Watched a video of a woman who was burned out of her home in the fires that destroyed so much of northern California a short while back, who has 'taken the red pill,' in waking up to what went on in her life in that event, and has been going on, as regards the likes of Agenda 21, and the New World Order's plans to cull much of the population, as 'useless eaters'. She has researched enough into the fires to feel strongly that DEW weaponry was involved, which could include the ability, by our Erstwhile Masters, to generate fierce winds, as 'required'. It's all scurrilous stuff, that needs to be ended, and now.
Part of the End Game. And part of the End Times.
(See stopthecrimedotnet for more info on the subject.)
Just wanted to mention it, as part of The Passing Scene. With the emphasis on the Passing.
And to conclude my day with a bit of Unfinished Business. For the record. If nothing else:
from eaglerising.com: ‘Whoa! Dershowitz: ‘’I Wouldn’t Have Campaigned for Obama if I’d Known…."’ - Keely Sharp - January 27
(If he had known that there was a photo of BHO, then a Senator, in a chummy pose with the leader of the Nation of Islam (and notorious anti-Semite) Louis Farrakhan, that has just surfaced…)
..
kibitzer - January 27
If Harvard Law Professor and Constitutional Scholar Alan Dershowitz could read plain English with even a modicum of comprehension he would not have campaigned for Barack Obama either. BHO was not eligible for that office in the first place, for not being a 'natural born' citizen; which even any first-year law student should know is a person "born in the country, of parents who are citizens" thereof. (That's what makes it 'natural,' for heaven's sake. NO DUAL OR OTHERWISE CONFLICTING LOYALTIES OR ALLEGIANCES OR INFLUENCES. Having SOLE ALLEGIANCE to the country of origin.)
The definition is from the definitive tome of the day of the constitutional Framers on such nation-building matters, E. de Vattel's ‘The Law of Nations'. (Book One, Ch. XIX, Sect. 212. Look it up, and read it for yourself. It's right here on the Internet.) Hotshot legal beagles like Ted Cruz - and presumably Prof. Dershowitz himself - have tried to argue that the definition was changed by the Naturalization Act of 1790. They fail to mention that a) that Act was repealed by the N. Act of 1795 ON THIS VERY GROUND, that it was misleading in its use of the term; and b) no Act of Congress can change a fundamental part of the Constitution ANYWAY: that eligibility requirement for that particular federal office STILL HOLDS, absent a constitutional amendment to the contrary. We have been snookered, by such legal experts as Prof. Dershowitz. Though the term in office is reversible. Any takers?
No comments:
Post a Comment