Monday, 30 November 2015

Speaking of Ted Cruz...

With so much seeming to be coming to a head these days, I'd like to speak for Ted for a moment
of your time, please, and thanks; as an example of what a great thing he could still do for this country; as I engage in a little fantasy:

(Press Conference called for an Urgent Announcement)

'It has been brought
To my attention
That my education
On the Constitution
As regarding the definition
Of a 'natural born' citizen
Has been faulty; that
I have been in error
On the matter; and I
      the original
      and intention
Was of a person
Born on the soil
Of citizen parents -
         And that
Doesn't fit my
         And so I
From my candidacy
For the nomination
Of the presidency
From my party.

And you will note
                that my
     of meeting that
           as well.

And I invite
         the person
Who has drawn this
To my attention
         to come forth
         and form
A new government
As he sets about
To set things right
In the country
       The country
That I love
Dearly.  Enough
         to save
Its Constitution
Above my own

            His name
             is Duane
          Stanfield -
           of Stan -
And he comes from
            Long Beach,
California, where he
          is living
          at present, too.

That's all
At this time.
Thank you.'

And watch me
Into action.
Let's see;
             there is
The little matter
       of saving
       the Pacific
Ocean (where
   the pelicans
   don't fly
             there is
The little matter
Of getting rid
Of illegal
    and EMR;
             there is
The little matter
Of overhauling
     the monetary
      and orchestrating
             there is -
A whole lot
Of little things
Attend to
     the big one


 and the stripping of
      the Veil
     of Illusion
 from our eyes

     and the end
     of the exercise


Yes.  It is
Thank you, Ted,
       for the
I accept
The offer

         let's get
To work,
     is what
     we chose
To incarnate for
At this time.

We're here.

Your working
And see you
       the coalface.

More Notes From The Front Lines

1) from ’Texas Governor Refuses Syrian Refugees’ - Bob Price - November 16 (posted at Devvy’s Email Alerts - November 30)

kibitzer3 a few seconds ago (November 30)

Well done, Gov. Abbott.

Our business with the Usurper needs to be brought to a head. You are helping with that mission.

The mission, of American patriots taking back their country, from the New World Order crowd. Who are on a Dark mission, that needs to be countered by the Light forces.

Choose your side, Citizen. It's coming down to the wire.

2) from ’Top 10 Reasons To Vote For Ted Cruz’ - November 30 (orig. posted at pjmedia - David P. Goldman - November 24) 


The one big reason not to vote for Cruz is to maintain the rule of law in the country - the Constitution. He is not eligible for the job, for not being a "natural born" citizen. The historical definition of a NBC - and the requirement never changed by constitutional amendment since its inception - is one born on the soil of citizen parents. The whole POINT of the exercise on the part of the constitutional Framers in putting that particular requirement in their contract for that particular office - and that particular federal office ONLY - was to make sure that the occupant, who would as well then become the Commander in Chief of the nation's military forces, would have NO DUAL OR OTHERWISE CONFLICTING LOYALTIES OR ALLEGIANCES. As a naturalized citizen would be subject to. And as a DUAL citizen would MOST CERTAINLY be subject to. Like Cruz. And like Obama.

TWO WRONGS DO NOT MAKE A RIGHT. Presumed conservative who won't look at this matter for what it is - the [attempted] overthrow of the Constitution; turning it into "just a damn piece of paper," in the colorful words of George Dubya - are as responsible for setting up the nation to be under the rule of men - aka arbitrary law; aka tyranny - as TPTB behind the candidacy and administration of the Usurper. Get your priorities right, America. Or you are doomed as a federal constitutional Republic; and about to go the way of the Roman Republic. Into disaster.

(under pjmedia:)



What crap you are spewing.


  • kibitzer3 1SamTreadwell1 a few seconds ago (November 39)

  • * See the 7/25/1787 letter of John Jay - who subsequently became the first Chief Justice of the new U.S . Supreme Court, such was the respect for his statesmanship and political acumen - to G. Washington, in his role as Chair of the Constitutional Convention proceedings;

  • * See the proposal at the C. Convention by Alexander Hamilton that the president need only be a "citizen" - and his proposal was SPECIFICALLY TURNED DOWN, in favor of the more stringent NBC category of citizen;

  • * See the fact that the delegates were very familiar with the definitive tome of the day on such subjects, E. de Vattel's 'The Law of Nations Or Principles of Natural Law' - which B. Franklin, sitting right there amongst the delegates as one himself, and a learned and respected mentor of the day, was known to have 3 copies of, and could have set any of them right on the subject if they were not sure what they were being asked to vote on;

  • * See the fact that both main political parties tried a total of 8 times between them, between 2003 and '08, to get a constitutional amendment going through Congress to change this very eligibility requirement for that office - and failed every time even to get their proposals out of committee, such was the sensitivity around the issue.

  • So THEY KNEW. Even if you don't. And obviously colluded in attempting an end-around of the Constitution and the American people on the subject. Which will land them in a court of law, before this is through, and found to be criminal enterprises under RICO statutes, and dissolved for their crime against the American Republic. Such is the importance of this issue.

  • Which the public needs to wake up to. And fast. Before the Usurper is handed a 'national emergency' that allows him to declare Martial Law, and bring about the end of the Republic that way.

If one parent is a citizen, you are a "native-born" citizen even if born abroad. Such a person would not be classified as a naturalized citizen.

You are confusing the question of native citizen with a naturalized citizen. A naturalized citizen cannot be president. Cruz is not naturalized; he is the son of a person who was a citizen at the time he was born. For that same reason, the issue of whether Obama was born in Kenya is also a red herring. His mother was a citizen; he claims "native-born" status.

If Congress so chooses, it can change the rules, but the rules the country wants are these: if both parents are aliens, a child born inside the U.S. borders is a citizen of the country of the mother and is under the jurisdiction of the U.S. only temporarily, in the event of criminal activity. At the present time, a person born here can claim dual citizenship, and Congress could and should change that.

To allow persons born to illegal aliens within the borders of the U.S. to claim "native-born" citizenship while denying citizenship to a person born of a citizen parent while outside the U.S. would be to turn the citizenship status upside-down. Cruz may be challenged, but his challengers won't win.


  • kibitzer3
    TeeJay 2 a few seconds ago 

  • A 'native born' citizen is not the same as a 'natural born' citizen. A 'native born' citizen only requires one citizen parent, and being born jus soli - on the soil. A 'natural born' citizen requires both parents to be citizens of the country: SOLE ALLEGIANCE to the country. YOU are "confusing the question".

  • Wake up, Citizens. Your country - your federal constitutional Republic - is being sold out from under you.

3) from TeaPartyC.C.: ‘How A Secretive Elite Created The EU To Build A World Government’ - posted by Natl Dir. Dee - November 29/30 (orig. posted at - Tyler Durden; authored by Prof. Alan Sked -  November 28)

Permalink Reply by Stan Stanfield 2 seconds ago (November 30)

A good commentary.  The definitive tome on the subject is the late Prof. Carroll Quigley's 'Tragedy And Hope'.  Although the plan for a New World Order preceded even the Anglo-American version.  It goes back to Babylonian days.  But more on that, another time.

The Pelicans Don't Come By Here Anymore

On The Edge Of The Pacific
           At Sundown

The pelicans
Don't come by here
      Well, every
 once in awhile
    cruises by
    and back
    to a distant
       for the night.

    A sad

      We really
       to get
       our act
On this lovely
       needing us

And the cruise liner
         calls its catch
         from the shore.

And I go home
To my perch
For the night.

        As well

On Wearing Out One's Welcome

Jerome Corsi of Freedom Defense Fund has hit me up again for a huge (for me, at least) donation in his campaign against Obama.  I 'gave in' some time ago to his special entreaty, but - as these fundraising requests go, by automatic (and aggravating) 'style' - he is trying to get me to at least match my last contribution, if not double it or at least half it again.  That's not what set me off this time.  This time, I had had enough, than just to ignore 'his' (computer-generated) repeated requests and bin them.  Hence my note back to him, on my 'Contribution Reply':

'Mr. Corsi:*

'I was willling to support you before because you were at least doing something about this usurpation of the presidential office.  But it is 'friends' like you who are keeping the true nature of the matter from the American people; to wit: It is not so much where Obama was born as to WHOM he was born. He was born- or at least, so he says (we don't know even that about this Manchurian candidate) - to a foreign father.  That is grounds for his dismissal from the thus-purloined [and -dishonored] office right there.  By not acknowledging that fact, you have kept this terribly unfortunate matter going far too long - & perhaps fatally so.

'See  Mario Apuzzo has it right.  Also CDR C.F. Kerchner (Ret.).  Also Prof. Herb Titus.  The list goes on, of true patriots.

'Please take me off your mailing list.  It is a waste of time, & money.  & worse.'


* [a deliberate snub right there; he presents himself regularly as Jerome Corsi, Ph.D.
    Not being too snotty.  He even has a prospective donor address him as 'Dear Jerry'  himself.]


...and, on a gentler note for the day (I keep trying to get to my heart, and out of just my head, these miserable days - the dark before the dawn):

I want to see
Of Americans
Of all races
         and other
Down the streets
Of America

    (the cantor:)
'What do we want.'
(the congregation:)
  'The highest
      to be served.'
      (the cantor:)
'When do we want it?'

        and repeated


Good idea?

Make it happen.



...and a variation, with the theme:

'The Veil of Illusion
  to come down.'

A Man Of His Times - And Then Some

I have received a mailing from
The Thomas Jefferson Foundation.
Thomas Jefferson.  Ah,
                    now there was
A man.  A slave owner?
But he was also
So much more
      than you
      will ever know
      from your current
Propagandists, really.
                   they want
A new America
      with all its
       into easier
       bite sizes
       for their
       New World
 (Ordure, really)
And I want us to
Cherish the old
And its assimilation
         of peoples
         from the
         world over
We leave it all behind
And strike out for
New horizons
            beyond even

You should know
What you are releasing
You release it.

Now, back to
                Jefferson -
      the connoisseur
      the epicure
      the inventor
      the farmer
               and the
      gardener -
     slave owner

             Yes, he
   was a man
   of his times.


Sunday, 29 November 2015

Notes To My Nephew

Latest Installment of

Notes To My Conservative whom I have had to become a bearer of ill tidings:

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Nov 29, 2015 9:23 AM
Subject: Obama Handpicked Natural Borne [sic] Citizen

Obama Handpicked Not A Natural Borne [sic] Citizen 
 Obama Was Hand-Picked, Was NOT a Natural Born Citizen, Congress Knew It, and Tried to Protect Him
Posted on March 29, 2015 by Dean Garrison
obama fraudThe further I travel down this rabbit hole, the more I feel divorced from the good conservative people that I choose to call my own. I hold some stories back from our readers. My thought is that people have a hard enough time embracing the basic fact that our government is corrupt on both sides of the aisle. If you knew how corrupt I thought these people really were, I feel like you’d rush to the phone and soon bad men would show up to haul me off in a straight jacket.
Do they still do that?
Regardless, today I want to show you something that might leave you questioning everything around you.
Welcome to my world.
In 1975 a representative named Joe Bingham introduced an amendment to remove the “natural born citizen” constitutional requirement to become President.
Why is that important?
Because it was not until almost 30 years later that the issue would be addressed again. And it was not addressed only once, but multiple times. This is all part of congressional record.
Remarkably, it just so happened to coincide with the meteoric rise of a man named Barack Obama who currently sits in the People’s House.
I am about to share with you a brilliant piece of research from the Article II Political Action Committee. After reading it the foremost question on my mind is, “If the natural born citizen definition only requires one citizen parent then why did they seemingly try so hard to change the law for Barack Obama?”
There are multiple links to official congressional documents throughout, contained in the research below, so I would urge you to draw your own conclusions.
But from my point of view this research either strongly, or at least partly, validates the following conclusions:
  1. Barack Obama was hand-picked to be President.
  2. Some members of Congress, on both sides, understood that Obama was not “natural born” and tried to pass laws to pave the way for his arrival.
  3. In the end they used a deflection tactic to shine light on John McCain’s eligibility status, hoping that Obama’s own status would not be brought into question.
It appears to have worked. 
Below is a lengthy excerpt from “Article II Facts” hosted on the site of the Article II Political Action Committee. If you like what you read, I would encourage you to consider a donation to their cause.
Let’s take a trip back through recent history:
Attempts to redefine or amend Article II “natural born Citizen” Clause of the U.S. Constitution:
The effort to remove the natural-born citizen requirement from the U.S. Constitution actually began in 1975 – when Democrat House Rep. Jonathon B. Bingham, [NY-22] introduced a constitutional amendment underH.J.R. 33: which called for the outright removal of the natural-born requirement for president found in Article II of the U.S. Constitution – “Provides that a citizen of the United States otherwise eligible to hold the Office of President shall not be ineligible because such citizen is not a natural born citizen.”
Bingham’s first attempt failed and he resurrected H.J.R. 33: in 1977 under H.J.R. 38:, again failing to gain support from members of congress. Bingham was a Yale Law grad and member of the secret society Skull and Bones, later a lecturer at Columbia Law and thick as thieves with the United Nations via his membership in the Council on Foreign Relations.
Bingham’s work lay dormant for twenty-six years when it was resurrected again in 2003 as Democrat members of Congress made no less than eight (8) attempts in twenty-two (22) months, to either eliminate the natural-born requirement, or redefine natural-born to accommodate Barack Hussein Obama II in advance of his rise to power. The evidence is right in the congressional record…
1. On June 11, 2003 Democrat House member Vic Snyder [AR-2] introduced H.J.R 59: in the 108th Congress – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 35 years and who has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years eligible to hold the office of President or Vice President.” – Co-Sponsors: Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14]; Rep Delahunt, William D. [MA-10]; Rep Frank, Barney [MA-4]; Rep Issa, Darrell E. [CA-49]; Rep LaHood, Ray [IL-18]; Rep Shays, Christopher [CT-4].
2. On September 3, 2003, Rep. John Conyers [MI] introduced H.J.R. 67: – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years eligible to hold the office of President.” – Co-Sponsor Rep Sherman, Brad [CA-27]
3. On February 25, 2004, Republican Senator Don Nickles [OK] attempted to counter the growing Democrat onslaught aimed at removing the natural-born citizen requirement for president in S.2128: – “Natural Born Citizen Act – Defines the constitutional term “natural born citizen,” to establish eligibility for the Office of President” – also getting the definition of natural born citizen wrong. – Co-sponsors Sen Inhofe, James M. [OK]; Sen Landrieu, Mary L. [LA]
4. On September 15, 2004 – as Barack Obama was about to be introduced as the new messiah of the Democrat Party at the DNC convention, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher [CA-46] introduced H.J.R. 104: – “Constitutional Amendment – “Makes eligible for the Office of the President non-native born persons who have held U.S. citizenship for at least 20 years and who are otherwise eligible to hold such Office.”  – No co-sponsors.
5. Again on January 4, 2005, Rep John Conyers [MI] introduced H.J.R. 2: to the 109th Congress – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years eligible to hold the Office of President.” – Co-Sponsor Rep Sherman, Brad [CA-27]
6. Rep Dana Rohrabacher [CA-46] tries again on February 1, 2005 in H.J.R. 15: – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes eligible for the Office of the President non-native born persons who have held U.S. citizenship for at least 20 years and who are otherwise eligible to hold such Office.” – No Co-Sponsor
7. On April 14, 2005, Rep Vic Snyder [AR-2] tries yet again with H.J.R. 42: – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 35 years and who has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years eligible to hold the office of President or Vice President.” – Co-Sponsor Rep Shays, Christopher [CT-4]
8. All of these efforts failing in committee and the 2008 presidential election looming with an unconstitutional candidate leading the DNC ticket, Democrat Senator Claire McCaskill, [MO] tries to attach the alteration to a military bill in S.2678: on February 28, 2008 – “Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act – Declares that the term “natural born Citizen” in article II, section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution, dealing with the criteria for election to President of the United States, includes any person born to any U.S. citizen while serving in the active or reserve components of the U.S. armed forces.” – Co-Sponsors DNC Presidential candidate Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY]; DNC Presidential candidate Sen Obama, Barack [IL]; Sen Menendez, Robert [NJ]; Sen Coburn, Tom [OK] – (This was the first effort to also assure that GOP Presidential candidate Sen. John McCain [AZ] would be cleared to run against the DNC primary victor.)
From June 11, 2003 to February 28, 2008, there had been eight (8) different congressional attempts to alter Article II – Section I – Clause V – natural born citizen requirements for president in the U.S. Constitution, all of them failing in committee — All of it taking placing during Barack Obama’s rise to political power and preceding the November 2008 presidential election.
In politics, there are no coincidences… not of this magnitude.
Finally on April 10, 2008, unable to alter or remove the natural born citizen requirement to clear the way for Barack Obama, the U.S. Senate acts to shift focus before the election, introducing and passing S.R.511: – declaring Sen. John McCain a “natural born citizen” eligible to run for and hold the office of president. There was never any honest doubt about McCain, the son of a U.S. Navy Commander. The Sponsor of the resolution is Democrat Senator Claire McCaskill, [MO]
S.R.511 States that John Sidney McCain, III, is a “natural born Citizen” under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States. S.R511passed by a 99-0 unanimous consent of the Senate, with only John McCain not voting. The basis was – “Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens;” – a condition not met by Barack Hussein Obama II. – Co-Sponsors DNC Presidential candidate Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY]; DNC Presidential candidate Sen Obama, Barack [IL]; Sen Leahy, Patrick J. [VT]; Sen Webb, Jim [VA]; Sen Coburn, Tom [OK] (They had made certain that John McCain would run against Barack Obama)
However, in the McCain resolution is also this language – “Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen’ of the United States; – Whereas the term `natural born Citizen’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;
The U.S. Constitution is not a dictionary. The definition of “is” is not in the constitution either. Yet this is the text that would later be issued in Congressional Research Service talking points memos distributed to members of congress, to protect an individual that all members of congress know and understand to be an “unconstitutional” resident of the people’s White House – Barack Hussein Obama II.
Once again, as the political left was unable to alter the U.S. Constitution by way of legitimate constitutional process, they resorted to altering the constitution via precedent setting, in short, knowingly electing and getting away with seating an unconstitutional president in order to alter Article II requirements for the office via breaking those constitutional requirements.
The press would not ask any questions and the American people were already too ill-informed of their constitution to know or too distracted by daily life to care. The press would provide the cover, swearing to the lies of an unconstitutional administration put in power by criminal actors focused only on their lofty political agenda of forever altering the American form of government.
The people would be caught up in a steady diet of daily assaults on their individual freedom and liberty and overlook the most obvious constitutional crisis in American history, the seating of an unconstitutional and anti-American president. [SOURCE CREDIT]
There you have it. Make of this what you will.
It brings about many questions for me.
Would people like Claire McCaskill and Hillary Clinton really come to John McCain’s aid if they did not have an ulterior motive?
Why were people like InhofeIssa, and Rohrabacher either sponsoring or co-sponsoring these pieces of legislation? After all, these men have been three of Obama’s biggest critics. We have heard lots of threats and promises from them but have seen no results. Could it be that these men are just more shining examples of “all bark and no bite”? (See Definition of “Smoke and Mirrors“)
If it is true that the definition of “natural born citizen” only involves having one citizen parent then why all the fuss?
Obama, questionable Hawaii birth certificate and all, met the requirement of one American citizen parent. Maybe the truth is that it takes more than that and Congress knows it.
So why was nothing ever done?
Keep searching and settle for nothing less than the truth.

Don't forget to follow the D.C. Clothesline on Facebook and Twitter. PLEASE help spread the word by sharing our articles on your favorite social networks.


Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2015 09:28:19 -0800
Subject: Re: Obama Handpicked Natural Borne [sic] Citizen

Uncle Duane,
Is this accurate?
Happy Thanksgiving
The Turkey is in the White House
November 29
Hi (Nephew)

Yes, this is all true.  An important point to note is that it wasn't only the Democrats involved in this attempt to alter the Constitution legally. The Republicans were involved as well, a) first to try to get Schwarzenegger eligible, but also b) because the perps behind the scenes are behind both major political parties.  As mentioned, the Skull and Bones and the Council on Foreign Relations have been involved in this caper.  They are both part of the New World Order crowd, at the top of the pyramid.  

Very powerful people want to take over this world, and run it for their Master, Lucifer.  (See Dr. Stanley Monteith's 'Brotherhood of Darkness'.  Many Masons don't understand who their God really is, until they have it exposed to them; too late for them to back out of The Brotherhood, without losing all of their life benefits for being in The Brotherhood.)  

So the Republicans Party doesn't have clean hands in this scam.  When TPTB found the going too difficult to get a constitutional amendment going through Congress on the matter, they simply had their flunkies in both parties collude, in a conspiracy to defraud the American people via ignoring their rule of law - the Constitution.  And with their control of the mainstream media between them, and the same with the judicial branch of govt., they figured that they could get away with it.  And if any pesky citizens caught on to the scam, they would simply sideline them, with the Saul Alinsky 'Rules for Radicals' tactic of ridicule, and such.  Application of the 'principle' of 'Whatever It Takes'.  'By Any Means Necessary,' to accomplish one's ends.

They are ruthless.  But then, you would have to be, if you wanted to take over the whole planet, for the Dark Forces.

Anyway.  This is why the Repub Party has put up some similarly ineligible candidates for the office, in Cruz, and Rubio, and Jindal: to drive a larger hole through the Constitution on the issue, and establish their 'beachhead' by way of the snarkie legal 'principle' of 'precedent'.  But they cannot be allowed to get away with their conspiracy.  Because then, the Constitution is simply what Bush Jr. called it: "just a damn piece of paper".  Not worth the paper it's written on.  And America goes down the same road that the Roman Republic went.  Into tyranny; and Empire.  Only this time, the Dark Side means to take over the whole shooting match.  

Which it will, indeed come to, if they aren't stopped.  And, like, Now.    

Sorry to have to put a dent in your admiration for the Republican Party.  But that's the fact of the matter.  They are the great pushers for Endless War.  And not admirably so.  It serves their purpose - their larger purpose, than just profit-making for the likes of Halliburton & Co. - to be so.   

There's more.  But you get the idea.  We - the average American - have been had, (Nephew).  And it's time that the average American woke up to that fact.

Help spread the word, among your patriot friends.  Of the whole truth of the matter.  Time is running out, to do something about it.

Words of wisdom, from your

Uncle Duane


P.S. from CDR C.F. Kerchner's blog today:

A Citizen is One Thing, But a Natural Born Citizen is Another | Atty Mario Apuzzo

by cfkerchner
Click on image for more info on Atty Apuzzo's legal filings and writings on the true meaning of the legal term of art "natural born Citizen"
Click on image for more info on Atty Apuzzo's writings on true meaning of the constitutional term "natural born Citizen"

A Citizen is One Thing, But a Natural Born Citizen is Another | by Atty Mario Apuzzo

"Understanding that a citizen of the United States (“citizen”) is one thing, but that a natural born citizen of the United States (“natural born citizen”) is another is the key to understanding what a natural born citizen is.  To avoid constitutional error, it is critical that these two classes of citizens not be conflated, confounded, and confused.  There are different way by which one can become a citizen.  But none of that does or should change what a natural born citizen is.  
Why is it important that we understand the constitutional distinction between a citizen and a natural born citizen and give the correct meaning to a natural born citizen?  It is important because the Framers looked to the natural born citizen clause, apart from the Electoral College, through its requirement of absolute allegiance and love of country, as a means to provide for the safety and national security of the republic.  They looked to the natural born citizen clause as a way to keep monarchical and foreign influence out of the singular and powerful civil Office of President and military Office of Commander in Chief of the Military.   The Framers saw such monarchical and foreign influence as an insidious way to destroy what they had so greatly sacrificed to build.  ... "
Continue reading Atty Apuzzo's excellent new article at:

On An Arrogant Son Of A Bitch

The arrogant son of a bitch; threatening the States with 'the law'.  THE LAW is simply what you declare it to be, because YOU ARE the law, in a nation ruled by the rule of men - NOT the rule of law: the Constitution.


from ‘Obama Just Sent MAJOR Threat to Every US State That Won’t Take Syrian Refugees’ - Melody Dareing - November 27

Stan Stanfield · Stanford University (November 29)

"The Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) sent the letter to state resettlement officials stating that states can’t deny benefits and services to the refugees. It quoted the 1964 Civil Rights Act that prohibits discrimination and said that state officials can’t take it upon themselves to deny programs approved by the federal government." But they CERTAINLY can deny ANYTHING to a federal government that is a rogue government, due to the man occupying the Oval Office being a USURPER.

It's time to get real on this issue, America. See what happens when you 'marry in haste'?? Obama is not eligible for that office, for not being a "natural born" citizen, which meant to the constitutiona Framers - for which there is ample historical evidence; and to which requirement there has never been a constitutional amendment to the contrary - one born on the soil of citizen parents. That's PLURAL. As in BOTH.

The bulk of the citizenry has been asleep at the switch of the country from being under the rule of law to that of the rule of men - aka tyranny - apparently because of its assumption that the Republican Party would have said something about the Democrat Party's presidential candidate back in 2008 if there were any questions about his eligibility. Bad decision: the Repubs have had their own reasons for fudging on that issue; as we have seen in their current lot of candidates for that office, for which some of them - like Cruz and Rubio - are not eligible either, according to the RULE OF LAW. America: Your country is being hijacked from under you as we speak.

I call on all Oath Keepers ESPECIALLY to do their DAMN JOB, and come to the aid of their country, in its hour of great need. IF NOT YOU, WHO???


As I say:


This is The Bear speaking...............................................................

They Call Me 'The Man'

They Call Me 
   'The Man'

They call me
The Man.

      I hear tell
   of The Man
Of Steel.
If you're talking about
Tempered steel
I'm your man.

Very much like

And just like
I will never give in.
So, if you are one
Of those sorry bastards
Of our day, then
You might as well
Give up

      and save us all
The trouble.

The Catechism For Today

The Catechism For Today
  Which You WILL Obey

The Answer:

In this nation,
Are now under
          the rule
Of men.
In power
The power
        and vice
No more
         the rule
Of law.

No Question.


...And further on this subject:

further from patriotsforameria.ning: ‘May Truth Rule - I Think Cruz Is An Excellent Presidential Candidate, But The Constitution Must Be Obeyed….Apuzzo Is Correct’ - posted by Harry Riley at Constitutional Emergency - November 28

Permalink Reply by Laura Van Overschelde 11 hours ago

While I like the suggestions of Mr. Stanfield above, I wonder if some of these facts and writings, suggestions might also be considered.  The 'record-keeping' of some of our Amendments and their ratifications are absent among the National Archives.  One MOST EGREGIOUS is the Sixteenth Amendment under which we ALL suffer and which has handed so very much power to the National Government.  It is of course the Income Tax.  And since the Constitution explicitly forbids a "tax of capitation" it is un-Constitutional.

I would like to submit to you this summary from Harvard Law Review, because it addresses a number of points brought up in this discussion.  

And then there are these:

Having offered this, I am certainly concerned about the facts that show our judiciary appears much more interested in keeping the status quo rather than interpreting the law.  I have just a few major, MAJOR examples I would like to bring up.

1. The blatant activism that allows Obamacare to stay on the books when the SCOTUS called the justification of a penalty a "TAX", changing the word, essentially they were rewriting the Statute.  This violates Article I, Section 1, Paragraph 1 of the U.S.Constitution. 

2. Elena Kagan was WORKING for the Obama Administration when the law was being batted around in Congress and of course we all knew that she returned to the Oval Office to proclaim it passed in the dark of night on Christmas, 2009 gleeful to report what the Senate had done.

3. It is well disclosed that the law was "Jonathan Gruberized" in multiple videos to prove it that they KNEW IT WOULD NEVER PASS if the damn thing was fully disclosed before or during the period it was legislated.  Kagan did NOT RECUSE herself from the hearing and scrutiny of the law when it came before the Supreme Court.

[4]. There was extensive pushback against the "Gay Marriage" decision by its own admission, the Supreme Court confessed that these matters has been taken out of the hands of the people and put into law by the pen of SCOTUS.  The Court recognized that many State Legislatures and popular referenda have considered this piece of crap and did it anyway.  That is NOT an act that reflects the "consent of the governed."

As we all know, there are many others, so the Judiciary is as corrupt as the other two branches. So we have some serious work ahead of us.  

  • Reply
Permalink Reply by Lee Vail 10 hours ago

The fact remains clear, the intent of the founder was that to be eligible for office of POTUS (and VPOTUS) the individual must have been born to parents who were BOTH US citizens at the time of that indvidual's birth regardless of latter laws that ignored this requirement, therefore Cruz, Rubio, Jindal and Obama are NOT qualified, period. Your other 4 points are well taken.

  • Reply

Permalink Reply by Laura Van Overschelde 3 hours ago (November 29)

So Lee Vail do you deny the Naturalization Act of 1790, referenced above with this particularization of it:

1219 The first naturalization act, 1 Stat. 103 (1790), so provided. See 8 U.S.C. § 1421. In Holmgren v. United States, 217 U.S. 509 (1910), it was held that Congress may provide for the punishment of false swearing in the proceedings in state courts.

So why are we not arresting those complicit with ALLOWING Oval Office Occupier stink up our gpublic housing at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, Washington, DC?

And then there is this:

  • Reply

Permalink Reply by Stan Stanfield 1 second ago (November 29)

Laura, although you make some good points - and Mark Levin has, over the years, made some good points; and the Harvard Law Review makes some good points in their analysis of this subject - you have been subjected to flim-flam on the subject of what a "natural born" citizen meant to the constitutional Framers, and the meaning of which, and the REQUIREMENT of which, has never been changed by constitutional amendment.

It doesn't matter what some Naturalization Act subsequent to the ratification of the Constitution says or doesn't say to the meaning of the term (although the 1790 one was changed subsequently anyway).  The term meant, to the constitutional Framers, and still means to this day, without a constitutional amendment to the contrary: one born on the soil of citizen parents.  That's PLURAL.  As in BOTH.  The whole POINT of the exercise on the part of the Framers being to make sure that the occupant of that office, PARTICULARLY because said occupant would also become the Commander in Chief of the nation's military forces, would have NO DUAL OR OTHERWISE CONFLICTING LOYALTIES OR ALLEGIANCES.  As a naturalized citizen would be subject to.  And as a DUAL citizen would MOST CERTAINLY be subject to.  Like Cruz (and Rubio, and Jindal).  And like Obama.

There is all manner of historical evidence that the Framers were going by the definitive tome of their day on such matters, Emer de Vattel's 'The Law of Nations Or Principles of Natural Law,' which defines the term - logically - as one born on the soil of citizen parents.  One can be a NATIVE born citizen - i.e,, born on the soil - but not be a NATURAL born citizen.  And also: Some Obots have tried to point to English common law as making THEIR point on the subject; but - and speaking of subjects - that refers to 'natural born SUBJECTS' - NOT citizens.  The Framers were freemen now, and damn proud of it - they were no longer 'subjects'.  The Framers were NOT going by English common law on this matter.  They were CLEARLY going by American common law, aka Natural Law (as referenced in various of our founding documents). 

I could go on, but let me, instead, just refer you, and interested others, to the website of attorney Mario Apuzzo: puzo1dotblogspotdotcom.  He has researched this matter to a 't'.  The bottom line: It is the 'original intent' that is in question here.  And that intent can only be changed by a constitutional amendment - NOT by 'statutes,' or erroneous court decisions, or whatever.  And in point of fact, both major political parties have even ACKNOWLEDGED that, when, between 2003 and 2008, and between them, they tried a total of 8 times to get a constitutional amendment going through Congress on this very subject - and failed even to get their proposals out of committee each time, such was the sensitivity around the issue.  So, what did they do?  The result is obvious: they colluded.  They met in a smoke-filled back room in D.C. or its environs, and a Repub Party rep said words to the effect: 'We won't say anything about your candidate on this issue if you won't say anything about any of our candidates on this issue that we may put up in the future.  And between us, with our control over the mainstream media, and the judicial branch, we can, er, persuade the public on this matter, capiche?'.  And the rest is history.  Terrible history.  Outrageous history.

To be changed.  Back to the rule of law. Not the rule of men.  Aka arbitrary law.  Which is the hallmark of tyrants down through the ages.

Not in my country, you won't.




Thank you Stan! Wonderfully and Truthfully put! Hear, hear! "... Not in my country, you won't."