1) from patriotupdate.com: 'While Americans Remain Asleep At The Wheel Government Comes For Our Guns' - David R. - Sept. 25
..
Well put, David.
Thanks for the warning shot to wake Americans up to their responsibility in this whole thing going on.
..
So what do you think we should do? Vote? Raid the White House? I'm all for raiding the White House but duh!!! It's gonna take more than just me.
I don't mean to be sarcastic! oh yes I do! I'm sick of getting blamed for something that these 535 legislators THAT WE PAY FOR SHOULD BE BLAMED FOR. IF We GET TO VOTE in November. I'm saying VOTE EVERY INCUMBENT OUT none are worth anything and none should remain in their office.
CLEAN HOUSE. We are already flying a black flag at the WH with an already ineligible president and those 535 legislator let it happen.
So that's my opinion. Now what DO YOU THINK WE SHOULD DO?
Reply
- kibitzer3 monacall • a few seconds ago (Sept. 26)
-
1) A delegation of retired Oathkeepers quietly go to the WH and inform Obama that his days there are over, that they have all sorts of criminal evidence on him - his ineligible background, his bribe to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, etc. etc. - and if he doesn't resign and go quietly and take his chances in a - legitimate - court of law, it will go worse for him otherwise; backing up their ultimatum:
2) A peaceful gathering of Oathkeepers, retired and current, with a multitude of Patriots having their backs, in Washington, D.C. (with alternative media covering everything going on, 24/7), to call for and see a) Obama either resign or be removed from the Oval Office, and b) the sitting Congress dissolved, for dereliction of duty in regards to its constitutional responsibility to rein in a rogue Executive; further, to
3) Appoint an Officer of The People, to hold the Executive space until new elections can be held; in the meantime, for this representative of The People to head up a clean sweep of the executive branch of government of those individuals who have been complicit in the attempted takeover of the American federal constitutional Republic, and its 'fundamental transformation' into a mere region of a socialist New World Order, with total surveillance and control of the populace going on.
More on which is another subject. But this should do, for a start.
2) Responding to your message - The Eligibility Requirements for President of the United States
|
September 25, 2014
Dear Stan,
Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns regarding the eligibility requirements for serving as President of the United States. I appreciate hearing your concerns and welcome the opportunity to respond to your comments.
As you may know, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States establishes three eligibility requirements to be President: (1) be at least 35 years of age, (2) be a resident of the United States for 14 years, and (3) be a natural born citizen. President Barack Obama meets these three requirements.
President Obama is a United States citizen, born at Kapi'olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961. This information is included in his long form birth certificate, which can be reviewed on the White House's website at the following link: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf. For further information on President Obama's birth records, please visit the State of Hawaii's Department of Health website.
Again, thank you for taking the time to contact me about this important issue. Your comments help me to better represent the people of our Congressional District. Please stay in touch, and if I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to email me through my website at www.lowenthal.house.gov or call my Washington, D.C. office at (202) 225-7924.
|
-
my email response pn Sept. 26 to Cong. Alan Lowenthal, California's 47th District
Dear Cong. Lowenthal,
You have just sent me an email responding to my concerns about the constitutional eligibility of Barack Obama to be in his position. You cited evidence - such as it is - that he is a, quote, "citizen," and seemed to think that that was the end of the matter.
It is not. Read the eligibility requirements in the Constitution for that office again. You will see that it says that the candidate must be a, quote, "natural born" citizen. What can this possibly mean?
1) It means that just being a "citizen" is not sufficient for that office.
2) A reading of the history of the mater [sic] will show that the constitutional Framers were trying to make sure - at least as sure as THEY could - that the candidate - who would also become the Commander in Chief of the nation's military forces, upon election - did not have any DUAL OR OTHERWISE CONFLICTING LOYALTIES OR ALLEGIANCES. Like a naturalized citizen. And like a DUAL CITIZEN. Like Obama. Who was born a BRITISH SUBJECT.
A "natural born" citizen being one born a) on the soil (jus soli) b) of two (in this case, U.S.) citizen parents (jus sanguinis). How could it be otherwise? The whole POINT of the exercise was to make sure that the person did not have any foreign influences or allegiances. And to drive this point home: At the Constitutional Convention, Alexander Hamilton made a proposal regarding the eligibility requirements for the office of the presidency, that the person NEED ONLY BE A 'CITIZEN' - AND HIS PROPOSAL WAS REJECTED.
Please respond to my concerns in the spirit with which they are tendered - that is, genuinely.
Sincerely,
'Stan' Stanfield
No comments:
Post a Comment