On Principalities And Powers

1) further on wnd.com: ‘Why I Like Ted Cruz’ - Joseph Farah - March 9

(To recap, to start with:)

• 
  
• kibitzer3 Martin Rizley • 17 hours ago (March 9)
• 
  1) You are, indeed, wrong about "Ted Cruz's status as a natural born citizen". That category requires the person to have been born in a country to parents who are its citizens - it is not just a matter of where one is born.
• 
  2) The 1790 Naturalization Act was repealed by the 1795 Naturalization Act for precisely this reason - that the 1790 reference to a person being born abroad being "considered as" a nbc was obviously misleading, and both Madison & Washington had a hand in correcting that mistake.
• 
  3) Both you and Joseph Farah are guilty of trashing the Constitution, by turning it into "just a damn piece of paper". We will rue the consequences if you are allowed to get away with your shortsighted view of this matter. The country must be returned to its rule of law. And that means that it does not try to make two wrongs make a right, in allowing Cruz to continue on his candidacy; and corrects its original 'wrong,' in having allowed the Usurper to slip into the Oval Office by such sloppy thinking.
• 
  Obama must go, as the Usurper he is. And, in returning to the Constitution - i.e., the rule of law - Cruz must be barred from his candidacy.
• 
  And we open the door for Truth to prevail. On Earth, as it is in Heaven.
  
  
•           6
• 
  
•          Reply

•            Martin Rizley kibitzer3 • 2 hours ago (March 10)
• 
  Would you say King David "trashed" the law of Moses by allowing his men to eat the shewbread, since Jesus freely admits that bread was lawful only for the priests to eat? Apparently, God did not believe David "trashed" the Law of Moses by his action. Rather, he did what was necessary to keep the central duty of the Law, which is summed up in the two great commandments-- love God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength, and your neighbor as yourself. By feeding his men, Jesus kept the central commandment of the Law, and he would have violated the Law in spirit by doing the opposite and refusing to feed his men the shewbread on pretense of "keeping the Law." He may have kept the letter of one ceremonial law in that case, but he would have violated the spirit of the law taken as a whole.
• 
  I fear that may be the attitude of many Trump supporters. They hear Cruz say he is running for president, and they accuse him of violating the Constitution. On the other hand, they hear Trump say that he is NOT committed to appoint originalist judges to the court, and they are ready to vote for him! They hear him say that his leftist judge sister would make a great justice on the Supreme Court, and they somehow think it exhibts more love for America and the Constitution to vote for such a man than to vote for Ted Cruz, simply by virtue of the geographical location of his birth. That, despite the fact that Cruz was born to an American citizen, and has spent his life defending the Constitution and is firmly committed to appoint only originalist justices to the Court. Our continued existence as a free Republic is at stake at this juncture of our nation´s history, and we cannot afford to put into the presidency anyone who is not firmly committed to appoint ONLY originalist judges to the Court. If we do so, we are hastening our own demise as a free republic, as six arrogant lawyers continue to rule against one freedom after another guaranteed by the Bill of Rights-- whether the right of free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, the right to keep and bear arms etc. But all that doesn´t matter, because at least we got someone in office who was in the "right place" at the moment of his birth-- even though he turned out to be in many ways an establishment liberal!
• 
  The fact the 1790 Naturalization Act was replaced in 1795 and thereby canceled in terms of its legal force does not cancel its value as a corroborating document for getting into the mind of the founders and understanding what they meant by their own expressions. Could you document, please, where Washington and Madison said, Congress in 1795 acted to remove the earlier language because all or a majority of members of Congress agreed that those born to citizen parents outside the country are NOT to be considere as native born citizens? If they were really intent on refuting the concept of natural born citizen set forth in the 1790 Act, why did they not retain the original language and simply insert the word "not"? Children born to citizen parents abroad are NOT considered natural born citizens. Instead of refutation, we find mere silence in the latter document; and silence does not necessarily equal refutation of concepts. That silence can be accounted for for a number of reasons that have nothing to do with refuting an earlier statement made in an earlier document.
  
• Reply
• 
  
•                      kibitzer3 Martin Rizley • a few seconds ago (March 10)
• 
  1) I share your concerns about the direction in which the country is heading, & I realize that that is where you are coming from. We need leaders who wilt put the nation back under the rule of law - its Constitution. Or, once we start living under the rule of men, and accept it as a way of life - i.e., arbitrary rule - we are finished, and will be at the untender mercies of tyrants.
• 
  2) In 1795, they (including Madison and Washington) repealed the 1790 Act by taking out the word 'natural,' and having it read simply 'citizen'. The site that has a detailed explanation of all of this, and the ramifications of it, is: puzo1dotblpogspotdotcom.
• 
  3) Extreme caution is advised in all that is going on these days. We are up against masters of propaganda and disinformation. The rulership of the world is at stake. Don't let the Dark forces slip in there, by their extreme cunning. Practice discernment in all things. It is a test. The Big One.
• 
  

--

2) from wnd.com: ‘Ben Carson To Jump On Trump Bandwagon’ - Bob Unruh - March 10 

..
Meriam • 38 minutes ago

Am sorry Dr. Carson, I have to vote for Ted Cruz even if you are going to be Trump's VP. Ted Cruz will uphold the Religious Liberty, the First and the Second Ammendments,and Immigration issues. These are very important issues for me. Of course there are other important issues and I stand w/ Ted Cruz also. If Ted Cruz will not get the nomination I not vote at all.

4

Reply

•  kibitzer3 Meriam • a minute ago (March 10)

• Meriam, why would Ted Cruz NECESSARILY uphold any part of the Constitution if he is ignoring that contract in regards to his own candidacy? The president must be a 'natural born' citizen, which means a person born in the country of parents who are its citizens. (That's what makes it 'natural'.) The historical record is very clear on this. If a person would ignore one part of the Constitution, they could very well ignore any part of the Constitution - or the Constitution altogether; and just rule like a tyrant. Like Obama is.
• 
  We made a terrible mistake in ignoring the Constitution in regards to the Usurper in the Oval Office now. We should learn from our mistakes, and not make another, on precisely the same issue.
• 
  

Phillip_in_TX  kibitzer3 • an hour ago

The first immigration bill in 1790 defines a "natural born citizen." It was signed by George Washington. Look it up and read what it says. 

Reply

•

Share › 

• 
  

  
  
  

  kibitzer3  Phillip_in_TX • 2 minutes ago

  
  

  
  

  You need to do a little more homework, Phillip_in_TX: that Naturalization Act was repealed and replaced by the Naturalization Act of 1795, eliminating this very mistake in the 1790 one, and with both Madison and Washington engaging in this correction of the record. The original definition of a 'natural born' citizen still stood, and stands: as being a person born in the country to parents who are its citizens.

  The constitutional Framers were clearly going by - as much historical evidence attests to - E. de Vattel's definitive tome on such subjects, 'The Law of Nations, Or Principles of Natural Law'. Book One, Ch. XIX, Sect. 212. Look it up. With no constitutional amendment yet to the contrary. Which is what it would take, to change such an integral part of the constitutional contract, as the eligibility requirements for the very office of the presidency. A subject not to be trifled with. As both current major political parties have tried. And are going to fail at. When Justice is seen to. As it will be.

  As - it - will - be.

  
  

  --

3) from newsmax.com: ’Sen. Mike Lee Endorses Ted Cruz’ - March 10 

..

kibitzer • a few seconds ago (March 10)

I thought that Sen. Lee was smarter than this shows him to be. For being 'defenders of the Constitution,' both of them are sorely lacking in reading comprehension. The occupant of the Oval Office needs to be, quote, a 'natural born' citizen. Not just any old kind of citizen. What is a 'natural born' citizen? The historical record is quite clear on the issue: It is a person born in the country to parents who are its citizens. (That's what makes it 'natural'.)

The TERM itself may have undergone some permutations since the constitutional Framers established the law of the land. But the eligibility REQUIREMENT ITSELF is still intact. To change that, would require a constitutional amendment. And in point of fact, both current major political parties tried a total of 8 times between them, between 2003 and '08, to get just such an amendment starting through Congress (with this particular requirement as their common denominator) - and 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 decided to do an end around on the Constitution, and bank on the gullibility of the public, and their control between them of both the Mainstream Media and the judicial branch, to have their way with the rule of law in the country.

I've got news for you both, you criminal enterprises: Between you, you may have control over the MSM and the judicial branch. But you don't have total control over the public. And we are going to show you just how 'gullible' we are; when enough of us shake your mind control over us. As we are doing. In just such forums as this. Alerting our fellow Americans about the chicanery going on in our country.

And ultimately, to throw the lot of you out of power. And TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK. From you New World Order hypocrites. Who would think to fasten a totalitarian state over the whole world. And will find out just who actually is in charge on, and of, this planet.

--

4) from conservativetribune.com: ‘BREAKING: Trump to Cut Every Single Fed. Department Except This 1…Liberals Horrified’ - March 10 

..

Stan Stanfield · Stanford University (March 10)

The basic reason why this is all such a big deal, and Trump is getting such flak, is because the New World Order crowd have been quietly setting up their moves on the socio-econo-political chess board for years, having ensnared much of the younger generation into their web - by blaming America for being such an unfair consumer of the world's resources, and polluting the environment, etc. etc. etc., and so needing to be cut down to Third World size - and he represents the Left's expected/anticipated 'reaction', and they need to keep the monkey wrench forcing us into the NWO scheme for the world from being reversed. It's classic Marxian philosophy. What so many on that side of this situation don't understand is that the world that TPTB is trying to bring into being is not a socialist utopia. It's a Faustian, fascist bargain with the devil. 

Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely; absent a spiritual, higher-consciousness take on matters. We are nearing an End Point. If people will stay true to their higher selves, we will come out of this culminating point of the exercise of life on a free-will planet on the High Road. Not the one leading down to chaos, corruption, and disaster. Well; it wiil be a disaster for the Dark forces. Because we live in a moral universe. And Justice WILL be served.

Where I Stand - Unequivocally

1) from activistpost.com: ‘The Pentagon Just Admitted It’s Been Deploying Military Drones Over The US To Spy On Americans’ - Matt Agorist - March 9

..

kibitzer3 • a few seconds ago (March 9)

Thanks for the heads-up, Matt. Please keep on this story.

The U.S. Must NOT become another East Germany, or USSR, or Red China. This is reprehensible stuff. Not to be condoned. What are we, cattle to these people? To be corralled, and culled, at the will of the federal government?? Not in MY country, you won't.

—

2) from thecommonsenseshow.com: ‘Why Threaten North Korea And China?  Would Obama Start A War To Stay In Office?’ - Michael Snyder - March 9

..

Deacon March 9, 2016 at 8:47 am 

This President must be arrested and removed from office NOW! and charged with treason.

Stan March 9, 2016 at 4:24 pm (Your comment is awaiting moderation.) 

Deacon: Well commented on. Plus charges of fraud and perjury. 
Too many good people don’t ‘get’ that, since the man is a Usurper in the office – for not being a ‘natural born’ citizen; i.e., as the constitutional Framers understood the term (for which there is considerable historical evidence), a person born in the country to parents who are its citizens – he doesn’t need to go through an impeachment process to be removed. All the situation needs is for the Oath Keepers of the nation to do their job – with patriots having their backs.

And I for one stand with the rule of law – i.e., the Constitution – in the nation.

--

3) 

March 9

To: Jim DeMint

       President

       The Heritage Foundation

From: Stan Stanfield

Subject: Your letter of March 3

Dear Jim,

Thank you for your letter in which you make it very clear what the Heritage Foundation's understanding is of the original intent and meaning of the Second Amendment.  Which is why I don't understand why you people don't have the same understanding of the original intent and meaning of the term, a 'natural born' citizen.  Which is a person born in the country of (U.S.) citizen parents.  (E. de Vattel, 'The Law of Nations, Or Principles of Natural Law,' Book One, Ch. XIX, Sect. 212.)

