Saturday, 20 February 2016

On Getting True-Blue In The Face

further from ‘Rush: What About Vatican’s Border ‘Walls’?’ - February 18
(“Talk-radio icon blasts pope’s statements questioning Trump’s faith”)

Clover11111 2 days ago (February 18)

Trump has been on several times with THE talk radio icon MICHAEL SAVAGE and not with this one. Why?


  • kibitzer3
    Clover11111 2 days ago

  • It might be because apparently Rush has come out in support of Cruz. Non-natural born citizen issue and all.

  • Somebody needs to get to Limbaugh and tell him, 'Rush, Rush - citizenship descends from the father. Get with the Constitution, or stop considering yourself a conservative. At least not a constitutionalist conservative. And oh yes - that refers to the Usurper himself.'
  • Reply

    • usmadgirl kibitzer3 2 hours ago (February 20)

    • Please post where the Constitution states that!
    • Reply

      • kibitzer3
        usmadgirl a few seconds ago (February 20)

      • The constitutional Framers, who were, by 1787, well versed in and with nation-building literature, decided to put in their constitutional contract for the crucial new office of president of their well-planned-for United States of America a particular eligibility requirement for that office, and that federal office ONLY: that the occupant of that office - who would as well, then, become the Commander in Chief of the nation's military forces; and so wanting the person to be required to have SOLE ALLEGIANCE to the U.S.; NO DUAL OR OTHERWISE CONFLICTING LOYALTIES OR ALLEGIANCES OR INFLUENCES  - needed to be, quote, a 'natural born' citizen. Not just any kind of 'citizen'. What did they mean by that term?

      • They meant by it what they all understood it to mean: a person born at the very least of a citizen father, from whom citizenship descended. There is all manner of historical evidence, too detailed to go into here, that they were going by the definitive tome of the day on such nation-building matters, E. de Vattel's 'The Law of Nations Or Principles of Natural Law' - which was taught in the universities of the day. In one section of his treatise he refers to 'natural born' as those having been born "in the country, of parents who are citizens...children naturally follow the condition of their fathers..." (In those days, under the doctrine of coverture, the mother was considered One with the father.) That's in Sect. 212 of his treatise. However, in Sect. 215, he says, in a little more detail on the subject: "By the law of nature, children follow the condition of their fathers" - regardless of where they are born. But the basic, fundamental, rock-solid, minimum requirement for one to be a 'natural born' citizen, as understood by the constitutional Framers, and as put in their contract for that particular office, is to be born of a citizen father. And that eligibility REQUIREMENT has never been changed, by the only way it can be legitimately: by a constitutional amendment, to THE ORIGINAL INTENT. Subsequent shell games regarding changes in the de Vattel definition notwithstanding.

      • And in further point of fact: This take on the nbc matter was even understood in our time, when representatives of both current major political parties tried a total of 8 times between them, between 2003 and '08, to get constitutional amendments going through Congress on this very subject (to say: including this point as the common denominator to their various proposals) - and they failed each time even to get their proposals out of committee, such was the sensitivity around this particular issue. So: they both KNEW. And KNOW what they are up to. They are up to collusion in the trashing of the Constitution as the law of the land, and turning it into "just a damn piece of paper," in the colorful words of one of the would-be tyrants of our day.

      • And Obama has taken that ball, and run with it just as far as it should be allowed to be run with. And we should not double-down on the constitutional error, by the likes of the candidacies of both Cruz and Rubio. Or this nation is finished, for having no one from either major political party willing to stand up to these would-be tyrants, and say, loud and clear: THIS WILL NOT STAND.


I mailed three letters today.  One was back to the 'Tea Party Patriots' group, taking their Co-founder and National Coordinator, Jenny Beth Martin, to task for their backing of Ted Cruz even though he is not eligible, and giving briefly the reasons, before asking her/them to take me off their mailing list.  (It is not the first time I have responded to her/them in this manner; as the notation of 'Fourth Reminder' on their envelope somewhat indicated,)  One was paying my monthly Internet-connection account.   (Critical, to allow me to stay in touch with what's going on, particularly in my home country.  'No matter where I may roam, I still call America home.'...)   And one was another donation to the 'Friends of the National WWII Memorial'.

As to the latter.  I agree to consider the WWII generation, quote, 'the Greatest Generation' of Americans (apart from the first, founding one).  They rose to their 'occasion' admirably.  Well done, Men, and Women.          

Can we, facing the great challenge of our day, do the same??


Let me be perfectly clear in this matter.  I don't care what the judicial branch of government says about this matter when its current occupants have failed to act positively on this terribly serious matter - to say, in a clearly judicial way, rather than in a socio-political one.  They have stonewalled on the issue.  I put no trust nor faith in them, much less putting myself in subservience to them.  

Justice deferred is justice denied.

The bottom line:

A 'natural born' citizen, as the term was understood by the constitutional Framers and put in their constitutional contract as an eligibility requirement for the office of the presidency - and that particular federal office ONLY; signifying its special nature, its special status in their minds, relating to the occupant being as well, then, the Commander in Chief of the nation's military forces (see John Jay's letter of July 25, 1787 to G. Washington, in his role as Chair of the Constitutional Convention proceedings, for this specific alluded-to reference) - was, at its bare minimum, one born of a citizen father ("the country of the fathers is that of the children"), and more specifically, "those born in the country, of parents who are citizens...", and concluding: "By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers..." (E. de Vattel, Book One, Ch. XIX, Sects. 212 and 215.)  

And I don''t rest my case, if this nation fails to honor its oaths.

No comments: