Welcome! Jesus Christ is my LORD and Savior! Romans 10:9-10,13; John 3:16

[For EU visitors, I do not personally use cookies, but Google or any clickable link (if you choose to click on it) might. This is in compliance with mandatory EU notification]

I am a Natural Born United States Citizen with NO allegiance or citizenship to any nation but my own, and will use this site as a hobby place of sorts to present my own political and religious viewpoints, as a genuine Constitutional Conservative and a genuine Christian Conservative.

Thank you for coming.
In the Year of our LORD Jesus Christ
-- As of January 20, 2017
A Sigh Of Relief With The Inauguration Of Donald John Trump as President of the United States of America, And Hope For A Prosperous Future For All United States Citizens (we who are a nation called "the melting pot of the world"). We shall be great and exceptionally great again.

It is likely that the entries to this blog will be less frequent than in years past. I do intend to keep this blog active, and to offer insightful information and/or opinion (and sometimes humor and/or entertainment on occasion) when I do post.

Peace and Liberty. Semper Fidelis.

Tuesday, March 24, 2015

An Open Letter To David Knight @ Infowars Who Claims Birthers (Constitutionalists) Won't Criticize Ted Cruz For NOT Being A United States Natural Born Citizen And Illegal To Run For The U.S. Presidency

Infowars asks:
Cruz: Running for Presidente of North American Union?

Published on Mar 24, 2015
Will conservatives give a pass on the same citizenship issues many had with Obama? Will they give Jeb Bush a pass on his extensive use of Executive Orders to get around the state legislature and courts? And as many criticize Luis Guiterrez for conducting events in Spanish only, puts out his first commercial in Spanish. Is Cruz with his Canadian citizenship, Hispanic heritage and Spanish commercials, the perfect Presidente for the North American Union?

I am insulted that David Knight pretends that Constitutionalists, called Birthers, won't criticize Cruz because he is a "republican".  Bu**sh*t!!! 

For example: Sunday, November 3, 2013

Also on by example of many, January 9, 2015  
I left an extensive comment on Trevor Loudon’s New Zeal Blog (Loudon is one whom used to be  extensively and promoted by Glenn Beck”) @ the article entitled    
“Let’s Get the Ted Cruz Coalition Rolling Folks!!!”
as well as at many locations in Media and Alternative Media Conment Sections across the Internet, many of which were taken down by their sites while defamatory trolls committing libel (likely site media and / or hires of them) were left unhindered.

  Knight, you owe us an apology! And I personally have argued the below in the last 2 months, regardless of the Central Intelligence Agency joining the pro-Obama Council On Foreign Relations pimped Mainstream (and now some Alternative) Media to shut down freedom of speech comments of convincing birther arguments regarding him and Ted Cruz as illegal to run for U.S. President.   Here's a collection of some of those things I wrote: 

What makes Ted Cruz, a jus soli born CANADIAN NATIONAL who retained his BIRTH citizenship (and for all we know STILL POSSESSES it despite claiming only months ago he would junk it) as being in any way eligible to the U.S. Presidency? Not a damn thing. In fact, by example, we have the ineligibility of F.D.R. Jr. to guide us on the matter. The N. Y. Times, May 26, 1949, p. 26, columns 3 - 4, by legal example demonstrated that legally Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jr., third son of the late President, “never can carry that great name back into the White House” since his birth on August 17, 1914, was at Campobello Island, New Brunswick, Canada, home of a Roosevelt Canadian summer estate "No Person except a Natural Born Citizen…shall be eligible to the Office of President...." US Constitution: Article 2, section 1, Clause 5

"...the term ‘natural born citizen’ is used and excludes all persons owing allegiance by birth to foreign states.” The New Englander and Yale Law Review, Volume 3 (1845), p. 414

The voting citizenry were males 21 and above, hence citizen fathers, at the time the Constitution was written and passed.  Black Revolutionary War soldiers and free black land owners in small numbers, were part of that voting citizenry, and some Latins were citizens of port cities like Philadelphia (though not all renounced foreign citizenships as a famous Supreme Court Case Decision in 1797, U.S. v. Villato 2 U.S. 370 https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/2/370/case.html    proved) in case you don't know your 1780's and 1790s U.S. history. See also John Locke Second Treatise of Government Chapter 6:59.

 A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN is then defined for us as being that of a Son of his Citizen Father, born to the same soil and legience of his father, and reared up and taught in the land-legience-governance of his father naturally to join that same Government on the soil of his native birth as that of his father's, until he effectually takes his place as an extension of his father as a citizen in the land of his father...so that when the father dies, the citizenship of the nation is naturally extended, and does NOT die off.

      Without the father being a citizen of the same government and legience to which the child is born into, there is no presumption of a natural transition in both the law of nature AND the positive laws of an established government.  In fact, there is a break in that "citizenship" if the child is born into the legience alien to that of the father, so that we cannot declare the child to be thus a "Natural Born Citizen" under Locke, nor under the later United States Constitution.  See also the Senate debate over the first section of what would be the 14th Amendment and what they intended as an allegiance that was still yet lesser in strength than the natural born citizen clause: 

The Congressional Globe, 1st session, May 30, 1866  The debate on the first section of the 14th Amendment http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwcglink.html#anchor38 "subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof"... What do we mean by "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States"? Not owing alliance to anybody else. That is what it means. ...It cannot be said of any...who owes allegiance, partial allegiance if you please, to some other Government that he is "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. New Jersey Attorney Mario Apuzzo has excellent attorney at law perspectives on this as well: 

Question: Should the citizens of the United States have a Government and Governance that conforms to the Constitution of the United States, which in Article 6 of that document, says it is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, or not?
Since Obama is NOT President of the United States by Operation of the Constitution of the United States, we have no President, but some kind of alien usurper and oligarchy (through him) in place, Cruz would operate under the same lawlessness and non-binding compliance to the U.S. Constitution as well, and moreso, could be the excuse to DISSOLVE the Republic and that Constitution (with its Bill of Rights) we now have!
The Constitution expresses 5 citizen terms, of which Natural Born Citizen is the most exclusive and stringent.
For those who select aliens to the Constitution to USURP the Presidency of the United States and Overthrow the Constitution of the United States, and PRETEND they are not doing so by backing Ted Cruz. Answer these legal questions.
1. Is the burden of establishing a delegation of power to the United States, or the prohibition of power to the States, upon those making the claim, (such as the President of the United States, or those aspiring to such office) as stated by 333 US 640 @ 653 Bute v. Illinois (1948), a requirement under Supreme Court ruling and the Law (that can be affirmed as so by an example of those having Article III standing and suing them) or not?
2 Is there a requirement in the Constitutional Article specified as 2.1.5 in which a Natural Born Citizen, and those seeking the Presidency of the United States, have sole allegiance to the United States at birth?
4. Does a United States Natural Born allegiance also under a Constitution where the paternal citizenship governed the nationality of the child was in effect when it was written, does follow the condition of the nationality and citizenship of the child’s father at birth or not? And if the claim if no longer, where is the Constitutional Amendment that alters or denies what the founders intended, as there is NO Amendment that states anywhere that a Citizen Mother can give birth to a Natural Born Citizen of the United States in or out of the United States with an alien father, and alter what the Constitution clearly under the laws in effect clearly forbad?
By example as to what relevant paternal power was in effect legally, less than 30 years after the Constitution was ratified,
Rep. A. Smyth (VA), House of Representatives, December 1820: When we apply the term “citizens” to the inhabitants of States, it means those who are members of the political community. The CIVIL LAW DETERMINED THE CONDITION OF THE SON BY THAT OF THE FATHER. A man whose father was not a citizen was allowed to be a perpetual inhabitant, but not a citizen, unless citizenship was conferred on him.”
5. Is the US Constitution to be understood in the natural sense per South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437 @ 448 – 450 (1905), Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U. S. 1 (1824) @ 188-189, taking also into account the influence of Vattel — even as cited in The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253 @ 289-290 (1814) -on the definitions of the framers in using “natural born citizen” in place of indigenes (indigenous) as used by Vattel?
6. Does every word of the US Constitution have its due force, as stated by Holmes v. Jennison, 39 U.S. (14 Peters) 540 @ 570-71 (1840); and is the precept of interpretation of the US Constitution to this effect, where “every word [of the US Constitution] must have its due force” active in the Rule of Law in the Supreme Court of the United States as it regards the Constitutional Article 2.1.5 “natural born citizen” clause or not?
7. Is not the Constitutional Intent of the Constitution the following definition in which
“…the term ‘natural born citizen’ is used and excludes all persons owing allegiance by birth to foreign states”
The New Englander and Yale Law Review, Volume 3 (1845), p. 414
and the debate regarding the meaning behind the 14th Amendment was clearly specified in The Congressional Globe, 1st session, May 30, 1866 where Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan and Senator Trumbull of Illinois, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee concurred that “The provision is, ‘that all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof’… What do we mean by ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States’? Not owing alliance to anybody else. That is what it means.
…It cannot be said of any…who owes allegiance, partial allegiance if you please, to some other Government that he is ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.’
or not?
[The debate on the first section of the 14th Amendment is at:
see Part 4 (column 2), page 2890, Part 4 (columns 1-2), page 2893,
Part 4 (columns 2-3), page 2895]

Elk v. Wilkins, 112 US 94 (1884) @ 101-102 states that:
“The main object of the opening sentence of the fourteenth amendment was …to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and OWING NO ALLEGIANCE TO ANY ALIEN POWER, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 73; Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303, 306.”
“At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874) @167
“At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

Just because we have one USURPER illegally and unconstitutionally wielding power he legally can have VOIDED OUT Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) @ page 180 because he is NOT a United States Natural Born Citizen (i.e., Obama), does not mean we should let the second major party finalize the destruction of the Constitution by also placing their own illegal in office, so they can dissolve the Republic for a full blown Communist-Socialist dictatorship replacement one.  Ted Cruz openly admits to being foreign born with a publication of proof by his Canadian birth certificate,but because the United States Congress and the G.W. Bush Administration has openly DEFIED the Constitution and placed a foreign usurper in Barack Obama in office, who by his own claim (until 2007 at Harvard as well as through Acton and Dystel, etc.) was born in Kenya, who in May 2009
affirmed his Kenyan birth diplomatically through official U.S. Department of State recognition of the same with Kenya, whose birth in Kenya is affirmed repeatedly by officials of Kenya's Government both formally and informally,  NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OFFICIAL REPORT  Thursday, 25th March, 2010  The House met at 2.30 p.m. p. 31 ...2nd paragraph  [Mr. Orengo, Minister of Lands of the nation of Kenya, speaking]: "...how could a young man born here in Kenya, who is not even a native American, become the President of America? It is because they did away with exclusion." http://www.scribd.com/doc/29758466/RDRAFT25 
and whose birth in Kenya was repeated as affirmed especially when Obama was first elected to the U.S. Senate  http://web.archive.org/web/20040627142700/eastandard.net/headlines/news26060403.htm  ...then since the Dems have their own illegal and usurper in open defiance of the U.S. Constitution in office under color of the "race card" as their "authority", the Republicans might as well have their own Bilderburger spouse controlled illegal up next to hand away this Republic and finalize its destruction into international obscurity as a world power "that once was" and will be no more? Hell NO! Let's stop illegals from aspiring to the Presidency regardless of race or skin color NOW!  Obama needs to be voided, and Cruz needs to have his U.S. Citizenship claims revoked and have his treasonous a** kicked back to Canada where his birth citizenship rests and where he belongs  

 As for Congress winking at the Law and ignoring the Constitution regarding the Natural Born Citizenship requirement clause in the Constitution:

Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266 (1973) @ 272  "It is clear, of course, that no Act of Congress can authorize a violation of the Constitution."

Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886)@442   “…an unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)@ 180 "... in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned, and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank.

Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle,  supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions,  that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts,  as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."

U.S. Constitution, Article. VI. "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution...."

 The Law is equal for all, regardless of race, color, creed, or what have you.  It is time others join in for demanding just that.  This is what I have argued and been arguing for MONTHS, and if you bothered to read various comments where Drudge Headlines Cruz For President, you will no doubt see other “birthers” criticize Cruz on balance with his illegalities, same as with Obama.  Give Mario Apuzzo an extensive Infowars Interview on this issue, and then man up, and apologize INFOWARS and David Knight?

Read that David?  At the AlexJonesChannel on 03/24/2015  https://youtu.be/bSOmYq6v2Qc
I wrote, “Hey, David Knight...man up and APOLOGIZE!”

The question is, does David and INFOWARS have the GUTS to Admit when they are wrong as they want the rest of us to hold to a standard they claim to also have?  

[[[[Update: 3/26/2015 - Infowars removed my extensive rebuke that used to be in the above video's comment section, but which after I wrote it,  I later preserved above and posted on my blog, adding a few lines more...the INFOWARS (shorter) comment I made is gone.  

  Infowars has shown that on the issue of the Constitution and PROTECTING the Republic by EXPOSING those who would destroy it, even  with extensive citations, if it in any way could be something that interferes with the "bottom line", then clearly, they are too chickensh*t to take on the facts when it might somehow dwindle their $$$ paying subscriber base.  

So all they can do is scrub -a-dub-dub fact stating comments that show them to be ignorant on issues they are ignorant on.  And if the USA falls because they refused to use their sphere of influence and extensive information circle of outreach, then "Oh well"... as they have often accused the Government and the New World Order of doing, they now themselves effectually do and say the same thing: "Move along...nothing to see here" ?  Uh huh.      --- End of 3/26/2015 Update]]]

No comments:

Post a Comment