There is considerable historical evidence that this is the source of the definition of the term that the constitutional Framers were going by when they made that a part of the eligibility requirement for the office of the president - in particular because the occupant of that office would as well, then, become the Commander in Chief of the nation's military forces, and they wanted to make sure - at least as sure as they could - that that person would have NO DUAL OR OTHERWISE CONFLICTING LOYALTIES OR ALLEGIANCES OR INFLUENCES.  (As to that particular point: See John Jay's letter of July 25, 1787 to G. Washington, in his role as Chair of the Constitutional Convention proceedings.)

You will, of course, realize that it makes no difference if the term may have gone through some permutations since that requirement was put in the constitutional contract for that particular office.  The only thing that can change the requirement would be a constitutional amendment.  Of which, there has been none.  (Several have been tried.  None has even ever made it out of committee, such has been the sensitivity around this particular issue.)

See puzo1.blogspot.com for a very comprehensive dealing with this extremely important matter.  And start living up to your title, as a body calling yourself - daring to call yourself - The Heritage Foundation.  

I await your response.   

Most sincerely yours,

Duane 'Stan' Stanfield

P..S. And do not allow yourselves to be put off in your investigation into this matter by the argument in some quarters that there are only two kinds of citizens, natural born or naturalized.  This canard is demonstrated very graphically, one could almost say presciently, by the fact that Alexander Hamilton, as a delegate 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 'natural born' category.  For the main reason as given above.  

     And please note, in your investigation into this matter, that Benjamin Franklin, the Framers's well respected elder mentor, who was sitting right there amongst them as a delegate himself to those proceedings, was known to have in his possession three copies of the de Vattel treatise - which was taught in the universities of the day in any event.  So: Those nation builders knew precisely what they meant by that term.  

     And I expect an organization like yours to do something about this travesty of justice, which has been visited on this nation precisely because organizations like yours, and individuals like you, have failed to do your duty, as responsible citizens of the Republic.

--

4) from YouTube: ‘What Govt is Doing in Secret Right Now’ - The KrisAnne Hall Show - March 9

(Kris Anne goes into a detailed reading of the 4th Amendment, in a warning about the UN’s ’Strong Cities Network’.  A word of caution…:) 

Stan Stanfield1 second ago (March 9)

A fundamental fact needs to be not overlooked in this subject area: The federal government does not have any power it chooses to exercise EXCEPT FOR what it is expressly denied in the Bill of Rights.  The Bill of Rights is only a list of EXAMPLES OF powers the federal government does not have over The People/rights they have in the face of possible despotic acts by the federal government.  

At one point, Madison made this [very] good point about the danger of having a Bill of Rights.  He said that such a list MIGHT give the erroneous impression that the federal government could do anything it wanted EXCEPT FOR what it was specifically denied in a Bill of Rights; that the federal government was being ceded, by the Constitution, only LIMITED and DELEGATED powers - "FEW AND DEFINED," in his specific words.  But the people of the time didn't trust the new govt. critter they were being asked to trust, and insisted on a classic Bill of Rights - and, to drive the above point home, added the 9th and 10th Amendments.

We need to rein them in, according to this awareness of their ceded powers.  Not assume that they can do anything they want to do except for what they are specifically denied the power to do by/in the Bill of Rights, and in a fine-detailed reading thereof.  They would try to con us in this erroneous, sophistic reading of the Bill of Rights.  Don't let them get away with it.

--

And, having said all this: a reminder - and to myself - that the Dark forces are, in actuality, doing a job for the Light, in creating a mirror/reverse image of 'the real thing', and thus calling it into being, in the way of how these things work; every action having an equal and opposite reaction, and so forth.

It's the Hegelian principle, now brought to its culminating Synthesis 'head', in a New World Order of the Light.  Complete with a) a falling-away of the old forms, in allowing/making way for the paradigm shift; and b) a new monetary system.

Being activated as we speak.

At long last.

And my continent-spanning walk to Washington, in 1961, "to see the President and draw to his attention that the way to rid ourselves of all our aches and evils is to do away with money," now being vindicated.  One step at a time.  Like those 'steps' that I took those many years ago, now.

Learning lessons in patience along

The Way.

---

...and a latae entry:

5) from wnd.com: ‘Why I Like Ted Cruz’ - Joseph Farah - March 9

..

Martin Rizley • an hour ago

I agree totally with your view of Ted Cruz, but I go farther and say that he is to be "considered as" a natural born citizen, despite the irregularity of his birth outside the borders of the homeland. I say that, precisely because this particular irregularity-- birth outside the borders to an American citizen-- was specifically addressed in the Naturalization Act of 1790, and that particular understanding of the issues, though omitted in the Naturalization Act passed five years later by Congress, was never explicitly refuted or corrected by the founding fathers themselves. To me, that closes the case. If Ted Cruz was born of a U.S. citizen outside the borders of the homeland, then citizenship could not possibly have been denied him, since the circumstances of his birth entitle him to citizenship. He is therefore, as the 1790 Act says, to be "considered as" a natural born citizen-- despite the irregularity concerning his actual birthplace.

Having said that, even if my perspective is wrong, the proper application of any law code involves considering the purpose of the law and distinguishing between the "weightier" matters of the law-- those matters which are intrinsic to the very spirit, logic, or intent of the law-- and those matters which are clearly less "weighty." Jesus chided the Pharisees for emphasizing precision in ceremonial observance while overlooking entirely the weightier matters of the Law-- judgment, mercy, and faith. He pointed out how, on one occasion, King David, who as king of Israel, was bound to uphold the Law , technically "broke" the ceremonial law concerning the shewbread in the Temple because of his commitment to fulfill the law of love by feeding the famished men who were with him. Though "technically" the law was broken, yet David was found guiltless of transgression, because his actions were driven by and fulfilled the intention of that demand which lay at the very heart and center of the law ("thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself") though technically speaking, he "broke" the letter of the Law by letting his men eat the shewbread.

If I am wrong about Ted Cruz´s status as a natural born citizen-- and I do not concede that point-- I would still vote for him over those who lack his commitment to appoint originalist judges to the Supreme Court-- for progressivist judges on the Court who treat the Constitution like a wax nose have been and will continue to be in the future the driving engine for dismantling our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Cruz is absolutely committed to appointing originalist judges to the bench who will defend the foundational principles on which our republic was founded; Trump, by his own admission, does not share that commitment, which tells me his is not committed to do all in his power to defend our country from leftist progressive judges like his own sister, whom he said would make a "great justice" on the Supreme Court. That alone is reason to reject Trump as our future POTUS, and to vote for Cruz instead.

Reply

• kibitzer3 Martin Rizley • a few seconds ago  (March 9)
  (Hold on, this is waiting to be approved by WND.) 
• 
  1) You are, indeed, wrong about "Ted Cruz's status as a natural born citizen". That category requires the person to have been born in a country to parents who are its citizens - it is not just a matter of where one is born.
• 
  2) The 1790 Naturalization Act was repealed by the 1795 Naturalization Act for precisely this reason - that the 1790 reference to a person being born abroad being "considered as" a nbc was obviously misleading, and both Madison & Washington had a hand in correcting that mistake.
• 
  3) Both you and Joseph Farah are guilty of trashing the Constitution, by turning it into "just a damn piece of paper". We will rue the consequences if you are allowed to get away with your shortsighted view of this matter. The country must be returned to its rule of law. And that means that it does not try to make two wrongs make a right, in allowing Cruz to continue on his candidacy; and corrects its original 'wrong,' in having allowed the Usurper to slip into the Oval Office by such sloppy thinking.
• 
  Obama must go, as the Usurper he is. And, in returning to the Constitution - i.e., the rule of law - Cruz must be barred from his candidacy.
• 
  And [thus] we open the door for Truth to prevail. On Earth, as it is in Heaven.

-

It is getting more and more obvious that it is time that we live by Truth, and the truth of things.  We can't go on our meretricious way much longer, before we fall into the abyss.  The abyss of our making.

As to that; and to the specific matter of people supporting the candidacy of Ted Cruz because of his - announced; apparent - stand on political 'things':

This end-justifies-the-means crap has got to stop.  That is the philosophy of tyrants down through the ages.  We will wake up too late to our peril, if we don't wake up

 

Now.

With A Terrible Swift Sword - Or Its More Peaceful Equivalent

On rickwells.us. today posted as for March 9:

"Sheriff Paul Babeu of Pinal County, AZ, has some news which is stunning for many reasons, chief among them the vacating of sections of desert, turning it over to human traffickers, smugglers, illegal aliens and most probably terrorists. It represents a complete abdication of responsibility for the protection of our nation and its citizens by the Department of Homeland Security. Terrorists, cartels and smugglers can now operate freely through an avenue of lawlessness, Border Patrol no-go areas mandated by DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson. They have effectively created sanctuary deserts, safe operating zones for illegal and threatening activities.

"Under the outlaw Obama regime, the lawlessness has progressed from the nullification and refusal to enforce immigration and other laws to disciplinary action including termination for Border Patrol agents enforcing the law. Now DHS is creating safe zones for trafficking and smuggling. There seems to be no end to the levels to which our national security will continue to degrade and deteriorate under this Obama cartel..."

Could it be any plainer?  The Usurper is trying his best to take this nation down, for his masters; among the ways for which is to infiltrate it and then overrun it with terrorists - to bring war to the Homeland - and, for the long haul, to dilute its citizenship with votes for socialism, but more precisely, for the New World Order, planned for humanity for a very long time by Dark forces.  He and his minions have been going slowly slowly, step by stealthy step, but it almost looks as though he is now attempting to trigger a backlash, by 'patriots,' that will allow him the Crisis he needs and wants to declare a state of national emergency, and its subsequent declaration of Martial Law; and thereby, the eliminating of the one thing standing in his, and their, way -  the Constitution - in one fell swoop, rather than by the death of a thousand cuts that he has been administering to it for years now.  It is, then, all coming to a head. 

And forget the jaw jaw about 'impeachment'.  Neither the legislative-branch way, nor the judicial-branch way, is needed as the way to go to get rid of the Usurper anyway.  As for 'everybody' hoping for the judicial branch to rule on the issue:  What can they say?

'Yep.  That what it says.  Next case.'

'But, your Honor; could you take a closer look at the matter.'

'A closer look at it?  Well, let's see...Mm hm...mm hm.... born in the country to parents who are its citizens...  Well; I don't see how I can get a wedge in there, to try to pry it loose a little, as you are attempting to get me to do.  It's quite clear. Next case.'

'But your Honor, if you could just look a little closer, here...'

'Are you trying to bribe this court?  I will have your head next time.  Move along.  Next case.'

'But your Honor; what if I make you an offer that you can't refuse.'

'What's that?  What's that??  - Oh.  Oh.  I see...Well; in that case, let me take a little closer look at that original eligibility re - er, at that definition.  Maybe this court can come up with something a little more, um, creative...'

As I say:

Next - case.  For this one has been made.

And in spades.

So; what do we do?

We arrest the Dark side forces in a comprehensive, lightning-swift  sweep - with the same sort of motion that the Usurper was planning on using against the Constitution.

And it's checkmate.  Because

God is great.

On Having Had Enough

from conservativebyte.com: ‘Why Trump Warned A Third-party Scheme Would Be ‘Playing with Fire’’ - March 7

Stan Stanfield · Stanford University (March 7)

Speaking of parties: The best thing that could happen would be if the Democrat Party AND the Republican Party would be hauled before a (legitimate) court of law and charged on RICO-statute charges for being the criminal enterprises that they are, at the least for trying to run a scam on the American people for having put up ineligible candidates for the office of POTUS (neither Obama nor Cruz nor Rubio being 'natural born' citizens, for which there is ample historical evidence), found guilty as charged, and dissolved; Obama arrested and held for trial on a whole host of charges by now, including fraud, perjury, and treason; Hillary arrested and held for trial as well, on her own nest of charges (Bill as well, at a minimum for their Clinton Foundation scams); and we start over in this country, on a cleaned-out level, which includes all of the executive branch agencies & departments cleansed of their Obama revolutionaries. Oh - and every State needing to meet minimum Voter Integrity standards, including photo ID cards, cleansed voter rolls, and doing away with the hackable electronic voting machines & going back to paper ballots, with their identifiable paper trails.

And a whole host of other Augean stable clean-out measures; but you get the idea, of what REALLY needs to happen in this country, in this crucial election year, to stop the New World Order crowd in their murky tracks, which include murder and other forms of foul play. All of which stinks to high heaven; and needs to be put to rights - and, like, NOW

—

I have also just signed an online petition for The People to be able to defend themselves against those who would think to do them harm.  Including the federal government.

It really does feel as though it is coming to crunch time.


P.S. And to clarify: those "clean-out measures" that I advocate include the truths about 9/11, and the Boston Marathon 'Bombing' drill, and the Sandy Hook Hoax exercise, and...and........and...............

A total clean-out.  Before we can advance. Untruth being unable to withstand the vibratory nature of the higher realms.

---

2) from wnd.com: ‘Vote For Ted Cruz’ - Joseph Farah - March 7

(“Exclusive: Joseph Farah endorses candidate with the 'most Reaganesque vision’”)

..

kibitzer3 • a few seconds ago (March 8)

You speak of the "rule of law", Joseph? Surely you jest. "(T)he oldest and greatest Constitution in the world" would become a mere piece of paper, a dead letter, if Cruz were to continue to be a candidate, and thus attempt to make two wrongs make a right. All it would do would be to ELIMINATE the rule of law in this country, and put us further under the rule of men. Aka arbitrary law. Aka tyranny.

For a presumed lover of the Constitution, it seems rather odd that you haven't checked out the constitutional Framers' meaning and intention of the term 'natural born' citizen as an eligibility requirement for the office of POTUS - and that particular office ONLY; which is a dead giveaway as to said meaning and intent. All the historical evidence points to their understanding of the term being from the definitive tome of the day on such matters, E. de Vattel's 'The Law of Nations, Or Principles of Natural Law' (which was taught in the universities of the day, & was well known by the politicians of the day; like, say, the constitutional Framers). In his Book One, Chap. XIX, Sect. 212, he spells out the accepted definition of a 'natural born citizen': as being a person born in the country of its citizen parents, with the understanding that they were its citizens at the time of the person's birth. The whole POINT for the Framers 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.

There; now, that wasn't all that difficult, was it? It's just a matter of reading the historical record. So, what's your problem?? The little matter of Obama having been snuck under the wall of the Constitution into the Oval Office??? Well: Can't you think of a better way of dealing with that USURPATION OF THE OFFICE, than to compound the error????

Come ON, Joseph. You are a better man than this. Prove it to us.

More Support For The Rule Of Law Vs. Tyranny

from raisetheflagreport.com: ‘Homeschoolers Beware: Ted Cruz Just Co-Sponsored This Weird Bill’ -  March 4?

..

kibitzer3 • 3 days ago 

Good to keep an eye on the details of such maneuvers. You can't trust Cruz on anything. He is in the pocket of the NWO crowd. How do I know? Because, as a (self-reported) constitutional law scholar, believing in 'originalism', he should know that he is not eligible for the office of POTUS, and is banking on the same media control, and major political-party control over the judicial branch (so far), that has allowed Obama to be in and remain in the Oval Office illegally as well.

As Cruz should well know, the original definition of a 'natural born citizen' is a person born in the country (or its equivalent) of citizen parents thereof, who were its citizens at the time of the person's birth. The definition is from the definitive tome of the day on such subjects, E. de Vattel's 'The Law of Nations, Or Principles of Natural Law'. Cruz is counting on various obfuscations that have crept in over the years on the issue of the precise definition; but the eligibility requirement ITSELF remains the same. Until a constitutional amendment changes it. Of which, there has not been one yet. Although, both major parties tried a total of 8 times between them, between 2003 and '08, to get just such an amendment starting through Congress - and they failed each time even to get their proposals out of committee, such was the sensitivity around this particular issue (the common denominator to all of the proposals). So: THEY KNEW. And know. That a) Obama is a Usurper; and b) They are trying to make two wrongs make a right, and thereby drive a coach and horses through the wall of the Constitution, to make of it a mere plaything of TPTB, where words mean what they say they mean. Which is the end of the rule of law in the country, and its replacement with the rule of men. Aka arbitrary law. Aka tyranny.

That would be the outcome, if Cruz, and Rubio, are not stopped in their political-party-backed attempts to demolish the Constitution; the better to merge the U.S. into the New World Order desired of said PTB. Which would be the end of essential liberty on this planet, and its replacement with a totalitarian empire run by the Elite. Thank you, no thank you, all the same.

3

•

Reply

• 
  
• 
  
• Peter Smith kibitzer3 • 3 days ago 
• 
  kibitzer3, I'd call you an idiot but that would be much too restrained. Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen of the United Stated by "Jus sanguinis", or "the right of blood." If you would reference Black'Law dictionary and the 14th Amendment, you'd know this. Having Trump as your "informed source" doesn't work out too well. I knew you would quote Vattell as well. Writings from a European, some 50 years before our nation even existed, who had no clue about what a democratic republic was, and yet, you want to accept his opinion? Do we also follow all of the other aspects in Vattell's writing? Short answer, "NO"! Cruz is the only hope for SAVING our Constitution. Trump is just the White Obama.
  
• 
  
• •
• Reply
• 
  
•           kibitzer3 Peter Smith • 2 days ago 
• 
  
• I normally let responses like this to the truth of this matter go,  because people are entitled to their opinions. But I am getting royally sick and tired of so many useful idiots out there, who are bringing this country down, to further their particular agenda.
• 
  I don't know what your particular agenda is, so I'll let that go. I'll just say, in clear response to the specific issue: There is all manner of historical evidence, too much to go into here, that the constitutional Framers, like so many patriots in their day who were busy getting a new nation off the ground, and thinking of all of the aspects of such, were very conversant with de Vattel's definitive tome of the day on such matters - it was studied in the universities of the day; and Benjamin Franklin, their elder & very respected mentor, who was sitting right there amongst them as a delegate to those self-same proceedings himself, was known to have three copies of said tome in his possession, such was their respect for de Vattel's take on such matters. (You take out on de Vattel as if trashing the messenger has any relevance to the message.) It is beyond legitimate dispute that they were going by de Vattel's definition of a 'natural born' citizen. And that is the eligibility requirement to this day, since there has been no amendment to the Constitution to the contrary of that eligibility requirement; as I pointed out above.
• 
  The 14th Amendment does not talk about 'natural born' citizens. It only talks about citizens. There is a difference. As any reasonably open-minded person will acknowledge, when looking into the matter. But then, I'm not at all sure that I'm talking to one of those right at the moment. A pity. We need all the help we can get, to keep this nation from being taken over by the wreckers of the rule of law - its Constitution. Which is all that stands between The People and their erstwhile masters.
  
• 
  
• •
• Reply
•                    Peter Smith kibitzer3 • 2 days ago 
• 
  And I am getting royally sick of people asserting statements and "Constitutional facts" that do not exist. You, and those like you, are ASSUMING the Founders intent when you pick and choose unrelated authors and documents as US Constitutional intent and truths. I am a natural born cititzen of this great nation. I am a religious Conservative who has witnessed the decline of this nation over the last 50+ years. I am a "baby boomer" and part of the most prolific section of American society ever. The current state of this nation makes me sick to my stomach. I see one liberal assault after another on our Constitution and our national identity. 
• Back to de Vattell, and your assertion that his definition is the Founder's intent. You and many others have stated this and I have disagreed every time. I'll explain even though you and you ilk always refuse the argument. The first Congress of the United States passed the Naturalization Act of 1790, just three years after the Constitution was written, which stated that children born abroad to U.S. citizens were, too, natural born citizens. Many members of the inaugural Congress were also authors of the Constitution. I'm not sure, but I believe that tops de Vattell.
• And kibitzer3, if you think Donald Trump or any of his liberal Democrat buddies, Hillary and Bernie, will defend and fight for the Constitution better than Ted Cruz, vote you conscience. As I will mine.
• •
• Reply
• 
  
  
            kibitzer3 Peter Smith • a few seconds ago (March 7)
• 
  Thank you for your background info. I 'hear' that you are a legitimate pusher of the Cruz position. So I will respond to you in a nicer way.
• 
  The Naturalization Act of 1790 was canceled and replaced by the Naturalization Act of 1795 - and for just this reason, i.e., that the wording about a 'natural born' citizen in the 1790 Act was realized to have been a mistake, and so was corrected, with Madison and Washington part of that correcting team. Atty Mario Apuzzo at his site puzo1dotblogstpotdotcom has the whole story; plus excellent commentaries on this whole issue.
• 
  The bottom line is that the Book One, Ch. XIX, Sect. 212 definition of a 'natural born' citizen in de Vattel's definitive tome is still the definitive one, as used by the constitutional Framers, and so is the eligibility requirement of that office to this day, for there never having been a constitutional amendment to the contrary, as yet.
• 
  Some supporters of Cruz - and Obama - have tried to argue that there were only two types of citizens at the time, naturalized or natural born. Not so; as made clear by the 'inconvenient' fact (for them) that Alexander Hamilton, as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention 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 'natural born' category. No. The facts are clear on this matter: 1) Obama is a Usurper (and needs to be dealt with as such); and b) Two wrongs don't make a right. Or the Constitution is a dead letter. And we are into a terrible state of affairs: from being under the rule of law in this country to being under the rule of men. Which is - as I indicated in my original posting: tyranny. Which I for one will not have any of.
• 
  I can sympathize with your wishes for Cruz to advance. He has done some good work in the Senate. But he is not eligible for the job. And no amount of special pleading, or sophistic argument, will change that. And I hope you come to understand that. Because otherwise, you become a tool for some very evil people by which to accomplish their dark ends.
• 
  

You've GOT To Be Kidding!

(with a tip of the hat, for the title of this blog, to John McEnroe)

In my last blog I referred to the likes of the EPA's arrogant extension of the remit of the Congressional intention for those laws, and regulations in pursuance thereof.1  Getting some reading in at my local park today, in the sun but with a cool breeze blowing through - like the fresh breeze I aim to blow through this country - I read some more in an article (in the February 22nd issue of The New American) on this very subject.  One segment of the article - titled 'Profiles of Victims (subtitle: 'Through no fault of their own, farmers, ranchers, and landowners are finding themselves jailed, fined, or otherwise penalized by government - with nothing they can do about it') - talked about the case of  Ocie & Carey Mills, a father and son in Florida who cleaned out an existing drainage ditch on their property and filled it in with sand, in preparation for building a dream home there.  Ocie, the father, had complied with state and local permit processes, "and his building plans presented no danger to the environment or 'waters of the United States'".  What are such 'waters'??  The Clean Water Act  says waters of "wetlands...navigable waters".

I wonder if you are already aware of what is coming next?  Hint: It's the same ignoring of qualifying adjectives as in the eligibility requirement for a person to be president of the United States.  There, the requirement is for the person to be a "natural born" citizen.  Here, the adjective is "navigable".  But not so's the EPA and United States Army Corps of Engineers would notice: for pertinent example, they took the Mills's to court on doing their heinous deed to the "waters of the United States".  Well, of course, their charge was thrown out; right?  Wrong.  The first (federal) judge to hear the case agreed with the feds, and the Mills were thrown in jail - for 21 months - and fined $5,000.

And not content with that miscarriage of justice, the feds tried to tack on further charges against the Mills when they came out and attempted to return the property to the likes of the assholes from the EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.2  Because this is not about Clean Water acts.  This is about power.  Naked power.   With the U.S. government, under the Usurper, trying to take over the country, and bring it to heel under the boot of the New World Order crowd; in this sort of instance, via the UN Agenda 2012, updated now to its Agenda 2030 - for the federal government to take over                            
 control of huge swaths of the land of the North American continent.  Ostensibly to protect the wildlife therein.  But really, to corral us formerly free humans.

And cull us, as they see fit.

And this is precisely what the dirty business in eastern Oregon was, and is, all about, with the Hammonds.  The feds are trying to drive ranchers and farmers off the land; and they don't care how they do it.  By hook.  Or by crook.  Including crooked judges...

I think that's all I want to say to this sordid subject, at this time.  Except just to remark on the sociopaths ruling us - attempting to rule us - these days.  And some shading over into outright psychopaths.  Some of them must think that they are doing good business, in eliminating us humans from the land, for the sake of the desert tortoise, and such.  But some really enjoy what they are doing.  And most of them are just the puppets of their controllers.  Who feed them, and give them power.

And will cull them, too, when their time comes.

Which it will.

Which - it - will.

Either way.  

By the forces of the Dark.

Or the forces of the Light.

And if I were them (and a part of me, as I have indicated in the footnotes, is), I would choose the latter Way.  For, the outcome that Way is far more satisfying, then the 'justice' of the Dark path.

Rough justice as it is.

And just deserts as it is.

--

footnotes:

1 i also referred to the 'evolution of the Creator'.  I was, of course, referring to the spiritual evolution thereof.  And hinting to the evidentiary fact for that state of affairs being that as we thus evolve - to higher degrees, levels, of consciousness; aka dimensions - so, logically, does the Creator, since we are a part of the Whole, and the Whole, being made up, at the very least,  of the sum of its parts, necessarily reflects those parts, just as they individually do the Whole, in a hologrammatic form.  And thus we are as well each other; at the very least, parts of the One Holy Being.  (And thus, As we do unto others, so do we do unto ourselves - literally.)  But I won't argue the point.  We are individually on an initiatory Path.  That's all that matters presently to us.

2  a) Yes, a harsh term.  I am very angry at individuals who sell out their 'birthright' - their innate, intrinsic status, as facets, fractals, aspects of the One Holy Being - so easily.  And, they make it harder for the rest of us as well.  Which is part of the classroom exercising, I accept.  But, can't we move up a notch or two, in our lesson learning??  An advanced degree or two???  Actually, we're going to, anyway.  Ready.  Or not.  For such individuals...
     b) Fortunately, the second time around a more sensible judge heard their case, and sided with them; citing the feds for "the disturbing implications of the expansive jurisdiction which has been assumed by [said rogues] in a reversal of terms that is worthy of Alice in Wonderland."
     Sign that man up.  Now, there is a judge worth his salt.
     Would that there were more like him.
     Not appointed by the Usurper.
     Who is, after all - like them - just doing what he, and they, are being paid to do.
     By the Powers That Be behind all this.
     Who are now going to become The Powers That Were.
     Mark my words.
     And deeds.
     We're going Up, folks.  As I say: Ready.  Or not; individually.

On Learning Lessons

1) from teaparty.org: ‘Gingrich: Establishment Scared of Trump Because He “Didn’t Belong to the Secret Society”’ - March 5

Sylvia Keiser · Community College of Denver

I was really sure that John Kasich is a standing member of the establishment, but I hadn't suspected that he was a member of a Secret Society. No wonder that he seems to be rooting for a borkered Convention. He must have been promised something. Maybe even the Presidential nomination. I reeally cant stand that guy and his endless droning bragging. The sound of his voice is almost as irritating as Obama's.

Like · Reply · 5 · 5 hrs

Nancy Christoforo Cuseo

HE IS BEING USED BY THE ELITE LIKE CRUZ RUBIO AND ALL THE OTHERS HE RIRED BEFORE NOT LIKED THS TIME SOROS BACKING HIM

Like · Reply · 4 hrs

Travis Keeton

Nancy Christoforo Cuseo And these same polticians are the ones that attend the CPAC meetings. CPAC has existed since the mid 70s. I know I attended the 1st or 2nd mtg. in Washington. Our Nation has not benefitted from them because they may be conservatives , but they become controlled . Reagan was an outsider,, but he was not free of being controlled. Why do you think George H. Bush was picked by him to be his VP. Bush is one of the biggest establishment elite insiders. Reagan gave us Bush and Bush gave us NAFTA . He did the work getting it set up and ready to sign into law by Clinton as soon as he became president. There went the Jobs to Mexico. Both Bush Presidents have us set to lose our sovereignty to The North American Union. That is why our borders never were securred. TRUMP WILL CHANGE THIS IF THEY DO NOT KILL HIM. VOTE FOR TRUMP

Unlike · Reply · 4 · 2 hrs · Edited

Sylvia Keiser · Community College of Denver

Travis Keeton Everything you said about NAFTA is absolutely correct. It's all part of the New World Order scheme, however, I'm not certain we can trust Trump either. There is something skectchy about him that I can't put my finger on. He's a loose cannon, with a liberal past. I know people can change their minds, but Trumps change of mind comes off phoney, and like an afterthought to please the electorate. I'm not at all confidant that he will keep his word, especially after stating in an off-the-record interview that he had no intention of building a wall. but even before I heard that, my inner gut tells me NOT to vote for Trump. I trust Cruz more. Too bad about Carson; he too was an outsider.

Like · Reply · 1 hr

Sylvia Keiser · Community College of Denver

Also Trumps change of mind about the H1B1 visa's that allow foreignors to take good paying jobs away from Amerians, like the Tech jobs that Disney replaced with non-citizens. Trump has hired a lot of foreigners for jobs over the top of American. I don't like his record on that. He might promise to bring back jobs to America, but I suspect they won't be filled by Americans. It's ironic how Trump calls down Rubio, when Rubio is the very Senator who has pushed H1B1's and F1's. Rubio provided Trump with those visas, they should be on the same side.

Like · Reply · 1 hr

Earl Powers · Northrop University

Sylvia Keiser Never trust a lawyer, and Cruz is one.

Like · Reply · 13 mins

Stan Stanfield · Stanford University (March 5)

Earl Powers: And a particularly shifty one at that. For being a supposed constitutional law expert and believer at that in 'originalism' - the belief that the Constitution should be interpreted on its face value, as its originators intended it to mean; like the contract that it is - he well knows that he is ineligible for the job, for not being a 'natural born' citizen (details too many to include here). So, he is somebody's sock puppet. And dollars to donuts that that 'Somebody' is the same nest of vipers at the top of the pyramid of power that slipped Obama in there too [on the same basis], while The People weren't paying enough attention to the machinations going on in their country. 

Marry in haste, repent at leisure.

--

2) Another request for my financial support, this one not into the waste bin.  (I can't cover all the worthy causes that come my way.)

Glenn Spencer is an American citizen, living down on border country, who has taken it upon himself to be a doer, in the form of pouring his own money and eliciting support from the public into a campaign to monitor the border by a) flying over it, personally and via drones, and b) creating a Sonic Barrier, "that can detect illegal aliens before they cross the border - and then count them if the U.S. Border Patrol doesn't stop them".1  His latest 'report' contained the following information, new to me:

"President Obama is an enemy of securing our borders."  [That part is not, of course, new to me.] "While government spending has skyrocketed across the board, he's slashed funding for border fencing."  [How did Congress ever let the Usurper get away with not doing its express wishes?? The executive doesn't decide spending matters; the legislative branch does.  But then, this is the body that hasn't acted on his illegality, as well...] And the money the government does spend is wasted.  It costs the government $12,000 per flight hour for their drones.  Do you know how much it costs to fly ABP's drones per hour?  $4.  FOUR!  And we monitor the border better!"...

I am just totally bowled over, and exasperated.  This is patently and pathetically unacceptable.  This is like all those reports where military spending results in huge charges for like, say, a hammer. 2  The gravy train of Big Government.    

But let me stay on main message here: this border business.

Do we have a worker problem that people coming here through the front door can't help us deal with?  Or have a minuscule unemployment condition?  No?  Then a) Deport all illegal aliens (or let them self-deport when the rest of the campaign kicks in); b) fine employers of illegal aliens (or jail them as well) until they give up doing so; and c) Build the damn wall.  Congress authorized the money a long time ago to do so.  DO IT. 

ENOUGH of all this nonsense.  And including putting up with a Usurper in the Oval Office.  ENOUGH, I say.  And of his EPA extending the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act out of all proportion to their Congressionally intended remits.  But then, what does the Usurper care about intentions; as in 'original intent'.     

And speaking of, and as for Cruz.3  What kind of silly shyster lawyer thinks that they can play a shell game with the eligibility requirement for the office of the president of the United States - and think to get away with it - without a constitutional amendment to the effect?  Listen up, rubes: There is no change in the eligibility requirement itself, no matter what games sophists may try to play over tune with the term.  

What are we to these people, chopped liver??  

And to clarify: It is not just Jewish Zionists who have been behind this agenda for years, to do in the United States, and use that overthrow to hammer home a NewWorld Order of totalitarian intent and proportions.  There are plenty of gentiles involved in this caper as well.

Including Jesuits.  Some of whom are Jews.  Some of whom are Iranians.4  And all of the above being but actors on a stage. The stage of material life.  Where we have been acting out a Play, in which to 'catch our consciences'.  Give us choices.  In order to have us grow, in consciousness.  Or not.

Our choice.   

Vouchsafed us, by a loving - and wise - Creator.   

As we now approach

Graduation Day.   

But before The Day:

This business of thinking to bring down the United States of America must stop.

Now.

Because I won't have it.

Nor will a lot of other good, patriotic Americans.

Like Glenn Spencer.

Glad to give you a hand, Glenn.

Keep up the good work.

Until we don't need it anymore.  When we enter a

New Era.

That does away with all the money crap that has been going on.

For long enough.

For far, far,

long enough.

And just to clarify further: As we move out of an era of Scarcity into an era of Abundance: Please understand, that you need to leave old attitudes behind, in order for the New Era to take properly.   Yes, there will be 'plenty'.  As long as we don't think, in an old, Service to Self way, to 'vote ourselves money out of other people's pockets'.  To say: We still may have a teething period, adjusting to the New Era, before we can get rid of such training wheels as electronic credits and debits altogether.   And let our higher consciousness levels take over totally.

Which helps our Creator be engaged in - be served by -  the evolutionary process, as well.

Another story.

That one, not fiction.  Like this one, that we have been engaged in.  As I say:

For long enough.


P.S. And did i say a/the New Era.?  Let me be more clear about all this; about where we are, on our  evolutionary path.  Not just a New Era.  But:
     Nova Earth.
     And thus, those - and only those - who can resonate with Her.
     The rest?
     Ah, well.  Another story.

---

footnotes:

1 Some results from their work:

     "(I)t was through (American Border Patrol's) aerial observations that we discovered the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was counting vehicle barriers as actual fencing in their reports to Congress.  The result was that the DHS was forced into actually building secure fencing - but not enough!..."  

2 In a system that requires wars to create affluence.  And deliberately creates ill people (think cancer; think heart conditions; think toxins deliberately added to vaccines...) in order to have a healthy economy.    

     A subject all its own.  But just to say.

3 Forget Rubio  Send the boy out for sandwiches.

4 As per the research of Leuren Moret.