“He who neglects his duty to his Maker may well be expected to be deficient and insincere in his duty towards the public.”
Like clouds, word meanings change throughout time. “Awful” once meant “full of wonder and reverence”; “cute” meant “bowlegged”; “gay” meant “jovial”; and “nice” meant “precise”.
Accordingly, if someone from an earlier time wrote of a “cute gay man”, he was not referring to an adorable homosexual, but to a cheerful bowlegged man.
So! In order to understand the genuine meaning of a text, we must use the definitions the authors used when they wrote it. Otherwise, written texts become as shifting and impermanent as the clouds – blown hither and yon throughout the years by those who unthinkingly read in their own uninformed understandings, or deliberately pervert the text to further their own agenda.
So! Is Our Constitution built on the Rock of Fixed Definitions – those our Framers used? Or are its Words mere clouds to be blown about by Acts of Congress, whims of federal judges, and the idiotic notions of every ignoramus who writes about it?
What Did Our Framers mean by “natural born Citizen”?
Read the entire article:
In this article the write specifically points out that Marco Rubio and Barack Husein Obama are not Natural Born Citizens and are not eligible to hold the office of President. It is stressed repeatedly that a Natural Born Citizen is born of parents, (plural) which are citizens at the time of the candidates birth. Not mentioned are the two other ineligible, potential candidates; Ted Cruz and Bobby Jindal.
Jindal was born June 10, 1971. His parents were not US citizens at the time of his birth; they were here on green cards. His mother became a citizen in 1976, his father in 1986. Jindal is a US citizen at birth, but not a Natural Born Citizen. A fine man an loyal American but not eligible for the presidency.
Ted Cruz was born in Canada. His mother was born in Delaware. Cruz’ father was born in Cuba, lived in the US on a student visa, went to Canada and became a Canadian citizen. But, he did not become a naturalized US citizen until 2005. Ted Cruz is a US citizen at birth, but not a Natural Born Citizen because both parents must be citizens at the time of the candidates birth. Ted is another fine man and wonderful senator but not eligible for the presidency.
“Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt.”
~ Samuel Adams
“When vice is bold, that is not the time for virtue to be timid”
“This is my Father’s world. Oh, let me ne’er forget that though the wrong seems oft so strong, God is the ruler yet.”
~ Author Unknown
“I am not pledging obedience to the government, it is to the Republic. We don’t ask for our rights, and we don’t negotiate for our rights. We will take America back.”
Because ALL law that violates the Constitution is not law, it is VOID!.. We the people will not tolerate this law. We will not bow down and lick the boots of tyrants, we will stand for the liberty of our children. We’re not waiting for politicians, judges or lawyers. Our birthright is NOT to be touched. We gather and we will affirm that liberty.”
Read the full article ~
Why the Tea Party Failed
The tea party movement failed – was co-opted by RINOs and lying progressives – because it was never founded on principles.
What they wanted to do was chant slogans and have someone else – a leader – a savior – come along and handle everything. The savior would figure all this out and fix the problems.
At the beginning of the movement, Marco Rubio was one of the tea party people that Ann Coulter and Mark Levin “loved.” Now it’s Ted Cruz. [Both of them are ineligible to be President and are as phony as a $3.00 bill.]
Impeachment: All you need to know (and you do need to know it)
A President may – and should – be impeached & removed for usurpations of power, mismanagement, incompetence, or for any other reason deemed sufficient by Congress.
The lawful methods of getting rid of a sitting President [whether eligible or not to hold the office], in addition to impeachment, are set forth in the 25th Amendment: Natural death, resignation, or inability to do the job.
Do not spin your wheels in fruitless insistence that a person (who may still be an Indonesian national) who occupies the office of President can’t be impeached because he is ineligible to hold that office. The FACT is that he holds the office. Impeachment is a lawful & constitutional method to rid ourselves of this blight.
Will Obama be impeached now that Republicans control both houses of Congress?
November 12, 2014
Stephen Stone, RenewAmerica President
Shortly after communist-mentored Barack Obama was elected to the White House in 2008, I asked a brother at a family gathering, “Who’s going to be president of the United States in 20 years?” Without hesitating, he said, “Barack Obama.”
More informed than most people I’d asked, he instantly got the drift of my question.
As we contemplate the compelling need to impeach and remove the president, consider the following exchange between Rep. Trey Gowdy and a witness before Congress in December 2013, as Rep. Gowdy wondered aloud if Obama planned to stay on indefinitely:
- “If the president can fail to enforce immigration laws, can the president likewise fail to enforce election laws?” Gowdy asked of Simon Lazarus, senior counsel to the Constitutional Accountability Center, who was giving testimony.
“If you can dispense with immigration laws or marijuana laws or mandatory minimums, can you also dispense with election laws?” Gowdy asked Lazarus.
For his part, Lazarus said that Obama couldn’t do such a thing. But Gowdy pressed on and asked the logical question, “Why not?”
“Because we live in a government of laws, and the president is bound to obey them and apply them,” Lazarus replied.
But Gowdy wasn’t to be so easily pushed off point.
“Well he’s not applying the ACA, and he’s not applying immigration laws, and he’s not applying marijuana laws, and he’s not applying mandatory minimums. What’s the difference with election laws?” Gowdy asked pointedly.
Of course, all Obama’s supporters blithely assure us that Obama wouldn’t be so anti-American, anti-law, and anti-Constitution as to ignore his lawful duties in the way Gowdy suggests. But the fact is he’s already done it dozens of times before. So, why not again?
Prudence requires that we give Obama no further opportunity to weaken or destroy the Constitution, including the prospect of imposing, with his phone and pen, a change in term limits — or otherwise unilaterally altering the rules of governance. The best way to ensure he can’t do so is to remove him post-haste.
Read the entire article http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/stone/141110
“If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”
There ought to be one day — just one — when there is open season on Congressmen.
“Let each citizen remember at the moment he is offering his vote that he is not making a present or a compliment to please an individual – or at least that he ought not so to do; but that he is executing one of the most solemn trusts in human society for which he is accountable to God and his country.”
~ Samuel Adams, 1781
“If God wanted us to vote, he would have given us candidates.”
~ Jay Leno
Propaganda can be words and phrases that collectivize and mold the public mind so that subtle or overt force is made easier or becomes unnecessary.
Carefully chosen words by the establishment are the basis of mass mind control leading to acceptance of force. Until the people accept collectivism under some pretext, they are not docile and completely subdued.
Words are created and repeated, which expands the collective psyche to accept and repeat some more. People who freely use those terms are not in control of their own thinking process.
Following are some examples of establishment words and phrases used as propaganda:
This word is among the greatest deceptions in the English language. The system wants everyone to believe himself a taxpayer or as one who pays his or her “fair share.” Since the government (and banksters) create money (credit), why would they need you to pay taxes?
The answer is they don’t, but they do need a regulatory system and a dossier on everyone to profile your manner of living and, yes, even your thoughts. It’s a thought system and a system of people regulation.
There is no such thing; see “taxpayer” above. Our so-called “tax dollars” don’t exist as money going to pay government expenses. When we “pay tax dollars,” we are not funding the government or anything else. We are reducing our consumption as part of social planning.
Your fair share
This is a collectivist concept that eventually evokes a guilty conscious. Few have any concept of what this means, but it unconsciously produces a herding instinct.
This is a big one and it has sucked in everyone. Democracy is a system of manipulated mob rule by the elite. It is the very opposite of human liberty. Democracy does not mean freedom and freedom does not mean democracy.
Democracy is a front for despotism under the rule of an oligarchy.
Hitler called his Nazi Germany. America is a fascist system with benevolent totalitarianism.
Democrat and Republican
These words show how perfectly the same thing can have two names. Aren’t you glad that you go to the polls and vote? The politicians are laughing at us.
Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost
~ John Quincy Adams
John Jay, first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court wrote:
Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers (Letter from John Jay to John Murray, Jr., October 12, 1816). Whether our Religion permits Christians to vote for infidel rulers is a question which merits more consideration than it seems yet to have generally received, either from the clergy or the laity. It appears to me that what the prophet said to Jehoshaphat about his attachments to Ahab affords a salutary lesson… “Shouldest thou help the ungodly and love them that hate the Lord?” 2 Chr xix, 2 (Letter from John Jay to Jedediah Morse, January 1, 1813. Johnston, Correspondence of Jay from The Founders on Religion, James H. Hutson, 2005).
In selecting men for office, let principle be your guide. Regard not the particular sect or denomination of the candidate — look to his character as a man of known principle, of tried integrity, and undoubted ability for the office… Scriptures teach… that rulers should be men who rule in the fear of God, able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness. But if we had no divine instruction on the subject, our own interest would demand of us a strict observance of the principle of these injunctions. And it is to the neglect of this rule of conduct in our citizens, that we must ascribe the multiplied frauds, breaches of trust, peculations and embezzlements of public property which astonish even ourselves; which tarnish the character of our country; which disgrace a republican government…
When a citizen gives his suffrage (vote) to a man of known immorality, he abuses his trust; he sacrifices not only his own interest, but that of his neighbor; he betrays the interest of his country. Nor is it of slight importance, that men elected to office should be able men, men of talents equal to their stations, men of mature age, experience, and judgment; men of firmness and impartiality… It may be held as generally true, that respect spontaneously attaches itself to real worth; and the man of respectable virtues, never has occasion to run after respect