Breaking the Narrative Episode 121: When false allegations fail in politics: If you can’t win, move the goalposts!


Since the Steele Dossier, Mueller Probe, and every other attempt to discredit the administration of President Donald Trump has failed, the Democratic Party establishment that has all but violated the needs of its primary constituency for the better part of the past 4 years has gotten desperate to retain its power. I’ve talked here about several attempts to rewrite the rules to prevent Trump from winning the election again and ensuring a potential decline of contemporary establishment corruption among both parties. The reasons they fear this are varied. However, none of them are relevant to the actual subject of this article.

The importance here is covering the latest tactic they are attempting and ultimately why it, too, will fail. And this time its not simply ineptitude – it’s incompetence in relation to the document each of these politicians are supposed to protect overall. The tactic: Barring Trump from the federal ballot for president by upwards of 20 states unless he shows the last 5 years of his tax returns to the House of Representatives. I’ll explain here why this is unconstitutional, why its pointless even if it weren’t abjectly illegal.Then, ultimately, I will demonstrate how this will actually hurt the Never Trump side of both parties in the end. Let’s Hammer This In!

So first I need to show the thought process they are going with on this. The violating state legislatures in question are thinking that this concept will lead to one of two outcomes. Either they block Trump from being voted for and therefore ensure a competing candidate who would be on the take and who they can control, or they get the tax returns and hope to find some obscure mistake his accountant made when filing, and be able to impeach and remove him from office on a technicality, therefore restoring the elitist stranglehold on government and destroying the will of the people.

So what is the problem with their concept on this? Simple, the stated qualifications for the President of the United States as outlined in the U.S. Constitution! Which read as follows:

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.

What does this mean precisely?

There are only three things that will disqualify you for attempting to become the President of the United States. Not being a citizen, being a naturalized citizen (immigrant proper), or having already been president for any amount of time more than two years. This is why Bill Clinton nor Barack Obama can run again even if they want to.

This means that even if say President Trump were actually in crippling debt or takes advantage of loopholes in the tax code (which is why most of us take our taxes to a professional preparer in the first place) that doesn’t mean he is ineligible for the office. It just means he has to pay accountants, like many senators and representatives do in the first place. In fact, the IRS has been auditing the man for upwards of 15 years now. Something that even former agents of the service find highly unusual. This means the IRS has been gunning for him for years and can’t seem to find anything wrong in his taxes no matter how fine toothed of a comb they use. What can the House finance committee find that the best and brightest of the IRS, who is supposed to prosecute tax violations in the first place, can’t? If you ask me not a damned thing.

So why will the motion they are making to bar him from the ballot fail under this logic they are using? Well for starters its unconstitutional. A singular state can not dictate who is on a federal ballot which is what they are trying to do, all they can decide is who represents their state in the United States Congress. Secondly this is an abject violation of voter civil rights. A state cannot deny the right of the voters to choose who they want for their duly elected president. This is why you can write in a candidate if you wish. Sure this might not usually work but if they were to not put President Trump’s name on the ballot that does not stop a stubborn and ardent supporter of the PotUS from writing in his name on the ballot. In fact, in the off chance this were allowed it could likely have the opposite effect of what they are wanting and make it a landslide election in the name of Donald Trump.

Taking into account that Trump’s approval is over the 45% mark and you can tell why the establishment feminists are so damned afraid. Especially with Trump dropping the Duluth Model like the bad habit it is.

Does this mean Trump is a men’s human rights advocate now? Not in the least. He is still for all intents and purposes a traditionalist. However, he may be starting to see the problems with feminism and is starting to slowly combat them That means there is some hope of at least endorsement of more legitimate egalitarianism if not an announcement that MRAs have a damned point. Sure, its not overturning the negative sum game but we need to take what we can get as it comes along. Now if only the man would address the issues that the people behind the line of “reputational risk” have caused. Then we won’t have to be worried about being denied basic access to commercial markets. But I digress…

My point stands, however. No matter how hopeful the insane fringes are to depose Trump, its just not happening. They would need a massive bombshell they just haven’t been able to muster. I wouldn’t attribute this so much to his own tactical genius as much as I would suggest that maybe, just maybe, he never did anything illegal. Amoral? Sure! But nothing states that the President has to be a moral guardian outright. He just has to defend the nation. That means occasionally considering the deaths of millions as a potential solution. Ethics and morality aren’t one and the same and at times they can conflict.

Anyway, between this and the legal wins that have been starting to occur to counter the feminist agenda of turning escapism into propaganda, we might be receiving a stable footing through which to push forward. Now if only we can ace that appeal. I know its fully funded and the project funding phase is over but it doesn’t hurt to remind people whats coming every now and again. Next time I might have a full proposal of something I’m working on. If not maybe I can cover something fun, maybe a review? Until then Please Remember to Game Freely!

Alex Tinsley
Follow me at
Facebooktwitterredditpinterestmailby feather

About the author

Alex Tinsley

A student of Fine Arts and Japanese culture of six years at Murray State University. Having never graduated due to difficulties with a specific teacher has gained a unique perspective upon the issues being faced by men and boys. A father of a young boy and loving husband.

By Alex Tinsley

Listen to Honey Badger Radio!

Support Alison, Brian and Hannah creating HBR Content!

Recent Posts

Recent Comments





Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrssyoutubeby feather