Ads To America

Yesterday I played in these pages with the theme of 'If I Were A Rich Man,' as to a full-page ad that I would pay for, in many papers in the country, and on radio and tv; and on billboards - the lot -  pointing out Obama's constitutional ineligibility for the office of the presidency.  I've come up with a variation on that theme: 

TO OUR

CONGRESSCRITTERS:

OBAMA

WAS BORN

A

BRITISH SUBJECT.

WHAT PART 

OF

'INELIGIBLE'

IS IT

THAT

YOU

DO NOT UNDERSTAND???
-
WHEN JUSTICE COMES -
AS
IT WILL -
FOR WE LIVE
IN A 
JUST
UNIVERSE -
YOU ARE ALL
TENTATIVELY
GOING TO JAIL
FOR A 
LONG TIME.
YOU MIGHT AS WELL
CUT A DEAL
NOW
AND GET IT
OUT
OF THE WAY.
WITH
LIBERTY
FOR SOME
AND

JUSTICE
FOR
ALL

-O-

Anybody want to bankroll me on this initiative?  Have Determination - Will Travel.

As regular readers of my 'jottings' will know, I'm quite serious about all this.  It's time to get down to such business.  And we can't look to the Republican Party to 'do it' for us, for leadership on this matter.  As I said in a reply a little over a week ago to a mailing from the National Republican Congressional Committee, in a 'Dear John' (Boehner) note in the place of a requested donation::

"Because the Republicans Party sold out the American people by not honoring the Constitutional requirement for the presidential candidates to be 'natural born' citizens - which does NOT include a person being a dual-citizen British subject - I want nothing more to do with you."  (signed)    

And as I further said, in the same sort of response, in a bipartisan way, just this weekend to the person operating a Draft Ted Cruz site:

"Dear Raz [Shafer],

"Your man is NOT a 'natural born' citizen - i.e., one born on the soil (jus soli) of 2 (in this case, U.S.) citizen parents (jus sanguinis); this requirements being to make sure the office did not go to someone with DUAL OR OTHERWISE CONFLICTING LOYALTIES OR ALLEGIANCES (like a naturalized citizen, or a dual citizen - like Obama) - and so he is NOT ELIGIBLE for the office.  What about the rule of law is it that you don't understand??  I thought  only Democrats were afflicted in that way."  (signed)

We have a lot of cleaning up to do in this country.  We need to be about it.

Tempus fugit.

--

P.S. HOLD IT!  STOP THE PRESSES!  AT LAST!  The rule of law is about to return to the United States!  Dig it:

from Tea Party C.C.: 'Whopper Alert: Chief justice says law, not politics, drives Supreme Court's rulings' - posted by Natl Dir. Dee - Sept. 21

("While political partisanship flourishes in the halls of Congress, it has no place in the chambers of the U.S. Supreme Court, the chief justice said Friday in remarks to Nebraska law students…")

..

Reply by Stan Stanfield 1 second ago (Sept. 21)

Great!  Now that the Supreme Court has declared that Obama is, and was, ineligible for the office of the presidency, for not being a 'natural born' citizen, as required by the Constitution... 

--

And incidentally, worth noting here, I feel, is a comment that a person made at a YouTube site that was linked to from the Comments thread to this article.  The poster here was struck by the naivety of Chief Justice Roberts in believing, or at least stating, that the Supreme Court justices made decisions without regard to politics; that they were there strictly for judicial purposes.  The whopper caused the poster to link us to a talk by the founder of the John Birch Society -        

"Robert Welch, Founder of The John Birch Society, predicted today's problems with uncanny accuracy back in 1958 and prescribed solutions in 1974 that are similar to Tea Party positions today." -

wherein Welch delineated in fine detail the tenets of the Communists, which are all coming into focus in our day.  The commenter to that video, obviously in some degree of political reaction, said:

"It is all about how much we need to be happy.  Do 2 people need a 10 bedroom mansion with 100 acres of land?  I know people like that, and it goes to there (sic) heads."

In reply to which, one is tempted to inquire:

'And?  So what is your primary point?'

I think I know what it was.  And to which I am moved to respond:

'But, Comrade,
What they do
With their money
Is their business.
                   If you
                      feel
That someone
Has stolen
Their money, then
                      let's
                       get
             the matter
                      into
       a court
Of law.
             Otherwise,
        stop
                with this
       'envy'
Shit.'

The bottom line:
No one
Is
'Entitlled' - as
A matter
Of right -
To
The earnings
Of
Any other
Person 

Who is
At
Their core
Too
A spiritual
Being
Having
A human
Experience
And so
'Entitled' to
Their
Free
Will.

And thus due
That
Allegiance.

--

P.P.S. One more thing, further on the above link:

Reply by June Gagnon 1 hour ago

In my latter high school years, our sociology teacher (one Miss Berg) brought up the subject of the JBS, even though it was (at that time) not even a "formal" organization.  This was 1955 (my senior year); according to her "they were evil, a socialist, communist influence that we should NEVER listen to"!  How wrong she was, but it took me about ten years to realize that and discover what the JBS was all about.  John, thanks for producing this video,  for our learning benefit; it helps confirm what I have felt for a very long time and, probably, why I love and adhere to our Tea Party.

• ▶ Reply
  

Permalink Reply by Stan Stanfield 13 seconds ago (Sept. 21)

Ah yes, the "evil" Birchers.  (Very much like the 'birthers' of today.)   What ELSE would those who had designs to overthrow the American form of government, and lock the U.S.A. into their New World Order collectivist plans, have to say about them???  

This was years before the Saul Alinsky 'Rules For Radicals' spelled-out technique, of demonizing your opponents rather than engaging in debate with them.  Plus ca change…