Saturday, 31 January 2015

A 'Dear John' Letter...

…Of A Different Sort

I have just received a letter nominally from John Boehner as follow-up to the original letter asking for my 2015 Membership renewal and contribution to the National Republican Congressional Committee.  I have now sent a further letter in response: 

"Dear John,

"Since the Republican Party is not supporting the rule of law in the country - i.e., the Constitution - I am not supporting you.

"What do I mean?  Listen carefully (although it's really very simple).

"Why would the constitutional Framers put the eligibility requirement of needing to be a "natural born" citizen in the Constitution for the office of the presidency - & that particular office only?  Wouldn't it make sense that it was because they didn't want anyone in that particular office - who would as well become the Commander in Chief of the nation's military forces - who had any DUAL/CONFLICTING LOYALTIES OR ALLEGIANCES?  Like a naturalized citizen?  & like a DUAL citizen??? 

"Think about it.  & act accordingly.  & then, we can talk.

"Sincerely," (etc.)


To summarize the situation, & with further comment to it:

The Republican Party officials have been and are in cahoots with the Democrat Party officials by not challenging the trashing of the Constitution that has been engaged in & nearly - nearly - accomplished totally by their mutual allowing of an ineligible candidate to run for, be elected to, and assume the powers (and then some) of, the office of the presidency of the United States. 

This is not rocket science, no matter how the definition of a 'natural born' citizen is parsed by various & sundry, in trying to spin it/this issue to their ideological advantage.  The law is what those who passed it intended it to mean.1  And the whole point of the 'exercise' on the part of the constitutional Framers in putting into that contract the eligibility requirement for a candidate for the presidential office to be a 'natural born' citizen - above and beyond just a 'citizen' - was to make sure that the candidate, if elected - who would then as well become the Commander in Chief of the nation's military forces; a not inconsiderable factor in this matter, rather a key one - would have no DUAL/CONFLICTING LOYALTIES OR ALLEGIANCES.   

Like a naturalized citizen. And like a DUAL citizen.  

Like one Barack 'Barry Soetoro' Obama.2

That damage has been done.  And what damage it has wrought…

In any event, I'll take over now, and set things to rights.  As we get back to the Truth of things.  Not the ideological spin of things.

Been there.  Done that.  Time now for the Real Thing:

The kingdom of Heaven.

Not of Man.  With all of its Power Over.

Rather than of Power With.

And from Within.

Via our link with Spirit.

Not from our Ego.  A feature of 3rd Dimensional 'reality'.  Now needing to make way for our Higher Selves to come in, and through us, out to our brothers and sisters, in this classroom for aspiring gods.

Which we all are; for being sparks - facets, fractals, aspects, points of view - of our Creator Source.  Of which we are a Part.

And therefore, All Is One.

And all the more powerful, once we wake up, and recognize our true natures.

And stop giving our power over to those who would misuse such power, for their own ends.

Their own puny ends. In the larger scheme of things.  Of which - as I say -

we are a Part. 

And an integral Part at that.

Being the growing Edge of the Whole.

And now, verging on our individual Edges

into the One.

The proper One, that is.

Not this low-consciousness One..World Order that is planned for us by lesser souls, on

our common Path.

Some, to finish the process - the rounding-off of our Edges - and get back to our Source before others.

Who may stand in their way; their egos still running them.

Don't give in to them (and their siren songs, amounting to Service to Self, rather than Service to Others).  

And don't resist them, per se.  

Love them, for what they - essentially - are.  As fellow souls on our common Journey.

And continue on your way.

On your 


On the Royal Highway.

And that, of course, includes 'King' John.

And Barry what's-his-name.

We'll get this right, at some point.


And not that all will be harvested.

Hopefully, your name is on the manifest.

The 'manifest,' into

the true New World.

For our Next Stage of 'operation'.

On our own souls.  In their cleansing.  And Purification.  Readylng, for

Our Ascension, into a New Order of Being.

On a higher turn of the spiral.

The spiral, back to



The Still Point, of the whole


Of, basically, seeing who can hold, and speak, Truth





1 Else it is an ass.
   Well; it still may be that.  But it is so definitely, if it is merely what shyster-lawyer types can manipulate it into being, by silky-smooth phraseology.  Called, historically, sophistry. 

2 One of the main obots on the Internet on this NBC issue has tried to argue that the Framers were going by English Common Law at the time.  Which, unfortunately for her & her argument, talks about natural born "subjects".  Which is a far cry from what the Declaration of Independence and Revolutionary War patriots thought of themselves at the time.  They were sovereigns in their own right, by then.  They were clearly going, rather, by American Common Law, based on E. de Vattel's 'The Law of Nations Or Principles of Natural Law' - with which they were undisputedly familiar.  Both via their esteemed and learned elder mentor, Benjamin Franklin - present as a member of the proceedings - and by a copy of said book in the very building where they were meeting.  It is also referred to in their very document  (Art. 1, Sect. 8).  
   The only argument here is one of relativity: 'Words mean what we say they mean'.  
   Right. When you put them in a contract.  Otherwise, they are of no worth, not even of the paper they are written on.


…and speaking:

from 'State Department Discusses Banning Alternative Media Outlet' - Justin King - Jan. 31
("The US State Department has openly discussed shutting down RT, the Russian news network...")


Thanks for calling attention to even the thought of censoring the likes of RT, Justin.
Nasty stuff. I'm ashamed for my country, that TPTB - on either the (far) Left OR the (far) Right - are engaging in even thinking of such sleazy antics. This sort of thing doesn't have anything to do with the founding of this nation, on the principle of individual liberty and rights. It is a mark of how far we have gone downhill, into the realm of the arrogance of power.
Please continue to speak Truth to Power, Justin.

The "far right" being whom? We all know who the far left is, just who do you think the far right is? The Evangelical Christians?


  • kibitzer3
    LastGasp a few seconds ago (Feb. 1)

  • Not predominantly; they are being used BY 'the far Right' to help them accomplish their dark purposes. I refer to the nest of vipers identified by such as Prof. Carroll Quigley in his magnum opus 'Tragedy And Hope' - the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers, the 'international banksters;' the Committee of 300; the Bushes; the bloodline gang. The military-industrial-complex crowd, who feed off such as war, and who want a total-control New World Order as much as the socialists do, only one run by them, for their corporate, fascistic purposes. Both sides of the political aisle being controlled by the same gang of thieves, at the top of the pyramid of power running the world today.

  • And about to experience their Waterloo.

Friday, 30 January 2015

On Briar Patches...

Subtitled: Never Say Die

To carry on a bit from where I left off, in the wee hours of this morning, on the subject of the potentially fatal compromising of the Constitution, and therefore, of the rule of law in this country:

I (electronically) signed a petition for a deceptive piece of legislation called The Net Neutrality Act, and wanted to draw your attention to it, and the deviousness of things in general going on In Our Day.1  

It is decidedly not what it purports itself to be.  It is being sold as a way to keep the Internet from becoming 'tiered,' with the big corporations able to pay more for their messages to be 'fast tracked,' and outfits like (relatively cash-strapped) environmentally-oriented NGOs not being able to pay the costs of a faster delivery system online.  And that would not be a fair outcome, indeed; the Internet should be free of such heavy-handedness.  But the cure, as offered, would be worse than the disease.  The 'cure' being offered by the Left is to have the FCC take over the running of the 'net, and regulate it like a public utility.  And therein lies the worse problem.

It's a variation on the theme of Br'er Rabbit pleading with Br'er Bear to do what he wants to with him, but whatever he does, please please not to throw him into the briar patch.  Oh, the horrors!  -

of regulating the Internet to within an inch of its life.  By ideologues.  Of such as the socialists under Obama.  And, if the worm turned, by the fascists under whomsoever they would put up as their front man. Or woman.

Statists, all.  With their respective agendas (particularly of either no private property, or heavily-regulated 'private' property; take your collectivist pick).  But meeting at the top of the pyramid of power, with the same nest of vipers in charge, of their long-sought New World Order, aborning, as we speak.   

Let there be no mistake about this business.  It is the same as the Left attempted before Ronald Reagan - who politically came out of Right field, to the angry resentment of the collectivists of both parties - put the kibosh on the so-called Fairness Doctrine, which would have put the heavy hand of the federal government on the regulating of the airwaves in his time.  It's deja vu all over again: What this similarly nice-sounding 'Net Neutrality' business does really is put the Internet under the regulatory control of the FCC, and what's more - after that seemingly innocent first step in the process  - under the control of ideologues, who want to consolidate their statist hold on that independent source of information and communication, and outlaw speech that they don't like.  Like - oh, say; like: 


By labeling it - oh, say: 

''Hate speech'.  

Very close to coming into being, now.  On the federal level.

As it already is on some - many? - university and college campuses.  

Under the aegis of the socio-political notion of 'political correctness'.

But it can't happen on the national level?  

Where have you been???

Quoting from a recent letter from a former state attorney general:

"(T)his legislation2 could take away the First Amendment Rights of millions of Americans…"

To which observation one might hear the response:

'You need to stop being so old-fashioned, to say, behind the times.  There simply are no 'First Amendment' rights; because there is no Constitution anymore.  Oh, there is a husk of a document left, on a dusty shelf in the Congressional Library; but we started ignoring it a long time ago around here - and under Republican administrations as well, as a matter of blunt fact.  So it is now simply a dead letter.  We can choose to do whatever we wish to.  That's called growing up.'   

That's called opening the door to/ineluctably leading to such scenarios as the following: 

(Teacher to student:) 'You can't criticize President Obama.   Much less ridicule him.'

'Why not?'

'That's hate speech, chile.  It's not allowed.'

'But, whatever happened to the First Amendment?'

'Chile.  Whatever kind of nation we once may have been, we are no longer a hateful nation.'

That 'PC' mentality is how far we have come from our roots; and how close we are to rebellion (aka 'nullification'), and its consequent chaos, and its giving of the 'imperial presidency' his, and his minions', long-desired excuse for his declaring of Martial Law, and thus the collectivists' pounding of the definitive nail in the coffin of the Constitution.3   

Far-fetched?  But look at what has already been put in place:4

"The National Defense Authorization Act gives our federal government the legal right to indefinitely detain anyone that they decide is dangerous to the country.

"There need not be any evidence against that person.  There need not be any warrant.

"And that person has no right to legal counsel.

"(The Attorney General) simply needs to decide that you are a threat to our nation.

"Barack Obama signed into a law an Executive Order that gives him absolute power and control over all means of communication for any reason, including in an emergency.

"This order includes television, radio, cable, internet and all cell phone communications.

"Finally, Barack Obama has already ordered drones over the skies of our nation and the Attorney General has already sanctioned his actions.

"In fact, it has been decided that Barack Obama has the legal right to use them to shoot Americans on American soil.

"The chess pieces are in place.

"Now, all that is needed is an emergency - perhaps brought on by an economic collapse - a run on the banks.

"Then Barack Obama will control all forms of communication.

"And then through the [NDAA], Barack Obama can detain anyone he perceives as an enemy…

"…With his tailer-made [sic] military and the Department of Homeland Security rounding up anyone they choose.  And Obama has full license to shoot anyone resisting…"

With his job made all the easier, if independent voices on talk radio and the Internet can be shut down, and the way thus paved more smoothly for his imperial takeover.

Just what his Minders want.  Who - as I say - control both sides of the political aisle.

Making of politics in America in this day and age a farce.  A fraud  A cheat.  A delusion. 

Which it has been, actually, for years.

Which some Americans have come to the awareness of.

And the rest are about to find out.

In spades.



1 Like Agenda 21; another, similar bit of statist legerdemain.  And Common Core.  And…

2 called the 'Hate Crime Reporting Act of 2014,' which had been introduced by two Democrat Senators in the last Congress, and may well be coming back for another bite at the apple in this one, the political scene being what it is in this day and age, and Obama needing to hurry up the climate for a Martial Law declaration, since he needs to make his move soon, if he is going to.  Which he will.
   That's what he is there for.  
   What he has been groomed to be there for.

3 Who believe only in group rights - as decided by the Almighty.  State, that is.

4 from another letter in my mail, from another source.  (I hesitate to name them.  One never knows, anymore…)  

Further On The Trashing OF The Constitution

from 'Is Google a Democrat Search Engine?' - Jan. 29

Stan Stanfield · Top Commenter · Stanford University (Jan. 29)

Interesting story, but just as interesting, I found, was your support for Ted Cruz for the 2016 nomination. What is wrong with so many conservatives that they can't think for themselves, and discover that Cruz is no more eligible for that office than Obama is?

