First, a comment on the public scene in general, and specifically pointing up why we can't trust the judicial branch of government for a redress of our grievances:
from conservativetribune..com: ‘SHOCK: Court Delivers MASSIVE Second Amendment Ruling… This Is VERY Bad’ - April 16 (orig. posted at YoungConservatives.com - Andrew Mark Miller - April 14; and a quote therein orig. from Washington Examiner)
..
The whole point of the Sandy Hook FEMA Exercise, played out as the real thing, was to keep pressure on to get effective weapons of self-defense out of the hands of the American public, so that the New World Order crowd can take the country over with as little 'fuss' as possible. This judge is just going along with the agenda.
It would be interesting to find out who appointed this judge, and what her background is. We really need to look after ourselves, these dangerous days - and not from guns in the hands of lawful citizens. But in the hands of our erstwhile Masters.
—
2) from freedomoutpost.com ’Ted Cruz Considers another Ineligible Man for Vice President’ - Tim Brown - April 16
(Reports that Cruz is considering Rubio for his VP running mate. Grrrrr…………..)
Cruz has been declared a Natural born United States citizen by 8 different judges at least. How many do you need to give the same opinion. He is as Anerican as John McCain. Go F off if you don't know what your talking about, I'm sick of this statement.
Sorry sir but first we had obummer then congress and now our defunct benches who do not know what a Natural Born Citizen is according to our Constitution meaning that the child must be born in the US to both parents who are US citizens. Read Vattel's Law of Nations (1758) used by our Founding Fathers for the definition.
Unlike · Reply · 
4 1 hr
4 1 hr
Tim Brown Works at Setting Brushfires
Actually, he hasn't, cases were dismissed and no real ruling given, not that they had the power to rule in the first place. Try reading Vattel Gayle, which is what the framers read. He defined NBC, not the courts.
Unlike · Reply · 3 1 hr
3 1 hr
Suzanne St John Rombach The Founding Fathers read many philosophers and writers such as Vattel. There is ZERO proof and always will be that they used a treatise on International Law to decide a domestic issue. Say all you want, but you HAVE NO PROOF !!!!!!!
Like · Reply · 1 · 57 mins
1 · 57 mins
Stan Stanfield Stanford University (A[pril 16)
Craig Hardy: How about this for proof, friend. John Jay, a leading statesman of the day - and who, not so incidentally, ended up becoming the first Chief Justice of the new U.S. Supreme Court, such was the respect for his perspectives on political matters - wrote a letter to G. Washington, in his role as Chair of the Constitutional Convention proceedings, urging that the office of the presidency be made open only to 'natural born' citizens, for the EXPRESS PURPOSE of keeping the occupant, who would as well then become the Commander in Chief of the nation's military forces, from having foreign loyalties or allegiances of influences - and his advice was taken, over the proposal of Alexander Hamilton, as a delegate to those proceedings, who proposed that the president need only be "born a citizen".
What could the difference be? Two choices: English common law - which speaks of 'natural born SUBJECTS'; which those men certainly were no longer, having fought a long and bloody War of Independence to free themselves from such rule, and having proudly become freemen. Or American common law, aka Natural Law. Based on de Vattel's definitive tome of the day on such subjects, 'The Law of Nations, Or Principles of Natural Law'. Which was taught in the universities of the day. And which it is known that Benjamin Franklin, the Framers' elder and respected mentor, and who was sitting right there amongst them as a delegate himself to those self-same proceedings, had three copies of. If any of the delegates were not sure what the definition of a 'natural born' citizen was, all they would have had to do was ask Franklin, who knew very well what the term meant - and signed off on it, as en eligibility requirement for the office of the presidency. Which stands TO THIS DAY, absent a constitutional amendment to the contrary.
The historical record, then, is very clear what they meant by that term: de Vattel, Book One, Ch. XIX, Sect. 212: "...the natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens" - and furthermore: "...those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers..."
