Once More Into The Breach

from wnd.com: ‘Obama Spying Looks Even Worse Than Trump Claimed’ - Garth Kant - March 31 - cont’d 

..

Mountaingal MNIce • 2 days ago (March 31)

Only surpassed by having an illegitimate usurper occupy our White House for 8 years!

5

•

Reply

         kibitzer3 Mountaingal • 2 days ago (March 31)

• Indeed.
• 
  The definition of a 'natural born' citizen that there is considerable evidence the constitutional Framers were going by when they included that eligibility requirement in their contract for that particular federal office: A person "born in the country, of parents who are citizens'. It's from E. de Vattel's 'The Law of Nations," Book One, CH. XIX, Sect. 212. The whole POINT of the exercise being to make sure - at least as sure as they could, in their time; the rest would be up to succeeding generations - that the occupant of that particular 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. Had SOLE ALLEGIANCE to the U.S.
• 
  Can I hear a big OOPS from the American people, in our generation???
  
  
• 5
• Reply
•          Mountaingal kibitzer3 • a day ago (April 1 )
• 
  I think the MOST IMPORTANT parts of this particular section in Vattel's 'Law of Nations" book are
• 1) the reference to PARENTS (in plural, meaning BOTH parents need to be Citizens!)
• and even MORE important
• 2) (quote) "...in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a FATHER WHO IS A CITIZEN; for, if he is born there of a FOREIGNER, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country." (end quote)
• 
  It has NEVER been denied that Obama Sr. was NOT (ever) an American Citizen, but a British Subject as Kenya was under British rule at that time. Therefore, "Little 0" could have been hatched on the White House lawn, and he still would NOT have been a "Natural Born Citizen"
  
• Reply

kibitzer3 Mountaingal • a day ago (April 1)

Well noted and commented on, Mountaingal. And keep doing these kinds of postings. The more Commenters who see this sort of info, on various sites, the better.

Education of The People is the key to a self-governing nation being able to keep itself going for any decent period of time. It comes with the territory.

Reply

         Mountaingal kibitzer3 • 3 hours ago (April 2)

• Doesn't seem like people actually want to be educated, or maybe they just "Can't Handle The Truth!" I've been posting this stuff since BEFORE "King 0" took office, when the question about his qualification first came up, and it was being ignored by just about everyone back then, just as it is still being ignored now. And if you bring it up then you're just a "Birther" or "racist" or a "tin-foil-hat wearing conspiracy theorist" (and whatever else they call us). Doesn't matter how much evidence there is, people REFUSE to see it! But I guess it's safer to remain oblivious to the truth, than having to come to grips with the fact that the America people allowed themselves to fall victim to the WORST FRAUD in the History of our Country!
• And as the Hildebeast would say, "At this point, what difference does it make?" The damage is done, and it will take YEARS (if not Decades) to undo...IF that's even still possible!
• 
  But just for argument's sake...if you ever feel like giving someone another "point of education" (or just want to annoy some "King 0" lackey), give them THIS to think about:
• 
  It's an UNDISPUTED FACT that in 1981 Obama extensively traveled between New York, Jakarta and Karachi, and this raises the following questions:
• 
  Q: Did he travel to Pakistan in 1981, at age 20?
• A: Yes, by his own admission.
• 
  Q: What passport did he travel under?
• A: There are only three possibilities.
• 1) He traveled with a U.S. Passport, 
• 2) He traveled with a British passport, or 
• 3) He traveled with an Indonesia passport.
• 
  Q: Is it possible that Obama traveled with a U.S. Passport in 1981?
• A: NO!.. It is not possible. Pakistan was on the U.S. State Department's "NO TRAVEL" list in 1981
• 
  Conclusion: 
• When he traveled to Pakistan, he HAD TO travel with either a BRITISH or an INDONESIAN passport!
• 
  Meaning:
• IF he were traveling with a BRITISH passport that would provide proof that he was born in Kenya on August 4, 1961, and NOT in Hawaii as he claims.
  IF he were traveling with an INDONESIAN passport it would mean that he relinquished whatever previous citizenship he held, British or American, prior to being adopted by his Indonesian step-father in 1967.
  
• •
• Reply
•           kibitzer3 Mountaingal • a few seconds ago (April 2)
• 
  Good point, Mountaingal; but unfortunately, refutable by sophistic means, as I have observed on these sorts of Comments threads. I stick to the irrefutable basics:
• 
  * E. de Vattel's work was the primary source on such subjects for these nation builders. Some BO apologists have tried to argue that they were going by Blackstone's 'Commentaries'; but that talks about 'natural born' SUBJECTS. Which these men certainly were not any longer, having fought a long and bloody battle of Independence to be able to call themselves sovereigns in their own right. And this take on the matter is enhanced by the fact that -
• 
  * Benjamin Franklin, and himself one of the delegates to the C'l Convention, and their respected elderly mentor, is known to have had 3 copies of de Vattel's tome, and to have been very praiseworthy of that work. If any of those men were not sure of the definition of a nbc, all they would have had to do was ask him.
• 
  * And further in evidence of the de Vattel definition and understanding of the term is the fact that Alexander Hamilton, in his role as one of the delegates to those proceedings, made a proposal that the president need only be, quote, "born a Citizen" - and his proposal was SPECIFICALLY TURNED DOWN, in favor of the more stringent category of citizen of the de Vattel definition of being 'natural born', i..e., "born in the country, of parents who are citizens".
• 
  * Some - including apologists for Ted Cruz's candidacy (and himself) - have tried to argue that things changed with the Naturalization Act of 1790. Wrong. It was repealed by the Naturalization Act of 1795 ON THIS VERY GROUND. And furthermore, that repeal was signed off on by no less constitutional Framer authorities than both G. Washington, then President, and James Madison, then a Congressman.
• The only way that such a substantive part of the Constitution as the eligibility requirements for the office of the presidency could be changed ANYWAY, is by constitutional Amendment. Which, incidentally, both current major political parties recognized, when they tried a total of 8 times between them, between 2003 and 2008 alone, to get just such an amendment starting through Congress - proposals all of which had this specific issue as their common denominator. And they failed each time even to get their proposals out of committee, such was the sensitivity around this issue. So, what did they do? It's obvious what they did: They colluded, in an attempt to do an end run around both the Constitution and the American people. Obviously figuring that, between them, they could get away with it by their control of both the Mainstream Media and the judicial branch of government. Bad call. For just such keen-eyed American citizens as yourself, to help keep this issue before the American people. So that, sooner or later, we can get back to living under the rule of law in this country - that is, the Constitution.
• 
  Or we will be history. And very soon. If we don't wake up, as a nation, to the hijack that is going on before our very eyes. So, this is not just some sort of arcane exercise. It is fundamental to the continuation of the federal constitutional republic of the United States of America. Or not.
• 
  Our call.
•