Monday, 22 August 2016

On Mistaking Identities

'What's up.'

'That thing is at it again.  You know the one that keeps putting out food for us, being the nice It that It is - at least, that we keep thinking It is - and then it slaughters us!  Wholesale!  It's maddening!  Can't you do something about it, Your Royal Highness??'

'Well, I do keep churning out you lot, to make up for such contingencies.  There's not much more I can do.  We're just up against a fundamental fact of life.'

'What's that, Your Royal Highness?'

'That those two-legged creatures amongst us are a fickle lot.'

Moral: Looks can be deceiving.  As in, Greeks bearing gifts.  And as in geeks doing the same thing, with their vaccines, and such like.  Like, IntelliStreets.

Like ants with their two-legged creature neighbors: Check their premises.  And then act accordingly.


P.S. And speaking further of Mistaking Identities...

from;’Kerry Goes ‘Birther,’ Thanks Kenya For Obama’ - August 22
(SoS Kerry rubbing the patriotic American citizens’ noses in the deep stuff) 



Its not where he was born. Its not a stupid birth certificate. Those two things are what you are to focus on.

Don't focus on [those issues; focus on] the condition of the mother and father!

Natural Born Citizens and for the integrity of the Commander in Chief...are those born to citizen mothers and fathers. Its a National Security issue. How many Americans have been murdered on U.S. soil since the White House was twice usurped by Congress and SCOTUS?


          kibitzer3 NUTN2SAY a few seconds ago (August 22)
  • Actually, SCOTUS has never ruled on the NBC issue, because it has never been allowed to reach the highest judicial office in the land for adjudication. It has been sidelined along the way on procedural grounds - the plaintiffs lacking proper 'standing,' i.e., failing to show personal injury. Oh, once it was thrown out of court, by a lower-court ruling that Obama was a, quote, "citizen," and therefore eligible for the highest office in the land. Excuse me??

  • The day that a court in this country shows its ignorance of the law, by, in this case, trying to equate a mere "citizen" with the same legal (eligibility-requirement) standing as a "natural born" citizen, is the day that we are being ruled by tyrants. And need to act accordingly.
  • I am talking about a modern-day ruling that would have to rule on the original definition of the term as understood by the constitutional Framers (for which there is considerable historical evidence) and as taking into consideration the Naturalization Act of 1795, which repealed the Naturalization Act of 1790 ON THIS VERY ISSUE; the former Act, for mendacious reason, being cited by the Cruz camp for his illegitimate attempt at candidacy for the office as well.

  • Our day's SCOTUS needs to rule on the evidence of plain English with at least a modicum of comprehension: that a 'natural born' citizen is a person born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof; and that that eligibility requirement for the office of the presidency STILL STANDS, absent a constitutional amendment to the contrary.

  • (See E. de Vattel: 'The Law of Nations, Or Principles Of Natural Law,' Book One, Ch. XIX, Sect. 212. Also see: puzo1dotblogspotdotcom)

Our modern-day SCOTUS is hoping, and even attempting, to ignore having to rule on this issue (for whatever self-perceived reason(s)),  They need to have their feet held to the fire on the matter - this terribly important constitutional matter.  Else we are very clearly then no longer functioning under the rule of law in this country.

And as I say above: therefore need to act accordingly.

No comments: