Wednesday, 9 September 2015

The Law Of The Land

Dear Federal Government Of The United States:

I’m having a bit of a hard time getting my head around some things that have been, and are, going on in this country.  Please bear with me as I outline my quandary.

You say that our system of government is that of a federal constitutional republic.  Therefore, the Constitution is the law of the land, and with an amending process embedded in it; like any contract.  If so, how do you explain, that without benefit of an amendment to the constitutional contract:-

* You have arbitrarily changed it by saying that a person occupying the presidential office of the federal government - who as well, then, becomes the Commander in Chief of the nation’s military forces; a not incidental factor in this matter - no longer has to have sole loyalty and/or allegiance to the United States at birth - i.e., needs to be a ‘natural born’ citizen; to say, and from original intent: one born on the soil (jus soli) of TWO (in this case, U.S.) citizen parents (jus sanguinis) - but rather can have dual citizenship upon birth?
* You have arbitrarily changed it by saying that from a requirement of needing two-thirds of the vote in the Senate to pass a treaty, it now requires two-thirds of the vote IN BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS to reject a treaty?1 

* You have arbitrarily changed it by saying that the law of the land - the Constitution - does not apply to Muslims, that they can live under their religious ‘sharia law’ in this country; thus allowing, for example, the execution of a victim of rape, and the genital mutilation of their female children?  How about honor killings??  
   And if their religion called for them to practice child sacrifice: would you allow that, too, in this new-aborning country of yours???  

Let me cut to the chase. This Corker Bill crap on treaty law, this sleight of hand has come about in time for the passage of Obama’s treaty with Iran.  Waiting in the wings is the UN’s Small Arms Treaty.  Which will eliminate the Second Amendment.  Because treaties become the law of the land - and trump any positions to the contrary.

Like the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Ladies and gentlemen; let us not beat around the bush here, as to what this means.  This is the reason for the massive ammo purchases of the Obama administration,2 and the weaponized drones flying the previously friendly skies of the United States, and the practice runs in Jade Helm15 for ‘dissident extraction,’ and so forth and so on, and on.

This is, to say, is the signal for civil war.  

And the end - the official end - of the Constitution, via the Usurper’s call for Martial Law, to deal with the unrest.  

Mission Accomplished.

If we let these bastards get away with their machinations.

Personally, I don’t think they will.

But then, that’s just me.

And a few good Americans and true.


P.S. I’m not precisely sure when it was.  I think it was on the occasion, in 1976, of the 200th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, and effective birth of the nation.  A committee was appointed by the federal government - this would’ve been under President Ford, just before he left office - to organize the activities for the occasion; and one day, in the mainstream media, it was reported that they had decided that ‘the country could never be taken over because of the Constitution’.

That seemed curious to me.  What was that all about? I wondered.  Why would they even consider such a thing??

I know now.

The termites were already at work on that job.  First, they had to establish in the minds of the populace that the law of the land was subject to the interpretation of the Constitution by the Supreme Court.  Then they established in said minds that there were a couple of legal ’principles’ called ‘strict construction’ versus ‘broad construction,’ both legitimate ‘principles’.  Along with that, the (mere) concept of ‘original intent’ was paired off with the idea that the Constitution was  ‘a living document’ - therefore, subject simply to its ‘interpretation’ by the Supremes.  And The People seem, by and large, to have bought this sleight of hand (thanks to the Left’s control of education for so many years).  

Enter such as the current piece of legal legerdemain called the Corker Bill.

And what a corker it is, too.

'Drink up, gang!  We've got'em!'

Don't count your chickens too soon, friend.

I really don't think that the Americans are that chicken.

At least, not the Americans that I know about.

But then, you never know.


the time comes.

To produce.

On one's inheritance.

Or not.

Your choice.

Your individual choice.

Your soul's individual choice.

Whether to proceed Up.

Or whether to fail the test.

Which we are all faced with.

As we speak.


1 The so-called Corker Bill has turned the Constitution on its head by requiring that vote to overturn a presidential veto of a bill rejecting a treaty. 
   Sweet.  And corrupt as hell.  Shyster-lawyerly stuff.

2 And not to forget the previous, Bush-Cheney administration in all this New World Order crap going on; which laid the foundation for the Obama mission creep, in its deliberately-imposed and arrogantly-named PATRIOT Act.  Imposed on the heels of the 9/11 Affair.  Which was a project of the Project for a New American Century.  Which was a project of the NeoCons in the Bush W. administration.  Which means that that Affair was conducted in cahoots with Mossad.  And its Five Dancing Israeli Masters on the top of their Mossad business-front moving van, across the river from the burning WTC towers; one of them gleefully flicking a cigaret lighter in the foreground of the shot.  Which signals prior knowledge that the caper was coming down.  With its falling stick figures.  Like out of a comic book.  Or on a Tarot deck card.   
   But not to worry.  If you want an omelet, you have to scramble some eggs.  Eh, eggheads???

No comments: