Friday 10 July 2015

On Universe-Shattering Information


from wnd.com: ‘“Universe-Shattering” Info On Obama Eligibility Delayed’ - Art Moore - July 9
(Some more delaying info from Mike Zullo; also presenting the argument in relation to a Naturalization Act of 1890, subsequently altered in 1895.  What effing nonsense.)

..

This is all a nonsense. It is patently obvious to any objective person what the constitutional Framers meant when they decided to require the occupant of that particular office - and that particular office ONLY - to be a "natural born" citizen: they didn't want anybody in that position, who would as well then become the Commander in Chief of the nation's military forces, to have any DUAL/CONFLICTING LOYALTIES OR ALLEGIANCES. As a naturalized citizen would be subject to. And as a DUAL citizen would CERTAINLY be subject to. So at the very least, the office holder had to have TWO (in this case, U.S.) CITIZEN PARENTS.

And this take on the matter is borne out by the understood definition of the day, which was taken from E. de Vattel's 'The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law,' the definitive tome of the day on legal issues. Which Benjamin Franklin, the Framers's elder and respected mentor, sitting right there amongst them as a delegate himself, is known to have had had three copies of, which he could have loaned out to any of them if there was any question in any of their minds about what they were being asked to vote on. Which there was not - as attested to AS WELL by the proposal by Alexander Hamilton that the president need only be a "citizen" - and his proposal was SPECIFICALLY TURNED DOWN, in favor of the more strict 'natural born' requirement.

No, it's OBVIOUS what the Framers meant. What is not quite as obvious is why there is any question in anybody's mind at this point in time. But I would hazard an intelligent guess: because the Republican Party wanted that stricter eligibility requirement for that office to be watered down as well as the Democrats, and they did a quid pro quo deal between them on the issue: 'We won't say anything about your candidate if you won't say anything about any candidates that we may put up for the job in the future; realizing that between us, we have both the Mainstream Media and the judiciary sewn up, so that leaves only the stupid sheeple for us to keep quiet about it; agreed?' And it was so, in a smoke-filled back room in Washington. And that's why the Congresscritters on BOTH sides of the political aisle won't touch the issue now with a ten-foot pole.

And is why both parties will go down, as criminal enterprises, under RICO conspiracy statutes, for the dastardly deed. When Obama has justice served on him as well.

As he will. As he will. Whether it comes through the work of Zullo. Or not. Because Justice WILLL be served.


How do I know?

Because it’s why I’m here.


All you New World Order sellouts:

You are going down.

The jig is up, for you.

You chose badly.

You were as well characters in a Play.  So, if you renounce your characters, and reclaim your Light bodies, you can progress.

Otherwise, as I say:

You’re going down.

It’s time to choose.

The definitive choice, for you.

(Reply comment:)


Well written. I've been quoting Vattel for years now, and still nobody gets it. It's really simple to understand. A person inherits their citizenship from their parents and Obama's father was not a U.S. citizen. I wish I knew why that is so hard to understand. I am so frustrated that Congress and the SCOTUS have not dealt with this. Isn't that why we have a separation of powers?

Reply


  • One would think so, Steve. Which was, indeed, the whole point. But if the Congress is complicit in executive-branch shenanigans; and if the SCOTUS is loath to take on any case on the subject that might come its way, and so 'signals' that it doesn't want to go there...

  • ..we have the makings of a tyranny. Which means it's up to We the People to take our country back. To "institute new Government, having its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness".

  • One could well think that it's that time.


from birtherreport.com: the same article; basically my same response, with the addition at the end of two short sentences, that sums it all up definitively:

..
kibitzer3 60p · 2 minutes ago (just gone July 10)

This is all such a nonsense. It is patently obvious to any objective person what the constitutional Framers meant when they decided to require the occupant of that particular office - and that particular office ONLY - to be a "natural born" citizen: because they didn't want anybody in that position, who would as well then become the Commander in Chief of the nation's military forces, to have any DUAL/CONFLICTING LOYALTIES OR ALLEGIANCES. As a naturalized citizen would be subject to. And as a DUAL citizen would CERTAINLY be subject to. So at the least, the office holder had to have TWO (in this case, U.S.) CITIZEN PARENTS. 

And this take on the matter is borne out by the understood definition of the day, which was taken from E. de Vattel's 'The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law,' the definitive tome of the day on legal issues. Which Benjamin Franklin, the Framers's elder and respected mentor, sitting right there amongst them as a delegate himself, is known to have had three copies of, which he could have loaned out to any of them if there was any question in any of their minds about what they were being asked to vote on. Which there was not - as attested to AS WELL by the proposal by Alexander Hamilton at the Convention that the president need only be a 'citizen' - and his proposal was SPECIFICALLY TURNED DOWN , in favor of the more strict 'natural born' requirement. 

No, it's OBVIOUS what the Framers meant. What is not quite as obvious is why there is any question in anybody's mind at this point in time. But I would make an intelligent guess: because the Republican Party wanted that stricter birth requirement for that office to be watered down as well as the Democrats, and they did a quid pro quo deal between them on the issue: 'We won't say anything about your candidate if you won't say anything about any candidate we may put up for the job in the future; realizing that between us, we have the Mainstream Media and the judiciary sewn up, so that leaves only the stupid sheeple for us to keep quiet about it. Agreed?' And it was so, in a smoke-filled backroom in Washington. And that's why the Congresscritters on both sides of the political aisle won't touch the issue now with a ten-foot pole. 

And is why both parties will go down, as criminal enterprises, under RICO conspiracy statutes, for the dastardly deed. When Obama has justice served on him as well. 

As he will. As - he - will. Whether it comes through the work of Zullo. Or not. Because Justice WILL be served. Because this is a just universe. And God will not be mocked.

No comments: