(a message I just sent to the ‘National Security’ office of the American Legion National Hq. As near as I recall what I wrote to them:)
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
* It has been reported that Obama has purged the military of over 200 of its high-ranking officers;
‘ It has also been reported that the military is demoralized, largely because of the Usurper’s downsizing of its personnel and material, and for other reasons (including the VA scandal);
* the Usurper has allowed the nation to be flooded with Muslim ‘refugees,’ who have not been properly vetted;
* the Usurper has also allowed the nation to be flooded with illegal aliens, among whom are gang members, other criminals, and terrorists;
* Jade Helm 15 is obviously an exercise to prepare for ‘extracting’ patriot ‘dissidents’;
* It has been reported that Russian military personnel are quietly present in Alaska and other states of the Union, just waiting for their orders.
What is the American Legion doing about it, all.
What is the American Legion GOING to do about it, all.
A lot of good men died and were maimed in the PTO and the ETO of WWII; and also to mention the Founders of this Nation, whom we have just honored for THEIR sacrifices to and for the Nation.
I repeat:
WHAT IS THE AMERICAN LEGION GOING TO DO ABOUT IT, ALL.
signed:
an American Patriot
aka Duane ’Stan’ Stanfield
—
What say YOU, Citizen???
---
As for my reference to the Usurper; this latest posting:
from wnd.com: ‘Sheriff Joe Launches Into Obama’s Birth Certificate - Again’ - July 5
..
I concluded it was fake the day the white house released it. I'm not an image software expert, but I'm advanced enough to know it's fake. There were 3 different layers that my software found because the creator neglected to flatten the image before releasing it. I've seen other arguments that the text and the way the paper wraps vs the text also give it away. So not only is it a forgery, but it's a bad forgery.
The question is why? BHO's mother was an American citizen and modern interpretation is generally that of one parent is a citizen, so are the children. And I think that everybody who voted for him, which was a plurality, would agree and not care. So what difference does it make?
It seems that somebody did a lot of work to cover up his real birthplace for very little gain.
4
•
Reply
- kibitzer3 Anthony Cavalea IV • 3 minutes ago (July 5)
Just for the record, and for truth's sake, Anthony: Please, you and others understand, that it is not a question of whether he was/is a "citizen" or not. That particular office - & that particular office ONLY - requires the person to be a certain KIND of citizen; a more EXCLUSIVE kind of citizen. The point on the part of the constitutional Framers being to make sure that the person in that office - who would as well then become the Commander in Chief of the nation's military forces; a key factor here - 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.
A "natural born" citizen is one born on the soil (jus soli) of TWO (in this case, U.S.) citizen parents (jus sanguinis). Which rules out Obama. And Cruz. And Rubio. And any other less-than 'natural born' citizen. And we need to get back to the rule of law in this country, and fast. Or we will be permanently under the rule of men. A/k/a arbitrary law. A/k/a tyranny. As Obama is showing us, and in spades.
And about to get worse. If we don't correct our error. And tell the Usurper to remove himself. Or be removed. Before he, and his New World Order mates, arrange for a manufactured crisis big enough for the Usurper to declare Martial Law, and eliminate the Constitution in one fell swoop that way; rather than by the death of a thousand cuts that he has been employing. And is. As we speak.
---
...and here, at the end of my day (night owl that I am), a final thought:
What Comes Next
A three-pronged ‘walk’ on Washington (symbolizing the Father, the Mother, and the Holy Spirit; taking over the Ground Zero of the Republic raised by Source for this End Times purpose), asserting the end of the Illusion - of the matrix; of the 3D realm of lies and distortions; of greed and deceit; of Power Over, rather than Power With.
And I will take over now. And help lead us into the realm, the state, of Unconditional Love.
Which we can only enter by having accomplished it. Resonated with it, each within ourselves.
A three-pronged ‘walk’ on Washington (symbolizing the Father, the Mother, and the Holy Spirit; taking over the Ground Zero of the Republic raised by Source for this End Times purpose), asserting the end of the Illusion - of the matrix; of the 3D realm of lies and distortions; of greed and deceit; of Power Over, rather than Power With.
And I will take over now. And help lead us into the realm, the state, of Unconditional Love.
Which we can only enter by having accomplished it. Resonated with it, each within ourselves.
P.S. The Usurper can make a farewell statement, before he submits himself into the hands of Federal Marshals, and is held for a fair trial. Don’t call it his Farewell Address; that sort of thing is reserved only for legally sitting presidents.
As for the Dark forces that have been behind this whole sorry scenario, of pretend kingship, for centuries...
I will have more to say, later.
For now, a good night.
4 comments:
Re: "There were 3 different layers that my software found because the creator neglected to flatten the image before releasing it...."
Answer: Layers are NORMAL when a complex document is scanned and the result is compressed and put into PDF and then the PDF file is opened in Adobe Illustrator.\
Nathan Goulding with The National Review: “We have received several e-mails today calling into question the validity of the PDF that the White House released, namely that there are embedded layers in the document. There are now several other people on the case. We looked into it and dismissed it.… I’ve confirmed that scanning an image, converting it to a PDF, optimizing that PDF, and then opening it up in Illustrator, does in fact create layers similar to what is seen in the birth certificate PDF. You can try it yourself at home.”
Obama's birth on US soil---in Hawaii---has been proven by: (1) his Hawaii birth certificate; (2) the repeated confirmation of their sending it to Obama and all the facts on it being the same as what they sent by the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii; (3) the public Index Data file; (4) the birth notices sent to the Hawaii newspapers by the DOH of Hawaii in 1961 (and ONLY the DOH could send birth notices to that section of the papers, and it only did so for births IN Hawaii); (5) the Hawaii teacher who wrote home to her father, named Stanley, after hearing of the birth of a child to a woman NAMED STANLEY from the head of obstetrics at Kapiolani Hospital; (6) the INS inspector who checked on Obama's father's residence status and wrote: "They have one child, born in HONOLULU."
Re: "A "natural born" citizen is one born on the soil (jus soli) of TWO (in this case, U.S.) citizen parents (jus sanguinis)."
Answer: Actually EVERY child born on US soil (and Obama was for sure born on US soil, see the facts above) is a Natural Born US citizen except for the children of foreign diplomats and members of an invading enemy army.
“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)--Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT).
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President ..."---- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
"Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning."---The Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574322281597739634.html?KEYWORDS=obama+%22natural+born+citizen%22+minor+happersett)
"Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.”---Senator Lindsay Graham (December 11, 2008 letter to constituents)
More reading on the subject:
http://www.fredthompsonsamerica.com/2012/07/31/is-rubio-eligible/
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/02/birtherism-2012
http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/04/vattel-and-natural-born-citizen/
http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/scotus-natural-born-citizen-a-compendium.html
Yes, I've seen all your stuff before, 'Anonymous'. And you fail to acknowledge that the whole POINT of the constitutional Framers putting that particular NBC requirement in their contract for that particular office - and that particular office ONLY - was to make sure that the office holder - who would then as well become the Commander in Chief of the nation's military forces; a KEY FACTOR here, in understanding why the more exclusive type of citizen being called for in this particular instance - had NO DUAL/CONFLICTING LOYALTIES OR ALLEGIANCES. As a naturalized citizen would be subject to. And as a DUAL citizen would CLEARLY be subject to.
Evidences of their intention: 1) John Jay's 7/25/1787 letter to G. Washington, as Chair of the Constitutional Convention proceedings, on this precise matter, regarding the SOLE ALLEGIANCE of the potential Commander in Chief of the nation's military forces; and 2) the proposal by A. Hamilton, as a delegate to the proceedings, that the president need only be a, quote, "citizen" - and his proposal was SPECIFICALLY TURNED DOWN, in favor of the more strict NBC requirement.
You have referred to English common law before, and I have told you before, in response, that a) that refers to natural born SUBJECTS, and the Framers certainly did not consider themselves subjects any longer; they were now freemen - sovereigns in their own right, and damn proud of it; and b) they were CLEARLY going by the definition in E. de Vattel's 'The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law'. The sources that you cite to the contrary either a) didn't do their homework, or b) are 'part of the problem' - are part of the Cabal's forces attempting to take over the nation, and merge it into being a mere part of a region - called a trading/economic zone - of their totalitarian, corporate New World Order. Bottom line: I reject your position on this matter totally,
Re: "ONLY - was to make sure that the office holder - who would then as well become the Commander in Chief of the nation's military forces; a KEY FACTOR here, in understanding why the more exclusive type of citizen being called for in this particular instance - had NO DUAL/CONFLICTING LOYALTIES OR ALLEGIANCES. As a naturalized citizen would be subject to. And as a DUAL citizen would CLEARLY be subject to."
IF the writers of the US Constitution wanted to bar dual citizens from becoming president, they would have said so---but they did not say so.
BTW, they did not believe in divided loyalty. They thought with Blackstone that a person can have only one loyalty----and that was to the country where the person was born.
In a speech before the House of Representatives in May of 1789, James Madison said:
“It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general, place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States.” (As you can see, he listed two possible criteria of allegiance, but he said that the place of birth was the most certain, and it was the only ONE of the two that he listed as applying in the United States. He does not say that they both apply---only that the place of birth applies.)
So there is no evidence that the writers of the US Constitution worried about dual citizenship. It certainly had no effect whatever under the common law where EVERY child born on the soil of the country is Natural Born.
John Jay, BTW, was an EXPERT IN THE COMMON LAW----and that is what he was referring to in his letter. He never said anything about dual citizens or divided loyalty. He referred to the common law (or else he would have said that he was referring to something else), and in the common law not only is every child born on the soil Natural Born, but every child born on the soil (except for those of foreign diplomat parents) legally MUST have allegiance to the country.
Re the allegation that subjects are different from citizens. Do they pull their pants on any differently?
I ask because, duh, subjects and citizens are the same in some ways and different in other ways. That being the case, if there were a difference in the citizen-parent requirements for being a Natural Born Citizen (you allege two) from the subject-parent requirements of Natural Born Subject (none)-----THAT would have been something that the writers of the US Constitution would have told us about----but they never did.
AND there are many quotations from legal scholars at the time---Tucker (two quotations), Rawle, Kent, Storey and the Lynch v. Clarke case, to name a few----all of which use Natural Born Citizen just the way that the common law used Natural Born Subject, to refer to the PLACE of birth and not to the citizenship of the parents.
And that is why the Chief Justice of the USA swore in Obama after each election (several times in each case), and that is why Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan and Karl Rove and the Republican Party did not object. And that is why the Heritage Foundation book wrote what it did, and it is right----and you are wrong.
Post a Comment