Monday, 17 October 2016

On Truthtelling

from ’Suspicious “Dead Man’s Switch” Wikileaks Tweets Stir Speculation Of Assange Hit’ - Rick Wells - October 16/17
(Wikileaks posted a couple of Twitters that indicated some sort of trouble  And today it has been reported that the Internet has blocked them; but that they were prepared for it.  Things heating up…) 

Stan // October 17, 2016 at 2:07 pm // Reply (act. October 16 PDT)
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Yes, Assange is a good man, but it’s a shame that he hasn’t done his homework on 9/11. If Wikileaks doesn’t cover such a subject, that leads too many people to think that it’s just (the CIA’s favorite put-down line) a ‘conspiracy theory’.

Too much info is out there now on the Internet to doubt any longer that 9/11 was an inside job. Wikileaks needs to come clean as to what all has been sent their way, on such black-op subjects, that they are sitting on. Before they get taken down; because things are getting too hot, now, for the deep-state gang to let all these things go any longer, i.e., the rise of Trump, and all the rest.

from ‘Why DNC Chair Affirmed Ted Cruz Eligibility’ - October 16/17 
(The new DNC Chair set it up, to head off any speculation about Obama’s eligibility…)

kibitzer3 a few seconds ago (October 17)

For the record - and for WND too, apparently (and unfortunately):

The apposite reference is to the definitive tome of the day of the constitutional Framers on such matters, E. de Vattel's 'The Law of Nations,' Book One, Ch. XIX, Sect. 212; to wit: "The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens..." (That's what makes it 'natural,' for heaven's sake.) And this eligibility requirement for the office of the presidency (and for the office of the VP too, by subsequent amendment) STILL STANDS, absent a constitutional amendment to the contrary.

The Democrat and the Republican Party honchos wanted to water down this stringent eligibility requirement for the presidential office (obviously for demographic purposes), and tried a total of times between them, between 2003 and '08 alone, to get just such an amendment starting through Congress - proposals all of which had this issue as their common denominator - and they 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 colluded in an attempt to do an end-around on the Constitution - that is to say, on the rule of law in the country - and obviously figured that, between them, they had the control over the judiciary and the MSM that would allow them to get away with their chicanery and deceit. Bad call, in the age of the alternative media. And both parties need to go down for their crime of collusion, when theTruth outs. As it will.

As. It. Will. But outfits like WND should have been part of this exposure. It still has time to come over to the side of Truth.

But barely.

You are generally correct, Kibitzer, but you made a small typo.

"The Democrat and the Republican Party honchos wanted to water down this stringent eligibility requirement for the presidential office (obviously for demographic purposes), and tried a total of ___ times between them, between 2003 and '08 alone ..." You left out the number of times they tried to amend the requirement. I've forgotten the exact number, but it's 12-15 times. That's a lot of bills introduced for just one topic! And you're right, it was both Dems and Reps.

The requirement for VP does not specify NBC in those words. You find it in the last sentence of the 12th Amendment, which states that no person who is not eligible to become president may be elected VP.


         kibitzer3 Flame a few seconds ago 
  • Thanks for catching this, Flame.

  • The actual number is 8. During that time period. There was at least one other at an earlier time. CDR C.F. Kerchner (Ret.) has the details on his site. Also a good source on all this: puzo1dotblogspotdotcom.

  • Some trolls have tried to say that the Naturalization Act of 1790 changed the definition, but they fail to note that a) nothing trumps the Constitution but a constitutional amendment, and b) the Naturalization Act of 1795 repealed the earlier one ON THIS VERY ISSUE - and the repeal was signed off on by both Madison (as a member of Congress at the time) and by Washington (as President).

  • Also, some trolls try to argue that the Framers were going by English Common Law, not de Vattel; but that talks about 'natural born SUBJECTS'. Which those men certainly were not any longer by that time - they were freemen, and damn proud of it. No, they were CLEARLY going by American Common Law, aka Natural Law.

  • Which also brings up a subtitle of de Vattel's tome; to wit 'Or Principles of Natural Law'. Which we need to get back to, as part of the setting of this nation to rights. A more detailed story.

         Flame kibitzer3 an hour ago

Agreed - we need to get back to law in general and insuring that certain self-appointed elitists cannot worm their way free of it.

Only 8 proposed amendments to the NBC requirement? I was sure I had seen more, but I'll let it ride. I'm familiar with the work of both Kerchner and Puzo as I have been following this issue since the birther topic first erupted. I've met Orly Taitz on several occasions and attended a hearing where she appeared before the 9th Circuit. Even Phil Berg flew out from PA for that.

The Swiss publisher of Vattel's work sent at least 3 copies to the US. We know that Ben Franklin had one. In 2009, I was watching Charles Osgood on the CBS Sunday Morning show when he announced that the NY Society Library had done an audit of its books and found 2 that had been borrowed way back in the 1780s but never returned. I sat upright when he mentioned one was Vattel's "Law of Nations"; the other was a volume of transcribed speeches from the British Parliament. The delinquent borrower was none other than George Washington. The Ladies of the Mount Vernon Society have since made good on that delinquency and replaced the book. So we know the Founders had access to Vattel's work at the time they were drafting the Constitution.


         kibitzer3 Flame a few seconds ago (still October 17)
  • Excellent 'find,' Flame. Other pertinent points:

  • 1) Franklin (who actually had been sent 3 copies close to the time that it came out, and gave one to the Continental Congress. Could this NYS Library one have been 1 of those, and he kept the 3rd???) was a delegate himself to those self-same proceedings, and if any of the Framers weren't familiar with the term - though it was taught in the universities of the day, and they were steeping themselves in the literature on the creation of a new nation - they could have asked him as their elder and well-respected mentor; and

  • 2) Alexander Hamilton, as a delegate to those proceedings himself, made a proposal there that the president need only be, quote, "born a Citizen" - and his proposal was SPECIFICALLY TURNED DOWN, in favor of the more stringent category of citizen. The whole POINT on their part being to make sure that the occupant of that office, who would as well, then, become the Commander in Chief of the nation's military forces, had NO DUAL OR OTHERWISE CONFLICTING LOYALTIES OR ALLEGIANCES OR INFLUENCES. Had SOLE ALLEGIANCE to the U.S.. Which specific issue was the main point and concern of John Jay, in his letter of July 25, 1787, to G. Washington, in the latter's role as Chair of the C. Convention proceedings, that they make that category of citizen a requirement for the office.

  • Jay, not so incidentally, was to become the first Chief Justice of the new U.S. Supreme Court. My, how times have changed...

...And as part of the “setting of this nation to rights”:

Truth Bombs Aweigh

Truth Bombs Away! -
    and that relates to
       Obama, too.
  ‘But the blacks
   will be angry,’
some will say.
      I don’t see
             If they
Are willing to live
Their lives by Truth
         in the New
Order of Things,
All sorts of goodies
Will come their way
        and even
More spectacularly
       than now
      a usurper
 that position.

      Come One
      Come All
      in the
      New Day!
   You have
    a new life
    to gain.


The Bottom Line

I hope the American citizenry come to realize, and appreciate fully, how important it is, that  Barry Soetoro, aka Barack Obama, is called on his usurpation of the office.  This issue, of the (proper) definition of a 'natural born citizen,' highlights, and summarizes 'definitively', the importance of supporting the 'doctrine' of 'original intent' in the interpretation of the Constitution - the law of the land - as opposed to the 'progressive's' (longstanding) attempts to make of the Constitution a 'living document'.*

It is not.  It is a contract, between the States and the federal government.  And needs to be interpreted accordingly.  Or there will be hell to pay.

As we are seeing, in our day.  Of


And a hint, as to the even larger importance of this process:

If you are going to proceed in your spiritual evolution on the pathway to becoming a creator in your own right, you need to pass this test.  This test, of honoring Rules.

Or you will not pass through the Ring Pass Not, facing us.

As we speak.


* They of the despotic philosophy that the end justifies the means; that 'there is no right nor wrong but thinking makes it so' - i.e., that there are no absolutes, that all is relative.
   Well; it is.  Relative to the size of their pinheads.
   As if the only meaning to life was in and of itself only...

No comments: