Tuesday, 23 February 2016

On Choosing


             I

I wake up every day
                    wanting
The best for humanity
      and they choose
                           (by
                 and large)
      the worst.
              Talk about
                    looking
     a gift horse
     in the mouth,
                      or
                    leading
A horse to water.
        Well, at least
              things
     can go south
For only so long
And so far...

              II

There is no point in living
If you can't live free -
                 a free man
                       or
             a free woman
           with
                     choice.

             III

Some of the Dark forces
Are just that:
                      children
           who have chosen
       the Dark path
   through the thicket
            of life.
But some of them
                 are just actors
Who chose those roles
               to help bring
          The Play
To a conclusion
And will come over
         to the Light
When the time comes.
            And that time
            is
                        Now.
             
                  How
Are you doing
In that process?

--

P.S. 1) From wnd.com: ‘Nevada Results: Trump Pumps 3rd Straight Win’ - Chelsea Schilling - February 23/24

..
kibitzer3 • a few seconds ago (February 23 PST)

Well, maybe the U.S. citizenry is waking up after all, to the agenda of the far Left, in cahoots with the New World Order gang on the far Right (TPP anyone??): to take down the U.S., financially & every other way, and merge its remnants into being merely a part of a region of the NWO, which was called at least at one point the North American Union, and which may still be the title of record on the part of the Cabal trying to take over the world.

Live free or die, Citizens. Glad to see you beginning to rise to the occasion. Of either your submission to a totalitarian state. Or being the Master of your Fate, the Captain of your Ship (I believe is how that poem goes).

--

2) from wnd.com: ‘U.S. General: Obama ‘Aiding And Abetting The Enemy’’ - Greg Corombos - February 23 
(“'Why would we give Gitmo detainees the rights of every American citizen?’)

..
kibitzer3 • 12 minutes ago (February 23)

Thanks for telling it like it is. Gen. Mcinerney - and for letting him have the space to do so, Greg.

..
ONTIME • an hour ago (February 23)

Why is it so damn hard to demand to see this WH impostors credentials, valid BC and explain his SS#?.....What the hell is wrong with this congress, who do "they" work for?....We the People want to know all there is to know legally about B'Ob the "unknown"......this clown cannot even pass E Verify and he is in the Oval Office......

3

Reply
         

         kibitzer3 ONTIME • a few seconds ago  (February 24)
  • Amen, Ontime. Unfortunately, the American people AND its Oathkeepers specifically have let an Imposter rule this country from the Oval Office for over 7 years, and kickstart its destruction and amalgamation process into the New World Order. The Usurper has been laughing up his sleeve at the American people the whole time. And what have they been doing about it? Watching the telly, it would appear. Bread and circuses. This cannot end well. But end, it must.
--

3) from Co-Creating Our Future on Planet Earth: ‘The Evil Empire Has The World in a Death Grip, by Paul Craig Roberts’ - February 23 (orig. posted February 19/22)
(PCR reports on the updated version of John Perkins’ ‘Confessions of an Economic Hit Man’.  The jackals are still at it - and, if anything, getting worse.  Including in the U.S., with such as attempts by the NWO multinationals to privatize water.) 

..
Death Grip? I think not. Many now know just what the Cabal is…and what they mean to accomplish. L/L- Light and Love…or DD- Death and Darkness? Easy choices for those whom know Truth…and THOSE numbers are increasing.
  • kibitzer3 says:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Monday, 22 February 2016

On Never Giving In...

...To The Trashing Of The Truth Of A Matter


further from patriotsforamerica.ning.com: ‘PROOF: Neither Rubio or Cruz are eligible to serve as President/Commander-in-Chief “The End of the American Presidency by JB Williams…” (Second outing)’ - posted by Harry Riley - February 18

..
Permalink Reply by Harry Riley 8 hours ago (February 22)

I hear you Rooster.........I'm in a battle with myself......is it 10th Amendment or NBC; is it 2nd Amendment 1st Amendment...on and on........

The truth is we must elect someone that will abide by the complete US Constitution and enforce it with reckless abandon.

We know what the establishment has done.......they are destroying the US Constitution so do we allow them to continue without a fight?

No, no, no............Trump is not ideal......no one is ideal, but Trump offers a definite departure from the "status quo" establishment......

I have come to the conclusion I will go Trump and do it with gusto........

  • ▶Reply
BACKTOBACKAMERICALOVEIT.png
Permalink Reply by freedomfighter 5 hours ago

If Ben Carson had picked up his game, I believe he would still be in heads up competition with Donald Trump. I believe Carson would have made a great President for the most part, but the thing he lacked, and I believe the reason he slid in the polls, is the fact that the does not have that bulldog instinct one really needs to run a Nation effectively. I liked him on the issues, I liked that he is a Brilliant man, I like that he has been on both sides of the tracks. He has come from the depths of the ghettos, to the worlds leading neurosurgeon, he is well read, and brain wise, and could have been what we needed. He is devoutly Religious Christian, which in my books gives him a big plus over the rest of the field. I liked his stance on most of the issues, he has a speak, similar to Nobamas, in that he is a great orator, without the need of teleprompters. All of his speeches come from his mind, he doesn’t even use notes for them. He did lack the heat and enthusiasm his speeches needed. He is not a Politician, and is beholdin to no one. The big strike against him, is the fact that he is calm, and calculating, but does not have, I believe, the type of survival instincts we need in our Leader.

Donald Trump, is a street wise brawler type, which is good when it comes to dealing with our enemies. He shoots from the hip, and has made fortunes, running businesses, through re-organizations of many bankrupt companies, which went on to be most profitable. He is not afraid of a fight, and knows many, many people of influence, and those of other Governments, and is strategic in his dealings. I am not sure of his Christian background, but I am sure of Nobamas, so I see this as not a problem comparatively. I do not believe he is a atheist. He has run him companies with respect for the employees, who praise him as a employer, yet strong enough to keep them prominent in the Business world. He stands well on most of the issues in which I am most concerned, and he will listen to advice, which tells me he would take every possible advantage of those who are expert advisors, the very best, in their own fields of accomplishment. He too has advisors, to which he goes, when he needs a special type of advice.

Henry Ford, in a meeting once, was told that he was not a engineer, and could not succeed in the automobile industry. His quick polite answer was, this is a truth of which I cannot deny, but, I can open that door and within 5 minutes, have in this meeting my staff, which contains 5 of the very best engineers, designers, and specialists. I do not need that knowledge, personally.

As far as Cruz, and Rubio, I am full to the hairline, of the arguments, opinions, and beliefs of the masses, especially those in this forum. I believe we have some great minds on this site, but I hate to see them dragged into the quagmire of debate about eligibility, or ineligibility of either of them. The fact of the matter is, it will not matter what any of us believe or think, concerning their legality. When the final bell rings, it will be que sera, sera, what will be will be, with the two of them. We will not have the final say, and our arguments on the subject serve no purpose, except to cause dissention, and anger between ourselves, on a matter over which we will have no control of the final outcome. I personally do not care for either of them, but then, this is only my opinion. They are both Politicians, and in the end, must follow the demands of their overlords. All Politicians who take that seat, find out quite quickly who their bosses truly are.

I say, back whomever you feel best suited to be our leader. Stop the debates, and be reasonable, and cordial in your views. There is no need for temper flares between ourselves. When the final bell rings, it will be then a choice of either a Democrat, or a Conservative/Republican, on whom we will have to place our votes. I believe the choice is plain here, since we are a Conservative site, of like minds.

When the final candidate is decided, and put on the ticket, that is the one we must all push for, and make sure we are represented in the Whitehouse. We must all, at that point, make a 100% showing at the polls, make sure our friends and families do the same, use our designated, and honored voting privilege. so that it does not play out as it has over the last 2 elections. The Democrats show in record numbers to the polls, and only about 40-50 percent of Republicans honor their duly.

It will be then, the ones who want it the most, who will win the seat. We cannot sit home, watch the results, and hope the rest do our jobs for us. Any who do that, can only blame themselves, if the outcome is negative to our wishes.

  • ▶ Reply
1055046200.jpeg
Permalink Reply by Harry Riley 5 hours ago

A nail dead in the bulls-eye FF.................

  • ▶[Reply
  • ..
BACKTOBACKAMERICALOVEIT.png
Permalink Reply by Stan Stanfield 1 second ago

ff, you are being very shortsighted.  If conservatives let the matter of the ineligibility of Cruz and Rubio go, for the sake of expediency, they have lost the battle, and the nation-wreckers win; for the Constitution will, then, be a dead letter, nothing but the "damn piece of paper" that Dubya looked on it as, and we will no longer be under the rule of law in this country, but the rule of men.  A/k/a arbitrary law.  A/k/a tyranny.  

It really is not the rocket science that our enemies are trying to make it out to be.  A 'natural born' citizen is a person born in the country (or its equivalent) of citizen parents thereof - and especially of the father, from whom nationality descends legalistically speaking.  That was the definition of the term that the constitutional Framers were going by (for which there is ample historical evidence); that is the eligibility requirement for that particular office (and, by subsequent constitutional amendment, also the office of VP), regardless of any subsequent Acts or Resolutions of Congress or whatever.  The only thing that trumps 'original intent' is an amendment.  Or the federal constitutional republic of the U.S. of A. is finished.  Wake up, Conservatives!  You are selling out our nation if you don't.

Just what the New World Order crowd want you to do.

--

Further Comment No. 1.  Sent a note back this evening to the Exec. Director of 'Make DC Listen,' a self-claimed staunch-conservative Ted Cruz PAC (who solicited me for a donation under 3 different names, hence mailing lists; and who had the gall in his letter to refer to "a Cruz Conservative" as standing for, among other fine items/qualities: "Preserving liberty and the Constitution") (my emphasis):

"Dear John,

"Ted was not born in the country of citizen parents thereof at the time of his birth.  He is therefore not a 'natural born' citizen, as the term was defined at the time it was put in the constitutional contract as an eligibility requirement for that office.*  Hence, he is not eligible for it.  Hence, you are wasting your, and our, time.

"Please do the right thing, & admit it.  & get Cruz to admit  it.  & therefore, help bring down the Usurper in the office now.  But whatever you do, stop trying to make 2 wrongs make a right.
              (signed)

P.S. Take me off your mailing list.  All 3 places.  (see attached)

* de Vattel's 'The Law of Nations,' Book One, Chap. XIX, Sect. 212."

-

Further Comment No. 2.  I am really getting short about this whole thing.  Exacerbated by receiving in today's mail as well my latest copy of The New American bi-weekly magazine, which is all about 'The War on the West' - the decades-long attempt by the various federal governments over these last few decades to drive farmers, ranchers and landholders off the land, in furtherance of the Agenda 21 plan to coop The People up in cities, the better to keep them under control - I mean, the better to 'preserve the land,' we are told and too many of our children sold on.  (As I scrawled angrily on the bottom of one of the pages of one of the outrageous articles: 'American patriots need to take their Climate Change & Agenda 21-brainwashed children out behind the proverbial barn & give them a good, er, talking to.')

I'm being too hard on the poor kids?  Obama & Co. are just trying to do what's right for the environment??  Tell that to the likes of Wyoming family-farm owner Andy Johnson, who has been fined $20 million - $20 million! - by the EPA for creating a stock-watering pond "by building a dam across an intermittent stream on his property...with no connection to any navigable water," which, if it had, might have made some sense under the plain terms of the Clean Water Act.

'Well, a court will see things their way' you say?  A fat lot of good that hope did to Nevada rancher Wayne Hage and his wife, who both died before they could get a redress of their grievance in the court system against the federal government for waging war on them.  For years.  Trying to drive him off his land.

Because that is the agenda of the New World Order crowd.  Stack'em and pack'em in the cities.  Damn fool idgits. us.  Don't we know that there is a war going on?  That the United States must be brought to its knees - made to suffer for its citizenry living so high on the hog while the rest of the world suffers in poverty, and has had to watch while White America strips them of their resources - and made to become 'a good world citizen' of the UN Controllers...Which is why Obama's AG, Loretta Lynch, has lined UN troops up to come into cities in the U.S., under the cloak of a UN initiative called the 'Strong Cities Network,' to keep order while we are forcibly made to be brought to heel under the Usurper and his minions, and his masters.  And under the likes of the Jesuit Pope, who sees only what he wants to see at the nation's southern border: a barrier (such as it is) to the teeming masses of Central and South America (and, of course, elsewhere), who deserve some of that good American affluent living.  And would kill the goose that lays the golden eggs in the process...

Do I believe that things should stay the way they are, with 'the 1%' living very high on the hog while the rest of humanity peeps from behind and between their legs, looking for scraps from their table?  No.  The whole system needs to go.  But the right way, folks.  

The Right Way.

Which is not Man's Way.


P.S. Years ago I worked for a year for an NGO called Planetary Citizens, in a project to help seed the concept-idea into the human mind of 'Thinking Globally, Acting Locally,' and thus taking more responsibility for our actions on the living planet Gaia.  But I can assure you, that we weren't doing that so that the New World Order Crowd could try to hijack the idea, and use it to fulfill their ambitions.  Their ambitions, of global control, in a totalitarian way.

There is - as I say -

a Better Way.

And we need to be about it.

And rather quickly.  With the Dark side of things - in a realm of Duality - beginning to take over.  Thus requiring the tough to get going.

In earnest, now.


P.S. About this 'realm of Duality' business.  My take on things:
     We need to cut the Dark forces some slack, because many of them are just playing parts, in The Drama of life in 3D; designed to 'catch our consciences,' and help us grow thereby, through the choices that we make via the exercise of our free will.  And so, when The Play is called, many of them will come to realize that that is all that they have been doing - playing a part - and will revert easily to alignment with the Light, and The Plan.  But others, both because they have become too enraptured with the Dark side, or because they are by their self-developed nature very Dark entities to start with, won't so readily leave that Side.  I would wish these souls to understand that we are all the offspring of God, a, and b, of the One God, in whom we all live and move and have our being.  But we who are ready to progress in consciousness to higher levels than can be contained in this 3D hologram will not be held back by laggards in the consciousness-raising stakes.
     And one of the key issues therein is that souls cannot progress in consciousness who do not live by Truth.  So, to a lot of people - on both sides of the 'Play' going on - I say:
     Make up your mind.
     And you need to be quick about it.  Because
     it's that time.

Sunday, 21 February 2016

For The Record


Although we are moving out of the Old into the New, there is still some unfinished business that we need to attend to; and just to clarify a point in the Old, on the 'discussion' regarding the definition of a "natural born" citizen.

The definitive tome of the day on such nation-making matters, E. de Vattel's 'The Law of Nations, Or Principles of Natural Law' (it actually has a longer title, but this captures the essence), defined a 'natural born' citizen as one born "in the country, of parents who are citizens... " (and going on:) '"..those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers..."  The mother and the father were considered as One, and the father was the One; a condition known as the doctrine of coverture.  Which has changed since, allowing the mother her own nationality; but nationality for a child still descends primarily from the father.  (I.e., the child can have dual nationality.)  So, both who the father is (i.e., his nationality) and where the child is born are factors in the difference between just a 'citizen' and a 'natural born' citizen.  However, the de Vattel treatise goes on, a couple of sections further (in Book One, Chapter XIX, Sects. 212 & 215), and talks about, quote, 'Children of citizens born in a foreign country' ("By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers..the place of birth produces no change in this particular..."); and that has confused more people than just me, with a couple of prominent commentators on the subject (J.B. Wiliams and Publius Huldah) claiming that that means that the only requirement for being a 'natural born' citizen of the U.S. is to be born of a citizen father.  And a major commentator on this whole subject, Mario Apuzzo, Esq., has not recognized that, continues to maintain that the Sect. 212 definition is the only/definitive definition.  I have just queried him on the subject.  His response is quite a good, extensive comment on the matter.  Herewith:


 frompuzo1.blogspot.com: ’Ted Cruz Misrepresents the Law and His Being a Natural Born Citizen at Town Hall Meeting’ - Mario Apuzzo, Esq. - February 18 
(’Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers' - 'A blog to discuss the U.S. Constitution Article II, Section 1, “natural born Citizen” presidential eligibility clause’)

..
Stan said...

As usual, I appreciate very much your erudition on this subject, Attty Apuzzo. But I have a query. It's one thing to quote Sect. 212 of de Vattel. But in Sect. 215, he makes the case that "children follow the condition of their fathers..." and thus, it doesn't matter where the child is born. The child is a natural born citizen of the citizenry of the father - jus sanguinis applying; not necessary for jus soli also to be applying.

And since the mother is no longer automatically One with the father, the child could still be a 'natural born' citizen even if the mother were of a different nationality, because citizenship STILL descends from the father. 

Comment??

February 19, 2016 at 6:45 AM blank.gif


I of II 

Stan, 

Vattel explained in Section 215 of his highly acclaimed and influential treatise:

§ 215. Children of citizens born in a foreign country.
It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed. (59) By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say "of itself," for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise. But I suppose that the father has not entirely quitted his country in order to settle elsewhere. If he has fixed his abode in a foreign country, he is become a member of another society, at least as a perpetual inhabitant; and his children will be members of it also. 

Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 215 (1758) (1797). 

In Section 212, Vattel distinguished the “citizens” from the “natives, or natural born citizens.” Vattel stated that the question asked was whether that foreign-born child was a "citizen," not whether that child was a "native, or natural born citizen." Vattel’s failure to state the question as if it asked whether they were natives or natural born citizens cannot be considered some oversight or unintentional, given that just in Section 212 he was careful to articulate and distinguish the difference between the two classes, with the latter class reserved only to the children born in a country to parents who were its citizens. Also note that when speaking about the parents, Vattel always referred to them as “citizens,” and never as “natural born citizens,” thus demonstrating that all natural born citizens are citizens, but not all citizens are natural born citizens given his definition of a natural born citizen. 

Vattel explained that the municipal laws of the child's parents' nation had to be followed when determining whether that foreign-born child was a citizen of his parent's nation. In other words, if those laws said that such a child was a citizen, then the child was. If those laws said that the child was not or did not provide for such a child, then the child was not. Vattel added that by nature alone, the place of birth could not take away from the child what nature had given to the child, and that such a child inherited from his or her parents (through the father) their citizenship. 

But Vattel explained that the laws of nature applied to the affairs of nations became the law of nations. Vattel’s law of nations parents did not live in a state of nature, but rather in civil and political society. Hence, Vattel added that the child's parents' nation, for various reasons, could pass political or civil laws which would take precedent over what nature ordained. Vattel also explained that the parents would not have quitted their native country and if they did, their child would not inherit their native citizenship. If the parents would have become permanent inhabitants of the foreign nation, then a child born to them in the foreign nation would inherit from them the status of a permanent inhabitant, not that of a citizen of their native nation. Hence, we can see that Vattel was only speaking about plain and simple membership in a nation and not the status of a natural born citizen, for the parents in that situation would still have been citizens of their native nation, but become permanent residents of that foreign nation. Additionally, that child could not be a natural born citizen under Vattel’s own definition of the clause that he gave in Section 212. This principle also applied to Vattel's Section 212 natural born citizen, requiring that the child be born in the country to parents who were its citizens and if not, then not even a citizen of that nation in which born. 

Continued . . . 

February 19, 2016 at 10:08 AM



*.jpg

Continued . . . 

You will note that Congress in the early naturalization Acts treated children born in the United States to alien parents as aliens and in need of naturalization. Except for the period between 1802 and 1855, Congress has also always seen fit to provide through its naturalization Acts for children born out of the territory and jurisdiction of the United States to one or two U.S. citizen parents. We saw what happens when a nation does not provide for children born out of its territory and jurisdiction to its citizens. Under the Naturalization Act of 1802 and until the Naturalization Act of 1855, children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents who were not citizens prior to 1802 were aliens who could become U.S. citizens only through naturalization, not derivatively through their parents naturalization for the parents were already citizens, but only on their own upon reaching the age of majority. 

Hence, in Section 215, Vattel was talking about a nation's positive laws making citizens of children born out of the country, not making natural born citizens of those children. In referring to those foreign-born children, Vattel did not in the least suggest that the citizenship status that their parents’ nation may bestow upon them through its positive laws would somehow change the definition of a natural born citizen which is clearly and plainly stated in Section 212, without any exceptions. The changing definition of citizenship of which Vattel spoke in Section 215 referred only to children born out of the country who Vattel saw as citizens if born to citizen parents, not as natural born citizens who also had to be born in the country, and only if the parents' nation provided for that status through its positive laws. Surely, if those children were natural born citizens, they would not have needed those civil or political laws to seal their citizenship fate, which is the case of the natural born citizens. In fact, Minor v. Happersett (1875) explained how Virginia Minor did not need any law, including the Fourteenth Amendment to make her a natural born citizen and thus ipso facto a citizen. We have seen Congress since 1795 (it repealed the Naturalization Act of 1790) constantly change its naturalization Acts which it applied to children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents and to alien parents. On the other hand, Congress has never sought to change the meaning of a natural born citizen, not even through the Fourteenth Amendment. 

So, Section 215 does not contradict my position that a natural born citizen is a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child's birth. If anything, it shows that only in a state of nature does membership (what Vattel calls being a citizen when applied to civil and political society) automatically follow the parents no matter where one is born. Section 215 also supports my position, for it shows that in civil and political society (not in a state of nature) positive laws (like Congress’s naturalization Acts) are needed to make children born out of the country to citizen parents citizens of their parents' nation. Given that in civil and political society such positive laws are needed to make them citizens of their parents’ nation, those children are at best “citizens;” they are not and cannot be “natural born citizens.” Keep in mind how the Third Congress removed “shall be considered as natural born citizens” and replaced it with “shall be considered as citizens of the United States.” Also keep in mind that children born out of the country to citizen parents who were serving abroad in a diplomatic capacity or in the armies of the state are reputed born in the country and therefore natural born citizens. See Vattel, Section 217 and John McCain. 

February 19, 2016 at 10:09 AM     

--

Thus, a child born to a U.S. citizen father abroad, not on official U.S. business, is a citizen of the U.S.,  but is not a 'natural born' citizen.  That requires both jus sanguinis - by law of blood - and jus soli - by law of soil.  Sect. 215 does not simply turn around and contradict Sect. 212.  It is talking about a different kind of citizen from a 'natural born' citizen.

I consider all of the above the definitive statement on the matter.  Thus, out are Cruz, Rubio, and - of course - Obama.

Now, to move on....

Saturday, 20 February 2016

On Getting True-Blue In The Face


further from wnd.com: ‘Rush: What About Vatican’s Border ‘Walls’?’ - February 18
(“Talk-radio icon blasts pope’s statements questioning Trump’s faith”)


Clover11111 • 2 days ago (February 18)

Trump has been on several times with THE talk radio icon MICHAEL SAVAGE and not with this one. Why?

