I keep getting letters from various 'aspects' of the Republican Party, soliciting donations for this, that 'n the other enterprise connected with that political party. I keep writing back my displeasure with that Party for a) not calling the Usurper on his illegality in the office, for not being a 'natural born' citizen, and b) trying to 'make two wrongs make a right' by putting their own ineligible candidates up for that office (Cruz, Rubio, Jindal, and I think Santorum as well), using the 'precedent' of the Usurper's successful hijacking of the office. So far, that is.
How can I be so sure that I am right in this matter?
A: I have done my homework in/on it. And I continue to do so. And the more I look, the more clear it becomes: how terribly we have been served by our modern schools of Law, and their graduates.
Examples of the historical record.
* The constitutional Framers were creating a new nation; they would have well versed themselves in the literature on the subject;
* E. de Vattel's definitive tome on such matters - 'The Law of Nations, Or Principles of Natural Law' - was taught in the universities of the day;
* It was the basis for American common law, aka Natural Law; which the former colonists were clearly going by in the instance, rather than English common law (as some legal-beagle apologists for the Usurper have tried to argue). And as particularly made clear by a statement by George Mason, one of the Virginia delegates to the Constitutional Convention: "The common law of England is not the common law of these states."
But since I'm quoting people directly involved in the matter, let me insert here a section of some good material on the subject. From birthers.org/USC/Vattel; article titled 'Vattel's influence on the term a Natural Born Citizen':
“If it was not Blackstone who they relied on for defining the term Natural Born Citizen [who referenced the term a natural born subject; which these men certainly were not any longer, having fought a long and bloody War of Independence to declare themselves freemen, subject to no king, or other despot, rather now sovereigns in their own right], then the only remaining source is from Vattel. Many of these detractors say we are reaching to extremes to use Vattel, as the source of a Natural Born Citizen clause. Some of there arguments are that the Law of Nations is a (sic) obscure mention to an idea, found in Article I, Section 8. What they fail to mention [is] that this phrase is capitalized[;] if it was an inference to a general idea, it would not have been capitalized. School children know well the rules of capitalization, and the use of the capitalized Law of Nations would indeed make [its use] consistent with a title of a publication. Let us take this and consider if indeed Vattel was a source of inspiration for the Founding Fathers and the Framers of our Constitution. The question we need to understand is were the founding fathers truly influenced by Vattel, or not.
“The answer to this lies with none other than Thomas Jefferson, who penned Virginia’s Citizenship statue in 1779, “Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth and all who have resided therein two years next before the passing of this act, and all who shall hereafter migrate into the same; and shall before any court of record give satisfactory proof by their own oath or affirmation, that they intend to reside therein, and moreover shall give assurance of fidelity to the commonwealth; and all infants wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was, a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner as herein after expressed: And all others not being citizens of any the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens.” As can be seen Jefferson is equating citizenship of the child to that of the parents, and not the land.
“For further proof on the question of Vattel’s influence we only need to look at Benjamin Franklin. In 1775, he observed, the importance of the Law of Nations, on the Founding Fathers and he then ordered 3 copies of the latest editions. The Library Company of Philadelphia which holds one of the three copies, lists the 1775 reference to this book, as “Le droit des gens,” from the publishing house of Chez E. van Harrevelt in Amsterdam, Holland, with a personal note to Franklin from the editor of this edition, C.G.F. Dumas. The fact that this particular volume that Franklin ordered is in French is significant, for at that time French was considered by the “family of nations” to be the diplomatic language, and the 1775 edition was considered the most exact reference of Vattel’s Law of Nations.
“There is no doubt that the Founding Fathers did not exclusively use the English translation, but relied upon the French original. On December 9th of 1775, Franklin wrote to Vattel’s editor, C.G.F. Dumas, “ 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. has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting. Accordingly, that copy which I kept 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.”
“Samuel Adams in 1772 wrote, “Vattel tells us plainly and without hesitation, that `the supreme legislative cannot change the constitution”. Then in 1773 during a debate with the Colonial Governor of Massachusetts, John Adams quoted Vattel that the parliament does not have the power to change the constitution. John Adams as so taken by the clear logic of Vattel that he wrote in his diary, "The Idea of M. de Vattel indeed, scowling and frowning, haunted me.” These arguments were what inspired the clause that dictates how the Constitution is amended. The Framers left no doubt as to who had the right to amend the constitution, the Nation, (that is the individual States and the people) or Legislature (which is the federal government.)
“In the Federalist Papers number 78, Alexander Hamilton also echoed Vattel, and both of the Adams, when he wrote, "fundamental principle of republican government, which admits the right of the people to alter or abolish the established Constitution, whenever they find it inconsistent with their happiness." Then in 1784 Hamilton arguing for the defense in the case of Rutgers v. Waddington extensively used Vattel, quoting prolifically from the Law of Nations. The Judge James Duane in his ruling described the importance of the new republic abiding by the Law of Nations, and explained that the standard for the court would be Vattel. He ruled that the Statues (sic) passed under the color of English Common Law, must be interpreted from the standpoint of its consistency with the law of nations. This concept of Vattel lead to the creation of the Judiciary branch of our government to insure that Congress could never legislate away the provisions of the Constitution.
“In 1794, then President Washington was faced with the first threat to his Neutrality Proclamation of that same year by the Ambassador of France, Citizen Edmond-Charles Genêt to honor their treaty and support France’s wars with England and Spain. In a very rare agreement both Jefferson and Hamilton using Vattel’s Law of Nations they were able to give Washington the international legitimacy not to commit the United States to war in 1793. Genêt wrote to Washington, “you bring forward aphorisms of Vattel, to justify or excuse infractions committed on positive treaties.”
“At this point there can be little doubt that the Framers of our Constitution considered both Blackstone and Vattel, and they choose Vattel over Blackstone. The Founding Fathers placed into Constitutional concept that the loyalty of a Natural Born Citizen is a loyalty can never be claimed by any foreign political power. The only political power that can exclusively claim the loyalty of a natural born citizen is that power that governs of his birth. Vattel by including the parents and place removes all doubt as to where the loyalties of the natural born citizen ought to lie, as Vattel’s definition removes all claims of another foreign power by blood or by soil, and is the only definition that is in accord with Jay’s letter to Washington.”
Regarding this reference to “Jay’s letter”:
“John Jay’s letter [of July 25, 1787; he who became one of the authors of The Federalist Papers, and also became the first Chief Justice of the new U.S. Supreme Court, such was the respect for his acumen on legal-political matters ] to Washington address (sic) this dual and permanent loyalty to England that Blackstone introduces. To George Washington, [in his role as] President of the Constitutional Convention, Jay writes “Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government ; and to declare expressly that the command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.” Jay not only knew of Vattel, as can be seen from his correspondence with James Madison in 1780 during treaty negotiations with Spain, but he was also a proponent of Vattel as well…”
I may have exceeded the attention-span interest of you, dear Reader, in this subject, and so I will leave off at this point. Except just to summarize:
I feel so strongly about this matter that I could easily have been, and was quite possibly, one of those men directly involved in this whole subject - or overlit them - so naturally does it come to me to mourn, and be angry about, what has happened, and is happening,
to MY country.
Not MY country, you won't, you would-be nation wreckers.
Hands - off.
I am a man of peace. But I am also a fierce servant
of Truth. And Justice.
And Truth, and Justice, will prevail, in this matter.
As in others of our time.
For, it is that time.
In any event - before the Event - it boggles the mind. What could have possessed legalistically- minded persons even to think that a 'natural born' citizen could describe a person born of a non-citizen parent? And especially the father, from whom citizenship historically descended??
Even a six-year-old can read plain English...
Which gave the game away, if anything did. And so I say:
Dear Republican Party:
Barack Hussein Obama did not have an American-citizen father. So he is not a 'natural born' citizen on that count alone. So he needs to be out of there.
Now, Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. may not have been his real birth father, for all we know; with the copy of the Usurper's birth certificate that he has posted on the official White House website proving to be a forgery (and all the rumors flying regarding the subject of his true parentage). In which case, the Usurper is guilty of fraud. Either way, he needs to be out of there.
And you? You need to be 'out of there' too; for playing along with the game.
The game, of the attempted taking down of the federal constitutional republic of the U.S.A. No matter how.
'By Any Means Necessary;' as Saul Alinsky would put it. Taking a page from his playbook, about Rules for Radicals. Or 'Whatever It Takes,' to accomplish your purpose.
Your nefarious purpose. Of overthrowing the rule of law And replacing it with the rule of men.
Aka arbitrary law.
Aka tyranny.
In the wrong hands.
In the hands of the forces of Light - and the establishing of a - the - kingdom of heaven -
now that's another matter.
Which is being called into being.
By the establishing - the attempted establishing - of its mirror, to say reverse, image.
Its counterfeit.
Which you are engaged in helping to create.
You devils.
As I say:
Out you go, too.
As we get on with the establishing of Truth, and Justice, on this poor planet; hard done by, by Dark-side forces.
Now to be released from Her captivity, to take part in Her natural state.
Of Abundance.
With you.
Or without you.
As individual souls.
Fellow Pilgrims on the Path.
Needing, now,
to make up your minds.
Which 'party' you will be a part of.
In this Game.
This Play.
That we have concocted.
