El muro grande is causing a bit of excitement down Mexico way. Matter of fact the ex el-Presidente is quite perturbed to say the least. “We are not paying, I am not going to pay for that f-ing wall— I am not — and he should know that. I am not going to apologize,” he said.
During this weeks Republican presidential debate, Donald Trump reacted to Fox’s original statement on the matter, saying “the wall just got 10 feet taller.”
While the Trump campaign has not responded to FOXBusiness.com’s request for comment, during a rally in Fort Worth, Texas, on Friday, he stated, “they want to be treated with tremendous respect even though they don’t treat us with respect… so he dropped the f-bomb and I said to myself ‘can you imagine if I said that?’”
Christie did not waste any time hopping on a winner. This endorsement is larger than Christie’s girth. Forget for a moment the previous debate, what is now important now is that a mainline Republican has come out with the endorsement; obviously Christie believes Trump to be the eventual nominee.
Many Republicans will hold their nose, but it doesn’t matter. Because what will happen is the crossover vote. Remember, Trump will vacuum Democrat votes from those whose persuasion is “middle of the road.”
Sanders and Clinton are catering to the progressive ideologues who no doubt are far removed from the mainstream. Tuesday will be make or break for Cruz, Rubio, Carter and Kasich. Keep your eyes on the prize.
Advice for those who hate being double crossed. At one time or another we have all been double crossed, but no more so by politicians; most have two mouths and two hands. One mouth speaks to you the other is a “yessir” to those who made large donations to their campaign.
Their two hands work the same way, one shakes yours like you are the politician’s best buddy (under his breath he is thinking, “what a sucker”) ,but on the other hand, no pun intended, it is grabbing as much money it can from corporations and entities that are looking for special favors. Both cannot operate in a mutual inclusive environment. What is good for the corporation is bad for the people. Why else would a corporation voluntarily give a politician money? Think about it.
With all that has been said it is most imperative to look at where the politicians get their money. Trump is not beholden to any corporation or individual, he is self funded. The others, Cruz, Rubio, Carter and Kasich have their hand out looking for the corporate buck. Once again, will they have an ear once they ascend to the throne; of course they will, a revolving door.
The Status-Quo, better defined as “nothing will change” you have no worries. This is what the corporations are after, clarity. They do not like change, especially one that affects their bottom line or corporate plan.
But there is another group that does not like change, the career politician. And we have enough of them. Rubio, Chavez, Kasich. They are looking to leapfrog from their present position to the Oval Office. They have touted their message over and over again. We are sick and tired of their patrimony. Trump on the other hand, listen to one of his speeches or Q & A’s, he very rarely pulls punches, tells it like it is, politically correct or not.
Voters are looking for Change, Trump is Change. This is most upsetting to the Republican establishment. They are becoming nervous as a Trump win becomes more certain. What will they do to stop the Trump stampede? Right now they are forming a Republican Posse to go after the front runner. This is sick, the more they target Trump the more people coalesce around his campaign. Keep it up guys, once Trump is President, you will not be welcome to the White House.
Exit poll data from the South Carolina primary revealed that nearly half the Republicans who turned out on Saturday wanted undocumented immigrants to be deported immediately. Donald Trump won 47 percent of those voters.
Voters were asked if they favored temporarily barring Muslims who are not citizens from entering the United States, something Mr. Trump advocates, and 74 percent said they did. He won 41 percent of that group.
The scenario played out better than expected. Nevada voters erupted last night for Donald Trump as his train steamed to victory, rolling over wanna-bee competitors in the Mother of All Wins; capturing 45% of the vote, a Monster win for Mr. Trump.
The breakdown revealed that he won on all social levels. But more importantly, Trump won the Hispanic vote by an overwhelming 44%. This shows the breath of his campaign as he takes on Ted Cruz in the Lone Star State.
Super Tuesday, less than a week away, March 1st is going to be the big enchilada, the prize we all have been waiting for.
The NBTP predicts more lopsided wins for Trump as he marches to the nomination in the same manner as Sherman’s march to the sea. Instead of destroying cities, Trump has been destroying the ambitions of lesser candidates who have been left in his wake.
Challenging the establishment, the status-quo and pundits alike brought Americans of all creeds to his camp. Americans, by the way, do not like being told what to do; Trump has tapped into this mind set.
We have been mothered by the liberal progressives from the day we were born, vaccinations, schooling, healthcare, you name it. Americans are sick and tired of the hand of Big Government tapping on our shoulder.
Since Trump has vaulted to the front of the pack, which by the way was completely unexpected, Fox News has done everything in its power to stop him. Poll after poll has Donald Trump running well ahead of the pack, butFox News/Wall Street Journal did not see it that way, or at least according to their day old poll. The poll has Cruz in front which is not confirmed by any of the other polls.
In fact, Trump is increased his lead over the runner up, whoever that might be. Now Fox News has dug deep into their archives to find that Trump supported the Iraq War, but tepidly. Folks the mudslinging is getting dirtier by the day.
Sarfraz Manzoorjan, New York Times, January 22, 2016
{snip}
When Mr. Trump speaks of barring Muslims from entering the United States, I hear an echo of a British politician from another age, one who is largely forgotten here but whose views on race and immigration were as polarizing in their time as Mr. Trump’s are now. Enoch Powell was a politician whose career spanned most of the postwar period, first as a Conservative and later as an Ulster Unionist. He had grave reservations about mass immigration and frequently spoke in apocalyptic language about its consequences.
Mr. Powell was hardly an obvious demagogue. The Labour politician Denis Healey once compared him to the Athenian statesman Demosthenes. He was a classical scholar and gifted linguist, and his speeches were renowned for their erudition. Examples from Roman history are not part of Mr. Trump’s rhetorical repertoire.
{snip}
By 1968, he had become the opposition’s chief spokesman on defense–if largely by virtue of the fact that, as a talented maverick, he was regarded by the Conservatives’ new leader, Edward Heath, as too dangerous to leave out. Speaking in Birmingham, England’s second largest city and one already changed by extensive immigration, Mr. Powell argued that “we must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting the annual inflow of some 50,000 dependents.”
This policy, he warned, “is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre.” In the most often quoted line–an allusion to the poet Virgil–Mr. Powell said, “as I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see ‘the River Tiber foaming with much blood.’ ”
The Times of London called it “an evil speech,” and the first direct appeal to “racial hatred” made by a senior British politician. Mr. Powell was summarily dismissed from his post by Mr. Heath.
Yet his lurid warning about the dangers of mass immigration resonated with many Britons. He received tens of thousands of letters of support for what became known as the “rivers of blood” speech. Three days later, as a Labour government bill against racial discrimination was debated in Parliament, 1,000 dock workers marched from London’s East End to protest the “victimization” of Mr. Powell.
There are parallels between the way Mr. Powell gave voice to white working-class anxiety and Mr. Trump’s primary campaigning. And like Mr. Trump, Mr. Powell discovered a ready audience: A Gallup poll a few weeks later found that 74 percent of those surveyed agreed with what Mr. Powell had said. For immigrants like my father, who arrived in Britain from Pakistan in the early 1960s, it wasn’t Mr. Powell’s words that were frightening so much as that so many seemed to agree with them.
{snip}
In recent years, the target of nativist anxiety about otherness in Britain has shifted from black to Muslim. From my background in Luton, I always looked to the United States as a place where almost everyone was “other,” from somewhere else; I imagined it as a nation that offered a welcome to all, regardless of color or creed.
That faith has been sorely tested by Mr. Trump. Like Mr. Powell, he demonstrates the appeal of a charismatic leader who presents himself as a principled truth-teller, the only man brave enough to break with the establishment consensus on immigration. As Mr. Powell did, Mr. Trump connects with voters–especially among the economically insecure white working class–who feel they’re being lied to by the political elite.
The difference between them is that the “rivers of blood” speech effectively ended Mr. Powell’s political career (he never again held high office, though he remained a member of Parliament until 1987), whereas Mr. Trump has been rewarded so far for his harsh words. Mr. Trump has drawn some criticism from other Republicans, but he is certainly not the pariah that Mr. Powell became.
Mr. Trump, like Mr. Powell before him, speaks for those convulsed by fear. In his 1968 speech, Mr. Powell quoted a constituent who dreaded a future when “the black man will have the whip hand over the white man.” That paranoia–an ugly delusion that inverts the actual history of slavery–was unfounded. Yet what is striking today is that though Mr. Powell was cast into the wilderness for his views, arguably his warning about the challenges to social cohesion from immigration was prescient.
Thankfully, the rivers of blood he foresaw never flowed. But nearly five decades later, Britain’s long experience of race riots and domestic terrorist attacks suggests that the countervailing doctrine of multiculturalism has not made for a land of milk and honey either.
{snip}
In Britain, Powellism was eventually defeated as a political movement in part because politicians across the divide united against his views, in part because his dire predictions proved exaggerated and, not least, because people of good will mobilized to stop groups like the National Front from intimidating immigrant neighborhoods and winning elections. But Mr. Powell’s legacy was long and bitter–a lesson for both Britain and America that the price of not confronting the fears that fuel this antipathy could be severe: Whether or not Donald Trump wins his immediate political battle, he may, like Enoch Powell, win the war of ideas.
Hillary is running hard from three pursuers, Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders and the FBI; all three nibbling on on her tail. Like a robber or rapist who leaves their DNA at the scene then proceeds to flee with blood dripping from a knife wound, Hillary is about to be caught, arrested, indicted and jailed. Her only hope is to become President where she will be immune for the years of presidency, but this is not likely to happen.
Sanders has her number in Iowa and New Hampshire, remember Hillary was the 100% favorite, now she claims that the race would always be competitive. Who believes that. A Vermont Senator, one of socialist convictions, little known outside New England, an Independent at that, has now caught the chronological liar.
The FBI is about to bring a RICO case against her and Slick Willie and then there is Donald Trump. She tries to ignore him by touting that he is living in his own version of reality. Look at the audiences Hillary plays to, notice their lack of enthusiasm, no cheers, only silent murmurs. Trump on the other hand brings the crowd to its feet, SRO crowds, boisterous with vigor, the want to make America great again. The message has stuck.
America has learned from the past pandering politically correct politicians.
“Republicans are going to have to ask themselves the question: ‘Do we want a candidate who could be tied up in court for two years?’ That’d be a big problem,” Trump told The Washington Post in an interview published Tuesday night.
Donald Trump is not a lawyer, Ted Cruz is. Senator Cruz, a Harvard graduate cum laude, should no if he is qualified or not. According to the Constitution, the President must be a natural born citizen. Naturalized has not been wholly defined. In addition to requiring thirty-five years of age and fourteen years of residency, the Constitution limits the presidency to “a natural born Citizen.”
The Naturalization Act of 17908×8. Ch. 3, 1 Stat. 103 (repealed 1795). 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 . . . .”
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.”
That conclusion about what the drafters meant is based partly on a law passed in 1790 by the first Congress, providing that the children of U.S. citizens born outside the country “shall be considered as natural born citizens.” The law is no longer in effect, but it’s considered evidence of the intent of the founders.
Then, in 1964, the Supreme Court muddied the waters by seeming to say, without deciding, that “natural born” meant born inside the United States.
Sen. Barry Goldwater in 1958. AP, file
In an opinion on an unrelated issue, the court observed, “The rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the ‘natural born’ citizen is eligible to be President.”
But that language is not legally binding, and the Supreme Court has never actually ruled on what “natural born” means.
Writing last year in the Harvard law Review, two former holders of the Justice Department’s top courtroom advocate job — Solicitor General — said Cruz met the qualification.
“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,” Neal Katyal and Paul Clement wrote.
But until the Supreme Court rules on the issue, or the Constitution is amended, the issue will remain officially unsettled.
St. George Tucker, the editor, says this in a footnote:
Persons naturalized according to these acts, are entitled to all the rights of natural born citizens, except, first, that they cannot be elected as representatives in congress until seven years, thereafter. Secondly, nor can they be elected senators of the United States, until nine years thereafter. Thirdly, they are forever incapable of being chosen to the office of president of the United States. Persons naturalized before the adoption of the constitution, it is presumed, have all the capacities of natural born citizens. See C. U. S. Art. 1, 2.
The citizens of each state constituted the citizens of the United States when the Constitution was adopted. … [He] who was subsequently born the citizen of a State, became at the moment of his birth a citizen of the United States. Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity. …. Under our Constitution the question is settled by its express language, and when we are informed that … no person is eligible to the office of President unless he is a natural born citizen, the principle that the place of birth creates the relative quality is established as to us.
The issue was examined by the U.S. Supreme Court in the dissenting opinion of J. Curtis (which should be read in combination with the dissenting opinion of J. McLean for a better understanding of the issues in the case) in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U. S. 576 (1856):
The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, “a natural-born citizen.” It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth. At the Declaration of Independence, and ever since, the received general doctrine has been in conformity with the common law that free persons born within either of the colonies were subjects of the King that by the Declaration of Independence, and the consequent acquisition of sovereignty by the several States, all such persons ceased to be subjects, and became citizens of the several States, except so far as some of them were disfranchised by the legislative power of the States, or availed themselves, seasonably, of the right to adhere to the British Crown in the civil contest, and thus to continue British subjects.
ustice Gray explained in that case:
A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.
Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency.
The closest the U.S. Supreme Court has come to addressing eligibility to be president was in Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939):
There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of twenty-one, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States… [citing to Steinkauler’s Case, which was an opinion given by Edwards Pierrepont, who was Attorney General for Ulysses S. Grant].
CLICK HERE FOR MORE INTRIGUE ON THE QUESTION, WHAT DOES NATURAL BORN MEAN. WILL THE SUPREME COURT RULE ON THIS RUDIMENTARY QUESTION?
Click here for the latest. This is no family feud between Hillary and Donald, this is an old fashion Hatfield and McCoy war. By the way, Hillary has brought in her tag team partner, Husband Bill. It is do obvious that she can’t fight her own battles, but needs help from the corner. It’s a dam shame, we were looking forward to seeing some of Hillary’s blood spilled; after all she found no problem spilling the blood of those who defended our country.
The back-and-forth started with the GOP front-runner using off-color language to describe Clinton’s 2008 defeat at the hands of then-Sen. Barack Obama, and eventually escalated to charges of sexism on both sides — and most recently, a battery of insults from Trump during a New Hampshire rally Monday night.
“I’m telling you this very strongly. First of all, she has committed a criminal act…. What she did with the emails was criminal,” Trump told supporters in Nashua, N.H. Summing up the Benghazi scandal, Trump charged that Clinton was “too lazy to answer phone calls.”
The dispute heated up recently after Trump said Clinton got “schlonged” by Obama in 2008. Clinton, in response, told a newspaper Trump has a “penchant for sexism.” Trump and his team then fired back at both Bill and Hillary Clinton, seizing on Clinton campaign plans to bring the former president out on the campaign trail starting next week.
As America knows by now, Hillary is a bold faced liar and a hypocrite too. Married to a philander who has committed adultery, had sex with numerous women, plowed the fields of Arkansas and Washington all the while either in or seeking public office.
Hillary’s answer to Bill’s sexual endeavors, “boys will be boys.” A great roll model for other women. And to think that Hillary has patronized the Muslim community where Sharia law is practiced; denigrating women is what it is all about. Talk about women’s lib here. For some reason we don’t see any outcry from any women’s organizations. Perhaps Trump should call them out on this.
Facing a double-digit loss, the Hillary Clinton campaign is now lowering expectations for the New Hampshire Democrat primary.
Polls show Clinton, who was supposed to coast to the Democrat nomination with only token opposition, will lose the early primary state to Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders by double-digits.
“It’s time to be realistic about the resources we still need to be ready,” Clinton said in an email to supporters, “because right now, winning this nomination is no sure thing.”
“If we lose in Iowa or New Hampshire, we’re going to need to dig in and work that much harder to make sure we win the nomination,” she warns.
That means Clinton will have to campaign longer, and burn millions of additional dollars, simply to officially call herself the Democrat nominee. Source: AAN – See more at: http://americanactionnews.com/articles/hillary-now-officially-panicking-over-polls-in-this-key-state#sthash.njNoY7LG.dpuf
"Where Revolution is the Solution" Taking back the Empire
The scenario played out better than expected. Nevada voters erupted last night for 
By the way, Hillary has brought in her tag team partner, Husband Bill. It is do obvious that she can’t fight her own battles, but needs help from the corner. It’s a dam shame, we were looking forward to seeing some of Hillary’s blood spilled; after all she found no problem spilling the blood of those who defended our country.