Constitutional Emergency

Donald Trump's mouth is a nuclear weapon.....by Wayne Allyn Root

Donald Trump’s mouth is a nuclear weapon
By Wayne Allyn Root
 
The biased, clueless liberal mainstream media are in shock and awe. They have no idea why so many Americans love Donald Trump. But the answer is so simple and clear. Just ask any conservative. Donald Trump is a breath of fresh air. Donald Trump is the answer to what ails America - simply because he kills two birds with one stone.
 
America has two big problems. America is under attack by a vicious one-two combination. America has been ruined by two parties. And Donald Trump’s mouth solves both problems. Donald Trump’s mouth is a nuclear weapon.
 
Democrats clearly hate American exceptionalism, capitalism, entrepreneurship, and Judeo Christian values. They hate business owners (see "You didn’t build that")…and blame American patriotism, white people, business owners and Christians for every problem in the world today.
 
The Democrat Party is riddled with socialists, Marxists and communists hell bent on "fundamentally changing America." The Democrat Party is filled with frauds (see Obama, Jonathan Gruber and the lies used to sell Obamacare)… traitors (see Obama and John Kerry and the new Iran nuclear treaty)… thieves and conmen (see Hillary and the Clinton Foundation)… reckless wasters of taxpayer money (see Obama's Kenya trip that cost us over $50 million dollars for one day in a country that offers America NOTHING)… and outright criminals (see Hillary's upcoming criminal indictment and Obama's use of the IRS to target, persecute and even attempt to imprison political opponents and critics).
 
But the GOP may be worse. If there's anything worse than evil, it's pathetic. The GOP leadership is riddled with cowards, wimps and naïve, feckless, country club powder puffs who have no clue how to fight back against the Democrats ruining America and destroying our children's future with debt. Yes, Democrats are ruining America and destroying our children's future. But Republicans are standing by helplessly, scared, petrified, allowing it to happen.
 
I suspect many of the Republican leaders in DC are either being bribed or blackmailed. Exhibit A is Supreme Court Justice Roberts, House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. These guys are all either bought and paid for… or someone is holding a gun to their heads (along with a photo of them in bed with midgets). Don’t believe me? See Dennis Hastert. They are all doing something morally wrong, or breaking some law… and Obama’s partners in the NSA and IRS are always watching.
 
America is being lost because the GOP is bringing knives to a gunfight. The only way to save America is to bring a nuclear weapon to a gun fight.
 
And Donald Trump’s mouth is a nuclear weapon.  It’s time to stop being "nice." "Nice" is okay for playing golf with Muffy at the country club. But "nice" doesn’t work in politics. "Nice" guys finish last in politics. "Nice" is getting our country ruined. "Nice" is killing middle class jobs. "Nice" is wiping out middle class incomes. "Nice" has led to negative GDP growth. "Nice" has led to more businesses closing than opening each day for the first time in America’s history. "Nice" has left the border wide open to an illegal alien invasion, the bankruptcy of America and a terrorist attack like 9-11. "Nice" has led to disaster and disgrace all over the globe. The world no longer has any respect for, or fear of America. We are in decline and disarray. We are headed for collapse and disaster.
 
Into this crisis steps "the nuclear mouth" Donald Trump. He isn’t afraid to put America first. He isn't afraid to tell the truth. He isn't afraid of what the media thinks. He isn't afraid of being called a "racist" for pointing out how Obama has damaged and destroyed America. He isn't afraid to question Obama’s very mysterious, questionable and troubling past- much of it sealed away in darkness.
 
Trump isn't afraid to fight like our future is on the line- because he understands it is. He isn't afraid to offend. He isn't afraid to expose the cowards and frauds in his own GOP leadership for what they are. He refuses to be "politically correct" when he sees corruption and idiocy. He won’t back down or apologize for telling the truth. Of course the evil Democrats, corrupt and cowardly GOP leadership, and biased mainstream media hate him. They are all rooting for another Mitt Romney. Let's compare Mitt to Donald Trump. They are both rich white guys... both famous successful businessmen… both Republican Presidential candidates past and present. But that’s where the similarity ends.
 
Mitt Romney is a very nice guy. Mitt has manners. Mitt would never offend anyone. Mitt let the media run roughshod over him. Mitt would never say something rude or offensive about Obama or Hillary. Mitt would never accuse them of crimes against the American people. Mitt would never prosecute Obama or Hillary if he was elected.
 
And one other difference - Mitt lost!  It’s no coincidence that Mitt lost. The last thing we need now is "nice." It's also no coincidence that the people in power- evil Democrats, the corrupt GOP leadership, and the mainstream media all want another Mitt Romney. They want the status quo. They want to keep the bribes and blackmail coming. They don't want anyone to upset the apple cart. They are scared to death of Donald Trump- who doesn't play by traditional rules or etiquette. They are scared to death of a guy who can't be bribed. They are scared to death of a guy who is tuned into the hopes, dreams and fears of middle class Americans. They are scared to death of a street fighter.
 
Mostly, they are scared to death of Trump’s mouth. The kind of mouth that could stir up a citizen revolution and topple “business as usual" in Washington DC. Yes Donald Trump’s mouth is a nuclear weapon. And that’s precisely why we love him.



Views: 1251

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

okay and that's why he's running because he can't GOTCHA!!!  Why don't you run.. you seem top have all the answers. 

Just say your Prayers.. it's the end times!!  CAPHECHE

Harvard Law Review Harvard Law Review
Show NavigationShow Search
HARVARD LAW REVIEW FORUM

On the Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen”
Commentary by Neal Katyal & Paul Clement
MAR 11, 2015
128 Harv. L. Rev. F. 161

We have both had the privilege of heading the Office of the Solicitor General during different administrations. We may have different ideas about the ideal candidate in the next presidential election, but we agree on one important principle: voters should be able to choose from all constitutionally eligible candidates, free from spurious arguments that a U.S. citizen at birth is somehow not constitutionally eligible to serve as President simply because he was delivered at a hospital abroad.

The Constitution directly addresses the minimum qualifications necessary to serve as President. In addition to requiring thirty-five years of age and fourteen years of residency, the Constitution limits the presidency to “a natural born Citizen.”1× All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase “natural born Citizen” has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time. And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States.2×

While some constitutional issues are truly difficult, with framing-era sources either nonexistent or contradictory, here, the relevant materials clearly indicate that a “natural born Citizen” means a citizen from birth with no need to go through naturalization proceedings. The Supreme Court has long recognized that two particularly useful sources in understanding constitutional terms are British common law3× and enactments of the First Congress.4× Both confirm that the original meaning of the phrase “natural born Citizen” includes persons born abroad who are citizens from birth based on the citizenship of a parent.

As to the British practice, laws in force in the 1700s recognized that children born outside of the British Empire to subjects of the Crown were subjects themselves and explicitly used “natural born” to encompass such children.5× These statutes provided that children born abroad to subjects of the British Empire were “natural-born Subjects . . . to all Intents, Constructions, and Purposes whatsoever.”6× The Framers, of course, would have been intimately familiar with these statutes and the way they used terms like “natural born,” since the statutes were binding law in the colonies before the Revolutionary War. They were also well documented in Blackstone’s Commentaries,7× a text widely circulated and read by the Framers and routinely invoked in interpreting the Constitution.

No doubt informed by this longstanding tradition, just three years after the drafting of the Constitution, the First Congress established that children born abroad to U.S. citizens were U.S. citizens at birth, and explicitly recognized that such children were “natural born Citizens.” The Naturalization Act of 17908× provided that “the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States . . . .”9× The actions and understandings of the First Congress are particularly persuasive because so many of the Framers of the Constitution were also members of the First Congress. That is particularly true in this instance, as eight of the eleven members of the committee that proposed the natural born eligibility requirement to the Convention served in the First Congress and none objected to a definition of “natural born Citizen” that included persons born abroad to citizen parents.10×

The proviso in the Naturalization Act of 1790 underscores that while the concept of “natural born Citizen” has remained constant and plainly includes someone who is a citizen from birth by descent without the need to undergo naturalization proceedings, the details of which individuals born abroad to a citizen parent qualify as citizens from birth have changed. The pre-Revolution British statutes sometimes focused on paternity such that only children of citizen fathers were granted citizenship at birth.11× The Naturalization Act of 1790 expanded the class of citizens at birth to include children born abroad of citizen mothers as long as the father had at least been resident in the United States at some point. But Congress eliminated that differential treatment of citizen mothers and fathers before any of the potential candidates in the current presidential election were born. Thus, in the relevant time period, and subject to certain residency requirements, children born abroad of a citizen parent were citizens from the moment of birth, and thus are “natural born Citizens.”