Conclusion: They knew PRECISELY what they meant by that term (which needed no explanation in the Constitution of its meaning because of that very reason: it was self-explanatory to these statesmen). And Tim Brown is precisely right in his claim that neither Ted Cruz nor Marco Rubio, nor Barack Obama, are 'natural born' citizens. And we as citizens of the federal constitutional republic of the U.S.A. need to deal with this crucial matter, and quickly. Or we may well not long remain such a nation, under the (constitutional) rule of law. But rather, be roped into being a mere part of a region of a totalitarian New World Order, under the rule of men. Aka arbitrary law. Aka tyranny.
..
Melvyn Foster - You're just another idiot spewing lies. How does the Constitution nullify Vattel's reference? An the Constitution does NOT define any citizenship. What is fact is that Benjamin Franklin wrote letters, that are in the archive records, that prove they used "The Law of Nations" as a reference. Additionally, Founder and Historian David Ramsay Defines a Natural Born Citizen in 1789. David Ramsay (April 2, 1749 to May 8, 1815) was an American physician, patriot, and historian from South Carolina and a delegate from that state to the Continental Congress in 1782-1783 and 1785-1786. He was the Acting President of the United States in Congress Assembled. He was one of the American Revolution’s first major historians. A contemporary of Washington, Ramsay writes with the knowledge and insights one acquires only by being personally involved in the events of the Founding period.
Ramsay REAFFIRMS the definition a Natural Born Citizen (born in country, to citizen parents (plural)) in 1789 A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen (1789).
So come on, "Einstein" where does the Constitution nullify Vattel?
Unlike · Reply · 1 · 42 mins
1 · 42 mins
Craig Hardy - What is amazing is that you fucktards actually state these lies like they mean something. There is plenty of proof that the founders not only read Vattel, but relied on it in writing the Constitution. And we know that our Framers carefully studied and relied upon Vattel’s work. I’ll prove it.
How Vattel’s Law of Nations got to the Colonies, and its Influence Here:
During 1775, Charles Dumas, an ardent republican [as opposed to a monarchist] living in Europe sent three copies of Vattel’s Law of Nations to Benjamin Franklin. Here is a portion of Franklin’s letter of Dec. 9, 1775 thanking Dumas for the books:
“… I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author…” (2nd para) [boldface added]
Vattel’s Law of Nations was thereafter “pounced upon by studious members of Congress, groping their way wit....”
Years later, Albert de Lapradelle wrote an introduction to the 1916 ed. of Law of Nations published by the Carnegie Endowment.2 Lapradelle said the fathers of independence “were in accord with the ideas of Vattel”; they found in Vattel “all their maxims of political liberty”; and:
“From 1776 to 1783, the more the United States progressed, the greater became Vattel’s influence. In 1780 his Law of Nations was a classic, a text book in the universities.”(page xxx) [emphasis added]
In footnote 1 on the same page (xxx), Lapradelle writes:
“… Another copy was presented by Franklin to the Library Company of Philadelphia. Among the records of its Directors is the following minute: “Oct. 10, 1775. Monsieur Dumas having presented the Library with a very late edition of Vattel’s Law of Nature and Nations (in French), the Board direct the secretary to return that gentle-man their thanks.” This copy undoubtedly was used by the members of the Second Continental Congress, which sat in Philadelphia; by the leading men who directed the policy of the United Colonies until the end of the war; and, later, by the men who sat in the Convention of 1787 and drew up the Constitution of the United States, for the library was located in Carpenters’ Hall, where the First Congress deliberated, and within a stone’s throw of the Colonial State House of Pennsylvania, where the Second Congress met, and likewise near where the Constitution was framed …” [emphasis added]
So! Vattel’s work was “continually in the hands” of Congress in 1775; Members of the Continental Congress “pounced” on Vattel’s work; our Founders used the republican Principles in Vattel’s work to justify our Revolution against a monarchy; by 1780, Vattel’s work was a “classic” taught in our universities; and our Framers used it at the Federal Convention of 1787. 3
Plus, Founder and Historian David Ramsay Defines a Natural Born Citizen in 1789. David Ramsay (April 2, 1749 to May 8, 1815) was an American physician, patriot, and historian from South Carolina and a delegate from that state to the Continental Congress in 1782-1783 and 1785-1786. He was the Acting President of the United States in Congress Assembled. He was one of the American Revolution’s first major historians. A contemporary of Washington, Ramsay writes with the knowledge and insights one acquires only by being personally involved in the events of the Founding period.
Ramsay REAFFIRMS the definition a Natural Born Citizen (born in country, to citizen parents (plural)) in 1789 A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen (1789).
AND, John Bingham, father of the 14th Amendment, which gave citizenship to American slaves after the Civil War, stated on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives in 1862:
“All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens.”
In 1866, Bingham also stated on the House floor:
“Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”
But of course, proof is not what idiots like you want, you want to continue to regurgitate the lies that will make your candidate eligible in your mind!
Like · Reply · 32 mins
..
normally I enjoy this authors articles but this one is just wrong. There may be room to speculate about cruz's eligibility but not to declare him ineligible when proper legal authorities have said that he was. but even taking the spirit of the law. no one has any reasons to fear that he has divided alegences. now I think that Rubio is a little bit more fair game and would be a bad choice all around. he did not do well showing he is not popular enought to form a useful coalition, he destroyed his chances by voting for amnesty and there is more reason to consider him ineligible. this would be a losing ticket for sure
Stan Stanfield Stanford University (April 16)
Tim Brown was, is, precisely right, and Ted Cruz is self-servingly wrong, The definition of a 'natural born citizen' at the time of its having been codified in the Constitution for the office of POTUS, for which there is considerable historical evidence, is a person born in the country of parents who are its citizens. That is an eligibility requirement for the presidential office (now also for the VP office, as per the 12th Amendment). The only way that that eligibility requirement can be changed is by a constitutional amendment. Of which there has been none.
Not without trying. 8 times, between 2003 and '08 alone, and by both current major political parties, in both the Houses and the Senate - and their proposals failed even to get out of committee each time, such was the sensitivity around this issue. So; THEY KNEW. And know. That they are criminal enterprises, for trying to put this canard over on the American people. And need to be hauled before a - legitimate - court of law, on RICO statutes, and fined and dissolved, for being the criminal enterprises that they have proven to be.
Not to mention that the Usurper in the Oval Office himself needs to be arrested and held for trial, on a whole host of charges by now, including fraud, perjury, and treason. And certainly, people like Ted Cruz being kept from illegally running for the office, and trying to make two wrongs a right thereby.
..
EMERGENCY DIRECTIVE
Comrades! Greetings!
It has come to our attention that a number of the sheeple have become familiar with the Vattel definition of a Natural Born Citizen. We must nip this reactionary activity in the bud! Whenever you can post a response that accomplishes this Mission Purpose, label Vattel a 'dirty white racist,' or 'white racist pig,' whichever epithet is your preferred tool. See your copy of Alinsky's 'Rules for Radicals' to refresh your awareness of the use of such tactics. That is all - for now! Up the Revolution!!
Spartacus
(Oops - did I just post that on my wrong email list???......)
--
As for other players in this Drama:
--
As for other players in this Drama:
1 Comment on Saudis Threaten Asset Dumping Response To Release Of 28 Redacted 9/11 Pages - Rick Wells - April 17
- Stan // April 17, 2016 at 12:30 pm // Reply
(Your comment is awaiting moderation.)
This smacks of a limited hangout. No one is talking about the Five Dancing Israelies on the top of their Mossad business-front moving van across the river from the smoking WTC towers, one gleefully flicking his cigaret lighter in the foreground with the burning towers in the background of the video shot, and when they were released (from having subsequently been caught on one of the bridges with a vanful of explosives) and allowed to go back to Israel, they reported on TV there that they had been at the site to document the Event. Which is proof of advanced knowledge. And all of which includes the fact that there had been a team of Israeli ‘art students’ in the towers prior to the Event, doing something regarding fuses and explosives. The list goes on, of Mossad fingerprints all over the scene, in concert with the Bush Crime Family having been responsible for the security of the buildings, and having engaged in middle-of-the-night activity in them leading up to the Event.
Let’s get the WHOLE truth out regarding that atrocity; which gave the NeoCons the excuse they needed – as “a new Pearl Harbor” – to go into the Middle East in a big way, and attempt to take hegemonic control over it. The Saudis only have a small role to play in the whole thing.
--
...and some Conservatives DO get it.
On Saturday, April 16, 2016 5:30 AM, Stan Stanfield wrote:
Dear Kelleigh (Nelson),
Thank you for your article. [Her column was about a coup attempt against Phyllis 'A Choice Not An Echo' Schlafly of the Eagle Forum, by Board members backing Cruz unhappy with Phyllis for backing Trump.] This is such a tragedy; as well because it highlights how there are so many so-called conservatives-stroke-constitutionalists who don’t have a clue about the Constitution, that they would be backing Ted Cruz for the RP nomination. Or do they seriously believe that two wrongs make a right??
I refer to the constitutional definition of a ’natural born’ citizen, The definition is implied in the background to the whole point about why the constitutional Framers inserted that particular eligibility requirement in their constitutional contract for that particular federal office - and that particular federal office ONLY. The point (as neatly underlined by John Jay’s 7/25/1787 letter to G. Washington in his role as Chair of the C.C. proceedings) was to make sure - at least as sure as they could - that the occupant of that office, WHO WOULD AS WELL THEN BECOME THE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF OF THE NATION’S MILITARY FORCES, had NO DUAL OR OTHERWISE CONFLICTING LOYALTIES OR ALLEGIANCES OR INFLUENCES. As a naturalized citizen would be subject to. And as a DUAL citizen would MOST CERTAINLY be subject to.
The definition that they were going by, for which there is considerable historical evidence, is from the definitive tome of the day on such matters, E. de Vattel’s ’The Law of Nations, Or Principles of Natural Law’. Book One, Ch. XIX, Sect. 212:
“The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens…” and furthermore: “…those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers…”
It is for We the Living to correct the terrible error that this generation made in allowing the seating of an ineligible candidate in that office, the Usurper in the Oval Office as we speak - and definitely NOT to compound the break from the rule of law in the country, in allowing the Republican Party to get away with ‘trying to make two wrongs make a right’ - let alone supporting it in that tragic position.
Sincerely,
’Stan’ Stanfield
P.S. I hope you get my point, about its being “the constitutional definition”. The fact that they gave no definition of the term in the Constitution - which in any event is not a dictionary - shows that they were clearly familiar with the term, and knew PRECISELY what they were doing, when they inserted that requirement in their constitutional contract for that (particular) office. The only way to alter it being by a constitutional amendment. Of which there has been none.
Although there have been attempts to do just that; including 8 times between 2003 and ’08 alone, and between both major political parties, when proposals were made to start a constitutional amendment going through Congress on this very issue - i.e., including the NBC issue as their common denominator - and they failed each time even to get their proposals out of committee, such was the sensitivity around this particular issue. So: THEY KNEW. And know. And so are both guilty of signing off on ineligible candidates for the office. And need to be taken down for their crimes, in a - legitimate - court of law, on RICO statutes, for being the criminal enterprises that they are.
Another, though well related, issue.
Thank you for your article. [Her column was about a coup attempt against Phyllis 'A Choice Not An Echo' Schlafly of the Eagle Forum, by Board members backing Cruz unhappy with Phyllis for backing Trump.] This is such a tragedy; as well because it highlights how there are so many so-called conservatives-stroke-constitutionalists who don’t have a clue about the Constitution, that they would be backing Ted Cruz for the RP nomination. Or do they seriously believe that two wrongs make a right??
I refer to the constitutional definition of a ’natural born’ citizen, The definition is implied in the background to the whole point about why the constitutional Framers inserted that particular eligibility requirement in their constitutional contract for that particular federal office - and that particular federal office ONLY. The point (as neatly underlined by John Jay’s 7/25/1787 letter to G. Washington in his role as Chair of the C.C. proceedings) was to make sure - at least as sure as they could - that the occupant of that office, WHO WOULD AS WELL THEN BECOME THE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF OF THE NATION’S MILITARY FORCES, had NO DUAL OR OTHERWISE CONFLICTING LOYALTIES OR ALLEGIANCES OR INFLUENCES. As a naturalized citizen would be subject to. And as a DUAL citizen would MOST CERTAINLY be subject to.
The definition that they were going by, for which there is considerable historical evidence, is from the definitive tome of the day on such matters, E. de Vattel’s ’The Law of Nations, Or Principles of Natural Law’. Book One, Ch. XIX, Sect. 212:
“The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens…” and furthermore: “…those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers…”
It is for We the Living to correct the terrible error that this generation made in allowing the seating of an ineligible candidate in that office, the Usurper in the Oval Office as we speak - and definitely NOT to compound the break from the rule of law in the country, in allowing the Republican Party to get away with ‘trying to make two wrongs make a right’ - let alone supporting it in that tragic position.
Sincerely,
’Stan’ Stanfield
P.S. I hope you get my point, about its being “the constitutional definition”. The fact that they gave no definition of the term in the Constitution - which in any event is not a dictionary - shows that they were clearly familiar with the term, and knew PRECISELY what they were doing, when they inserted that requirement in their constitutional contract for that (particular) office. The only way to alter it being by a constitutional amendment. Of which there has been none.
Although there have been attempts to do just that; including 8 times between 2003 and ’08 alone, and between both major political parties, when proposals were made to start a constitutional amendment going through Congress on this very issue - i.e., including the NBC issue as their common denominator - and they failed each time even to get their proposals out of committee, such was the sensitivity around this particular issue. So: THEY KNEW. And know. And so are both guilty of signing off on ineligible candidates for the office. And need to be taken down for their crimes, in a - legitimate - court of law, on RICO statutes, for being the criminal enterprises that they are.
Another, though well related, issue.
Stan, I know exactly what you're saying, and we've found out that Cruz was never an American citizen, his parents WERE BOTH CANADIAN citizens when he was born...Canada didn't even recognize dual citizenship until 1977, and Cruz was born in 70, and left in 74. The reason all his info is sealed (like Obama) is that he's a liar, and we know he's a liar. He's not eligible at all, neither was Rubio, Jindal, or even Santorum. It's very ugly. I've spoken about this at length in previous articles. However, the problem is that if the corrupt courts would actually go by the Constitution and natural born citizen, they'd have to dump 7 plus of Obama and they refuse to do that, so now we've opened the can of worms to rotten filthy foreigners destroying our nation...and we all know that Cruz is an establishment insider. We also know that he is far worse than Obama, but if we tell what we know, we will end up like others who have done the same...and that's not good.
-
My response:
"Thank you for doing what you CAN do about this terrible matter, Kelleigh. You have a 'voice;' citizens like me don't.
"Please keep putting the Truth out there. People will pick it up. Sometimes it takes a little repetition.
"Stan"
--
What a terrible state of affairs. A person with a 'voice' afraid to use it...
...and the potential now for the Federal Reserve Board to talk Obama into declaring a state of national emergency, so that we citizens can be rounded up and herded into FEMA camps, and used for slave labor to pay off the national debt, or be eliminated...
...all this, in the former Land of the free and the Home of the brave...
...and the potential now for the Federal Reserve Board to talk Obama into declaring a state of national emergency, so that we citizens can be rounded up and herded into FEMA camps, and used for slave labor to pay off the national debt, or be eliminated...
...all this, in the former Land of the free and the Home of the brave...
Poor Fella, My Country, indeed.
Needing The Cavalry riding to its rescue.
Led by a rider on a White Horse.
Or essence thereof.
Needing The Cavalry riding to its rescue.
Led by a rider on a White Horse.
Or essence thereof.
No comments:
Post a Comment