1) from rightwise.com: ’National Review Makes Bombshell Announcement…What They’ll Do If Trump Gets the Nomination’ - March 3
..
The National Review is not conservative as in the way most people think, of liberal vs conservative. The NR is internationalist, on the side of corporate internationalism. They are a part of the New World Order crowd. They want the U.S. to become a mere cog in the internationalist machine.
Trump is standing between the socialists/communists on the far Left - and the RINOs in the center-left - and the fascists on the far Right, waffling a bit around the middle. The Republican Party is undergoing a major rift in its ranks; and it's high time that it did. The Establishment GOP wants to take the U.S. down a road that Middle America (what's left of it) doesn't want to go. And good on them for resisting these big-government s.o.b.'s on both ends of the political spectrum. Trump may not be perfect. But if it's perfect you want, die and go to heaven. We’ve got work to do down here in the real world; working with what we’ve got.
—
2) from raisetheflagreport.com: ’Ted Cruz Co-sponsors Bill that Could Be Bad for Homeschoolers’ - March 3
(A lot of Cruz supporters on this site)
..
Good to keep an eye on the details of such maneuvers. You can't trust Cruz on anything. He is in the pocket of the NWO crowd. How do I know? Because, as a (self-reported) constitutional law scholar, believing in 'originalism', he should know that he is not eligible for the office of POTUS, and is banking on the same media control, and major political-party control over the judicial branch (so far), that has allowed Obama to be in and remain in the Oval Office illegally as well.
As Cruz should well know, the original definition of a 'natural born citizen' is a person born in the country (or its equivalent) of citizen parents thereof, who were its citizens at the time of the person's birth. The definition is from the definitive tome of the day on such subjects, E. de Vattel's 'The Law of Nations, Or Principles of Natural Law'. Cruz is counting on various obfuscations that have crept in over the years on the issue of the precise definition; but the eligibility requirement ITSELF remains the same. Until a constitutional amendment changes it. Of which, there has not been one yet. Although, both major parties tried a total of 8 times between them, between 2003 and '08, to get just such an amendment starting through Congress - and they failed each time even to get their proposals out of committee, such was the sensitivity around this particular issue (the common denominator to all of the proposals). So: THEY KNEW. And know. That a) Obama is a Usurper; and b) They are trying to make two wrongs make a right, and thereby drive a coach and horses through the wall of the Constitution, to make of it a mere plaything of TPTB, where words mean what they say they mean. Which is the end of the rule of law in the country, and its replacement with the rule of men. Aka arbitrary law. Aka tyranny.
That would be the outcome, if Cruz, and Rubio, are not stopped in their political-party-backed attempts to demolish the Constitution; the better to merge the U.S. into the New World Order desired of said PTB. Which would be the end of essential liberty on this planet, and its replacement with a totalitarian empire run by the Elite. Thank you, no thank you, all the same.
--
3) from constitution.com: ‘Is Ben Carson An Obnoxious Narcissist?’ - Rob Knowles = March 3
--
3) from constitution.com: ‘Is Ben Carson An Obnoxious Narcissist?’ - Rob Knowles = March 3
(The author is a Cruz supporter, blaming Carson for not helping his candidate by dropping out.)
..
Houston Hammac · Auburn University (March 3)
Rob Knowles is a demongogue (sic). You write for the Constitution.com and you support someone that is not eligible for president of the U.S.A.? Ted Cruz is NOT a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. Ted Cruz has only been a NATURALIZED CITIZEN since 2014, until then Ted Cruz was a Canadian citizen.
Here we go with that nonsense again. This has been long taken care of, and he is 100% eligible, as constitutional lawyers have already deemed. But all one has to do is read the constitution to know, pretty simple. Your argument is like saying if an american citizen goes on vacation to Germany for 2 weeks and births a child there, then comes back, that child is never eligible. Ludicrous! He held a dual citizenship until 2014, not even knowing he had a dual. Once he was informed, he ridded the canadian one, never having any use for it, as it is only American committments he was interested in.
Like · Reply · 
8 · 9 hrs · Edited
8 · 9 hrs · Edited
Damon Schmidt No, it has NOT been taken care of. A natural born citizen should have two parents subject to the laws of the US. No matter where Cruz was born, he does not meet that standard.
Unlike · Reply · 1 · 3 hrs
1 · 3 hrs
Karl Stecher Never mind your "standard" exists nowhere in the constitution, in law or in practice. I carry no water for Cruz but I don't have to like him to know he isn't a naturalized citizen, inheriting his US citizenship from his mother. Tht is the real standard, a more than 200 year-old fact that only the birthers are too ignorant to understand. See http://harvardlawreview.org/.../on-the-meaning-of.../ among many many others.
Like · Reply · 3 hrs
Stan Stanfield · Stanford University (March 4)
Mike Fleshman: You need to do a little more homework than just take the word of a couple of Harvard lawyers on this issue, looking to support one of theirs. If you dig really deep, you will find that the constitutional Framers, in putting the 'natural born' requirement in their contract for that particular office - and that particular federal office ONLY; which is a tipoff as to their meaning and intent - were going by the definitive tome of their day on such issues, E. de Vattel's 'The Law of Nations, Or Principles of Natural Law,' which gives the definition of a 'natural born' citizen as a person born in the country (or its equivalent) of citizen parents thereof, who were its citizens at the time of the person's birth. (All of that is what makes it 'natural'.) The whole POINT of their including this requirement for that office is because of the sensitivity of the office, whose occupant also becomes the Commander in Chief of the nation's military forces. They were looking to make sure that the occupant had NO DUAL OR OTHERWISE CONFLICTING LOYALTIES OR ALLEGIANCES OR INFLUENCES. Had SOLE ALLEGIANCE to the U.S. And ESPECIALLY regarding the father, from whom citizenship descends legalistically speaking.
Subsequent permutations on the term have no bearing on the eligibility requirement ITSELF. To change that would require a constitutional amendment. None has been forthcoming so far. Although, both current major political parties tried, a total of 8 times between them, between 2003 and '08, to get an amendment started through Congress on this VERY ISSUE - and failed each time even to get their proposals out of committee, such was the sensitivity around this issue. So: THEY BOTH KNEW. And KNOW. So: What's going on here? Good guess: Both major political parties have been trying to get someone with foreign influences into that office, to help take the U.S. into TPTB's New World Order. Another story, in itself. But the bottom line is the same: Neither Obama, Cruz, nor Rubio are constitutionally eligible for that job. And if we are to keep our Constitution, we need to honor it. Not be a party to its trashing, like these bozos running things these days are trying to do.
Out with them. The whole lot of them. A clean sweep. And if it takes a revolution to do that, then that's what it takes. But 'appeasement' - and moral confusion - certainly doesn't cut any ice.
---
I want to say to these ersatz-conservative Cruz supporters (or even if they are trolls):
'You do understand that you are advocating the trashing of the Constitution? And thus the breaking of the constitutional contract?? And thus the dissolution of the United States???
'If you don't understand that, you need to wake up to it. To the fundamental fact that actions have consequences; and you are flirting with terrible consequences to your actions.'
-
I want to say to these ersatz-conservative Cruz supporters (or even if they are trolls):
'You do understand that you are advocating the trashing of the Constitution? And thus the breaking of the constitutional contract?? And thus the dissolution of the United States???
'If you don't understand that, you need to wake up to it. To the fundamental fact that actions have consequences; and you are flirting with terrible consequences to your actions.'
-
And let me clarify right here and now: There is no advancing beyond this point for anything less than the Truth of things. For, The Drama is over. It's time for (drum roll:)
the real thing. And 'the real thing' - that realm of energy; even at its entranceway, threshold levels - will brook no immorality. No taint of Untruth. For, it is made up of Truth.
And Love. And nothing can, will be allowed to, tarnish those pristine qualities. Only things of like resonance will be able to 'take' - withstand - the energies of those realms. Or they will be annihilated; like anti-matter to that 'matter,' that quality of essence.
So, get your act together. Or be left behind.
Harvest time is here. And only the fruit that is ready will be harvested, this season around.
And you can take that to the bank. (So to speak.)
P.S. Oh - and to make even more clear, perhaps:
When I have spoken about The People, and the right of The People to rule themselves, I make the same caveat that the Founding Fathers of the American experiment in self-governance made, about, to them, the difference between a democracy and a republic, with the former to be abhorred. To say: I am all for The People, as long as The People don't immorally think to 'vote themselves money out of other people's pockets' - use that sort of mentality, that low level of consciousness - and thus become, rather, The Rabble.
We have a Mob running things today. Just changing the makeup of The Mob in charge of things is not the answer, to
the future.
Which is here.
Now.
P.S. Oh - and to make even more clear, perhaps:
When I have spoken about The People, and the right of The People to rule themselves, I make the same caveat that the Founding Fathers of the American experiment in self-governance made, about, to them, the difference between a democracy and a republic, with the former to be abhorred. To say: I am all for The People, as long as The People don't immorally think to 'vote themselves money out of other people's pockets' - use that sort of mentality, that low level of consciousness - and thus become, rather, The Rabble.
We have a Mob running things today. Just changing the makeup of The Mob in charge of things is not the answer, to
the future.
Which is here.
Now.
No comments:
Post a Comment