It's About Liberty: A Conservative Forum
Topics => Politics/Legislation/Elections => Topic started by: ChrstnHsbndFthr on January 30, 2015, 08:18:55 AM
-
This is as comprehensive a list of potential nominees as I can find, and I have sorted them into three categories, based exclusively on my own humble opinion. Some of them do not seem like serious candidates, but were included because there is talk about them, or they have expressed a desire.
Clearly establisment types:
Jeb Bush, Governor of Florida 1999–2007
Chris Christie, Governor of New Jersey since 2010
Lindsey Graham, U.S. Senator from South Carolina since 2003
George Pataki, Governor of New York 1995–2006
Bob Ehrlich, Governor of Maryland 2003–2007
Carly Fiorina, former business executive and nominee for the U.S. Senate from California in 2010
Mike Huckabee, Governor of Arkansas 1996–2007
John Kasich, Governor of Ohio since 2011
Peter King, U.S. Representative from New York since 1993
Mitt Romney, Governor of Massachusetts 2003–2007; presidential candidate in 2008; presidential nominee in 2012
Populist?Tea-Party?Anti-establishment?
Michele Bachmann, U.S. Representative from Minnesota 2007–2015; presidential candidate in 2012
John R. Bolton, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations 2005–2006; Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs 2001–2005
Ted Cruz, U.S. Senator from Texas since 2013; Solicitor General of Texas 2003–2008
Scott Walker, Governor of Wisconsin since 2011
Ben Carson, author and retired Director of Pediatric Neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital
Sarah Palin, Governor of Alaska 2006–2009; 2008 vice-presidential nominee
Rand Paul, U.S. Senator from Kentucky since 2011
Rick Perry, Governor of Texas 2000-2015, Lieutenant Governor of Texas 1999–2000; presidential candidate in 2012
Marco Rubio, U.S. Senator from Florida since 2011
Rick Santorum, U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania 1995–2007; U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania 1991–1995; presidential candidate in 2012
Donald Trump, business magnate and television personality from New York
Herman Cain, President of the National Restaurant Association 1996–1999; chairman and CEO of Godfather's Pizza 1986–1996; presidential candidate in 2012
Mike Pence, Governor of Indiana since 2013; U.S. Representative from Indiana 2001–2013
Mitch Daniels, President of Purdue University since 2013; Governor of Indiana 2005–2013
These folks were not easily categorized. They have all done some typical establishment stuff, but have also marched off doing their own thing too, not just taking direction from the Establishment. I think Jindal is the likely one from this category.
Jim Gilmore, Governor of Virginia 1998–2002; Chairman of the Republican National Committee 2001–2002; presidential candidate in 2008
Bobby Jindal, Governor of Louisiana since 2008; U.S. Representative from Louisiana 2005–2008
Susana Martinez, Governor of New Mexico since 2011
Rick Scott, Governor of Florida since 2011; former CEO and co-founder of Columbia Hospital Corporation
Rick Snyder, Governor of Michigan since 2011; former CEO and co-founder of Ardesta LLC
I expect 6 or 7 establishment candidates to run or at least start to run, and perhaps 5-6 from the other category. Both will winnow quickly, but there is a possibility that there is enough division in the establishment to get a real shot for one of the OTHERS!
I freely stipulate that everyone here will have their own opinion, right down to the "it doesn't matter" faction, but I thought it might provide interesting discussion.
-
I think you have Rubio, Santorum, and Daniels on the wrong list. Maybe Pence too. I think they're establishment Republicans.
I don't know anything about Bolton other than his neo-con cred, and I'm done with neo-cons.
I think Kasich belongs on your "not easily categorized" list. He's got a conservative populist streak, even though he's willing to disappoint for the sake of political pragmatism. Carson as well. Not enough is known about too many of his positions to accurately categorize him.
Walker '16. If you're going to form an opinion based on track record and electability, there is simply no other logical choice, IMHO of course.
-
I can't disagree with your establishment picks.
Agree with IDP.
Seems like Pence earned that category too with his expansion of Medicaid
This is as comprehensive a list of potential nominees as I can find, and I have sorted them into three categories, based exclusively on my own humble opinion. Some of them do not seem like serious candidates, but were included because there is talk about them, or they have expressed a desire.
Clearly establisment types:
Jeb Bush, Governor of Florida 1999–2007
Chris Christie, Governor of New Jersey since 2010
Lindsey Graham, U.S. Senator from South Carolina since 2003
George Pataki, Governor of New York 1995–2006
Bob Ehrlich, Governor of Maryland 2003–2007
Carly Fiorina, former business executive and nominee for the U.S. Senate from California in 2010
Mike Huckabee, Governor of Arkansas 1996–2007
John Kasich, Governor of Ohio since 2011
Peter King, U.S. Representative from New York since 1993
Mitt Romney, Governor of Massachusetts 2003–2007; presidential candidate in 2008; presidential nominee in 2012
John R. Bolton, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations 2005–2006; Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs 2001–2005
Rick Santorum, U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania 1995–2007; U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania 1991–1995; presidential candidate in 2012
Mike Pence, Governor of Indiana since 2013; U.S. Representative from Indiana 2001–2013
Mitch Daniels, President of Purdue University since 2013; Governor of Indiana 2005–2013
Marco Rubio, U.S. Senator from Florida since 2011
Populist?Tea-Party?Anti-establishment?
Michele Bachmann, U.S. Representative from Minnesota 2007–2015; presidential candidate in 2012 Don't think she can be considered a serious candidate
Ted Cruz, U.S. Senator from Texas since 2013; Solicitor General of Texas 2003–2008 His wife's Goldman and CFR connections worry me
Scott Walker, Governor of Wisconsin since 2011
Ben Carson, author and retired Director of Pediatric Neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital Although he changed his mind, it will be hard to trust him on 2A
Sarah Palin, Governor of Alaska 2006–2009; 2008 vice-presidential nominee I like Sarah but have issues. Specifically, her endorsing less conservative candidates especially if they're women. I would vote for her just to see heads explode.
Rand Paul, U.S. Senator from Kentucky since 2011He has some cred. It bothers me that he's so cozy with McConnell. I get they're from the same state
Rick Perry, Governor of Texas 2000-2015, Lieutenant Governor of Texas 1999–2000; presidential candidate in 2012 I suppose he's a conservative. I can't get over forcing little girls to take proven harmful vaccines.
Donald Trump, business magnate and television personality from New York Donald's a loon and not a serious candidate
Herman Cain, President of the National Restaurant Association 1996–1999; chairman and CEO of Godfather's Pizza 1986–1996; presidential candidate n 2012 Not sure he's really smart enough
These folks were not easily categorized. They have all done some typical establishment stuff, but have also marched off doing their own thing too, not just taking direction from the Establishment. I think Jindal is the likely one from this category.
Jim Gilmore, Governor of Virginia 1998–2002; Chairman of the Republican National Committee 2001–2002; presidential candidate in 2008
Bobby Jindal, Governor of Louisiana since 2008; U.S. Representative from Louisiana 2005–2008
Susana Martinez, Governor of New Mexico since 2011
Rick Scott, Governor of Florida since 2011; former CEO and co-founder of Columbia Hospital Corporation Hasn't he done some non-conservative stuff?
Rick Snyder, Governor of Michigan since 2011; former CEO and co-founder of Ardesta LLC
Don't really know enough about these guys, except, maybe Jindal
I expect 6 or 7 establishment candidates to run or at least start to run, and perhaps 5-6 from the other category. Both will winnow quickly, but there is a possibility that there is enough division in the establishment to get a real shot for one of the OTHERS!
I freely stipulate that everyone here will have their own opinion, right down to the "it doesn't matter" faction, but I thought it might provide interesting discussion.
-
I think you have Rubio, Santorum, and Daniels on the wrong list. Maybe Pence too. I think they're establishment Republicans.
Agreed, maybe not consistent E-GOPer's but enough in that camp to cause some concern, certainly Rubio gives me more cause for concern than the other three combined.
I don't know anything about Bolton other than his neo-con cred, and I'm done with neo-cons.
Yes, he is a staunch Hawk, but then again so was Rumsfeld and Cheney, and they have a history of going along to get what they want, no more sacrifices. IMO, like W making Rumsfeld SecDef, a similar role for Bolton can be useful, but not the Oval Office.
I think Kasich belongs on your "not easily categorized" list. He's got a conservative populist streak, even though he's willing to disappoint for the sake of political pragmatism. Carson as well. Not enough is known about too many of his positions to accurately categorize him.
Yes, like the Neo-Cons, take these with a grain of salt, find a cabinet post for them, or an Ambassadorship, not POTUS.
Walker '16. If you're going to form an opinion based on track record and electability, there is simply no other logical choice, IMHO of course.
I fully agree. This to me is the best possible candidate to select. He may be the only one with the grit and the savvy to cut through the E-GOP frontal assaults as well as the back-stabbings and sneak attacks from the flanks. If he survives that gauntlet, I think he could handle any DemonRat thrown at him and the media cheer-whores and Hollywhackos.
Having said that...unless he were to have carte blanche for four terms...we are likely out of time anyway...
-
As to Kasich: (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/01/gov-kasich-defends-support-for-obamacare-i-dont-pay-much-attention-to-narrow-ideologues/)
... Matthew 25 includes a call for more entitlement spending and provides biblical justification for Obamacare, or so says Ohio Gov. John Kasich.
Promoting Obamacare in South Dakota, Montana and several national interviews last week, Kasich touted the Bible chapter’s depiction of judgment based on individual charity as a sweeping endorsement of government programs for the poor.
Kasich, a Republican, campaigned against Obamacare in 2010, saying the law’s Medicaid expansion would “stick states with large and unsustainable costs.” He unilaterally implemented the Obamacare Medicaid expansion in 2013.
The Obamacare expansion puts able-bodied, working-age adults with no dependent children on Medicaid at a cost of billions per year in new federal spending. By Kasich’s description, Matthew 25 amounts to a divine endorsement of the policy.
“Now, if you ever read Matthew 25, I think, ‘I wanna feed the hungry and clothe the naked,’” Kasich said when asked about Obamacare at a Jan. 20 event in Pierre, South Dakota.
“Now, I don’t know whether you ever read Matthew 25, but I commend it to you, the end of it, about do you feed the homeless and do you clothe the poor,” Kasich told Montana legislators when asked about Obamacare at a Helena press conference the next day.
Kasich cited Matthew 25 when defending his Obamacare expansion during a Fox News interview aired Jan. 22, during a Jan. 22 Hugh Hewitt interview and during an NPR interview aired Friday.
Regarding Obamacare critics, Kasich told NPR, “I don’t pay much attention to narrow ideologues.”
The Ohio Legislature voted no and Kasich vetoed their no.
So, NO; he's no conservative populist, he's a big government, establishment statist.
~~~~~~~~~~
From what I understand, Walker wants to see the border closed but he's swishy on amnesty for the millions of illegals here. And that damn well pisses me off about all of them; they and theirs are not going to have to deal with these people living among them.
-
Scott Walker did what Sarah Palin could not do. He not only survived the onslaught of everything the Left could possibly throw at him - including the same slandering, false investigations, personal attacks, and threats - but his throne sits upon the skulls of those who attempted to take him down. He never wavered. He never let weakness show. Never wilted under immense pressure. He never indicated that he was being treated unfairly as a way to garner support. He just plowed through his enemies with a smile on his face. He structurally damaged the Wisconsin Democrat party in ways that are likely permanent. He demonstrated to Republicans in Wisconsin what can be accomplished with steadfast principled conservative leadership.
Walker is a serious man for serious times. He's the thrice-elected governor of a traditionally blue state with HEAVY Big Labor blue-collar influence. The people of his state have benefitted under his leadership. Employees who heretofore had no options have taken his lead and kicked Big Labor out of their lives.
I don't see anyone in the field who has 1/10th his claim on the nomination.
-
I like Walker very much, myself. Also Cruz and Perry.
I just watched an interview with Kasich.....so he was not hard to identify as an establishment GOP. Government is there for the power and I do not like him at all for President.
Hearing Romney is about to announce that he is NOT running. I am disappointed if that is true. I want him fighting tooth and nail with the other establishment types.
I agree that many of these candidates are not serious, even if they are dumb enough to try.
-
Jindal is fo sho on the wrong list. He's RINO first class. ::pullhair::
-
Yes, he is of the I'm-a-good-manager-not-a-boat-rocker wing sure enough. Pass!
-
Walker is clearly the best of the current bunch. He has been quietly competent, and already survived a continuous blitzkrieg from the Democrat-Media Complex.
I obviously do not care for any position on amnesty other than "oh hell no" but I am willing to see if he clarifies that.
-
Jindal is fo sho on the wrong list. He's RINO first class. ::pullhair::
I saw him as one willing to try establishment ideas, but also willing to reject them....like he has done with common core. Surely not a first-choice sort of guy, but not hopeless either. Of course, there are surely things about him I do not know. Would love to hear more about your perspective, though i do not see him making it through the first round....he is too unpopular in his own state.
-
Jindal is fo sho on the wrong list. He's RINO first class. ::pullhair::
I saw him as one willing to try establishment ideas, but also willing to reject them....like he has done with common core. Surely not a first-choice sort of guy, but not hopeless either. Of course, there are surely things about him I do not know. Would love to hear more about your perspective, though i do not see him making it through the first round....he is too unpopular in his own state.
I don't know much about Jindal first hand. The two things about him that I know the most are his awful SOTU response, and our trusted friend Alan warning us for years that he is a RiNO of the first order. Being that Jindal is Alan's governor, until I learn more about him, Alan's opinion holds more sway than anything else I hear about the man.
-
In the end, it comes down to, in the words of our beloved former Secretary of State, "what's it really matter?"
Discussions like this are a little bit like masturbation.
Feels good for a little bit, but pointless.
And it will make you go blind!
We are past any political solution.
The parties are different sides of the same coin.
Sorry for the rant
-
Walker is clearly the best of the current bunch. He has been quietly competent, and already survived a continuous blitzkrieg from the Democrat-Media Complex.
I obviously do not care for any position on amnesty other than "oh hell no" but I am willing to see if he clarifies that.
You probably know that, if one were to say that, it would only be because they're lying to our faces. I'm resigned to the fact that the best we will be able to manage is some sort of "path to citizenship". I'm not one bit happy about it.
-
Walker is clearly the best of the current bunch. He has been quietly competent, and already survived a continuous blitzkrieg from the Democrat-Media Complex.
I obviously do not care for any position on amnesty other than "oh hell no" but I am willing to see if he clarifies that.
You probably know that, if one were to say that, it would only be because they're lying to our faces. I'm resigned to the fact that the best we will be able to manage is some sort of "path to citizenship". I'm not one bit happy about it.
If the "path to citizenship" leads back over the Mexican border, to the back of the line behind every other human being from any free country who has chosen to obey the law, and then a background check and a hefty fine, then I'm good with that.
Flying Unicorns would be good too.
-
Romney pulled out.
-
Romney pulled out.
I don't think so John...
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/07/02/article-2167644-13E48CE3000005DC-151_634x403.jpg)
::exitstageleft::
-
Romney pulled out.
I don't think so John...
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/07/02/article-2167644-13E48CE3000005DC-151_634x403.jpg)
::exitstageleft::
Boy I needed a good laugh. You were just at the right moment.
-
I think you have Rubio, Santorum, and Daniels on the wrong list. Maybe Pence too. I think they're establishment Republicans.
Agreed, maybe not consistent E-GOPer's but enough in that camp to cause some concern, certainly Rubio gives me more cause for concern than the other three combined.
I don't know anything about Bolton other than his neo-con cred, and I'm done with neo-cons.
Yes, he is a staunch Hawk, but then again so was Rumsfeld and Cheney, and they have a history of going along to get what they want, no more sacrifices. IMO, like W making Rumsfeld SecDef, a similar role for Bolton can be useful, but not the Oval Office.
I think Kasich belongs on your "not easily categorized" list. He's got a conservative populist streak, even though he's willing to disappoint for the sake of political pragmatism. Carson as well. Not enough is known about too many of his positions to accurately categorize him.
Yes, like the Neo-Cons, take these with a grain of salt, find a cabinet post for them, or an Ambassadorship, not POTUS.
Walker '16. If you're going to form an opinion based on track record and electability, there is simply no other logical choice, IMHO of course.
I fully agree. This to me is the best possible candidate to select. He may be the only one with the grit and the savvy to cut through the E-GOP frontal assaults as well as the back-stabbings and sneak attacks from the flanks. If he survives that gauntlet, I think he could handle any DemonRat thrown at him and the media cheer-whores and Hollywhackos.
Having said that...unless he were to have carte blanche for four terms...we are likely out of time anyway...
Agreed - My first choice is Walker, and second would be Cruz. Both are the only ones, in my opinion, that have not backed down from their stated views for the country. If either have a campaign office in this area as of now, I'll join the fray for that one.
-
I think you have Rubio, Santorum, and Daniels on the wrong list. Maybe Pence too. I think they're establishment Republicans.
Agreed, maybe not consistent E-GOPer's but enough in that camp to cause some concern, certainly Rubio gives me more cause for concern than the other three combined.
I don't know anything about Bolton other than his neo-con cred, and I'm done with neo-cons.
Yes, he is a staunch Hawk, but then again so was Rumsfeld and Cheney, and they have a history of going along to get what they want, no more sacrifices. IMO, like W making Rumsfeld SecDef, a similar role for Bolton can be useful, but not the Oval Office.
I think Kasich belongs on your "not easily categorized" list. He's got a conservative populist streak, even though he's willing to disappoint for the sake of political pragmatism. Carson as well. Not enough is known about too many of his positions to accurately categorize him.
Yes, like the Neo-Cons, take these with a grain of salt, find a cabinet post for them, or an Ambassadorship, not POTUS.
Walker '16. If you're going to form an opinion based on track record and electability, there is simply no other logical choice, IMHO of course.
I fully agree. This to me is the best possible candidate to select. He may be the only one with the grit and the savvy to cut through the E-GOP frontal assaults as well as the back-stabbings and sneak attacks from the flanks. If he survives that gauntlet, I think he could handle any DemonRat thrown at him and the media cheer-whores and Hollywhackos.
Having said that...unless he were to have carte blanche for four terms...we are likely out of time anyway...
Agreed - My first choice is Walker, and second would be Cruz. Both are the only ones, in my opinion, that have not backed down from their stated views for the country. If either have a campaign office in this area as of now, I'll join the fray for that one.
That is no small point right there. Notwithstanding from the fact that "Path to Citizenship" must poll awfully well since everybody with an "R" by their name spews it like a robot, these two fellas are the only ones on the list who otherwise don't waver. Even Rand Paul has learned how to prolifically use nuance like a good little Republican.
-
Laughed at the failure to pull out pic. Kudos.
Are there any conservative leaning potential candidates who were missed on this list?
I look at what Daniels, and especially Pence have accomplished and i see a great deal of good. I think they do not toe the line for anyone, but probably do what they think is right each time. Santorum is strongly pro-life, but has some other serious failings. Rubio has ONE very MAJOR failing, but has stood on the right side on most others. I never thought he was electable in the first place, since politicians have become pretty if vacuous and he is an ugly thoughtful sort of statesman.
(I stipulate that I am in the minority on the issue of should there be a firing squad for people who do not agree with me 100% of the time and I accept that there are those here, who I admire and enjoy their opinions, but feel like there is no possible political solution.)
I will still vote for the best choice I have, until I feel like the better choice is that the Dems win and take the blame for what they do instead of a RINO who will just aid and abet and give them cover.
There are some on the list that I count as no way......let Hillary be elected and take the blame instead:
Chris Christie, Governor of New Jersey since 2010
Lindsey Graham, U.S. Senator from South Carolina since 2003
George Pataki, Governor of New York 1995–2006
Bob Ehrlich, Governor of Maryland 2003–2007
Carly Fiorina, former business executive and nominee for the U.S. Senate from California in 2010
Peter King, U.S. Representative from New York since 1993
?Rand Paul, U.S. Senator from Kentucky since 2011?
?Donald Trump, business magnate and television personality from New York?
-
There are several people on your list who fall into the same general category: Proud big-government Republicans who happen to be pro-life.
Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum top that list. Jeb Bush is another. Lindsey Graham. These are all guys who can easliy be called "liberal" with a straight face, who have garnered support in the past because of the single-issue evangelical vote against abortion.
None of them will ever get my vote. I'll sit out. And I'm staunchly pro-life.
But abortion is not an issue that will be solved via presidential politics. If my only choice is between a liberal Republican and a liberal Democrat, I'm not voting.
-
One of the ideals I have is about leadership in generally the right direction. There are two issues I agree with Sen. Graham on. I would rather have him in the Senate than Fritz Hollings for example. But, I still could not even hold my nose and vote for him as President. Santorum is an odd duck, and you are right that he and Huckabee are bad. Perhaps too bad. I am trying to draw a line and say this is where I will not pass. Honestly not sure I can do it.
