Saturday, 23 July 2016

On Making One's Point

further from ’Trump Fires Back At Cruz For His Vitriolic Speech’ - Andrew West - July 22

OnOne kibitzer3 a day ago (July 22)

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.



  • ADRoberts
    kibitzer3 8 hours ago (July 23)

  • Anyone who can read? Are you kidding me. Judge Nap is one of the most respected conservative judges out there. ANd you want to say that YOUR opionion is better? 
  • Talk abut ego. Talk about arrogant. You fit right in with Trump;.
  • Reply

      • kibitzer3
        ADRoberts a few seconds ago (July 23)

      • Not my opinion. 1) B. Franklin, the Framers' respected elder mentor, and a delegate to the C'l Convention proceedings [himself], is known to have had 3 copies of the de Vattel tome in his possession, and recommended the perspectives therein to the Continental Congress even before the C'l Convention. 2) John Jay, an eminent statesman of the day - and who ended up being appointed as the first Chief Justice of the new US Supreme Court - wrote a letter to G. Washington, in his role as Chair of the CC proceedings, 'hinting' that the presidency should only be open to a 'natural born' citizen for the express purpose of making sure that the occupant had NO DUAL OR OTHERWISE CONFLICTING LOYALTIES OR ALLEGIANCES OR INFLUENCES. Had SOLE ALLEGIANCE to the U.S. 3) A. Hamilton, as a delegate to the proceedings, made a proposal that the president need only be "born a citizen" - and his proposal was SPECIFICALLY TURNED DOWN, in favor of the more stringent 'nbc' category of citizen. 4) Vested interests today, including Cruz, make reference to the Naturalization Act of 1790, conveniently leaving out the fact that it was repealed by the N Act of 1795 ON THIS VERY ISSUE - that the earlier Act had made a misleading reference to a nbc. And that repeal was signed off on by no less a set of knowledgeable Framers as Madison and Washington. 5) Both major political parties of our day have recognized the true definition of a nbc by trying a total of 8 times between them, between 2003 and '08 alone, to get a c'l amendment going through Congress on this issue - in attempts to water down that stringent requirement - and none of their proposals even made it out of committee, such was the sensitivity around this issue. (So: They HAVE KNOWN. And know. The truth of the matter.)

    •           I rest my case. Unless you want more. But this should be 
    •           sufficient, I would think, TO make my case.

No comments: