15 Mar

The REAL Civil War In The Republican Party

                                       

cpac rubio paul

The NYT’s, that bastion of unbiased reporting…cough, has a story today entitled “Divisions in G.O.P. Are Laid Bare on First Day of Conservative Conference”.

The largest annual gathering of Republican activists began here Thursday with appearances by rival presidential hopefuls offering their party starkly different paths back to prominence — and diagnoses of what ails it — after last fall’s demoralizing losses.

“We don’t need any new ideas,” Senator Marco Rubio of Florida told a room packed with cheering grass-roots activists, anticipating what he predicted would be liberal critiques of his remarks. “The idea is called America, and it still works.”

Speaking immediately after him, Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky declared, “The G.O.P. of old has grown stale and moss-covered.” A “new G.O.P.,” he said, “will need to embrace liberty in both the economic and the personal sphere.”

The yearly assembly of the Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC, is a showcase of the Republican Party’s top presidential prospects, whose reception before a crowd of critical, future primary voters and volunteers is watched carefully by party leaders, donors and news media handicappers.

…Mr. Paul and Mr. Rubio, the most anticipated speakers on Thursday, displayed differences as bare as those within the party at large. Mr. Rubio called for a reassertion of the traditional, Reagan-era values of limited government at home while Mr. Paul called for a more libertarian approach that would shrink America’s role in the world.

The NYT’s tries to find some kind of war of ideas between Rubio and Paul but that is just not the case. The real civil war is the one between the old guard establishment and true conservatives. Between the young TEA Party constitutionalists and the old bulls.

Just look at the disgusting display put on by John McCain and Lindsey Graham after their dinner with Obama. They went to the floor of the Senate and chastised Rand Paul for him daring to buck the establishment. Obama has circumvented Congress over and over again making appointments and regulations and the like so why shouldn’t a congressional leader ask for clarification on the use of drones to assassinate American citizens on American soil?

Obama has broken almost every rule in the play book so many of us wonder how far this guy will go. Rand Paul asked for an answer and received one. Good for him.

But instead we get the old guard, McCain, Graham, Boehner, and old guard talking heads like Krauthammer raking him over the coals.

Ted Cruz dares to ask a very good, and pointed, question of Diane Fienstein and Krauthammer berated him for that.

On a side note listen to Mark Levin rip into Krauthammer and the like over this issue from yesterdays show:

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

The establishment gave us McCain, gave us Romney, gave us losers. It’s all status quo with these guys. No new ideas, no bucking the system, just pretend that we have a united front against the Democrats while all the while they vote with the Democrats.

JeffG said it perfectly in 622 words:

And even now, many of them are trying desperately to cling to power, to maintain the status quo, because it is within the current broken system — the one that benefits politicians while screwing over their constituencies — that they thrive. And they’ll be goddamned if any presumptuous set of “citizen legislators” — that is, those who aren’t looking to make a career out of living inside the DC bubble and adapting to its tony ways — is going to come along and upset their well-stocked, perpetually refilled apple cart.

They are concerned only with themselves and their own perks and powers. And just because they wear an R behind their name, or sport a flag lapel pin and mouth conservative pieties from time to time, doesn’t mean they are at all on the side of the people, of the Constitution, of individual liberty and autonomy. In fact, the vast majority of them reject such antiquated principles and instead seek to have a more efficient Leviathan running the lives of the masses. And that’s deplorable.

But against that is rising a new breed, many of whom appeared at CPAC and delivered rousing, principled, optimistic speeches that celebrated the US, that celebrated free market capitalism, and that blasted the old guard for presuming to run the party whose base has come to despise them.

And not all of these were Republicans. Because as I wrote back in 2009, a pro-liberty movement will likely attract those Democrats who believe in the Constitution and are worried about the trajectory of a government that is no longer left and right within the context of a free market capitalist system and representative republic, but one in which the contemporary left represents and embodies the ideology of the Marxists and socialists who the JFK Democrats utterly rejected.

That is, the return of the Reagan Democrat will mark the way back from the New Left authoritarianism and liberal fascism that we’re currently living under. And to get the Reagan Democrat back, you don’t run a mushy, Dem-lite “maverick” like John McCain, or a wavering, pragmatic technocrat like Mitt Romney, both of whom have a history of being much harder on conservatives than on “progressives”.

To get the Reagan Democrat — and to inspire the base, and carry along libertarians — you run principled constitutionalists who are willing to stand up and in clear language reject the arguments of the left. You run pro-liberty candidates who are able to articulate the principles of classical liberalism upon which this country was founded, those who don’t run and hide from unfair characterizations of their positions but rather use those opportunities to make corrections, to amplify their actual beliefs, and to counterattack. Reagan knew this; the GOP establishment, because they don’t really stand for any of those things, consistently fights against those who act in just that way. A big government benefits both parties. That’s the dirty secret about DC and the one the GOP old guard is willing to kill Republican rising stars to protect.

Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Louie Gohmert, Mike Lee, Pat Toomey, Tim Scott, Allen West, Sarah Palin, Steve King, Marco Rubio (and there are others) — these are the kinds of Republicans many of the establishment politicians on both sides of the aisle despise. Not just dislike but literally despise.

