Yes, Keith. Here's why you should vote for Trump, even as a convicted felon | Dr. Phil Question from Audience

What makes a POTUS qualified to be a POTUS

Here’s why I think you can and should still vote for Trump even though he is a convicted felon.

The Trump conviction, a term I use loosely, has drawn a very important subject into the light.

Dr. Phil had Trump on recently, which you can watch the 19:05 clip here (the full version is only available on Dr. Phil’s app, fyi).

In the post interview discussion that Dr. Phil had, a man, Keith, asked the following question.

(Source | Vigilant Fox)

What qualifies someone to be President of the United States?

There are two general answers to this question.

The first answer is that these are the rules on the books, so to speak, outlined by the Constitution of the United States. In the 14th Amendment, Section 3, it states:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

I say, on the books, because, the “rule book” of the United States is a reference to the laws that have been codified or agreed to by the citizenry, reaching all the way back to the first citizens and framers, which we call the founding fathers.

These rules are important, vital in fact, and the founding fathers, as most people with sense would agree, brilliantly produced them in the US Constitution.

However, laws can be corrupted across time. How do you know for sure if they have? This is also a vital question.

Generally speaking, the law is what the founding fathers created with the constitution. And yet, the same word—law—is what we use to refer to laws that were used to convict Trump of 34 felonies.

Does it make sense that even though we use the same word—law—there’s clearly a difference between the two outcomes of justice and corruption. And that this difference is absolutely important to whether or not we have a truly free and prosperous country?

To Donald J. Trump, this difference is most definitely important. He’s bearing this burden, in my view, to reveal a problem that has been hurting people in this country for a very long time.

It’s the law that a candidate can’t have attempted an insurrection against the people’s government because doing so violates the rights of the people who created the government for their benefit in the first place. It would be like hiring someone to detail your car only to have that person destroy it by driving it off a cliff.

The second answer is the deeper one, the one that speaks to this vital difference we’ve been talking about.

The second answer is that these qualifications in the Constitution have merit.

Merit is the word we use to describe if something is good, valuable, and worthy of praise. The proposition of Trump as a candidate for POTUS has merit because the things he did were good, valuable and worthy of praise. His first presidency was one of the more prosperous times in recent history, while at the same time, he went after criminals who violated the people’s rights. Considering the POTUS is a job for defending and protecting rights, Trump has proven himself worthy of the task.

Another word we could use for this description is righteous.

When someone acts with righteousness, we mean that they did the right thing. And the phrase the right thing refers to the idea that what ought to be done is what was done by an agent, by a person with free will who had a choice.

This is the substance of law, it’s the whole point. Law is a tool, just like a hammer. A tool is either made well, meaning it works as it was intended to or it was not made well and it doesn’t work.

If I asked you to hammer a nail into a board to attach it to another piece of wood and I hand you a ham sandwich, would this choice have merit? Would it be right? Would you be able to drive the nail into the board with a ham sandwich?

I’ll save you the mess by telling you no, it would not work to drive the nail into the wood. It would work to make a real mess all over the place.

However, if I handed you a hammer, a tool that was carefully designed and crafted to achieve a specific purpose, then you could drive that nail into the piece of wood.

Any one with sense can see that the hammer is the right tool. And we can rightly call the person who supplied the hammer when asked for the right tool as a righteous person.

The law, to be righteous, has to have merit, it has to work as it was designed to do to achieve it’s intended purpose.

What is the purpose of law, then?

This drives at the heart of the question in the mind of Keith. Keith wants to know how to overcome the problem he has with voting for a candidate who is a convicted felon.

Some might say Keith is a weak man or someone who lacks conviction, someone who doesn’t have the courage to stand up to the fraudsters who weaponized the law to go after Trump, an innocent man.

But I don’t think that’s what’s happening here. I think Keith, as charming as he is with his seeming naiveté, is actually asking a very important question.

Keith seems to be a man who genuinely wants to try and elect a candidate who is qualified for the job—a rare basis for voting in an election these days. And in his mind, a candidate who has a felony conviction isn’t qualified.

If the candidate actually committed a felony then Keith would be right because that person violated the law, which is a tool of the government designed to defend and protect the people’s rights. Clearly, if a candidate didn’t do the primary job of a POTUS in the past (uphold the law) then that failure would be evidence they might not do it again in the future.

If you lent your car to someone and they didn’t honor your rule to put gas in it when they were done, would you likely want to lend it to them again in the future?

The founding fathers also knew that it was important for the POTUS not to violate the law, which is why they included 14th Amendment, Section 3.

What Keith likely doesn’t know is that the recent conviction of Trump lacks merit, which means Trump is an innocent man. The conviction is false and a sham, which anyone who has studied the case and is of sound mind can attest to.

This next part is the key to Keith’s question and the key to why the founding fathers included a disqualification clause in the first place.

The law serves the people who have rights, who form the government to defend and protect those rights, which is eloquently stated in the Declaration of Independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government

The law is a tool, designed to do what that statement says. The law is designed to convict guilty men and free innocent men.

What does it mean when the law convicts innocent men and let’s guilty men go free?

What does it mean when a hammer no longer nails nails or a fruit tree no longer bears fruit?

It means that the tool no longer works to do what it was designed to do.

What Keith and so many others that are unsure why they should still vote for Trump don’t know is that we are at a critical moment in our nation’s history.

It’s this moment: “… That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government …”

The answer to Keith’s question about how to overcome the idea that a convicted felon shouldn’t run for POTUS is this: When a man, who is innocent is persecuted by criminals for attempting to use his rights lawfully, then it is time to overthrow that government and institute a new one.

Related Jesus did to the Pharisees what Trump is doing to the Globalists

Trump is not just qualified to run because of the rules the Constitution lays out, he’s qualified to run because he’s one of the only men who can, and is, showing the people that the tool of government and our law system no longer works. Keith doesn’t know this because Keith remains nescient (unaware) of the key facts about Trump’s innocence, the law’s corrupt and broken status, and that the criminals who benefit from it’s current state of corruption are harming innocent men who are simply trying to exercise their rights.

That’s you and me, and even Keith.

“They aren’t going after me (Trump), they’re going after you. I’m just in the way.”

What Keith is about to realize is that simply trying to feed your family, support your community, raise your children, and so on, have become criminal acts in Joe Biden’s corrupt America.

We are persecuted for exercising our rights to pursue peace and prosperity, which means, the whole system itself must be carefully reviewed and reworked to fix it in the same way a broken down car needs to be rebuilt and reworked to get it running properly again.

If Keith knew this, which I genuinely hope he does some day, he would realize that Trump is arguably the most qualified man to run for office in a long time, because he will defend and protect the rights of the people at a scale that hasn’t been done since the founding fathers of America joined together that fateful day to ratify the US Constitution.

I hope Keith will forgive me for using him to make the points that I did in this article.

What do you think is the thing that qualifies Trump to be POTUS?

Please tell me what you think or let me know if I got something wrong. I want to hear from you.

Much love,

Justin Deschamps is a researcher, omniologist, podcaster, and business consultant who has committed himself to restoring the knowledge, reason, and goodwill that helped the founding fathers create the greatest nation on earth.