NOTE TO READERS: The Saudi Arabians have provided Alqaeda with over 100 MANPADS for use against aircraft. These weapons are less useful against the Hind helicopter gunships only because the Russian vertical prop planes are equipped with anti-MANPAD devices proven very effective in combat. Expect to see more of these aircraft in the future.
Get through the grizzly photos at the bottom of the article and there are some posts that may be of interest.
* * *
The Democracy Spring movement gaining momentum in the US is seen as a protest against money in the political system.
In reality, by looking at their sources of funding and support, you can see that something much bigger is actually going on.
My Question: I cannot believe Caleb Maupin doesn’t know what is going on, since he was active in the Occupy Movement, and now we see him at Democracy Spring. Is it possible this movement might turn against George Soros’ plans? I wish I knew. . .
Goldman Sachs to Pay $5 Billion Over Role in Global Economic Crisis . . . and the little fellow, unaware of the trillions that have been stolen from us will likely think this ‘fine’ is just great! Anyway, I think that is ‘the plan’.
CNBC: One ‘BRIC’ is an even bigger mess than Russia (Video) Get a ‘load’ of the lies many poor suckers are hearing.
IMF: Brexit Could Result in ‘Severe’ Regional, Global Damage . . .more lies and a lot of fear mongering
* * *
China Railway links Ethiopia to Red Sea , by F. William Engdahl . . . Engdahl adds greatly to our understanding of China’s philosophy, very different from what we hear in the MSM. This is a great, positive read!
* * *
Bombshell 9/11 Documents Hidden Between the Owl’s Eyes at US Capitol In DC
Fifteen of the 9/11 “hijackers” from Saudi Arabia were CIA agents working for the United States government , which was seeking to destroy the Middle East for Israel and to double the American military budget, says Dr. Kevin Barrett, an American academic who has been studying the events of 9/11 since late 2003.
* * *
Let me add here that I have had excellent council from a respected reader that my statement about the ineligibility of Ted Cruz for President, based on KrisAnne’s work, may, indeed be incorrect. (I hope KrisAnne will address this for us.) Here, in brief; that is, without the follow-up emails, is what I was told:
Jus sanguinis (Latin: right of blood) is a principle of nationality law by which citizenship is not determined by place of birth but by having one or both parents who are citizens of the state. Children at birth may automatically be citizens if their parents have state citizenship or national identities of ethnic, cultural, or other origins. Citizenship can also apply to children whose parents belong to a diaspora and were not themselves citizens of the state conferring citizenship. This principle contrasts with jus soli (Latin: right of soil). [Wikipedia]
Jus soli (English pronunciation: /dʒʌs ˈsoʊlaɪ/; Latin pronunciation: [jus ˈsoli]), meaning ‘right of the soil’, is the right of anyone born in the territory of a state to nationality or citizenship. As an unconditional basis for citizenship, it is the predominant rule in the Americas, but is rare elsewhere. Since the Twenty-seventh Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland was enacted in 2004, no European country grants citizenship based on unconditional jus soli. A study in 2010 found that only 30 of the world’s 194 countries grant citizenship at birth to the children of undocumented foreign residents, although definitive information was not available from 19 countries. [Wikipedia]
So Ted Cruz (or “Mr. Dominion” [You’ll have to look that up; Cruz is a “Dominionist.”]) is a citizen but that’s not the issue. Obama is a citizen as well. The issue is a constitutional issue. The U.S. Constitution states:
The Constitution imposes three eligibility requirements on the Presidency—based on the officeholder’s age, residency, and citizenship—that must be satisfied at the time of taking office. By virtue of the Twelfth Amendment, the qualifications for Vice President are the same. The Framers established these qualifications in order to increase the chances of electing a person of patriotism, judgment, and civic virtue.
First, Presidents must be thirty-five years of age or older. In contrast, Senators must be at least thirty years old, and Representatives no less than twenty-five years old. As Justice Joseph Story has noted, the “character and talent” of a man in the middle age of life is “fully developed,” and he has had the opportunity “for public service and for experience in the public councils.”
Second, the President must have been a “Resident” of the United States for fourteen years. By contrast, to be a Member of Congress, one must be an “Inhabitant” of the State one is representing. During the Constitutional Convention, James Madison contended that “both [terms] were vague, but the latter [‘Inhabitant’] least so in common acceptation, and would not exclude persons absent occasionally for a considerable time on public or private business.” Then as now, inhabitant meant being a legal domiciliary, but resident could mean either a domiciliary or a physical presence. Perhaps the Framers desired a person as President who had actually been present in the United States for the required period and had developed an attachment to and understanding of the country, rather than one who was legally an inhabitant, but who may have lived abroad for most of his life. On the other hand, the distinction may have been one of style rather than substance. As Justice Story later noted, “by ‘residence,’ in the constitution, is to be understood, not an absolute inhabitancy within the United States during the whole period; but such an inhabitancy, as includes a permanent domicil in the United States.”
There is some evidence that the Framers believed the fourteen-year residency requirement could be satisfied cumulatively, rather than consecutively. An earlier version of the clause excluded individuals who have “not been in the whole, at least fourteen years a resident within the U.S.” (emphasis added), and historical evidence suggests that deletion of the phrase “in the whole” was not intended to alter the provision’s meaning. This might explain the election of Herbert Hoover, whose successful 1928 campaign for President came less than fourteen years after his return to the United States in 1917. Others may argue that Hoover had simply maintained a United States domicile throughout his tenure abroad.
The third qualification to be President is that one must be a “natural born Citizen” (or a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution). Although any citizen may become a Member of Congress so long as he has held citizenship for the requisite time period, to be President, one must be “a natural born Citizen.” Undivided loyalty to the United States was a prime concern. During the Constitutional Convention, John Jay wrote to George Washington, urging “a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.” Justice Story later noted that the natural-born–citizenship requirement “cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office.”
Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President. As early as 1350, the British Parliament approved statutes recognizing the rule of jus sanguinis, under which citizens may pass their citizenship by descent to their children at birth, regardless of place. Similarly, in its first naturalization statute, Congress declared that “the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens.” 1 Stat. 104 (1790). The “natural born” terminology was dropped shortly thereafter. See, e.g., 8 U.S.C. § 1401(c).
But the question remains whether the term “natural born Citizen” used in Article II includes the parliamentary rule of jus sanguinis in addition to the common law principle of jus soli. In United States v. Wong Kim Ark(1898), the Supreme Court relied on English common law regarding jus soli to inform the meaning of “citizen” in the Fourteenth Amendment as well as the natural-born–citizenship requirement of Article II, and noted that any right to citizenship though jus sanguinis was available only by statute, and not through the Constitution. Notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s discussion in Wong Kim Ark, a majority of commentators today argue that the Presidential Eligibility Clause incorporates both the common-law and English statutory principles, and that therefore, Michigan Governor George Romney, who was born to American parents outside of the United States, was eligible to seek the Presidency in 1968.
The Presidential Eligibility Clause does not explicitly cover those who serve merely as Acting President, a constitutionally distinct office. Although Congress has imposed by statute, 3 U.S.C. § 19(e), the same eligibility requirements for service as Acting President, that provision may not be required as a constitutional matter.
Cruz, who was born in Canada, has maintained there are no constitutional barriers that prevent him from running and so far the challenges to his candidacy are few and far between and, given the legal argument above (which is supported by legislative citations), it would appear that he is qualified to run for President as was Obama even though Obama may have been born in Kenya. People are confused on this issue, as I am certain that you can see.
Congress and the supporting judiciary (which I will admit is corrupted beyond belief) have passed legislation that strengthens the jus sanguinis means test while, at the same time, offering casual reference to the Constitution’s use of the “legal term” … “Natural born citizen.” That term does not explicitly cite jus soli as the only means test. Over the centuries since its inception, legislated law and commentary has provided “equivalency” to jus sanguine because that is how humankind, traditionally, passes wealth and power to successive generations. That’s why an act of “adultery” was maintained as a criminal offense for so long. The right to inheritance was guaranteed to the “blood relative” (as the bloodline of the father is always passed on through the mother). It’s tradition is older than that of jus soli, does not equivocate a child’s right to citizenship by examining its origins (are they the child of an enemy of the state?), and therefore lends more weight to the argument that jus sanguinis is the more appropriate means test.
Look at this way: Ted Cruz is a “natural born citizen” of the U.S. through his mother just as Marco Rubio is a “natural born citizen” because he was born here. Both are natural born citizens according to the law. Now, if Kris Anne says the law is unconstitutional, I’ll weigh in with her judgement but that is another matter altogether; that issue more clearly represents the sedition that has been on-going since 1913 rather than this issue of citizenship
. . . and finally today we have this breaking news:
. . . Bix Weir said sometime ago that we shouldn’t get upset about this election, because things are likely to change so much, these people will not be running. I tend to agree with Bix, but I think it’s important that we understand that these events teach us how grossly we have permitted our Constitution to be undermined.