from patriotupdate.com; ’Trump Fires Back At Cruz For His Vitriolic Speech’ - Andrew West - July 22
(Much toing and froing on the issue of Ted’s speech, & the bg to it - Ted's attack on Trump (through pushing 'racy' photos of his wife), and Trump's return attacks in retaliation; etc. - in the Comments thread.)
..
This whole brouhaha is tainted by the fact that Cruz has tried to palm himself off as a great 'constitutional expert' and lawful candidate for that office when he isn't either. He is NOT a 'natural born citizen'. There is all manner of historical evidence that the definition of a NBC at the time that the constitutional Framers put that eligibility requirement in their contract for that particular office was "those born in the country of parents who are citizens" - and that requirement STILL STANDS, absent a constitutional amendment to the contrary.
Wake up, America. You are losing your Constitution piece by piece. And now by a very serious piece: the very eligibility requirements for your presidency. This is not 'precedent' so much as a recipe for disaster.
Just take a good look at the last 8 yea
Reply
-
Indeed, Btty. Indeed. And my point exactly.
Ditto, Lying ted is nothing but another anchor baby!
Oh, so we should support an Authoritarian who has no concept of what the Constitution stands for, right? You want a guy who has already promised to "look at" changing libel laws for those who disagree with him, and says eminent domain is a very useful tool to get things done. He will also decide what is torture and what is not as well as work around Congress when necessary. Sounds like a lover of the Constitution, right?
I'll take Andrew Napolitano's opinion on Cruz's citizenship status over yours but thanks for the legal expertise. Cruz hasn't tried to "palm" himself off as anything other than a man who respects and has defended the Constitution time and again. Yeah, we're losing our Constitution piece by piece all right after 8 years of a full blown Marxist is presumably followed by at least another 4 of a strong man Authoritarian or a criminal.
OnOne: I don't know what Judge Nap's opinion on this issue is, but anyone who can read plain English with even a modicum of comprehension would be able to know what the answer is. It's from the definitive tome of the day on such matters, E. de Vattel's 'The Law of Nations, Or Principles of Natural Law' - Book One, Ch. XIX, Secr. 212, for those who are keen to know the facts. And as I said: that eligibility requirement for that particular office STILL STANDS, absent a constitutional amendment to the contrary.
This nation made a terrible mistake when it trusted the Republican Party, as the opposition party of record, to say something if there were any problem about the candidacy or nomination of the man who is unlawfully sitting in the Oval Office. That mistake has caused a precedent that needs to be WIPED OUT, by oath keepers making a deal with the S.S. to avoid bloodshed and going in and arresting the tyrant, and holding him for trial - on a whole host of charges by now, including fraud, perjury, and treason.
And then your concerns about an Authoritarian in the office will be addressed. The right way. Not by trying to make two wrongs make a right.
—
And speaking of ’waking up’ (as I was further up, before these additions to this Comments thread):
I got a request today, from change.org, to sign a petition headed ‘California open primaries extended to executive branch elections.’ Part of the attempts to continue corrupt practices in the electoral process: being able to vote for a candidate not of your registered party in order to influence that vote in a scheming way:
“In California we are advanced enough to recognize that open primaries are part of a fair election process. But this does not extend to the vote for the executive branch. Many people were forced to register or re-register as belonging to political parties in order to vote for their chosen candidate. Many did not realize the presidential primaries were not open. Others tried to change registration and due to bureaucracy had difficulties. There is no reason we should have to re-register simply to vote for the candidate we like. It is a waste of government employee's time as well as preventing democratic participation. This is an obstruction of democracy in favor of giving more power to political parties and has no place in our California Republic.”
’Sign Mark’s petition’ - not.
“Preventing democratic participation”. Yeah, right. Like using same-day or online registration or Early Voting in order to scam the system, or trying to defeat photo ID requirements, are all examples of good “democratic participation”.
You insufferable little shits. Screwing with/demeaning something as honorable as voting. You should be taken out behind the backstop and given a good hiding. People have died trying to obtain the right to vote. Get your shitty little schemes out of here. I have a good mind to -
oh, never mind. You will get yours.
And it won’t be long, now.
|
|
|
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment