Saturday, 28 November 2015

On The Hustings

The Ted Cruz camp has asked me (via snail mail, besides repeatedly online) for a donation again, even though I have written back on previous such requests a strong letter to Ted on the subject of his ineligibility.  If he ever comes to my town, this is the question I will ask him, if I am given a chance to - and you should, too, in yours (and to Marco Rubio as well, of course):

Me/You: 'Senator Cruz: A statement first, and then a question based on it.

'The statement: The historical, and constitutional, definition of a "natural born citizen" is one born on the soil of its citizen parents - plural; which eligibility requirement for the office of the presidency has never been changed by a constitutional amendment.  My question: What is your definition of the term, and why does it differ from the historical and constitutional one?'

(If a voice is catcalled from the audience at this point: 'What about Obama?' my, and your, reply should be: 'We're coming to that.'  For that, of course, is where this is all going.)

Cruz: 'It's called precedent, in legal terminology.'

Me/You: 'It's called fraud, in my book.'

Cruz: 'Well, that's your book.'

Me/You: 'It should be your book, too, Senator Cruz.'

That is probably as far as the exchange will be allowed to go.

But it's telling, nevertheless.

It's telling Truth to power.

And to a state of somnolence, to a terribly asleep public.

Terribly.  For, if not the country, at least for the nation.

The federal constitutional Republic of the United States of America.

Hanging, by a thread.

The thread of Truth.

As we speak.

Any takers??


For specific information as regarding that historical/constitutional definition of the term, see previous blogs in this thread.

A thread

of the same Truth.

That we must live our lives by.

Or we will perish

in, and by,



from ‘May Truth Rule - I Think Cruz Is An Excellent Presidential Candidate, But The Constitution must Be Obeyed….Apuzzo Is Correct.’ - posted by Harry Riley - November 28 (based on Mario Apuzzo’s posting ‘New Hampshire Ballot Access Challenges Against Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio…’ - November 25)
(“The Commission refused to rule, basically saying that it does not have jurisdiction over the question of whether Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are Article II natural born citizens.  It also said that it would like the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on the issue…”)

Permalink Reply by Stan Stanfield 1 second ago (earlier on November 28)

Absolutely correct, and thank you for weighing in on this issue at this time, Atty. Apuzzo.

Apologists may try to argue something like 'precedent'.  But 'precedent' doesn't matter; nor does any possible change in the working definition of the term.  We are talking about the understanding of the term by the constitutional Framers at the time that it was put in the Constitution for that particular office. (And that particular office ONLY; particularly because the occupant of that office also becomes the Commander in Chief of the nation's military forces, and the Framers did not want anybody with any DUAL OR OTHERWISE CONFLICTING LOYALTIES OR ALLEGIANCES in that office/that position.)  If the eligibility requirement is to be changed, it needs to be changed by a constitutional amendment.


Permalink Reply by Larry Castle 1 hour ago (November 28)

In your dais of wondering what happened to the GOP, now you want to question whether Cruz is Eligible to run for president? how about getting off your backside then and demand that Obama resign immediately because he admitted he was not a Natural Born Citizen.

  • Reply

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

1 He ’admitted' it when he claimed that the Kenyan, Obama, was his birth father; but the American public, in its state of slumber, didn't understand the ramifications of that claim, because the Republican Party, as the opposition party of record, in our two-party system, failed to call him on it.  For their own purposes; and hence, some Republican Party presidential candidates now who aren't eligible for it either.  And just so, has the rule of law - the Constitution - been trashed in this country; and we are operating under the rule of men.  Aka arbitrary law.  Which is the hallmark of tyrants down through the ages. 

2) Indeed, it is time to 'get off our backsides and demand that Obama resign immediately'.  And we need Oath Keepers to help us in that challenge to TPTB, for words alone won't do it.  I recommend:

* We patriots do a quiet deal with the SS guarding the Usurper, to keep bloodshed among Americans from happening, or at least to the minimum, and go in to the White House and give him a chance to resign, but otherwise remove him, under arrest, and hold him for trial, on a whole host of charges by now, including fraud, perjury, and treason;

*  We dissolve Congress, for having failed to do its constitutional duty and responsibility in reining in a rogue Executive, and holding those members of Congress who we have evidence of having engaged in corrupt practices for trial as well (and that includes Pelosi for having signed off illegally on Obama's constitutional eligibility for the office);  

* We appoint an Officer of The People to hold the space, while he a) calls for new elections all told, within a time certain; b) cleans out the nest of termites infesting the executive branch of the federal government, and rolls back all the regulations that they have issued under the illegal administration of the Usurper; and c) declares all the legislation that the Usurper has signed into law, and all the E.O.'s and P.D.'s that he has issued, and all the appointments that he has made - including to the U.S. Supreme Court - null and void.

And we start anew, with a clean slate.  Which includes both major political parties being taken to - a legitimate - court, and tried under RICO statutes, for being the criminal enterprises that they have proven to be, especially in their collusion over the illegal candidacy of Barry Soetoro, aka Barack Hussein Obama, aka the Usurper.  And back under the rule of law we go; which is to say, under the Constitution.  Just as soon as things are set right, in an America that deserves better than it is getting from its corrupt leadership at present.  

No comments: