Wednesday, 9 March 2016

Where I Stand - Unequivocally

1) from ‘The Pentagon Just Admitted It’s Been Deploying Military Drones Over The US To Spy On Americans’ - Matt Agorist - March 9


Thanks for the heads-up, Matt. Please keep on this story.

The U.S. Must NOT become another East Germany, or USSR, or Red China. This is reprehensible stuff. Not to be condoned. What are we, cattle to these people? To be corralled, and culled, at the will of the federal government?? Not in MY country, you won't.

2) from ‘Why Threaten North Korea And China?  Would Obama Start A War To Stay In Office?’ - Michael Snyder - March 9

Deacon March 9, 2016 at 8:47 am 
This President must be arrested and removed from office NOW! and charged with treason.

Stan March 9, 2016 at 4:24 pm (Your comment is awaiting moderation.) 

Deacon: Well commented on. Plus charges of fraud and perjury. 
Too many good people don’t ‘get’ that, since the man is a Usurper in the office – for not being a ‘natural born’ citizen; i.e., as the constitutional Framers understood the term (for which there is considerable historical evidence), a person born in the country to parents who are its citizens – he doesn’t need to go through an impeachment process to be removed. All the situation needs is for the Oath Keepers of the nation to do their job – with patriots having their backs.

And I for one stand with the rule of law – i.e., the Constitution – in the nation.


March 9

To: Jim DeMint
       The Heritage Foundation

From: Stan Stanfield

Subject: Your letter of March 3

Dear Jim,

Thank you for your letter in which you make it very clear what the Heritage Foundation's understanding is of the original intent and meaning of the Second Amendment.  Which is why I don't understand why you people don't have the same understanding of the original intent and meaning of the term, a 'natural born' citizen.  Which is a person born in the country of (U.S.) citizen parents.  (E. de Vattel, 'The Law of Nations, Or Principles of Natural Law,' Book One, Ch. XIX, Sect. 212.)

There is considerable historical evidence that this is the source of the definition of the term that the constitutional Framers were going by when they made that a part of the eligibility requirement for the office of the president - in particular because the occupant of that office would as well, then, become the Commander in Chief of the nation's military forces, and they wanted to make sure - at least as sure as they could - that that person would have NO DUAL OR OTHERWISE CONFLICTING LOYALTIES OR ALLEGIANCES OR INFLUENCES.  (As to that particular point: See John Jay's letter of July 25, 1787 to G. Washington, in his role as Chair of the Constitutional Convention proceedings.)

You will, of course, realize that it makes no difference if the term may have gone through some permutations since that requirement was put in the constitutional contract for that particular office.  The only thing that can change the requirement would be a constitutional amendment.  Of which, there has been none.  (Several have been tried.  None has even ever made it out of committee, such has been the sensitivity around this particular issue.)

See for a very comprehensive dealing with this extremely important matter.  And start living up to your title, as a body calling yourself - daring to call yourself - The Heritage Foundation.  

I await your response.   

Most sincerely yours,

Duane 'Stan' Stanfield

P..S. And do not allow yourselves to be put off in your investigation into this matter by the argument in some quarters that there are only two kinds of citizens, natural born or naturalized.  This canard is demonstrated very graphically, one could almost say presciently, by the fact that Alexander Hamilton, as a delegate to those 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.  For the main reason as given above.  
     And please note, in your investigation into this matter, that Benjamin Franklin, the Framers's well respected elder mentor, who was sitting right there amongst them as a delegate himself to those proceedings, was known to have in his possession three copies of the de Vattel treatise - which was taught in the universities of the day in any event.  So: Those nation builders knew precisely what they meant by that term.  
     And I expect an organization like yours to do something about this travesty of justice, which has been visited on this nation precisely because organizations like yours, and individuals like you, have failed to do your duty, as responsible citizens of the Republic.


4) from YouTube: ‘What Govt is Doing in Secret Right Now’ - The KrisAnne Hall Show - March 9
(Kris Anne goes into a detailed reading of the 4th Amendment, in a warning about the UN’s ’Strong Cities Network’.  A word of caution…:) 

A fundamental fact needs to be not overlooked in this subject area: The federal government does not have any power it chooses to exercise EXCEPT FOR what it is expressly denied in the Bill of Rights.  The Bill of Rights is only a list of EXAMPLES OF powers the federal government does not have over The People/rights they have in the face of possible despotic acts by the federal government.  

At one point, Madison made this [very] good point about the danger of having a Bill of Rights.  He said that such a list MIGHT give the erroneous impression that the federal government could do anything it wanted EXCEPT FOR what it was specifically denied in a Bill of Rights; that the federal government was being ceded, by the Constitution, only LIMITED and DELEGATED powers - "FEW AND DEFINED," in his specific words.  But the people of the time didn't trust the new govt. critter they were being asked to trust, and insisted on a classic Bill of Rights - and, to drive the above point home, added the 9th and 10th Amendments.

We need to rein them in, according to this awareness of their ceded powers.  Not assume that they can do anything they want to do except for what they are specifically denied the power to do by/in the Bill of Rights, and in a fine-detailed reading thereof.  They would try to con us in this erroneous, sophistic reading of the Bill of Rights.  Don't let them get away with it.


And, having said all this: a reminder - and to myself - that the Dark forces are, in actuality, doing a job for the Light, in creating a mirror/reverse image of 'the real thing', and thus calling it into being, in the way of how these things work; every action having an equal and opposite reaction, and so forth.

It's the Hegelian principle, now brought to its culminating Synthesis 'head', in a New World Order of the Light.  Complete with a) a falling-away of the old forms, in allowing/making way for the paradigm shift; and b) a new monetary system.

Being activated as we speak.

At long last.

And my continent-spanning walk to Washington, in 1961, "to see the President and draw to his attention that the way to rid ourselves of all our aches and evils is to do away with money," now being vindicated.  One step at a time.  Like those 'steps' that I took those many years ago, now.

Learning lessons in patience along

The Way.


...and a latae entry:

5) from ‘Why I Like Ted Cruz’ - Joseph Farah - March 9


I agree totally with your view of Ted Cruz, but I go farther and say that he is to be "considered as" a natural born citizen, despite the irregularity of his birth outside the borders of the homeland. I say that, precisely because this particular irregularity-- birth outside the borders to an American citizen-- was specifically addressed in the Naturalization Act of 1790, and that particular understanding of the issues, though omitted in the Naturalization Act passed five years later by Congress, was never explicitly refuted or corrected by the founding fathers themselves. To me, that closes the case. If Ted Cruz was born of a U.S. citizen outside the borders of the homeland, then citizenship could not possibly have been denied him, since the circumstances of his birth entitle him to citizenship. He is therefore, as the 1790 Act says, to be "considered as" a natural born citizen-- despite the irregularity concerning his actual birthplace.

Having said that, even if my perspective is wrong, the proper application of any law code involves considering the purpose of the law and distinguishing between the "weightier" matters of the law-- those matters which are intrinsic to the very spirit, logic, or intent of the law-- and those matters which are clearly less "weighty." Jesus chided the Pharisees for emphasizing precision in ceremonial observance while overlooking entirely the weightier matters of the Law-- judgment, mercy, and faith. He pointed out how, on one occasion, King David, who as king of Israel, was bound to uphold the Law , technically "broke" the ceremonial law concerning the shewbread in the Temple because of his commitment to fulfill the law of love by feeding the famished men who were with him. Though "technically" the law was broken, yet David was found guiltless of transgression, because his actions were driven by and fulfilled the intention of that demand which lay at the very heart and center of the law ("thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself") though technically speaking, he "broke" the letter of the Law by letting his men eat the shewbread.

If I am wrong about Ted Cruz´s status as a natural born citizen-- and I do not concede that point-- I would still vote for him over those who lack his commitment to appoint originalist judges to the Supreme Court-- for progressivist judges on the Court who treat the Constitution like a wax nose have been and will continue to be in the future the driving engine for dismantling our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Cruz is absolutely committed to appointing originalist judges to the bench who will defend the foundational principles on which our republic was founded; Trump, by his own admission, does not share that commitment, which tells me his is not committed to do all in his power to defend our country from leftist progressive judges like his own sister, whom he said would make a "great justice" on the Supreme Court. That alone is reason to reject Trump as our future POTUS, and to vote for Cruz instead.

  • kibitzer3 Martin Rizley a few seconds ago  (March 9)
    (Hold on, this is waiting to be approved by WND.) 

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

It is getting more and more obvious that it is time that we live by Truth, and the truth of things.  We can't go on our meretricious way much longer, before we fall into the abyss.  The abyss of our making.

As to that; and to the specific matter of people supporting the candidacy of Ted Cruz because of his - announced; apparent - stand on political 'things':

This end-justifies-the-means crap has got to stop.  That is the philosophy of tyrants down through the ages.  We will wake up too late to our peril, if we don't wake up

No comments: