James O’Keefe Drops More Videos!

•October 17, 2016 • Leave a Comment

Mr. O’Keefe has grown.  This IS some serious shit.

IN A PROJECT VERITAS VIDEO, SCOTT FOVAL IS HEARD SAYING, “WE MANIPULATED THE VOTE WITH MONEY AND ACTION, NOT WITH LAWS.”

THE FIRST VIDEO IS SHOCKING AND AFFIRMS THE LAYERS OF ILLEGAL COLLUSION AND CORRUPTION, THEN WE SEE IT HOW IT CLIMBS UP THROUGH THE RANKS.  VIDEO TWO.

TWO MEN ARE NOW “OUT OF A JOB”, NO DOUBT SHIFTED SIDEWAYS TO OTHER DNC TASKS, AND THEN OUT COMES A THIRD VIDEO.  A BRIEF BUT EXQUISITELY REVEALING ACCOUNT OF THE PLANNING INVOLVED TO INCITE VIOLENCE -ARTIFICIALLY AND CAREFULLY- IN ORDER TO FRAME AND INJURE THE INNOCENT PEOPLE WHO JUST HAPPEN TO BE ATTENDING A RALLY TO HEAR MR. TRUMP SPEAK.  THIS THIRD VIDEO (BELOW) PACKS A LOT INTO JUST OVER A MINUTE AND A HALF.

AND THIS NEXT VERY SHORT VIDEO WAS PUT TOGETHER BY A MUM/HOUSEWIFE.  IT’S PRETTY DAMN GOOD, AND CONNECTS THE DOTS IN A NICE CLEAR WAY.  VERY MUCH WORTH VIEWING.

“MAYOR TOMMY SHANKS” ON TWITTER, TWEETS OUT THE LOGS SHOWING MR. ROBERT CREAMER FROM THE SECOND VIDEO WAS A VERY FREQUENT VISITOR TO THE WHITE HOUSE, 340 VISITS IN 7 YEARS 9 MONTHS.  https://twitter.com/mayortomshanks/status/788484812243767297/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

screenshot below, click to enlarge:

mayor-copy

 

 

Donald Trump Brags About Sex …

•October 8, 2016 • Leave a Comment

That he DID NOT HAVE.  12 Years Ago.

Stop the fucking presses y’all.  Lets talk about sex, baby.

So this society cannot stop pretending to be horrified and appalled that a man, a MAN, had a spicy private discussion with another dude about sex stuff , and this society is actively having the vapors and discovering their Victorian Sensibilities all a sudden.

Ya know, it was  a ribald discussion about a failed attempt at conquest, and the realities of the groupie gals that flock to the wealthy and the famous, a conversation just between two guy friends.  No wires, no (expected) “hot mics” – just two dudes – and then the topic of a particular woman comes up.

Trumps all like, “Yeah, I tried to hit that”.  But he didn’t say “hit”, no, he was not Gen X enough to slick it out like that, so he says, “I tried to fuck her”.

There.  Cats out of the bag.  Trump is a dude.  Not just a dude, but a dude that wanted to have consensual sex with a beautiful lady – if she were willing – hence the consensual.  Alas, she were NOT willing, as the beautiful lady was married.

Trump took it in stride, and told his tale of failure to his buddy.  He did not slander the good name of the beautiful woman.  He did not call her a name or insult her for her refusal.  He simply told how he had tried and failed – the great Trump who gets so much … not getting so much.

Notice something.  He did not lie.

But he used salty language in the telling of this tale.

But wait there’s more! He is also sooo extraordinarily despicable for detailing what  the not-terribly-pure-minded-or-upstanding-groupies will encourage wealthy famous men to do in kissing them with little introduction,  that you or I can not have him in charge of America!

SO we good “clean” Americans, (cause that is like, all of us except Trump) now need to shun him.  To cast him off. Per the likes of John McCain and some other globalist republican douche-bag border-less world types . 

Or we run the great risk of our collective pussy being grabbed.

Donald J. Trump Wilkes Barre PA Rally In Pictures

•April 26, 2016 • 1 Comment

PA VOTERS !!  PLEASE VISIT THE OFFICIAL DONALD J. TRUMP WEBSITE FOR A LIST OF THE DELEGATES WHO ARE SUPPORTING DONALD J. TRUMP.  YOU MUST KNOW THE NAME OF THE DELEGATES WHO SUPPORT YOUR CHOSEN CANDIDATE – AND THAT INFORMATION IS NOT PROVIDED ON THE BALLOTS.  PLEASE VISIT THE OFFICIAL DONALD J. TRUMP WEBSITE FOR THIS CRITICAL INFORMATION !!

Here is the direct pink link, once on the Trump website page, scroll down to the bottom for the delegate list: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/pennsylvania

Donald J Trump rally in Wilkes Barre PA 4/25/2016

Donald J Trump rally in Wilkes Barre PA 4/25/2016

IMG_0005

Wilkes Barre Trump rally

IMG_0002

Wilkes Barre Trump rally

IMG_0004

Wilkes Barre Trump rally

IMG_0003

Truckers for Trump! Wilkes Barre Trump rally

Nuns attending the Donald J Trump rally on 4/25/2016

Nuns attending the Donald J Trump rally on 4/25/2016

IMG_0010

First people into the venue. Wilkes Barre Trump rally

IMG_0012

Filling up with two hours to go! Wilkes Barre Trump rally

IMG_0009

Wilkes Barre Trump rally

IMG_0008

Wilkes Barre Trump rally

IMG_0013

Wilkes Barre Trump rally

IMG_0015

Wilkes Barre Trump rally – Trumps podium

Crowd filing into Donald J Trump rally, Wilkes Barre PA 4/25/2016

Crowd filing into Donald J Trump rally, Wilkes Barre PA 4/25/2016

IMG_0026

Enthusiastic Trump supporters at the Wilkes Barre Trump rally

IMG_0028

Wilkes Barre Trump rally

IMG_0030

Trump Voters at the Wilkes Barre Trump rally🙂

IMG_0031

The Donalds Door. Wilkes Barre Trump rally

Stadium filled up early for Donald J Trump rally, Wilkes Barre PA 4/25/2016

Stadium filled up early for Donald J Trump rally, Wilkes Barre PA 4/25/2016

He takes great pictures! I am so jealous.

He takes great pictures! I am so jealous.

IMG_0054

Lots of Trump Voters about to have a GREAT rally! Wilkes Barre Trump rally

IMG_0055

At capacity crowd for Wilkes Barre Trump rally

Ladies and Gentlemen! The next President of the United States of America! Mr. Donald J. Trump !!

Ladies and Gentlemen! The next President of the United States of America! Mr. Donald J. Trump !!

Surviving Socialist, Ahhh Memories

•February 23, 2016 • 2 Comments

.

I realize that his accent is heavy, but you can probably

understand much of what he says.  He was from Hungary,

and here he discussed life there under communism, and

his escape.   There are four videos in this series, but I felt

this one to be the best to post – his accent is tough to wade through.  

Cruz Certificate of Citizenship?

•February 4, 2016 • Leave a Comment

Naturz

.

naturalz1

.

naturalz2

.

Naturalization of Children on Application of

Citizen Parent?   WHOA !! I though it was all

automatical and such.

.

pass

Legal Consequences Of Those Canadian Cruz Facts

•January 17, 2016 • Leave a Comment

As I have mentioned before, but some of you weren’t listening too closely ;

Cruz declares that he is certainly a natural born Citizen as intended and required by Art. 2 Section 1 clause 5, in the US Constitution, yet says this; “As you know, I was born in Canada. My mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of my birth. She was a U.S. citizen from birth so, under U.S. law, I’m an American citizen by birth.” “Beyond that,” he added, “I will leave the legal consequences of those facts to others to worry about.”

Yeah, the super intellect that is one Raphael Teddy Cruz will leave the legal consequences up to others to worry themselves with.  I will drop a little knowledge on you about those people who should be worrying about those consequences being attended to, but instead are worrying about how best to screw you out of your birthright, out of every right, blessing, inheritance and  sacrifice ever purchased for us by the men and women and yes, children who died to establish this garden of wonder in uniqueness never before imagined on this earth.  Below I will post just one page in screenshot of a Joint Resolution, 2000.  I will leave you to let it blossom through your mind what the consequences of this would be.  And do you know what?  This wasn’t the first of it’s kind.  This effort began in earnest in 1970 – shortly after George Romneys failed run for being a foreign born usurper who failed because Americans back then knew what the fuck a natural born citizen was.  There is a LOT more where this came from: 

click to enlarge

image - Copy

The Canadian Cruz Conversation

•January 13, 2016 • 1 Comment

foreigner 1

From a commentor;  “And – THIS is why the Article 2 natural born Citizen eligibility clause was written into the Constitution. As a barrier to foreign intrigue – AND so that a foreign government cannot have any legal claim on a sitting US President were he a dual citizen or native citizen of a country other than the USA.”

THIS ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

Op-Ed

 

Is Ted Cruz a ‘natural born Citizen’? Not if you’re a constitutional originalist.

Thomas Lee is a professor of constitutional law and international law at Fordham Law School.

click to enlarge:

Mighty 1

.click to enlarge:

Mighty 2

.click to enlarge:

Mighty 3

I will put the rest up in a page in a little bit, the screenshot panels above get the main point and the source scholar presented.

Next up is another scholar, who is also an originalist and is

regarded as the top in his field.  Rob Natelson :

“Some commentators are dismissing as merely frivolous the claim that Senator Ted Cruz is not a “natural born citizen” as the Constitution uses that term, and therefore ineligible for the presidency.

This dismissive attitude is a serious mistake. Although Senator Cruz’s belief that he is natural born may ultimately be vindicated, the case against him is very respectable.

At the outset, we should note that the requirement that a president be a”natural born citizen” is not an arbitrary rule. The Framers added it to the Constitution because history had taught them some hard lessons about the inadvisability of allowing a foreign-born person to become a country’s chief executive. In other words, the constitutional requirement is there for good reasons, and should be respected.

Senator Cruz was born in Canada of an American mother and a Cuban father. By congressional statute, he was a citizen at birth. His citizenship is not at issue. What is at issue is whether he is “natural born” as the Constitution uses the term.

When the Constitution was written, the default rule of international law was that, although for many purposes a person’s status followed the condition of the mother (according to the maxim partus sequitur ventrem), for citizenship or “allegiance” purposes status followed that of the father. Individual countries altered the default rule, and the Anglo-American statutory and common law altered it more than most. In Anglo-American countries, nearly all children born within a country were granted “natural born” status, even if their parents were both aliens. Although for several years Parliament may have allowed foreign-born children to claim citizenship through their mothers, well before the American revolution it has been firmly established that to be “natural born” such a child had to have a citizen father.

In other words, it was not sufficient, as some recent writings have implied, for the child to have a citizen mother. As I pointed out several years ago in my book, The Original Constitution: What It Actually Said and Meant:

We know exactly what the founders meant by the phrase “natural-born citizen” because they adapted (note: not adopted – but adapted) it from the English legal term, “natural born subject,” which in Britain defined who could serve in Parliament or the Privy Council. Essentially, a natural-born citizen was one who met either one of two requirements. First, a person qualified if born within the United States or within American territory, even if the person’s parents were aliens. Alternatively, an individual qualified even if born outside the country if the individual’s father was an American citizen not then engaged in traitorous or felonious activities.

On at least two occasions the Supreme Court has confirmed that in citizenship matters the Constitution should be read to incorporate principles inherited from Great Britain.

In arguing the contrary, recent commentators have made several kinds of mistakes. Some seem to read founding-era sources that refer to the foreign-born children of citizen parents as natural born, not recognizing that the sources mean both parents—or the father alone rather than the mother. Admittedly, the sources can be tricky on this score. By way of illustration, the editor’s headnote to Bacon v. Bacon, an English decided by the Court of King’s Bench, seems to imply that the mother can pass citizenship. But the body of the case asserts clearly that the relevant status is that of the father.

Some writers have enlisted sources that directly contradict their thesis. For example, two writers cited Blackstone’s Commentaries to support their argument that a mother can convey natural born status to her foreign-born child. Actually, Blackstone affirms that the critical parent for these purposes is the father:

that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.

Professor Michael Ramsey, while correctly concluding that the concept of citizenship was based on British law, ingeniously argues that Congress may change the definition of “natural born,” in part because the English Parliament did so from time to time. This argument is by no means impregnable, however, as Professor Ramsey recognizes. For one thing, Congress, unlike Parliament, is a legislature of limited powers. The Constitution grants Congress power to naturalize citizens, but it does not (expressly, anyway) grant power to alter the meaning of “natural born.” Moreover, allowing Congress to manipulate the definition this way would be fundamentally inconsistent with the constitutional safeguard: It would allow Congress to decree that children born in a favored foreign country or of a favored foreign family were thereby “natural born.” That may seem far-fetched today, but would have seemed less so during the founding era, when nations and at least one American state (Maryland) conferred citizenship privileges on those with whom they wished to curry favor.

The best evidence for granting natural-born status to the foreign-born child of a citizen mother and alien father derives from the Naturalization Act of 1790, adopted in the First Federal Congress. It provided in part:

And 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.

Senator Cruz’s father, although a Cuban, previously had lived in the United States. (I sez: The implication that the Father be a U.S. citizen, and not merely a citizen was clear, but not specified in the law – it was a “point” that was later argued to need clarification)

Although Congress cannot alter the meaning of a constitutional provision, one may contend that this statute sheds light on the meaning of the constitutional meaning of “natural born.” It was adopted by a Congress that included important Founders and it was enacted before all of the 13 original states had ratified the Constitution. But at least four factors weaken its persuasive force:

First, the new federal Congress adopted it nearly a year after the Constitution had been ratified by eleven states. Its terms seem not to have been the subject of discussion during the ratification process.

Second, the statute is ambiguous. It applies to the “children of citizens.” That may mean children with at least one citizen-parent. But it also might mean children with two citizen-parents. As noted above, other founding era sources that, at first glance, might seem to mean the former, actually mean the latter.

Third, when Congress used the term “citizen” it may well have meant only male citizens. Taken alone, it would not seem so. But remember that the then-prevailing assumption was that citizenship status followed the father. Observe how the statute’s proviso focused solely on the father: “[T]he right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”

Fourth, the presence of “natural born” language in a statute dealing with naturalization and not otherwise with natural born status”seems to demand explanation, and one likely explanation may not be good for Senator Cruz’s case:

During the founding era, certain private rights, such as inheritance and land ownership, could depend on citizenship or natural-born status. Congress may have been seeking, not to explain or define the constitutional requirement, but merely to extend private benefits to persons who might otherwise be excluded. This would explain why the statute provides that the “children . . . shall be considered as natural born” not that they literally are natural born.  (I sez: I have been making this point for years)

I am an admirer of Senator Cruz, and I wish him well in the court challenges that undoubtedly will arise. But no one should dismiss those challenges as baseless or frivolous.”

I don’t need to add anything.  Except, expect more of these

originalists to come forth.  About time.  No, about damn time!