THE FIRST QUESTION WE SHOULD ASK….
by Tom Ballantyne, ©2016
(May 5, 2016) — When Wild Bill’s Hillary was pressed on her conflicting story about what incited the attack on our embassy – or (not-so) ‘safe’ house – in Benghazi, Libya, which resulted in the murder of four U.S. citizens, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, on the night of September 11, 2012, her response would soon become a part of the American Political Lexicon, denoting typical elitist disdain for being held personally accountable to the People. We all know what she said.
This afternoon, host Lou Dobbs had former Speaker Newt Gingrich on to talk about Donald Trump’s possible VP picks. It appeared that Newt had been appraised of the question in advance, as he clearly articulated three qualifications he considered paramount, in order:
1. They must be “capable of being President” in the event that that should become necessary.
2. They must be “compatible with Donald Trump, his partner, ‘junior partner,’ but still partner.”
3. “If they meet the first two tests, and only if they meet the first two tests,” they must “bring something to the ticket,” “help carry a state,” “help bring in an ethnic group,” or be able to “do” something to help Trump “get elected.”
There is a bit of irony here, as Newt was spot on with his first requirement; but while I fully agree with the point he was making, he, like virtually everyone else out there in the political hierarchy (including Trump himself), probably isn’t even conscious of the literal meaning of what he said: The first requirement is that the person or candidate must be constitutionally “capable,” constitutionally-qualified, to be President, precisely because that could at some point become necessary. Meanwhile, at least four of the people whose names are now being excitedly bandied about are not…but once again, what difference does it make?
While most were (are) either unaware of the fact, or have simply forgotten it, what the ever-disdainful Secretary asked in full was: “What difference at this point does it make?” In truth, her complete question is even more applicable “at this point” … but why?
It is more applicable because we are now at a point at which we have had a constitutionally-unqualified Commander in Chief for now seven-plus years; having also had fully four unqualified/ineligible GOP presidential candidates of the original field of seventeen. So given those facts – and they are facts (see Trump vs. The Political/Media Establishment for thorough and irrefutable legal proof) – “What difference at this point does it make?”
A better, or more pertinent question is this: Does the Constitution itself still matter? – or have we come to a point, in large measure due to ‘political correctness’ (fully-proscribed/prohibited speech, as well as thought) where we have disregarded the Constitution for so long that it is no longer even relevant?
Does anyone want to know the real, even obvious answer to that question? Here it is: We have absolutely come to the point where the Constitution is a mere afterthought at best – and that by the so-called ‘Opposition Party’ – or a twisted means of justifying patently unconstitutional acts on the part of the current regime and its apologists.
I would here note two things: First, if any doubt that the Constitution has become all but irrelevant (and there is really no need to include the words “all but,” frankly), he or she need look no further than the very issue we are discussing. It would be one thing if there were honest debate on the actual intended meaning of Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 5 (I was going to use the phrase “natural born citizen,” but realized without the slightest hesitation that the phrase itself was/is strictly ‘off limits’), but as any informed person is fully aware, to even raise the issue is categorically verboten…which brings me to my second point: If any doubt that this prohibition is the result of now rigidly-enforced political correctness, I would simply ask: When was the last time you heard the issue raised with any of the candidates, aside from Donald Trump raising it with respect to Ted Cruz?
Which brings me to yet a third point. One might ask why anyone would raise the question of eligibility with respect to any of the seventeen GOP candidates, or with respect to Barack Obama, in the previous two elections. In the case of Bobby Jindal, the question arises from the fact that it is well known that he is of Indian descent – both of his parents were born in India. Singling him out, however, to ask the obvious question about his constitutional fealty, would immediately be branded ‘racist,’ would it not? (After all, Jindal was clearly born in the United States, was he not?)
And while the place of birth was questionable in the case of Barack Obama (and still is, given that it has never been legally proven, or even reasonably demonstrated – proffering a digital ‘document’ not only immediately gives rise to reasonable doubt, but would be completely unacceptable to any agency of any kind, as well as in any court of law on any level), it was and is an undisputed fact that Ted Cruz was not born in the United States; thus the cries of racism (Cruz is “Hispanic” given his Cuban ancestry) were not leveled at those questioning his citizenship/eligibility.
Nonetheless, Establishment Conservatives immediately rushed on stage to quell any questions over this clearly-legitimate legal/constitutional concern, by authoritatively proclaiming the whole thing ‘settled science’ (“settled law” in this case, but same idea). In addition, they hastened to make it clear that even raising such questions was itself “silly,” ‘conspiratorial,’ and would not be tolerated. In other words, these paragons of political correctness – on the so-called ‘Right’ (we once thought this was a malady which afflicted only those on the Left) – wanted to make it perfectly clear that even entertaining such questions (in speech or thought) was strictly prohibited…unless one wanted to either be “silly,” or be considered/labeled such by ‘everyone else.’
So, there you have it. According to the Political/Media Establishment, which absolutely includes the GOP and alleged “Conservatives” – as has been seen on full display over the past month or so – whether or not a candidate for President (or Vice President) of the United States meets the simple, but strict requirements set forth in the Constitution, exclusively for the nation’s highest office, that of its Chief Executive and Commander in Chief, is not only irrelevant (“silly” in the words of both Obama and Cruz, as well as other ‘constitutional authorities’), but to raise such issues will be met with cries of ‘racism,’ ‘heresy,’ et al.
And besides, What difference does it make?
To learn more about these critical issues, read the author’s most recent book, Trump vs. The Political/Media Establishment; The Establishment vs. The Rule of Law. The author, T. M. Ballantyne, Jr., has written a half-dozen previous books, including Oh Really, O’Reilly! (an in-depth look at the eligibility of Barack Obama) and Uncommon Sense…Apparently!
Sharon Rondeau has operated The Post & Email since April 2010, focusing on the Obama birth certificate investigation and other government corruption news. She has reported prolifically on constitutional violations within Tennessee’s prison and judicial systems.