(NOTE: Leaving tomorrow to go to Washington State, so you won’t have me to kick around anymore….until Monday.)<\/p>\n
I loathe birthers. Think they are intellectually dishonest, and tactically moronic. They hurt the conservative cause by aligning themselves with us. But the reality is they are just lunatics. They don’t honestly care where Obama was born, if it wasn’t this, they would start on something else. But, they’ve carved out their little niche, and now are all acolytes to the Great Law Dentist from On High.<\/p>\n
But, in addition to being a crackpot, Titz is a total liar, or an idiot, or both. Case in point: yesterday someone that I truly respect, but who unfortunately halfway buys into this nonsense sent along the lattest DC Quo Warranto statute \u00a716-351-\u00a716-3503 allows removal from office of any federal officer, Writ of Quo Warranto to be issued in the name of the United States of America against a person, who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Now, I don’t know a single thing about Quo Warranto, and seemingly not many other folks do either, because when I looked it up, it was only Oily and her sycophants talking about it. But, either way, I read on in her extremely long and poorly written “Memo on Quo Warranto applicability and enforcement.” I don’t have a link for you since it was sent via email, and when I went to her site, my Norton Anti-Virus about had a complete meltdown. But, let me draw your attention to one thing she writes:<\/p>\n 6. Definition of the Natural Born can be found in the Law of Nations by Emer de Vattel, legal treatise and legal dictionary, quoted in the Constitution and widely used by the framers of the Constitution.<\/p>\n 7. According to the Law of Nations, Natural born Citizen needs to be born in the country to two parents, citizens of the country, not owing allegiance to any other sovereignties. Law of Nations, Emer de Vattel Vol 1, Chapter 19 \u00a7212.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Now, how many of you have read “Law of Nations” by Emmerich de Vattel? Yeah, me either. I found that odd, since I don’t remember any of his stuff from any of the 4 Con Law classes I took. So, I started looking in my library at home. I looked in my “Liberty’s Blueprint” book that Caro got me for my Birthday. No reference in there to either Hamilton or Madison being influenced by him. Then I went to my 3 Con Law text books. Nothing. Then I went to this book I have on great legal philosphers, nothing.<\/p>\n How can that be, not only was he “widely used by the framers” but it was quoted in the Constitution. I didn’t remember any footnotes to other sources in the Constitution, so I set out to find out where it was quoted. <\/p>\n And I shit you not, this is what I found on an Oily Titz sycophant site<\/a>:<\/p>\n Many scholars have said that \u201cnatural-born\u201d is not defined in the Constitution, but that we must look to the laws that subsequently developed. However, this is a wrong premise. The Constitution actually does define the requirement, by incorporation of the Laws of Nations. Vattel\u2019s Laws of Nations is referenced in the Constitution, and through legalese, the precepts of the Laws of Nations are incorporated into the Constitution.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n But where is that you ask?<\/p>\n EXCERPT 3: U.S. Constitution, Article I, \u00a78:<\/p>\n The Congress shall have Power\u2026To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n Yes, Law of Nations is CAPITALIZED, meaning our framers were citing a proper name. There was only one Law of Nations in 1787 officially declared. And yes, Congress has the power to create and enforce ANY LAW mentioned in the Law of Nations written by Emmerich de Vattel! It was sitting right under our noses the entire time.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Hiding in plain sight! That’s right, the framers in their infinite wisdom cited to a book and didn’t tell anyone! Of course, one might also note that in addition to Law of Nations being capitalized, Power, Piracies, Felonies, Seas, and Offenses were all CAPITALIZED as well. which means, that not only were they citing to the book by Vettel, but they also were making Nostradamian references to Obama. It’s all right there! READ A BOOK PEOPLE!!!!11!! The Paulians know what I am talking about.<\/p>\n BTW- Just to give fair warning, since “Law of Nations” is the law of the land now, I found a few problems. For one thing, did y’all know we were supposed to have a Prince all along? I didn’t either. And you know that seperation of Church and State horseshit? Yeah, all lies<\/a>.<\/p>\n \u00a7 129. Public establishment of religion Now, I suppose it is possible that this guy is just a lunatic, and that Oily Titz has some other reason to believe that Emmerich’s philosophies are the law of the land. If so, I am sure her droogs will show up en masse to enlighten us. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Dentistry <\/del> legal update from Oily. Seems she is filing some thing now to have the usurper brought low:<\/p>\n
\nBut we should take care not to extend this liberty beyond its just bounds. In religious affairs a citizen has only a right to be free from compulsion, but can by no means claim that of openly doing what he pleases, without regard to the consequences it may produce on society.(52) The establishment of religion by law, and its public exercise, are matters of state, and are necessarily under the jurisdiction of the political authority. If all men are bound to serve God, the entire nation, in her national capacity is doubtless obliged to serve and honour him (Prelim. \u00a7 5), And as this important duty is to be discharged by the nation in whatever manner she judges best, \u2014 to the nation it belongs to determine what religion she will follow, and what public worship she thinks proper to establish.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n