One of these days I'll come just from my heart. Until then, my head is still engaged to the rest of my body - and giving me a hard time in the balancing-out 'heart' department. This burst of energy was occasioned by a blog on Western Center For Journalism titled 'It Matters Not Where Obama Was Born!' by one Gabor Zolna, posted on Mar. 7. The Comments thread was full of contributions by an old nemesis on this issue, of Obama's ineligibility. I just couldn't pass 'it' up. My contribution:
kibitzer2 - Mar. 9 (12.38 am)
Ellen,
I see you're still at your old Kool-aid stand. I still won't buy any. It is tainted.
1. The Framers were very clear what they meant when they inserted the NBC requirement in the Constitution for the office of the presidency - AND THAT OFFICE ONLY. (All other federal offices could be held simply by citizens; as is still the case to our day and age.) This was at the instigation of John Jay (who then became the first Chief Justice of the new Supreme Court, no less) who, in a letter to G. Washington as president of the Constitutional Convention, recommended that more exclusive status for the person who was going to become as well the Commander in Chief of the new Republic's armed forces, so that person should have no taint of DUAL LOYALTIES OR ALLEGIANCES.
2. Alexander Hamilton's first crack at writing a constitution at that Convention referred to the requirements for that particular office as including the person being merely a citizen. HIS SUGGESTION WAS NOT ACCEPTED
3. The Framers knew what they meant when they included that more exclusive requirement for that particular office because they were familiar with de Vattel's The Law of Nations - and especially so was B. Franklin, who was the sort of elder statesman amongst them, and looked up to by them. HE AND THEY KNEW WHAT THEY MEANT THEREOF.
4. They were NOT going by English common law; which refers to natural born SUBJECTS. These were no longer subjects to the Crown - they were proud freemen. They were going by American common law, or Natural Law.
The Wong Kim Ark decision was wrong in this matter. And it was affirmed by no less a statesman at the original proceedings than George Mason, who later, in the discussions in Virginia regarding ratifying the new document, confirmed this very point.
I'm not going to bother finding that reference for you. You have proven you are pretty good at referencing things. You just need to dig a little deeper in this matter, and find out for yourself, that it matters not what some people said closer to our time. What matters is what the record shows. And what the record shows is that the intention for that constitutional requirement was for the candidate for that particular office in the new federal republic - AND THAT PARTICULAR OFFICE ONLY (which requirement has subsequently been written into the Constitution for the office of the Veep as well, in a sensible amendment; since that person mighty accede to the presidency) - to be born of two citizen parents, that he not be saddled with dual loyalties or allegiances.
And CERTAINLY not to Great Britain; with whom these honorable Americans had just fought a war of independence. And won.
So they were no longer subjects, going by English common law. They stood proudly on their own two feet; politically, economically, and every other way - including judicially.
Stop with the Kool-aid business, Ellen Sensible people ain't buying.
---
'Nuff said. At this point in time. (It's 12:40am local time. I've had enough agro for the day.)
---
P.S. Sat. Mar. 9. 'Ellen' went after my take on this matter, point by point. She has a willful point of view, that leads her to draw certain conclusions that I don't agree with. In any event, my response to her response to the above:
Ellen,
I can see that we’re going to have to agree to disagree. You assert that the Framers had English common law in mind more than they did de Vattel when they opted for the more exclusive concept of an NBC rather than a simple citizen, and I can’t argue with that perspective, because I don’t know; and you don’t either. All I know is that given all the others factors in the picture (and Mario Apuzzo has covered this whole thing in remarkable detail; puzo1.blogspot.com) it makes more sense that they were going by de Vattel’s take on the matter. And they didn’t have to spell it out, because they all knew that was what they were going by. (The Constitution doesn’t define other terms either; it isn’t a dictionary.)
If yours were indeed the case, you’re going to have to answer as well why Obama has gone to such lengths to hide his bona fides – the forgeries of both the COLB and the long form BC (let’s see all of this brought out in a court of law; including the admission of the gal who forged the COLB), and the obvious forgery of his Sel. Svc. reg card, and his use of a Soc. Sec. number that doesn’t belong to him (and that Michelle tried to do a coverup regarding, claiming that she was a relative of the assignee) – the list goes on, and on, and on. The man has something to hide. The American public have the right to see what is behind all this chicanery. It is unseemly. It is an insult, to the American people and to the office of the presidency of the United States.. It must not stand.
--
We really need to get to the bottom of this whole thing. We can't move up in consciousness, as Americans and as a race - the Human race; the race of Homo sapiens sapiens; verging on Ascension into a higher realm/density/vibration, where we will discard these 3D meat bodies and take on our next-stage Light bodies - until we do.
---
P.P.S. A further word on The Usurper, before I call it a night on Obama-bashing:
Godfather Politics: 'Obama Opens Borders to Terrorists to Punish Americans Over Sequester' - da Tagliare - Mar. 9
cherokee_warrior podunk1 • 10 hours ago
−
I have talked with personnel in our Republican Senator's office and have asked why the Republicans have not filed impeachment charges against Obama for his many violations of the Constitution. Their reply, Harry Reid would sit on the papers.
So, ol Harry is part of the problem, and ol Harry needs to be removed also. come next election.
63 1
•
Reply
kibitzer3 cherokee_warrior • a minute ago- −
It doesn't matter what Reid would do. This is a teachable moment, that the Republicans should employ. And if enough information comes out to the public out of it - all of the things that this man has done, or not done, in that once-honorable office - then it will weaken him politically, and prove in the long run to have been invaluable. The Republicans are missing a good bet here. A fire needs to be built under their sorry posteriors on the matter.
---
Addendum, Mar. 10. Ellen came back at me, attempting to refute my points, point by point. My take on it all (I haven't posted it back at the site. I'm giving that some thought. Do I really want to get into all this online?? at this time???......):
- Close, But no cigar. There is still too much evidence that he is hiding something about his background. Photoshopped pictures of him and his grandparents, or of him with his (purported) mom (there is no real evidence of even that in this crazy matter), with 'her' black hand attached to her white arm under Barry's right arm; his relationship with 'Frank,' and as well researched by Joel Gilbert for his film on the subject ('Dreams from my Real Father'); curious things about his passport(s) (and how someone was killed in relation to the illegal accessing of them); his multiple Social Security numbers, and especially the main one, having been assigned to one Harrison J. Bounel, and Michelle having logged on to its site, claiming - apparently in order to be able to do so - to be a relative of Harry's. Which brings up the question of what were the reasons why both Michelle and Obama lost their law licenses (or at least had them withdrawn). (There is 'word' that he lost his because he falsely testified that he had never gone under any other name.) The curiosities go on, and on, and on.
- Not a pretty picture.
- And then there's the statement by one Tom Fife, a businessman, who reported that, during a private dinner with a business acquaintance and his wife in a Moscow flat early in 1992, the wife, a committed communist (still), after chiding Tom as to why the "perfect government" Americans hadn't had a woman president by then, bragged that America was going to get "a black president very soon…and he will be a Communist…he is educated and being groomed to be president right now. You will be impressed to know that he has gone to the best schools of Presidents. He is what you call 'Ivy League'. You don't believe me, but he is real and I even know his name. His name is Barack. His mother is white and American and his father is black from Africa. That's right, a chocolate baby! And he's going to be your President."
- Becoming more smug as she went on - ignoring her husband's attempts to change the subject - she continued: "It's all been thought out His father is not an American black so he won't have that social slave stigma. He is intelligent and he is half white and has been raised from the cradle to be an atheist and a Communist. He's gone to the finest schools. He is being guided every step of the way and he will be irresistible to America."
- She continued, giving details about his life, including that he was soon to be elected to the Illinois state legislature; and remarked at that point: "Have no doubt; he is one of us, a Soviet."
- Trying to think of something to say, Tom, who knew a smattering of Arabic, made a comment: "If I remember correctly, 'Barack' comes from the Arabic word for 'Blessing'. That seems to be an odd name for an American." The article goes on to say that she replied quickly: "Yes. It is 'African'…and he will be a blessing for world Communism. We will regain our strength and become the number one power in the world."*
- Well. We'll see. Won't we.
- ---
* quote, and its use of capitalization, from rense.com; article titled 'The First Time i Heard of Barack', dated Nov. 20 2008.
---