1
•
Reply

  • kibitzer3
    Clover11111 • 2 days ago

  • It might be because apparently Rush has come out in support of Cruz. Non-natural born citizen issue and all.

  • Somebody needs to get to Limbaugh and tell him, 'Rush, Rush - citizenship descends from the father. Get with the Constitution, or stop considering yourself a conservative. At least not a constitutionalist conservative. And oh yes - that refers to the Usurper himself.'
  • Reply


    • usmadgirl kibitzer3 • 2 hours ago (February 20)

    • Please post where the Constitution states that!
    • Reply

      • kibitzer3
        usmadgirl • a few seconds ago (February 20)

      • The constitutional Framers, who were, by 1787, well versed in and with nation-building literature, decided to put in their constitutional contract for the crucial new office of president of their well-planned-for United States of America a particular eligibility requirement for that office, and that federal office ONLY: that the occupant of that office - who would as well, then, become the Commander in Chief of the nation's military forces; and so wanting the person to be required to have SOLE ALLEGIANCE to the U.S.; NO DUAL OR OTHERWISE CONFLICTING LOYALTIES OR ALLEGIANCES OR INFLUENCES  - needed to be, quote, a 'natural born' citizen. Not just any kind of 'citizen'. What did they mean by that term?

      • They meant by it what they all understood it to mean: a person born at the very least of a citizen father, from whom citizenship descended. There is all manner of historical evidence, too detailed to go into here, that they were going by the definitive tome of the day on such nation-building matters, E. de Vattel's 'The Law of Nations Or Principles of Natural Law' - which was taught in the universities of the day. In one section of his treatise he refers to 'natural born' as those having been born "in the country, of parents who are citizens...children naturally follow the condition of their fathers..." (In those days, under the doctrine of coverture, the mother was considered One with the father.) That's in Sect. 212 of his treatise. However, in Sect. 215, he says, in a little more detail on the subject: "By the law of nature, children follow the condition of their fathers" - regardless of where they are born. But the basic, fundamental, rock-solid, minimum requirement for one to be a 'natural born' citizen, as understood by the constitutional Framers, and as put in their contract for that particular office, is to be born of a citizen father. And that eligibility REQUIREMENT has never been changed, by the only way it can be legitimately: by a constitutional amendment, to THE ORIGINAL INTENT. Subsequent shell games regarding changes in the de Vattel definition notwithstanding.

      • And in further point of fact: This take on the nbc matter was even understood in our time, when representatives of both current major political parties tried a total of 8 times between them, between 2003 and '08, to get constitutional amendments going through Congress on this very subject (to say: including this point as the common denominator to their various proposals) - and they failed each time even to get their proposals out of committee, such was the sensitivity around this particular issue. So: they both KNEW. And KNOW what they are up to. They are up to collusion in the trashing of the Constitution as the law of the land, and turning it into "just a damn piece of paper," in the colorful words of one of the would-be tyrants of our day.

      • And Obama has taken that ball, and run with it just as far as it should be allowed to be run with. And we should not double-down on the constitutional error, by the likes of the candidacies of both Cruz and Rubio. Or this nation is finished, for having no one from either major political party willing to stand up to these would-be tyrants, and say, loud and clear: THIS WILL NOT STAND.

---

I mailed three letters today.  One was back to the 'Tea Party Patriots' group, taking their Co-founder and National Coordinator, Jenny Beth Martin, to task for their backing of Ted Cruz even though he is not eligible, and giving briefly the reasons, before asking her/them to take me off their mailing list.  (It is not the first time I have responded to her/them in this manner; as the notation of 'Fourth Reminder' on their envelope somewhat indicated,)  One was paying my monthly Internet-connection account.   (Critical, to allow me to stay in touch with what's going on, particularly in my home country.  'No matter where I may roam, I still call America home.'...)   And one was another donation to the 'Friends of the National WWII Memorial'.

As to the latter.  I agree to consider the WWII generation, quote, 'the Greatest Generation' of Americans (apart from the first, founding one).  They rose to their 'occasion' admirably.  Well done, Men, and Women.          

Can we, facing the great challenge of our day, do the same??

---

Let me be perfectly clear in this matter.  I don't care what the judicial branch of government says about this matter when its current occupants have failed to act positively on this terribly serious matter - to say, in a clearly judicial way, rather than in a socio-political one.  They have stonewalled on the issue.  I put no trust nor faith in them, much less putting myself in subservience to them.  

Justice deferred is justice denied.

The bottom line:

A 'natural born' citizen, as the term was understood by the constitutional Framers and put in their constitutional contract as an eligibility requirement for the office of the presidency - and that particular federal office ONLY; signifying its special nature, its special status in their minds, relating to the occupant being as well, then, the Commander in Chief of the nation's military forces (see John Jay's letter of July 25, 1787 to G. Washington, in his role as Chair of the Constitutional Convention proceedings, for this specific alluded-to reference) - was, at its bare minimum, one born of a citizen father ("the country of the fathers is that of the children"), and more specifically, "those born in the country, of parents who are citizens...", and concluding: "By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers..." (E. de Vattel, Book One, Ch. XIX, Sects. 212 and 215.)  

And I don''t rest my case, if this nation fails to honor its oaths.

On Adding Things Up Correctly


So the Pope
Chastises Trump
        for wanting
To build a wall
              between
The United States
        and the state
Of Mexico
              in order
              to keep illegal
       aliens out,
   accusing him
   of having no
      compassion.
                   What
                    is that
All about?
              So the Pope
              is advocating
              invasion??
   (He is
    after all
    a Jesuit...)

1 + 1 = 2.
And don't let anybody
                               try
           to tell you
                   differently.

Just make sure
You are adding
One plus one
Correctly.

                 That's all.

Friday, 19 February 2016

On Knowing Your Enemy


I have been engaged just recently in some heavy back-and-forth with posters on various Comments threads regarding the ineligibilities of Cruz, Rubio, and Obama to hold the presidential office.  I have been stunned at the degree of dishonesty there has been involved in some of their responses -  sophistic, shyster-lawyer stuff to the nth degree.  (“It all depends on what the definition of ‘is’ is.”)1  But I realize that it is all part of what is going on these days, in this last outpost of essential liberty, before the end of the road for it, and the world succumbs to the collectivist concept of ‘equality’, wherein and whereby all are equal, and some just happen to be more equal than others.2  We are, in short, up against very powerful ’principalities and powers,’ of a dark, totalitarian-minded, kind.

Obama is very close now to accomplishing what he set out to accomplish, back at the beginning of his illegal presidency, and even before; during the campaign leading up to it: in “fundamentally transforming the United States of America” - and being cheered on by a brainwashed youth audience in his declaration, and intention.

Ah, Obama.  He’s like a creature that mesmerizes its prey; he’s got a goodly percentage of the American people mesmerized by his slow, cool, steady, benign-in-each-of-them moves.  Or like a crafty basketball player in slow motion, so that his opponent doesn’t see it all adding up to a sudden blinding pounce.

And at the same time, ’Common Core’ is teaching our children that ‘facts don’t matter’.  That there is no objective truth.  It’s all subjective, in the end.  Relative, rather than absolute.  Therefore, no more ‘originalism…strict constructionism' in the interpretation of the Constitution, for example.  This is also called, in Marxist theory and teaching (Obama's background), ‘the calculation of the relation of forces’: the more citizens their erstwhile masters can get - inveigle; mesmerize - to believe this relative take on things, the more ’true’ it is.  Hence, 1 + 1 can =  3, for it all depends on how you look at it, and argue for the outcome, from this materialist perspective on things.  And thus, Obama’s actions in the office that he has purloined (objectively speaking) are not ‘illegal’ so much as simply a working-out of the calculation of the relation of forces: If he can get away with it, it’s ‘legal’.  It’s ’right.’   (There being no absolute right or wrong.)  

And thus, if you commandeer the high ground of a nation, you set the standards for beliefs; and the former ‘patriots’ then become ‘potential domestic terrorists’…

Hey, bro: If you call a patriot an ‘extremist’ - what does that make you???……

Anyway.  Beware of the sinuous creatures in our midst.  They are out to get you, and us, and the world.  By hook or by crook.  Because, you see, there is no right or wrong, but thinking makes it so.

And if you believe that, you can be made to believe anything.  

—

footnotes:

1 A lot of it revolves around changing definitions of terms.  But ignoring that shell game going on: the eligibility requirement itself still stands, hasn’t changed: a presidential candidate needs at the bare minimum to have been born of a U.S. citizen father.  In order to have sole allegiance to the country of his or her birth.  Not just the place of his/her birth.  Or not even that, in some cases.
   Bodies like the U.S. Justice Foundation are doing good work in this whole regard.  But even they don’t get it:  
   ‘It’s the father, stupid.’

2 This trashing of the Constitution and instituting an imperial presidency is all by way of undercutting the concept of 'American exceptionalism'/specialness; not only in order to merge this country into a region of the New World Order, on a Third World economic level - the better to control us with, my dears - but to open the door ultimately for a foreign president, read despot, running things.  Most probably a Chinese potentate, looking after his country's vested interests - investments and properties, in this country.  America having been sneak-bombed into having to be dependent financially on the Red Chinese regime, you see, in order to accomplish the merging process.
   You do see that, don't you?
   Don't you??  If not, where have you been???
   Ah.  The Super Bowl, and the like.  R-i-i-i-ght......

