(Some of you will know about 'The Screwtape Letters,' by C.S. Lewis; a fanciful set of letters sent by a devil to his nephew. Herewith such a letter, though sent by a rather 'nother type of being:)
Dear Nephew,
(more personal matters excluded in this reprint, of a reply sent to a series of questions/subjects profferrd by said Nephew)
* Ted Cruz: As a staunch conservative, you really need to understand this thing about presidential 'eligibility'. He is not eligible for the POTUS, just as Obama was, and is, not (and I am still trusting that the Truth will catch up with him). TPTB - including in both the Democrat AND the Republican Parties - are trying to pull a fast one on the American People on this matter, and they/we need to rise to the occasion, and come out strongly on the side of the Constitution, or it is finished as the law of the land, and we'll simply be at the mercy of despots, for whom the law is whatever they say it is. Here's the way to understand the issue:
The whole POINT of the constitutional Framers putting that particular requirement - of needing to be a "natural born citizen" - in their contract for that particular office - and that particular office ONLY, may it be fully recognized for the clue that it is [to its purpose & intent] - was so that the person, if elected - who would then as well become the Commander in Chief of the nation's military forces - would have NO DUAL/CONFLICTING LOYALTIES OR ALLEGIANCES. As a naturalized citizen would be subject to. And as a DUAL citizen would be subject to. The term means a person born on the soil (or its equivalent) of two U.S. citizen parents - thus having no other loyalties or allegiances at birth.
The Founders and the constitutional Framers were particularly sensitive about this matter, having just fought a War of Independence from a foreign power, and they weren't about to let the new nation fall under its sway by the back door, as it were. The key evidences for this take on the intended definition:
* John Jay, a statesman of the day - who subsequently became the first Chief Justice of the new U.S. Supreme Court, such was the respect for his wisdom and his judicial acumen - wrote a letter to G. Washington in his role as Chair of the Constitutional Convention, when the subject of setting qualifications for the presidency came up (he was not a delegate to the Convention), in which he made this very point: that, as the president as well became the Commander in Chief of the nation's military forces, it should not devolve to any but "a natural born citizen," i.e., one having no other allegiances. (letter dated 7/25/1787)
* Alexander Hamilton, who was a delegate, made a proposal at the Convention that the president need only be a "citizen" - and his proposal was SPECIFICALLY TURNED DOWN, in favor of the more stringent category of citizen, of a "natural born" one.
* There is all manner of evidence that the Framers were very familiar with the main book on these subjects, by E. de Vattell, titled 'The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law,' wherein he gives this definition of the term. (Some Obama supporters have tried to argue that they were going by English common law; but that talks about "natural born SUBJECTS". And those men certainly did not consider themselves 'subjects' any longer, after the War of Independence, and the creating of a republic. They were freemen now - and damn proud of it. They were clearly going by American common law, aka Natural Law, after de Vattell's definitive description of such.)
And perhaps the main clincher:
* a book published in 1789 by David Ramsay, one of the Founders, who used this same definition of the term; proving the American statesmen of the time knew precisely what they meant by the term. (See puzo1.blogspot.com for more on all this, including the title of Ramsay's 'essay'.)
And there has been no constitutional amendment since, to alter the law on this matter. But a tipoff that both political parties knew very well what the term meant was that between 2003 and 2008 both parties (mostly the Democrats) tried a total of 8 times to get a constitutional amendment going through Congress on this very point - and failed every time even to get it out of committee, such was the sensitivity around the issue. So it's obvious what happened: the leaders of the Republican Party got together with their counterparts in the Democrat Party and said (the equivalent of): 'We won't say anything about your man (i.e., Obama in '08) if you won't say anything about any candidate that we might plan to put up in the future who doesn't happen to fit the letter of the law.'
I'm sure that they were already thinking of the American demographics, and figured that they might have to go with an Hispanic or otherwise non-natural-born citizen themselves in the future. Whatever the specifics of the deal worked out between them, a) it is illegal; and b) it will all come out in a court of law, when they both have to face the music, on RICO-Statute proceedings ('Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization'). By which they are both going to be taken down; and that will be the end of the Democrat and Republican Parties.
When the Truth catches up with them. As it will. As it will.
So: bottom line: No, Cruz is not eligible for the office. Nor is Rubio. Nor Jindal. None of them is a 'natural born' citizen. And don't let anybody tell you, or try to convince you of, anything different. They are at best being misled, by people who are trying to hijack the American Republic, and turn it into just a part of a region - call it the North American Union - of their planned-for New World Order. A totalitarian world state, that will brook no nonsense from The People.
And whose plans must be thwarted. And asap. Before Obama & Co. create a 'national emergency,' which gives him the authority to declare Martial Law, and thus eliminate the Constitution in one fell swoop; rather than the death by a thousand cuts that he is is employing now.
* I don't recall the question regarding the Thomas Jefferson quotes. I sent you some more from him. Another good one:
"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government; so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first." And another one, while I'm at it:
"To appoint a monarchist to conduct the affairs of a republic is like appointing an atheist to the priesthood." And Obama is certainly like unto a 'monarchist'. Or rather, the Monarch itself.
That's enough for this email. Just to finish: I don't know enough about Rick Santorum to comment on him. I will just say, that if Truth prevails in time, there won't BE a Republican Party for elections in 2016. Nor a Democrat Party either. It will be a whole new ballgame by then.
And in more ways than one.
--
...and as an indication of how 'hot' things are becoming:
from dailysignal.com: ’Texas Attorney General: ‘If the Law Matters’, Courts Will Side With States in Fight Over Obama Immigration Policy’ - Josh Siegel - April 9; posted April 10)
(“As a federal appeals court considers whether to keep or rescind a hold on Obama’s immigration program, the attorney general of the state leading the charge against the president’s executive actions “is very confident” the plaintiffs will win out.
“All I can tell you is, based on the law, I feel very confident,” said Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in an interview with The Daily Signal. “I am very confident we are right on the law. And if the law matters, we will do very well.”…)
..
Stan Stanfield · Top Commenter · Stanford University (April 10)
Thanks for this report, Josh.
"Based on the law..." Based on the law, not only is Obama into potentate territory in this matter, he shouldn't be in that office in the first place. He is not a "natural born citizen", as defined at the time it was made law in the Constitution - and there has been no constitutional amendment since then to change that law. (Which is defined as one born on the soil of U.S. citizen parents - PLURAL.) So he simply needs to be arrested, and held for trial, on a whole host of charges, that stem from that first defilement of the law.
And both the Democrat Party AND the Republican Party be taken to court, and charged under RICO-Statute proceedings, for having engaged in collusion to defraud the American people on this extremely important constitutional matter.
Or haven't you noticed all the illegal acts that the Usurper has been engaging in ever since. Let's face it: He was INVITED to do precisely what he is doing. Our bad.
No comments:
Post a Comment