I may have my head in the clouds. But my feet are firmly on the ground.
This ground. This war ground.
1) from freedomoutpost.com: ‘Former Marine Corps Officer and Philosophy Professor Claims Vegas Shooting Was Hollywood Production’ - Tim Brown - October 30
(Reporting on Prof. Jim Fetzer’s take on the Las Vegas ‘event’. Many pooh poohers in the Comments thread.)
..
So let's look at the evidence. First of all, check all the spent bullets that would have been littering the concert site to see if they all came from the same gun that Paddock reportedly used. Funny; that normal procedure hasn't been reported on, Moving on: Check all the bullet fragments found in the fatalities and the wounded to see if THEY all came from the same gun. Funny; the only thing reported on along that line is a supposed 'leak' from one of the surgeons supposedly involved, that, contrary to normal procedures, the FBI didn't have them bag such fragments and seal them with their name on, to secure possession of such evidence, proving no substitution OF evidence has taken place. Thus, there is no guaranteed evidence of the event. No wonder there are so many questions about what really happened that night.
Obviously something happened, from the reports from other hotels of someone shooting at their entranceways. But - for another example of serious questions regarding what really happened - over 500 reportedly wounded at the site itself, and no subsequent fatalities in that cohort?? Doesn't seem reasonable. And then there was the intriguing business that a drill exercise had been going on in the days just before that evening's events, WHATEVER took place then...
I accept Dr. Fetzer's suspicions as reasonable, given the evidence, and lack thereof. And given the government's MO from previous such events. All designed to get guns - serious opposition - out of the hands of the public. The easier to take us over with, my dears. If you were of such a mind. As the New World Order crowd certainly is.
Time to wake up. We are being had. Whatever the specific details.
P.S. And someone happened to have a camera going while sounds of shots were being heard that didn’t show flashes coming from the 32nd floor designated ‘sniper lair’s’ windows of the Mandalay. And. And. And……
—
2) …and someone has done some homework in response to a couple of postings of mine a week ago. To recap the exchange in full:
from dailywire.com; ‘James Woods Posts The. Best. Tweet. Ever.’ - Joseph Curl - October 23
(A report on an event that all the former living presidents took part in.)
..
Let it never be forgotten that Barack Hussein Obama should not ever be considered an ex-president. He was a Usurper; and all of his doings in the Oval Office need to be stricken from the record: All of the legislation that he signed into law, and all of the E.O.'s and P.D.'s that he issued, and all of the appointments that he made - including to the SCOTUS, and inferior courts (and therefore, all of the decisions that they were crucially involved in). Gone. For it to be as though he had never been there. For, he was never there legally.
Read my lips: A 'natural born' citizen - one of the eligibility requirements for that office; and that particular federal office ONLY, testifying to its special importance in the eyes of the constitutional Framers - is a person "born in the country, of parents who are citizens" thereof. The definition is from the definitive tome of the day on such nation-building matters, E. de Vattel's 'The Law of Nations'. And that eligibility requirement for that particular office STILL STANDS, absent a constitutional amendment to the contrary. The whole POINT of the exercise having been, and still being, to make sure that the occupant of that office has NO DUAL OR OTHERWISE CONFLICTING LOYALTIES OR ALLEGIANCES OR INFLUENCES. Has SOLE ALLEGIANCE to the United States. The importance of which requirement can be seen, and in spades, in the illegal occupancy of that office by the Usurper, Obama; who did all he could while in that purloined position to sell out this country, to the New World Order forces meaning to take it over, and make of it merely a part of a region of their totalitarian global gulag.
We still have unfinished business to take care of on this matter, Conservatives. Patriots, of the federal constitutional Republic of the United States of America. Now teetering on its last legs. Waiting for all good men and women to come to the aid of their country.
Reply
-
alnonymous kibitzer3 • 7 days ago (i.e., October 23)
- That is ludicrous, and you are just plain stupid. Barack Obama was born in Hawaii to an American mother and only a fool would dispute that.
- Reply
kibitzer3 alnonymous • 6 days ago (= October 24)
Is there some reason that you can't either read or understand plain English? The requirement for that particular office is to be "born in the country of parents who are citizens". That's what makes it 'natural,' for heaven's sake. Got it? BOTH PARENTS.
- 1
- Reply
alnonymous kibitzer3 • 7 hours ago (October 30)
The U.S. Constitution uses but does not define the phrase "natural born Citizen", and various opinions have been offered over time regarding its precise meaning. The consensus of early 21st-century constitutional scholars, together with relevant case law, is that natural-born citizens include, subject to exceptions, those born in the United States. Many scholars have also concluded that those who meet the legal requirements for U.S. citizenship "at the moment of birth", regardless of place of birth, are also natural-born citizens. Every president to date was either a citizen at the adoption of the Constitution in 1789 or was born in the United States; of those in the latter group, there have been seven that had at least one parent who was not born on U.S. soil.
- Reply
kibitzer3 alnonymous • a few seconds ago (October 30)
1) Alexander Hamilton, as a delegate himself to the Constitutional Convention 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 for that particular office, i.e., a 'natural born' one - a person "born in the country, of persons who are citizens" thereof.
2) Sen. Ted Cruz has attempted to argue that he qualifies as a 'natural born' citizen under the terms of the Naturalization Act of 1790. He fails to acknowledge that the Naturalization Act of 1795 repealed the earlier such Act ON THIS VERY GROUND - that it was misleading as to its reference to such a person. And said repeal was signed off on by both J. Madison, then sitting as a Congressman, and G. Washington, then as the sitting President.
3) You employ a red herring in talking about presidents "that had at least one parent who was not born on U.S. soil". The parents themselves don't have to have been 'natural born' citizens; only citizens at the time of the child's birth.
4) Nothing trumps the Constitution - no congressional Act or whatever - except a constitutional amendment. The eligibility requirement for the office of the presidency that the person needs to be a 'natural born' citizen - not just a 'citizen' - STILL STANDS, absent a constitutional amendment to the contrary.
You have done some homework on the matter. Do some more, if you don't believe the facts that I have presented, to make my case.
No comments:
Post a Comment