On Feeling Things Heating Up - At Least For Me


from patriotsforamerica.ning.com: ‘PROOF: Neither Rubio or Cruz are eligible to serve as President/Commander-in-Chief  “The End of the American Presidency by JB Williams….” (Second Posting; orig. posted by J.B. Williams at NewsWithViews.com on March 29, 2015) - posted here by Harry Riley - February 18

..
Reply by Stan Stanfield 2 seconds ago (February 19)

An excellent commentary, but I wish that JB had included the first two sentences of No. 212; viz.:

"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages.  The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens."

He may have left that part out because it opens a further commentary needed; to say, further on in this section, de Vattel says that "children follow the condition of their fathers," so it doesn't matter where they are born to be a nbc - all that matters is the citizenship of the father.  In any event, the issue stays the same: Neither Cruz, Rubio nor Obama are eligible for the job.  And JB is right on in pointing out why it is so critical to staunch the constitutional wound: because the New World Order gangsters are trying to take over the country, and merge it into their totalitarian nightmare.  And the Constitution stands in their way.  At least, it used to.

And Cruz is proving to be one of them.  All slippery-tongued and all. 

..
Reply by michele bodine 6 hours ago

Rubio is a anchor baby for god sake and some of you people will vote for him!

  • ]▶[Reply

Permalink Reply by Shavager 6 hours ago (February 18)

By his birth on U.S. soil--he IS an American citizen and eligible--THAT is the standard for eligibility accepted by the Court--it won't change without an Act of Congress and Amendment BY WE THE PEOPLE.  Ted Cruz received AUTOMATIC U.S. citizenship from his mother--he too is eligible by birth, no matter IF he was born in Canada or Timbuktu.  We can all get mad at Congress or Supreme Court for NOT upholding what WE THINK the law means, but until WE force Congress to research, investigate and define with an Act of Congress for STATES to adopt as Amendment to represent what the Founders expressed, they ARE our representatives and elected LAW makers--which the Court will affirm by not accepting any challenges to the eligibility until a LEGAL STATUTE defines it.

  • ▶Reply

Permalink Reply by Marc Thomas 5 hours ago 

Have you ever read the Law of Nations? In Book 1, Chapter 19, Section 212, it says that a natural born citizen is someone who is born in the country of parents who are citizens. Article 1, Section 8, says that Congress has the power to define and punish offenses against the Law of Nations.

  • ▶Reply

Permalink Reply by Shavager 3 hours ago (February 18)

Marc--that book is NOT American LAW, period! It was only a reference just like Blackstone's Common Laws.  While they referenced "natural born"--there is NO LEGAL STATUTE to define it in American LAW. The Supreme Court takes challenges AGAINST LAWS, NOT OPINIONS!  For "natural born" to be LAW of this nation--it SHOULD have been explicitly defined WITHIN the LAW OF OUR LAND--the U.S. Constitution, and it is an egregious mistake they simply overlooked because THEY KNEW what their own definition was when they wrote the Constitution. Without an Act of Congress to DEFINE IT and then passed to STATES for Amendment to the Constitution--it is within authority of Congress or Federal Courts to use their own definition. Since we've had several presidents who've already served that did NOT meet "natural born" as WE think it means--the Supreme Court will consider it settled FACT--Herbert Hoover served from 1929-1933 as president with IMMIGRANT parents in the 20th century--and NO challenge was ever been launched by Congress or any Federal Court against those who've already served. The Court would REFUSE any challenge without a definitive act of Congress, challenged at Federal Court level.  I promise you---IF Congress and WE the PEOPLE amended the Constitution TOMORROW--it would STILL not allow a challenge 'retro-actively' against Obama--because of over 100 YEARS of previous history standing.

  • ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Stan Stanfield 1 second ago (February 19)

I don't give a bucket of warm spit for 'precedent', or any of the above.  Two wrongs do NOT make a right.  The constitutional Framers didn't have to define the term nbc in their contractual eligibility requirements for that particular office because the term's definition was the common knowledge of the day, and as taught in the universities of the day: from de Vattel's treatise on the subject.  This is all on the record.  To be a nbc of a country, you have to have been born of a citizen father of that soil, at the very MINIMUM.  That's what makes it 'natural'.  

If patriots allow this travesty to stand, they will have signed off on the death certificate of the federal constitutional republic of the U.S.A., and its replacement with a part of a region of the dark Forces' totalitarian New World Order, whether it be called the North American Union, or given any other title.  A hijack is a hijack, by any other name.

Man your battle stations, Patriots.  This is getting serious.