Posted on 02/06/2012 4:32:19 PM PST by Para-Ord.45
Friday, February 3, 2012, for some kind of a bribe or because he was threatened, Georgia Judge Michael Malihi sold out his country and defecated on the constitution of The United States of America.
As an Administrative law judge in the State of Georgia, a case was presented to him to have Barack Obama removed from the ballot to run for President in the State of Georgia.
His actions have set precedence in American law that if a person is charged with a crime, the best defense, is to not show up for court. Law schools may now offer a course in "The Obama Defense".
Three separate legal teams presented evidence and witnesses to show that Obama is not eligible to run for President because he is not a natural born citizen. Obama produced no evidence, no witnesses and both he and his lawyer failed to show up for court in violation of a subpoena to do so.
Forget about what we think, whether he is, or is not a natural born citizen. Opinions don't count. Only evidence and witnesses count. But we're not dealing with rational minds in this case. We never have.
Judge Michael Malihi violated a basic rule of legal interpretation in his ruling. He violated our earliest Supreme Court ruling on how to interpret the Constitution. He ignored evidence. He ignored witnesses. He ignored earlier Supreme Court rulings establishing that the term "natural born citizen" means, one who is born in America to two American citizen parents.
As attorney Leo Donofrio points out on his website: http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com
"...this Court is 'not authorized either to read into or to read out that which would add to or change its meaning.' ...There is no dispute that Obama was born to a non-U.S. citizen father (his father was a British citizen) and U.S. citizen mother. Being born to an alien father, Obama also inherited his father's British citizenship under the British Nationality Act 1948.
All this demonstrates that Obama was not born in the full and complete legal, political, and military allegiance and jurisdiction of the United States. He is therefore not an Article II "natural born Citizen" and cannot be placed on the Georgia primary ballot."
It is impossible to believe, that Judge Michael Malihi, himself, believed, he was following the constitution and legal precedent. He knows he's a crook. He knows he's a liar. He knows, that in his ancestral home country, that unlike America, he would have his head chopped off for what he did.
He ignored the Constitution and at least three US Supreme Court rulings, defining Natural born citizen as one who is born in America to two citizen parents. He ignored the Law of Nations, that the founders of this country used to draft our constitution. He ignored the countless letters, written back and forth by our founders, defining natural born citizen and their reasons for why they would only accept a natural born citizen as their President.
(Excerpt)
and whereas in the recognition of this princi-ple, this government has freely received emigrants from all nations, and invested them with the rights of citizenship; and whereas it is claimed that such American citizens, with their descendents, are subjects of for-eign states, owing allegiance to the governments thereof; and whereas it is necessary to the maintenance of public peace that this claim of foreign allegiance should be promptly and finally disavowed; Therefore,
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any declaration, instruc- tion, opinion, order, or decision of any officers of this government which denies, restricts, impairs, or questions the right of expatriation, is hereby declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of this government.
IOW, dual citizenship of any form is declared inconsistant with the fundamental principles of the US Govt. What part of that do you not understand? Even Gray admitted it when he stated there were only two paths to citizenship & the one tie between the two is "single" allegiance to the US, either at birth or naturalization per A1S8C4 or A2S1C5.
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=083/llcg083.db&recNum=1040
To Mr. Rogers I will say this. The terminology is irrelevant. The meaning is clearly the same in all cases. They are talking about the people who are SUPPOSED to be the inhabitants of a nation, whether they be subjects or citizens. As I mentioned previously, the distinction is between that of a "car" and an "automobile." They mean pretty much the same thing.
This is a point that is continuously lost on the legitimacy supporters, but it is the crucial distinction between a citizen and a subject. Jus Soli is based on the Common law of the Monarchy, and is part of the trappings of Monarchy that we through off with our Independence. (Individual States might not have, but it was certainly the intent of our Federal government.)
Natural law did not always elude that of the Monarchy though. Early definitions of ‘natural born’ subject confined it to children born to parents, both of whom were ‘natural born’ subjects
I recall reading somewhere that the English changed their definition of "natural born subject" as the result of an ascension fight among the Royals. Apparently there was a Royal in the line of Ascension that was born in England, but not to a British Subject, and as a result his supporters interpreted the law in such a way as to allow it.
I didn't get a chance to read it all the way through, and I have since misplaced the link to that article. Would you happen to know anything about it?
Yes I did. I found it quite amusing. Not that it will make any impression on Mr. Rogers, he is quite emotionally attached to his beliefs.
That is an interesting angle that I had not previously considered. If it was taught in the Churches of the time that "native" meant "born of the blood" then it greatly clarifies why they were so fond of using the term interchangeably with "natural born citizen."
That is a very good point. If they are discussing Locke, Lord Summers--Priestly, and Vattel, but omitting Blackstone, one can hardly argue that Blackstone was influential in the Debate on the character of individual citizens.
That needs to go in the research thread so we can easily find it again.
One could say the same thing about the old "trial by combat" method of settling the law, and one would be just as right.
Admonishing me to "CHANGE" it, does not disprove the fallacies which I have pointed out in it. Again, how can Orly object to evidence presented in a case when it was NOT HER CASE? I have never heard of cross case objections before.
You are personalizing it. In terms of the individual, we don't care what the law is, we just want to avoid punishment, so yes, every individual would prefer that his lawyer gets him off by hook or crook, but it ought not be the purpose of our legal system to free the guilty. This is not in the best interest of the society of which it is a part. What *IS* in the best interest of our society is that people who transgress our reasonable laws should be held to account for it.
You are looking at the little picture. You need to look at the big picture. Covering up the commission of a crime may help some individual, but it is detrimental to the rest of our society which needs and expects our courts to administer justice, not reward whomever has the cleverest and most unethical attorney.
Consider that if *I* was sent to prison for 5 years, that would encourage others to not do whatever it was that I did which resulted in the Prison Sentence. Our entire system of crime prevention is based on the theory of deterrence. If people aren't punished for what they do, where is the deterrence?
Now I'm not going to leave it at that. The Exclusionary rule not only frees a guilty party, it also frees ALL of the guilty parties. The Government Officers, in violating someone's fourth Amendment rights, have ALSO got off without being punished. The deterrence equation breaks down on their side as well. Letting them get away with such behavior does not discourage others of them from trying a similar tactic, but being more circumspect about it.
It breeds contempt for the law all the way around. The Governmental officers feel they can still get away with unreasonable searches if they are just more clever the next time, while the criminal feels that he can get away with it because the judge threw out all the evidence. In the end, society loses the deterrence effect to both the officers and the Defendant.
Something further that I will point out. Our Constitution does not guarantee equal success in life. It DOES however, guarantee equal application of the law, yet we have anything but. Rich people can hire more clever and more unethical lawyers to get them off for crimes which they commit, (O.J. Simpson) while the poor people simply get a public defender who doesn't really care if they get him off or not.
I have seen this countless times. In our society, money buys more consideration in our legal system. I would say it buys better "justice" except getting the guilty off because they had more money is NOT "justice."
It has long been my thinking that rather than socialize the medical system, or the housing system, etc. we ought to socialize the LEGAL system. Make ALL lawyers a governmental employee, so that rich and poor citizens alike can enjoy the benefit of "Equal Protection Under the Law." :)
It is, after all, GUARANTEED by our Governing Document, is it not?
I know the feeling. I have that problem often enough myself.
Blackstone quotes in Continental Congress:
October 21, 1775 : National debt, one hundred and forty millions; ten millions, the peace establishment; twenty millions, the whole current cash of the nation. Blackstone. I never read anybody that better understood the subject
Jan 24, 1783 : The Committee [Mr. James Madison, Mr. Hugh Williamson and Mr. Thomas Mifflin] instructed on the motion of Col. [Theodorick] Bland to report a list of books proper for the use of Congress, recommend that the Superintendt. of Finance and the Secy. of Congress be empowered to take order for procuring the books enumerated below: the same when procured to be under the care of the said Secy.
Law of Nature and Nations Cudworth's Intellectual System. Cumberland's Law of Nature. Wolfius's Law of Nature. Hutchinson's Moral Philosophy. Beller's delineation of universal Law. Ferguson's analysis of Mor: Philosophy. Rutherforth's institutes of Natural Law. Grotius's Law of Nature and Nations. Puffendorf's Law of Nature and Nations with notes by Barbeyrac. Puffendorf de officio hominis et civis. Vattell's Law of Nature and Nations. Vattell's Questions in Natural Law. Burlamaque's Law of Nature and Nations. Grotius's Mare Liberum. Selden's Mare clausum. Molloy de jure maritimo. Beaux lex mercatoria. Jacob's lex mercatoria. Lee on captures. Ordinances of Marine of France. Admiralty Laws of G. Britain. do. of the several others of Europe. Wiquefort's Ambassador. El Embaxador, par Antoine de Vera. L'Ambasciatore Politice Christiano, par le prince Charles Marie Carafe. De la charge et dignité de l'ambassadeur, par Jean Hotman. Le Ministre public dans les cours etrangeres &c. par J. de la Sarras du Franquesnay. De foro legatorum par Bynkershock traduit en Francois par Barbeyrac, sous le titre de traite du Juge competent des Ambassadeurs &c. with all his other works. De legationibus par Alberie Gentilis. Legatus par Charles Paschal. Legatus par Frederick Marsalaer.
Law. Justinian's Institutes by Harris. Codex juris civilis. Taylor's elements of Civil Law. Domat's Civil Law. Coke's Institutes. Blackstone's Commentaries. Cunningham's Law Dictionary. Statutes at large by Rufhead. Lex Parliamentaria. Cunningham's law of Exchange. Collection of Laws to prevent frauds in the Customs. Book of rates. Clarke's practice of Courts of Admiralty. Fredencian Code.
June 29, 1787 : Dr. JOHNSON. As the debates have hitherto been managed, they may be spun out to an endless length; and as gentlemen argue on different grounds, they are equally conclusive on the points they advance, but afford no demonstration either way. States are political societies. For whom are we to form a government? for the people of America, or for those societies? Undoubtedly for the latter. They must, therefore, have a voice in the second branch of the general government, if you mean to preserve their existence. The people already compose the first branch. This mixture is proper and necessary; for we cannot form a general government on any other ground. Mr Hamilton: The Parliament of Great Britain asserted a supremacy over the whole empire; and the celebrated Judge Blackstone labors for the legality of it, although many parts were not represented. This parliamentary power we opposed as contrary to our colonial rights
Aug 29, 1787 : In Convention.--Article 16 being taken up,-- Mr. PINCKNEY moved to commit article 16, with the following proposition: "To establish uniform laws upon the subject of bankruptcies, and respecting the damages arising on the protest of foreign bills of exchange." Mr. DICKINSON mentioned to the House, that, on examining Blackstone's Commentaries, he found that the term "ex post facto" related to criminal cases only; that they would not, consequently, restrain the states from retrospective laws in civil cases; and that some further provision for this purpose would be requisite.
Friday June 18, 1788 : [The 2d clause of the 2d section(treaties) was then read.] Mr. MADISON, instead of being alarmed, had no doubt but the Constitution would increase, rather than decrease, the security of territorial rights and commercial advantages, as it would augment the strength and respectability of the country. The honorable gentleman, says he, has said we are making great innovations in extending the force of treaties. Are not treaties the law of the land in England? I will refer you to a book which is in every man's hand--Blackstone's Commentaries. It will inform you that the treaties made by the king are to be the supreme law of the land.
June 20, 1788 : [The 1st and 2d sections of the 3d article still under consideration.] To hear gentlemen of such penetration make use of such arguments, to persuade us to part with that trial by jury, is very astonishing. We are told that we are to part with that triad by jury which our ancestors secured their lives and property with, and we are to build castles in the air, and substitute visionary modes of decision for that noble palladium. I hope we shall never he induced, by such arguments, to part with that excellent mode of trial. No appeal can now be made as to fact in common-law suits. The unanimous verdict of twelve impartial men cannot be reversed. I shall take the liberty of reading to the committee the sentiments of the learned Judge Blackstone, so often quoted, on the subject.
We didn't! And by pointing this out you are REINFORCING my point! :) The British did this. They did it countless times throughout their History. I recall reading explicitly of one man who was born in England of French Parents, and who was captured during one of England's ongoing hostilities with the French. He was held in prison because he was alleged to be a traitor to the crown. On the basis of jus soli, the crown claimed allegiance, and woe betide the person who didn't want to give it!
It wasn't until Queen Victoria permitted it that British Subjects could throw off their REQUIRED Allegiance to the British Crown. (And then only after reaching the age of maturity.) So it begs the question. How is a British Law which was designed to compel born OBEDIENCE to the crown compatible with the American Principle of Freedom and Independence from the crown?
Sorry to say, I find this ridiculous. Go argue with the courts, who I suspect will have little sympathy for such a bizarre theory.
If you find it ridiculous, you most likely do not fully grasp the concept. As for arguing with the courts, they simply regard anything outside their usual ritual as "blasphemy", and anyone bringing such as a "heretic."
I believe that's exactly what I said - anyone who doesn't wish to be an American citizen can renounce it. So it isn't "grabbing" or "forcing" anyone's allegiance.
But it is based on a law that is DESIGNED to do just that! We are referring to the pedigree of jus soli, not on how the United States has managed to apply it sans abuse.
The question is, was inclusion into our body of Federal citizenry based on a law designed to compel obedience to the Crown, or was it based on the principles of natural law that indicate the character and allegiance of the child is derived from that of the parents?
Actually, no. Look at the discussion and court cases around the issue. From the law.justia.com site on "Expatriation"
The history of the right of expatriation, voluntarily on the part of the citizen or involuntarily under duress of statute, is shadowy in United States constitutional law. Justice Story, in the course of an opinion,1264 and Chancellor Kent, in his writings,1265 accepted the ancient English doctrine of perpetual and unchangeable allegiance to the government of one’s birth, a citizen being precluded from renouncing his allegiance without permission of that government....
Ha ha ha ha ha... We've already established that certain personages in history were confused as to the nature of what is citizenship in this nation, Among them I would point out the British trained Rawle, but I would also point out that it is a contradiction of principle for a Nation based on the belief that they have the right to separate from the Crown, to require the same sort of allegiance that they themselves threw off from THEIR master. :)
While subsequent Lawyers and Judges may have been unclear on this point, I very much doubt the Founders were. Indeed, they wrote provisions for Slavery into the constitution in order to entice the Southern states into remaining with them. Someone could have just saved them a lot of time by telling them they could COMPEL the Southern States to remain in the Union, as did Lincoln some years later. Subsequent consistency of Principle has not always been America's strong suit.
The Expatriation Act of 1868 starts out "Whereas the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people..." So yes, the "perpetual allegiance" principal was first held to apply, then addressed and the right of expatriation was officially recognized. In contrast, I don't recall any statue proclaiming that jus soli was invalid.
I would point out that the founders likely had no confusion as to the right of expatriation being a natural right. Didn't Thomas Jefferson write something or other that said this:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
I would suppose the founders are familiar with this document, seeing as so many of them signed it. :)
I guess it only took their posterity nearly a hundred years to gain the founders clarity on the issue.
A point that seems lost on NBC'ers: the colonists did not fight the Revolutionary war because they didn't like English common law - they fought because England refused the colonists the rights of English common law. See what Samuel Adams had to say, among many others.
Where do you think "no taxation without representation!" came from? The colonists revolted against the monarchy because it was not according them their common law rights. Which is why there are so many quotes posted from early historians and jurists pointing out that where common law was not changed by the Constitution or by statute, it is still used in courts. Do I need to post Justice Scalia's quotes on this again? Or do you consider him ignorant of the law as well?
“subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States “meant full and complete jurisdiction to which citizens are generally subject, and not any qualified and partial jurisdiction, such as may consist with allegiance to some other government.”
Congressional Globe, 40th Cong., 2nd Sess., at 868 (1868); see also at 967 (Rep. Baily) (describing birthright citizenship as “the slavish feudal doctrine of perpetual allegiance”)
Representative Woodward of Pennsylvania “It is high time that feudalism were driven from our shores and eliminated from our law, and now is the time to declare it.”
To blame just one is to avoid placing the blame on all where it rightly deserves to be placed.
The worst thing about these age old conflicts is that religion was often used as nothing more than a pretext for the accumulation of wealth and power solely for the sake of gaining wealth and power.
None were innocent. The innocent were those who died in droves as cannon fodder in the armies of those seeking wealth and power, not realizing that they were being used in such a manner.
We Objected to not having representation regarding decisions which affected us, such as taxation, but not limited to just that. Under the Law of England, we had no recourse, We must comply with the directives of the King and Parliament. We therefore had to BREAK the law to gain the right to rule ourselves. (Something which had never been done before.)
In the breaking of it, we necessarily had to break with every aspect of it which was derived from the divine right of Kings, among which was that a man could claim you as a subject because you happened to be born on his property.
Where do you think "no taxation without representation!" came from? The colonists revolted against the monarchy because it was not according them their common law rights.
It was the RIGHTS under the common law which we wanted, not the common law itself, and we discovered that these RIGHTS could better be protected through the exclusion of the Monarchy. It isn't the common law we wished, it was the rights guaranteed by it that was our desire. Now we guarantee them with our own laws.
Which is why there are so many quotes posted from early historians and jurists pointing out that where common law was not changed by the Constitution or by statute, it is still used in courts. Do I need to post Justice Scalia's quotes on this again? Or do you consider him ignorant of the law as well?
Yes, all our legal habits and procedures as developed in the English Courts were adopted except where they were later modified by practice or statute. But this did not constitute an acceptance of common law ideas which were in conflict with the character of our new nation. Need I remind you of what James Madison said of the common law?
The common law is nothing more than the unwritten law, and is left by all the constitutions [of the several States] equally liable to legislative alterations. I am not sure that any notice is particularly taken of it in the Constitutions of the States. If there is, nothing more is provided than a general declaration that it shall continue along with other branches of law to be in force till legally changed. The Constitution of Virga. [Virginia] drawn up by Col Mason himself, is absolutely silent on the subject. An ordinance passed during the same Session, declared the Common law as heretofore & all Statutes of prior date to the 4 of James I. to be still the law of the land, merely to obviate pretexts that the separation from G. Britain threw us into a State of nature, and abolished all civil rights and Obligations. Since the Revolution every State has made great inroads & with great propriety in many instances on this monarchical code. The "revisal of the laws" by a Committee of wch. Col. Mason was a member, though not an acting one, abounds with such innovations. The abolition of the right of primogeniture, which I am sure Col. Mason does not disapprove, falls under this head. What could the Convention have done? If they had in general terms declared the Common law to be in force, they would have broken in upon the legal Code of every State in the most material points: they wd. have done more, they would have brought over from G.B. a thousand heterogeneous & antirepublican doctrines, and even the ecclesiastical Hierarchy itself, for that is a part of the Common law. If they had undertaken a discrimination, they must have formed a digest of laws, instead of a Constitution.
That's the most absurd thing you have said thus far. It was because of feudal “subjectship” that they were forced to pay undue taxes without representation in the fist place. But alas, the founders were very well educated in English history and what was brought naturally since ancient times and what came by the king's pejorative.
Clark's (Oxford, England) Discourse on political & social dynamics: “In the Savoy”, 1738; “State Trials, Vol 2”, London 1809 & Clive Perry, “British Nationality”, London 1951
“English nationality was acquired, indelibly, by birth within the realm to parents who were themselves subjects”
And finally, St George Tucker reiterates that English common law was not the common law of the colonies
From the whole of the preceding examination, we may deduce the following conclusions:
First .... That the common law of England, and every statute of that kingdom, made for the security of the life, liberty, or property of the subject, before the settlement of the British colonies, respectively, so far as the same were applicable to the nature of their situation and circumstances, respectively, were brought over to America, by the first settlers of the colonies, respectively; and remained in full force therein, until repealed, altered, or amended by the legislative authority of the colonies, respectively; or by the constitutional acts of the same, when they became sovereign and independent states.
Secondly .... That neither the common law of England, nor the statutes of that kingdom, were, at any period antecedent to the revolution, the general and uniform law of the land in the British colonies, now constituting the United States.
Thirdly .... That as the adoption or rejection of the common law and statutes of England, or any part thereof, in one colony, could not have any operation or effect in another colony, possessing a constitutional legislature of it's own; so neither could the adoption or rejection thereof by the constitutional, or legislative act of one sovereign and independent state, have any operation or effect in another sovereign independent state; because every such state hath an exclusive right to be governed by it's own laws only.
Fourthly .... Therefore the authority and obligation of the common law and statutes of England, as such in the American states, must depend solely upon the constitutional or legislative authority of each state, respectively; as contained in their several bills of rights, constitutions, and legislative declarations .... which, being different in different states, and. wholly independent of each other, cannot establish any uniform law, or rule of obligation in all the states.
Fifthly .... That neither the articles of confederation and perpetual union, nor, the present constitution of the United States, ever did, or do, authorize the federal government, or any department thereof, to declare the common law or statutes of England, or of any other nation, to be the law of the land in the United States, generally, as one nation; nor to legislate upon, or exercise jurisdiction in, any case of municipal law, not delegated to the United States by the constitution
Nor must we forget, what was also before slightly mentioned, that a part of the present United States was first settled by a Dutch colony; and another part, by Swedes. The tract claimed by those two nations extended from the thirty-eighth to the forty-first degree of latitude, and was called the New Netherlands, comprehending the present states of New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and the Eastern Shore of Maryland: it was conquered by the English, and confirmed to the crown of England by the treaty of Breda in 1667. The Dutch inhabitants remained in their settlements in New-York, and a part of Jersey; the Swedes, if I mistake not, were removed from Delaware to New-York, where they likewise remained. According to judge Blackstone, the laws of England, as such, could have no allowance, or authority there; this being a conquered and ceded country, and not a colony originally planted by Englishmen: and according to his principles, also, the laws of Holland, and of Sweden, were the municipal laws of those provinces, until the period of their conquest; and so continued until other laws were imposed upon them by the crown of England. When, and in what degree, a change was made in this manner; or whether any such change was ever formally made, can only be determined by recurrence to documents not within the reach of the author of these sheets.
But getting back to “subjct to the jurisdiction, I located the case discussing it in regards to citizenship. I was wrong, it is a fairly new case that I believe Leo brought to our attention
Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., Inc., 513 U.S. 561, 562 (1995) (”this Court will avoid a reading which renders some words altogether redundant”); see also Richard A. Posner, Legal Formalism, Legal Realism, and the Interpretation of Statutes and the Constitution, 37 Case. W. Res. L. Rev. 179 (1989).
Textually, such an interpretation is manifestly erroneous, for it renders the entire “subject to the jurisdiction” clause redundant. Anyone who is “born” in the United States is, under this interpretation, necessarily “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. Yet it is a well-established doctrine of legal interpretation that legal texts, including the Constitution, are not to be interpreted to create redundancy unless any other interpretation would lead to absurd results.
Adding the word "natural" before born wou;d have created a redunancy in the law which is why it simply was not needed to be added. However, it is the misinterpretation of "subject to the jurisdiction" that has caused absurd results that are destroying our nation from within.
James Story Rules of Constitutional Interpretation
§ 181. I. The first and fundamental rule in the interpretation of all instruments is, to construe them according to the sense of the terms, and the intention of the parties. Mr. Justice Blackstone has remarked, that the intention of a law is to be gathered from the words, the context, the subject-matter, the effects and consequence, or the reason and spirit of the law. He goes on to justify the remark by stating, that words are generally to be understood in their usual and most known signification, not so much regarding the propriety of grammar, as their general and popular use; that if words happen to be dubious, their meaning may be established by the context, or by comparing them with other words and sentences in the same instrument; that illustrations may be further derived from the subject-matter, with reference to which the expressions are used; that the effect and consequence of a particular construction is to be examined, because, if a literal meaning would involve a manifest absurdity, it ought not to be adopted; and that the reason and spirit of the law, or the causes, which led to its enactment, are often the best exponents of the words, and limit their application
IOW, one must look to how the word "citizen" is used in the Constitution. One being the increase in citizenry controlled by Congress via A1S8C4 and the other increase comes naturally through the already exsting citizenry via A2S1C5. Two paths, one made by man, the other by nature.
You should put the whole post into the research thread.
Great Britain will be the area of choice as all intersect there in some manner
Protestant, Catholic, Reformist, Islamists =
Right/Left (including Socialists/Communists/Marxists)/Independents/Islamists
The P's don't like the C's because the P's believe that the C's want to have their Nation run by somebody like their Pope in Rome instead of the King who would, of necessity, have to be removed from that position. That Kingship is an ordained position and the P's know it has to remain as such or the King becomes a despot, like the Pope in Rome.
The C's want somebody to rule over them like their Pope in Rome does because he also will be able to give them all of the free passage into Heaven they can get, just like the Pope can, even at the cost of everyone else's soul.
So the C's chosen local leader, who is actually one of the two princes vying for the throne of the King in a civil battle that developed since the death of the old King, goes about the countryside with his train of knights in tow proclaiming his right to be King and declaring that the Kinship isn't an ordained position and he'll do whatever is necessary to destroy the other prince and the pretentiousness of ordained rule.
And while all of this conflict is going on between the P's and C's, the C's, seeing an opportunity to cause internal strife and ensure their guy becomes King, infiltrate the P's and pretend to be P's who don't care if the prince isn't of royal blood. They shout and holler. They say the P's who want the blooded prince are mean, evil and possess wicked tongues even when they aren't and don't. They cry out in indignation when hit with a tomato while the crowd in the public square laugh knowing that they deserved it. They whisper when necessary to fool those who would think differently than they and prevent their blooded prince from being King.
The P's soon tell the magistrate that the C's leader isn't of royal blood. They know the magistrate has the power to stop the false prince and resolve the civil strife that is happening across the countryside. The magistrates, however, say they can't look at this right now as they have to go visit the brothel, which the C's actually own, and ensure that the health codes are being maintained.
And the R's just sit there in their ignorance not knowing what's going on or even caring, one way or the other, as long as the pub stays open and the ale keeps flowing.
And all the while the Islamist, who came under the auspices of selling his trade goods thereby increasing his wealth, has been skulking around in the background waiting for the opportunity to rape, pillage and plunder. For "He On High" surely knows, and has decreed, that these heretical apostates will destroy themselves or will have to be destroyed or be enslaved to him and his kin for the righteousness of "He On High".
All comments welcome.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.