Couldn't Help Myself

Still, today, stewing over what has happened in America to awareness of its form of government, and its commitment to its Constitution; to say, to the rule of law.  This (as cleaned up a little punctuation-wise) to a site at World Net Daily, a blog by Lord Christopher Monckton, titled 'A Sad Farewell to the U.S. Constitution'

kibitzer3
Lord Monckton is to be congratulated for his care about and in-depth investigation of this matter.  (And what is this, that a British Lord has to point out these things to the American public??  How embarrassing.)  But his investigation needs to go a little further.  Some specific points in that regard:
* The NBC issue is not just about jus soli (born of the soil).  It is about jus sanguinis (born of the blood; i.e.,, of two citizen parents).  Of the two aspects, the latter was the more uppermost in the minds of the Founders: in particular to make sure that the presidential candidate did not have parental ties to Great Britain (ironically, in the instance).  And the "friend" of our first president was not our first attorney general, but the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court - of all things; conspicuous by their absence in this current mess.  (As to the issue of the definition of an NBC, Lord Monckton may be confused between English common law and that applicable here at the time.)  So it doesn't matter if he was born in Hawaii or not.  By his testimony, he is not an NBC.  (That his true birth father may not have been Obama Sr. does not change the fact that crimes have now been committed, that he is responsible for; whether they were committed by others for him or not.  'The Buck Stops Here,' as Pres. Truman was wont to say.)  
* In his review of the concerns about the LFBC, he really should have noted, in particular: a) the insert of 'African' for Obama Sr.'s race (not a term used, then or now); b) the name of the Local Registrar.  'U.K.L.Lee' - as in ukelele.  Is somebody pulling our legs??  I wouldn't put it past the forger, in particular because of the 'smiley face' he or she drew in the 'A' of the name stamp of the State Registrar at the bottom of the document.  (Check it out.)  So, the American public is being laughed at to our faces, by these misfits; obviously in the security that the MSM is in the tank with them.  So it will take a major effort by those who believe in Truth to expose these rascals.  They are obviously betting that we don't have it in us to do so.  So far, they have been proven right.
As for questions about the Republican Party and Congress: a) Obviously the Republican Party honchos were involved in this scam, because the Repubs were involved with the Dems in the five attempts leading up to 2008 to get an amendment to the Constitution over this very NBC issue going through Congress, and they failed even to get it out of committee.  So the Repubs have been on board with the end-around play that ensued; obviously hoping to have a quid pro quo out of it, and put one of their own up for either Pres or VP in the future, via this doorway that they helped create - basically trashing the Constitution in the process.  So they are as guilty of a RICO crime as the Dems are.  
Which is the answer to jgsr's curiosity about "how Mr CMOB 'thinks' bo can be removed from Office...".  The sitting Congress itself is up for criminal charges, for being an accessory to and after the fact of the one committed by BHO and his cronies.  So what needs to happen - should happen - is a march on Washington of The People, Assembled, 1) calling on the Usurper to vacate the office forthwith; 2) dissolving the sitting Congress, for not doing their job - and 'not' doing it in a criminal manner (for which particularly knowing members therein need to face criminal charges, like Nancy Pelosi); and 3) appointing an Officer OF The People, who will call for elections within a time certain (it could coincide with those already scheduled), and in the meantime, clean out the Augean stables of the executive branch of the federal government of all those placemen and -women who are there looking after the interests of the bodies that they are supposed to be regulating.
But not to get into too much of the detail of the answer here.  Except to point out that this is all legal, that is to say, constitutional.  We The People are not stymied for Justice to be served just because the sitting Congress does not do its job.  We are their masters.  They work for us.  We can fire them wholesale, if they have committed a crime wholesale.
If the Americans of this day and age are up to the task of saving their country. 
What say YOU, Citizen??    
show less
• Edit
• Reply
• 0 minutes ago
• 
  jgsr

  Mr. Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, is obviously a successful and intelligent man. The major weakness of Intelligence as a credential, for all things opined, is the knowledge void regarding the recognition that "something" is wrong and actually being able to DO something about the recognized "wrong". Impeaching bo by the House of Representatives, could most definitely be done...BUT, an Impeachment STILL requires a Trial in the Senate....to "remove" bo from office would require a 2/3rds vote in the Senate Trial.That is the ONLY way to remove a sitting President.....no other legal method is available.
  I'm extremely curious to know EXACTLY how Mr. CMOB "thinks" bo can be removed from Office because of his fictitious background information....if it requires 2/3rds of the Senate?
  The ability to "point out" a problem, is certainly not a exhibition of intelligence.
  Identifying a problem, followed my problem resolution, IS a display of intelligence.
  Is it possible, that Mr. CMOB actually thinks criticizing Romney, IS the solution to the problem of bo's manufactured background?
  A Question for Mr. CMOB?
  Exactly how much Romney criticism would it take to insure that 2/3rds of the Senate will vote to remove bo from Office...?
  ....and another little "pesky" problem....70 days until the Election....Clinton's Impeachment Process took over 6 moths of Congress' focus.
  I personally believe two realities: 1) bo's background is fabricated. (2) getting a 2/3rds vote in the Senate to remove bo from office ABSOLUTELY will not work....a 2/3rds vote to remove bo is not going to happen, regardless of how many times Mr. CMOB criticizes Mitt Romney for not running his election as Mr. CMOB is convinced is the right way...of course Mr. CMOB has NEVER run for President himself, but that shouldn't be all that important

  show less

---

The Democrats seem to have captured the high ground, in succeeding to demonize anybody who questions BHO's birth and background by calling them - labeling them - 'birthers'.  The establishment Republicans throw up their hands in horror at the very idea of submitting themselves to being thus labeled the equivalent of (successfully implanted in their minds by the Dems) a 'pointy-headed crackpot'.  And just so, has the Saul Alinsky 'Rules for Radicals' technique of ridiculing your opponents, rather than engaging with them in debate, won the day.  A terrible day for democracy.  And a day to be remembered.  As the demise of the American Republic.

At least, almost......What will it take to salvage it??

Ignore the Republicans.  They have sold out the country.  Stand up for what you believe is right.  Why should you care what someone calls you?  Is your ego so big that you can't take an attempt (a calculated attempt) at ridicule?  Stand for what you believe, and others will respond to that position as they will.  And if someone calls you names - e.g., as I have heard, 'racist' and 'birther' and whatever all for various positions; the first, for being anti-illegal immigration - which covers an awful lot of honest, legal immigrants who are opposed to those coming into the country illegally; and so forth and so on - that just demonstrates the paucity of their position. If all they can do is call you names, you have won the debate, hands down.  But apparently, big-ego Republicans need not apply, for such common sense.

If someone calls you a 'birther', say in response: "I'm not sure precisely what you mean by that term.  Personally, I consider myself a constitutionalist.  Do you want to debate on that term?  For, one is either a constitutionalist or an anti-constitutionalist; one is either for the rule of law or the rule of men.  Which are you for??"

Come on, folks.  Let's have the debate.  Let the Republicans go.  They have had their day.  They no longer speak for the grassroots of America - if they ever did.  Well, they did, in part - as the party of 'the big tent', trying to hold all those opposed to big-spending Democrats.  But that tent won't hold all those constituencies anymore.  Once the Republican Party itself proved to be pusillanimous, it can no longer serve that role.  It's time for a change.

He said, who believes a big, BIG change is on the way anyway...

...but I feel strongly about how we get there.  The consciousness with which we approach The Cosmic Unveiling.  Or The Great Awakening.  However one might 'label' it.

Speaking of labels......