On Exercising Choice - Cont'd

from wnd.com: ‘Ted Cruz’s Electrifying Speech’ - Joseph Farah - March 23

(“Exclusive: Joseph Farah responds to senator's announcement with 'a big hallelujah’”)

..

kibitzer3 • a few seconds ago (March 24)

Cruz is a good man. And, Joseph, what is this business of yours of passing so lightly over the fact that he, like Obama, is not eligible for the office, for not being a 'natural born' citizen? i.e., one born on the soil of two U.S. citizen parents; so that the Commander in Chief of the nation's military forces is not subject to DUAL/CONFLICTING LOYALTIES OR ALLEGIANCES, which was the whole POINT of the exercise in the constitutional Framers putting that particular eligibility requirement in the Constitution for that particular office?? Are you actually standing for the corrupt position of believing that two wrongs make a right???

A truly moral man, Joseph, would say something like, 'Ted Cruz would make a great president, and we need to pass a constitutional amendment allowing non-natural born citizens to be eligible to hold that office, so let's get cracking on that process. And oh yes, that reminds me: Obama is a Usurper in the office, on that very same issue, and don't let us forget that. And so he needs to be removed from the office on that charge alone; and every bit of legislation that he signed into law, and every executive order that he issued, and every appointment that he made, go with him, into the trash bin, where he and they belong.' And THEN I would have some respect for you. Without that, you have lost my respect. A shame. You were a good man yourself.

--

It would appear that this issue is going to be the substantive one for a lot of people, in determining their fitness to advance spiritually, or not.

Make no mistake.  'God' may be Love.  But He/She/It is also Truth.

And apparently even the very elect can be deceived on that score.

The bottom line: We are not going to be able to progress from this compromised point until we learn to live by the Truth of things.  And demonstrate that fact.  And then we can proceed.

It's a Ring-Pass-Not.

--
(a Reply to the above post:)

Francie26 kibitzer3 • 8 hours ago (March 24)

You are amazingly wrong!! Cruz is eligible. Read the requirements from a credible source before you run your mouth. You never did have my respect in the first place, so you haven't lost it with these comments, but you certainly haven't gained it either. You are a sore spot in the American system, as are all who run their mouths without really knowing the facts first.

1

•

Reply

• 
  kibitzer3 Francie26 • a few seconds ago (March 24)
  
  
  Ah, "the facts". Okay, let's go there.
• 
  
• Let's start with the letter by John Jay - a respected statesman of the time (who would end up becoming the first Chief Justice of the new U,S. Supreme Court, such was his reputation for fairness and legal acumen) - to G. Washington in his role as Chair of the Constitutional Convention proceedings, when they began to look at eligibility requirements for the new office of the presidency. It spoke directly to this matter; to wit:

• "Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable [sic?] to provide a strong check to the administration of foreigners into the administration of our national government; and to declare expressly that the commander-in-chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born citizen." I.e., one with NO FOREIGN ALLEGIANCES. And to drive the point further home, there is the additional historical fact - or "inconvenient truth" to some, obviously - that Alexander Hamilton, as a delegate, proposed that the president need only be a "citizen" - and his proposal was SPECIFICALLY TURNED DOWN, in favor of the more stringent requirement, of one born on the soil (or its equivalent) of U.S. citizen parents - PLURAL.
• 
  They were going by the definition of such in E. de Vattel's 'The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law,' which they were well familiar with. And if any of them individually were not sure what they were voting on, they could have asked their respected elder and mentor Benjamin Franklin, who was sitting right there amongst them as a delegate, and who had three copies of the tome - and in addition, there was one in the library of the building in which they were meeting (subsequently known as Independence Hall).
• 
  (Some obots have tried to claim that they were going by English common law - which, however, talks about natural born SUBJECTS. Which these Founding Fathers of a new nation certainly did not consider themselves to be any longer. They were freemen - and damn proud of it.)  [They were going by American common law/Natural Law.]
• 
  What would I do? I would certainly not try to make two wrongs make a right. I would have Oathkeepers evict the Usurper from the (dishonored) office (or by then, seeing the writing on the wall, have him retire), with The People having their backs. Who then could appoint an Officer OF The People to clean out the Augean stables of the federal government - of both the executive branch of government AND the legislative branch, for the Congress failing to do its constitutional duty in this regard. Oh, and to take both major political parties to court (a legitimate court) on RICO-Statute proceedings, for obviously colluding in the hijacking of the office of the presidency, in signing off on Obama's constitutional ineligibility for the office. And we pick up the pieces of the American federal constitutional Republic from there. More on which, another time, another subject.

         Reply

           Christopher T. Farrell kibitzer3 • 3 hours ago

         (LOUD APPLAUD!) Brilliant!

          Reply

• 
  kibitzer3 Christopher T. Farrell • a few seconds ago (March 24)
• 
  Thank you, Christopher. One wonders, sometimes, at what is and has been going on for some time in this country. I think part of our current problem is that so many people have bought into the sophistic idea that 'original intent' doesn't matter in legal matters, that all that matters is subsequent 'precedent'. That is shyster lawyer talk.
• 
  Nothing trumps original intent except an amendment to the contract. ‘Original intent’ is more than a legal theory (as opposed, say, to the corrupt concept of ‘a living document’). It is a legal fact. It is the basis of every contract that has ever been entered into. The Constitution is a contract between the States and the federal government. Period.
• 
  What’s wrong with so many people today in general? They don’t seem to know how to think straight. Granted, they have grown up in a relative environment, with relative qualities, and attitudes. No wonder you’re in such trouble. Well, I for one will hold you to the standard of Truth - including to the standard of the truth of individual things, individual matters.
• 
  
• And the truth here includes the fact that the savvy, ideological Left would love to see the Republicans put Ted Cruz up for the top job. (Or Rubio; or Jindal.) That would cement in place their hijacking of the Constitution, turn it irreversibly into a mere plaything of their tyrannical inclinations. As I say: What’s wrong with so many people that they can’t see that? Theirs is the philosophy of the end justifying the means. That is the philosophy of their enemy. DON'T GO THERE, folks. There lie dragons.

—

Jettison the Constitution, and we jettison the rule of law.  Enter tyrants.

As we have seen.