First of all, a bit of a review of where I have been at recently, in my thinking. (And those of you who have been following my bouncing ball will note that it is more of the same.)
1) from breitbart.om: 'Mitch McConnell Attacks Conservative Group For Endorsing Primary Opponent' - Matthew Boyle - Oct. 20
dcome00ss garyinaz66 • a day ago
- −
168 1
−
First, the Supreme Court must consider the original intent of our Founding Fathers, but they also have to take into consideration our modern society in deciding their final rulings. Without doing so their ruling could be out of step with society. The existing powers both Congress and the Executive Branch have assumed over time would have to be challenged in court in order to decide if either one of them have over stepped their authority. Without doing so first, no one can actually state with certainty they have assumed more powers they are not entitled to. In other words, if it's not challenge in court they have the right to assume those powers until ruled otherwise. The Constitution also states that all powers the Federal government doesn't assume, are powers given to the States. So the delegated powers you spoke about are wide with the Federal government deciding on what powers they wish to assume, and what powers they will give to the States.
---
2a) from Tea Party Command Center: 'Brit Hume Reminds Us All What Motivates the Tea Party' - Asst. Nat'l Dir. Melony B. DeFord - Oct 21
--
Terra Pennington Terra Pennington • an hour ago [Oct. 21]
−
If Cruz was born in American I would be looking for him to run and get my vote as president but the sad part is he was not born in the USA... But he has the balls to stand up and fight for the American people for the first time in 20 years...
kibitzer3 Terra Pennington • 5 minutes ago [Oct. 21]
−
•
Reply
-
PIKEMASTER dcome00ss • a day ago- −
- What a CLOWN!
I truly hope that 2014 will be a turning point. Our greatest enemy all along, has been claiming to "represent" us for decades now. Instead, they have managed to betray and ruin us, in the name of Pragmatic Moderation, while the Democrats continue to practice their Ruthless tactics without restraint or opposition.
That goes for Ryan, Rubio, and all the other RINO's who have betrayed us. Especially Boehner, who vowed that if we allowed him to remain as Speaker, that he would actually fight for our cause for once.
The result reminds me of Charlie Brown, letting Lucy hold the football for him again and again........................and he never learns!- 154 1
- •
- Reply
This comment was deleted.
- −
Maria S Biddle Fannysyeraunt • a day ago- −
- of course you say that cause you can beat Repubicans, it has been proven time and time again, they are on your side. We in the Tea Party are going to change that one day.
- 89 1
- •
- Reply
garyw631 Maria S Biddle • a day ago- −
- Right on. Whatever it takes. We will return to the constitution.
- 59
- •
- Reply
Sundowner garyw631 • 13 hours ago- −
- And let me say it again, "Whatever it takes" including the right to bear arms. NSA, if you are listening, go ahead but understand that you are violating the rights of the American people.
- 13 1
- •
- Reply
Maria S Biddle garyw631 • 8 hours ago- −
- http://www.caintv.com/awesome-...
- 1
- •
- Reply
M_Baker garyw631 • 6 hours ago- −
- Where have we not followed the Constitution?
- •
- Reply
Mikey M_Baker • 5 hours ago- −
- ObamaCare, Amtrak, TARP, General Motors, Education, birth control, abortion; to name just a handful of stuff the Federal Government has no business being involved in.
- 2 1
- •
- Reply
M_Baker Mikey • 5 hours ago- −
- Obamacare and abortion have both been ruled Constitutional by the Supreme Court, so there is question about their Constitutionality. Why you even consider education and birth control to be unconstitutional is beyond my wildest imagination. Government needs to stay out of a women's right to practice birth control if she chooses to do so. TARP and loans to General Motors also beyond me as to why you would find them unconstitutional. If an election was to be held today of all of the things you mentioned as being unconstitutional, I would have no doubt the majority of Americans would be in favor of keeping all of them. Your in a very small minority to believe these are unconstitutional.
- 1
- •
- Reply
kibitzer3 M_Baker • a minute ago [Oct. 21]- −
- M. Baker: To set the record straight: According to the Constitution, the federal government is one of ENUMERATED POWERS - "few and defined," in the rather authoritative words of the Father of the Constitution, James Madison; who also called them "limited" and "delegated" (that's how it got passed in the first place). Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government - legislative, executive or judicial branches thereof - given the powers that they have assumed over the years; these have been based on interpretations of the Constitution, not on 'original intent', as any contract should be based on, which requires all parties to sign off on any amendments thereto. America is well beyond due for a major house-cleaning in this regard.
That the SCOTUS declared ObamaCare to be constitutional was based on on an improper definition of a 'tax'. To say that the purchase of a product is a 'tax' is absurd on its face. At least in that determination they a) ruled out the 'commerce clause' gambit, and b) got the 10th Amendment right: the federal government cannot force the States to put out their monies for what is essentially a product (what the SCOTUS has tried to pass off as a federal tax).
You seem to be in favor of a pure democracy. (1) Be careful what you wish for; you may get it, with this lot of so-called statesmen and -women at the helm of the nation's ship of state for many years, and in particular with the gang of socialist and totalitarian-minded thugs running things under the Obama administration (which is an illegal one anyway, by the way; which also needs sorting out); and (2) Listen carefully: The American form of government is that of a federal constitutional republic. NOT an 'anything goes' scrum. If people want to change that form of government, they are welcome to give it a go. Legally. Not by the underhanded tactics that have been employed to that end so far.
As the maps say in regards to such- uncharted waters: There be dragons.
M_Baker kibitzer3 • 9 hours ago [Oct. 22]
−
First, the Supreme Court must consider the original intent of our Founding Fathers, but they also have to take into consideration our modern society in deciding their final rulings. Without doing so their ruling could be out of step with society. The existing powers both Congress and the Executive Branch have assumed over time would have to be challenged in court in order to decide if either one of them have over stepped their authority. Without doing so first, no one can actually state with certainty they have assumed more powers they are not entitled to. In other words, if it's not challenge in court they have the right to assume those powers until ruled otherwise. The Constitution also states that all powers the Federal government doesn't assume, are powers given to the States. So the delegated powers you spoke about are wide with the Federal government deciding on what powers they wish to assume, and what powers they will give to the States.
The Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare is now the law of the land and is what we must abide with no matter how we feel about the ruling. You may feel it's absurd, as I'm sure many people would probably agree with you, but nonetheless that's their final decision. The Supreme court sets precedence, and all rulings they make must take into consideration previous rulings, and later rulings must also take into consideration this current ruling.
Despite how you may feel about the current administration, Obama was elected into office by the majority of the voters, twice, and that's the path the majority of the voters wish to follow. If you look at current polls Obama has twice the favorability rating as Congress, although both of their ratings are not good, especially Congress since they are at a historic low. The Republican's made a huge mistake following an inexperienced freshman Senator who believed he could do the impossible despite what the Senior Senators were advising him. But nonetheless, the Republican's as a group followed him but wound up losing their fight and lost more in their favorability ratings. It could also prove to be a long standing problem for the party in future elections.
1
•
Reply
- kibitzer3 M_Baker • a few seconds ago [Oct. 22]
- −
- "The Constitution also states that all powers the Federal government doesn't assume, are powers given to the States. So the delegated powers you spoke about are wide with the Federal government deciding on what powers they wish to assume, and what powers they will give to the States."
- The Constitution in no way either says that or implies that, or any such a thing. That is such a silly take on the Constitution and its rule of law - the contract between the several States and the federal government; which requires amending (read: the built-in consent of all the parties to the contract) to change - that I find it hard to believe that you really believe what you are saying. Did they teach you sophistry in your schooling, or something??* That, or you are, in a word, delusional. Either way, I'm not going to waste my time arguing with you. I have far better things to do with my time, and [limited] patience.
- Goodbye.
- [* read, more clearly: 'Did they teach you, in your schooling, the use of sophistry, or something??']
--
This sort of thinking - turning the Constitution on its head, and thinking of it as applying rights and powers FROM the federal government TO the States - is beginning to prove the concern voiced at one point by James Madison about a Bill of Rights; his position being that the Constitution doesn't give the federal government any such power(s) in the first place as might end up being spelled out as being denied it in a BoR, and thereby lend to the illusion that it had all power by default EXCEPT what it was expressly forbidden BY such a BoR. The BoR is only an EXAMPLE of the rights and powers that the new federal government was not being deeded from the several States. And thus the 9th and 10th Amendments; to make this point crystal clear.
So much for crystal clarity, over a period of time, and in the hands of power-hungry - and easily deluded - men and women…
John Adams was right: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
Apparently he also said: "Abuse of words has been the great instrument of sophistry and chicanery, of party faction, and division of society."
How perspicacious of him was that. And apposite to this discussion.
---
2a) from Tea Party Command Center: 'Brit Hume Reminds Us All What Motivates the Tea Party' - Asst. Nat'l Dir. Melony B. DeFord - Oct 21
--
Terra Pennington Terra Pennington • an hour ago [Oct. 21]
−
If Cruz was born in American I would be looking for him to run and get my vote as president but the sad part is he was not born in the USA... But he has the balls to stand up and fight for the American people for the first time in 20 years...
kibitzer3 Terra Pennington • 5 minutes ago [Oct. 21]
−
- You're a fighter, Terra, so it is in the spirit of helping you keep clear with your facts that I point out that it is not only Cruz's birth place that renders him ineligible for the top office; it is also his birth parentage.
- The whole point of the exercise, of the Constitution requiring a candidate for the presidential office - and that particular federal office ONLY - to be a 'natural born citizen,' rather than just a citizen, was to make sure that said candidate - who would also potentially become the Commander in Chief of the nation's military forces - did not have DUAL LOYALTIES OR ALLEGIANCES. As a DUAL CITIZEN would have.
- Which is why Obama is not only a tyrannically-minded socialist - governing by in-our-faces executive fiat - but is illegally in that office anyway. And needs to be removed from the office forthwith. Under his own steam. Or a Million Citizen March worthy of the name. Before he does lasting damage to the principle of the separation of powers specifically, and to the federal constitutional republic in general.
- To, that is to say, the United States of America. And causes the nation to break down into warring factions. Which would not be a pretty sight; or experience.
- Lady_Wolverine kibitzer3 • 3 hours ago
- −
- EARTH TO TERRA and KIBITZER, I hate to break it to you but you are both wrong. The fact that Ted Cruz was born in Canada is irrelevant to his chances to become president. HE IS AN AMERICAN BY BIRTH, aka A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, thus FULLY ELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT.
His mother IS an American citizen and as such her citizenship is passed on to her son, even if she was in Canada when he was born. ALL IT TAKES IS FOR ONE parent to be an American citizen, not both. - I KNOW because my husband is an American citizen, also born in Canada, to a Italian immigrant mother and an American father.
- 1
- •
- Reply
- kibitzer3 Lady_Wolverine • 8 minutes ago [still Oct. 21]
- −
- Lady Wolverine,
- I hate to break it to YOU, but you are making the same mistake that so many people make. Being a 'citizen' is NOT the SAME as being a 'natural born citizen'. A 'natural born citizen' is a particular KIND of 'citizen'. It is a citizen born on the soil (or equivalent thereof) of two U.S. citizen parents. (Definition from The Law of Nations, by E. de Vattel, and from U.S. common law - not English common law, which speaks of natural born SUBJECTS, which Americans, being sovereigns in their own right, are not.)
- Why do you think the constitutional Framers went to all the trouble to codify in the Constitution, and thus make as sure as THEY could, that a candidate for the presidential office - and that particular federal office ONLY - had to be a 'natural born citizen,' rather than merely a 'citizen'??? It was to make sure - as I said - that that person did not have DUAL LOYALTIES OR ALLEGIANCES; like a DUAL CITIZEN would have.
- The smoking gun as to their intention - which has never been changed by the amending process available for the Constitution (although it has been tried) - is that during the Constitutional Convention, Alexander Hamilton proposed that the qualifications for the office of the presidency include that he must be (simply) a citizen - AND HIS PROPOSAL WAS NOT ACCEPTED.
- Go to Mario Apuzzo's website, puzo1.blogsplot.com, [correction: blogspot.com] for a detailed take on the background to this issue.
[N.B. This reply was not posted. Not sure why. Because I included a link???…]
----
Where else have I been recently??
I have been giving energy to The New, instead of dwelling exclusively on The Old. I have been imaging a world post-Drama, when we awaken to and from the parts that we are and have been playing, and recognize them for just that - parts, in a Play. A Play to grow ourselves in and by. On our way to a state of full consciousness. Which we need to enter into, now. For, 'Affairs are now soul size,' as the playwright said (adding, 'We are engaged in exploration into God'). So it's a matter of timing.
It's also a matter of Necessity. For, 'affairs' are getting a bit too hairy in the Play, now. People - incarnate souls - like the man who calls himself Barack Obama are taking their parts too seriously, and are threatening the Order of Things - planetarily, and cosmically.
We have no right to be a threat to the wellbeing of the Earth, the galaxy, and beyond - our Source Field. As long as we were playing our various parts on our stage, here on Gaia - now a prince, now a pauper; now a male, now a female (or some spectrum stop in between); now of one race or religion or nationality, now of another - to learn our lessons - we were a threat to no one or nothing but ourselves. But the times they have a'changed. And it's time to put away our dangerous toys, and grow up.
An atomic device has apparently been set off, intending to do major damage - death and destruction on a huge scale; in order for the current Occupant of the Oval Office to declare Martial Law and take over America (or at least, attempt to) in one fell swoop - and was somehow thwarted in its mission,1 and exploded deep in the waters off the coast of South Carolina. That is far enough, for The Play to be brought to a conclusion. The 'conclusion' is clear:
It's time to call a halt to it. And start our stage of development wherein and whereby we recognize ourselves for our true selves - as 'spiritual beings having a human experience' - and step off the stage of operations, as a stage, and get on with the work at hand.
Which is our Ascension, to a higher level of vibration; of frequency; of density. Inheriting a graduate-school level of our true selves.
The New World of which I spoke. Which requires us to put aside the stage-play world that we have been engaged in. And get on with such social-changing enterprises as the switching from interest-bearing money (and its training-wheels companion, fractional-reserve banking) to forms of exchange that operate on the principles of Love and cooperation (on our way ultimately to a moneyless society),2 and the concomitant development of free energy devices, and the inheritance of our innate abilities for telepathy and teleportation and time travel. All in good time.
Which is now.
Before we blow it.
And have to start all over again.
On another Ground Round turn of the Wheel of Rebirth.
Which I wouldn't wish on anyone.
Even the most recalcitrant of souls. Who have become so enamored of the physical realm that they can't see what it really is:
A matrix.
For a Purpose.
Which is NOT to get stuck in it.
But to graduate from it.
Like
Now.
footnotes:
1 All of these matters will come clear, when the dust settles, and Truth and Justice are served on all manner of matters. Including 9/11, and the true perpetrators thereof.
A word to all you demons in training out there:
God will not be mocked.
2 wherein we share goods and services with one another - and give of our best in the process - out of a higher motive than that of 'profit'. Out of the highest motive there is, and could ever be: out of gratitude to our Creator for life with meaning. And our desire to serve the Most High, the All That Is, our Source. And our Selves, as sparks - facets, fractals, aspects, points of view - of that One of which we are a Part. And thus, All IS One.
And it's time to recognize that fact. And act on it. As adolescents no more.
Angels in training: Yes.
---
footnotes:
1 All of these matters will come clear, when the dust settles, and Truth and Justice are served on all manner of matters. Including 9/11, and the true perpetrators thereof.
A word to all you demons in training out there:
God will not be mocked.
2 wherein we share goods and services with one another - and give of our best in the process - out of a higher motive than that of 'profit'. Out of the highest motive there is, and could ever be: out of gratitude to our Creator for life with meaning. And our desire to serve the Most High, the All That Is, our Source. And our Selves, as sparks - facets, fractals, aspects, points of view - of that One of which we are a Part. And thus, All IS One.
And it's time to recognize that fact. And act on it. As adolescents no more.
Angels in training: Yes.
No comments:
Post a Comment