from TeaPartyC.C.: ‘Obama’s Humiliation Is Complete: Assad Can Stay, Kerry Concedes After Meeting With Putin’ - posted by Natl Dir. Dee - December 16 (orig. posted at zerohedge.com - Tyler Durden - December 16)
(Dee seems to think that it's terrible that Putin is making a fool of the U.S. via Obama. Well;
yes, and no.)
Reply by Stan Stanfield 2 seconds ago (December 17)
The U.S. never had any business playing with matches in the Middle East in the first place. Especially with its being proven that OBL had nothing to do with 9/11. Playing with matches especially around oil and gas can get you in a whole lot of trouble - and go off in your own hand.
And whoever said 'Assad must go'??? Asinine. Who must go are the NeoCons in the Obama administration, and influencing it.
Get over your ambitions for a New World Order, you top-of-the-pyramid lot. Your days are numbered anyway. See you in court.
If only the court of public opinion.
If only the court of public opinion.
Speaking of "opinion":
from westernjournalism.com: ‘Putin Just Came Out With A Massive Announcement About Donald Trump’ - Kevin Whitson - December 17
(It read like a screed from Daily Kos. That, or some NeoCon rag.)
Kevin, with all due respect, a) Putin did NOT "take control of Crimea" - the Crimeans voted (overwhelmingly) for the move that THEY took; and b) Obama had no business - well, he may have had some 'business' to attend to in attempting to overthrow Assad, but he had no RIGHT to "overcome" him. Assad was duly elected by the people of Syria as well. Obama is just being a waterboy for the New World Order gang. Get your priorities right.
And oh yes - the rightfully elected president of Ukraine was overthrown by a coup orchestrated by the CIA and Victoria Nuland's NWO masters, and the people in eastern Ukraine in particular were/are Russian-speaking and of Russian descent, and chose not to be hijacked by the CIA-inspired coup taking over the governing of their country over in the western region. And MORE POWER to them.
And we need to toss out our own NWO minions too, for the coup that they have managed in this country, via the Usurper squatting in the Oval Office, and s******* all over the Constitution as we speak. As I say: Get your priorities right.
Now, and fittingly enough, an updated word more about the 'eligibility' issue.
I had been thinking that the opponents of 'my' position on the NBC definition - the definition of those scholars who have determined it to have meant and still mean one born on the soil of citizen parents (the legalistic categories of jus soli and jus sanguinis - i.e., born of the soil and of the blood) - were simply obscuring the matter for political reasons, pertaining to, on the one hand, Obama's status (the Democrat Party), and/or on the other hand, the subsequent status of Republican Party candidates, like Cruz and Rubio; all of whom did not have U.S. citizens as their birth father (and disregarding for the purposes of this exegesis the question of Cruz's having been born outside of the country, and not on parental 'state business'). And I had earlier today been confirmed in my position by checking out a couple of sites that were referenced on the Comments thread of the article at Tea Party Command Center titled 'What do you think about a Trump/Cruz ticket?' (December 13); especially the site of one Publius Huldah, which I found very informative and exhaustive on this subject. Thinking the matter settled - at least for me - I spent the rest of the day on various other, more personal bits of business, although finding myself getting more and more angry at the hijack of my country that has taken place, by TPTB who have wished to take down the U.S. Constitution for a very long time, as a, if not the, key roadblock in the way of their putsch for total power over humanity.
And then, in returning to my apartment from my day's various errands, I decided to check out one of the 'other' sites referenced on this issue. And now I see that I have been wrong. Not on my basic position. But on the case for a different interpretation of the NBC term than the one I have settled on.
It's a bit of a long story, so I will cut to the gist of it. At a site entitled constitution.org, the site manager has made a case for another definition of the term. I have seen this specific case enunciated elsewhere, and have dismissed it for a basic reason - which still holds, to my mind. But at least I can see, and to some extent appreciate, how some scholarly types have come up with a different interpretation of the meaning of the term than 'mine'. The issue boils down to the difference between English Common Law and American Common Law.
English Common Law - codified in Blackstone's 'Commentaries' - refers to 'natural born subjects,' and emphasizes where the person was born (and thus subject to the king of the land). American Common Law - described in/deriving from E. de Vattel's definitive tome of the day on such subjects 'The Law of Nations Or Principles of Natural Law' - refers to 'natural born citizens,' and gives equal weight to both jus soli and jus sanguinis.
The manager of the referenced site says that the terms 'subjects' and 'citizens' are, for all legalistic intents and purposes, interchangeable. I (and others) say they are not. I say that he is not giving sufficient weight to the fact that the constitutional Framers were coming from a place of being citizens of a republic, not subjects of a king - and were damned proud of the change in status. Of being freemen. Not the chattel of a feudal lord, or king. And were raising up a nation on Earth to celebrate the difference - a nation based on the self-governance, and primacy, of the individual.*
But I can see better now how this subject can be confusing in people's minds. And instead of thinking of Americans, by and large, as a terrible lot of traitors to their inheritance, for not paying better attention to how their/our nation has been hijacked from under their distracted attention, I will cut them some slack. And if the moderator of a debate that I am ever a part of asks me why I think the way i do about the meaning of the NBC term, instead of answering him in a snide manner (as in 'You stupid ass: the constitutional Framers didn't give their definition of that term in the Constitution because they didn't have to: They all KNEW what they meant by the term - and why the effing hell don't WE' or some such similarly lofty response), I will patiently explain the difference between English Common Law and American Common Law, on this subject, that has fairly confused better scholars than I over the years. (I basically have common sense going for me; not pedagogy.)
And with that proviso: I rest my case.
* And so, of course, needing to go, in the minds of The New World Order's PTB, to be replaced by their version of a kingdom. And subjects.