [plural] that are citizens.  The complete sentence, Les naturels ou indigenes,” sont ceux qui sont nés dans le pays, de parents citoyens in French translates to “The natural or native, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

To further establish the relevance of Section 212, the last line of that section specifically makes it clear that this provision is directed to the special emotional relationship to the country if a child is born of parents who are citizens rather than foreigners.  The last sentence states, “...if he is born there of a foreigner it will only be his place of birth, and not his country.” It is not essential to show that there was an English language translation at the date of the 1787 Convention that matches the English words, “natural born Citizen.” The committee carefully chose the English words “natural born Citizen” for the Constitution as John Jay submitted them so that the sentence would have the identical meaning as the 1758 Vattel sentence in French and to make it obvious that the term refers to the Natural Law and to Vattel’s Law of Nations.

To view the new comment, visit:


Comment by Stan Stanfield 1 second ago (Feb. 25)

Duke-Jinx: Thank you for this enlightening and valuable treatise.  Some Obama apologists have tried to claim that the NBC term excludes only naturalized citizens, under the premise that the constitutional Framers were going by English common law; which, in any event, only talks about 'natural born SUBJECTS'.  'Subjects' the Americans no longer were; were sovereigns in their own right, creating a Constitution for sovereigns - government of, by, and for 'the people'.  
Also of interest in this 'debate' is that A. Hamilton proposed at the Convention that a presidential candidate only needed to be a 'citizen' - and his proposal was SPECIFICALLY REJECTED.
All, important points for the record.  (Esp. that de Vattel's book was right there in the C. Convention's building site itself.  If not right at B. Franklin's side…)  Thanks again for your research into the matter.  


Monday, 24 February 2014

Signs & Portents - cont'd

(This discussion is continued from a previous post at this article site.  I'm beginning to get no little unhappy with 'Republicans,' even those calling themselves 'conservatives,' who continue to try to push the NBC barrow out of the way, and dump its constitution load somewhere out of sight.)

from Tea Party C.C.: 'Conservative legend Thomas Sowell turns on Ted Cruz ' - Nat'l Dir Dee - Feb. 19 (orig. posted at Feb. 19)


Reply by robert james courtney 6 hours ago (Feb. 23)

To R baker and all, Sowell is not a rino! He is a conservative thru and thru. Our focus is to WIN 'one', IF YOU WILL  , FOR THE cONSTITUTION AND dEC OF iNDEPENDENCE  "our mission"---- any bonding -- in sincerity between him and his fellow Senators- may lead to Pres. consideration. It's win win at that point. That Is I believe, is Sowell's message. As in that neat song, Bing and Sachmo--- ya gotta accent the Positive , rule out the Negative  and don't mess with Mr Inbetween. We need " How to fix's and how to 'do's  ideas for accomplishment!   coming from our  Teaparty thinkers.    Rj courtney

  • Reply

Permalink Reply by Stan Stanfield just now (just gone Feb. 24)

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here, R.J., but if you are alluding to the idea of Ted learning to get along with "his fellow Senators" which action "may lead to Pres. consideration," forget it.
There will be no greater hue and cry go up against his candidacy for the presidency than amongst true conservatives, aka constitutionalists.  He is NOT ELIGIBLE, for not being a NBC.  I know that some Republicans are trying to fudge that little qualification a little - after all, the Republican Party colluded with the Democrat honchos in allowing Obama to be a candidate; and hence the trouble we're in now, with a man in that office who took that signal as carte blanche to do whatever he wanted to, with the Constitution reduced to being a mere "piece of paper," to quote the just-previous pretender to the throne, in this age of aspirants to leadership in their respective authoritarian New World Order ambitions.  But neither of these totalitarian camps will win the day.  So "Teaparty thinkers" should get clear on what their job is.  Which is to make sure that neither camp does so.  So let's stop with the pussy-footing around of the issue.     


Permalink Reply by Patriotpapa2010 on Thursday (Feb. 20)

I agree with Sowell. Cruz seems to be positioning himself for political gain. Namely, the White House that like Obama, he is in FACT completely ineligible for. Before you start screaming he is eligible and that I don't know what I'm talking about, read up on Constitutional eligibility and Natural Born. It all starts with being born on American soil.
  • Reply

Permalink Reply by van nolan price on Thursday

I agree on the questionability of his eligibility, but I will wait as to what his motives are, after all he is one of a few fighting for conservatism. 

  • Reply

Reply by Joanne Mortensen 8 hours ago (Feb. 24)


  • Reply

Permalink Reply by Stan Stanfield 1 second ago (Feb. 24)

Precisely.  Which amounts to zero.  And that's why Obama should have been removed from that office a long time ago - should never have been allowed to become a candidate for that particular office (and that particular office ONLY; for good reason, not to go into in detail here) in the first place.  Which means that the Republican Party honchos did a deal with the Democrat Party honchos, for both of them to stonewall on the issue.  Which amounts not only to corruption.  But to crime.
Which they both still need to pay for.
In the meantime: it's a wonderful teaching moment, Joanne.  Cruz should hold a major press conference and announce that he is turning down requests to run for the presidency in 2016 because he is not eligible for the office -"and here's why; and this is also why Obama is an illegal president, and needs to be removed from the office forthwith." 
Otherwise, we lose the rule of law in this country, with the Constitution becoming a dead letter, and the nation is up for grabs by any tyrant who wants to have a go at it; precisely like ancient Rome.  (As they say: Those who don't [learn from] history are doomed to repeat it.)
Of course, Cruz could suggest at the same time, if only in answer to a planted question, that if anybody wanted to mount a campaign for an amendment to the Constitution on the Natural Born Citizen issue, he wouldn't stand in their way.  Which would drive the point home even further.  The point, that we have been under usurped authority ever since Obama was sworn into office the first time, by a criminally compliant Supreme Court Chief Justice.  Another crime that needs to be corrected.
This is all by way of saying, that if this nation is ever to return to the rule of law, these are the sorts of things that need to take place.
And tempus fugit.   


P.S. As for the expression immediately above about history and learning from it: a) I originally said in my post "read" instead of "learn from," thus correcting the expression herewith; and b) If the context would have allowed for it, I could have extrapolated a bit on the theme, and gone on to say something like "For, life is a school; and you repeat a 'grade' until you 'get' it; the reincarnational return a tool to help us awaken.  As David Wilcock has pointed out in his recent book 'The Synchronicity Key,' history does indeed repeat itself - literally; with time (which is part of the illusion that we live in) being cyclical rather than linear.  Events repeat themselves approx. every 2160 years, the period of time associated with the movement of the Sun through 'the heavens' - the classroom - one zodiacal House at a time; with, often, the same souls reincarnating each time, until 'we get it right'.
     It's a good, stimulating read.  I recommend it.  As I do his weekly video series on gaiamtv called 'Wisdom Teachings'.  Things are really beginning to 'hot up' there.  Which means, here...           
       (Example: The blurb for today's episode, titled 'Ascension Teachings for a Golden Age':
       "We live in a special time for humanity. Our ascension, beyond the physical realm, is becoming increasingly likely. But that great shift is not guaranteed for anyone. Ascension is the fulfillment of why we are here. We must learn what that purpose is and how we can best achieve it. To help us unveil these mysteries, David Wilcock lays the foundation for the ascension teachings for the coming golden age in this presentation originally webcast February 24, 2014.")

Sunday, 23 February 2014

Signs & Portents

For some reason, the last letter of the alphabet has fro en on my keyboard (see??).  I suppose that I should take it as a sign, or something; if only a sign that I have overdone its use, in all my postings over the 'natural born citie en' issue.  So, until I can get my keyboard to a computer repair person tomorrow - and for however long it takes to repair such a condition - this will be my last word on that subject.  And, of course, on any subject, until I can get my keyboard back.  So, for now:

1) from tea 'General: Congress 'cowards' on Bengha i' - U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely -  Feb. 23 - (orig. posted at - Feb. 17)
('It’s time [to] pull the veil off what I would posit is the biggest cover-up in American history. Adm. James Lyons has a plausible theory, suggesting a staged, botched kidnapping. There are also others.
It’s time to show the courage of Woods and Doherty and convene the select committee.')

Stan Stanfield · Top Commenter · Stanford University  (Feb. 23)

Gen. Vallely: Agreed. Time, and past. 

Adm. Lyons' theory is a plausible one (else why issue orders to 'stand down'?). Another I have heard, that could also fit well, is that the O administration didn't want any attention drawn to the gun running going on (including to al Qaeda elements amongst the Syrian rebels) out of that site (else why the heavy presence of the CIA there?), and so hoped to keep the whole thing low key, with the cover story about the anti-Islam video. With too much info coming out, and including the killing of Stevens and his aide (at first, before the retired SEALS got involved), they had to go to Plan B - a genuine terrorist attack - and still try to keep the public's attention away from just why the attack. The gun-running angle is still shoved far in the background of this terrible incident. 

Heads need to roll over it. Not a cover kept pulled over it.



Reply · 6 · Like · 59 minutes ago

Stan Stanfield · Top Commenter · Stanford University

Glen Shipman: Actually, the whole lot needs to be stood down by their employers - We the People - for not acting to call for BHO's removal from office for not being eligible FOR that office in the first place, on the NBC issue. Federal Marshals/Constitutional Sheriffs and the military should round them up and throw them out of office, as another part of The People's Posse does the same with BHO and his illegal team in the WH and federal executive-branch agencies. They took over the country in a coup; they need to be kicked out in a counter-revolutionary act, returning the nation to the rule of law - the Constitution. A new government to be installed, by cleansed-vote means - no more dead people voting, people voting more than once, non-eligible and non-identified people voting. 

It's time to cleanse the Augean stables of the federal government and its processes. The same with the States; but first things first. Barry Soetoro/Soebarkah: Out of that dishonored office. The Founding Fathers have turned over in their graves far enough.

Reply · Like · 2 seconds ago  (Feb. 23)


2) from 'BACHMANN: Congress must have support from voters to impeach Obama' - Feb. 23 (orig. posted at - Feb. 22) 
('For impeachment to succeed, voters must pool their support into a campaign that would indict Obama and strip him of office.
“Has he violated the law?” Bachmann said. “In my opinion, yes, the President of the United States has violated the law, but we must have the support of the American people in order to have impeachment.”')

  • Stan Stanfield · Top Commenter · Stanford University
  • This is all so missing the point. The man is illegally occupying that office - he never qualified for it in the first place, under the NBC requirement for that office (and that office only). It shouldn't take an act of impeachment to remove him from the office (that's for legally sitting, just wayward, occupants in the office anyway). All it takes is the will of The People, to insist that the law of the land - the Constitution - be obeyed, even by the top dog. (Who died and made him Emperor?)
  • And the Congress needs to go, too, for not honoring their constitutional responsibility in such a matter. What needs to happen is that Federal Marshals and Constitutional Sheriffs and the military need to toss all sitting members of Congress out of office - for dereliction of duty - as another part of The People's Posse does the same with BHO and his illegal team in the WH and federal executive-branch agencies. They took over the country in a coup; they need to be kicked out in a counter-revolutionary act, returning the nation to the rule of law - the Constitution. A new government to be installed, by cleansed-vote means - no more dead people voting, people voting more than once, non-eligible and non-identified people voting.
  • It's time to cleanse the Augean stables of the federal government and its processes. The same with the States; but first things first. Barry Soetoro/Soebarkah: Out of that dishonored office. The Founding Fathers have turned over in their graves far enough. 
  • If you want to mean business, you need to mean business.

  • Reply · Like · Unfollow Post · 2 seconds ago  (Feb. 23)


3) from 'The Late Great Ann Coulter' - Joseph Farah - Feb. 23
('What happened to…Ann Coulter?')


Napoleon 5 hours ago

I believe Ann's thinking we have to have a smaller conservative playing field or we're going to split the vote and lose to the libs indefinitely. I'm beginning to agree. Even a RINO believes in God, salutes the flag, defends our guns and likes the military. That's far more than any liberal.



  • DonReynolds Napoleon an hour ago 

  • We have voted for the lesser of two evils for many years. Admittedly a lesser evil, but evil nonetheless. What the Rockefeller Republicans do not understand is...... we are not going to do that ever again. If the party wants to win, they are going to have to stop spitting in the faces of their own party base.
  • 1
  • Reply

  • Nyte Napoleon 4 hours ago 

  • Well,

  • that doesn't explain why anyone would vote for every republican unless that Republican represents their views. Just because some is a republican, that does not make them a conservative. I am unlikely to vote for a Republican who supports same sex marriage, abortion or an unnecessary used of military force.

  • Or a Republican who want to give tax breaks to companies who are shipping jobs overseas.

  • I chagrined at Miss Coulter's choice to be on that board, but am even more chagrined she is still on it.
  • 2
  • Reply

    • Napoleon Nyte 4 hours ago 

    • You just split the vote for the conservatives, and the libs won again. See how that works? 
      <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><
      "When the foundations are being destroyed, what can the righteous do ?" Psalm 11: 3

    • To fear the LORD is to hate evil; Proverb 8:13

    • The prudent see danger and take refuge, but the simple keep going and suffer for it. Prov 27:12 
      20 We wait in hope for the Lord;
      he is our help and our shield.
      21 In him our hearts rejoice,
      for we trust in his holy name.
      22 May your unfailing love rest upon us, O Lord,
      even as we put our hope in you. Ps 33 NIV
    • Reply
      • DonReynolds Napoleon an hour ago 

      • Here is how it works, Napoleon.....
        The Republican Party will continue to lose as long as they insist on running RINOs and Liberals for public office, because the base are not going to sheepishly follow any more.
        When there is little or no difference between Republican and Democrat, why should we care who wins? 
      • 2
      • Reply

      • Napoleon DonReynolds an hour ago 

      • I see what you're saying. But nothings lower than a socialist Democrat. That was actually Hitler's party. Even a RINO has, in the past at least, basic human decency. Your method will leave us with full blown Demowits forever. Not sure I can handle that. 
        <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><
        "When the foundations are being destroyed, what can the righteous do ?" Psalm 11: 3

      • To fear the LORD is to hate evil; Proverb 8:13

      • The prudent see danger and take refuge, but the simple keep going and suffer for it. Prov 27:12 
        20 We wait in hope for the Lord;
        he is our help and our shield.
        21 In him our hearts rejoice,
        for we trust in his holy name.
        22 May your unfailing love rest upon us, O Lord,
        even as we put our hope in you. Ps 33 NIV
      • 1
      • Reply

        • DonReynolds Napoleon 40 minutes ago

        • So.....we can depend on you to be faithful to what? Once you become convinced that the enemy is going to win, you will cross the field and join the enemy ranks. 
          The good fight, dear friend, is the right position to take, even when you are all alone and fear you have no chance of victory. Fortunately, the saints never had your viewpoint.
        • 1
        • Reply
            • kibitzer3 DonReynolds a minute ago 

          • I agree with Don here, Napoleon. Plus, you are assuming that many Democrats will not jump ship with their far-Left crowd at the helm, and showing their imperial tendencies. All it will take is a Reagan to round up the great Middle Ground crowd of Americans. Remember the 'Reagan Democrats'?? Same situation applies here.

      •                                                  There are American patriots on both sides of the aisle. All that needs to be done is to sound the call to action, for them to rally 'round. And take our country back from the extremists on both sides of the aisle, the Marxists/Leninists and the fascists.

Saturday, 22 February 2014

On One's Make-Up

Watched a well-made movie on the '60s revolutionary scene in America last night.1  Titled simply 'Katherine', it was about - well; the blurb on the back of the cover says it about as well as anything I could say about it: 

"Sissy Spacek stars as Katherine Alman, an upper-class college girl who embarks upon a path of revolution and radical action after seeing for herself the adverse conditions in South America and the southern United States.  Her liberal views take an extreme turn after joining a group headed by Bob Kline (Henry Winker)."

The last sentence is a little telescoped plotwise; but it'll do, to get me to where I want to go with this opening reference.  Which is to highlight the role of Jews in that whole 'civil rights' scene - and similar 'revolutionary' scenes in history, with the likes of the Bolsheviks, and so forth.  There's an interesting story here.  But first things first.

The film reminded me of another one, made roughly in this same time period (circa 1975); that one starring Sally Field as a rather unlikely heroine (having had children by different fathers; her character somewhat condescendingly alluded to by 'proper' society as 'trailer-park trash') in the South who gets involved, by association with a young New York Jew union 'troublemaker', in organizing a strike at the textile factory where she works.  

Anything wrong with that?  No.  But let's keep going, along this rich vein.

And then there was the reality drama of the one black and two white 'civil rights' workers who were killed in the South for their black voter-registration efforts.2  The two whites, it turned out, were both Jews, from 'up North'.  (I think NYC again as well.  A fair stereotype, then.)  And then there was that other reality drama of the '60s (this one actually in 1970) of the Kent State students who were gunned down by the squad of young National Guardsmen; the activist core of the former of whom were, er, Jews.  (A fact kept silent on by most of the MSM.)   

Where am I going with this.         

1) All of it is indicative of how the Jews have incited anger at themselves over the years, over and over again, wherever they are, in their Diaspora throughout the world, for being 'who they are'.  Not 'the Chosen People' mentality per se.  But the stirrer-uppers of the 'established order of things' that they are.  

As their way of fighting their way to the top of wherever they land; yes.  But there is more going on here as well.

2) 'Here.'  How the Jews are grit in the well-oiled machinery of the Established Order.  A fly in the ointment.  Born troublemakers.  And therefore, change agents; whose mission and role seems to be to stir up/unsettle the status quo.  From getting too set in its ways.  

On the one hand, there is value in that 'role'. (From helping to keep a culture losing sight of the larger picture.)  On the other hand, besides the danger to themselves ('those f***ing pushy Jews'), there is the danger of what might be described as the baby being thrown out with the bathwater:

The Jews have a long history of 'interpreting the law' with regards to the 603 laws of their Torah.  And even their original Ten Commandments became subject to interpretation.3  In any event, it helps explain why some Jewish lawyers/judges take the U.S. Constitution not like a clear contract, with any substantive (or even perceived 'small') changes in it needing to be signed off on by all the parties to the contract, but like an ambiguous set of guidelines, subject to the delight of hair-splitting 'interpretations' by their clever minds.  Some would call the practice, and their way of being, 'devious'.  I would say that it was being, at most, 'too clever by half' - that it is more like a tribal trait, an affectation; an aspect of their inborn grit.

Anyway, I just wanted to make a note of all this.  I have been put off by this Jewish trait before; as have many others.  And this 'take' on the matter helps explain - to me, at least - why they are the way they are.  In their 'special relationship with (their) God'.4

Even if it's only a lesser god.  An aspect of the gods of the Sumerians; about whom a good case has been made for their having been simply technologically advanced beings dubbed 'ancient astronauts,' from their home base on a planet they called Niburu, which orbits through our solar system every 3600 years (hence the base of the counting system of the Sumerians), and who created our forebears in their image (i.e., by gene-splicing), primarily to do the hard work for them, of mining gold for their planet's atmospheric needs.

But then, that's all another story.    

And maybe blog.  

If time allows.

And we are open to considering that (even our mutual Prime Creator) God moves in mysterious ways, sometimes…  



1 On a DVD collection of 'Classic Movies - Leading Ladies'  that I got through an online merchandiser.  Also purchased one on 'Leading Men'.  Not quite the '20 Classic Movie Collection' that they were advertised as (with a photo of Ava Gardner on the front of the LL collection and Cary Grant on the LM set; but some 'oldies but goodies' amongst the stinkers.

2 In a concerted 'Freedom Summer' campaign to attempt to register black Americans in the South to vote.  Their murders sparked a national flare of outrage that helped lead to the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. 

3 "For example, what represents one's neighbor?  Was it any other Hebrew, or anyone at all who might be living in close proximity?" - 'The Real Messiah: The Throne of St. Mark and the True Origins of Christianity' by Stephan Huller.

4 And of course, reincarnation being what it is, and how it operates, 'they' have chosen to incarnate in that difficult role……thus needing to be cut a little slack, by gentiles.
     Even if we are goyim - cattle - to them, in that incarnation of theirs……
     …which attitude can lead to the possibility that these 'change agents' get caught up in their roles, of becoming top dogs in the rejigging of the status quo, and become too fixated on maintaining the 'established order' then themselves.  Forgetting that 'it' - the loosening up of fixation on the moment's illusory reality - applies to themselves as well.
     As I have said before: there is plenty of blame to go around…

Friday, 21 February 2014

For The Last Time...

… or probably not.  But still, put it in the "But I DO Have A Life" category:

from wnd: 'NSA Slayer Wants Default Against Feds' - Bob Unruh - Feb. 21
(Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch in court against the Obama administration on the NSA overreach issue)

alfy 11 hours ago 

obama needs to be impeached for his crimes against america, he doesn't care to abide by the laws for which he took the oath ..if he was white he would have already been impeached.why are the republicans so afraid to bring charges against the false president?



    • kibitzer3 alfy a few seconds ago  (Feb. 21)

    • "why are the republicans so afraid to bring charges against the false president?

    • Because if they did, it might well open up the can of worms that needs to be opened up, which discloses that they climbed into bed with the Demos on the NBC issue, i.e,, that Obama was ineligible to run for the presidency in the first place. 

    • Both parties tried to get a constitutional amendment going through Congress on the NBC issue a total of 8 times from 2003 to '08, and failed even to get it out of committee (the committee members obviously figuring that it was going to be too sensitive an issue to make it all the way through the formal amending process). So they obviously did a smoke-filled [back] room quid pro quo deal: You don't say anything about our candidates on the issue, and we won't say anything about yours. Result: the terrible mess that we're in, with a faux president who thinks he is above the law, because both main political parties PUT HIM THERE. 

    • Marry in haste; repent at leisure.

…and on this same day, I answered a poll being conducted by the Republican National Committee, Office of Voter Research, titled 'Voter Exploratory Republican Presidential Preference Poll' - which contained, until I crossed them out on my poll copy as'Illegal', the names of at least three non-NBCs that I know of (Cruz, Rubio, and Sanctorum) - thusly: 

"The Republican Party MUST Wake Up and FAST regarding the constitutional eligibility OR NOT of candidates to run for the office of the presidency.  Only Natural Born Citizens can run for that particular office - and that particular office ONLY.  The purpose of that requirement was - and still is - to make sure that the person in the office* did not have DUAL LOYALTIES OR ALLEGIANCES  - like a DUAL CITIZEN.  Precisely like Barack Hussein Obama. 

"What's the matter with you people.   TWO WRONGS DO NOT MAKE A RIGHT.  (See  

"* Who would also be the Commander in Chief of the nation's military forces, remember.  A not incidental matter.


"P.S. Do you get it yet?  The Republicans are responsible for the mess we are in - for not being a responsible opposition party, in letting BHO run in the first place."

Who knows what good any of this sort of thing does.  All I know is, that I need to have my say in the matter.

Let no one try to say 'but I didn't know'.

Thursday, 20 February 2014

The Sowell-Attacking-Cruz Brouhaha Revisited

from Tea Party C.C.: 'Conservative legend Thomas Sowell turns on Ted Cruz' - Feb. 19

(cont'd - Feb. 20)
Reply by Christine Puliselic 11 hours ago (Feb. 20)

 Is Thomas Sowell  trying to fracture the conservative party?   Does he expect perfection?   At least Ted Cruz is trying to do something positive for the American people.  What is everyone else doing?  Nothing.  Mr. Sowell, just   STFU and join the democratic/communist party.

  • Reply
Permalink Reply by Ray Hause 11 hours ago

Lets see what qualifies Dr. Sowell a true conservative that we know Cruz has displayed in his act.  We also know that numerous other Republicans who are calling themselves as conservatives which is the furthest from their acts.  My point is talk the talk or walk the walk and I've not mentioned he is black talking like a Republican, not like a conservative.  We can name some of the conservatives and consider this, have anyone of those attacking the other conservatives, no, but we have heard the RINOs attacking the conservatives, now what would one consider Sowell, an attacking Republican or agreeing conservatives.

  • Reply
Permalink Reply by Stan Stanfield 1 second ago  (Feb. 20)

Personally, Ray, I would consider Sowell and his motives with some question, because, although he is, from his writings, clearly a conservative, he is also a darling of the National Review crowd, who are basically in the NeoCon camp.  
I have followed their writings over the years, and though I enjoy the academic take on things, I became disturbed by the NR's 'internationalist' bent.  They have too much of an affinity with, quote, 'Israel,' unquote, and thus an attitude of supporting that country without sufficient regard for the terrible crimes that the Israeli government has either committed directly or been involved in over the years.  It's a religious thing for some of them, and more of a political thing for others.  Either way, it does not spell 'true blue' conservatism; i.e., grassroots, 'limited government and essential liberty' principles.  It spells interventionism, geopolitics, military-industrial complex - that sort of hegemonic-oriented thing.  
The sort of thing that is ultimately going to split the Republican Party down its middle.  Which, IMHO, needs to happen anyway.  Strange bedfellows, and all that.   


A brief further word of clarity about this business, of the Republican Party hosting two very different camps of 'conservatives'.  

It is basically the difference between Wall Street and High Street.  The Wall Street crowd are associated with corporatism, international finance, the 'Big Picture,' a New World Order under their control and terms; etc.  The High Street crowd are the great, middle-class backbone of the country: hard-working, tend to their own business, for fiscal responsibility/limited government, grateful for and proud of America as the 'land of the free'; etc. 

Sort of gives away where I'm at on that spectrum, doesn't it.

Anyway: the sooner the two camps split and go their separate ways politically, the better, for being the clearer.


And that creates a great Middle Ground, for such 'patriots' and those Democrats who don't like the way their party has been pulled further to the Left under the Obama revolutionary cadre, to meet.

And get this country back on track, to its higher destiny.    

The NBC Issue In Detail

from Tea Party C.C.: 'Senate Resolution 511 (SR-511) and what it means for Americans' - Aubrey Lee Mason - Feb. 20
("The text of SR-511 tells every American that Congress is fully aware of the content of our Constitution and it's [sic] meaning…

Following is a summary of SR-511;

It tells us that the Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) Chaired by Senator Patrick Leahy determined that:
#1. The SJC recognizes the Constitutional term "Natural Born Citizen" and fully understands a presidential candidate must meet this Constitutional requirement.
#2. Senator McCain was born of two (2) American Citizen parents.
#3. Senator McCain was born on U.S. soil, an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936.  [N.B. He may not in point of fact have been born on the base.  A moot point now.]
#4. Senator McCain met the Constitutional requirement of "Natural Born Citizen", Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States. 
Notable are the signatures of two people who signed on this Senate Resolution.... Senators Clinton and Obama……")

Comment by Duke-Jinx 1 hour ago

HJR 59, 67, 104 on he 108th congress and HJR 2, 15, 42, and SB 2678, and SB 511.  and HJR 2, 15, 42, and SB 2678, and SB 511.

HAWAII was the only state that refused to sign the Democrat certification because the phrase "qualified under the Constitution" was missing.

Pelosi then had to ADD the missing phrase and return the certification to Hawaii for signature.

At that moment Pelosi committed FRAUD, since she it is clear she'd KNOWN Obama was illegal when she originally sent out certifications with the missing clause.

AnonymousJanuary 29, 2012 11:53 PM

From 2003 to 2008, there were 8 Congressional attempts in 22 months to circumvent the U.S. Constitution by trying to redefine or eliminate Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution requiring that all candidates be "natural born" citizens of the U.S.

1. Jun 11, 2003, HJR 59, by Rep Vic Snyder (D-AR)

2. Sep 3, 2003, HJR 67, by Rep John Conyers (D-MI)

3. Feb 25, 2004, SB 2128, by Sen Don Nickles (R-OK)

4. Sep 15, 2004, HJR 104, by Rep Dana Rohrbacker (R-CA)

5. Jan 4, 2005, HJR 2, by Rep John Conyers (D-MI)

6. Feb 1, 2005, HJR 15, by Rep Dana Rohrbacker (R-CA)

7. Apr 14, 2005, HJR 42, by Rep Vic Snyder (D-AR)

8. Feb 28, 2008, SB 2678, by Sen Claire McCaskill (D-MO)
Obama and Hillary were co-sponsors to this bill.

9. Apr 10, 2008, SR 511, by Sen Claire McCaskill (D-MO)
Obama and Hillary were co-sponsors to this bill.

These Congressional traitors THEN shifted their focus. Since they were unable to alter or remove the "natural born citizen" requirement clearing Obama for the presidency, they passed a bill declaring McCain eligible, which was unnecessary since both his parents were US citizens. However, they ADDED the phrase “as not defined in the constitution of the U.S.” which Obama is hanging his hat on.
Obama’s Eligibility: The Final Word

by Paul R. Hollrah

February 14, 2014

In recent days I have been drawn into yet another debate over presidential eligibility, as specified in Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.  Given that Barack Obama has occupied the Oval Office illegally for more than five years, without so much as a whimper of protest from most American voters or the mainstream media, some may feel that any further discussion of this matter may be akin to “beating a dead horse.”

Nevertheless, if we insist on referring to ourselves as a constitutional republic, and if we continue to insist that we honor constitutional principles and the rule of law, then we have no choice but to understand precisely what the Founders intended when they drafted our governing document in 1787. 

What generated my recent exchange on the subject of presidential eligibility was an article in the January 31, 2014 edition of pegAlert, the newsletter of the Pennsylvania Business Council.  The article in question was titled, “SANTORUM PREPPING FOR ANOTHER RUN IN 2016.”

In response, I asked the question, “Who keeps propping up Santorum’s ambitions... other than Rick Santorum?  Unless I’m wrong, his father was still an Italian citizen when he was born.  That makes him ineligible for the presidency.”  To which a representative of the Business Council replied, “That might be so, but Santorum was born in the USA so that makes him a citizen.”

To that nonsensical assertion I replied, “… If Santorum was born in the US, which I assume he was, that does make him a ‘citizen.’  But that’s not what is at issue.  What is at issue is his status as a ‘natural born’ citizen, which he must be if he wants to run for president.  In order for him to be a ‘natural born’ citizen, both of his parents must have been US citizens.  If Santorum’s father was still an Italian citizen when he was born, then he is not a ‘natural born’ citizen…” 

The final response from the Pennsylvania Business Council brought us straight to the nub of the issue.  The reply read, “Under (that) definition, none of our initial 6 or 7 presidents, would have qualified.”  Bingo!!  Without even trying, he inadvertently proved my point. 

Once again I found myself confronted face-to-face with the harebrained notion that the terms “citizen” and “natural born Citizen” are synonymous… that to be a “citizen” equates to being a “natural born” citizen.  That simply is not true.  One would think that simple intellectual curiosity would lead those who share that mistaken belief to question why the Founders found it necessary to modify the phrase, “No person except a natural born Citizen,” with the phrase, “… or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution…”

Even the most unthinking and uneducated among us must agree that the use of the word “or”
requires an implicit understanding that those who would seek the presidency had to be either “natural born citizens,” orcitizens of the United States” on the day that the Constitution became the law of the land. 

On the day that the Declaration of Independence was signed on July 4, 1776, every citizen of the thirteen original colonies became citizens of a new nation, the United States of America.  And the very first child born to newly-minted US citizens on July 4, 1776, before the ink was dry on John Hancock’s signature, became the nation’s very first “natural born” citizen. 

The Constitution required that, in addition to being a resident of the United States for at least fourteen years, those who would seek the presidency must be at least thirty-five years of age.  There were a great many men who met those two criteria, but the country needed a president and the only “natural born” citizens available on June 21, 1788, the day the Constitution was ratified, were children under twelve years of age.  To solve that problem, the Framers added a grandfather clause, making it possible for newly-minted US citizens, none of them “natural born,” to serve as president.  This was necessary until such time as a body of individuals, born to US citizen parents after the Declaration of Independence, reached age thirty-five.

George Washington, our first president, was born at Wakefield, Virginia on February 22, 1732, forty-four years before the Declaration of Independence.  He was a “citizen,” but not a “natural born” citizen because both of his parents were British subjects at the time of his birth.

John Adams, our second president, was born at Braintree, Massachusetts on October 30, 1735, forty-one years before the Declaration of Independence.  He was a “citizen” because he was born in Massachusetts, but he was not a “natural born” citizen because both of his parents were British subjects at the time of his birth and owed their allegiance to the British crown.

Thomas Jefferson, our third president, was born at Shadwell, Virginia on April 13, 1743, thirty-three years before the Declaration of Independence.  He was a “citizen” because he was born in Virginia, but he was not a “natural born” citizen because both of his parents were British subjects at the time of his birth.

James Madison, our fourth president, born in Virginia on March 16, 1751, twenty-five years before the Declaration of Independence; James Monroe, our fifth president, born in Virginia on April 28, 1758, eighteen years before the Declaration of Independence; John Quincy Adams, our sixth president, born in Massachusetts on July 11, 1767, nine years before the Declaration of Independence; and Andrew Jackson, our seventh president, born in South Carolina on March 15, 1767, nine years before the Declaration of Independence; were all “citizens” because they were born in what came to be the United States of America, but they were not “natural born” citizens because their parents were not US citizens at the time of their birth.  

However, Martin Van Buren, our eighth president, was born at Kinderhook, New York on December 5, 1782, six years and five months after the Declaration of Independence.  Unlike his seven predecessors, he was not just a “citizen,” he was a “natural born” citizen… the first president, at least thirty-five years of age, who was born to US citizen parents after the signing of the Declaration of Independence. 

What a great many patriotic, but ill-informed, Americas refuse to accept is the fact that, while the Founders intended that only “natural born” citizens should ever serve as president, there were no 35-year-old “natural born” citizens available during the first 35 years of our nation’s history. Accordingly, it became necessary to provide an exemption of limited duration covering those citizens born prior to July 4, 1776.  All were “grandfathered” and made eligible under the phrase, “or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution…”

Every U.S. president since Van Buren… with the exception of Chester A. Arthur, whose Irish father was a British subject at the time of his birth, and Barack Obama, whose Kenyan father was also a British subject at the time of his birth… has been a “natural born” U.S. citizen, as required by Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. 

Barack Obama was born with dual US-British citizenship “by descent” from his Kenyan father and his American mother.  However, under Chapter VI, Sec. 97(1) of the Kenyan Constitution of December 12, 1963, Kenyan Independence Day, Obama lost his British citizenship on August 4, 1984, his twenty-third birthday.  However, his eligibility status is now complicated by the fact that, under Chapter 3, Section 14 of a revised Kenyan Constitution, adopted on August 4, 2010, he became a citizen of Kenya “by birth” and is required to obey the laws of Kenya, should he ever set foot in that country during or after his stay in the White House. 

The Framers found it inconceivable that a president of the United States, commander in chief of the Army and the Navy, should ever be required to obey the laws of a foreign nation.  Barack Obama provides, if nothing else, a definitive example of why the Founders insisted that the president must be a “natural born” citizen, untainted by any hint of foreign allegiances.

Although Democrats have successfully defended Obama’s illegal presidency, based largely on the fact that he is a black man, insulated from the rule of law by the color of his skin, we must insist that constitutional mandates apply equally to presidents of both parties, Democrats and Republicans.  This means, of course, that conservatives such as Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), Gov. Nicki Haley (R-SC), Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA), Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), and former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)… all born to one or more non-US citizen parents… are not natural born citizens and must be eliminated from consideration for the 2016 GOP nomination.

In the days of Washington, Adams, and Jefferson, a man of Barack Obama’s background and qualifications would have received zero consideration for the presidency.  Without question, he would have been declared ineligible.  Yet, in spite of the fact that the Constitutional criteria for the presidency have not changed one iota since 1787, millions of Americans today insist that he is eligible for the office.  By what tortured reasoning, what conceivable standard, they won’t say.  

Liberals and Democrats being what they are, we can always count on them to expect to have things both ways.  But conservatives and Republicans believe in constitutional principles and the rule of law and we simply cannot allow the bandwagon-riders in our party to circumvent the Constitution.  So, sorry, Ted, Nicki, Bobby, Marco, and Rick… we love you all and you’re a great credit to our country, but you just can’t play in our presidential sandbox.  

Comment by Stan Stanfield just now (Feb. 20)

Duke-Jinx: Thank you for your extensive elicitation on the NBC issue.  And thank you, Aubrey Lee Mason, for posting this article on SR-511.

It helps to have such important info concisely at hand.


P.S. While on the subject

Arbiter Ruled SSA ‘No-Match’ Letter Can Justify Firing: No Matchy, No Worky | by Linda Jordan | @ Birther Report