Sunday, 8 March 2015

On Two Wrongs Not Making A Right...

…AKA On Getting A Bit Red In The Face

from TeaParty  C.C.: 'Cruz says support for presidential bid 'breathtaking'' - posted by Natl Dir Dee - Mar. 8 (orig. posted at - Jonathan Easley - Mar. 7)  

Permalink Reply by ARNOLD CARL TAPP 8 hours ago (Mar. 8)


  • Reply
Permalink Reply by W 7 hours ago

Well, where is your evidence ? I have not seen any credible evidence to the contrary. I noticed you used upper case letters, you seem adamant. Lets see evidence to support your claim.

  • Reply

Permalink Reply by Stan Stanfield 1 second ago (Mar. 8)

Dear W,
Listen carefully.  The whole point of the "natural born citizen" eligibility requirement being put in the Constitution by the constitutional Framers for that particular office - and that particular office ONLY; a rather significant fact to consider in this matter - was so that the candidate, if elected - who would as well then become the Commander in Chief of the nation's military forces - would have no DUAL/CONFLICTING LOYALTIES OR  ALLEGIANCES.  Like a naturalized citizen would be subject to.  And like a DUAL CITIZEN would be subject to.  Like Obama.   And like Cruz.  And Rubio.  And Jindal.
This is not rocket science.  A "natural born" U.S. citizen - rather than merely a "citizen" - is one born on the soil of two U.S. citizen parents.  It is based legally on the definition of the term by one E. de Vattel, in his book 'The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law,' a work that the Framers were quite familiar with - and if they weren't, they could have asked their elder and respected mentor, Benjamin Franklin, who had 3 copies of the book and who was sitting right there in the proceedings with them as a delegate, what they were being asked to vote on.  As if they needed to; a fact clarified by the rather demonstrable fact that Alexander Hamilton proposed that the presidential office need only be filled by a "citizen" - and his proposal was specifically TURNED DOWN.  And as if that were not evidence enough of their intention, there is the letter by John Jay - a respected statesman of the time; who, not so incidentally, ended up becoming the first Chief Justice of the new Supreme Court of the United States - to G. Washington, in his role as Chair of the Convention proceedings, proposing this very fact, that the prospective Commander in Chief of the nation's military forces have NO FOREIGN ALLEGIANCES - rather, be a "natural born" citizen.  And thus they agreed.
The Republican Party has failed in our time to call Obama on this ineligibility matter for its own political purposes; presumably having its own candidates in mind down the line from the first Usurper - both parties having failed, a total of 8 times between 2003 and '08, to get a constitutional amendment on the matter going through Congress, and thus knowing the difficulty of 'amending' the Constitution on the issue; rather, choosing to fudge the issue, and obviously hoping that the gullible People wouldn't notice, if they conspired to keep the matter a little backroom deal between them.  And thus, the reason that both major political parties need to be hauled before a (legitimate) court of law, on RICO-Statute collusion provisions, and, when found guilty, dissolved, as the cheats that they are.  
Just as the illegal Obama administration needs to be.  And all the legislation that the Usurper has signed into law, and all the executive orders that he has issued, and all the appointments that he has made, rendered null and void.  And the nation returned to the rule of law.  Meaning: the Constitution.
Enough of this despotic business going on.  It needs to be nipped in the bud.  Or it will take this nation over.  And whose side will YOU be on THEN, Citizen???  


2) from NewsWithViews National: 'The New Authoritarians, the Compulsory Vaccinators' - by Attorney Jonathan Emord - Mar. 9 


March 9

Dear Jonathan

Thanks for your column, highlighting the terrible 'overkill' of authoritarian government in this regard.

I like your thinking - except the presumption that a case of measles would be bad for a child to come in contact with. You must be one of those younguns who didn't grow up in an era when a) measles was considered a mild to moderate childhood disease (before the vaccine became available for it, whereupon it became a terrible, major disease to be avoided at all costs - and lo, here we have just the thing for you), and b) mothers would take their kids to the homes of kids with a case of the measles, hoping that they would contract it and thus 1) get it over with, and 2) receive thereby lifelong immunity from it; which their female children could then pass on to their offspring, thus protecting them in their infancy until their own immune systems could deal with this sort of passage of life.

I am saying that the childhood diseases served a most important role in life, in maturing one's immune system, which the allopathic profession has lost sight of, in its blind acceptance of the drug industry's goodies. Yes, some cases of measles can be serious; and, there are natural treatments for such childhood diseases, that don't have the damnable side effects to them that the vaccines have. I can think of vitamin A for measles, e.g. (And large doses of vitamin C for polio; and colloidal silver for the DPT triad; and so forth.) And that way, the child has the immune-system-maturing benefit of having had the disease, with good, natural, palliative treatment to get over it.

We are on a roller coaster of danger with the vaccine concept, which a) moves the childhood diseases on to later stages of life, when they can be more severe, and b) doesn't allow the mother to pass on her antibodies to her child(ren); the vaccines NOT conferring lifelong immunity [rather, something better called 'sensitization']. Thus the reason why the medical-pharmaceutical-government-complex is trying to rope EVERYBODY into their corral: because, even with 'booster shots', their way is creating more dangers than 'the other way'. 

Not to belabor the subject. Just to raise it.


'Stan' Stanfield 


Both of the above subjects, leading the country deeper and deeper into authoritarian danger.

But, you can lead a horse to water

No comments: