USA Today Wants Arnold Schwarzenegger To Run For President, And Says It’s Allowable

Young voters really do not want a Trump-Biden rematch. They do not want either running. Yeah, I think that’s most of us. But, USA Today screedster Joe Matthews thinks he has the answer, and it’s probably the dumbest thing you’ll read so far this young year

Schwarzenegger for president? Arnold should run – and not just because he’d beat Trump.

Dear Arnold,

In Netflix’s new action series, “FUBAR,” you’re compelling as a retiring CIA agent pulled back into intelligence madness because he didn’t realize his daughter is also a secret agent.

You also may not realize that, in real life, the door just opened for you to be pulled back into the FUBAR (“F’ed Up Beyond All Recognition”) of our national politics. I’m writing to ask you to walk through that door, and run for president for the good of our country.

You’ve previously said that you would run for president, if not for two facts: that you were born an Austrian, and that Article II, Sec. 1 of the U.S. Constitution says “no Person except a natural born Citizen… shall be eligible to the Office of President.”

It’s pretty darned specific. Arnold is not natural born. He cannot be president. Period. 100% not allowed. Trump Derangement Syndrome is a hell of a thing, though

The article hasn’t changed, but American devotion to the Constitution and its provisions on presidential eligibility has.

Huh what?

For this, Donald Trump is responsible. Incredibly, he has inspired leading Democrats and Republicans to take the position that being constitutionally ineligible to serve as president is no longer a barrier to running for president.

A new consensus is emerging: Voters have the right to choose whomever they want as president, no matter what the Constitution says.

This is the product of Trump’s own ineligibility. The Constitution’s 14th Amendment bars any officer of the U.S. who took a constitutional oath and then “engaged in insurrection” – as Trump did – from holding another government office. Leading constitutional scholars, from right and left, have affirmed that Trump isn’t eligible.

Even if that was true (he has not been convicted of insurrection, and half the country doesn’t thing January 6th was an insurrection), that in no way allows Arnold to be president. The insanity continues a bit, to

In entering the race, you should emphasize that Republicans and Democrats, by keeping Trump on the ballot, have rubber-stamped the principle that voters should get to choose whomever they want. When opponents refer to that Article II requirement that candidates be natural born, you should make two arguments. First:  you’ve always felt American in your heart and soul – a “natural born” American, in fact. Second: If the Biden vs. Trump matchup is the best that native-born citizens can manage, then it’s high time to welcome foreign-born contenders.

Yeah, reality doesn’t work like that. This is the kind of muddle-headed thinking the Youts have this day, where reality is simply what’s in their mushybrains rather than real reality. This is delusional. I’ve never seen this so-called consensus. Probably some sort of newsroom yammering by the Youts with Ivy League journalism degrees.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

11 Responses to “USA Today Wants Arnold Schwarzenegger To Run For President, And Says It’s Allowable”

  1. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    For nuConstitutionalists the Constitution is a document of recommendations, for the political Supreme Court to “interpret”. The majority starts with a conclusion then construct a “Constitutional argument” to support he preconceived conclusion.

    Mr Schwarzenegger has lived in the US for 55 years, and a citizen for 40. He served nearly years as CA governor (the governator).

    The Supreme Court decides who is and is not a “natural born citizen”, deciding that John McCain, born in Panama was a natural born citizen and that Barack Obama, born in Hawaii to a US citizen mother and non-citizen father, and Ted Cruz, born in Alberta, Canada to a US citizen mother and non-citizen (Cuban) father.

    Do you agree with the Court’s decision on Cruz?

    BTW Arnold is 76 years old, so nearly as old as Big Don and Joe.

    • Dana says:

      The socialist from St Louis erred:

      The Supreme Court decides who is and is not a “natural born citizen”, deciding that John McCain, born in Panama was a natural born citizen and that Barack Obama, born in Hawaii to a US citizen mother and non-citizen father, and Ted Cruz, born in Alberta, Canada to a US citizen mother and non-citizen (Cuban) father.

      John McCain was born at Coco Solo Naval Air Station, and his parents, both of whom were American citizens, and were at that base because Mr McCain’s father was a naval officer stationed there, in the Canal Zone, which was under United States sovereignty at the time.

      We do have rules in place. For example, the children of diplomats, even if born in the United States, are not US citizens due to their parents’ diplomatic immunity.

      • Elwood P. Dowd says:

        The fascist from Fayette misses the point. The Supreme Court helped define “natural born citizen” as a baby born outside the US to two US citizens where at least one is stationed there in military service.

        Now do Rafael “Ted” Cruz! Born outside the US, not in a US territory or military base, and whose mother was a US citizen but his father was not. Republicans were making the argument that Barack Hussein Obama was not a “natural born citizen” since his father was not a US citizen.

        How about a baby born in the US to two non-citizens? Except for the spawn of immune diplomats the child is a US citizen. Can little Julio Gotay born in Chicago to two aliens grow up to be President?

      • Elwood P. Dowd says:

        Where’s the error??

  2. Genocide Joe the commie says:

    For nuConstitutionalists the Constitution is a document of recommendations, for the political Supreme Court to “interpret”. The majority starts with a conclusion then construct a “Constitutional argument” to support he preconceived conclusion.

    Projecting again comrade? We all know it’s been the radical left that has been preaching the constitution is a “living document” for decades now. That’s how they got Roe V Wade which is neither constitutional nor Laughlin anyway. Abortion, not being mentioned in the constitution is left to states to decide. But communists like you don’t like that because some states might disagree with you and not allow abortion. Somehow every abortion everywhere becomes Europe business.

    It’s always been you radical leftist and communists that wanted to interpret the constitution because that’s the only way you can change its meaning. There are dozens of examples I could give you but I’m not gonna sit here and waste my Saturday. Besides I’m taking the girls to Eddie V’s prime seafood for dinner and I have to get prepared.

  3. Dan says:

    Once again the left is proving that to them laws, rules, the Constitution…all mean NOTHING to them. All they want is what they want. And any means to achieve that goal is acceptable to them.

  4. BSmitty56 says:

    USA Today is for airheads.

  5. Nolan Parker says:

    Voters have the right to choose whomever they want as president, no matter what the Constitution says.

    And why shouldn’t they? Executive Orders that are perfectly against the constitution don’t get challenged. Bureaucrats in regulatory agencies create Rulings that take the rights of landowners away. Ranchers use Moving the Water source to get cattle to different pastures,but genius bureaucrats call the pond the rancher dug two years ago Wetlands and declare them necessary for migratory birds,because they can’t find the New Pond next year,, they will die because they found the pond he dug two years ago and now have lost the ability to find water… Give me a break..
    There is no provision for Anchor babies. Read carefully. Don’t gloss over the
    And subject to the laws thereof
    Part. If a tourist from France has her baby in America, is That a new citizen? Nope.. Think about it.

  6. drowningpuppies says:

    Never let them forget.

    Da Arnold sez, “Screw your freedom.”

    #Trump2024
    Bwaha! Lolgf https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

  7. tel u says:

    Your article effectively addresses the key issues at hand.visit us Telkom University

  8. ruralcounsel says:

    The journalist’s error is when he writes “American’s devotion to the Constitution” has waned. Just his. Apparently he’s not a true American.

Pirate's Cove