from Tea Party C.C.: 'Rand Paul: America Partly To Blame For Pearl Harbor, World War II' - posted by Asst. Nat'l Dir. Melony B. DeFord - Mar. 31 (orig. posted at therightscoop.com - Caleb Howe - Mar. 31)
..
Reply by Roberto Benitez yesterday (Mar. 31)
Stan, is Ted Cruz a legitimate senator? It so, please explain it in light of your statement.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Stan Stanfield 56 seconds ago (April 1)
This is in reply to both you, Roberto, and RFB [below[:
First, I am not the expert here. See: puzo1.blogspot.com; two YouTube videos of Prof. Herb Titus; the blog site of CDR Charles F. Kerchner (Ret); et al. The gist:
Cruz is a legitimate senator because you only have to be a citizen to be a senator, according to the Constitution. The presidency (and by amendment, the VP) has a higher bar to jump over (which signifies a difference in the terms right there); one that requires him/her to have no dual/conflicting loyalties or allegiances, PARTICULARLY because that person is also the Commander in Chief of the nation's military forces. The Constitution does not define the term 'natural born citizen' because it is neither a dictionary nor a learned treatise on the matter. The term was eminently understood by the constitutional Framers (in fact, as I understand it, Benjamin Franklin had a copy of E. de Vattel's The Law of Nations - which defines the term - with him at the Constitutional Convention; or at least, it was in the building, available for reference). Some Obots have tried to argue that the Framers were going by English common law (rather than American common law), which refers to 'natural born SUBJECTS' - which the Americans certainly were not any longer, to a monarch. They were sovereigns in their own right; and were about to codify that state of being in a Constitution for a federal constitutional Republic And finally (for now): this take on the matter of the definition was signaled by the fact that Alexander Hamilton made a proposal [at the Convention] that a candidate for the office of the presidency only had to be a "citizen" - and his proposal was clearly, historically REJECTED.
The definition, according to de Vattel, of a natural born citizen, is one born on the soil (jus soli) of two citizen parents (jus sanguinis). That is, there is NO DIVIDED LOYALTY OR ALLEGIANCE.
We need to get back to the Constitution on this matter. Or the Constitution is a dead letter from and of the past; and we are subject no longer to the rule of law. But simply to the rule of men.
Men like Barack Hussein Obama. Or whatever his real, legal name is. And to whom I for one refuse to be subject.
▶ Reply
Stan,
You seem to be an authority on this matter so perhaps you can explain why there is no law that defines Natural Born. Please also address the SCOTUS decision in which they stated that there could be no redundancies in definitions meaning that citizen could not also mean natural born citizen. The framer were content with the laws of US citizenship and the definition of a citizen also being a natural born citizen. Had the SCOTUS not gotten involved then article (g) of the laws of US citizenship qualifies Ted Cruz as a Natural Born Citizen. 8 U.S. Code § 1401 If tested today there is no guarantee that this SCOTUS would not reverse a previous decision.
▶ Reply
The INS has developed a whole set of rules and regs that deliniate who is and who is not, a "natural born" citizen!
I bet you have not paid one lick of attention to the whole "birther" controversy. They were NOT arguing from no position of authority.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Roberto Benitez 7 hours ago (April 1)
INS rules don't constitute laws or court rulings. Isn't one of the TEA Party's complaints about the plethora of rules and regulations not based on constitutional law?
As for many in the Birther movement, many of their arguments aren't based on consgtitutional or legal authority. I say this believeing that Obama's BC is a forgery and therefore that he's not eligible for the presidency.
▶ Reply
AZRanger,
You know better than that.☺ I realize that the US constitution and laws are not recognized by the Obama administration but, I still consider them to be relevant. I do not and will not recognize Obama's laws.
The birther argument is a platform for smart people to show how ignorant they are. You could produce indisputable proof that Obama was born in Indonesia and there would be no action taken against him. (God, please let the SCOTUS prove me wrong.) It has already been proven that his mother did not meet the requirements to gift her citizenship to her offspring born outside of the US or a region controlled by the US. Therefore I do not believe that Barack Obama is a citizen of the US let alone a natural born citizen.
---
(from the same thread)
Reply by JohnnyAnt yesterday (April 1)
You are exactly correct, any history buff would agree that Japan during their expansion did not have the resources to fuel their war machine and needed to import resources. Our president Roosevelt, ceased US trade (oil) with the Japanese in response to Japans expansion policy, as a result the Japanese feared the US 7th fleet would take further action and blockade their foreign ocean trade routes . The Japanese decided to take our 7th fleet out with a surprise attack knowing full well we were involved in a war with Germany and would not be able to respond decisively. By the time we were able to respond Japan would by then own the far east and as far south as Australia. The Japanese new full well they could not win a war with the US but figured a treaty would be signed with the war weary US thus allowing Japan to keep their foreign conquests.
Ron Paul is entirely correct and for those who do not know history hope this helps you to see your distorted WWII views
..
Permalink Reply by Stan Stanfield yesterday (April 1)
To clarify:
1) We were not "involved in a war with Germany" at that point. We were giving (Lend-Lease) aid to Great Britain, but the European war didn't blow open into a World War until Pearl Harbor (much to Churchill's delight). As to that:
2) One of FDR's Cabinet members was even quoted long after from his diaries that they hoped that Japan would take the bait. Got that? Our fleet was 'bait,' or to be likened to sitting ducks.
The need to stop Japanese imperialism is another subject. Americans need to understand that they have been used for a very long time by a Cabal of very powerful people bent on controlling the world; and the more we know about that, then the better we can understand global events FOR a very long time.
A good read: Gen. Smedley Butler's 'War Is A Racket'.
▶ Reply
Reply by JohnnyAnt 15 hours ago (April 1)
True, Germany declared war on the US when Pearl Harbor was attacked, but the US saw the war coming our way and was gearing up the factories and readying their troops. The idea that we were using the 7th fleet as bait is absurd, why would the US leave the west coast totally defenseless just to be pulled into a war ? I would think there would be other more less damaging ways. This idea of sacrificing the 7th fleet has been rumored for many years
but not one person from that time in history has ever come forward to disprove that question
▶ Reply
So what you are saying is that the idea of sacrificing your queen is not a bright move!
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Roberto Benitez 9 hours ago (April 1)
Only in desperation is it a good tactic.
US leaders were pretty sure there was going to be an attack, but they didn't know when or where. Some though it might come as early as October or November. Most thought it would be in Malaysian and Indonesia considering the logistics of getting a massive fleet across the Pacific, especially as many discounted what Asians could do.
As JohnnyAnt wrote, there's no proof from people or records of the time that our leaders sacrificed the fleet at Pearl to draw the US into WW II.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Stan Stanfield 1 second ago (April 2)
JohnnyAnt: I'm sorry that I don't have all the info about that whole appalling story at hand, I read it all some time ago. But as for the comment:
"The idea that we were using the 7th fleet as bait is absurd, why would the US leave the west coast totally defenseless just to be pulled into a war ?"
you DO understand that there is a New World Order Cabal behind the geopolitical machinations of history, don't you; for whom the whole POINT was to drag the U.S. into war?? Just as in WWI; and just like it was Western bankers who financed Lenin to go to Russia and stir up the Revolution there??? (See, e.g., the writings of the very respectable researcher Antony Sutton regarding all this sort of thing.) War makes some people very, very rich - and powerful. Powerful enough ultimately to - hopefully, for them - take over the whole world.
You seem a reasonable person. You must understand this.
Bringing this whole thing up to date:
I actually am disgusted with the whole lot of them - Democrats AND Republicans. I was reading an article today in a recent issue of The New American magazine, entitled 'Bye-Bye Debt Limit,' and it is simply appalling how both political parties have driven the American Republic so deeply into debt that it can never make its way out of that horrific hole. I was thinking recently that 'we are getting there' - but this???...
'Kick the can further down the road. Let others deal with it.'
No more. The buck - literally - stops here.
IOUs that are worthless…what the hell were you people thinking.
People talk about our verging on The New Age, or The New World, or The Breakthrough, or Ascension. What makes you think that this kind of consciousness - this kind of sloppy sense of taking responsibility for one's actions - is going to get you - can get you - 'into heaven'?, into such a higher vibratory level than the 3D one that we have inhabited for so long, and played out our Karmic lessons over and over again in??
Have you learned NOTHING???
By rights, you should have to dig yourselves out of the hole that you have put yourselves in.
Maybe the Prime Creator will offer you some Grace.
But if I were in charge…...
…you would have to learn your lessons before you can advance.
Come ON. Get with it.
At least admit to it. 'It': that you have been wrong to do what you have done. Somehow expecting, or hoping, that Daddy and/or Mommy would pick up after you.
What maturity you are evincing………
As far as I am concerned - in this moment; and admittedly I am heated up, after reading the details of the American debt. (My country! You have done this to MY country!!) - you have failed the test. And should have to go around all over again. And again. And again. Until you get it.
Over to you, Prime Creator.
I don't have the heart for this.
Just the Truth of it.
At least, in this moment in time.
Admittedly, a little out of balance.
But sometimes………………...
No comments:
Post a Comment