A gauntlet:
From:
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2018 12:40 PM
To: Stan Stanfield
Subject: Obama.....
Well, after your mention of Archangel Michael (and others) I decided to see what he had to say....I find his energy and information very credible over the many years I have read him.
Makes sense of where we are going
Can't understand why you get so fixated on Obama, aside from your interpretation of the Constitution…(signed)
(There followed a link to a site that contained the following interaction:)
Steve: There are many who are trying to say that Obama is guilty of the most heinous of crimes but you are saying that he is not.
Archangel Michael: That is correct. Again, it is this human addiction, not only to drama but to fabrication and then of presenting oneself as in the know. Much of these fabrications are simply that.
Steve: I thought that was the case of people trying to make a name for themselves or a niche or something and they are doing it by criticizing Obama. But is it mainly the old cabal that is behind this or lightworkers?
AAM: No, there are lightworkers doing it as well. They believe that the more heinous discoveries that they can expose, the higher their credibility and that is not so.
--
My response:
I see that I need to explain the matter as clearly as I can, to someone whom I care about, including knowing that she understands where I am coming from on it. And it is NOT from where this channeled material says/conjectures that 'I' may be/am coming from.
The context is that some very powerful people - call them the New World Order crowd; aka the Illuminati, aka the Cabal - have been trying to take this planet over for a very long time, and especially the U.S. (and its Constitution), which is the key stumbling block to their best-laid plans. This is all well-researched and -recorded by many top-notch investigators, like Prof. Carroll Quigley ('Tragedy And Hope'), James Perloff ('The Limits To Power'), Gary Allen ('The Rockefeller File,' etc.) and on and on and on. These Dark-side characters in The Play going on have been particularly stymied by the rule of law in this country - its Constitution - and so they have mounted a long-standing campaign to bring it down, first from the inside, and then from revolution, if need be. The 'inside' amounts to judges who will rule, not in interpreting the Constitution based on its 'original intent' - like the contract that it is - but on their personal socio-political proclivities, with a 'healthy' imagination of what it might be able to be construed to mean. The battle over many years has been between 'originalists' or 'strict constructionists' on the one, legal, hand and 'broad constructionists/'the Constitution is a living document' on the other hand. The latter 'hand' amounts to the rule of men. Aka arbitrary law. Aka tyranny.
That's the context. Either the Constitution means what it says or it doesn't. I am fighting for what it says - and often, very clearly. (This is NOT a matter of my "interpretation of the Constitution". This is a matter of being able to read plain English, and with even a six-year-old's level of comprehension.)
In this instance, one of the eligibility requirements for the office of the presidency is that the person needs to be a "natural born" citizen; not just any kind of citizen. What did that term mean to the constitutional Framers? That is easy to find out from the historical record: it means a person "born in the country, of parents who are citizens". (The quote is from the definitive tome of the day on such nation-building matters, E. de Vattel's 'The Law of Nations'. Book One, Ch. XIX, Sect. 212; it's right here on the Internet.)1 The whole POINT of the exercise on the part of the Framers was to make sure that the person occupying 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. (in this instance).2 And that eligibility requirement for that particular office STILL STANDS, absent a constitutional amendment to the contrary.3
You may ask: If this is all true - and it is - why didn't the Republicans make an issue of it during the elections of 2008? or at least, by the elections of 2012?? A good question, which goes to the heart of the corruption that has been going on in this country, for a very long time:
That became crystal clear when the Republican Party itself ran its OWN ineligible candidates for the office in 2012: Sens. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio amongst them. And they knew FULL WELL what they were doing, as proven by the fact that both major political parties tried a total of 8 times between them, between 2003 and '08 alone, to get a constitutional amendment going through Congress to water down the 'natural born' citizen requirement - that being the common denominator to all the various proposals for changes in the eligibility requirements for that office - and they were all turned down before even getting out of committee, indicating how sensitive this matter was. And so, what did they do? It's obvious what they did: They colluded. They decided to do an end-around on the American people and the Constitution on the matter, and figured that, between them, they had the MSM and the judicial branch of government in their pockets, and thus, could control the potential fallout.
And they have done that very thing, to this day. And need to be struck down for their illegal activity. Or there is no more 'rule of law' in this country. And it is a ripe fruit, to fall into the hands of whomsoever mounts the biggest takeover activity.
And that's why it's a big deal. And if a channeled source that claims to be Archangel Michael says to the contrary, that speaks to the need for us humans to be very, very careful of such material. And not just accept it on face value.
And I will take 'Archangel Michael' to The Big Court on this any day.
And I will prevail. Because it’s Truth.
Stan
--
footnotes:
1 Three copies of which tome are known to have been in the possession of Benjamin Franklin, one of the delegates himself to those proceedings. (One of which he donated to the library of the Continental Congress. And of which he was highly impressed, according to extant correspondence.) If anyone there was not familiar with the term - although de Vattel's tome was taught in the universities of the day - all they would have had to do was ask their elder and highly respected mentor, the good Dr. Franklin, who was sitting right there amongst them.
2 This point, about that person being as well the CiC, was the particular point of concern for a leading statesman of the day, John Jay, who wrote a letter to G. Washington, in his role as Chair of the Constitutional Convention proceedings, pointing out the importance of that person needing to be a "natural born" citizen. And who, not so incidentally, became the first Chief Justice of the new nation.
And as if to emphasize this point for the historical record: Alexander Hamilton, in his role as a delegate to those self-same proceedings, made a proposal that the president need only be "born a Citizen" - and his proposal was SPECIFICALLY TURNED DOWN, in favor of the more stringent category of citizen, of a "natural born” citizen, i.e., a person born on the soil (or its equivalent, as in an embassy) of citizen parents. Plural.
3 Sen. Cruz - who is otherwise a good man - has tried to argue that the Congress broadened the definition of the term in the Naturalization Act of 1790. Two things to that argument: 1) That Act was repealed by the Nat Act of 1795 ON THIS VERY ISSUE, that its reference to the term was misleading (and that repeal was signed off on by no less constitutional experts as James Madison, then a Congressman, and G. Washington, then as President); and 2) No Act of Congress, or Declaration, or Resolution, or any other such device can overturn a fundamental part of the Constitution. Especially not such a particular part as the eligibility requirements for the highest office in the land.
Checkmate.
No comments:
Post a Comment