To find - and inherit - our true Selves by.
As part of the One
Holy
Being
behind it
All.
Come out from the Shadows. And be
Your
true
Self.
---
And on this same 'issue,' of being sure of oneself, or not; this:
from wnd.com: ‘Obama Slaps ’Scarlet T’ On Christian Colleges’ - Bob Unruh - May 4
..
No one is born homosexual or confused about their gender. this whole born that way thing is a hoax. people are more likely to support them and their causes if they tell them they were born that way but real research shows that no one is born that way. homosexuals are not genetically different than straight people. there are no gay genes or gay centers in the brain and or homosexuality in the DNA, the twins study proves that no one is born that way even the more honest homosexuals will admit to you that no one is born that way
2
•
Reply
-
kibitzer3 Jc • a few seconds ago (ay 5)
You haven't done your homework sufficiently. There is al manner of evidence that the fetal brain is 'sexed' at a particular, early stage of its development (I think it's an 8-10 wk. 'window') in its hormonal bath, and if there is an abnormality in the mother's hormonal levels, male-patterned brains can be 'wired' into genetically female bodies and vice versa and every abnormal stage on the spectrum in between, like trannies.
Abnormal maternal hormonal levels can be caused by a number of factors. An abnormality in the adrenal glands of either the developing fetus or the mother or both. Endocrine disrupters/estrogen mimics in the environment/drinking water, from plastics, pesticides, or The Pill. Stress, of all kinds (it is known, e.g., that a higher level of homosexual babies are born in the wake of wars than the 'normal' background 'noise' of such births would account for). But perhaps most alarmingly is the effect of drugs like barbiturates, prescribed to pregnant women without sufficient regard to their effects on the developing fetus. We are, in short, in a crisis of our own making.
But it IS of our making. And can be undone. With sufficient attention to the more intelligent 'end' of the matter, than incessantly arguing over the outcome effects. And in the meantime, people are hurting. How would YOU like to be born into a body that you can't relate to, because your brain tells you something different about your 'identity'??? But make no mistake: Such abnormalities are not, well, normal; by definition. So, both sides of the argument need to give way a little, for us to get to a proper resolution of the matter.
Why don't you just admit that no one is born that way? there is no ounce of hardcore evidence that some people are born that way.
3
•
Reply
- Read 'BrainSex' by Anne Moir, Ph.D. and David Jessel.
- Reply
-
Jc kibitzer3 • 14 minutes ago (May 5)
That doesn't prove anything. I don't want a book I want real solid evidence that proves that someone can be born into homosexuality.- •
- Reply
- The book extensively quotes research into the matter, of how the brain can be, and is, 'sexed'.
Plus the anecdotal evidence from many mothers that their toddlers act 'funny' for their genetic sex. And on the other side of the coin, the frustration of many feminists when trying to get toddlers to play 'differently' from the 'norm' (to get their little girls to grow up and be nuclear scientists and such, and to (try to) get little boys to play with dolls and such). Little boys naturally play a different way than little girls, and vice versa. It's not a cultural thing. And it is predicated on the structure of the brain. Which is affectable by the hormonal bath of the mother, as I say in the early stages of fetal development. Anyway: If you are really serious about this, read the book. Among others on the subject
--
..and last but not least for the night - back to the hustings:
from rickwells.us: ‘Lou Dobbs - Time to Unite Behind Donald Trump, GOP To Come Together’ - Rick Wells - May 5
(Even the Club for Growth joining the call for GOP unity...)
Of course the Club for Growth was against The Donald – they are part of the fascist New World Order crowd.
Not sure we can believe what they say now, about ‘getting behind the presumptive nominee’. Hillary is part of that (latter) Club.
---
Woops - a better note to end on. The great principle of Gratitude:
- The Vision Alignment Project
- A Vision for Gratitude
- We see a world where our gratitude shines forth, like a beautiful, priceless gem; where we are joyful for all of the good things that come to us, and where we are equally joyful for all the adversity that presents itself because we have learned, beyond all doubt, that our challenges and problems are always accompanied by great gifts.
We see a world full of happy people, helpful people, people playing at their work and working at their play since all anger, resentment, frustration and the like has been replaced by an appreciation for all that we have in our lives.
And finally, we envision a world where we're all aware of the direct relationship between our gratitude and our power; where we have realized that when we acknowledge the manifestation of our intentions and prayers by expressing our gratitude, we are actually completing the last step in a cycle that started long ago with a desire to create something for ourselves, as a yearning to experience something new, as a call to become something more. For we now know that subtly secreted within the sweet feeling of gratitude lies the forward motion of our evolution and the revealing of who we really are. - --
great ending for the night.
And Age.
Aka a Yuga.
No comments:
Post a Comment