(from teapartycommmandcenter: 'Carney jeers, sneers at study…' etc. - Part 3
(to my somewhat long-winded response to RFB yesterday)
Reply by RFB 16 hours ago (Dec. 8)
Thanks for the correction.
- ▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Stan Stanfield 1 second ago (now into Dec. 9)
And thank YOU for the fair response.
As you can see, and obviously noted, this is a particularly sensitive issue for me. I don't like it one bit when someone tries to hijack MY country. You can slag off my favorite football team, or favorite actor, or author, and that's life: different strokes for different folks. But try something with my country - with the principle of sovereigns in their own right, living basically by self-governance and self-responsibility - and you've got a battle on your hands.
To clarify: I'm not a 'My country right or wrong' kind of guy. If my country is wrong - as it has been in the past - I'll call it on its having gotten off the 'right' path. But this man is a Usurper of the office; and he and his far Left bandits need to be slapped down for their effrontery.
He should have been out of that office long ago anyway, if simply on the strength alone of the fraudulent document that he allowed to be released on the official White House website; with its kerning (a technique only capable of being used by modern-day computers, not typewriters of circa 1961), and other such blatant examples of forgery. And the 'Fight the Smears' evidence that he held Kenyan citizenship at birth (until it was discontinued by Kenyan law in the early 1980s); and thus clearly had foreign connections and allegiances - thereby disqualifying him for that office…etc. etc. Demonstrating the truism: 'O what a tangled web we weave/When first we practice to deceive.'
--
P.S. I see that my last couple of blogs, on this subject of Barry's ineligibility for the presidential office, have attracted some Comments from an old nemesis on this subject, who believes that only naturalized citizens need not apply; and whose job it must be to patrol the web on the matter, and try to squelch, as much as she or he can, the growing unease about, and counter-revolution to, The Great Pretender on this particular battlefront of the war going on. Which has been mostly one-sided, in the revolutionaries's favor; who have been waiting patiently, and undoubtedly now into a bit of impatience, for the major countermoves (or a false-flag op if need be, to trigger a declaration of Martial Law) to their well-planned and -executed takeover of the Republic. One-sided, that is, up until now; as things start really to heat up, to boiling-over point, with The Great Pretender's lying coming more and more to the fore, particularly over the far-from Affordable Care Act scam.
As for the 'she or he' pronoun order placement: I think this person is a female, based on other Comments of a similar content in postings on other threads of other blog sites. (If so: she may most likely be one of those feminists who want the state to support them (and often their children), to get out from under the control of the patriarchy. Wait a minute: how does that work…)* Whoever and whatever; to whom I say in reply, up in a blog itself, for its general value to my readership as well:
The only way the term 'natural born' citizen would have any meaning, would make any difference, especially in this context, is that the Constitutional Framers put it in the Constitution as a qualification and requirement for that office - and that federal office ONLY - in order to make sure - as sure as they could - that any U.S. citizen moving into that office did not as well have DUAL LOYALTIES OR ALLEGIANCES - like, oh, say, for example, a DUAL CITIZEN. Otherwise the term - and ESPECIALLY in this context; with that particular officeholder being as well the Commander in Chief of the nation's military forces - is MEANINGLESS.
It does NOT mean to bar just naturalized citizens. What arrant nonsense. If it doesn't cover as well Dual Citizens, it is missing the whole POINT of the exercise. Got it? The whole bloody POINT. Pardon my English. And speaking of:
I don't GIVE a fig Newton bar what English common law says, about subjects. These were sovereigns in their own right - and damn proud of it. And they had just fought a war of Independence to win and claim their sovereignty. They weren't about to give it away, by sleight of hand, with the English slipping back into power however they could manage, by hook or by crook. The constitutional Framers, whatever else they may have been - Old White Men, and Slave Owners, and 'Property Qwner class,' and whatever other epithets that the Left wants to throw at them, accuse them of, try to smear them with - were NOT DUMMIES.
Are you paid by the hour or by the word, or even just by the posting, to be a troll?? Whatever: Please don't come to my site anymore. (Stay out of my site, as it were.) I am losing my patience with the obvious stonewalling going on regarding this issue in particular, and the whole matter in general - the matter, ultimately, of the takeover of the American federal constitutional Republic by totalitarian-minded collectivists - and my fuse is almost down to its limit.
* Whoops. A little politically incorrect there. However, I'm not above chucking a spear or two; especially when so much is at stake. In this case: the American Republic; and its dream of a people free from an overweening state, be it in the form of Royalty or Church or Oligarchy or Dictatorship. You have your pick. But not here. Not in MY country.
--
Where is some leadership amongst the country's purported Patriots on this Constitution-trashing crime? I know that Sheriff Arpaio and his Cold Case Posse chief investigator, Mike Zullo, are doing a good job on the BC forgery, and with their Sheriff's Kit and all; and accolades to the likes of Doug Vogt and Paul Ivey for analyzing the forgery and Rick Wells, Carl Gallups, Mike Volin and Mark Gillar for reporting on it. But where is the national leadership regarding this whole thing? Importantly of the forged birth certificate; but especially of the definition - the constitutional Framers' definition - of an NBC?? Mario Apuzzo, Esq. and CDR (Ret.) Charles Kerchner and constitutional scholar and law professor Dr. Herb Titus, e.g., have done a good job in clarifying its American common law meaning; but I mean real national Patriot leadership on the whole matter?? WHERE ARE OUR POLITICAL LEADERS in this whole sorry business???
I know the Democrats and the Republicans can't be counted on stepping up to the plate on it; they are too deeply involved in the commission of the crime. (The first one, in this thread of crimes trailing in its wake.) But come ON, Patriots. Step forward. Or forever hold your piece of the picture. And puzzle.
---
No comments:
Post a Comment