On Invitations

1) Today I received in the snail mail an invitation from Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum to their 44th Annual Leadership Council, concentrating on how it is "absolutely urgent that we elect a conservative president" in 2016.  my reply:

'Dear Phyllis,

'Thank you for the invitation to your 'Eagle Council XLIV;' but if all goes well, there won't be a 2016 election.  Hopefully, by then we will be deep in the establishing of the kingdom of Heaven.

'See you there.'

(signed)

P.S. See puzo1.blogspot.com for more info.

-

2) And I received in the same mail as well an invitation from the National Republican Senate Committee to renew my membership in their august body.  Another turndown.   My reply to this invitation:

'Dear Roger [Wicker, Chairman],

'How come the Republican Party hasn't called Obama and the Democrat Party on his illegality for that office, and seen that he is removed from it as the Usurper that he is?  A situation that should have been taken care of long before this.  If you were a proper opposition party, that is.

'Unless you had a reason to demolish the Constitution on the issue yourselves...'

(signed)

-

Can't say that I don't get invitations to things.  But somehow, their occasions never seem to be in sync with my take on things...

--

...and just to emphasize the point immediately above:

from tea party.org: ‘Texas Attorney General: Marriage Ruling “Lawless”’ - June 28/9 (orig. posted at texasattorneygeneral.gov) 

(A hard-hitting response by Texas AG Ken Paxton)

..

Stan Stanfield · Top Commenter · Stanford University (June 29)

Glad to see The People beginning to stand up forcefully to this rogue government that is in place at this time, in the Executive and, with the Usurper's appointments to the SCOTUS, in that body also. 

It also demonstrates, and in spades, the dangers in a) trusting our leaders to be doing the right thing, and b) allowing the Constitution to be trifled with; in this case, not holding the presidential office to the Constitutional requirement that the occupant needs to be a "natural born" citizen - i.e., one born on the soil (jus soli) of TWO (in this case, U.S.) citizen parents (jus sanguinis). The point having been to make sure that the occupant - who would as well become the Commander in Chief of the nation's military forces - had NO DUAL/CONFLICTING LOYALTIES OR ALLEGIANCES. As a naturalized citizen would be subject to. And as a DUAL citizen would CERTAINLY be subject to. Like, er, Obama. 

The Republican Party obviously went along with this charade in order to slip their own illegal candidates through that rent in the Constitution - both sides having found out the difficulty in getting a constitutional amendment going through Congress on the issue, by having tried 8 times between them between 2003 and '08 to do just that - and failing to get the attempts even out of committee each time, so sensitive was the issue. So what did they do? They did an end-around on the Constitution, and the American people. Who need now to rise up and take their country back from the Constitution wreckers. That means both the Democrat AND the Republican parties.

This is war, Citizen. Are you prepared to come to the aid of your country, in its time of great need? And that time is NOW.