...even though The Play should be over by now, and we move into The Real Thing. However, once more into the breach...
from gunsgoldbullets.com: ’Trump Just Made A Jolting 180 On This HUGE Gun Issue’ - March 20
(“At first, Trump seemed somewhat supportive of an assault weapons ban, but now he’s starting to change his tune.
“Politico has the details:
“Donald Trump on Thursday night said he no longer supports a ban on assault weapons, another in a series of policy reversals during the Republican debate.
“Stressing that he is a strong defender of the Second Amendment, Trump commented that past shooting incidents could have been prevented or lessened in impact if more people could carry weapons.
“‘But in 2000, you wrote in your book, ‘I generally oppose gun control but I support the ban on assault weapons,'” moderator Bret Baier queried.
‘“I don’t support it anymore. I do not support the ban on assault [weapons],” Trump affirmed…”)
..
'A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of petty minds.' - Emerson
—
2) from americanactionnews.com: ‘Utah Votes for President onTuesday, Here’s the Latest Polling’ - Matt Canham, The Salt Lake Tribune - March 20
(“Texas Sen. Ted Cruz has zoomed to a commanding lead in Utah's GOP caucuses, according to a new poll released Saturday. It also gave a glimpse into how frustrated the state's Republicans are with Donald Trump's candidacy…”
..
I am puzzled as to how so many Republicans in Utah, which has a reputation for very moral, church-going people with good educations, could not understand that Cruz is not eligible for the job, for not being a 'natural born' citizen? It is not that difficult to understand the definition of the term; all you have to do is look up the matter for yourself, and not take the word of the usual suspects. The term is defined - at least at the time of the constitutional Framers; which is what counts, inasmuch as there has been no constitutional amendment to the contrary - as a person born in the country to parents who are its citizens. The term comes from E. de Vattel's 'The Law of Nations, Or Principles of Natural Law,' Book One, Ch. XIX, Sect. 212, if you want to look it up for yourself.
And after you do, send the definition to the Cruz camp. They don't seem to be able to read English over there. Must have taken lessons from their Dear Leader. But then he is a graduate of Harvard Law School. It figures. The same school that 'educated' our current Dear Leader.
They must have decided between them that two wrongs make a right.
—
3) from americanactionnews.com: ’The Path to the Presidency’ - Jim Ellis - March 20
..
Ted even admitted that he was not eligible on. Dec 19th 2013. On Dec. 18, 2013, Barbara Ketay a Co-Founder of the North American Law Center, sent Senator Cruz a letter stating that he should make the statement to the Nation that:
" Iam not eligible for either office of President or Vice-President according to the United States Constitution Article II, Section I , Clause V wherein only a Natural Born Citizen of the United States, born of an American Citizen Father , can seek or hold these offices. I know that the Founders, in their brilliance, set this standard based on the Biblical principles of Natural Law, wherein the name citizenship and birthright of a child was always passed by the blood of the father. Knowing this beyond question, a proud son of my Cuban father, I`am not now, nor can I ever be, a Natural Born Citizen of the United States.
He is still running "Against our Constitution" !!!!
1
•
Reply
- kibitzer3 snowyriver • a few seconds ago (March 20)
The actual wording of the definition is in E. de Vattel's 'The Law of Nations, Or Principles of Natural Law,’ Book One, Ch XIX, Sect. 212, as a person "born in the country, of parents who are citizens..." And yes, it does go on: "those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers..." The mother and the father were considered as one, and the father was the one. It's called the doctrine of coverture. That part of things was changed in the 1930s, with the mother becoming a citizen in her own right; but the eligibility requirement itself still stands. The whole POINT of the exercise on the part of the constitutional Framers, in putting that special eligibility requirement in their contract for that particular office, being to make sure that the occupant of that office, who would as well become the Commander in Chief of the nation's military forces, had NO DUAL OR OTHERWISE CONFLICTING LOYALTIES OR ALLEGIANCES OR INFLUENCES. Had SOLE ALLEGIANCE to the U.S.
Our experience with the Usurper in the Oval Office as we speak should be evidence enough of the wisdom of our Founding Fathers, in doing THEIR best to keep such an atrocity from happening. The rest was up to us descendants. Our bad.
4) from rickwells.us: ‘Electronic Election Fraud - Soros Rigging Utah Primary And Elections Beyond?’ - Rick Wells - March 20, for March 21
(A George Soros outfit is counting the ballots electronically in Utah this Tuesday. Its chairman, Lord Mark Malloch-Brown, who also serves on the board of Soros’s One Society Foundation, is a former UN New World Order flunky of George’s. We are certifiably insane to let this happen.)
(Your comment is awaiting moderation.)
Thanks for this heads-up, Rick.
Madness. Sheer madness. Especially after a video on the Internet a short few years ago demonstrated how the operators of such a scam had the results wired to go first to a central point of their own, where they did their manipulation thing, and then sent the electronic impulses merrily on their way to be counted officially.
Why we are still allowing this sort of voting procedure is beyond me. Well, actually: I take that back. It’s obvious why ‘we’ still allow it. Because TPTB are that powerful. And we are that stupid.
No comments:
Post a Comment