from breitbart.com: ‘Former Congressman: I’m Quitting GOP’ - Tom Tancredo - October 30; posted at Liberty Headlines on October 31
(After listing a whole slew of good reasons why a responsible conservative/constitutionalist needs to quit the GOP, for its having ’left therm’ for a Big Government agenda from a corporate pov, former (ten-year) Congressman Tom Tancredo then shows that he doesn’t understand FULLY what is going on, by endorsing Ted Cruz for the presidency. With friends like this…)
Right idea, wrong approach. Ted Cruz is no more legal a candidate for the office than BO was - a fact which the GOP authorities deliberately swept under the carpet for their own long-term purposes; proving Tom's point that "It does not care about American sovereignty". Next up: The sovereignty-destroying TPP.
Just for the record: A "natural born citizen” is one born on the soil of citizen parents. That's PLURAL. As in BOTH. The whole POINT of the constitutional Framers putting that particular eligibility requirement in their contract for that particular office - and that particular federal office ONLY - being to make sure that the occupant of said office, who would then as well become the Commander in Chief of the nation's military forces, would have 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. Duh!
The definition based on the definitive tome of the day on such matters, E. de Vattel's 'The Law of Nations Or Principles of Natural Law'. Which the Framers were known to be familiar with. And any change to which 'original intent' needing to have a constitutional amendment to effect it. Not a bunch of s.o.b.'s from both major political parties making a decision in a smoke-filled back room, to go around the Constitution, and bluff their way by the American people on the subject. Or try to.
It is our job now simply to dissolve the sitting Congress, for both parties to be hauled before a - legitimate - court of law on RICO-statute charges, of colluding in a criminal enterprise. Oh - and the Usurper arrested and held for trial as well; he on a whole host of charges by now, including fraud, perjury, and treason. And let's get the nation back to its roots in the Constitution. [To say, the rule of law.] Not the rule of men. A/k/a arbitrary law. Which is the hallmark of tyrants down through the ages.
Or do you REALLY want this nation to be governed by a bunch of criminals? With the Constitution in tatters?? And thus, your rights not worth a bucket of spit??? Warm or otherwise????
I hope I'm making myself perfectly clear: This issue is THE linchpin to the whole monstrous nation-hijack going on, by the Usurper, and his minions in power; is not a mere detail, of no real worth in the larger scheme of things. Without him there, there is no Crisis, to give such a person the Opportunity that he needs - creates - to do his dirty work in large print, not just half-legible scrawls on the edge of the national picture. He is a willing tool of the New World Order Powers That Be. He needs to be removed from that position of major power. And fast.
Federal Marshals - and Oathkeepers; current and retired - to the rescue, of the federal constitutional Republic of the United States of America. And don't spare the horses.
P.S. Late addition to the Comments thread of above:
P.S. Late addition to the Comments thread of above:
Pull your head out of Trumps ass. Read the Constitution. Tell me where it defines eligibility. Then where it defines a natural born citizen? Your definition is one you pulled out of your ass.
kibitzer3 wapitihunter • a few seconds ago (October 31)
- Did you test low in reading comprehension in school? You don't seem to be able to read very clearly. I told you: the definition of the term, as understood by the constitutional Framers, is "based on the definitive tome of the day on such matters, E. de Vattel's 'The Law of Nations Or Principles of Natural Law'. And if, by chance, any of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention weren't familiar with the term, and were not [precisely] sure what they were being asked to vote on, all they would have had to do was ask their respected elder mentor, Benjamin Franklin, who was sitting right there amongst them as a delegate to those proceedings himself; who not only was well conversant with such things, but was known to have 3 copies of said tome in his possession - and had provided members of the Continental Congress with it; such was awareness of it in the political circles of the day. And to top the 'argument' off: Alexander Hamilton, as one of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention proceedings, proposed that the president need only be a "citizen" - and his proposal was SPECIFICALLY TURNED DOWN, in favor of the more stringent NBC requirement.
They only wanted a person in that office with SOLE ALLEGIANCE to the United States. They had just fought a bloody War of Independence, and they in particular didn't want the British to slip back into power, by any means; and in even more of a particular, didn't want their Commander in Chief to be subject to any other allegiances/loyalties. As John Jay, a respected statesmen of the day - and who, not so incidentally, became the first Chief Justice of the New U.S. Supreme Court - said in a letter (7/25/1787) to G. Washington, in his role as Chair of the Constitutional Convention proceedings: "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." So: THEY KNEW precisely what they were voting on.
Thank you for asking.
We're going Home.
It can be delayed. But it cannot be denied.
See you there.
All, of you/Us, who choose to make the journey homeward bound.
At this time.