Wednesday, 20 January 2016
It's Roundup Time
I still have to follow up on some sites that a Cruz supporter posted to buttress Ted's case for being a NBC, and I will do so - to see all the angles that the Constitution-trashing people are using in their attempts to finagle us away from the rule of law in this country and into the dark, tyrannical chamber of the rule of men - but I find that I am getting increasingly restless to see this sophistic crap over and done with, and for us to move on, into the realm 'dominated' by Truth, just waiting for us to deserve to get there. So: a short fuse, then. Which I realized just how short, when a politically-oriented organization offered me the opportunity today to send a Thank You card to Trey Gowdy for all that he has done in standing up to Obama and his administration.* In the moment, all I could see was what he has NOT done - along with his Republican Party cohorts. And thus my (admittedly somewhat curt) response:
'Dear George [Landrith, President, Frontiers of Freedom Foundation],
' I don't thank any of the Republicans in office. They have all failed in their duty, as the opposition party of record in our 2-party system, to call Obama and the Democrat Party on his ineligibility for that office he has usurped, for not being a 'natural born' citizen - and compounded the crime by running their own similarly ineligible candidates for that office.+
'2 WRONGS DO NOT MAKE A RIGHT. And additionally, in this case, they make a trashing of the Constitution, and thus of the rule of law in this country. A dark, dark day in history.'
'+ see, e.g.: puzo1.blogspot.com
* Think the Benghazi hearings; etc. etc.
I know that one of the arguments that the poster of the sites I referred to has used is that 'the original in French of (the E. de Vattel treatise) doesn't say that two citizen parents are needed' for a person to be a NBC. Sophistry, pure sophistry. In the first place, a) it doesn't say that specifically at one point, but it does in another, to make the point crystal clear; and b) as for that 'point': that is, indeed, the whole POINT of the exercise - that for a person to have been born 'naturally' a citizen of a nation, they need to have no encumbrances; are citizens by virtue of having been born a) on the soil (jus soli) of citizen parents (jus sanguinis). The reason that de Vattel didn't mention, in one place, both parents needing to be citizens is undoubtedly because citizenship followed the father exclusively in those days, had nothing to do with the mother; and so his 'natural born' point was still made - i.e., a person born without any foreign loyalty or allegiance - and indeed, was clarified later on, when he specifically referred to the parents - plural - as 'indigenes' of the country.
This is all common sense. As I have said: The crux of the matter is all about INTENTION. It actually doesn't matter what de Vattel said in French. What essentially matters is what the constitutional Framers INTENDED, was their UNDERSTANDING, in putting that requirement in their contract for that particular office - and that particular office ONLY; especially, as I have also pointed out before, because the occupant of that particular office also becomes the Commander in Chief of the nation's military forces, and they didn't want anybody in that office - in that particularly sensitive position - with ANY CONFLICTING LOYALTIES OR ALLEGIANCES OR INFLUENCES. As a naturalized citizen would be subject to. And as a DUAL citizen wold MOST CERTAINLY be subject to.
Like Obama. And like Cruz. And Rubio. And Jindal, and Santorum, too, for that matter.
And the two key pieces of proof to this (common sense) reading of the matter:
1) Alexander Hamilton's proposal at the Constitutional Convention that the president need only be. quote. "born a Citizen" - and his proposal was TURNED DOWN, in favor of the more stringent category of citizen, of a 'natural born' citizen, AS THE FRAMERS INTENDED. As they CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD the term to mean. And the clincher, if there were even one needed beyond the Hamilton proposal's turndown:
2) The fact that this reading of the term and its meaning was recognized in our day by both major political parties, who between them, between 2003 and '08, tried a total of 8 times to get a constitutional amendment started through Congress containing this very issue, and failed each time even to get their proposals out of committee, such was the sensitivity around this particular issue - i.e., the Constitution requiring the person to have been born with NO OTHER LOYALTIES, ALLEGIANCES OR INFLUENCES. Born with SOLE ALLEGIANCE to the United States.
How could it have been more clear, as to UNDERSTANDING and INTENTION.
The issue, then, comes down to a single 'debate':
between those who 'believe' in original intent - that is, the meaning in and of the contract when it was written and agreed upon by the parties to the contract - and those who believe in 'precedent,' and how courts can muddy the judicial waters up over the years. Or Congress can, in enacting various Acts. Or making various Resolutions. Which legally don't amount to a hill of beans. (Another story.)
And I will tell you who is going to be able to move into the New Era. And who is not.
Who, that is to say in the latter case, is going to need some more seasoning, still, in a realm of duality/polarity.
Until they get it right.
Now. About the Obama administration calling 'patriots' and 'Constiutionalists' and 'Second Amendment supporters' and even Veterans 'potential domestic terrorists': What are you actually saying, gang? And what does that make YOU?? And with your billions of rounds of ammunition, and multifaceted suveillance-state shit, and forcing the citizenry off the land, so that they can be rounded up and corralled in the Mega Cities being planned for us, and such???
I think we need to keep more than an eye on you folks.
I think we need to stop you in your tracks.
P.S. "If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny."
- attributed to Thomas Jefferson
Now I wonder why our educators have been trashing the Founding Fathers over these last few decades...
..and thus, alienating the young from the national world of their parents.........
...... oh - and what about those target-practice targets for the Obama 'private army' of executive-branch department/agency minions which consist of images of an old man with a rifle, and a young pregnant woman with a pistol, and a small boy similarly armed, and even a matronly woman........