Think about President Hillary after already 8 years of suffering. I just do not think we can take another four. The question is, will it be just as bad with the GOP guy, so it just becomes a share the blame situation? Tough calls. That's what makes it"fun!" (Not blind yet, but do need glasses!)
-
Think about President Hillary after already 8 years of suffering. I just do not think we can take another four. The question is, will it be just as bad with the GOP guy, so it just becomes a share the blame situation? Tough calls. That's what makes it"fun!" (Not blind yet, but do need glasses!)
It is a tough call, until you realize that they are working together. A President Hillary will obey the puppet masters while trying to appear to be liberal. President RINO-crap will obey the puppet masters while trying to appear moderate. The SAME COURSE OF EVENTS WILL BE FOLLOWED in BOTH CASES. Only the narrative of the Kabuki theater will change in order to explain those events.
-
Jindal is fo sho on the wrong list. He's RINO first class. ::pullhair::
I saw him as one willing to try establishment ideas, but also willing to reject them....like he has done with common core. Surely not a first-choice sort of guy, but not hopeless either. Of course, there are surely things about him I do not know. Would love to hear more about your perspective, though i do not see him making it through the first round....he is too unpopular in his own state.
The whole story would include how he was for it in the beginning and helped get it implemented. Then when it became unpopular, he turned against it.
-
Hell why not go for slow Joe or Joe hair plugs. and call it a day!! Can you imagine the balls on Graham to even think he has a shot?
-
Romney pulled out.
I don't think so John...
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/07/02/article-2167644-13E48CE3000005DC-151_634x403.jpg)
::exitstageleft::
Boy I needed a good laugh. You were just at the right moment.
Rabbits breed like Mormons! ::rolllaughing::
-
Drudge is running a poll (https://polldaddy.com/poll/8625087/?view=results).. None of the Above isn't on the list
As of right now results are :
Bush 4.74% (13,790 votes)
Carson 7.23% (21,012 votes)
Christie 1.48% (4,305 votes)
Cruz 13.60% (39,548 votes)
Fiorina 0.55% (1,592 votes)
Huckabee 1.49% (4,343 votes)
Palin 3.68% (10,704 votes)
Paul 12.55% (36,487 votes)
Perry 1.58% (4,596 votes)
Rubio 3.80% (11,045 votes)
Santorum 0.75% (2,173 votes)
Trump 1.45% (4,214 votes)
Walker 47.10% (136,935 votes)
Total Votes: 290,744
so Walker is a runaway according to 300,000 Drudge readers.
But you know he isn't going to get nominated. Even if Soros has to pay liberals to go to caucus and pretend to be conservative. ( and you bet they have a list of registered Republicans who never caucus)
I can't believe Bush has anything close to 5% . Guess we have morons on our side as well. Or the Soros operatives are already at work.
-
Carson's numbers seem too high to me too, and I sense a disturbance in The Force, as if a faceless Sith Lord is orchestrating his chances as one of the wedges seperating the nomination from the anti-Ruling Class candidates...
And I am pretty sure this is the main architect...
(http://i585.photobucket.com/albums/ss291/libertasinfinitio/RINOs/EGOPGURU_zpsijvoharp.png)
-
I have no beef with Carson but he's not even close to knowing anything about running a city town or country. We just had a know nothing and we all saw how well that went.
-
I have no beef with Carson but he's not even close to knowing anything about running a city town or country. We just had a know nothing and we all saw how well that went.
I was thinking of having Carson do a postmortem on Obama after his hanging. Perhaps science can learn something though I doubt it.
-
I have no beef with Carson but he's not even close to knowing anything about running a city town or country. We just had a know nothing and we all saw how well that went.
I was thinking of having Carson do a postmortem on Obama after his hanging. Perhaps science can learn something though I doubt it.
Crack the head, find nothing. Look in the crack, find more than you ever cared to see! ::hysterical::
-
Carson fumbled the ball on the 2nd Amendment. At this point I think most of his support is due to conservatives stupidly playing by the Left's rule book of identity politics.
-
Meanwhile, over at Tepid Air - they are running their own poll (http://pages.hotair.com/campaign/th-2016-presidential-straw-poll-hotair/rc/HAPOP/thank-you)
Mitt Romney
29%
Ben Carson
15%
Ted Cruz
9%
Write-in
7%
Sarah Palin
6%
Scott Walker
6%
Rand Paul
5%
Jeb Bush
4%
Mike Huckabee
4%
Allen West
3%
Marco Rubio
3%
Chris Christie
3%
Paul Ryan
2%
John Kasich
1%
Bobby Jindal
1%
Rick Perry
1%
Rick Santorum
1%
Jim Demint
1%
Total Votes: 33,621
Um yeah. "Conservative Moderates"
-
You mean of course "non-conservative moderates"!
Heh - "Total Votes: 33,696" ::hysterical::
You know these are Prog's playing in Tepid waters! Mitt (who bowed out) is ahead, and even in WI (over Walker) and TX (over Cruz and Perry) and in KY (over Paul) and tied in AK (with Palin)?
Come on?! This is obviously Moron.Org, DailyKooks, PuffHo, NPR, OFA and all the rest of the sewer-crawlers on the left jumping into a moderate forum and screwing with people!!!
These 30-something pimple-assed fetal-alcohol-syndrome slope-eyed drooling moonbats are probably still in their jammies in mommies basement giggling like four year olds thinking they just pulled a brilliant maneuver, when in actuality all they did was expose themselves as frauds
-
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/02/the_time_is_right_for_cruz_control.html (http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/02/the_time_is_right_for_cruz_control.html)
<Cruz Control for America? Damned right.
These times call for someone who does not fear the media, the Democrats, oor the Washington/New York Republican establishment. We need someone who will plant a flag and draw a line in the sand, and mean it. These times require someone who realizes that the biggest threat to the country today is Washington – a realization that for too long America has been held hostage to "how Washington works," when it's Washington that should operate in light of how America works.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/02/the_time_is_right_for_cruz_control.html#ixzz3QwUioRvr (http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/02/the_time_is_right_for_cruz_control.html#ixzz3QwUioRvr)
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
>
-
There is the not completely unsettled question of eligibility to run for President with respect to the the "natural born citizen" requirement.
There is much debate over the meaning of the term, mostly by those who like to quibble for one reason or another, and it crosscuts people up and down the entire spectrum.
To me the answer is obvious - natural born, as the Founders I am certain meant it, meant being born in the United States (or it's territories, possessions and embassies) to natural born parents, period. The only exception per Article II Section I is the "at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution" qualifier because, naturally, many of the Founders and leading citizens of the day were not native born Americans. That's it, that is the requirement regardless if people like it or not, and regardless any bullshyt legislation like the Corrupt Bargain given by Senator's Obama & Clinton in 2008 that stated John McCain is "a natural born citizen". Per the definition above, he was a natural born citizen as the canal zone was under US military jurisdiction and sanctioned by the Hay-Herran Treaty in 1903, McCain was born in 1936, both of his parents were born in the US (Iowa and Oklahoma). So, why was legislation that is not needed for McCain put forth? To gloss over any irregularities someone might dig up on Obama, obviously! His father, at best, was a Kenyan...giving him more of a need to bogus legislation than McCain, but McCain served as a surrogate for Obama and sadly did not have the good character to object to being made a fool of.
Anyway, back to Cruz...
Cruz is claiming natural born status through the anchor-baby method - his mother...because his father, like Obama's, was not born in the United States, but like the pass given Obama, what people have to do now is decide how many wrongs make a right...if ever.
I will be consistent, I say Obama has never been eligible, will never be eligible and will eventually be shown not to be eligible...and for the same reason Cruz is not eligible. (Sadly, even if the latter is proved, I doubt any of his legacy will be thrown out by the courts...citing chaos and instability blah blah blah, they'll leave it to congress and the new executive to sort out!)
But we are in the era of anything goes so I expect the great many of Americans will go along with the new precedent that is set...much to their eventual ruin I suspect, but, whatever...I am with The Founders or I am with nobody.
And I fully expect to see the MFM flip the other way and not have any qualms at all about assailing Cruz's qualifications.
And I am making this determination on the facts, not because I do not like Cruz, I do, he has been a fighter on many fronts. I think his best legal opportunity to do good is as perhaps a future majority leader in the Senate or as a sitting Justice on the SCOTUS, if we have any time left...
My two bits, for what its worth...
-
Well, that appears to me to be a settled question.....right or wrong....but settled. Our choice is to place ourselves at a disadvantage and say our guy who is vastly more qualified than their guy cannot be allowed to serve, even if he wins, because he is our guy. That means we lose in the end. We bring the proverbial knife to the gun fight one more time, with the same inevitable result.
We demand a higher standard of our guys than they do, and I like that, but it is a losing proposition. Look how many Democrats are sitting in Congress, the Senate, and Governors mansions that would NOT be tolerated by us if they were in our party.
Does it make us better than the Dems? Yes.
Does it also make us losers in the long run? Yes.
Which means we box ourselves into being losers and eventually having no choice but to fight a battle which we will certainly lose yet again, but that time ends with us all dead.
We have to do a better job of playing to WIN so it never comes to that bad end.
-
It's coming to a violent end no matter what, Liberty is yielding by the hour and there is little evidence of significant evidence to the contrary.
That is not defeatist or cynical, it just is. It's like recognizing water can give life, produce food and wash things and it can also kill you if you don't respect it, the former benefits do not wish away the latter danger.
We can argue over the "when" IMO, not the "if".
And I do not accept the premise that declaring Cruz ineligible to run for President is on par with embracing losing. Foisting false conservatives as nominees as is the norm for the GOP, is embracing...actually encouraging, losing. Declaring one man ineligible should not translate into losing unless there is no other/better options. If we have come to the crossroads where Candidate A who is ineligible is the only decent candidate and all others (legal or otherwise challenged) are horrible...I don't think we have to burden ourselves with an inordinate amount of concern...Candidate A even if fully eligible will stand zero chance of a nomination let alone the office. I don't think we are quite there yet, and there are equally acceptable candidates to Cruz (and one better IMO) at this point.
As for playing to win, the keys to that template were thrown out as of 1-20-1989. We were told, no more Reagan's, the Revolution is over and it was killed from within by the same forces Reagan pummeled into goo. They will help destroy what is left of the Republic if that is what is necessary for them to prevent another conservative rebellion.