The original meaning of “natural born Citizen” also comports with what we know of the Framers’ purpose in including this language in the Constitution. The phrase first appeared in the draft Constitution shortly after George Washington received a letter from John Jay, the future first Chief Justice of the United States, suggesting:

[W]hether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a . . . strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the american [sic] army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.12×

As recounted by Justice Joseph Story in his famous Commentaries on the Constitution, the purpose of the natural born Citizen clause was thus to “cut[] off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interpose[] a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections.”13× The Framers did not fear such machinations from those who were U.S. citizens from birth just because of the happenstance of a foreign birthplace. Indeed, John Jay’s own children were born abroad while he served on diplomatic assignments, and it would be absurd to conclude that Jay proposed to exclude his own children, as foreigners of dubious loyalty, from presidential eligibility.14×

While the field of candidates for the next presidential election is still taking shape, at least one potential candidate, Senator Ted Cruz, was born in a Canadian hospital to a U.S. citizen mother.15× Despite the happenstance of a birth across the border, there is no question that Senator Cruz has been a citizen from birth and is thus a “natural born Citizen” within the meaning of the Constitution. Indeed, because his father had also been resident in the United States, Senator Cruz would have been a “natural born Citizen” even under the Naturalization Act of 1790. Similarly, in 2008, one of the two major party candidates for President, Senator John McCain, was born outside the United States on a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone to a U.S. citizen parent.16× Despite a few spurious suggestions to the contrary, there is no serious question that Senator McCain was fully eligible to serve as President, wholly apart from any murky debate about the precise sovereign status of the Panama Canal Zone at the time of Senator McCain’s birth.17× Indeed, this aspect of Senator McCain’s candidacy was a source of bipartisan accord. The U.S. Senate unanimously agreed that Senator McCain was eligible for the presidency, resolving that any interpretation of the natural born citizenship clause as limited to those born within the United States was “inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the ‘natural born Citizen’ clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term ‘natural born Citizen.’”18× And for the same reasons, both Senator Barry Goldwater and Governor George Romney were eligible to serve as President although neither was born within a state. Senator Goldwater was born in Arizona before its statehood and was the Republican Party’s presidential nominee in 1964,19× and Governor Romney was born in Mexico to U.S. citizen parents and unsuccessfully pursued the Republican nomination for President in 1968.20×

There are plenty of serious issues to debate in the upcoming presidential election cycle. The less time spent dealing with specious objections to candidate eligibility, the better. Fortunately, the Constitution is refreshingly clear on these eligibility issues. To serve, an individual must be at least thirty-five years old and a “natural born Citizen.” Thirty-four and a half is not enough and, for better or worse, a naturalized citizen cannot serve. But as Congress has recognized since the Founding, a person born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent is generally a U.S. citizen from birth with no need for naturalization. And the phrase “natural born Citizen” in the Constitution encompasses all such citizens from birth. Thus, an individual born to a U.S. citizen parent — whether in California or Canada or the Canal Zone — is a U.S. citizen from birth and is fully eligible to serve as President if the people so choose.

* Paul and Patricia Saunders Professor of Law, Georgetown University.
** Distinguished Lecturer in Law, Georgetown University; Partner, Bancroft PLLC.

Tags:
Constitutional Law Harvard Law Review Forum Legal History

PDF Westlaw
MAR ’15 VOL
128
NO. 5
READ NEXT

FOURTH AMENDMENT

Heien v. North Carolina
Leading Case
HARVARD LAW REVIEW FORUM

Taking the Idea of Constitutional “Meaning” Seriously
Response by Richard H. Fallon
Havard Law Review
JOIN OUR MAILING LIST


Facebook
Twitter
HARVARD LAW REVIEW ©2015

Michael, this contradicts another post on PFA that stated both parents (plural) must be citizens at the time of the candidates birth and other "scholars" concur in the majority. This is the post I refer, http://patriotsforamerica.ning.com/forum/topics/like-it-or-not-cruz...

So which, in your opinion, is correct?

This is just my opinion, ok. I would say that just one parent applies since it is consistent with the spirit and the intent of the framers opinion as to why they placed these 3 requirements in the first place. I guess there is still somewhat of a debate because the Supreme Court has never ruled. But I would advise people to read the framers reasons and intent of "why" they added natural born citizen and then try to interpret weather one or both parents is correct as well as the place of birth. I think if according to the framers if a person does not need to be naturalized he qualifies, again just my opinion in trying to define their intent.

     If you have been watching CNN you are a lost soul ! BUT your choice is great ! myself i think Donald Trump is the one that can turn this country around ! I also like Ted Cruz, & Ben Carson ALL three would be great ! that is my choice, i am 83 & still voting !!!

pretty set in your ways, what has your voting accomplished  ?   Absolutely Nothing....

God Bless you Henry! Your enthusiasm and your positive outlook at 83....and.....have a computer......and.......have enough interest in life to still vote tells me you're my kind of guy!

I am not a CNN fan!  This was the only American TV sender who has provided us in Europe

with coverage with news from your Republican debate...just 1 time, up until now. Let's hope

that we in  Europe will soon receive more coverage.  A wealthy businessman, who got rich

through his casinos, but who has had NO experience with the government, should NEVER

be chosen as the Leader of America!  Believe it or not, your GOVERNMENT must lead America,

and not a rich casino business man, who thinks he knows it better than everybody!  You should

support a member of your government, because they understand the problems at home, and also

International!  Ted Cruz has been serving your government for several. years. 

Molly, I must take exception to your assertion that our "...GOVERNMENT must lead America." From a European perspective, perhaps that concept of a country being led by its central "government" (or "king" or "emperor" or such) may make sense, but that is NOT how this Federation of Independent States (the united States of America) was originally set up back in the late eighteenth century. It is WE, THE PEOPLEwho must lead America.

Our government employees are there only to do certain jobs for us. Our government employees (including all those elected to office in the central government [A. K. A. federal government] as well as anyone "working for government" who has been appointed or hired) are merely in a support role, NOT a leadership role. The ones who call and have called themselves "the president" are merely the head of the executive branch of only one of the three branches of our central government, and that person is there to do a certain job for the People. That job's description has been warped and contorted over the past nearly two hundred years by various unscrupulous, self-serving and, in my opinion, evil people so that now it appears as though We, the People, are being led by a single individual. This is antithetical to the original intent.

We, the People, have no one to blame but ourselves. Through what appears to me to be a multi-generational, slow and incremental evolution over many decades, the general populace of the several States of the united States have become complacent and compliant to the demands of those who would be our controllers. It is long past time for us to resist, come together and return our government employees to their rightful places as servants of the People. We do not need leaders. We are quite capable of leading ourselves, thank you. What we need are aware and active People who are willing to do what they should have been doing all along; monitoring, supervising and disciplining our employees!

to summarize , the ones that control our government have among other things

transformed a limited federal government into a domineering machine

blackmailing states with threats of nonfunding , literally removing every state

right which ultimately threatens the freedoms of the citizen..the government

is so corrupt and under the thumb of those maggots we , as TJ wrote ,

must revolt and completely clean house while implementing changes to prohibit

a recurrence of the terminal cancers...

Hear, hear! Gary, that option you suggest is the only option remaining.

Hear, hear! People like Molly need to better understand our founding principles before posting to this discussion.

RSS

About

Old Rooster created this Ning Network.

This effort is focused on sacrifice to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic.

Fox News

Tech Notes

Thousands of Deadly Islamic Terror Attacks Since 9/11



HOW TO JOIN YOUR STATE GROUP

1. Click on State Groups tab at the top of the page.
2. Find your State Flag
3. Click on Flag.
4. Look for link to join Your State Group near the top of the State Groups page.
5. Click on it.

Follow the Prompts


How to post "live" URL in posts at PFA............. Adding URLs in blog posts that are not "live" is a waste of everyone's time.....
Here's how....if anyone has better guidance send to me.....
First........type your text entry into the post block to include typing or paste the URL you want us to view........when finished with the text, highlight and copy the URL in the text.......then click the "add hyperlink" tool in the B, I, U box just above the text entry, after clicking, a window will open asking for the URL...paste the URL in the box and click "OK". You have now made the URL "live"...........it shows some code before the post is published, it goes away when you "publish post".......

Events

© 2020   Created by Old Rooster.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service