Thursday, 21 July 2016

Don't Mess With Me

(To Stage Left audience)
“The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

(To State Right audience)
“The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

(To Center Stage audience, and directly into the cameras; with barely concealed anger)
“The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

That is the definition of a ‘natural born’ citizen as understood at the time of the constitutional Framers when they codified that eligibility requirement into their contract for the office of the presidency of the new United States of America - and that particular federal office ONLY; signifying its special nature in their eyes, for the occupant of that office to become as well the Commander in Chief of the nation’s military forces, whom they wished, and intended, thereby to have NO DUAL OR OTHERWISE CONFLICTING LOYALTIES OR ALLEGIANCES OR INFLUENCES.  To have SOLE ALLEGIANCE to the United States.

The definition is from the definitive tome of the day on such nation-building matters, Emmerich de Vattel’s ‘The Law of Nations, Or Principles of Natural Law’.  Which there is considerable historical evidence that the Framers were very familiar with, and which as well was taught in the universities of the day.  And that definition, and that eligibility requirement for that office, STILL STANDS…to this day; absent a constitutional amendment to the contrary.

Indeed, both major political parties of our day have even recognized that fact, when they tried a total of eight times between them, between 2003 and 2008 alone, to get an amendment going through Congress including this very matter as their common denominator - and failed each time even to get their proposals out of committee, such was the sensitivity around THIS VERY ISSUE.  

So: THEY KNEW.  And have known.  The operative definition of a ‘natural born’ citizen.  And that knowledge, and its attempted fudging, by both major political parties of our day, is enough to bring them both into a court of law - a legal court of law; another story - on RICO-statute charges of colluding in a crime - and, when found guilty - which they will be, as a matter and finding of blunt fact - dissolved - with fines, and imprisonment of their authorities - for being the criminal enterprises that they are.  And this nation is put back on its lawful track.

And I am here to do just that: to set things to rights in this country.  In MY country.  And the country of every person on this planet who wishes to live IN FREEDOM (banging twice on the lectern as emphasis).  

Even as we talk, my agents are rounding up your oppressors, to be held for trial - that they may have their day in court, but as well, that the whole story of their perfidy can be read into the record.  

The record, of life In Our Time.  

And a sorry record it is.

But which is now coming to an end.

For a better day to unfold.  In our lives, here in this country.  And for the world.

For, we are on the verge of A New World.

And this nation will, and will proudly be, the flagship of the fleet of nation-states sailing these new seas into that New World.

Once this nation - this blessed nation; having come to a sorry state - has been set to rights.

Join me in that enterprise.  

It will happen, in any event.  And you will be on board this ship.  Or not.

Your choice.

I urge you to make it a good one.

The.  Good one.

That is all.  For now.

That is enough, I should think.

To set about the work at hand.

For, it will be work.

But of a stellar kind.

For this nation.

And this planet.

To be set amongst the favored planets in the entire universe.

For what we have had to go through.

To get to this point.  In time.

And beyond.


from ’Trump Responds to Ted Cruz’s Betrayal’ - Blake Neff = July 21


Ted Cruz is the quintessential conservative republican. Trump is a fraud, a con man, and a RINO.

Ted Cruz for President 2020..


         kibitzer3 Esef Brewer a few seconds ago (July 21)
  • "Trump is a fraud"?? How's this for a fraud:

  • "The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens..." That is the definition of a 'natural born citizen' which there is considerable historical evidence that the constitutional Framers were going by when they made it an eligibility requirement for the office of the presidency - and that eligibility requirement stands TO THIS DAY, absent a constitutional amendment to the contrary.

  • Cruz is a fraud and a con man - and especially despicable, for selling himself - trying to sell himself - as a 'constitutional expert'. And "quintessential conservative Republican."

  • 3
  • Reply

          Peter Smith kibitzer3 7 hours ago 
  • By who's definition is your NBC assertion right? Not the Founders. Their 1790 Act said a child born outside of America or our territories could also hold NBC. This 1790 Act was written, voted on, and signed into law by our Founding Fathers. A similar act ruled on the at birth status of Ted Cruz. The McCarran-Walter Act of 1952, Title III.
  • And dumb-ss, Ted Cruz was the Texas Solicitor General and argued Texas legislation in front of SCOTUS. Usually winning I might add. Yes, he is a Constitutional expert, too bad you don't know squat ......

  • 2
  • Reply
  • kibitzer3 Peter Smith a few seconds ago (July 21)

  • Peter: You have either been taken in by Cruz's trolls or you are one yourself. Either way, you need to know that that Naturalization Act of 1790 was repealed by the Naturalization Act of 1795 on this very issue - that the earlier one was misleading in its reference to a NBC. AND the 1795 repeal was signed off on by both Madison and Washington. Two of our more prominent Founding Fathers, I think even you would have to agree.

  • As for any subsequent Acts of Congress: Nothing trumps the Constitution but a constitutional amendment. Both of our major current political parties have, in point of fact, tried that maneuver on this matter - a total of 8 times between them, between 2003 and 2008. And they failed each time even to get their proposals out of committee, such was the sensitivity around this issue.

  • So: this is a criminal matter involving both political parties. Where the bottom line is very clear: Two wrongs don't make a right. They will BOTH go down, for their iniquity regarding this matter, of an illegally sitting president on the one hand, and ineligible candidates on the other.

  • All interested parties should check out the detailed presentation of this matter at puzo1dotblogspotdotcom.

from ‘Are These the First Shots in a Civil War?’ - shawn - July 19; posted here July 21
(“Liberals are doing something tricky right now, so don’t miss it. Over the last few days, Obama administration officials and left-wing political writers have begun to link these cop killers with the “anti-government” sentiments of the 2016 election. This isn’t an enormous stretch, given some of the Baton Rouge killer’s associations, but it’s patently clear that they’re trying to make this a right-wing problem instead of a Black Lives Matter problem.

“‘One of the flash points for all that’s happening now is the lie,’ said talk show host Rush Limbaugh on Monday. ‘A lie that has been known, a lie that was knowingly spread, a lie whose flames were knowingly fanned by people no less than Barack Obama and others ranking high in the Democrat Party, and that is ‘Hands Up, Don’t Shoot.'

“That lie is the foundation of the current movement, but it has been built upon. And it’s lies all the way up to the top. These lies inflame the public, but they don’t apparently nudge the criminal justice system. These supposedly-murderous cops keep getting cleared, locally and federally. And yet the names of the deceased continue to adorn posters, symbolizing the war racist cops have waged on black America.

“This movement is based on fiction, but the results are anything but fictional. At the very least, Democrat-led reforms are going to send our national crime rates soaring.

“But in a worst-case-scenario, where angry young men see heroism in the actions of cowards, we could see a full-scale civil war pitting race against race, civilian against police. When you play with the fire of stirring racial grievances, you’re bound to get burned. Unfortunately, it won’t just be Democrats going up in the flames.”)


Well noted. I have come across the 'argument' that the New World Order far lefties are starting to employ: to equate the term 'right wing extremism' with 'white supremacism' and thus beyond the pale, and legally actionable - including with UN troops in our cities (the 'Strong Cities Network' of the Usurper and his AG). It's part of their attempt to smear their opposition, Saul Alinsky style, and paint the likes of patriots, constitutionalists, Second Amendment supporters, Ron Paul supporters, veterans, and Christians as 'potential domestic terrorists' (ref: a SPLC document 'officially' sent to the DHS). Their rhetoric is heating up. They must realize that it is now or never for their totalitarian cause.

Don't give them an inch. Or they will take a mile.

No comments: