Wednesday, January 27, 2016
Tuesday, January 26, 2016
Trump campaign says Nyet to FOX debate which Limbaugh said Trump was only goosing for more eyeballs
Trump will lose nothing by not participating.
The last Democrat debate had about 10.2 million viewers, and the last Republican debate about 11.1 million. The shine is off.
The debates have served their purpose for Trump, and so has "conservative" talk radio.
Look for Trump to open up a new front in the campaign without them, except maybe for Michael Savage on whose show Trump appeared today, and maybe Rush's show.
Trump's campaign announced he was "definitely not" participating in the FOX debate, as reported here in WaPo.
Limbaugh predicted otherwise today, here:
Now, let me get a show of hands in there. I got three people here. Could have been on the Texas grand jury, for all I know. How many of you think Trump is going show up at the debate on Fox?
All three think he's gonna show up. Exactly. Exactly right. This is called hyping the audience. This is called creating an even larger audience than Fox got when they had their 25 million or 24 million, whatever it was. There's no question he's gonna show up. Well, there might be a question.
New study says trade with China caused severe permanent harm to American workers
From Noah Smith in "Free Trade With China Wasn't Such a Great Idea for the U.S." for BloombergView, who says the public has been exactly right about the consequences of trade with China:
The study shows that increased trade with China caused severe and permanent harm to many American workers:
Adjustment in local labor markets is remarkably slow, with wages and labor-force participation rates remaining depressed and unemployment rates remaining elevated for at least a full decade after the China trade shock commences. Exposed workers experience greater job churning and reduced lifetime income. At the national level, employment has fallen in U.S. industries more exposed to import competition...but offsetting employment gains in other industries have yet to materialize.
... [T]he public might have been wrong about free trade in the 1980s and 1990s, but things have changed. Popular opinion seems to be exactly right about the effect of trade with China -- it has killed jobs and damaged the lives of many, many Americans. Economists may blithely declare that free trade is wonderful, but our best researchers have now shown that public misgivings about these smooth assurances have been completely justified.
This election season remember Mark Levin isn't a Reaganite but a Bush preemptive war advocate
As recalled here:
Lesson not learned, Levin writes approvingly [in Liberty and Tyranny] of what, by all rights, should be the most discredited part of the Bush doctrine:
[A] defensive foreign policy does not exclude the necessity of preemptive action… there are occasions when America has suffered grievously, including on 9/11, for failing to act preemptively.
Obama's poor make an emotional appearance at Iowa Democrat town hall, woman speaks of her shame
From the story here:
SANDERS: I want to hear what it is like if people, know people or themselves, what is it like to live on $12,000 a year, $10,000 a year on Social Security. We’ve got a mic right here? OK. Hold that mic close to you, please.
WOMAN: I’ve been living on probably less than that for a long time, because of disabilities. (Crying) It’s so hard to do anything to pay your bills. You’re ashamed all the time… When you can’t buy presents for your children, it’s really, really, really hard. And I worked 3, 4, 5 jobs sometimes, always minimum wage. I have a degree. I’m divorced, and it’s just, I’m waiting for disability to come through, so my parents have to support me.
Believe it or not, pick any level in $5,000 increments all the way up the income ladder starting at zero and you will see that there is a smaller percentage of Americans making that income in 2014 than in 2007 at every single one, with just a very few exceptions starting after the 99.992 percentile where fewer than 15,000 Americans fight over incomes over $4 million per year. The percentage of people making any given income is smaller in 2014 than in 2007 with the exception of the very highest earners.
Everything has shrunk under Barack Obama, except his ego.
We all have something to be ashamed about, not just the poor.
Laugh of the day: Tom DeLay says Donald Trump is a novice who needs to learn from first term novices Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz
'Is Donald Trump a "novice" Christian and "novice" conservative? "Know those who labor among you," says First Thessalonians 5:12. Do evangelical and Catholic Christians, along with conservatives in general really know Donald Trump? ... Trump would do well to learn from Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina and other candidates who speak evangelical Christianity with fluent ease because they really do have God deep in their lives, and not just as a political facade.'
Memo to DeLay: Trump is a mainstream Presbyterian, not an evangelical, who incidentally has dominated the race since he entered it while the novices from the Senate lag far behind him.
Monday, January 25, 2016
Larry Kudlow to decide by the end of February whether to run against Senator Blumenthal in Connecticut
The Connecticut Mirror reports here:
For now, Kudlow is coy about his plans, saying he’ll “put out [his announcement] by the end of February.”
“It’s a complicated process,” he said. “There are a lot of issues involved." He and his wife Judith, he said, "are consulting a lot of people.”
Sunday, January 24, 2016
Joni Ernst non-endorses endorses Marco Rubio
Here.
Joni obviously wants to bask in some of that love The Des Moines Register just showered on Rubio by endorsing him.
Politics.
Trump surges in IOWA in the last two weeks in the FOX poll, Mr. Hannity: from Cruz +4 to Trump +11
 |
| Trump has surged in Iowa at the expense of Cruz (4), Rubio (3), Carson (2) and Bush (3) |
Latest FOX poll in New Hampshire shows little movement, Trump remains solidly in first: No "surge" for Kasich Mr. Hannity
 |
| In New Hampshire Trump's lead in the FOX poll has fallen by just 1 point in the last two weeks |
Harvard Lawyer: So the Oath of Office doesn't just roll off the lips of Mr. Constitution, Senator Ted Cruz
“What is the oath of office that you have to take?” Beck asked Cruz after the Texas Senator joined him on stage after Beck’s more-than-half-hour-long speech endorsing Cruz. ...
“I pledge to honor and defend the Constitution of the United States of America,” Cruz replied.
More here.
Saturday, January 23, 2016
Friday, January 22, 2016
Hannity's political correctness is showing: Kasich is TANKING in New Hampshire, not surging
Kasich just went from 20% to 6% in the latest poll in New Hampshire. That's surging . . . down the toilet.
Trump's attacks on Cruz in December struck Rush Limbaugh as "Democrat", but we had narry a word today criticizing National Review's cooperation with Politico against Trump
Here was Limbaugh in mid-December:
'But even people who are not particularly aligned with Cruz on the right have gotta be curious about this because this is no different than what the media would say about Ted Cruz. This is no different than what the Democrat Party would say. I mean, this is what the Republican establishment would say, for crying out loud. I mean, this is akin to saying, "I'm the guy who can cross the aisle and work with the other side." That hasn't been the way Trump has come off up 'til now. He's not positioned that way.'
National Review provided its anti-Trump issue in advance to Politico, for whom Rich Lowry has written a regular column for many years.
So who's crossing the aisle now to work with the opposition? Who's adopting the methods of the left?
Remember Republican Lowell Weicker losing to Democrat Joe Lieberman in 1988 because of National Review's overt support of Lieberman?
Remember Jeffrey Hart et al. voting for Obama?
Pat Buchanan and Phyllis Schlafly have both joined Laura Ingraham on her show so far today addressing the excommunication of Donald Trump by National Review
Phyllis Schlafly said she's never recognized National Review's authority on conservatism.
She pointed out that the magazine was never any help in her long battle to stop the Equal Rights Amendment.
And she also pointed out that William F. Buckley Jr. was for giving the Panama Canal to Panama, which most conservatives of the time opposed.
Alt Right Edward from New York Explains Donald Trump to Rush Limbaugh
From yesterday's transcript here:
CALLER: Hey, Rush. Longtime listener, first-time caller. I'm in my twenties, and I am a Trump supporter, and I guess I'm also a member of what people are calling the alt right. And I just wanted to, like, explain for maybe a lot of your listeners why Donald Trump is so popular, despite the consternation of many in the conservative movement and the Republican Party. And just really simply, the Democrat Party for the past half century has been openly the party of the fringes, right? The party of disaffected minority voters, black, Mexican immigrants, single women, feminists, all these things, homosexuals in the past, you know, ten years. And the Republican Party, whether it wants to admit this or not, has become the de facto party of white men. The only meaningful difference, though, is that the Republican Party is not allowed to appeal to its own constituency, while the Democrat Party obviously does nothing but appeal to its own constituents. So when you look at the political scene in America like this, Donald Trump not only becomes understandable, but he kind of becomes inevitable.
Trump gets 2.5 times the circulation of NR in Drudge Super Poll same day magazine launches anti-Trump issue
National Review's 2012 circulation was reportedly 166,755.
Thursday, January 21, 2016
National Review commits utter treason, joins the left to stop Trump, cooperating with POLITICO to do it
From the story here:
'“This is the time to mobilize,” said National Review editor Rich Lowry, who is also a weekly opinion columnist at POLITICO. “The establishment is AWOL, or even worse, so it’s up to people who really believe in these ideas and principles, for whom they’re not just talking points or positions of convenience, to set out the marker.” ... Lowry was slated to go on Megyn Kelly’s Fox News program Thursday night to promote the anti-Trump package. National Review plans to begin posting the essays and editorial, which were provided in advance to POLITICO, on Friday. While National Review ran an anti-Newt Gingrich cover and editorial in 2012, Lowry said, “I don’t think we’ve ever done something like this,” summoning a cross-section of conservative leaders to try to dislodge a GOP frontrunner.'
National Review has famously attacked its own in the past, from the John Birch Society to Joseph Sobran, Pat Buchanan and John Derbyshire, among others over the years. But this takes the cake. Trump doesn't even pretend to be an intellectual with ideas, but the fanatics are going to excommunicate him anyway.
It's a very sad day for those of us old enough to remember how the editorial pages of National Review were like water to men wandering in the desert. The magazine now drinks the full measure of the wrath of God.
So, it was Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty who first brought the Muslim Somalis, and incredible discord, to the state
Good thing the Bush partisan bombed in his run for the presidency.
From the story here:
'The first wave of refugees came to St. Cloud at the beckoning of Gov. Tim Pawlenty, bound for the meatpacking factories peppering the Mississippi riverbank. Their willingness to do arduous work for little pay led to friction with the unions. ... The city nicknamed "White Cloud" became 10 percent Somali. And that seemed to be the threshold where the welcome signs came down.'
Pawlenty famously bailed as national co-chair of the Mitt Romney campaign in September of 2012 after one year of service to accept a lobbying position with the Financial Services Roundtable, which hands out the dough to Congressional Republicans and Democrats alike. Romney reportedly paid off $400,000 of Pawlenty's presidential campaign debts.
Mark Levin is a joke: Trump would be doing better in Iowa if he'd listened to me, he says tonight
Trump is +11 over Cruz in IOWA in today's CNN poll!
Looks like The Donald doesn't need any advice from Mark Levin.
Flashback: Ted Cruz joined Glenn Beck at the border passing out the soccer balls and teddy bears to the illegal immigrants
From the story here in the summer of 2014:
'Beck said even if his actions entice more parents in Central America to send their children on the harrowing and sometimes deadly journey to America, it was never his “intent” to do so.'
Phyllis Schlafly's endorsement of Donald Trump turned more heads in Iowa than Sarah Palin's
From the story here:
'[Steve Scheffler, veteran Iowa political organizer] said that it was the support for Trump from 91-year-old conservative organizer Phyllis Schlafly that is “the one that has kind of turned some heads.”'
David Frum thinks Sarah Palin will be important for Trump in Iowa: they're kind of made of the same stuff
Here:
"Endorsements are usually said not to matter much in today’s politics—but if any endorsement in any contest ever can matter, Palin’s endorsement in the Republican Iowa caucuses will. ... In the contrast between Cruz’s support and Trump’s, one sees something truly new and disrupting—a battle between those for whom conservatism is an ideology, and those for whom conservatism is an identity. Since Donald Trump entered the race, one opponent after another has attacked him as not a real conservative. They’ve been right, too! And the same could have been said about Sarah Palin in 2008. Palin knew little and cared less about most of the issues that excited conservative activists and media."
Wednesday, January 20, 2016
Right back at ya: Norman Lear has been giving America the finger his entire life
That's the best comment on Norman Lear on His Latino 'All in the Family,' Why Trump Is America's "Middle Finger".
And at 93 he still is flipping-off America: "I care for her", he says of Hillary.
Well of course you do.
First term senators shouldn't even be running for president: Rand Paul (2010), Marco Rubio (2010) and Ted Cruz (2012)
 |
| Elected to the US Senate in 2004 |
"For six years, Republicans have said the nation made a mistake electing a one term Senator the President of the United States. Why should you, a one term Senator, be the GOP’s nominee?"
-- Erick Erickson, here
Tuesday, January 19, 2016
Monday, January 18, 2016
Not-the-face-of-Islam strikes again: Politically-correct Daily Express calls Muslims charged with sexual assault "Asian men"
Not-the-face-of-Islam strikes again:
How many Japs or Chicoms do you know named Mohammed Sadeer, Ittefaq Yousaf, Arfan Iqbal, or Naheem Akram?
The inflation-adjusted price of the average prime slave from 1860 is $44,100, very close to the 2014 raw average US wage of $44,569
The average price of a prime slave from 1860 was about $1,500. Using the consumer price index, that's the equivalent of about $44,100 in 2014. The raw US average wage in 2014 was $44,569 according to the Social Security Administration.
The annual mean price of the labor of a slave from 1860 brought a return on investment of about 12%, and on a month to month basis about 14%. In 2014, corporate profits before taxes came to 12.7% of GDP.
Total slave population in 1860 is estimated to be 3.95 million, 14.7% of the total white population.
The annual mean price of the labor of a slave from 1860 brought a return on investment of about 12%, and on a month to month basis about 14%. In 2014, corporate profits before taxes came to 12.7% of GDP.
Total slave population in 1860 is estimated to be 3.95 million, 14.7% of the total white population.
See The Economics of American Negro Slavery by Robert Evans Jr. of MIT (1962), here.
Sunday, January 17, 2016
Trump in 1999: I am pro-choice . . . but I just hate it
That's not going to kill him, it's going to advance the narrative that Trump "grew" as he got older, grew out of his liberalism.
Video, highly edited, here.
Saturday, January 16, 2016
Another Obama achievement: deliberately bankrupting coal companies, destroying jobs and making electricity more expensive
From the story here at Bloomberg yesterday detailing the coal bankruptcies:
Obama has backed tougher limits on carbon dioxide blamed for climate change.
New mercury standards that took effect last year led utilities to retire 23 gigawatts of coal-fired electricity, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance.
On Friday, his administration said it will stop leasing public land to coal developers and will weigh raising royalty fees for exploration while it studies the fuel’s environmental impacts.
Both production and demand for coal this year will fall to the lowest level since 1983, the U.S. Energy Information Administration said this week. ...
Arch [Coal Inc.] has followed Alpha Natural Resources Inc., Patriot Coal Corp., Walter Energy Inc. and James River Coal Co., in bankruptcy.
In other news, mining (129,000) and logging jobs (2,000) declined 131,000 in 2015, the biggest decline since 1986 and the third worst year of declines since 1939.
Since 2007 net generation of electricity from coal has declined by almost 30% through October 2015.
While retail sales of electricity in 2014 are almost exactly identical to such sales in 2007, measured in kilowatthours purchased, the cost of that electricity has gone up over 18% over the same period as coal's role is being deliberately curtailed.
Larry Kudlow today on his radio show repeatedly criticized Ted Cruz' attack on New York values
The Larry Kudlow Show is available by podcast at wabcradio.com.
Unlike fellow Jew Mark Levin, Kudlow found Cruz' debate remarks thoroughly reprehensible and repeatedly called on Cruz to apologize to New Yorkers.
Cruz already is doubling down, however, saying Americans don't want the rest of the country to become like liberal Manhattan.
Cruz is making a big mistake about New York. It shows he has a tin ear for politics. Americans everywhere admire New Yorkers' pluck in the face of adversity, their heroism and determination. It is politically senseless to ask such people to choose now between Ted Cruz and New York when they already have spoken their affection for the city that never sleeps.
Americans will never love Ted Cruz as much as they already love New York.
Rand Paul pledges to do everything he can to stop Trump, and then support him if he's the nominee
Rand Paul, quoted here:
"He would be a disaster. We’ll be slaughtered in a landslide. That’s why my every waking hour is to try to stop Donald Trump from being our nominee. It sounds terrible, 'Oh you're going to support Donald Trump,' but I expect Donald Trump to support me as well if I win."
Friday, January 15, 2016
Mark Levin opens show discussing birther issue telling us it's not important, opens second half hour discussing it the same way
Like Ted Cruz isn't Mark Levin's preferred candidate, especially as in the middle of the first hour Levin tried to destroy Donald Trump using Trump's own previous statements about the differences between New Yorkers' values and those of the rest of the country.
Levin can't stand it that Trump turned this into a discussion about 911.
Levin finishes the hour claiming birthers have said to Levin that both parents must be born in the US.
I call bullshit on that.
I say prove it, Levin. Show us the evidence, and send it to Ann Coulter, whose arguments and column he hasn't dared touch.
Mark Levin is avoiding Ann Coulter.
Marco Rubio's official biography misrepresents his parents as exiles from Castro's Cuba
Castro took over Cuba in 1959 after a guerrilla insurgency begun in December 1956. Marco Rubio's parents left Cuba in 1956, according to this story in the Tampa Bay Times:
'To press their case, birthers dug up Rubio’s parents' immigration papers. While the eligibility question is unresolved, in some eyes, the file (which the Times independently obtained) confirmed his parents were given citizenship in 1975. Rubio at the time said he did not know why his parents waited, though experts told the Times that it wasn’t uncommon for some immigrants to wait.
'The immigration dossier broke some news: It showed Rubio’s parents came to the United States in 1956, not after Fidel Castro took over, as Rubio’s ... official biography noted and he repeatedly implied when talking about his “exile” parents.'
In yesterday's Republican debate in South Carolina, Rubio similarly misrepresented himself on a number of issues.
Rush Limbaugh is so stupid he thinks today's bad sales numbers were deliberately delayed until after the State of the Union address
The data release occurs on a regular schedule, which can be accessed here. There's no conspiracy to make Obama look better, as Limbaugh stated in the show opener today.
New York Values: Osama bin Laden can kiss my royal Irish ass, and I live in Rockaway and this is my face bitch!
 |
| FDNY firefighter Mike Moran |
Here, The Concert for New York City, October 20, 2001.
Reuters/Ipsos poll indicates 25% to 28% of voters doubt Ted Cruz is eligible to be president
From the story here about the poll taken in the days leading up to last night's debate:
"A quarter of Republicans think White House hopeful Ted Cruz is disqualified to serve as U.S. president . . . Republican voters nearly mirror independents and the broader electorate in their belief that Cruz cannot hold the White House, with 27 percent of all voters and 28 percent of independents responding he should be disqualified."
Cornered like a rat, Ted Cruz last night resorted to a straw man argument to defend his presidential eligibility
From the transcript here:
"At the end of the day, the legal issue is quite straightforward, but I would note that the birther theories that Donald has been relying on -- some of the more extreme ones insist that you must not only be born on U.S. soil, but have two parents born on U.S. soil. Under that theory, not only would I be disqualified, Marco Rubio would be disqualified, Bobby Jindal would be disqualified and, interestingly enough, Donald J. Trump would be disqualified."
No one is arguing that to be eligible both parents must have been born on US soil, only that both parents must be citizens at the time of the candidate's birth in a US jurisdiction.
The extreme non-existent standard propounded by Cruz isn't necessary to exclude him, Rubio and Jindal (and Obama), only the constitutional one which defines natural born citizenship as beyond the reach of statute. Cruz' citizenship is statutory, not constitutional, and that is why he is excluded from eligibility. He acquired citizenship through the law, not through the Constitution:
'Because Cruz's citizenship comes from the law, not the Constitution, as late as 1934, he would not have had "any conceivable claim to United States citizenship. For more than a century and a half, no statute was of assistance. Maternal citizenship afforded no benefit" -- as the Supreme Court put it in Rogers v. Bellei (1971).
'That would make no sense if Cruz were a "natural born citizen" under the Constitution. But as the Bellei Court said: "Persons not born in the United States acquire citizenship by birth only as provided by Acts of Congress." (There's an exception for the children of ambassadors, but Cruz wasn't that.)'
Thursday, January 14, 2016
Ann Coulter's Progress: Only constitutional illiterates confuse citizens and natural born citizens
Here:
'A child born to American parents outside of U.S. territory may be a citizen the moment he is born -- but only by "naturalization," i.e., by laws passed by Congress. If Congress has to write a law to make you a citizen, you're not "natural born." ... Mostly, the Cruz partisans confuse being born a citizen with being a "natural born citizen." This is constitutional illiteracy. "Natural born" is a legal term of art. A retired judge who plays a lot of tennis is an active judge, but not an "active judge" in legal terminology.'
She seems, however, unaware that the 1790 Naturalization Act poses less of a problem for interpretation than she thinks, seeing that it was repealed by the Act of 1795, which scuttled the 1790 terminology "natural born".
Clearly the Congress had made an error in 1790, and realizing that making those born abroad natural born conflicted with the original intent of the constitution to restrict the designation to those born to citizens on US soil, Congress fixed it.
And this nugget Coulter pulls out is quite lovely in that regard:
"The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the 'natural born' citizen is eligible to be president." -- Schneider v. Rusk (1964)
Now if only we could get everyone to connect the dots.
Wednesday, January 13, 2016
You can blame Nikki Haley, who responded to Trump not Obama, on Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell
Reported here:
". . . House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell picked Haley to deliver the GOP response to President Obama’s final State of the Union address."
Laurence Tribe thinks Ted Cruz is ineligible from one perspective, and buries "reputed born in the country" during the founding for a reason
Here in the Boston Globe:
'To his kind of judge, [Ted] Cruz ironically wouldn’t be eligible, because the legal principles that prevailed in the 1780s and ’90s required that someone actually be born on US soil to be a “natural born” citizen. Even having two US parents wouldn’t suffice. And having just an American mother, as Cruz did, would have been insufficient at a time that made patrilineal descent decisive. ... This narrow definition reflected 18th-century fears of a tyrannical takeover of our nation by someone loyal to a foreign power — fears that no longer make sense.'
Oh really? They make more sense now than ever with the diffidently un-American Obama in the Oval, whom the originalist position should also have prevented but didn't precisely because liberal interpreters like Tribe have prevailed by burying truths.
Such as: Children born abroad to US diplomats and soldiers were considered at the time of the American founding "reputed born in the country". For example, Emer de Vattel, paragraphs 216ff., whom the founders used like a textbook:
"... it is not naturally the place of birth that gives rights, but extraction. ... the children born out of the country in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court, are reputed born in the country."
So it's not just a simple matter of being born on US soil, otherwise every slave child ever born here would have been a natural born citizen, making that whole 14th Amendment thingy kind of beside the point. Tribe is taking only half of the originalist position and using it against Cruz, when there is another half, which should have made Obama ineligible.
Ted Cruz is not a natural born citizen only in part because he was born in Canada without military, diplomatic or some other "official" American cover, but Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen because he was born without citizen cover from both parents. Tribe wants to ignore the latter in the case of Cruz to obscure Obama's ineligibility and argue for the priority of soil against Cruz. It's the way liberals argue, by not telling the whole truth.
But blood was equally important with soil at the founding, and you might say that in the matter of presidential eligibility, the genius of the constitution was singularly expressed in the fusing of jus soli and jus sanguinis in the person elected to embody the executive power in order to protect it, and us.
Presidents should be born in the country, to (married heterosexual) citizens.
But good luck getting that through after what Obama and the Democrats have done to this country. Next stop, a test-tube president whose parents are a Chinese lesbian from Vancouver married to her kitty cat from a pet shelter in Seattle.
Tuesday, January 12, 2016
None of our early presidents were natural born citizens, but were grandfathered in by Article II
"Publius Huldah", here, correctly making the proper distinction between citizens, and natural born citizens who are eligible to be president:
In § 214, Vattel states that “fundamental law” may withhold from naturalized citizens some of the rights of citizens, such as holding public office. The Constitution is our “fundamental law”; and, following Vattel, Art. II, §1, cl. 5 withholds from naturalized citizens (except for our Founding Generation which was “grandfathered in”) the right to hold the office of President.
Remember! None of our early Presidents were “natural born Citizens”, even though they were all born here. They were all born as subjects of the British Crown. They became naturalized citizens with the Declaration of Independence. That is why it was necessary to provide a grandfather clause for them ["or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution"]. But after our Founding Generation was gone, their successors were required to be born as citizens of the United States - not merely born here (as were our Founders), but born as citizens.
And do not forget that the children born here of slaves did not become “citizens” by virtue of being born here. Their parents were slaves; hence (succeeding to the condition of their parents) they were born as slaves. Black people born here did not become citizens until 1868 and the ratification of the 14th Amendment.
So! Do you see? If Our Framers understood that merely being born here were sufficient to confer status as a “natural born citizen”; it would not have been necessary to grandfather in our first generation of Presidents; and all the slaves born here would have been “natural born citizens”. But they were born as non-citizen slaves, because their parents were non-citizen slaves.
Monday, January 11, 2016
Hey Levin you dummy! Citizens by statute are NOT natural born citizens!
If they were, they wouldn't need a statute making them citizens, dummkopf.
Donald Trump is a natural born citizen: His mother became a citizen four years before he was born
The Christian Science Monitor reported here last August:
'The couple had a son, Frederick, in New York City, in 1905. This was Donald Trump’s father. His birth in America, and subsequent automatic US citizenship, disproves rumors that The Donald is himself an “anchor baby” born to noncitizen US immigrants. ... In 1930, Fred Trump met a young Scot in New York on holiday, Mary MacLeod. They married in 1936. Born on the Isle of Lewis, Trump’s mother was proud of her Scottish heritage. Nevertheless, she became a US citizen on March 10, 1942.'
Rush Limbaugh continued his fascination with homosexuality today by making sure to open the show marking the death of David Bowie
He even protested that he never really got into Bowie's music.
So why mention him then?
Rush famously paid Elton John to sing for his (latest) wedding, and uses Klaus Nomi's "You don't own me" for his occasional gay update theme. Nomi was once a backup singer for a Bowie performance.
Latent homosexuality much?
Rush Limbaugh, the big boob on the right, sides with those who say Cruz is a natural born citizen
Just now at the end of the half hour.
The caller who challenged Rush did a good job right up to the end of the call when he mistakenly agreed that Cruz was not a citizen.
Of course, what he meant to say was Cruz was a citizen, just not a natural born citizen, and Rush jumped all over the guy and bulled his way through to maintain his position against the caller's.
Too bad, because the caller was right and Rush was . . .
Sunday, January 10, 2016
Congress corrected itself in 1795 dropping "natural born citizens" of children born abroad to citizens
"And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens."
-- Naturalization Act of 1790
"[T]he children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States."
-- Naturalization Act of 1795
Katyal and Clement are completely disingenuous by ignoring the correction in their discussion last March because they know full well that the Act of 1795 repealed the Act of 1790.
h/t Mario Apuzzo, here:
'The authors cite to the Naturalization Act of 1790 and ignore the fact that the Naturalization Act of 1795, with the lead of then-Rep. James Madison and with the approval of President George Washington, repealed it and specifically changed "shall be considered as natural born citizens" to "shall be considered as citizens of the United States." This is even more a blatant omission given that they argue that the English naturalization statutes referred to persons born out of the King's dominion to British subject parents as "natural born subjects." They fail to address this critical change made by our early Congress, critical because Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 provides that a “Citizen” of the United States was eligible to be President only if born before the adoption of the Constitution and that thereafter only a “natural born Citizen” was so eligible.'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)