And that’s because it is politicians of this type who are insisting on returning to first principles, on reining in government, on freeing up the economy, on addressing serious economic concerns, on speaking the truth and on taking the fight to the statists of both parties who daily, hourly, and by the minute molest us and infringe upon our rights and freedoms.

I have concerns with Paul’s foreign policy, I have concerns with Rubio’s stances on a few things, hell…I have concerns with every politician across this land. I don’t agree with any of them 100% but I sure the hell agree with JeffG on this. The Republicans needs to embrace the ideals on which the party was founded, and these new kids bring exactly that to the table.

Because if they don’t I guarantee you they will lose the house and the white house will stay Democrat.

And then we are all up s**t creek without a paddle.

About Curt

Curt served in the Marine Corps for four years and has been a law enforcement officer in Los Angeles for the last 20 years.
This entry was posted in Allen West, Barack Obama, CINO (Conservative in Name Only), Congress, Conservatism, Constitution, CPAC, Freedom, John Boehner, John McCain, Marco Rubio, Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, Politics, Rand Paul, Rick Perry, Sarah Palin, Tea Party. Bookmark the permalink. Friday, March 15th, 2013 at 12:44 pm
| 702 views

45 Responses to The REAL Civil War In The Republican Party

  1. CbR says: 1

    DING!!! … DING!! … DING!!!! We have a BINGO!!!!

    ReplyReply
  2. Scott in Oklahoma says: 2

    @CbR: I was gonna say that…. :-)

    ReplyReply
  3. DiveCon says: 3

    as i said on twitter for this very same story, “figures, leave it to the NY Slimes to find divisions where none exist”

    ReplyReply
  4. Ditto says: 4

    Pat Caddell (a Democrat polster) lays it out straight:

    “I blame the donors who allow themselves to be played for marks. I blame the people in the grassroots for allowing themselves to be played for suckers….It’s time to stop being marks. It’s time to stop being suckers. It’s time for you people to get real,” he told the audience that included two top Republican consultants.

    Caddell stole the show as a panelist in the breakout session titled “Should We Shoot All the Consultants Now?” He spoke with a fire and passion that electrified the room. When the session began the large room was half filled, but as word spread of the fireworks going on inside, the audience streamed in. By the end, it was standing room only.

    And:

    “The Republican Party,” Caddell continued, “is in the grips of what I call the CLEC–the consultant, lobbyist, and establishment complex.” Caddell described CLEC as a self serving interconnected network of individuals and organizations interested in preserving their own power far more than they’re interested in winning elections.

    “Just follow the money,” Caddell told a rapt audience. “It’s all there in the newspaper. The way it works is this–ever since we centralized politics in Washington, the House campaign committee and the Senate campaign committee, they decide who they think should run. You hire these people on the accredited list [they say to candidates] otherwise we won’t give you money. You hire my friend or else.”

    Financial corruption is a key component of the current process, according to Caddell. “There’s money passing under the table on both parties. Don’t kid yourself…If you can’t see racketeering in front of you, God save you.”

    ReplyReply
  5. Randy says: 5

    I got a call from the Republican Senate Committee to contribute to support Crist for Senator. I asked them why they are supporting a RINO when Rubio was a clear conserative. They said Crist had the experience needed for the Senate. I told them I no longer supported Republican Party sponsored candidates. only republican canidates themselves. That way I know the funds are going to the candidate I trust. I still get the calls yet!

    ReplyReply
  6. johngalt says: 6

    Many of us on the right are waking up to what is going on in the GOP. I have yet to see anyone on the left do the same, as far as what is going on over in the Democratic Party.

    ReplyReply
  7. John Galt says: 7

    @johngalt:
    Amen…
    Well said.

    ReplyReply
  8. Tom says: 8

    A CPAC panel on race turned into a train wreck:

    http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/03/tea-party-event-on-racial-tolerance-turns-to-chaos-as-white-supremacists-arrive.php

    A CPAC session sponsored by Tea Party Patriots and billed as a primer on teaching activists how to court black voters devolved into a shouting match as some attendees demanded justice for white voters and others shouted down a black woman who reacted in horror.

    The session, entitled “Trump The Race Card: Are You Sick And Tired Of Being Called A Racist When You Know You’re Not One?” was led by K. Carl Smith, a black conservative who mostly urged attendees to deflect racism charges by calling themselves “Frederick Douglass Republicans.

    Scott Terry of North Carolina, accompanied by a Confederate-flag-clad attendee, Matthew Heimbach, rose to say he took offense to the event’s take on slavery. (Heimbach founded the White Students Union at Towson University and is described as a “white nationalist” by the Southern Poverty Law Center.)

    “It seems to be that you’re reaching out to voters at the expense of young white Southern males,” Terry said, adding he “came to love my people and culture” who were “being systematically disenfranchised.”

    Smith responded that Douglass forgave his slavemaster.

    “For giving him shelter? And food?” Terry said.

    Video of Terry’s call for segregation:

    It all started when Terry, an audience member from Towson University’s White Student Union, complained that “my people, my demographic are being systematically disenfranchised,” and suggested that instead of following in the footsteps of Frederick Douglass, “Booker T. Washington Republicans” might be a better identity for the GOP—you know, “unified like the hand, but separate like the fingers.”

    ReplyReply
  9. Aqua says: 9

    @Tom:
    Every party has their idiots.

    ReplyReply
  10. Ditto says: 10

    @Tom:

    You neglect to mention that the…

    black woman who reacted in horror

    …was Kim Brown, a radio host, far-left activist and producer with Voice of Russia, a broadcasting service of the Russian government.

    If a bull breaks into a china shop, you don’t number the bovine as one of the dishes. Neither Matthew Heimbach, Scott Terry or Kim Brown represent the TEA Party supporters across this nation, and were clearly there only as hecklers to cause disruptions. These types of infiltrators have been popping-up at TEA Party events, and are swiftly ejected ASAP. They are a minor annoyance that none of the TEA Party groups want anything to do with.

    ReplyReply
  11. I MISS THAT,
    hope to see it somewhere else,
    is there a video or a link on that part?

    ReplyReply
  12. I did like RAND PAUL HIS SMURF WHEN HE SAID
    WE DON’T NEED TO NAME THEM,
    HE HAS AN EXPRESSION THAT HE COULD MAKE YOU LAUGH OR BE SERIOUS
    JUST BY MOVING HIS FACE, HIS EYES AND MOUTH, TELL OF IT.

    ReplyReply
  13. RAND PAUL FIRST STRAW POL WINNER
    MARCO RUBIO SECOND,

    ReplyReply
  14. justme95 says: 14

    This is all well and good, but why did this blog then support Rmoney? And please don’t say this blog didn’t. Oh, I know there were Gingrich (old guard), Santorum (old guard), Bachmann (old guard) supporters on here, but when the GOP did its ‘push comes to shove’ propagnada, you fell in line and supported Rmoney!! If this ‘conservative’ blog and others like it had let go of its warmongering, then Ron Paul would have been the clear choice and would have had a much better chance. You think the GOP isn’t watching all these conservative blogs and guaging their content? Once they saw you (general you) were ready, willing an able, to fall in line with what THEY wanted, they knew they could get away with another do-nothing LOSER! And it’s what we got… Obama. Because you are so filled with fear of an unknown enemy, an enemy that will NEVER be defeated. These power-hungry, psychopathic ‘leaders’ have created the Perfect War, one that can and never will end or be won – the War on Terrorism. The definition of ‘terrorist’ is being expanded as I write and it includes EVERYTHING! Constitutionalists are terrorists. People who stock up on a week’s worth of food are terrorists. People who support Ron Paul are terrorists. Christians are terrorists.

    I remember after the wall came down and they declared the Cold War ended, I stared at the TV screen and wondered, “Who will be our next enemy?” I never thought the answer would be me. But it is. And as long as the warmongering is perpetuated by those who deem military power as strength, I will always be in the crosshairs. Over 4,000 people have been murdered in those drone strikes and there is no doubt that thousands of those murdered were innocent. How many Americans will be murdered once they turn that force here? Isn’t America a battlefield? According to those who support the War on Terror, it is. Because terrorists are EVERYWHERE.

    And when the GOP finally realizes the only way to salvage itself is to put forth someone the conservatives blogs will support, who will they put forward? Rubio? Jindal? Neither of them are constitutionally viable because neither of them are natural born citizens, just as Obama isn’t a NBC because his father was foreign born and not a citizen of the US. How many will close their eyes to that fact and accept either one of those or break the chains the GOP has over them?

    Ron Paul’s military policy was clear – someone threatens or attacks us and we go in with full force and after we pummel and win we get out – no nation building, no leaving a piece of us behind by setting up a military base. Why that sounds absurd to so many is beyond me. Ron Paul’s foreign policy was that of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson – fair trade and peaceful relations with all. But our founding foreign policy has been rejected by the warmongerers among us. And I really laugh at the argument that ‘the world isn’t the same as it was back then’. Sure it is. The military capability at that time reflects that time and the military capability we have now reflects our time – we have nukes and drones.

    I’ll wait to see if this blog supports the likes of a Rubio or Jindal presidency… or even a blustering Christy one. Because if it does, this tiger hasn’t changed its stripes and would have once again been suckered by a rotten GOP.

    ReplyReply
  15. justme95
    I was wondering if you would come,
    and RAND PAUL IS NUMBER ONE,
    SOME HAVE MENTION HIS FOREIGN POLICY,
    BUT I THINK THEY WILL NOT MAKE WAVE, BECAUSE HE IS RIGHT,
    NOT A PENNY TO HATERS, YOU COULD NOT BE CLEARER THAN THAT,
    I have a scare that the forces of evil will try on the other side to block him.
    I’m sure the next election will be bloody, with who came from the open borders
    and turn loose amongst the people, I feel it was deliberate thought by OBAMA
    to create pain for the PEOPLE HE HATE, NOW HE PRETEND TO WANT TO TALK TO REPUBLICANS
    BECAUSE HIS NUMBERS ARE UNFAVORABLE, BUT NO ONE WITH A MINIMUM MIND WILL BELIEVE,
    HE CROSS THE LINE WITH THE SEQUESTER,
    BEST TO YOU

    ReplyReply
  16. justme95 says: 16

    Hi Bees,
    I agree with you… except not a penny to ANYONE until we fix our own financial mess. People can’t even afford to feed their failies – many can’t even find a JOB! – so why should we fund ANY country until we can find the jobs needed to feed and house our families? Every penny we give to another country to beef up their economy is one penny we lose to ours. This mismanagement of taxpaper $$ is killing us.

    ReplyReply
  17. justme95
    yes also, I was focusing on EGYPT AND LIBYA, SPECIFICLY,
    I would end the AFGHANISTAN WAR WITH A BANG ON THE POPPYLAND
    and return of all the TROOPS AT ONCE, NO MEN LEFT BEHIND,
    THESE JERK WANT TO LEAVE SOME SOLDIERS IN THERE THEY WOULD BE AN EASY TARGET,
    THE ALQAEDA WOULD COME IN NUMBER WITH THEIR SUICIDE HUMAN TO PROFIT FROM THE SMALL AMOUNT OF THOSE LEFT BEHIND, SOME ARE BEING KILLED AS WE SPEAK NOW,
    I CAN’T STAND KARZEI, FOR HIS ARROGANCE, HE DESERVE TO BE LEFT COLD,
    AND WHEN THE TALIBANS ARE BACK IN, YOU SEND A PLAIN LOADED AND TAKE THEM ALL IN THEIR CASTLE TOGETHER, FLATTEN THEM UP,
    THIS GUY HERE START TO FEEL THE HEAT, HE IS TRYING TO GET CHARMING WITH THE G.O.PS. TO GET SUPPORT,
    HE WILL GET WHAT HE DESERVE, IN TIME. IT WON’T BE NICE AND COSY AS NOW, THE FBI HAS HIS NUMBER,

    ReplyReply
  18. John Galt says: 18

    @justme95:
    I’m curious about:

    And when the GOP finally realizes the only way to salvage itself is to put forth someone the conservatives blogs will support, who will they put forward? Rubio? Jindal? Neither of them are constitutionally viable because neither of them are natural born citizens, just as Obama isn’t a NBC because his father was foreign born and not a citizen of the US.

    Why are these men not considered natural born citizens? Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying they are but it would seem to me that persons born within the borders of the United States are Natural Born Citizens. I would cite, United States v. Wong Kim Ark and Perkins v. Elg. Are you saying that a person born in the USA is not entitled to all the benefits of citizenship? Show me this limitation in the Constitution.
    Let me edit my comment by saying that Obama’s early life reads like a spy story. But for the discussion let’s say he actually was born in the USA.

    ReplyReply
  19. justme95 says: 19

    @ John Galt
    Are you kidding?
    The Constitution of the United States of American:
    Article I Section 2, states
    “No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.”
    Article I Section 3, states:
    “No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.”
    Article II Section 1 Clause 5 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…”

    Can you not see the difference? Representatives and Senators are to be ‘citizens’, but the President must be a ‘natural born citizen’. There is obviously a difference or else the framers would not have specified such a thing.

    Have you never seen John Jay’s letter to George Washington where he writes:
    “Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen…”

    And where did he get this notion of ‘natural born citizen”? From Vattel book ‘Law of Nations” where it stipulates:
    “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society can not exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as a matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children.”

    Ahem.

    And then there is Rep. John Bingham of Ohio arguing for the 14th Amendment (second column) where he states, “I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing any allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural-born citizen; but sir, I may be allowed to say further, that I deny that the Congress of the United States ever had the power or the color of power to say that any man born within the jurisdiction of the United States, not owing a foreign allegiance (referring to children born of slaves), is not and shall not be a citizen of the United States.”

    Was Rubio born of parents NOT OWING ANY ALLEGIANCE TO A FOREIGN POWER? No. They were legal residents, but NOT US CITIZENS.

    They knew the meaning in 1866, why don’t people know it now??

    Are we already seeing where some here will align with a GOP and not our Constitution? But who cares, right? The Constitution is just a piece of paper that needn’t be followed because it’s ‘living’ and can be re-interpreted to suit whatever need or want we have. To that I say – disgusting.
    FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION!

    ReplyReply
  20. Poppa_T says: 20

    Well…here we go again. I really hope that johngalt is correct and that many of you on the “right” are waking up to the fact that much of the repubs agenda is just as unconstitutional as the garbage the dems are pushing. Once you realize that as long as we remain distracted and divided by this “right vs. left” ideology things will never get better. We must focus on whether issues are Constitutional or not despite how we personally feel about them. I do not approve of homosexual marriage or abortion but those are issues for the people of the individual states to decide not the federal government.

    John Galt, in answer to your question of why Sen. Rubio (or Pres. Obama for that matter) is not considered to be a Natural Born Citizen (NBC) by many of us on the libertarian fringe I would refer you to Emmerich de Vattal’s monumental work “The Law of Nations” Chapter 19, § 212. Citizens and natives. The framers frequently consulted and referenced Vattal’s work as our Constitution was being forged and his definition of an NBC was accepted by all. This is documented in “Elliot’s Debates” volumes 3 and 4. Yes, the Supreme Court disagrees with me and U.S. v. Ark and Perkins v. Elg say I’m wrong but those cases rely on the 14th Amendment and the 14th Amendment was unconstitutionally passed. So I still think I’m right.

    When it comes to Sen. Rubio I believe that he is a strong Republican and a good conservative but that’s not what I want…I want a Constitutionalist and I hope Sen. Paul will be one. I reference this article by Pat Buchanan to illustrate the differences between the two men.

    ReplyReply
  21. John Galt says: 21

    @justme95:

    been seven Years a Citizen of the United States

    So you have this bolded to tell me that none of those men have been a citizen for seven years?

    Article I Section 3, states:
    “No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.”

    In this quote you are saying that none of the men have been a citizen for nine years?

    Article II Section 1 Clause 5 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…”

    I don’t believe that any of the men had been alive during the adoption period of the Constitution so that disclaimer is null. The “natural born” means born in the actual physical boundries of the United States. They were all born inside the physical boundries of the United States, that makes them “Natural Born”.

    Can you not see the difference? Representatives and Senators are to be ‘citizens’, but the President must be a ‘natural born citizen’. There is obviously a difference or else the framers would not have specified such a thing.

    Yes I can see the difference, an immigrant applies for citizenship and citizenship can be granted by going thru a naturalization process as set forth by law. In Article One of the Constitution, the power to establish a “uniform rule of naturalization” is granted explicitly to Congress. They would have eligibility for state political posts such as U.S. Senator. They are citizens, but not “natural born” citizens that attain that standing by being born within the USA.

    As for the letters you posted, they didn’t make it into the Constitution, sad to say. Court cases that I have mentioned make it clear that “Natural Born” has been decided long before these men stepped out of the womb, that may not be the case for Doktor Paul.
    Yes, follow the Constitution.

    ReplyReply
  22. john says: 22

    if even the majority of the Republican party do not want a “real conservative”, how would anyone expect a majority of the independents to vote for one ? Of the 3 strongest Democrats running for the nomination there was one populist (Edward) one to the left (Clinton) and one perceived as a centralist. Guess which one won ?

    ReplyReply
  23. justme95 says: 23

    @Poppa_T:

    You can add The Venus, 1814, where Chief Justice Marshall recited that section from Law of Nations in his opinion, Page 12 U S 289:
    “Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says

    “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”

    “The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it because it grants

    Page 2 U.S. 290

    them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the laws or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united and subject to the society, without participating in all its advantages.”

    And Ark never claimed he was a ‘natural-born citizen’, just that he was a citizen, so that case never delved into the NBC issue. And don’t forget that in that case, Chief Justice Fuller said, “the words ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ in the (14th) amendment, were used as synonymous with the words ‘and not subject to any foreign power.’” Ark’s parents were subject to a foreign power.
    I don’t know why these facts escape people.

    ReplyReply
  24. justme95 says: 24

    @John Galt:

    So you have this bolded to tell me that none of those men have been a citizen for seven years?

    No, I highlighted it so you would see they Framers wrote CITIZEN and did not stipulate NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN.

    I don’t believe that any of the men had been alive during the adoption period of the Constitution so that disclaimer is null. The “natural born” means born in the actual physical boundries of the United States. They were all born inside the physical boundries of the United States, that makes them “Natural Born”…. Court cases that I have mentioned make it clear that “Natural Born” has been decided…

    Wrong. The Ark case didn’t make that decision at all. Ark wasn’t about him being an NBC, just if he was a citizen. Read that case again.

    Yes I can see the difference, an immigrant applies for citizenship and citizenship can be granted by going thru a naturalization process as set forth by law. In Article One of the Constitution, the power to establish a “uniform rule of naturalization” is granted explicitly to Congress. They would have eligibility for state political posts such as U.S. Senator. They are citizens, but not “natural born” citizens that attain that standing by being born within the USA.

    Wrong again. Ark was born in the US to parents who held allegiance to another country. Find me in that case where any SCJ declared Ark a ‘natural-born citizen’. I want to see it.

    As for the letters you posted, they didn’t make it into the Constitution

    Bulldust! John Jay’s advice from that letter DID make it into the Constitution because they changed it from the President being a ‘citizen’ to it reading that the President must be a natural-born citizen’. Hamilton wanted it to read ‘citizen’ because he had his eye on the pesidency and that clause meant he couldn’t have it. And how lazy are you to not read the Congressional Precedings from the 1866 debates.

    Read the link I provided to The Venus case so you can read Marshall defining exactly what a NBC is, or are you too lazy to read it? Or maybe you just want what you want and don’t give a crap about following the Constitution? You must be a RINO.

    ReplyReply
  25. JOHN GALT
    READ JUSTME95, AND POPPA-T, VERY CAREFULLY, BECAUSE THEY KNOW THE CONSTITUTION,
    AND CANNOT BE NEGATE BY SMALL SUPERFICIAL OPINIONS,
    YOU ARE IN FRONT OF PROS.

    ReplyReply
  26. Poppa_T says: 26

    @justme95:
    My friend I could have added a whole bunch of junk but none of that matters, what matters is that when our Constitution was written it was plainly understood by all that only an” Native born” or “Natural Born Citizen” (the terms are synonymous) would be eligible to serve as President and that your parents had to be citizens in order to claim that status. Everything else is superfluous.

    But back to the issue at hand, are you Republicans out there ready to set aside your personal desires and stick to the Constitution? If so…welcome to the Libertarian Party!

    ReplyReply
  27. John Galt says: 27

    @justme95:
    I’ve tried to keep this a civil discussion, but ad hominem attacks like calling me a “RINO”, must imply that you have run out of intellectual ammunition. You seem to have a chip on your shoulder, most Laup Nors do in person, and this doesn’t transfer very well over a computer.
    Natural born means what it says in simple language, born here.
    From this point on, you and your Luap Nor flock can take a flying hike, go study 9/11 for the well placed charges.
    Good luck, but I have better things to do in life than to sit in front of a computer and have some right-wing hippie call me names. ever think this is why you never get more than about 3% of the vote, I didn’t think so.

    ReplyReply
  28. JOHN GALT
    WHO’S THE ONE CALLING NAMES,
    YOU JUST BEEN TOLD THE TRUTH,
    AND YOU CAN’T TAKE IT,

    ReplyReply
  29. Poppa_T says: 29

    @John Galt:
    Hello my friend, I am not here to call names or belittle anyone and I speak only for myself. You stated in post #21 that you agreed that there was a difference between a citizen and a natural born citizen. I agree that anyone who immigrates here can become a citizen and that once they do any future offspring they may have are most certainly “NBC’s” . But why do you believe that just because a child is born here they deserve “NBC” status? Don’t you think that if the child’s parents have no loyalty to this Nation and are only here to represent another Nation, such as diplomats, that child should retain citizenship to the Nation its parents represent? What about someone who comes to this Nation only to work and then plans to return to their native Country, wouldn’t the child be considered a citizen of that parents Nation?

    The Natural Born Citizen clause of the Constitution was placed there to ensure that there would be generational loyalty to this nation in one and only position in our Government. In order to insure that our founders stipulated that anyone serving in that office would be the offspring of two citizens of this Nation in order to reduce the risk of someone assuming the office of President who might have divided loyalties. Hamilton addresses this issue in the Federalist Paper #68 where he say’s…

    “Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union?”

    The point is that just being born here was never intended to be enough to qualify someone to the highest position in the land. Your parents (both of them) had to be citizens at the time you were born as well. Otherwise we might end up with someone in the Whitehouse who really shouldn’t be there. One person in particular comes to mind.

    ReplyReply
  30. Poopa_T
    THE LAST THING I HEARD,
    was that a person taking the power of PRESIDENT WHO DOESN’T HAVE THE RIGHT BACKGROUND,
    IS CALL AN USURPER, NOT A PRESIDENT AND CANNOT BE IMPEACH BECAUSE HE IS USURPER NOT PRESIDENT WHICH CAN BE IMPEACH, OTHER WISE WE THE PEOPLE WOULD COMMIT THE SAME
    CRIME AS THE USURPER AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION,
    THE ONLY WAY TO GET HIM OUT IS BY THE PEOPLE GETTING TOGETHER AND DEMAND IT,
    IT DID NOT SAY HOW THE PEOPLE WOULD DO IT,
    DO YOU KNOW HOW?
    BYE

    ReplyReply
  31. VIETNAM, THE BATTLE OF KEH SANH
    A MARINE WRITE TO HIS MOTHER, PLEASE PRAY FOR US,
    40000 SURROUNDED 6000 MARINES,
    MANY DEATHS MANY WOUNDED,
    THEIR EYES LOOKING AT THE CAMERA, SO SAD,
    YOU CAN NEVER FORGET THOSE 20YEARLD EYES LOOKING STRAIGHT AT YOU,
    SAYING I CAME FOR MY COUNTRY TO BE FOREVER FREE,
    THE NIGHT CAME AND 20 OF THEM WHERE KILLED,
    just that night of many more.

    ReplyReply
  32. Poppa_T says: 32

    Hi Ms. Bee’s in my opinion it’s not about getting rid of the President it’s much bigger than that, in order to save this Nation we have to acknowledge that we have been conquered first. We have been conquered by the bankers as CNBC readily admits, our Nation has been under a systemic assault for well over a hundred years. We have been dumbed down, divided, indebted and played like a fiddle by the Republicans and the Democrats. We are no longer a Republic we now live in a Corporatocracy.

    We have to look at whats currently happening in Cyprus, Greece, heck all of Europe and understand that these things are coming here as well. Until Americans wake up and accept that the Federal government has no Constitutional authority over issues such as religion, healthcare, retirement, education, gun rights, welfare, abortion, drug usage, who someone can or can’t marry etc…and allow people to live freely and to suffer the consequences of the choices they make, things will never change.

    We had one chance this last election cycle to put someone in office who would act to return us as much as possible to the path our founders set and we blew it. Rand Paul is not his father and I don’t know that he is grounded enough in the principals of liberty or has the moral fortitude required to make the difficult choices that are needed to be made. I do know that Sen. Rubio is not the man I want. He has said that John Quincy Adams’ declaration that America goes not “abroad in search of monsters to destroy,” is an idea that he rejects.
    You can label Sen. Rubio anyway you wish Republican rising star, Neocon, Rockefeller Republican, it doesn’t matter he has no plans to change the way business is done in Washington. He will not end the War on Drugs, the War on Terror, the War on Obesity or the campaign of Nation building our government has engaged in for the past decade.

    But in all honesty I think it’s just to late to change things, we are headed for a financial Armageddon that will make the great depression look pale by comparison.

    ReplyReply
  33. Poppa_T
    hi,
    yes but it’s never too late, the mess is done,
    we have to get the culprits out and roll our sleeves and think hard of a solution
    before we get there,
    if it take go back on our previous promises to the outside WORLD,
    EVEN IF WE HAVE TO LET GO THE UN OR DOUBLE THEIR RENT,
    even if we have to say, to illegals go back home your fired,
    even if we have to cut the pay and expanses and benefits to all the GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, CUT THEM AGENCIES BY 1000,AND THEIR EMPLOYEES, CUT THE UNIONS PAY TO THE SAME FEE AS THE REGULAR CITIZENS OR OUT THEY ALL GO,
    IT HAS TO START AT THE WHITE HOUSE, CUT THE TRIP IN AIRFORCE 1, CUT THE MICHELLE CLOTHES
    COMPLETELY, SHE CAN WEAR THE PREVIOUS CLOTHES WHICH COST MILLIONS OF DOLLARS,
    ALL THE GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, EXCEPT THE MILITARY CONNECTED TO THE WARZONE
    AND THE VETERANS , SOME ARE STILL WAITING FOR WHAT THEY ARE SUPPOSE TO HAVE,
    I SURE HOPE THE 96 YEAR OLD VETERAN RECEIVED HIS MONEY, THE AGENCY FOR VETERAN AFFAIRS WAS MAKING HIM SKATE, THAT IS IMMORAL, IF THEY DO ,THEY MUST BE FIRE,
    AND REPLACE BY VETERANS,
    ANYWAY, HERE THERE IS BILLIONS SAVED JUST ON MY COMMENT, DID I SAY BILLIONS,
    NO IT’S TRILLIONS,
    THOSE WHO DON’T WANT TO WORK WITH THE CUT, LET THEM GO, THEY DON’T GIVE A SHIT FOR THE AMERICANS WHO SUFFER DOWN THE HILL WHICH IS NOT SHINING ANYMORE.
    AND RETAKE ANY CLAIM FROM OTHER COUNTRIES WANTING TO TAKE LANDS OR OCEAN OR PRECIOUS METALS,
    DIG FOR OIL OUR OWN OIL ONLY,USE OUR COAL,
    OUR TREES, ALL WHICH BELONG TO US MUST BE RETURNED,
    THIS IS RADICALY EFFICIENT. FOR A START,
    NO MORE SPENDING OTHER THAN FOR THE PEOPLE,
    Poppa_T, you call ASHMAGADINE, AND KIMJON ADVISE THEM, THEY WILL RECEIVE A PACKAGE BY AIR MAIL SOON SO EXPANSIVE THAT IT’S GOING TO BLOW THEIR MIND,

    ReplyReply
  34. justme95 says: 34

    @ John Galt your 21

    has been decided long before these men stepped out of the womb, that may not be the case for Doktor Paul.

    You swiped me with your paw first, so don’t pretend innocence. The truth is you probably never read the Ark case and when, in my 24, I challenged you to

    Find me in that case where any SCJ declared Ark a ‘natural-born citizen’.

    you realized you were caught and trapped which led to the spitting and caterwauling in your 27. Poor puss, go on, retreat into your ignorance and lick your wounds, you’ve been exposed and that can’t be changed.

    @Bees your 30. I agree, he is an usurper. Unfortunately, no one knows how to depose this puppet king as there is no such support for it from our legislative and judicial branches, and there are too many depedent upon the government for their livelihood.

    @Poppa T, your 26

    But back to the issue at hand, are you Republicans out there ready to set aside your personal desires and stick to the Constitution? If so…welcome to the Libertarian Party!

    I’m not a Libertarian, and actually don’t like labels. I think a lot of nonsense would end if Americans would heed George Washington’s advice in his Farewell Address to not create political ‘factions’.

    The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed…

    There are so many thoughtful words in this speech I am always silenced when I read such profound statements.

    Towards the preservation of your government, and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the Constitution, alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown.

    Wouldn’t our argument here about the meaning of NBC v citizen be ‘innovation upon its (the Constitution’s) principles’? Redefining a phrase so well known and established at the time of our founding just to satisfy one’s current desire?
    I want to just be an American living in the America envisioned by our Founders, but too many don’t care to know what that looks like.

    ReplyReply
  35. justme95
    you got it, and it’s a revelation,
    thank you

    ReplyReply
  36. Poppa_T
    I read again on you’re comment, there is so much in it,
    like justme95 said,
    and I think RAND PAUL DID SHOW RESOLVE, IN HIS PREVIOUS PHILIBUSTER 13 HOURS AND PLUS,
    WHICH IS A FIRST EVER, IT TELL THAT HE WOULD USE THE TOOLS ALREADY THERE IN THE CONSTITUTION AND BILL OF RIGHT AND COMMERCE CLAUSE, to tell his message and give it weight
    from the FOUNDER’S work of art unequaled in the WORLD, WHICH IS ATTACK NOW BUT STOOD UP BEFORE AND WILL BE CLEANED UP OF OUTRAGES DID TO IT BY THE CORRUPT POLITICIANS,
    ON THE WRONG SIDE OF THE LAWS, WHO KEEP LYING DANGEROUSLY FOR THE UNINFORMED PEOPLE WHO DON’T FIND THE TIME TO STUDY THE CONSTITUTION, WHICH SHOULD BE TAUGHT IN SCHOOLS AS IT WAS BEFORE SO TO GIVE THEM A GOOD JUDGEMENT TO PERCEIVE
    BETWEEN THE LIES AND THE TRUTH GIVEN TO THEM BY INDOCTRINATED TEACHERS,
    GOOD THEY ALL NOT WASTED BY THE PROPAGANDA OF THE OBAMA CREW,

    ReplyReply
  37. Ditto says: 37

    This in today: Boehner: I ‘Absolutely’ Trust Obama

    Framing Republicans as out-of-touch radicals, Raddatz then asked, “President Obama says these meetings are intended to find members of the common-sense caucus who he can make a deal with …. Are you not a member of the common-sense caucus?”

    Boehner, falling for the trap, shot back, “I’m part of the common-sense caucus. We appreciate the outreach. We appreciate the engagement from the president. But it’s gonna take more than this if we’re serious about solving our problems.”

    Then Boehner dropped the bombshell. Raddatz, after quoting President Obama saying we don’t have “an immediate crisis in terms of debt,” asked Boehner for his thoughts. And Boehner eagerly agreed: “We do not have an immediate debt crisis. But we all know that we have one looming …. It could be a year or two years, three years, four years. It’s not an immediate problem.” And then Boehner said he agreed with Obama on the immediacy of the problem.

    (Sigh)

    ReplyReply
  38. Ditto
    hi,
    how did he said it?
    I AY AB SO LUTELY TRACH OBAMA
    WEEE OOPS, DO NUT HAV A IMME DIARTE DEBBB CRISIST,
    BUTT WE AL KNO DATCH WE HAVE A ONE LOOMING, LOMING,
    IT COULD BE A YEAR, TWO YEAR THREE YEAR FOUR YEARS FIVE YEARS SIX YEARS SEVEN YEARSGG,
    IT’S NOT AN IMMEDIATE PROBLEM, I AGREE WITH OBAMA AH AH AH, OOPS EXCUSE MY FOOT
    OOPS AH AH AH SH SH OBAMA DONUT TEL I FEL
    WHAT KIND OF SPIRIT DO THOSE GUYS ARE DRINKING?

    ReplyReply
  39. Ditto
    IRELAND
    MAUREENE O’HARRA, AND JOHN WAYNE IN COLOR,
    BEAUTIFUL MOVIE,
    YOU SHOULD SEE THE FIGHT IN THERE,
    bye

    ReplyReply
  40. Ditto says: 40

    @ilovebeeswarzone:

    Yep, Good film that was! Happy Saint Patrick’s Day!

    ReplyReply
  41. Richard Wheeler says: 41

    @ilovebeeswarzone: I was at Khe Sanh in Feb. 1968. Gen. Giap who had beaten the French at Dien Bien Phu in 1954 commanded the NVA .
    Read “Matterhorn” to learn what the war was like at that time and vicinity.

    You can simply google presidential impeachment process. Relatively easy for you to understand.There has never been a conviction and removal of a U.S Pres. Nixon resigned to beat an almost certain conviction and removal.Obama’s not going anywhere.

    You know for 18 months I’ve been saying that Marco Rubio will be the next Conservative POTUS .Only question is when??

    ReplyReply
  42. Ditto
    thank you, same to you,
    when is scotish day?
    bye

    ReplyReply
  43. Richard Wheeler
    I’m glad you’re alive to tell, I found those in YOU TUBE, SOMETIMES AGO,
    I just seen this one, I could feel the hardship
    SEMPER FI MARINE,
    THAT WAS A HARD ONE WASN’T IT

    ReplyReply
  44. Richard Wheeler
    yes you are right MARCO is rising, I like him too, but I pick RANDY,
    FOR NUMBER ONE, I have been watching him and I like his stance,he is his own man,
    and has a great ability to lead, and CRUZ IS GOING FAR, I feel they would be a great team together
    may the best one get it, but if they stick together ,they are a force unbeateble,
    AMERICA WILL TAKE THEM,

    ReplyReply
  45. MARINES DEAD FOLLOWING AN EXPLOSION
    IN NEVADA OTHER WOUNDED 7 ARE DEAD

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>