-
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/02/scott_walkers_underappreciated_strengths.html (http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/02/scott_walkers_underappreciated_strengths.html)
<Third, this plain talk followed by clear action is courageous because it rejects all the qualifications guided by polling data or political advisers. This sort of courage itself is the third aspect of successful presidents. When was the last time a politician displayed the same sort of political guts that Walker showed when legions of union goons overran Madison? It was when Reagan fired the striking air traffic controllers, who threatened to paralyze civil aviation in America. The ripples of that boldness reached the Kremlin, which grasped that a tough and decisive leader now confronted them on the world stage.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/02/scott_walkers_underappreciated_strengths.html#ixzz3RLjzBaNS (http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/02/scott_walkers_underappreciated_strengths.html#ixzz3RLjzBaNS)
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
>
Light, but encouraging.
-
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/02/scott_walkers_underappreciated_strengths.html (http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/02/scott_walkers_underappreciated_strengths.html)
<Third, this plain talk followed by clear action is courageous because it rejects all the qualifications guided by polling data or political advisers. This sort of courage itself is the third aspect of successful presidents. When was the last time a politician displayed the same sort of political guts that Walker showed when legions of union goons overran Madison? It was when Reagan fired the striking air traffic controllers, who threatened to paralyze civil aviation in America. The ripples of that boldness reached the Kremlin, which grasped that a tough and decisive leader now confronted them on the world stage.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/02/scott_walkers_underappreciated_strengths.html#ixzz3RLjzBaNS (http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/02/scott_walkers_underappreciated_strengths.html#ixzz3RLjzBaNS)
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
>
Light, but encouraging.
This quote -
"Watch how Scott Walker’s unfolding campaign is covered by the media. The very strengths that let Reagan not only win election but implement policies will be sneered at in Walker by a Leftist oligarchy that has no real notion of decency, sincerity or guts. Note that Walker has already said that his goal is not to win elections but then to do something with that victory (i.e. simply gaining power is not important.) This sort of talk befuddles Leftists who love power for its own sake and love, really, nothing else. Do not be surprised if Scott Walker becomes our long lost dream, the Next Reagan."
Also works this way -
"Watch how Scott Walker’s unfolding campaign is covered by the GOP. The very strengths that let Reagan not only win election but implement policies will be sneered at in Walker by a E-GOP oligarchy that has no real notion of decency, sincerity or guts. Note that Walker has already said that his goal is not to win elections but then to do something with that victory (i.e. simply gaining power is not important.) This sort of talk befuddles E-GOPer's who love power for its own sake and love, really, nothing else. Do not be surprised if Scott Walker becomes our long lost dream, the Next Reagan."
He has to obliterate all GOP opposition, then and only then will we have someone who will fight in a general election and obliterate the Libiots...
I hope he can do it...I don't think we have the time to turn the ship around before it goes over the falls, but...I'd like a chance at being dead wrong...
-
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/02/scott_walkers_underappreciated_strengths.html (http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/02/scott_walkers_underappreciated_strengths.html)
<Third, this plain talk followed by clear action is courageous because it rejects all the qualifications guided by polling data or political advisers. This sort of courage itself is the third aspect of successful presidents. When was the last time a politician displayed the same sort of political guts that Walker showed when legions of union goons overran Madison? It was when Reagan fired the striking air traffic controllers, who threatened to paralyze civil aviation in America. The ripples of that boldness reached the Kremlin, which grasped that a tough and decisive leader now confronted them on the world stage.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/02/scott_walkers_underappreciated_strengths.html#ixzz3RLjzBaNS (http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/02/scott_walkers_underappreciated_strengths.html#ixzz3RLjzBaNS)
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
>
Light, but encouraging.
This quote -
"Watch how Scott Walker’s unfolding campaign is covered by the media. The very strengths that let Reagan not only win election but implement policies will be sneered at in Walker by a Leftist oligarchy that has no real notion of decency, sincerity or guts. Note that Walker has already said that his goal is not to win elections but then to do something with that victory (i.e. simply gaining power is not important.) This sort of talk befuddles Leftists who love power for its own sake and love, really, nothing else. Do not be surprised if Scott Walker becomes our long lost dream, the Next Reagan."
Also works this way -
"Watch how Scott Walker’s unfolding campaign is covered by the GOP. The very strengths that let Reagan not only win election but implement policies will be sneered at in Walker by a E-GOP oligarchy that has no real notion of decency, sincerity or guts. Note that Walker has already said that his goal is not to win elections but then to do something with that victory (i.e. simply gaining power is not important.) This sort of talk befuddles E-GOPer's who love power for its own sake and love, really, nothing else. Do not be surprised if Scott Walker becomes our long lost dream, the Next Reagan."
He has to obliterate all GOP opposition, then and only then will we have someone who will fight in a general election and obliterate the Libiots...
I hope he can do it...I don't think we have the time to turn the ship around before it goes over the falls, but...I'd like a chance at being dead wrong...
If it goes where I fear it may, I wish to know in my own heart that we have done all we could to right the ship, before things get ugly. I am glad that you desire every last chance too. I think most real conservatives do. We must not despair but fight down to the bitter end, and if needed fight to the next end.
-
I don't think any of us actually hope for what seems likely at this point. But we have learned to embrace it, just like you learn to embrace the fact that hugging the porcelain is an unpleasant but necessary way of getting rid of what's made you sick.
The thing that worries me most is the global oligarchs deciding to play their trump card, i.e. WWIII, as the last resort for heading off popular insurgency.
-
I don't think any of us actually hope for what seems likely at this point. But we have learned to embrace it, just like you learn to embrace the fact that hugging the porcelain is an unpleasant but necessary way of getting rid of what's made you sick.
The thing that worries me most is the global oligarchs deciding to play their trump card, i.e. WWIII, as the last resort for heading off popular insurgency.
I don't care if the Russians/Chinese, NORKS do attack the country. I plan to use the opportunity to attack those responsible for the weakened country, the liberals. Already loaded, just awaiting the targets.
-
Regarding eligibility of Cruz....I no longer care one way or another. The Republic is dead along with the rule of law that was the backbone. What's needed it someone to throw everything they threw at us fro the last hundred years right back at them especially the lawless executive orders and my first one would be is Obama and all his minions to prison awaiting trial. Second, his entire presidency declared unconstitutional because he wasn't born from two US citizen parents.
Declare the Republic dead because of Obama and the lawless progressives. The new one will begin after five years of prosecutions and reversals of policies that weakened the country militarily and economically. Oh yeah, I'm a dreamer, dreaming of a nightmare for progressives.
-
I don't think any of us actually hope for what seems likely at this point. But we have learned to embrace it, just like you learn to embrace the fact that hugging the porcelain is an unpleasant but necessary way of getting rid of what's made you sick.
The thing that worries me most is the global oligarchs deciding to play their trump card, i.e. WWIII, as the last resort for heading off popular insurgency.
I don't care if the Russians/Chinese, NORKS do attack the country. I plan to use the opportunity to attack those responsible for the weakened country, the liberals. Already loaded, just awaiting the targets.
I get it but you may need a list just in case.
-
Regarding eligibility of Cruz....I no longer care one way or another. The Republic is dead along with the rule of law that was the backbone. What's needed it someone to throw everything they threw at us fro the last hundred years right back at them especially the lawless executive orders and my first one would be is Obama and all his minions to prison awaiting trial. Second, his entire presidency declared unconstitutional because he wasn't born from two US citizen parents.
Declare the Republic dead because of Obama and the lawless progressives. The new one will begin after five years of prosecutions and reversals of policies that weakened the country militarily and economically. Oh yeah, I'm a dreamer, dreaming of a nightmare for progressives.
I admitted up front I am probably barking at the moon on the eligibility issue, we have allowed ourselves to create a sorry-assed state of affairs whereby the rule of law is now whatever they can enforce and whatever anyone can get away with...what they so utterly fail to see is how anybody can be expected to obey any official elected or not when such a fluid state is in play...it will all burn...maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow...but soon, real damn soon! In the meantime, I'll hold onto my principles...I'm sh*t without them. And when the sh*t hits the fan, my principles will fuel my righteous rage...and there will be crying and pleading and bleeding.
-
I don't think any of us actually hope for what seems likely at this point. But we have learned to embrace it, just like you learn to embrace the fact that hugging the porcelain is an unpleasant but necessary way of getting rid of what's made you sick.
The thing that worries me most is the global oligarchs deciding to play their trump card, i.e. WWIII, as the last resort for heading off popular insurgency.
I don't care if the Russians/Chinese, NORKS do attack the country. I plan to use the opportunity to attack those responsible for the weakened country, the liberals. Already loaded, just awaiting the targets.
I get it but you may need a list just in case.
I suspect in many instances we'll all be using the much of the same list. ;)
-
If this is the worst they can scrape up...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/as-scott-walker-mulls-white-house-bid-questions-linger-over-college-exit/2015/02/11/8e17ea44-b13e-11e4-886b-c22184f27c35_story.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/as-scott-walker-mulls-white-house-bid-questions-linger-over-college-exit/2015/02/11/8e17ea44-b13e-11e4-886b-c22184f27c35_story.html)
..they got a long row to hoe, and setting the precedent (again) that going back this far (again) is OK, then...how does that help either a E-GOP stooge or a DemonRat?
-
Walker's response should be that he will look forward to the investigative reporting by the same left-wing media guys who looked into Mr. Obama's college years.......but, I just cannot recall any names that fit that bill.
-
Populist?Tea-Party?Anti-establishment?
Marco Rubio, U.S. Senator from Florida since 2011
http://www.reviewjournal.com/politics/elections/rubio-homeland-security-funding-must-continue-despite-immigration-fight (http://www.reviewjournal.com/politics/elections/rubio-homeland-security-funding-must-continue-despite-immigration-fight)
There's your answer.
-
Populist?Tea-Party?Anti-establishment?
Marco Rubio, U.S. Senator from Florida since 2011
http://www.reviewjournal.com/politics/elections/rubio-homeland-security-funding-must-continue-despite-immigration-fight (http://www.reviewjournal.com/politics/elections/rubio-homeland-security-funding-must-continue-despite-immigration-fight)
There's your answer.
Yeah, well, that ship has passed and he was on board with first class(RINO) cabin.
-
(http://i585.photobucket.com/albums/ss291/libertasinfinitio/Tea%20Party/vote_zpsb0811gj5.jpg)
-
Put Rand Paul in the Progressive Lite/E-GOP category!!!
http://itsaboutliberty.com/index.php?topic=12775.new#new (http://itsaboutliberty.com/index.php?topic=12775.new#new)
Scum!
-
I think he is out as a serious candidate. he is trying to run but keeps falling in polls, even in Iowa, which would be a "must in" state for him.
Personally I think the number of serious candidates has been dropping almost daily. (BTW, serious candidate does not mean one I would vote for, and the fact one is no longer a serious candidate does not mean i would vote against them. It just means they are dropping from the plausible list.) His path to the nomination becomes less plausible every day.
-
Everyone is paling in comparison to Walker.
-
Everyone is paling in comparison to Walker.
That is how I feel. I think it may come down to Walker or Bush and if you count yourself a conservative i should think you would prefer Walker in a landslide. But, I am already aware that I have good friends who want none of the above. For me, there are three or four I could live with easily. (Cruz, Walker, Perry, or maybe even ?Jindall?. Of course there are others out there but none are serious contenders anymore.) There are several that I will not vote for under any circumstances, such as Christie and Graham. Better the Demoncrats get the blame for the destruction that will be wrought. I still worry about judicial appointments, so i am trying not to make too many grand statements about never and no way. I think it wiser to work for Walker or Perry or Cruz.
-
Neither Cruz nor Jindal are eligible.
-
I had never bothered to research this myself directly before, but I have done so now. Cruz is NOT a naturalized citizen, he is a natural born citizen, born of an American citizen mother while she was in Canada and is therefore eligible under our constitution. Though he was entitled to Canadian citizenship, he has renounced it and has no ties to Canada.
There is no question on Governor Jindal, because he was born in Baton Rouge Louisiana.
<Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution sets forth the eligibility requirements for serving as president of the United States:
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.>
I certainly understand some folks may want the constitution to say something else on the qualifications for president, and they are even free to vote their interpretation of they way they think it should have been said, but it says what it says. If either of these people are lawfully elected to the presidency, they will serve, and no court will stop them, based on what I can see.
<The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term "natural born" citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "by birth" or "at birth," either by being born "in" the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship "at birth." Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an "alien" required to go through the legal process of "naturalization" to become a U.S. citizen.[1]>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause)
<Court decisions
Although eligibility for the Presidency was not an issue in any 19th-century litigation, there have been a few cases that shed light on "natural-born citizen". The leading case is Lynch v. Clarke,[34] (mentioned by Attorney-General Bates in his 1862 opinion quoted above) which dealt with a New York law (similar to laws of other states at that time) that only a U.S. citizen could inherit real estate. The plaintiff, Julia Lynch, had been born in New York while her parents, both British, were briefly visiting the U.S., and shortly thereafter all three left for Britain and never returned to the U.S. The New York Chancery Court determined that, under common law and prevailing statutes, she was a U.S. citizen by birth and nothing had deprived her of that citizenship, notwithstanding that both her parents were not U.S. citizens or that British law might also claim her through her parents' nationality. In the course of the decision, the court cited the Constitutional provision and said:
Suppose a person should be elected president who was native born, but of alien parents; could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the Constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor, that by the rule of the common law, in force when the Constitution was adopted, he is a citizen.[35]
And further:
Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen. It is surprising that there has been no judicial decision upon this question.[36]
The decision in Lynch v. Clarke was cited as persuasive or authoritative precedent in numerous subsequent cases, including In re Look Tin Sing,[37] on the issue of whether the child, born in the U.S., to two Chinese parents (who were prevented by federal law from becoming U.S. citizens) was a U.S. citizen, notwithstanding the nationality of his parents or the fact that he had traveled to China with them and not returned to the U.S. for many years. The federal court held in a decision written by U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Stephen J. Field) that he was a citizen by birth, and remained such despite his long stay in China, cited the decision in Lynch v. Clarke and described that case:
After an exhaustive examination of the law, the Vice-Chancellor said that he entertained no doubt that every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, was a natural-born citizen, and added that this was the general understanding of the legal profession, and the universal impression of the public mind.[38]
The Lynch case was also cited as a leading precedent in the U.S. Supreme Court decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898),[39] which similarly held that the child born in the United States of two Chinese parents was a birthright US citizen, and that decision also used the phrase "natural born".[40]
In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in the case of Perkins v. Elg, regarding a young woman, born in New York a year after her father became a naturalized U.S. citizen. However, when she was about four her parents returned to Sweden taking her with them, and they stayed in Sweden. At age 20, this young woman contacted the American diplomats in Sweden and, shortly after her 21st birthday, returned to the United States on a U.S. passport and was admitted as a U.S. citizen. Years later, while she was still in America, her father in Sweden relinquished his American citizenship, and, because of that, the Department of Labor (then the location of the Immigration & Naturalization Service) declared her a non-citizen and tried to deport her. The young woman filed suit for a declaratory judgment that she was an American citizen by birth. She won at the trial level, and at the circuit court—where she was repeatedly described as "a natural born citizen" [41] — and finally in the U.S. Supreme Court, where the court decision quoted at length from the U.S. Attorney-General's opinion in Steinkauler's Case (mentioned above) including the comment that the person born in America and raised in another country could yet "become President of the United States".[42]
On July 9, 2010, a three-judge panel of the United States court of appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that a Philippine-born litigant could not claim U.S. citizenship on the basis of his parents, who lived all their lives in the Philippines, because they were born while the Philippines was U.S. territory prior to being given its independence. The Courts for the Second, Third and Ninth Circuits have also held that birth in the Philippines at a time when the country was a territory of the United States does not constitute birth "in the United States" under the Citizenship Clause, and thus did not give rise to United States citizenship.[43]>
These questions appear to me as a settled matter of law, based on court decisions that appear to have direct application.
Any person may vote against them and even campaign against them, asserting what you will. But, IF elected, I see no real question of their eligibility based on constitutional law.
-
You're wrong and your wiki crap is wrong as well, even as you cherry-picked your cites. Try this one:
John Bingham .... 1866:
Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural-born citizen; ... [18]
Nobody is saying Cruz and Jindal aren't citizens, but as they were not born of two citizen parents -- that would be where the "of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty" comes in -- they are not natural born and not eligible for the presidency.
Allowing them to run by closing eyes in the interest of "winning" will lead eventually to an anchor baby of Mexican nationals being seen as eligible, which, as you assured me, could happen. Funny, you didn't seem perturbed by that. Are "we" winning yet?
-
"Some debate exists as to the meaning of this phrase."
Consensus exists that anyone born on U.S. soil is a "natural born Citizen." (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/natural_born_citizen)
Yeah, "consensus" since when, 2007?
One may also be a "natural born Citizen" if, despite a birth on foreign soil, U.S. citizenship immediately passes from the person's parents.
Note "person" singular, "parents" plural.
-
William Jacobson looked at various sources but came to a different conclusion than I, yet includes this in his analysis:
CHARLES GORDON, in his analysis, points to an almost contemporaneous Act of Congress which suggests that the use of “natural born Citizen” was consistent with the plain reading of the text, as arising from birth even abroad, WHO CAN BE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: THE UNRESOLVED ENIGMA, 28 Maryland Law Review 1 (1968):
And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the 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.64
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/09/natural-born-citizens-marco-rubio-bobby-jindal-ted-cruz/ (http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/09/natural-born-citizens-marco-rubio-bobby-jindal-ted-cruz/)
Think first of the principle contained in the requirement: the Founders wanted to keep any foreign influence through birth out of the office of the highest executive.
-
http://www.resonoelusono.com/naturalborncitizen.htm (http://www.resonoelusono.com/naturalborncitizen.htm)
(http://www.resonoelusono.com/1stCongressNatBornCitiz.bmp)
eta: RTWT
-
Neither Cruz nor Jindal are eligible.
After Obama, my 6 yo is eligible. The rule of law, constitutional law, is err dead.
-
http://www.resonoelusono.com/naturalborncitizen.htm (http://www.resonoelusono.com/naturalborncitizen.htm)
(http://www.resonoelusono.com/1stCongressNatBornCitiz.bmp)
eta: RTWT
Of course, you're correct, the FOunders used the language and definitions of their day which was as those aforementioned had stated, natural born = born of two citizen parents at the time of birth of child. Obama wasn't hatched from two us citizen parents and it doens't matter if he were born, sorry, hatched in Lincoln's bedroom, only one parent was born here and she never lived here for the required five year stint after the age of 18. Obama , therefore is a usurper.
-
I can only find two statuses of citizenship. Natural born, or naturalized. One is either naturally born as a citizen, as there is no serious debate about either man, or one is naturalized by a lawful process.
Which status do you claim applies to either of these men? Or do you claim the third status of not being a citizen at all? In which case they cannot lawfully serve in their current offices, right?
-
I can only find two statuses of citizenship. Natural born, or naturalized. One is either naturally born as a citizen, as there is no serious debate about either man, or one is naturalized by a lawful process.
Which status do you claim applies to either of these men? Or do you claim the third status of not being a citizen at all? In which case they cannot lawfully serve in their current offices, right?
The reason nobody is splain'in is becasue the left doesn't want any concerned having knowledge or instantly recognize that Obamaov is a usurper, ineligible as President. If he were declared a usurper, those that set him up would be guilt as he is including those in both parties that were complicit in the scam. It would also negate every policy and EO and SCOTUS and regular judicial appointments as well as appointments in every other facet of the govt. Can you imagine the constitutional crisis? ::facepalm::
-
To clear up any confusion, the quote there is actually from 104
FIRST
CONGRESS.
SESS.
II.
Cn.
3.
1790.
Not chapter four. The page designations make it difficult since chapter 3 is continued on the page where chapter four begins and holds the title spot on the page. This is not entirely relevant since the law cited here was repealed and replaced in 1795.
We also have the issue of President Chester A. Arthur, whose father was not an American citizen, but whose mother was, who also has served as President. The issue was discussed, but carried no weight then either.
-
Chester Arthur's father was a British citizen, a fact lied about by Arthur, which he intended to keep hidden in that he ordered his papers destroyed after his death. He knew he defrauded the country, and that if his birth circumstance was known at the time, he'd not have been eligible, so, no, the issue was not discussed at the time.
-
To clear up any confusion, the quote there is actually from 104
FIRST
CONGRESS.
SESS.
II.
Cn.
3.
1790.
Not chapter four. The page designations make it difficult since chapter 3 is continued on the page where chapter four begins and holds the title spot on the page. This is not entirely relevant since the law cited here was repealed and replaced in 1795.
We also have the issue of President Chester A. Arthur, whose father was not an American citizen, but whose mother was, who also has served as President. The issue was discussed, but carried no weight then either.
Link?
-
Okay, I think I figured it out. the (S) was enclosed differently originally. []
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1795 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1795)
Naturalization Act of 1795
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Declaration of Intention for Albert Einstein.
The United States Naturalization Act of January 29, 1795 (1 Stat. 414) repealed and replaced the Naturalization Act of 1790. The 1795 Act differed from the 1790 Act by increasing the period of required residence from two to five years in the United States, by introducing the Declaration of Intention requirement, or "first papers", which created a two-step naturalization process, and by conferring the status of citizen and not natural born citizen. The Act specified that naturalized citizenship was reserved only for "free white person(s)." It also changed the requirement in the 1790 Act of "good character" to read "good moral character."
Contents
1 Pre-1795
2 Provisions
3 Post-1795
4 External links
Pre-1795
Before 1795, immigration law was governed primarily by the Naturalization Act of 1790.
Provisions
Immigrants intending to naturalize had to go to their local court and declare their intention at least three years prior to their formal application. In the declaration, the immigrant would also indicate his understanding that upon naturalization, he would take an oath not only of allegiance to the United States but also of renunciation of his former sovereign.
In addition to the declaration of intention and oath of renunciation, the 1795 Act required all naturalized persons to be "attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States" and be "well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same."
Post-1795
The Act of 1795 was superseded by the Naturalization Act of 1798, which itself was repealed in 1802.
http://immigration.about.com/od/usimmigrationhistory/a/Natur_History.htm (http://immigration.about.com/od/usimmigrationhistory/a/Natur_History.htm)
The more I research the more confusion there is. Laws are passed, and repealed all the time in our early history so citing a law that old requires careful attention to know if it still applies. Nothing appears as clear cut now as then, but it is pretty clear what the courts will hold. Chester A. Arthur, Barack Obama, Ted Cruz, and Bobby Jindal will not be excluded from the presidency by the courts, because they were born natural citizens. There are only two states of citizenship and they were never naturalized as they did not have to be.
-
The replacement in 1795 of the 1790 act said nothing in respect to what was highlighted in my link, rather discussed the naturalization process.
And I don't consider wiki definitive, so get your cites from a more reputable source, if you please.
As to Chester Arthur, simply stating that since he was president, a precedent was set, is wrong. I told you, he lied, covered up the truth, and it wasn't discovered until after his death. He can't be excluded because he *was* President, but that doesn't change the fraud nor alter the requirements. See http://www.resonoelusono.com/naturalborncitizen.htm (http://www.resonoelusono.com/naturalborncitizen.htm)
And if natural born doesn't mean what it means, why has Congress tried to change the eligibility requirements about eight times since 1975?
Finally, please close your underline strike tag.
-
Law of nations has absolutely no impact on US law/ US law does. Neither does a Senate RESOLUTION. The US Constitution does. Court precedent does, and even common understanding does, but not resolutions or the laws of other nations. It may well have influenced the writers of the Constitution, as many documents did, including the Magna Carta, the Bible, Roman Law, etc....but I would not cite ANY of those to justify changing the known understanding of law. Precedent has established value though, and I do think it worthy of consideration. It WILL be considered and applied by almost any court in the land. The weight given precedent may be in question, but that it will be weighed is not a question.
Natural born does mean what it means and of course can mean nothing else. Any attempt to redefine it this long afterwards, short of changing the law, is not worthy of consideration and I have given it far too much consideration today. I have spent a great deal of time chasing rabbit trails today and have found nothing to change the facts as I see them. There are ONLY two states of citizenship. Natural born or Naturalized. There is a defined process for non-citizens to undergo before they can become naturalized citizens. I leave it to reasoning beings to consider for themselves which Senator Cruz and Governor Jindal are for themselves and let it reflect in their votes, but I have made my assessment and it was not remotely difficult when all facts were considered. I do not think the courts or most citizens will have trouble with the concept. I feel great certainty that if either man were elected, no court would find them ineligible.
The underline strike tag request makes no sense to me, as I did not intentionally use the strike command, so it will require further explanation for me to understand what went wrong. I see that something has gone wrong, but I do not understand what. If I have typos that have caused confusion I ask forgiveness, but I do not see where they are and so cannot correct them. Perhaps it was in the copied and pasted text? However that occurred, I assure you it was unintentional. I will try to go back and use the edit function and see if I can figure it out on my own.
-
Okay, Pan. I figured out that strike-through problem. it was in the original and was not intentional. I think it is corrected now.
-
Law of nations has absolutely no impact on US law/ US law does.
Point missed. I used the cite as a reference to the Chester Arthur situation, that's all.
Too bad for you about the rabbit trails.
-
Neither Cruz nor Jindal are eligible.
After Obama, my 6 yo is eligible. The rule of law, constitutional law, is err dead.
After the Corrupt Obama-McCain Bargain just about any goddamned piece of crap can run for POTUS and be sworn in to be the next tyrant!!!
Yee haa, ain't that just swell?!?!?!
::unknowncomic::
Bottom Line - Cruz and Jindal are by strict constitutional definition ineligible, but as has been discussed in great detail here and elsewhere, precedents have been set to purposely ignore those proscriptions in favor of a more enlightened and progressive understanding of the concept swirling about the qaint issue of eligibility, so...all those of us in the strict constructionist camp can do is say "just because someone or some legislation may rule or say something wrong is right doesn't make it right or constitutional" while the latter day citizens of empire go and do whatever anyway...
In the end it will all come out in the...blood...
-
Neither Cruz nor Jindal are eligible.
After Obama, my 6 yo is eligible. The rule of law, constitutional law, is err dead.
After the Corrupt Obama-McCain Bargain just about any goddamned piece of crap can run for POTUS and be sworn in to be the next tyrant!!!
Yee haa, ain't that just swell?!?!?!
::unknowncomic::
Bottom Line - Cruz and Jindal are by strict constitutional definition ineligible, but as has been discussed in great detail here and elsewhere, precedents have been set to purposely ignore those proscriptions in favor of a more enlightened and progressive understanding of the concept swirling about the qaint issue of eligibility, so...all those of us in the strict constructionist camp can do is say "just because someone or some legislation may rule or say something wrong is right doesn't make it right or constitutional" while the latter day citizens of empire go and do whatever anyway...
In the end it will all come out in the...blood...
We have a winner! ::thumbsup::
-
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/02/26/cruz_at_cpac_2015_hillary_clinton_embodies_the_corruption_of_washington.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/02/26/cruz_at_cpac_2015_hillary_clinton_embodies_the_corruption_of_washington.html)
This speech was pretty good, in my opinion. I know some here oppose this man, but he spoke truth and I appreciated it.
-
I know some here oppose this man, but he spoke truth and I appreciated it.
There's a red-meat quote if I ever saw one ;')
My opposition to dhimmicrats is deep, abiding, and enduring as the day is long. My opposition to various pubbies is contextual. In the context of "good guys" who happen to be Republican, I would place Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, and Ben Carson. I believe them to all be honorable men.
In the context of potential Republican candidates for the 2016 presidential race Ted Cruz and Scott Walker are not only at the top of my list - they are the list.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.
;)
-
Not incredibly meaningful, but here are the CPAC polls results:
Percent Candidate
25.7 Sen. Rand Paul
21.4 Gov. Scott Walker
11.5 Sen. Ted Cruz
11.4 Dr. Ben Carson
8.3 Former Gov. Jeb Bush
4.3 Former Sen. Rick Santorum
3.7 Sen. Marco Rubio
3.5 Donald Trump
3.0 Carly Fiorina
2.8 Gov. Chris Christie
1.1 Former Gov. Rick Perry
0.9 Gov. Bobby Jindal
0.8 Former Gov. Sarah Palin
0.3 Former Gov. Mike Huckabee
0.3 Former Ambassador John Bolton
0.1 Sen. Lindsey Graham
0.1 Former Gov. George Pataki
1.0 Undecided
0.7 Other
(3,007 votes cast Feb. 25-27 at the Conservative Political Action Conference. Conducted by the Polling Company Inc./WomenTrend)
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/28/cpac-2015-see-the-full-straw-poll-results/#ixzz3T5GtN5qS (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/28/cpac-2015-see-the-full-straw-poll-results/#ixzz3T5GtN5qS)
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
Bear in mind that Rand Paul always wins, because the smaller percentage of his people actually turn out, but they have historically not much affected elections.
This looks like a win among the active conservatives for Governor Walker to me, and a repudiation of Bush. (He bussed in supporters and his results still bit the dust.)
Be
-
CPAC has been overrun by Paulian Paulite Paulbots. They were denied the Father, and have settled on the Son as the next best Paul.
-
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/02/26/cruz_at_cpac_2015_hillary_clinton_embodies_the_corruption_of_washington.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/02/26/cruz_at_cpac_2015_hillary_clinton_embodies_the_corruption_of_washington.html)
This speech was pretty good, in my opinion. I know some here oppose this man, but he spoke truth and I appreciated it.
::facepalm::
-
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/02/26/cruz_at_cpac_2015_hillary_clinton_embodies_the_corruption_of_washington.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/02/26/cruz_at_cpac_2015_hillary_clinton_embodies_the_corruption_of_washington.html)
This speech was pretty good, in my opinion. I know some here oppose this man, but he spoke truth and I appreciated it.
::facepalm::
I am not sur eI understood the facepalm. Are you saying he did not speak truth? That I should not appreciate his words? That some do not oppose his nomination? or that the speech was not good? What am I missing?
-
If you had been referring to, say Rand Paul or Jeb Bush, I would have instantly nodded my head in accent. I haven't seen anyone here express opposition to Ted in any way except eligibility.
-
If you had been referring to, say Rand Paul or Jeb Bush, I would have instantly nodded my head in accent. I haven't seen anyone here express opposition to Ted in any way except eligibility.
Yahtzee!
-
I happen to like Cruz.
He says a lot of nice things
Rhetoric is easy
But there is the thing with his wife as a big shot at Goldman
-
Alright, but opposition is opposition, right? I was saying, that despite others' issues with him, I think the words he spoke here are true and powerful and noteworthy. Face palm for noting that despire the truth of his words there were friends her whose opposed him, did not make sense to me. So, the face palm is about me not clarifying what specific opposition there was? Well, Ok. I thought that was clear enough from context but it is true the opposition is due to thinking he is constitutionally ineligible...and I also think it is clear that after having spent two days studying, i do not agree with the ineligibility argument. No one has answered any of my questions on the issue either. I acknowledge the feelings of my friends, and still disagree, but I am interested in any facts that can be provided. So far none have convinced me to redefine natural born or that there are more than two definitions of citizenship. I also recognize their freedom to see it differently even if they are unable or unwilling to convince me. It Is, after all, About Liberty
-
Alright, but opposition is opposition, right?
No.
I was saying, that despite others' issues with him, I think the words he spoke here are true and powerful and noteworthy. Face palm for noting that despire the truth of his words there were friends her whose opposed him, did not make sense to me.
That is plain.
So, the face palm is about me not clarifying what specific opposition there was? Well, Ok. I thought that was clear enough from context but it is true the opposition is due to thinking he is constitutionally ineligible...and I also think it is clear that after having spent two days studying, i do not agree with the ineligibility argument.
Don't care. Others disagree with you.
No one has answered any of my questions on the issue either. I acknowledge the feelings of my friends, and still disagree, but I am interested in any facts that can be provided. So far none have convinced me to redefine natural born or that there are more than two definitions of citizenship. I also recognize their freedom to see it differently even if they are unable or unwilling to convince me. It Is, after all, About Liberty
I have three last points to make and then I'll leave you with your intransigence:
1) If natural-born citizen, i.e. born of two citizen parents on American soil, was not a commonly accepted definition, why did Chester A. Arthur go to such lengths as to have his papers burned after his death in order to conceal his fraud?
2) If natural-born citizen, i.e. born of two citizen parents on American soil, is not a commonly accepted definition, why has Congress tried at least six times to have it redefined since 1975?
3) If natural-born citizen, i.e. born of two citizens parents on American soil, is not a commonly accepted definition, why did Congress go to the lengths of passing a resolution affirming McCain as such?
I am now done with this. You believe what you will, but I will not vote for Ted Cruz. And if he's smart, and believes in not only the Constitution, but also with our tradition in this regard, he will not run. And that would be too bad, but it is what it is.
-
Alright, but opposition is opposition, right?
No.
I do not understand. Are you saying you do NOT oppose Ted Cruz receiving the GOP nomination or not?
-
So, the face palm is about me not clarifying what specific opposition there was? Well, Ok. I thought that was clear enough from context but it is true the opposition is due to thinking he is constitutionally ineligible...and I also think it is clear that after having spent two days studying, i do not agree with the ineligibility argument.
Don't care. Others disagree with you.
[/quote]
I neither deny that, nor deny their right to disagree. I simply maintain my own right to look at the facts and come to my own conclusions, which of course, i too happen to think are right.
-
No one has answered any of my questions on the issue either. I acknowledge the feelings of my friends, and still disagree, but I am interested in any facts that can be provided. So far none have convinced me to redefine natural born or that there are more than two definitions of citizenship. I also recognize their freedom to see it differently even if they are unable or unwilling to convince me. It Is, after all, About Liberty
I have three last points to make and then I'll leave you with your intransigence:
1) If natural-born citizen, i.e. born of two citizen parents on American soil, was not a commonly accepted definition, why did Chester A. Arthur go to such lengths as to have his papers burned after his death in order to conceal his fraud?
It is neither my job to defend Chester A. Arthurs, views, your views of his views, or your characterizations of why he did he things he has done, or even whether he did that or not. I neither know, nor care this long afterwards and will not take the time to study it, knowing it does not apply. The salient point is what does the US Constitution say, and that is plain enough for us to discuss. Then we can discuss US law and court rulings upon it. The courts have ruled enough, and wisely enough, (in other words they made the case for what they were saying) that this is not an issue.
The courts have clearly ruled that no one has the right to over rule the Constitution short of passing new amendments. I should think that any conservative would applaud that.
-
2) If natural-born citizen, i.e. born of two citizen parents on American soil, is not a commonly accepted definition, why has Congress tried at least six times to have it redefined since 1975?
Would you seriously like to predicate any discussion upon why the congress, which is basically a committee of elected representatives, has attempted ANYTHING? We could waste our lives on THAT conversation. Any single member of congress can initiate any bill he desires and I cannot waste time justifying his right to do so, it is simply the way things work. And obviously some of it is idiocy. And much of it is redundant. If some idiot congressman initiated a bill to say, give us the right to defend ourselves against terrorism, does that mean we do not inherently have the right of self defense? Obviously not. And to be clear, I do not accept your I.E without proof that I have not yet been given from the Constitution. I know that many have tried to define it outside of the Constitution, but the commonly accepted view that I see would be in the 90% range. Your definition would be in the less than one percent range, I am confident. Do not forget that at that time ONLY men had the vote and could be considered actual citizens. Women did not. Now that they are, does the phrase "father" become modified by later amendments? An amendment inherently and by definition DOES modify what preceded it. And any proposed bill is just as meaningless as an approved resolution.
-
3) If natural-born citizen, i.e. born of two citizens parents on American soil, is not a commonly accepted definition, why did Congress go to the lengths of passing a resolution affirming McCain as such?
i would refer you to the previous answer.
-
You believe what you will, but I will not vote for Ted Cruz.
I have never at all denied your right or the right of others to vote your views. I even believe you think i have the right to vote my views and hope this is an unnecessary post, but I am NOT neglecting your point.
-
And if he's smart, and believes in not only the Constitution, but also with our tradition in this regard, he will not run. And that would be too bad, but it is what it is.
I think it is possible that he has researched this and come to the exact same conclusions I have and would not be a bad or wicked man for running, any more than I am for supporting him as my third choice on my short-list. I think his voice is valuable and my hope is that he remains a powerful voice in the Senate. However, if YOU are right, he must either resign or be removed TODAY. Think it through. There are only two ways to be a citizen. He is either natural born as he claims, or because he has not gone through the naturalization process and you should be calling for his removal from the Senate because you believe he is not even a citizen of the United States at all, since there are NOT three statuses of citizenship.
I say he is a natural born citizen.
-
And if he's smart, and believes in not only the Constitution, but also with our tradition in this regard, he will not run. And that would be too bad, but it is what it is.
I think it is possible that he has researched this and come to the exact same conclusions I have and would not be a bad or wicked man for running, any more than I am for supporting him as my third choice on my short-list. I think his voice is valuable and my hope is that he remains a powerful voice in the Senate. However, if YOU are right, he must either resign or be removed TODAY. Think it through. There are only two ways to be a citizen. He is either natural born as he claims, or because he has not gone through the naturalization process and you should be calling for his removal from the Senate because you believe he is not even a citizen of the United States at all, since there are NOT three statuses of citizenship.
I say he is a natural born citizen.
President of the United States is the only elected office that I know of that requires "natural born citizen". The United States Senate does not.
OFFICE CITIZENSHIP AGE RESIDENCY STATUTE
United States Senator Citizen 9 years 30 years Resident of state when elected United States Constitution Art. I §3
For what it's worth there is a huge part of me that would love to see the duct-up that would come with him declaring. The left would go absolutely nutz and I would be right there pointing out that the last guy never proved he was a natural born citizen either. But then that's the part of me that is ready to burn it all to the ground.
-
And if he's smart, and believes in not only the Constitution, but also with our tradition in this regard, he will not run. And that would be too bad, but it is what it is.
I think it is possible that he has researched this and come to the exact same conclusions I have and would not be a bad or wicked man for running, any more than I am for supporting him as my third choice on my short-list. I think his voice is valuable and my hope is that he remains a powerful voice in the Senate. However, if YOU are right, he must either resign or be removed TODAY. Think it through. There are only two ways to be a citizen. He is either natural born as he claims, or because he has not gone through the naturalization process and you should be calling for his removal from the Senate because you believe he is not even a citizen of the United States at all, since there are NOT three statuses of citizenship.
I say he is a natural born citizen.
President of the United States is the only elected office that I know of that requires "natural born citizen". The United States Senate does not.
OFFICE CITIZENSHIP AGE RESIDENCY STATUTE
United States Senator Citizen 9 years 30 years Resident of state when elected United States Constitution Art. I §3
For what it's worth there is a huge part of me that would love to see the duct-up that would come with him declaring. The left would go absolutely nutz and I would be right there pointing out that the last guy never proved he was a natural born citizen either. But then that's the part of me that is ready to burn it all to the ground.
You miss the point. He is EITHER a NATURAL BORN citizen, or no citizen at all, since he has been through NO NATURALIZATION PROCESS. So, I ask all my friends, which is it? Either you must demand his removal from the Senate as a non-citizen, or acknowledge him as a natural born citizen. These are the ONLY two states of citizen-ship and he can only be one, for he is certainly not the other. There has been NO naturalization process for him. Arnold Schwarzenegger went through a naturalization process and could serve as Governor or Senator, but Ted Cruz has not. Which way do you claim he can serve in the Senate? I say it is because he is a natural born citizen, but if you say no, you must demand his removal from the Senate. How can a foreign national be allowed to represent a state of the Union?
-
Ted Cruz is a native-born citizen of the United States by virtue of Section 301(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. His mother was a United States citizen at the time of his birth.
-
Ted Cruz is a native-born citizen of the United States by virtue of Section 301(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. His mother was a United States citizen at the time of his birth.
Just so.
-
Alright, but opposition is opposition, right?
No.
I do not understand. Are you saying you do NOT oppose Ted Cruz receiving the GOP nomination or not?
We should be more like Spock, and not take things so personally...I read your post the same way others did...opposing Ted's eligibility is not opposing the man or what he says or what he stands for...it means as strict constructionists we do not believe he is eligible, period. Don't care who said what, don't care about legislation passed by flawed mortals, I just don't care for nuance.
And I know that people like us are a minority, that those willing to compromise principles for what they see as the greater good are more numerous and are likely to overwhelm those like me...but even those people if they are honest with themselves have to admit that by yielding on any principle they make it easier for other principles to fall.
But, in the end it probably doesn't matter...the trajectory of the nation is not toward liberty it is toward tyranny, it is not toward people of good character it is toward people of no character, it is not toward peace and security it is toward servitude and violence.
People will do as their conscience dictates. We should be mindful of that.
Time to move on.
-
Well and truly said, Libertas. Bravo.
-
Ted Cruz is a native-born citizen of the United States by virtue of Section 301(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. His mother was a United States citizen at the time of his birth.
Just so.
And that's the long and the short of it not to mention the law.
-
And I know that people like us are a minority, that those willing to compromise principles for what they see as the greater good are more numerous and are likely to overwhelm those like me...but even those people if they are honest with themselves have to admit that by yielding on any principle they make it easier for other principles to fall.
Its this steady drip - of ends justifying means - that always ends Republics, Standards and cultures.
-
After today's vote in the House I honestly don't think any of this matters anymore. Feel free to prove me wrong.
-
After today's vote in the House I honestly don't think any of this matters anymore. Feel free to prove me wrong.
I'm going to do my best if that's OK with you.
Start out by saying ............Crickets chirping in liberal code.
See my point? ::rockethrow::
-
"Turn out the lights, the party's over"
-
"Turn out the lights, the party's over"
Party's over till the lights go out for some.
-
It is not over, until the last soldier has been killed or has surrendered. Anger is okay, but let it be a righteous anger. Let us not act rashly, but wisely. Even the Savior, when defending His Father's house, calmly sat and fashioned a whip. When it was time for what here might be called an asswhoopin' He calculated the right way and followed His plan to drive the moneychangers from the temple.
Let us calmly plan what must be done, and then follow the plan. The concept is be angry, but sin not. Let us be effective, and let us act quickly, but not rashly.
If we are agreed that the country we loved does not exist anymore and cannot be salvaged and the rest, then who shall lead the restoration of a NEW country? Where are our John Adams, George Washington, Madison and the rest? Those who rallied the people in their desire to be free, to have hope, to stand against tyranny MUST have their descendants in our time.
And if they do not stand up and lead, we are all lost. I see men who have the will, who have the minds, who have the heart, but so few can agree among ourselves, I do not know if it could ever be restored. And yet what choice is there but to HOPE?
-
This isn't going to be like before...it will be more...Darwinian...
-
It seems more and more that the founding of the American republic was an exceptional time of exceptional men. I don't think it will ever be repeated. Perhaps the cynical authoritarians have been right all along, and serfdom is the natural state of man.
-
It is not over, until the last soldier has been killed or has surrendered. Anger is okay, but let it be a righteous anger. Let us not act rashly, but wisely. Even the Savior, when defending His Father's house, calmly sat and fashioned a whip. When it was time for what here might be called an asswhoopin' He calculated the right way and followed His plan to drive the moneychangers from the temple.
Let us calmly plan what must be done, and then follow the plan. The concept is be angry, but sin not. Let us be effective, and let us act quickly, but not rashly.
If we are agreed that the country we loved does not exist anymore and cannot be salvaged and the rest, then who shall lead the restoration of a NEW country? Where are our John Adams, George Washington, Madison and the rest? Those who rallied the people in their desire to be free, to have hope, to stand against tyranny MUST have their descendants in our time.
And if they do not stand up and lead, we are all lost. I see men who have the will, who have the minds, who have the heart, but so few can agree among ourselves, I do not know if it could ever be restored. And yet what choice is there but to HOPE?
Looking for that leader, that Colonel George Washington that's willing to risk it all for dreams of a reboot so to speak. I'm old enough to know what we need and want but also old enough for a few well placed shots but after that, I don't know how much help I can be.
I think it's going to be a real mess since organization is really lacking. Our Founders at least had their Continental Congress to make the politics and today we only have a few million people really pissed with a select percentage willing to risk it.
-
Our Founders at least had their Continental Congress to make the politics and today we only have a few million people really pissed with a select percentage willing to risk it.
A congress is just a group of people getting together. For all we know the first new congress(es) is (are) already meeting. They are just called militias, or sovereign citizens or secessionists now.
the founders had only 3% of the population willing to fight, and 10-12% on their side. The fact is that history is made by interested minorities.
If those percentages hold true today 3% of 300 million is 9 million. All well armed (far better than our fore-fathers were against the British) Its quite an army to take on and wipe out when they are scattered across the country- especially when the government looses its ability to pay its soldiers, and therefore enforce its edicts. Biding our time and preparing is the thing to do now. As Libertas says, this event is going to be more Darwinian than the prior revolutions, because for the most part, our enemy is going to wipe huge portions of itself out. Police States are expensive, and they have already run out of other people's money. They can only get more draconian in their theft and that only will bring more people to our side and starve the ones that refuse to fight.
-
Our Founders at least had their Continental Congress to make the politics and today we only have a few million people really pissed with a select percentage willing to risk it.
A congress is just a group of people getting together. For all we know the first new congress(es) is (are) already meeting. They are just called militias, or sovereign citizens or secessionists now.
the founders had only 3% of the population willing to fight, and 10-12% on their side. The fact is that history is made by interested minorities.
If those percentages hold true today 3% of 300 million is 9 million. All well armed (far better than our fore-fathers were against the British) Its quite an army to take on and wipe out when they are scattered across the country- especially when the government looses its ability to pay its soldiers, and therefore enforce its edicts. Biding our time and preparing is the thing to do now. As Libertas says, this event is going to be more Darwinian than the prior revolutions, because for the most part, our enemy is going to wipe huge portions of itself out. Police States are expensive, and they have already run out of other people's money. They can only get more draconian in their theft and that only will bring more people to our side and starve the ones that refuse to fight.
Good point regarding both the militias and congress.
With the State treating the military worse than sh*t, I expect many of them to melt away quickly leaving the absolute true believers as it's army which will be at a disadvantage in terms of not being to popular amongst the liberty seeking natives. the progtards living in the cities will be their base but it still won't help them in terms soldiers willing to sacrifice for Liberty. Germans loved their country and only felt real pressure when they were to defend it given no choice by the Nazi regime. I'm thinking we have that here to.
Still can't believe nobody's shooting yet? ::whatgives::
Police states are also brutal and repressive so the progtards will get the full treatment when they refuse to help.
-
Still can't believe nobody's shooting yet? ::whatgives::
People aren't shooting yet because ya can't get 'em off their asses enough to make a couple of phone calls to their friends even to oppose crap going down locally, because the 'tude is "ya can't fight 'em; they're gonna win".
Well, ya can't even look at winning UNLESS YOU SHOW UP.
God, I am so disgusted.
-
Still can't believe nobody's shooting yet? ::whatgives::
People aren't shooting yet because ya can't get 'em off their asses enough to make a couple of phone calls to their friends even to oppose crap going down locally, because the 'tude is "ya can't fight 'em; they're gonna win".
Well, ya can't even look at winning UNLESS YOU SHOW UP.
God, I am so disgusted.
A couple of phone calls won't do squat to change anything. You couldn't get me off my butt to make them. But if and When the shooting does finally start, we will see how apathetic we really are.
-
It is not over, until the last soldier has been killed or has surrendered. Anger is okay, but let it be a righteous anger. Let us not act rashly, but wisely. Even the Savior, when defending His Father's house, calmly sat and fashioned a whip. When it was time for what here might be called an asswhoopin' He calculated the right way and followed His plan to drive the moneychangers from the temple.
Let us calmly plan what must be done, and then follow the plan. The concept is be angry, but sin not. Let us be effective, and let us act quickly, but not rashly.
If we are agreed that the country we loved does not exist anymore and cannot be salvaged and the rest, then who shall lead the restoration of a NEW country? Where are our John Adams, George Washington, Madison and the rest? Those who rallied the people in their desire to be free, to have hope, to stand against tyranny MUST have their descendants in our time.
And if they do not stand up and lead, we are all lost. I see men who have the will, who have the minds, who have the heart, but so few can agree among ourselves, I do not know if it could ever be restored. And yet what choice is there but to HOPE?
Looking for that leader, that Colonel George Washington that's willing to risk it all for dreams of a reboot so to speak. I'm old enough to know what we need and want but also old enough for a few well placed shots but after that, I don't know how much help I can be.
I think it's going to be a real mess since organization is really lacking. Our Founders at least had their Continental Congress to make the politics and today we only have a few million people really pissed with a select percentage willing to risk it.
I think the lack of central organization is actually probably a very good thing. Central power attracts attention and can be easier to kill than having to spread out and go after a dispersed enemy. And once the mass killing Weisshaupt speaks of dies off, the statists will be right back where they were at the start - trying to go after dispersed rebels. All the statists can do is kill every living soul on the planet...all other scenarios leave them defeated, no matter the timeline or how many die between now and then. And there is one other positive point of violent confrontation...all those fence-sitters learn real damn quick they have to make a choice, or they'll be slaughtered and abused by both sides. So turn that smile upside down, stay networked with your like minded friends and kin and prepare accordingly.
-
Maybe Speaker Buttmonkey will run for POTUS, after all, he enjoys pissing on his own caucus (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150304/us-boehner-homeland-security-a3071d25bc.html) as much as any E-GOP stooge...and killing the Hastert Rule should gain him huge points with party poohbah's...so...what difference does it make?
-
I think the lack of central organization is actually probably a very good thing. Central power attracts attention and can be easier to kill than having to spread out and go after a dispersed enemy. And once the mass killing Weisshaupt speaks of dies off, the statists will be right back where they were at the start - trying to go after dispersed rebels. All the statists can do is kill every living soul on the planet...all other scenarios leave them defeated, no matter the timeline or how many die between now and then. And there is one other positive point of violent confrontation...all those fence-sitters learn real damn quick they have to make a choice, or they'll be slaughtered and abused by both sides. So turn that smile upside down, stay networked with your like minded friends and kin and prepare accordingly.
Congregating just gives them a target to ridicule and make an example of if required. Look how the massive Tea Party demonstrations were met. Now imagine such demonstrations armed-- what would happen? How hard would it be to use such a meeting for a false flag that would discredit the participants in the eyes of the public - allowing them to be portrayed as genuine terrorists? Bundy Ranch is about as big as we want to see, and these confrontations can't be done in Urban areas.. No innocent bystanders.
We are much harder to fight distributed. Centralized management like a Continental congress would help, but I am sure we will have it when it is needed and the shooting starts. People are quietly building the networks. Having the networks in the open only allows them to be decapitated easily.
-
I favor decentralization as well. Personally I would rather see the former USA disintegrate into several smaller countries anyway, rather than hope for the highly unlikely possibility of restoring a constitutional republic to the entire land. The only really compelling argument (to me anyway) for a large and intact USA is that it deters foreign aggression, but even that argument begins to fall apart when you consider the fact that no foreign power has posed as much of a threat to liberty as the American federal government has.
-
If there ever comes a time where the American people decide there are "intolerable acts" decentralizing is the only way to go.
At one point I learned (but can't remember much about it) about small cells.
Nobody knows everybody else in the cell so they can't be infiltrated, betrayed and destroyed.
Only one person knows how to contact another cell
-
Still can't believe nobody's shooting yet? ::whatgives::
People aren't shooting yet because ya can't get 'em off their asses enough to make a couple of phone calls to their friends even to oppose crap going down locally, because the 'tude is "ya can't fight 'em; they're gonna win".
Well, ya can't even look at winning UNLESS YOU SHOW UP.
God, I am so disgusted.
A couple of phone calls won't do squat to change anything. You couldn't get me off my butt to make them. But if and When the shooting does finally start, we will see how apathetic we really are.
Really? You wouldn't get off your butt to call a couple of your friends to let them know there was plotting afoot that would adversely affect their interests?