Some success on the 'rule of law' front today.
1) I received my latest issue of The New American bi-weekly mag, and lo and behold, they printed my (lengthy) email to them on the Ted Cruz eligibility issue. (I perhaps 'cheated' a bit by saying, at the beginning, and which they printed as well, "Can I at least get TNA to listen to reason on the Ted Cruz eligibility issue? If not you, who, among constitutionalists?") Which contained most of the main elements of the argument. And in which I called for both the Democrat Party AND the Republican Party to be taken to court, for the disastrous "criminal oversight" caper in 2008, which brought us "the 'imperial presidency'" of Obama. So: some progress. And
2) A couple of posters to the Comments thread of an article at conservativeintel.com today, titled 'Rubio joins an already-vibrant GOP field,' had the issue right. Some excerpts (which I joined in on at the end):
from conservativeintel.com: ‘Rubio joins an already-vibrant GOP field - The Briefing, Vol. III, Issue 9’ - David Freddoso - April 20
..
This irresponsible and inflammatory rhetoric will make Hillary the 45th President of the USA- a third term for Obama.
Marco Rubio is an outstanding candidate and will make a GREAT President. It was the 4 million "conservatives" who stayed home in 2012 that gave us a second term for Barrack Obama and the Court Jester- Joe Biden. What a difference would a Romney-Ryan Administration have made for our beloved country.
1
•
Reply
..
Ignoring US Constitutional law does not make one an "outstanding candidate" Mannie ! The fraud and usurper barack hussein obama along with Marco Rubio , Ted Cruz and Bobby Jindal are not qualified to hold the office of US President or VP under Article ll Section 1 Clause 5 of the US Constitution no mater how much you like them . Calling Constitutional law " Irresponsible and inflammatory " just shows your ignorance of US Constitutional law . Google Dr. Herb Titus and Natural Born Citizen . Dr Herb Titus is a US Constitutional lawyer who has practice constitutional law for more then thirty years and should know what [he] is talking about .
1
•
Reply
Cruz is eligible. The law says that if you don't have to go through the naturalization process, you are natural born. He was given duel citizenship at birth.
•
Reply
- kibitzer3 GeneP54 • a few seconds ago (April 20)
I don't know what law you are referring to, but if some law says that, that law is an ass.
What matters is what was in the minds of the constitutional Framers when they put that eligibility requirement for that particular office in their constitutional contract - what is known as 'original intent'. And there is all manner of historical evidence that what they intended with that requirement was to render eligible for that particular office only a person born on the soil (or its equivalent) of two (U.S.) citizen parents - so that the prospective president, who if elected would also become the Commander in Chief of the nation's military forces, would have NO DUAL/CONFLICTING LOYALTIES OR ALLEGIANCES. As a naturalized citizen would be subject to. And as a DUAL CITIZEN would be subject to. Like Obama. And like Cruz.
The bottom line: Two wrongs do NOT make a right.
When some ardent conservatives overlook the rule of law in their desire for a candidate like Cruz in that office, and succumb to the liberal notion of the Constitution as being a 'living document,' simply subject to the whims of the 'interpretations' of modern-day judges, they are leaving the nation wide open to takeover by the rule of men. Another word for which is tyranny.
Don't go there, America. Or you are finished, as a federal constitutional Republic. And are just the plaything of tyrants. The only thing standing between that state of affairs and now being the Constitution. Which we sorely need to get back to. Which includes - of course - the arrest of Obama; on all manner of charges now, beyond just the initial one, of being ineligible for the office. And we get back TO the rule of law.
Not compound the error. Which makes conservatives just as bad as the liberals. And who REALLY wants to be tarred with that brush, go down that road. That is for despicable characters.
Or hadn't you noticed.- Reply
- GeneP54 kibitzer3 • 44 minutes ago (April 20)
- Well, I didn't write the law or pass it. I just reported it here. There is no problem with duel loyalty since he has renounced his Canadian citizenship. I've noticed a lot of things, among those being that there are a lot of things our forefathers put in the Constitution that we ignore or the law has changed. I also have noticed that on many of these sites the poster is attacked over a comment that is simply a statement of fact. Yea, I noticed.
kibitzer3 GeneP54 • a few seconds ago (April 21)
- "There is no problem with duel [sic] loyalty since he has renounced his Canadian citizenship." The mind boggles at your thinking, GeneP54. The law is that only a "natural born" citizen need apply for that job. It doesn't say anything about a change in definition of the category if one denounces one's dual citizenship later. Come on; this is elementary stuff. [If not] sophistry.
- The law can be changed, by amendment. And in fact, mostly the Democrats tried a total of 8 times between 2003 and 2008 to get a constitutional amendment starting through Congress on this very issue, to allow LESS THAN a "natural born" citizen to run for the office - and it failed even to get out of committee each time, such was the sensitivity of the issue. So what did both major political parties do? They decided to do an end-around on the law, and try to get away with conning the American people on the issue, by their control between them of the mainstream media. And counting on such childish, or outright sophistic, thinking as yours.
- Either we live by the rule of law, or we live by the rule of tyrants. Fact. Choice.
--
This end-justifies-the-means thinking is driving me up the wall. How can people be so shallow, as not to see where this sort of thinking will lead.
Is already leading us.
Has led us.
Damn close to perdition.
No comments:
Post a Comment