Some reflections on a letter in the mail today (Friday), and then a comment regarding my reflections.
The letter was from a conservative member of Congress newly elected in this recent trouncing of Obama's policies,1 who has a stirring story to tell. He is the son of a Cuban mother who was jailed by Castro for being on the wrong side of the revolution that that Marxist dictator brought to that country (no constitutional "due process of law" observed by such a tyrannical leader and regime), and of an Irish-American father who fought in Vietnam against the communists there, and who is a staunch believer in "America's free-market principles". He went on in his letter:2
"I know the Constitution means exactly what the Founding Fathers wrote: It is not a 'living' document with a meaning that 'changes' over time…"
Ah, I thought - was reminded. An example being the fact that Obama was not an eligible candidate for that office in the first place - for not being a "natural born" citizen3 An important subject. Was this guy going to be willing to take on the political Establishment in this country on that issue??? I wondered, hopefully. But was struck in the moment even more by the realization - as this newly-minted Congressman was pointing out - that the 'natural-born' issue wasn't simply a matter of a difference of opinion about the legal meaning and definition of the term. The Left (primarily) thinks of the Constitution as being a wet noodle; that it doesn't really matter to them what the meaning of the term was in its 'original intent'. Thinks the meaning of the term, 'natural born,' has simply CHANGED - at least in their eyes/mindset - and thus is an irrelevance to Obama's election; that there is no big deal in his not meeting the 'original intent' of the term.4
Here I have been trying to get people on the Internet, and in my responses to various of the Republican Party characters who send me letters (asking for money), to look at "the whole point of the exercise" - that the constitutional Framers put that stricter eligibility requirement in there for that particular office in order to make sure that the person who moved into that position of such power, especially in his/her role as Commander in Chief of the nation's military forces, did not have "DUAL/CONFLICTING LOYALTIES OR ALLEGIANCES. Like a naturalized citizen. And like a dual citizen. Like Obama" - and the FACT of the matter doesn't matter to (many of) them. On either side of the political aisle. Because they don't believe in the 'original intent' position ANYWAY. For their political purposes…
To such people I say:
Ladies and gentlemen: You are trifling with Truth. And I won't have it.
You can't just declare, like Humpty Dumpty, that "words mean what (you) say they mean". And - hey presto - as in this case: a contract is changed.
There is an amending process to the constitutional contract. Use it. Or get out of the way. The People are going to start coming through.
For Truth.
--
And then something like the following comes along, and I have to take a breath, and make sure that I am coming from as 'right' a position as I can. This was a comment I made earlier this evening (over my dinner; I multitask all the time) to an article on the subject of our Recognizing Our Enslavement to the world of The Powers That Be:
from wakeupworld.com: 'Recognizing Enslavement' - Sue McIntosh, MD - Jan. 23
..
Stan - Jan. 23
Nice job. Dr. Sue. Succinct and yet comprehensive.
I especially liked your insight regarding resistance. ("What we resist becomes our albatross.") I think a lot of people don't understand the 'non-resistance to evil' advice. Simply Do Good. What you resist, persists in large part on your own energy. Don't feed it. Feed rather the energy - the true coin - of Love. Love one another, as our Creator loves us, and we are free.
-
And I realized - with theses two 'communications' to me so close together in time - that I all too easily slip into thinking, and feeling, for example,5 of Obama as a fake and a fraud, a liar and a cheat and a thief; and that I need to 'cut him some slack'. After all, he is only demonstrating to us our own failings; our own oversight, in not following 'the script' - the Constitution. So - where do I go from here.
I think where I need to go is:
Not to let him 'off the hook,' as it were, totally. After all, he has done wrong. But so have a lot of other people, in letting him get away with it (so far). So, what say I?:
Let him decide to 'fess up, tell the truth, say whatever he wants to in mitigation/setting the record straight, and then leave, under his own steam, with thereby some shred of of self-respect left to him, at least.
And then we really start setting things right. In this country.
And thereby, for the world at large.
Its being a small world, and all.
---
footnotes:
1 "I'm not on the ballot this fall…but make no mistake: my policies are on the ballot - every single one of them." - BHO
2 A letter of appreciation both for my support for his campaign (way over on the other side of the continent), and a donation request for his early gearing-up against his liberal rival, for having won his seat with less than 50% of the (4-way split) vote. With a hugs amount of money having been poured into the race for his liberal opponent.
And the Left keeps harping about the Koch brothers…...
3 Forgetting for the moment whether he is even a citizen of this country, for having had a foreign-national father and a mother who was not old enough at the time of his birth to confer her American citizenship automatically on him; and who most apparently (and according to a school record that has surfaced on the 'net) had become an Indonesian citizen under the aegis of his step-father.
Who we do know about, from the record. But we don't really know who either his birth father OR mother was, since the birth certificate document that he authorized posting on the official White House website is a forgery, or at the least (at this point in time) highly suspected of being, for numerous good solid reasons. He could be, e.g. - especially since Stanley Ann and Barack Obama never lived together; their 'marriage' having all the earmarks of being a 'marriage' of convenience, for both of them (a document for which has never surfaced) - rather the son of the man that Stanley Ann singled out to be his mentor, Frank Marshall Davis - a card-carrying communist. OR he could be the son of another look-alike for a parent: Malcolm X. In the latter of which case, there is reason to believe (see the investigative work of Martha Trowbridge) that his actual birth mother was in fact a 'groupie' (in New York City) of that communist revolutionary, and Stanley Ann could just have been a surrogate mother for the child, a 'fellow' communist whom he was placed with in order to give him far less inflammatory cover, as he grew up, 'destined' - groomed - for high political office in an America that wasn't ready at that time for such a child to make much progress in that sort of direction. (And his true mother, being a Jewess, gave him as well the support of the Jewish communist community. At least until his Muslim cultural experience caused some ripples in the otherwise well-laid plans for him…)
Supporting the thesis of Stanley Ann not having been his birth mother is the fact, at least as having been divulged by a British CIA advisor, that 'they' have a photo of Stanley Ann taken in the late summer of 1961 in a bikini, which shows that she was not in fact pregnant at the designated time (the birth supposedly having taken place in early August). His report divulging as well that 'their' analysis of his DNA (taken from a glass of water; thus containing both fingerprints and saliva)) indicates that neither Stanley Ann nor Barack Obama were his actual birth parents.
But then, what does the CIA know, in this whole messy murky matter. Which could have been avoided in its entirety, if the American people had not trusted the Republican Party to be a proper 'opposition party' in the American two-party system of government, and it had vetted Obama properly before his candidacy took off. Getting back to the subject at hand…
4 Morality being 'relative' to them anyway, in their Marxist/atheistic belief system. As in the belief system of the islamic believers, for whom anything goes if it advances allegiance to their god. Just like the vengeful Jehovah of the Jews.
What a mess we have made of this experiment in free will……
But, we asked for it.
5 I could just as easily have used the example of vaccinations and their multitudinous and devastating side effects, as another example of my easily losing it, with these s.o.b.'s pretending to be scientists in charge of that program, and who won't/refuse to look at the downside of that, in many ways disastrous medical modality. But here, I'm dealing just with The Usurper.
But let me once get going on them…
I'm not a believer in the New Testament story, for many good and well-researched reasons. But I can sure relate to the idea of thinking of those who cause the children to suffer, having a millstone placed around their necks, and tossing them in the deep end…
We've known about all these neurological and other side effects for YEARS. And the madical-pharmaceutical mafia still circle their wagons, and say 'We know best'. Bah.
Anyway. To continue, on this particular thread. But just saying. That there is plenty of blame to go around, these dark days...And me, I guess I'm just still transmuting some old energies, of a reactive type, to let it all get to me so.
But just let me in there, and I'll kick some major ass. Even understanding that, 'at the end of the day,' We Are All One.
Hate the sin. Love the sinner.
Forgive the sinner. In the end. After all, they are providing us with material for soul growth.
No comments:
Post a Comment