Monday, 7 March 2016

More Support For The Rule Of Law Vs. Tyranny

from ‘Homeschoolers Beware: Ted Cruz Just Co-Sponsored This Weird Bill’ -  March 4?


Good to keep an eye on the details of such maneuvers. You can't trust Cruz on anything. He is in the pocket of the NWO crowd. How do I know? Because, as a (self-reported) constitutional law scholar, believing in 'originalism', he should know that he is not eligible for the office of POTUS, and is banking on the same media control, and major political-party control over the judicial branch (so far), that has allowed Obama to be in and remain in the Oval Office illegally as well.

As Cruz should well know, the original definition of a 'natural born citizen' is a person born in the country (or its equivalent) of citizen parents thereof, who were its citizens at the time of the person's birth. The definition is from the definitive tome of the day on such subjects, E. de Vattel's 'The Law of Nations, Or Principles of Natural Law'. Cruz is counting on various obfuscations that have crept in over the years on the issue of the precise definition; but the eligibility requirement ITSELF remains the same. Until a constitutional amendment changes it. Of which, there has not been one yet. Although, both major parties tried a total of 8 times between them, between 2003 and '08, to get just such an amendment starting through Congress - and they failed each time even to get their proposals out of committee, such was the sensitivity around this particular issue (the common denominator to all of the proposals). So: THEY KNEW. And know. That a) Obama is a Usurper; and b) They are trying to make two wrongs make a right, and thereby drive a coach and horses through the wall of the Constitution, to make of it a mere plaything of TPTB, where words mean what they say they mean. Which is the end of the rule of law in the country, and its replacement with the rule of men. Aka arbitrary law. Aka tyranny.

That would be the outcome, if Cruz, and Rubio, are not stopped in their political-party-backed attempts to demolish the Constitution; the better to merge the U.S. into the New World Order desired of said PTB. Which would be the end of essential liberty on this planet, and its replacement with a totalitarian empire run by the Elite. Thank you, no thank you, all the same.



  • Peter Smith kibitzer3 3 days ago 

  • kibitzer3, I'd call you an idiot but that would be much too restrained. Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen of the United Stated by "Jus sanguinis", or "the right of blood." If you would reference Black'Law dictionary and the 14th Amendment, you'd know this. Having Trump as your "informed source" doesn't work out too well. I knew you would quote Vattell as well. Writings from a European, some 50 years before our nation even existed, who had no clue about what a democratic republic was, and yet, you want to accept his opinion? Do we also follow all of the other aspects in Vattell's writing? Short answer, "NO"! Cruz is the only hope for SAVING our Constitution. Trump is just the White Obama.

  • Reply

  •           kibitzer3 Peter Smith 2 days ago 

    • I normally let responses like this to the truth of this matter go,  because people are entitled to their opinions. But I am getting royally sick and tired of so many useful idiots out there, who are bringing this country down, to further their particular agenda.

    • I don't know what your particular agenda is, so I'll let that go. I'll just say, in clear response to the specific issue: There is all manner of historical evidence, too much to go into here, that the constitutional Framers, like so many patriots in their day who were busy getting a new nation off the ground, and thinking of all of the aspects of such, were very conversant with de Vattel's definitive tome of the day on such matters - it was studied in the universities of the day; and Benjamin Franklin, their elder & very respected mentor, who was sitting right there amongst them as a delegate to those self-same proceedings himself, was known to have three copies of said tome in his possession, such was their respect for de Vattel's take on such matters. (You take out on de Vattel as if trashing the messenger has any relevance to the message.) It is beyond legitimate dispute that they were going by de Vattel's definition of a 'natural born' citizen. And that is the eligibility requirement to this day, since there has been no amendment to the Constitution to the contrary of that eligibility requirement; as I pointed out above.

    • The 14th Amendment does not talk about 'natural born' citizens. It only talks about citizens. There is a difference. As any reasonably open-minded person will acknowledge, when looking into the matter. But then, I'm not at all sure that I'm talking to one of those right at the moment. A pity. We need all the help we can get, to keep this nation from being taken over by the wreckers of the rule of law - its Constitution. Which is all that stands between The People and their erstwhile masters.

    • Reply
  •                    Peter Smith kibitzer3 2 days ago 

      • And I am getting royally sick of people asserting statements and "Constitutional facts" that do not exist. You, and those like you, are ASSUMING the Founders intent when you pick and choose unrelated authors and documents as US Constitutional intent and truths. I am a natural born cititzen of this great nation. I am a religious Conservative who has witnessed the decline of this nation over the last 50+ years. I am a "baby boomer" and part of the most prolific section of American society ever. The current state of this nation makes me sick to my stomach. I see one liberal assault after another on our Constitution and our national identity. 
      • Back to de Vattell, and your assertion that his definition is the Founder's intent. You and many others have stated this and I have disagreed every time. I'll explain even though you and you ilk always refuse the argument. The first Congress of the United States passed the Naturalization Act of 1790, just three years after the Constitution was written, which stated that children born abroad to U.S. citizens were, too, natural born citizens. Many members of the inaugural Congress were also authors of the Constitution. I'm not sure, but I believe that tops de Vattell.
      • And kibitzer3, if you think Donald Trump or any of his liberal Democrat buddies, Hillary and Bernie, will defend and fight for the Constitution better than Ted Cruz, vote you conscience. As I will mine.
      • Reply

      •           kibitzer3 Peter Smith a few seconds ago (March 7)

        • Thank you for your background info. I 'hear' that you are a legitimate pusher of the Cruz position. So I will respond to you in a nicer way.

        • The Naturalization Act of 1790 was canceled and replaced by the Naturalization Act of 1795 - and for just this reason, i.e., that the wording about a 'natural born' citizen in the 1790 Act was realized to have been a mistake, and so was corrected, with Madison and Washington part of that correcting team. Atty Mario Apuzzo at his site puzo1dotblogstpotdotcom has the whole story; plus excellent commentaries on this whole issue.

        • The bottom line is that the Book One, Ch. XIX, Sect. 212 definition of a 'natural born' citizen in de Vattel's definitive tome is still the definitive one, as used by the constitutional Framers, and so is the eligibility requirement of that office to this day, for there never having been a constitutional amendment to the contrary, as yet.

        • Some supporters of Cruz - and Obama - have tried to argue that there were only two types of citizens at the time, naturalized or natural born. Not so; as made clear by the 'inconvenient' fact (for them) that Alexander Hamilton, as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention proceedings, made a proposal that the president need only be, quote, "born a Citizen" - and his proposal was SPECIFICALLY TURNED DOWN, in favor of the more stringent 'natural born' category. No. The facts are clear on this matter: 1) Obama is a Usurper (and needs to be dealt with as such); and b) Two wrongs don't make a right. Or the Constitution is a dead letter. And we are into a terrible state of affairs: from being under the rule of law in this country to being under the rule of men. Which is - as I indicated in my original posting: tyranny. Which I for one will not have any of.

        • I can sympathize with your wishes for Cruz to advance. He has done some good work in the Senate. But he is not eligible for the job. And no amount of special pleading, or sophistic argument, will change that. And I hope you come to understand that. Because otherwise, you become a tool for some very evil people by which to accomplish their dark ends.

No comments: