A
Period and a Dash
or
Rush Limbaugh Mentions Original Intent
or
Rush Limbaugh Mentions Original Intent
FINALLY
This
post is modified with corrections from a similar post that was posted
on Mario Apuzzo's blog on July 7, 2014 at 11:04 PM.
>>
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-constitution-rule-of-law-and.html?commentPage=14
<<>>
ajtelles said...
A Period and a Dash.
or
Rush Limbaugh Mentions Original Intent—FINALLY.
In a transcript of over 14,300 words, Rush Limbaugh talked about a period and a dash in the Declaration of Independence.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Liberal Scholar Claims a Period was Added to the Declaration of Independence
July 07, 2014
Next is a portion of Limbaugh's analysis. See the entire transcript here:
>> http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/07/07/liberal_scholar_claims_a_period_was_added_to_the_declaration_of_independence
So I'm gonna read this to you again exactly as it was written and intended to be heard and read.
And something you know. You've read it yourself. You've heard it I don't know how many times.
We hold these truths to be self-evident,
that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Period, dash.
"That
to secure these rights,
Governments are instituted among Men,
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"
Well,
Governments are instituted among Men,
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"
how in the world,
whether you're talking about a nonexistent period, a phantom period,
how in the world can you say
that the original intent of the paragraph without a period
is meant to connote a big government
when the last phrase of the sentence is
"deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"?
Right there the role of government is subordinated to the people. But it doesn't matter to this scholar. It doesn't matter to this feminist who is attempting to claim that the original Founding Father Declaration of Independence was designed to establish a big government in order to secure and provide those rights.
[...]
They knew these rights are massive: life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, never been spelled out before, they knew a big and compassionate and powerful government was necessary to provide and secure those rights. I just want to warn you. So we've gotta deal with this.
But in doing it we win the argument.
"In dealing with it we end the argument,
except it's not about winning or losing the argument to the left.
It is about creating a mind-set,
creating some doubt,
and to continue their illusion,
their effort to convince as many people as possible that a big government is necessary,
it was desired,
it was part of what the Founding Fathers originally intentioned,
and therefore we should not object to anything that's happening in America now
because it's exactly what the Founders intended.
Ladies and gentlemen, they tried this.
I don't expect too many of you will remember this.
They tried this with the Second Amendment a long, long time ago.
They tried monkeying around with punctuation and pauses in the Second Amendment
to try to change the meaning of "a well-regulated militia," comma.
"That's a sentence fragment, nobody knows what that means."
They tried, the left did, to persuade as many people as possible the Second Amendment didn't say what it says.
The Supreme Court came and said, "Yes, it does. It does say that."
But they tried.
Now, I'll tell you something else.
This assertion here that there should not be a period
and that that changes dramatically the whole sentence,
the whole paragraph.
It's completely incorrect grammatically without a period.
If you don't have a period in this paragraph
it is completely ungrammatical
and there is nothing else in the Declaration of Independence that is ungrammatical.
Nothing.
They were painstaking about that.
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
In that one monologue on July 7, 2014, Limbaugh talked longer about the original intent of a few of the original words of the Declaration, “... among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Period, dash,” and the significance of a period and a dash, than he has talked about the original intent of the original words "natural born Citizen" and "...or a Citizen of..." in Article II Section 1 Clause 5 in the U.S. Constitution.
He talked longer in one monologue in one day about a period and a dash than he has talked about Article II eligibility since November 2008, when BHObama was selected as the Democratic Party presidential candidate, until today, July 7, 2014.The implicit unity of citizenship and allegiance and the original intent of the Article II original words "natural born Citizen" has never been discussed by Limbaugh in the context of the Obama birth narrative that ONLY "one-U.S.-citizen-parent" was sufficient to be eligible to be president, and it was the original intent and original genesis meaning of John Jay's underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen." Limbaugh has ignored the Obama birth narrative about presidential eligibility and the opposing original birther view, the original Framers view that, according to the 1700s common law about the unity of citizenship and allegiance, John Jay was implicitly referring ONLY to birth in the U.S. to ONLY two U.S. citizen married parents. However, the original intent significance of a period and a dash, THAT is important enough to use more than 14,000 words to rebut and debunk the leftist effort to reinterpret the Declaration and by extrapolation the U.S. Constitution.
The previous paragraph is not a negative against Limbaugh, it is simply the reality from 2008 to today,
What was John Jay implying, Rush might ask if he took the time to analyze Article II Section 1 Clause 5 and why John Jay underlined the word "born" in "natural born Citizen?"
Here are two examples to help clarify for Rush and "one-U.S.-citizen-parent" is good 'nuf-birthers about which birth narrative John Jay was implying in 1787. There are no trick questions, and ONLY one (1) right answer about ONLY singular U.S. citizenship; NOT two (2) right answers: dual U.S. and foreign citizenship.
2008 Senator Obama born in the U.S. birth narrative questions -
1- Was Jay implying ONLY birth in the U.S. to two (2) U.S. citizen parents?
2- Was Jay implying ONLY birth in the U.S. to one (1) U.S. citizen parent?
3- Was Jay implying ALSO birth in the U.S. to two (2) U. S. citizen parents?
4- Was Jay implying ALSO birth in the U.S. to one (1) U.S. citizen parent?
If birth in the U.S. and ALSO two (2) U.S. citizen parents is chosen, the birth in the U.S. and ONLY two (2) U.S. citizen parents position wins the debate.
If birth in the U.S. and ALSO one (1) U.S. citizen parents is chosen, the birth in the U.S. and ONLY two (2) U.S. citizen parents position STILL wins the debate.
2014 Senator Cruz born outside the U.S. birth narrative questions -
1- Was Jay implying ONLY birth outside the U.S. to two (2) U.S. citizen parents?
2- Was Jay implying ONLY birth outside the U.S. to one (1) U.S. citizen parent?
3- Was Jay implying ALSO birth outside the U.S. to two (2) U. S. citizen parents?
4- Was Jay implying ALSO birth outside the U.S. to one (1) U.S. citizen parent?
If anybody says that John Jay was implying that birth inside the U.S. AND outside the U.S. was his original intent, either John Jay was confused or the "-one-U.S.-citizen-parent" is good 'nuf-birther is confused.
Maybe somebody can encourage Rush Limbaugh to analyze the “original genesis” implication AND the original intent of "natural born Citizen" in Article II Section 1 Clause 5 before another "one-U.S.-citizen-parent" is good 'nuf-birther tries to reinterpret Article II for their Democratic Party "MY GUY" or for their Republican Party "MY GUY/GAL" waiting in the wings.
Art
U.S. Constitution: The Original "Birther" Document of the "Union"
No comments:
Post a Comment