I find I'm getting short of tolerance. It comes with also getting restless. Wondering: Am I doing all that I should be doing? As things begin to come to a head...
Examples of my beginning to get 'short':
from wnd.com: ‘Trump Snagged In Obama’s Birth Certificate War’ - July 27
(”Sheriff Joe accuses [CNN] anchor of trying to use him to ’insult’ Donald”)
..
Tim Casey • 2 hours ago
I believe that the cert is out of sequence but his lousy performance speaks louder that where he was born. Further more are you supposed to have both parents as natural born citizens in order to run for POTUS? His daddy is from Kenya!
3
•
•
Reply
atchafa Tim Casey • an hour ago
His daddy is from Kenya and we don't know who his real mother is. Haven't you heard ann Dunham's not his blood mother.
- •
- Reply
- Amanda Lee Tim Casey • an hour ago
Yes, the Constitution says you do have to have both parents as natural born citizens. The reason is to preclude any loyalty to any "mother" country. Also, if one of the parents was not even naturalized, as in the case of Obama's Kenyan father, the child would have either a choice of citizenship, or a dual citizenship, depending on the other country's laws.- Can you see how that would create a conflict of interest?
- 3
- •
- Reply
yogiman Tim Casey • an hour ago
No, the parents don't have to be natural born citizens; they can be naturalized citizens, but they both must be citizens of the nation in which a child is born for the child to be a natural born citizen of that nation.
- 5
- •
- Reply
Amanda Lee yogiman • an hour ago
Nice rewriting of the Constitution (sarc)...it says the parents (plural) must be "natural born" citizens...not naturalized.
- 1
- Reply
- yogiman Amanda Lee • an hour ago
- Where does the Constitution give a definition of natural born citizen? It doesn't: That is why the First Session of Congress placed the definition of natural born citizen into law in 1790.
To be a natural born citizen, a child's parents must be citizens of the nation in which the child is born; how they got their citizenship has no bearing on the issue.
- 1
- Reply
kibitzer3 yogiman • 2 minutes ago (July 27)
Correct, yogiman. It is also clarified in the legal tome of the time, E. de Vattel's 'The Law of Nations Or Principles of Natural Law'.
When the ordure hits the blade, the Left will try to argue, 'So what? The Constitution is a living document. It changes over time. 'Original intent' is only one way to look at it.' Which amounts to being under the rule of men. Arbitrary law. Which is tyranny.
In which case, we're talking war.
Henry Kissinger was part of this phony Obama,
here is a story from wnd 2009.
Reply
- kibitzer3 rickc • a few seconds ago
Thanks for the link, rickc. Yes, it pays to look at these things in their contexts. And as for the NWO:
To Henry & David & George S. & the George B's & all that elite lot, I say: The only larger entity that the federal constitutional Republic of the U.S. of A. will ever be subsumed into will be the kingdom of Heaven on Earth. You can take your totalitarian New World Order and, well, you know what you can do with it.
--
I'm sorry; but when I read how they are taking over the minds of our children, with their slanted textbooks and techniques...and are now going so far as to take them bodily away from the responsibility of their parents - as in inserting IUDs in young girls without their parents' permission or even knowledge, and as in giving parents grief over letting their kids walk to and from school; as if they are already simply wards of the state - I see red. As in Red.
And I am not amused.
Okay, okay. Things had to get bad before they could get better.
But...damn it all to hell. Such arrogance. Such a waste of consciousness.
Heads will roll.
Symbolically.
But the souls dealt with severely nevertheless.
If they don't own up to having just taken a part in The Play.
And repent.
Yes yes. The New Testament has human fingerprints all over it, and seems largely to be simply another example of astrotheology.
But there are some concepts in that religion that just, simply, fit.
And repentance is one of them.
That's how to tell the difference between the sheep and the goats.
A point of demarcation which we seem, finally, to be approaching.
And not soon enough.
--
The final word of this evening: to a PAC that feels that 'minorities' are the key to a victory of conservatives in 2016. My 'additional comment' to their survey:
'The nation will not be in 2016 if Obama's usurpation of the presidential office is not reversed. He is not a legally sitting president, for not being a "natural born" citizen. See Over.' And 'Over,' my message - my plea, my warning - to these sorts of people in this country:
'Dear Tom [Donelson; Executive Director, Americas PAC],
'You would be doing the American republic a huge favor if you would call Obama on his illegality in the office. The Constitution is a dead letter if he isn't.
The final word of this evening: to a PAC that feels that 'minorities' are the key to a victory of conservatives in 2016. My 'additional comment' to their survey:
'The nation will not be in 2016 if Obama's usurpation of the presidential office is not reversed. He is not a legally sitting president, for not being a "natural born" citizen. See Over.' And 'Over,' my message - my plea, my warning - to these sorts of people in this country:
'Dear Tom [Donelson; Executive Director, Americas PAC],
'You would be doing the American republic a huge favor if you would call Obama on his illegality in the office. The Constitution is a dead letter if he isn't.
'It is not rocket science. The whole POINT of the exercise on the part of the constitutional Framers in putting that particular eligibility requirement (of needing to be a "natural born"citizen) in their contract for that particular office - & that particular office ONLY, please note & underscored - was to make sure that the person in that office, who would then as well become the Commander in Chief of the nation's military forces, had NO DUAL/CONFLICTING LOYALTIES OR ALLEGIANCES. As a naturalized citizen would be subject to. & as a DUAL citizen would most CERTAINLY be subject to. Duh!
'They were clearly going by E. de Vattel's definition of a 'nbc' in his definitive tome 'The Law of Nations Or Principles of Natural Law'. & to underscore the matter, A. Hamilton, in his role as a delegate to the C.C. proceedings, proposed that the president need only be a, quote, "citizen" - & his proposal was specifically turned down, in favor of the more stringent 'nbc' category, such was their concern over the issue.
'& now here we are, in our day & age, letting them - & ourselves - down over the matter. This fundamental constitutional issue. Which, if allowed to be failed to be addressed, drives a coach & horses though that document, & makes of it - as I said at the beginning of this address to reason - a dead letter.
'Without which we are subject merely to the rule of men. Which is arbitrary law. Which is TYRANNY.
'Where are the men to come to the aid of their country, in its hour of greatest need???'
And signed with a big equivalent
John Hancock
For it's that sort of time.
No comments:
Post a Comment