Sunday, 27 September 2015

On Being On The 'A' Team - Or Not

On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 4:34 AM, Duane Stanfield wrote:

Dear Dr. (     ),

I wish first of all to commend you on this 2-parter [posted on NewsWithViews].  Important words for the public to digest - take in, and do something about.

But - and especially with your obvious love for the Constitution - you really need to get up to speed on a major issue regarding the office of the presidency and the trouble that we are in.  Basically, we are in the trouble that we are in because The People have lost sight of their responsibility in this country to be the authority, and sovereign; NOT their political representatives, or anybody else.

I refer to the fact that Obama is not a legally sitting president, because he is not a ’natural born’ citizen.  And neither is Ted Cruz.  Or Marco Rubio, or Bobby Jindal, or Rick Santorum, for that matter; as the Republican Party honchos try to make two wrongs make a right - the original wrong having been Obama’s candidacy, and the Republican Party’s failure to do its job, as the official opposition party in this country to the Democrats, and call him and the Democrat Party on the attempted (and, unfortunately, successful) sleight of hand.

Listen carefully.  And, it is not rocket science.  The whole POINT of the constitutional Framers putting that particular eligibility requirement in their contract for that particular office - and that particular office ONLY, please note - was to make sure that the occupant of that office, who would as well then 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. And as a DUAL citizen would MOST CERTAINly be subject to.

Like Obama.  And like Cruz, whose father was not a naturalized citizen at the time of Ted’s birth.  (Same for the others.)

It is obvious that said Framers were going by the definition of that term extant at the time in the definitive tome of the day on such matters, E. de Vattel’s ’The Law of Nations Or Principles of Natural Law’.  Three copies of which tome it is known that Benjamin Franklin, one of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention, is known to have been in the possession of.  (If any of the delegates were not clear as to the definition of the term that they were being asked to vote on, all they would have had to do was ask their elder, respected, and learned mentor, B. Franklin, sitting right there amongst them at the proceedings.)  And specifically to the point of the importance of the Commander in Chief role for that office, there is the letter (7/25/1787) from John Jay, a respected statesman of the day (who ended up becoming the first Chief Justice of the new United States Supreme Court, such was the respect for his acumen on political matters), to G. Washington in his role as Chair of the C.C. proceedings, making the point:

‘Dear Sir,

‘Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born citizen.’

And to drive the point home even further, there is the historical fact that Alexander Hamilton, as one of the delegates to those proceedings, proposed that the president need only be a, quote, ‘citizen’  - and his proposal was SPECIFICALLY TURNED DOWN, in favor of the more stringent category of citizen.

A ’natural born’ citizen, then, according to their understanding of the term, being one born on the soil (jus soli) of (in this case, U.S.) citizen parents (jus sanguinis).  That’s PLURAL.  As in BOTH.  Thus, with SOLE ALLEGIANCE TO THE U.S.  Which, as I say, was the WHOLE POINT of the exercise.

I know that many liberal lawyers have been trying to make the Constitution ‘a living document,’ so that they can make of its contents whatever they wish to.  (‘Words mean what I say they mean’ - Humpty Dumpty.)  But we’re not there yet.  And as added proof of the political parties’s KNOWING what they were doing in this charade, there is the fact that between them, they made a total of 8 tries between 2003 and ’08 to get a constitutional amendment going through Congress on this very issue (in some cases, including it in their covering submissions), and they failed each time even to get it out of committee, such was the sensitivity around the issue.  So, what did they do?  It is obvious: they met in a smoke-filled back room, and colluded, in a conspiracy to take down the Constitution, and thus the rule of law in the country.  An assumption that will come out in a court of law, when they are both hauled into it on RICO-statute charges, of being the criminal enterprises that they are.

Which is another story.  For now, I simply urge you to check out my case, and get satisfied in your own mind and heart of that which I charge:

that we have a Usurper occupying the Oval Office.  And what needs to happen is that

* he is simply arrested - by Oathkeepers - and held for trial, on a whole host of charges by now, including perjury, and treason;

* the officials of both major political parties are likewise arrested, and charged as I have indicated above;

* the sitting Congress be dissolved, for failing to do its constitutional duty to rein in a rogue executive; and that

* an Officer of The People be appointed to call for new elections within a time certain; and in the meantime, to clean out the executive branch departments and agencies of all of the vipers infesting them.

Actually, I don’t think there will be any more elections; because I think that this Event signals the end of The Play that we have been in.  But just in case, we can make plans for one - with new political parties.

There is more.  But that is enough for now. I mainly wanted to correct you on your thinking, that Cruz was an eligible candidate. And that Obama was just an unfortunate choice.

He is far more than that.

Very sincerely,



Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 20:37:37 -0400
Subject: Re: NWV Columns of Sept (  ) & Sept (  )

Well, Duane, you have it pretty much figured out and I not only agree with much of what you write, but I also applaud you.

The thing here to consider is that though you and I, and many other Americans, interpret the Founding Father's words as to what "naturalized" means, it is, for all intense purposes, arguable by those who want to interpret the way they do.

I have chatted with Constitutional experts and they say that no absolute definition can be accurately and appropriately applied to the verbiage; hence, Obama will go down in history as an "American citizen," whether we concur or not.

Oivay, we have at least another year with him, if--hopefully I'm wrong--if I'm right. Whatever happens, he will not go darkly into the night. We will see him everywhere, including behind the scenes.

The scary thing is not only that his handlers have power and money, but the American public is both stupid and apathetic, or perhaps the latter is determined by the former.

Keep in touch. And thanks for reading my article, Duane.

On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 2:25 AM, Stan Stanfield wrote:

Dear Dr. (     ),

You have accepted the word of your "Constitutional experts'" all too easily.

You have just missed the cut for the 'A' team.

Good luck with wherever you end up.



P.S.  And it's not about being 'naturalized'.  It's about being natural.  The difference is very clear.  To other than shyster lawyer types.  

Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2015 20:41:06 -0400
Subject: Re: NWV Columns of Sept (  ) & Sept (  )

cLUE ME IN ON WHAT YOU THINK I MISSED (sorry for the capitals; I just realized I had them on. emoji_0263A.pngemoji_0263A.png ). I'm willing to be educated.



(most recent: September 26)

Thanks for your willingness to be educated, (      ).

As I said: You have accepted the word of your "Constitutional experts" all too easily.  A lot of people, on both sides of the political aisle, stand to lose a lot if this matter is brought out FULLY to the light of day, including going to jail.  But the Truth MUST out.  Else what's life for.

Don't take my word for it.  (Although I have cited a lot of other people in defense of my 'take' on the matter: John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin (by fact of [his] presence at the proceedings, and his understanding of the term), Emer de Vattel.  [Plus, of course, by logical extension, no less a commanding figure of our history and those times than G. Washington himself.])  Go to  See the two videos on YouTube of Prof. Herb Titus.  See the various excellent articles of CDR C.F. Kerchner (Ret.).  As I also said: This is NOT rocket science.  Neither is it even subject to subsequent court cases (even if a number of those have supported the classic, de Vattel definition of a 'natural born' citizen).  Supreme Courts - much less regulatory agencies - can't make up their own definitions of natural law; only statutory law (Iike 'naturalization').  The only way that the political parties can get around this eligibility requirement SPECIFIC TO THAT OFFICE (for its SOLE ALLEGIANCE intent, as I explained) is by way of a constitutional amendment, striking it, and putting in some other category of citizen.  As - as I pointed out - both major political parties have already tried to do.  Which is PROOF ENOUGH IN ITSELF that THEY KNEW what that term meant, and what they were ultimately trying to do, by colluding in trying to slip it by a usually no-clue [i.e., gullible; asleep] populace.

Not on this issue, we won't be, and be done to.    

This is corruption at its stinking worst.  You MUST understand the enormity of the matter: This makes of the Constitution a dead letter.  We are, by this criminal act, no longer functioning under the rule of law in this country.  We are functioning under the rule of men.  Aka arbitrary law.  The hallmark of tyrants down through the ages. This is the Roman Republic turning into the Roman Empire, all over again.  [Only this time, over the whole world literally.]

I won't have it.  Neither will a lot of other Americans. 

I hope you come to your senses - see that you are being conned, by your "Constitutional experts" - and join the true Americans in this terribly important matter.   

Sorry about all the caps.  But if you can...   :-)


P.S. Some people try to say that 'the courts have already ruled on this, move along'.  No they haven't.  Many court cases have been dismissed on procedural grounds, saying that the plaintiffs lacked 'standing'.  The Supreme Court has yet to rule on the basic merits of the case.  Has, indeed, signaled that it would like not to have to.   
     So much for the [integrity of the] current judicial branch of government at this time in this country's history...  


If this person replies back trying to hold to the "arguable" nature of what the constitutional Framers meant by the term - that "no absolute definition can be accurately and appropriately applied to the is, for all intense [sic] purposes, arguable by those who want to interpret the way they do"* - my reply:

'It is NOT “arguable”.  It is a HIJACK.  And as someone who has declared love for the Constitution and this country, and with something of a public voice, I expect you to RAISE YOUR VOICE on this issue.  Not give in supinely to the termites infesting this nation, and attempting to take it over, and make it into something that it is not, and never should become: a mere part of a region of the New World Order of the vile creatures attempting to rule this world.



P.S. Oh - and the ’A’ Team?:

Those who live their lives by Truth.


* there is some confusion in this person's mind about the terms/categories 'naturalized' and 'natural born'

No comments: