Thursday, 10 March 2016

On Principalities And Powers

1) further on ‘Why I Like Ted Cruz’ - Joseph Farah - March 9

(To recap, to start with:)

    • kibitzer3 Martin Rizley 17 hours ago (March 9)

    • 1) You are, indeed, wrong about "Ted Cruz's status as a natural born citizen". That category requires the person to have been born in a country to parents who are its citizens - it is not just a matter of where one is born.

    • 2) The 1790 Naturalization Act was repealed by the 1795 Naturalization Act for precisely this reason - that the 1790 reference to a person being born abroad being "considered as" a nbc was obviously misleading, and both Madison & Washington had a hand in correcting that mistake.

    • 3) Both you and Joseph Farah are guilty of trashing the Constitution, by turning it into "just a damn piece of paper". We will rue the consequences if you are allowed to get away with your shortsighted view of this matter. The country must be returned to its rule of law. And that means that it does not try to make two wrongs make a right, in allowing Cruz to continue on his candidacy; and corrects its original 'wrong,' in having allowed the Usurper to slip into the Oval Office by such sloppy thinking.

    • Obama must go, as the Usurper he is. And, in returning to the Constitution - i.e., the rule of law - Cruz must be barred from his candidacy.

    • And we open the door for Truth to prevail. On Earth, as it is in Heaven.

  •           6

  •          Reply
  •            Martin Rizley kibitzer3 2 hours ago (March 10)

    • Would you say King David "trashed" the law of Moses by allowing his men to eat the shewbread, since Jesus freely admits that bread was lawful only for the priests to eat? Apparently, God did not believe David "trashed" the Law of Moses by his action. Rather, he did what was necessary to keep the central duty of the Law, which is summed up in the two great commandments-- love God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength, and your neighbor as yourself. By feeding his men, Jesus kept the central commandment of the Law, and he would have violated the Law in spirit by doing the opposite and refusing to feed his men the shewbread on pretense of "keeping the Law." He may have kept the letter of one ceremonial law in that case, but he would have violated the spirit of the law taken as a whole.

    • I fear that may be the attitude of many Trump supporters. They hear Cruz say he is running for president, and they accuse him of violating the Constitution. On the other hand, they hear Trump say that he is NOT committed to appoint originalist judges to the court, and they are ready to vote for him! They hear him say that his leftist judge sister would make a great justice on the Supreme Court, and they somehow think it exhibts more love for America and the Constitution to vote for such a man than to vote for Ted Cruz, simply by virtue of the geographical location of his birth. That, despite the fact that Cruz was born to an American citizen, and has spent his life defending the Constitution and is firmly committed to appoint only originalist justices to the Court. Our continued existence as a free Republic is at stake at this juncture of our nation´s history, and we cannot afford to put into the presidency anyone who is not firmly committed to appoint ONLY originalist judges to the Court. If we do so, we are hastening our own demise as a free republic, as six arrogant lawyers continue to rule against one freedom after another guaranteed by the Bill of Rights-- whether the right of free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, the right to keep and bear arms etc. But all that doesn´t matter, because at least we got someone in office who was in the "right place" at the moment of his birth-- even though he turned out to be in many ways an establishment liberal!

    • The fact the 1790 Naturalization Act was replaced in 1795 and thereby canceled in terms of its legal force does not cancel its value as a corroborating document for getting into the mind of the founders and understanding what they meant by their own expressions. Could you document, please, where Washington and Madison said, Congress in 1795 acted to remove the earlier language because all or a majority of members of Congress agreed that those born to citizen parents outside the country are NOT to be considere as native born citizens? If they were really intent on refuting the concept of natural born citizen set forth in the 1790 Act, why did they not retain the original language and simply insert the word "not"? Children born to citizen parents abroad are NOT considered natural born citizens. Instead of refutation, we find mere silence in the latter document; and silence does not necessarily equal refutation of concepts. That silence can be accounted for for a number of reasons that have nothing to do with refuting an earlier statement made in an earlier document.
    • Reply

  •                      kibitzer3 Martin Rizley a few seconds ago (March 10)

      • 1) I share your concerns about the direction in which the country is heading, & I realize that that is where you are coming from. We need leaders who wilt put the nation back under the rule of law - its Constitution. Or, once we start living under the rule of men, and accept it as a way of life - i.e., arbitrary rule - we are finished, and will be at the untender mercies of tyrants.

      • 2) In 1795, they (including Madison and Washington) repealed the 1790 Act by taking out the word 'natural,' and having it read simply 'citizen'. The site that has a detailed explanation of all of this, and the ramifications of it, is: puzo1dotblpogspotdotcom.

      • 3) Extreme caution is advised in all that is going on these days. We are up against masters of propaganda and disinformation. The rulership of the world is at stake. Don't let the Dark forces slip in there, by their extreme cunning. Practice discernment in all things. It is a test. The Big One.


2) from ‘Ben Carson To Jump On Trump Bandwagon’ - Bob Unruh - March 10 

Meriam 38 minutes ago

Am sorry Dr. Carson, I have to vote for Ted Cruz even if you are going to be Trump's VP. Ted Cruz will uphold the Religious Liberty, the First and the Second Ammendments,and Immigration issues. These are very important issues for me. Of course there are other important issues and I stand w/ Ted Cruz also. If Ted Cruz will not get the nomination I not vote at all.


  • Meriam, why would Ted Cruz NECESSARILY uphold any part of the Constitution if he is ignoring that contract in regards to his own candidacy? The president must be a 'natural born' citizen, which means a person born in the country of parents who are its citizens. (That's what makes it 'natural'.) The historical record is very clear on this. If a person would ignore one part of the Constitution, they could very well ignore any part of the Constitution - or the Constitution altogether; and just rule like a tyrant. Like Obama is.

  • We made a terrible mistake in ignoring the Constitution in regards to the Usurper in the Oval Office now. We should learn from our mistakes, and not make another, on precisely the same issue.

The first immigration bill in 1790 defines a "natural born citizen." It was signed by George Washington. Look it up and read what it says. 

  • You need to do a little more homework, Phillip_in_TX: that Naturalization Act was repealed and replaced by the Naturalization Act of 1795, eliminating this very mistake in the 1790 one, and with both Madison and Washington engaging in this correction of the record. The original definition of a 'natural born' citizen still stood, and stands: as being a person born in the country to parents who are its citizens.
    The constitutional Framers were clearly going by - as much historical evidence attests to - E. de Vattel's definitive tome on such subjects, 'The Law of Nations, Or Principles of Natural Law'. Book One, Ch. XIX, Sect. 212. Look it up. With no constitutional amendment yet to the contrary. Which is what it would take, to change such an integral part of the constitutional contract, as the eligibility requirements for the very office of the presidency. A subject not to be trifled with. As both current major political parties have tried. And are going to fail at. When Justice is seen to. As it will be.
    As - it - will - be.

3) from ’Sen. Mike Lee Endorses Ted Cruz’ - March 10 

kibitzer a few seconds ago (March 10)

I thought that Sen. Lee was smarter than this shows him to be. For being 'defenders of the Constitution,' both of them are sorely lacking in reading comprehension. The occupant of the Oval Office needs to be, quote, a 'natural born' citizen. Not just any old kind of citizen. What is a 'natural born' citizen? The historical record is quite clear on the issue: It is a person born in the country to parents who are its citizens. (That's what makes it 'natural'.)

The TERM itself may have undergone some permutations since the constitutional Framers established the law of the land. But the eligibility REQUIREMENT ITSELF is still intact. To change that, would require a constitutional amendment. And in point of fact, both current major political parties tried a total of 8 times between them, between 2003 and '08, to get just such an amendment starting through Congress (with this particular requirement as their common denominator) - and failed each time even to get their proposals out of committee, such was the sensitivity around this particular issue. So, what did they do? It's obvious what they did: They decided to do an end around on the Constitution, and bank on the gullibility of the public, and their control between them of both the Mainstream Media and the judicial branch, to have their way with the rule of law in the country.

I've got news for you both, you criminal enterprises: Between you, you may have control over the MSM and the judicial branch. But you don't have total control over the public. And we are going to show you just how 'gullible' we are; when enough of us shake your mind control over us. As we are doing. In just such forums as this. Alerting our fellow Americans about the chicanery going on in our country.

And ultimately, to throw the lot of you out of power. And TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK. From you New World Order hypocrites. Who would think to fasten a totalitarian state over the whole world. And will find out just who actually is in charge on, and of, this planet.


4) from ‘BREAKING: Trump to Cut Every Single Fed. Department Except This 1…Liberals Horrified’ - March 10 


The basic reason why this is all such a big deal, and Trump is getting such flak, is because the New World Order crowd have been quietly setting up their moves on the socio-econo-political chess board for years, having ensnared much of the younger generation into their web - by blaming America for being such an unfair consumer of the world's resources, and polluting the environment, etc. etc. etc., and so needing to be cut down to Third World size - and he represents the Left's expected/anticipated 'reaction', and they need to keep the monkey wrench forcing us into the NWO scheme for the world from being reversed. It's classic Marxian philosophy. What so many on that side of this situation don't understand is that the world that TPTB is trying to bring into being is not a socialist utopia. It's a Faustian, fascist bargain with the devil. 

Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely; absent a spiritual, higher-consciousness take on matters. We are nearing an End Point. If people will stay true to their higher selves, we will come out of this culminating point of the exercise of life on a free-will planet on the High Road. Not the one leading down to chaos, corruption, and disaster. Well; it wiil be a disaster for the Dark forces. Because we live in a moral universe. And Justice WILL be served.

No comments: