‘I’m beginning to have doubts about this. They’ve - ‘
‘What??! No no!!’
‘They’ve come up with a picture of a different guy, who looks very much like - ‘
‘Listen to me. Listen to me. It doesn’t matter whether it was him or not. Whether it’s true or not. What matters - and all that matters - is what you believe about it. And what it means. This guy could preside over an overturn of Roe. And you know what that means, don’t you. Do you really know what that means??!’
‘…Yes.’
‘Right. So, just remember: It doesn’t matter what the actual truth of the matter is. It’s what you believe. Got it?’
'…Yes.’
‘So let’s go over your story once again. And remember: Just believe it.’
Like the Left believes in an activist judicial branch, because it’s just another way to get the results that they want. Because the rule of thumb for them is: Whatever It Takes. By Any Means Necessary. Lie. Cheat. Steal. Kill, even. Whatever It Takes to secure your desired outcome.
Because there is no right nor wrong but thinking makes it so. Because everything is relative. There are no absolutes. What is right is what advances your agenda. And what advances the other side’s agenda is wrong. By definition.
The definition of a Satanist.
The Democrats - at least the current version of the Party; but the rot has been going on for some time - seem to believe that The United States’s form of government has but two branches. There is the executive branch. And then there is the combined legislative and judicial branch. So that the second branch of our form of government has two parts: the legislative, consisting of the elected representatives of the people, to both houses of Congress; and the judicial, which not only acts as judges, but ‘passes’ - makes - legislation as well; and then rules on it from its judicial function. Sweet.
So you can see that I am not a member of the Democrat Party.
But although I registered to vote as a member of the Republican Party, that was mainly just to be able to vote against the Democrats with any degree of clout. But ever since I have done my homework regarding Benedict Obama the Usurper, I have had little to do with the Republican Party either. Because if they had done their job, as the opposition party of record, they would have, could have nipped the illegal nomination and candidacy, and consequent election, of the Usurper in the bud - and instead, allowed him not one but TWO terms in that purloined office, to add insult to injury.
His illegal nomination and candidacy and election, because
the Constitution is a contract. Which means what it says. Not what wet noodle twisters say it means. To them. Rather than to those who drew up the document.
And what did the term, a “natural born citizen,” mean to the constitutional Framers???
It meant - and still means, in a legal sense - a person, quote:
“born in the country, of parents who are citizens” thereof. Made a part of the eligibility requirements for that particular office - and that particular federal office ONLY, testifying to its special nature in their eyes, and creation - in order 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..
It is from the definitive tome of the day regarding such nation-building matters, Emer de Vattel’s ‘The Law of Nations’. (Book One, Ch. XIX, Sect. 212. Look it up. It’s right here on the Internet. No arcane judicial mumbo-jumbo involved. Just the ability to read plain English.) Regarding which there is plenty of historical evidence that the Framers were well acquainted with this tome. (And if any of them were not, all any of them would have had to do to clarify the matter for themselves would have been to ask their well-respected elder mentor, Benjamin Franklin, who had three copies of said tome, he thought so highly of it, and just so happened to be sitting right there amongst them as a delegate himself to those self-same constitutional proceedings.) Not to mention the little ‘inconvenient truth’ to some that Alexander Hamilton, as a delegate himself 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 category of citizen referenced in the term of being ‘natural born’.*
And so the hierarchy of the Republican Party, in fact or just in effect, colluded with their counterparts in the Democrat Party in an attempt to hijack this country, in placing not only an ineligible candidate in the crucial office of the presidency of the United States, but one who was bent - and figuratively - on making of this country but a part of a region of the totalitarian New World Order of this planet’s erstwhile masters. And so the Republican Party, along with the Democrat Party, needs to be taken to court - and a real court at that; a court governed by American Common Law, aka Natural Law; not one of these Maritime/Admiralty courts (ruling over a people presumptively ‘lost at sea’) that have plagued this country for long enough - and, when found guilty of various crimes - particularly of collusion, and so their being found to be criminal enterprises - both political parties fined, their legal authorities jailed, and both of them dissolved.
Along with the Congress, for having failed in its duty to be a check and balance against the thus-rendered criminal executive branch of government.
And we start anew. On a fresh footing.
In a world no longer to be ruled by the Dark side.
Whose adherents believe that
the end justifies the means.
Any and all means. Because
all is relative.
To which I say:
Bollocks.
And what say you, Citizen???
P.S. And forget any more elections. Not at least until they are cleaned up of all corruption; that has plagued this country long enough. Because it is the beginning of a new era.
The
New Era.
—
* Some - particularly in the Ted Cruz camp; who is not eligible for the top job either, because of this requirement - have tried to argue that the term was modified by the Naturalization Act of 1790. But they fail to note (One wonders why. Not) that that Act was repealed by the Naturalization Act of 1795 ON THIS VERY POINT, because of its misleading use of the term. AND that repeal was signed off on by no less a couple of constitutional experts than the man who has become known as the Father of the Constitution, James Madison - then a Congressman - and President George Washington.
And in any event, one can play a shell game all they want; but let us note that there is a distinction here, between a term itself and its meaning. It doesn’t matter if the definition of the term is switched around under a shell; the eligibility requirement itself STILL STANDS, absent a constitutional amendment to the contrary.
Checkmate.
No comments:
Post a Comment