Neither of them is a "natural born" citizen, meaning one born on the soil of 2 U.S citizen parents; put [as an] eligibility requirement in the Constitution for that office and that particular office ONLY, so that the candidate, if elected - who would as well then become the Commander in Chief of the nation's military forces - had no DUAL/CONFLICTING LOYALTIES OR ALLEGIANCES. Like a naturalized citizen. And like a born DUAL CITIZEN. Like Obama. And like Cruz.

This is not rocket science. If conservatives don't wake up and realize that they are being had, by the (NWO) bigwigs on both sides of the (nominal) political aisle, they will lose their Constitution, which is becoming a wet noodle as we speak, for the citizenry of our time and place not paying sufficient enough attention to its detail. If it is to mean merely what people decide it means, and not what the original intent behind its provisions were, the ball game is over, and we have lost being governed by the rule of law, and are simply at the mercy of the rule of tyrants. 

Wake up, Conservatives. You are selling out the country for a mess of pottage. Allow this constitutional error to stand, and the vipers will drive a coach and horses through the Constitution on the flimsy grounds of 'precedent'.


2) from ''DO NOT DISCLOSE': Obama Admin Tells Banks To Shut Up About Its Targeting of Gun Dealers' - Jan. 29 (orig. posted at dailycaller,com - Jan 28)

Stan Stanfield · Top Commenter · Stanford University (just into Jan. 30)

I hope that more and more conservatives come to the realization that all of these extra-legal shenanigans going on by the Obama administration are the direct result of the Democrat Party's hijack of the country, with the complicity of the Republican Party in failing in its duty as the opposition party in our 2-party system to call Obama on his INELIGIBILITY for the presidential office in the first place, and thus the rendering of the Constitution into "just a damn piece of paper," in the colorful and very direct words of that other would-be dictator in the last decade, George Dubya (think the so-called PATRIOT Act, and its aftermath).

I am contending that if the Dems had been stopped in their tracks by the designated opposition, and an alert citizenry, and had failed to do an end-around of the Constitution in putting the ineligible contender up for the office in 2008, none of what is going down in our day would have made it off the ground (to mix metaphors a bit, to add a little spice to a possibly dry subject in some people's minds). I can only conclude that it was supposed to happen, in order to teach us 'spiritual beings having a human experience' a lesson in personal responsibility, and especially in a nation founded on the principle of self-governance. In any event: here we are, with 'the rule of law' dead in the water, and the Obama administration going for broke in the continued trashing of the Constitution. 'But what he is doing is illegal'? But he is a law unto himself; he determines what is legal or not, in a post-constitutional era. You don't see the Republicans objecting very seriously, do you? They want the same state of things, so that their corporate and bankster backers can pick up the pieces, when the nation collapses into chaos, and Obama, having gotten the Crisis that he wants, declares Martial Law, and puts his political enemies in the FEMA camps all prepared for them (or worse; remember all those hollow point bullets that he rounded up for use by his executive-branch private army?), and the country is shoehorned into the North American Union that the bigwigs on both sides of the political aisle want to come into being, each for their own purposes. 

it WILL take a law unto himself to straighten all this out, now, in getting the nation back on track, to being the beacon of Liberty for the world's nations that it is supposed to be, from its founding. But make sure that you don't buy a pig in a poke this time. Having learned your lesson. Hopefully.

Thursday, 29 January 2015

Further On Constitutional Eligibility/The Rule Of Law

more on 'Eligibility Nipping At Obama's Heels Again' - Bob Unruh - Jan. 26

.. (to recap the beginning of this section of this Comments thread, to put it all in context; posting for its valuable addition to this sorry, sordid subject:)

kibitzer3 4 days ago  (Jan. 26)

When are conservatives going to wake up to the fact that they are either being conned or misled even by people on their own side of the political divide on this issue? Obama's status as being ineligible for the office on the "natural born citizen" legal point has somewhat to do with the copy - forgery or not - of a birth certificate on the official White House web site. But it has everything to do with his parents.
Contrary to some obfuscators on this issue, this is not rocket science. The whole POINT of the 'exercise' on the part of the constitutional Framers in putting that particular eligibility requirement in their national contract for that particular office - and that particular office ONLY - was to make sure that a candidate, if elected - who would then as well become the Commander in Chief of the nation's military forces - would have no DUAL/CONFLICTING LOYALTIES OR ALLEGIANCES. Like a naturalized citizen. And like a DUAL citizen. Like - lo and behold - Obama.
The evidences of their thinking on the matter abound. There is a letter by John Jay - who subsequently became the first Chief Justice of the new U.S. Supreme Court, of all ironies - to G. Washington, in his role as Chair of the Constitutional Convention, on this issue. There is the fact that at the Convention, Alexander Hamilton proposed that the eligibility requirement for that office be only that the person need be a, quote, "citizen" - and his proposal was specifically TURNED DOWN, in favor of the more stringent requirement. NO FOREIGN INFLUENCES in that office. End of story.
The Constitution can be amended on the issue. It has not been. Thus, Obama is a Usurper in the office - who unfortunately has also been allowed to occupy it because of the inaction of the 'opposition party' in our two-party system of government. Why has the Republican Party gone along with this charade, this farce, this fraud on the Constitution and the rule of law?? Obviously, for their own purposes: to allow them as well to slip someone into that office who is not constitutionally eligible. Thus, the Republican Party officials need to be taken to (a legitimate) court as well, on RICO-Statute charges of colluding with their Democrat Party cohorts in this deceitful and meretricious matter.
Result: Obama is simply removed from the office (or resigns under his own speed), and charged with a shopping list of felonies; the two major political parties in America are dissolved, for being corrupt enterprises; the Congress itself is dissolved, by act of The People, Assembled, for failing to do its constitutional duty in reining in a rogue Executive. And America is saved from moving out of a Republic stage of development into either an Empire mode - in a replay of the Roman experience; lesson learners please take note - or is absorbed into being merely a part of a region (already called the North American Union; and thus the reason for the failure of TPTB and their minions in Congress to secure our southern border) of the 'New World Order' that is the intention of the Party bigwigs on both sides of the political aisle, and their masters at the top of the pyramid of power of [arrogant and immoral] individuals who currently run this world.
And whose rule is about to come to an abrupt end. As the likes of the American People rise to the occasion, and do their duty, to God and country.


  • Trish P kibitzer3 4 days ago 

  • Why don't I see any mention made of this:
    Dems in Congress made 8 attempts between 2003 and 2008 to either eliminate the natural-born requirement or redefine natural-born to accommodate Obama!!! (See the Congressional record) This is not a coincidence.

  • (used by lawyers to research precedence) has been caught removing references to Minor vs. Happersett to attempt to hide this important precedent! …the only time the US Supreme Court ever did define the class of persons who were POTUS eligible under Article 2 Section 1 was in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), wherein it was held:

  • “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
    Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S.
    162, 168.

  • Note the word parents (with an s).
  • Reply

    • kibitzer3
      Trish P 3 days ago (Jan. 27) 

    • Thanks for this addition to the 'debate,' Trish. But just for the record: It wasn't just the Democrats who tried those 8 times between 2003 and '08 to change the nbc requirement for the POTUS office. At least one of those attempts was by a Republican, too.

    • So - THEY KNEW. And thus were/are involved in this attempted heist of the office. And which is why, then, they/their officials have kept quiet on the issue, OR tried to eliminate it from consideration: because they have been involved in a collusion with their Democrat Party counterparts on the matter. And so this is not just a constitutional crisis. It is a full-blown political crisis.

    • When Justice is served, - as it will be; because this is a Just universe - the authorities of both main political parties will be hauled into (a legitimate, non-Maritime Law) court on trial for RICO-Statute conspiracy charges, found guilty as criminal enterprises, and dissolved. And politics in America will never be the same again. For more on which: another time, perhaps.
    • Reply

        • Trish P
          kibitzer3 11 minutes ago (Jan. 29) 

        • Thanks for the reply (so I looked up my research). I knew that one Republican supposedly just wanted to define the NBC term (but now rereading it he is either wrong or purposely wanted to change the meaning).


                                          Indeed they did, Trish. Indeed they
                                          Keep up the good sleuthing. It all 
                                          adds to the energy of Justice and 
                                          Truth to be served.

Wednesday, 28 January 2015

On The Likes & Dislikes Of Constitutions

I have respect for Florida Congressman Alan Grayson. When he was in Congress before, he was not afraid to speak Truth to Power, and call the Wall Street fat cats on their odorous activities.  But he has now gone too far for me to accompany him.  On a TV show in Florida just recently, when asked by the host about the immigration issue, he said, in defense of illegal aliens - excuse me; the "undocumented": 

"[The fact that illegals have been driving without insurance has been] a danger to you, to me, to everybody else.  So as we make progress in normalizing the lives of these people [under Obama's imperial decrees] - whose only real crime is that they love America so much they want to live here…"

It doesn't really matter what all he said after that.  He left me.

And just so, of course, has the whole Left.  To whom I would say, or rather, ask, regarding that attitude:

Excuse me.  First of all: Do you really believe what you are saying?  And secondly; if so: When was the last time that you had a mental-health checkup??

Illegals are here because they want the standard of living that they can enjoy here, even in an illegal status, compared to that in their home countries.  They wouldn't be here if it weren't for the honey pot that has attracted them here - or they would wait their turn, like all good prospective immigrants.  They are here because the gringos are so stupid as to give them free ('emergency-room') hospital care - including having babies here; and including American citizenship for those so-called 'anchor baby' kids on top of the deal, in adding insult to injury!  - and free education, and subsidized housing, and food stamps, and jobs that pay more than they could get in their home countries; even if it depresses the local wages market, and deprives unemployed American citizens of jobs.2  We're not talking about their love for this country.  We are talking about their disrespect for it.  

And their desire to take it over, and return the Southwest to their so-called ancient homeland of Aztlan.  Those who aren't of Spanish stock, that is…

But not to get into the subject of 'origins'.  I want to stay, in this particular blog, with the issue of 'the law'.  And that has been occasioned, before this matter of Rep. Grayson's unfortunate cherry-on-top comment came up, by a report that has been eating away at me for some days now; ever since I read, in one of the many newsletters that I get (both on the Internet and through the snail mail), where a U.S. District Court judge turned down a suit against Obama and his unilateral, high-handed Amnesty executive order - brought before her court by a sheriff in a border state whose budget would be severely impacted by the order, thus, a logical person would logically understand, giving him legitimate 'standing' in court - not only because, in her opinion, the plaintiff didn't have standing (the go-to excuse judges throughout the nation have used to block suits against Obama's eligibility for the office in the first place), but because the point was a simple "political" one.          
Excuse me??  Now, I understand that she was appointed by Obama; and so, she would have some degree of leftward inclination.  But for a judge - and on the level of a District Court - to baldly state that a major constitutional issue was simply a "political" issue - ?????????

And I also understand that she did, at least, allow for expedited 'injunction proceedings' on the matter.3  So, presumably she understood that it was, indeed, a major constitutional issue, and she just didn't want to have to deal with the matter in her court.  But in her just 'kicking the matter upstairs,' and saying that it was simply a "political" matter - what do we have here?

We have another sign of the times:

that the U.S. is being subjected to a hostile takeover.

It has all been set up for some time.  Part of the setup has been the 'relativizing' of the Constitution - to say, the rule of law in the country.  I'll be as brief as I can in this description of this matter.  Which was also brought to my attention recently when I read that, in another courtroom in the country, on another subject, the judge was taking the oral arguments into consideration, with one basis of his decision resting on 'precedent'.  Which means, essentially, that even if some court erred on some constitutional principle, if the U.S. Supreme Court left the decision standing, it gained substantial, even definitive, clout, on the basis of the 'precedent' it set.  Which makes of the law an ass.

This is all the work of what I call shyster-lawyer types, who scheme to defeat laws that they don't like by making all of us country bumpkins think that 'all is relative' - that the law is simply whatever the lawyers and judges say it is.4  Just so, black can become white.  And the 'original intent' of wording in the Constitutional contract can be subjected to the attitude of the contract being, to quote some of these shyster-lawyer types, 'a iiving document'.

Which makes it a lying document.

And which makes them liars.    

A "natural born citizen" is what the constitutional Framers intended it to mean.5  If subsequent generations want to change the terms of the constitutional contract, they can do so - by the amending process built in for just such a purpose.  Not that it's easy.  But that was the point: that the 'document' - and the American federal constitutional Republic that it created - was designed to be for the long haul.  Not to be changed 'for light or transient reasons'. 

The far Left is trying to take over said American Republic, for their reasons.  Which happen to coincide fundamentally with the reasons of the far Right.6  Collectivists, all.  In order to break the Republic free from the "chains'" of the Constitution, and make of this country a wet noodle; to be manipulated and molded to their hearts' desires.  Which is the same from either side of the political aisle: to make of us sovereigns mere subjects; with no rights but those which they our erstwhile Masters dole out to us, and to whom we are to grovel for the crumbs that they dole out magnanimously from their table. 

And to whom I say:


And further:

Your days are numbered.

Start counting.



1 illegally.  By a  shyster-lawyer interpretation of the 14th Amendment.  Quote from the law/that amendment:
   "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof…"  my emphasis.  To point out that the law is not referring to people who are illegally in the U.S., and are therefore still subject to the jurisdiction of their home countries.  
   This is not rocket science.   It has become 'rocket science' in the hands of the aforementioned types of persons, i.e., shyster lawyers, up to their shyster-lawyerly tricks.
   The biggest of them all being the notion that the Constitution is 'a living document'.  More on which, coming up, in the main body of this rant.

2 A subject in itself.  'But Americans won't do those kinds of jobs.'  As Nancy Pelosi would say: 'Are you serious?  Are you serious?'  They will do them when we straighten out the unemployment system in this country at the same time as this illegal-alien business, and citizens are given, say, two turn-downs of available jobs before they are taken off unemployment rolls; so that if you don't work, you don't eat.  (Federal funds denied those states that don't go along with the New Era.)  
   It's all really very simple.  Once you return to common sense.  As we will.
   As - we - will.
   Because it's that time.

3 Meaning that she accepted that it needed an expedited hearing and ruling because elements of Obama's imperial edict (my description, of course) are scheduled to go into effect in February - and the Obama administration is already hiring new employees for the IRS to deal with certain issues involved.
   The scoundrel.  
   He is doing this on purpose, I hope people understand.  He wants Congress to put up or shut up: Either allow him to become the imperial executive that he wishes to become (and that his handlers want him to become; the NWO boyos lurking in the background of American politics, as we speak); or risk the wrath of his (violence-prone) lackeys in America.
   I dearly hope that Congress calls him on his bluff.  For, the longer we wait - for him to play his 'Martial Law' card - the more time that he has to get all his ducks in a row.  So - 
   it's that time.
    Ready.  Or not.
   Both sides, of The Great Divide.
   Between the High Road - in the Light - to America's, and the world's, future.  Or the Low Road; in the Dark of a dystopian future.
   A dreary timeline that I, for one, refuse to take, be a part of.

4 "It's all simply a matter of 'interpretation'."  Right.  As Clinton said: '"It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is."

5 Which I have gone into in so many notes and emails to so many people that I'm not going to repeat the argument here.  Suffice it to say, here: Read the letter that John Jay sent to G. Washington, in his role as Chair of the Constitutional Convention, on this subject.  Note that Alexander Hamilton even proposed at the Convention that the person in that office need only be a "citizen" - and his proposal was specifically rejected by the Convention, in favor of the stricter category of citizen (i.e., one with NO DUAL/CONFLICTING LOYALTIES OR ALLEGIANCES) suggested by J. Jay.  And if any of the Convention delegates had any queries as to what the term actually meant, they had two sources of information to go by: their respected elder and learned mentor, Benjamin Franklin, who was a) present at the proceedings and b) fully conversant with E. de Vattel's 'The Law of Nations;' and a copy of that book as well, in the very building that they were meeting in.  The case is closed.            

6 =, in my 'take' on this politically descriptive spectrum matter, fascists - i.e., a corporate-government nexus, wherein there is private property, but it is severely subjected to the control of the government.  And thus, a sham and a delusion regarding the essential idea of private property - i.e., that you not only own it, but you have control over it.  The furthest Left - into outright communism - takes away even the semblance of private property.
   Everything along these traditional political lines is about to change, for a higher degree of consciousness to be reflected into human affairs.  But let's be clear about where we are at.  And who is trying to do what, with what, and to whom.