GOP TOYS AND PUPPETS – ROMNEY, CRUZ, AND RUBIO…

romney_2_jt_120916_wg

Rumors of a Romney pick at a GOP brokered convention isn’t new…it appears it may have been part of the plan all along.  It makes sense that the GOP was pushing their four illegals and watching as all the Republican voters went crazy calling them out.  It now appears that the Chihuahua drunk- like yelping  behavior from Cruz and Rubio may have had a GOP method to its’ madness.  That, and the voting fraud scenario.  It is obvious that from the start both have performed almost every “what not to do to get elected” thing in the most bazaar presidential race in history. Whatever they left out, I am sure they will find a way to do before this is over.cruz CZSIh4PUYAED6kL

WHY?   Those that have been following certain strategists may recall the new GOP rules that would have (without a Trump) kept the candidate bunch tight with a winner take all electorate gotcha clause.  That clause allows a candidate winning by one point to be the recipient of all the electorates of the state.  This, many have thought, was the strategy to assure a Jeb Bush win.  If any of the other ineligibles got close or won over Jeb – they would have been announced as ineligible to run.  But, then here comes Trump. Two ineligibles folded, then  Jeb folded, and now we have two ineligibles left at the 2nd and 3rd spots.

So now, the strategy appears to be lie and dig up every skewed report on Trump. Meanwhile, sick the  Cuban Chihuahua’s and the drunken media on Trump to bring him down even at their own peril.  Then, when one of their ineligibles win….rule him out and place their Romney.  He appears to be their ace in the hole because they knew he would never be elected in the primaries….he would have to be appointed.  rubio CTc6UhWWEAA8Mfv

What they did not anticipate was Trump’s resolve, and the Chihuahua’s going politically rabid, foaming at the mouth scaring  voters away.  Who wants to get close to a rabid dog?  Worse yet who wants to elect their unruly teen to lead the country?  Not many parents.  Both Cruz and Rubio have displayed a poor work ethic, and almost tie for the most missed senate votes.  Both have been elected and then neglected their duty to their constituents by failing to attend senate meetings, hearings and important votes.  Both lack real responsibility to anyone but their donor puppet masters.

The beauty of this is neither Cuban realizes that they have been nothing more to the establishment but pawns to dupe the public so they can be tossed aside later at a brokered convention.  But the real beauty is TRUMP HAS GAINED A LOT OF THE VOTES THAT WOULD HAVE GONE TO BOTH CRUZ AND RUBIO!  Like I said, no one wants to put any adult in charge of leading a nation who lies, cheats, steals votes, doesn’t show up to serve their constituents in the senate and then to top it off – acts like an unruly teenager!

TRUMP HAS THIS ONE HANDS DOWN!

Dianne Marshall

Advertisements

10 thoughts on “GOP TOYS AND PUPPETS – ROMNEY, CRUZ, AND RUBIO…

  1. 😐

    Regardless of whether or not Cruz is a “born Citizen”, Cruz is clearly NOT a “natural born Citizen”.

    One question seems critical to not lose focus on: What’s the difference between a “born Citizen” and a “natural born Citizen”?

    In the Naturalization Act of 1790 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790 ) it apparently states that ‘And the children of citizens of the United States, that mayibe born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, …’ ( http://legisworks.org/sal/1/stats/STATUTE-1-Pg103.pdf ). Some attempt to argue that this means that it is not necessary to be born in the United States to be a natural born Citizen. However, even in the Naturalization Act of 1790 it apparently states “children of citizens” – citizens in the plural (i.e. both parents). Moreover, the expression “shall be considered as” implies a leniency (and thus actually supports that “natural born Citizen” as used in the U.S. Constitution is more stringent (i.e. it is also necessary to be born in the United States)). In any event, in 1795, the Congress apparently repealed and replaced the Naturalization Act of 1790 (while George Washington was still the president) as elucidated in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1795 ( http://legisworks.org/sal/1/stats/STATUTE-1-Pg414a.pdf ). Furthermore, prior to the 14th Amendment, it seems clear that the prevailing understanding of born Citizenship (let alone natural born Citizenship) required more than just being born in the United States or why else would the (Citizenship clause of the) 14th Amendment have been necessary?

    Natural law seems to imply obviousness and thus a “natural born Citizen” seems to mean a born Citizen so obvious as not to require a statute. Apparently, the requirement for the president to be a “natural born Citizen” is a safeguard to maximize allegiance for this unique position (which includes the military role of Commander in Chief). There also seems to be a “widespread and long-standing” tradition (prior to Barack Hussein Obama II) of adherence to the requirement of a president being born in the United States to both parents who are U.S. citizens (unless someone managed to deceive us regarding his background) as apparently documented in http://www.votefortheconstitution.com/natural-born-citizen1.html .

    Indeed, in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)) ( https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/169/649/case.html ), “MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER, with whom concurred MR. JUSTICE HARLAN dissenting” stated:
    “Before the Revolution, the view of the publicists had been thus put by Vattel:

    “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation, and it is presumed as matter of course that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children, and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.””

    Furthermore, even the majority opinion ( https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/169/649/case.html ) did not seem to decide on “natural born citizenship” – rather only on “born Citizenship”. Furthermore, in Wong Kim Ark the case involved someone BORN IN THE UNITED STATES to parents legally allowed to be in the United States. The majority opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court (in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)) ( https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/169/649/case.html ), stated “The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.”

    Indeed, in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 21 Wall. 162 162 (1874), it states “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.” ( http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/88/162.html , https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/88/162/case.html )

    BOTTOM LINE: IS THERE ANY LEGITIMATE SOURCE THAT SUGGESTS THAT SOMEONE BORN BOTH OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES AND WHEN HIS FATHER WAS NOT A CITIZEN WOULD BE A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN??? As for 8 U.S. Code § 1401 – Nationals and citizens of United States at birth‏ (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401 ), I didn’t see the expression “natural born Citizen” used in 8 U.S. Code § 1401, and thus 8 U.S. Code § 1401 clearly does NOT appear to even allege any relevance to being NATURAL.

    Thus, while Cruz may conceivably be a “born Citizen” it APPEARS INCONCEIVABLE THAT HE COULD BE A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN!!! BY THE WAY, IS IT REASONABLE TO BELIEVE THAT SOMEONE COULD NOT ONLY BE A BORN CITIZEN OF THREE COUNTRIES (I.E. CANADA, CUBA, AND THE UNITED STATES) BUT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN OF THREE COUNTRIES (I.E. CANADA, CUBA, AND THE UNITED STATES)??? THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS!!!

    THUS, SUPPORTING ELECTING SOMEONE TO BE COMMANDER IN CHIEF WHO IS NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN SEEMS TO BE FACILITATING VIOLATION OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION!!!

    FURTHERMORE, HOW COULD ONE EXPECT SOMEONE LIKE SENATOR CRUZ TO NOMINATE TO THE SCOTUS JUDGES, LIKE SCALIA, WHO SINCERELY BELIEVE IN FOLLOWING THE ORIGINAL MEANING OF THE CONSTITUTION WHEN SUCH A JUDGE WOULD HOLD THAT CRUZ IS INELIGIBLE TO BE POTUS?

    INDEED, SICK AS IT MAY SEEM, TO THE EXTENT OF POPULAR VOTE FOR A CANDIDATE(S) CONSTITUTIONALLY INELIGIBLE TO BE POTUS SO COULD CONCEIVABLY DISREGARDING THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE BECOME LESS REPUGNANT.

    PS For newbies, seeking an understanding of natural born Citizen, I recommend http://www.teapartynation.com/profiles/blogs/natural-born-citizen-it-s-not-that-hard-to-figure-out . For more in depth discussion, I recommend http://puzo1.blogspot.com/ For example, at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/ it states “Under the common law doctrine of coverture, a wife upon marriage (femes covert) become one with her husband. She acquired the citizenship and allegiance of her husband, whether her husband was a citizen or an alien. At the Founding and until the passage of the Cable Act in 1922 (ch. 411, 42 Stat. 1021), there was no such thing as a husband having one citizenship and the wife having another.”

    Like

  2. 😐

    Donald Trump masterfully addressed a spectrum of recent smears against him at “Donald Trump Fox News Sunday FULL Interview Before Super Tuesday – 2/28/16” ( https://youtu.be/H7FlwOUpA_w ). Similarly, at “Full interview: Donald Trump, February 28” “Face the Nation on CBS” (https://youtu.be/7m__K5v9vFs ).

    https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/703900742961270784 : “”@ilduce2016: “It is better to live one day as a lion than 100 years as a sheep.” – @realDonaldTrump #MakeAmericaGreatAgain”” (Note: Trump was questioned about quoting Mussolini at approximately 4:13 of https://youtu.be/nhxNSodUb1o (“Chuck Todd GRILLS Donald Trump On “Meet The Press” On Mussolini Quote 2-28-2016”) (IT IS HIGHLY NOTEWORTHY THE HYPOCRISY/COGNITIVE DISSONANCE OF THE MEDIA’S TRYING TO SUPPRESS (INTIMIDATE) COMMUNICATION AND SIMULTANEOUSLY EXPRESSING CONCERN ABOUT TRUMP BROADENING LIBEL LAW.)

    At approximately 1:04 of https://youtu.be/gcy6tOaWqXQ (“Donald Trump Full Interview State Of The Union With CNN Jake Tapper 2/28/2016”), Trump addressed the Republicans’ breach of the pledge (regarding alleged activity).

    Indeed, at https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/703915198864887810 it states “The Republican Establishment has been pushing for lightweight Senator Marco Rubio to say anything to “hit” Trump.I signed the pledge-careful”. Also at approximately 0:52 of https://youtu.be/7m__K5v9vFs (“”Full interview: Donald Trump, February 28″ “Face the Nation on CBS””) Donald Trump addressed the tweet and that we’re not being treated right.

    Also at approximately 3:48 of https://youtu.be/7m__K5v9vFs (“”Full interview: Donald Trump, February 28″ “Face the Nation on CBS””) Donald Trump suggested the audits could be because he is a strong Christian or because he is a believer/lover of the tea party – the people in the tea party etc.

    At approximately 7:28 of https://youtu.be/gcy6tOaWqXQ (“Donald Trump Full Interview State Of The Union With CNN Jake Tapper 2/28/2016”), Trump addressed selecting a running mate.

    https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/704019808363352069 “Little Marco Rubio gave amnesty to criminal aliens guilty of “sex offenses.” DISGRACE! http://cis.org/vaughan/senate-bill-rewards-protects-lawbreakers-undermines-law-enforcement …”

    Like

  3. You should have seen MSNBC this morning. One of the male reporters was interviewing Trump. He ask Trump if would “disavow David Duke (Grand Wizard of the KKK). Nothing about the Black Panthers, BLM or other radical groups. So Trump asked him “who is that”. Taking a statement from Trump what he said in a press conference Friday night. A reporter ask him if he would disavow David Duke. Trump asked him who that was an endorser to his campaign. You could tell Trump was trying to remember who this reporter mentioned. Well, when Trump left the station this morning he must have tweetered a David Duke to see who he was, then tweeted “No. He would not disavow David Duke”. I thought is was clever of Trump. They went back to 2000 of Trump knowing David Duke. The media is angry because Trump stated that when won, he was going to make a law to sue the media for libel. After I tweeted MSNBC & told them they would do ANYTHING to set up Trump & they were just mad because he stated he was going to make a law legal that the media could be sued for libel. The very next reporter who came on had 3 attorneys on she was asking them if he could that. The fear in her face was priceless. They told her it could be done on the state level. I wouldn’t have missed that for the world.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. 😦 Regarding , approximately 5:58 of https://youtu.be/gcy6tOaWqXQ (“Donald Trump Full Interview State Of The Union With CNN Jake Tapper 2/28/2016”), TRUMP – AS HE TWEETED https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/703996959544250373 , ALREADY HAD PUBLICLY DISAVOWED DUKE; THE QUESTION IS NOT WHY HE DID NOT DISAVOW AGAIN BUT WHY THE MEDIA HAD THE NERVE / BIAS TO ASK HIM EVEN ONCE – LET ALONE TWICE!!! WOULD THE MEDIA EVER ASK THE CLINTONS A QUESTION LIKE THAT!!! Also as an Orthodox Jew I’m not extremely familiar with the ADL but based on my impression of them from observation of their reported behavior over the years is that perhaps I SHOULD DISAVOW THE ADL. One would think the ADL should fight real anti-Semitism (discrimination) – not look to harass / raise innuendo about a decent American who is trying to save the United States (and whose daughter (Ivanka) and her children are Orthodox Jewish)! I’m sick of this garbage. By the way, did Obama (was Obama asked) about disavowing people he apparently had an intimate connection with (such as Reverend Wright)? Nor has Hillary disavowed herself of the Iran deal …

    Like

  5. AppreciativeReader says:

    Great article, with terrific graphics! 🙂
    BTW, most voters are probably going to think “too little, too late” about Romney. Hope Trump’s success on Super Tuesday obviates the need for Romney to trot onto the ballot again.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s