Posted on 01/02/2012 3:57:01 PM PST by i88schwartz
Mark Levin, who was on vacation, came back with a fierce threat today. Levin promises he will do "everything in his power" to defeat Sen. Rand Paul if his father runs as a third-party candidate. "If Ron Paul decides that he is going to go third-party, which is detrimental to this nation, and pulls a million votes, which is relatively insignificant in the big scheme of things, I will do everything in my power to defeat his son in Kentucky. I will do everything in my power to defeat his son Rand Paul in Kentucky," Mark Levin said on his radio program tonight.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
Yeah, let’s run him down the road.
Grow up, Rand Pauls gone all in on his nutty fathers campaign to damage US foreign policy calling Santorum a war monger. I’ll be backing Levin 100%.
Listening to tonight’s show, all I could think was Levin should have taken another day’s vacation. The whole show was pretty horrible. Maybe it’ll be better tomorrow.
I don't think anybody on this thread wants to punish Rand for the sins of Ron.
So here's a distinction you may have missed:
If Rand should support ANY third-party candidate, father or not, that action would be a mortal sin -- something that might contribute to re-election of the TØTUS, and something that should be condemned to high Heaven by all who want a speedy end to the era of Øbamanation. In other words, Rand ought to be punished only for his OWN sins, if indeed he eventually commits same.
(But if Rand doesn't support a third-party candidate, then he will be more-or-less clean and pure as the wind-driven snow.)
Santorum is a War Monger. “His words not mine”
Mark Levin is a whiney blowhard.
Sadly, I will league with Mark.
Ron’s a good guy but....
Hold on now, indeed!
RP avoided answering and finally said NO!
(This video must be archived some where..)
There was only one definition of natural born Citizen at the time the Constitution was written, and that was found in Vattel's Law of Nations.
Founder and Historian David Ramsay Defines Natural Born Citizen in 1789 forty years before the leftist Pennsylvanian Quaker and abolitionist William Rawles opined on the subject.
I tried listening to Levin’s podcast several months ago.
After several weeks I unsubscribed. It had become obvious that Levin was a GOP shill and, perhaps, mentally ill.
Leni
While I might agree with you that the Vattel concept was what the Framers had in mind, you are either dreaming or ignorant of the other usage examples including ones in England and in the Colonies. Any court could reasonably decide this issue however they wanted to decide it.
ML/NJ
Again, the term natural born Citizen had only one definition at the time it was written into our Constitution.
Natural-born is something we refer to in the English language as an adjective. It has meaning apart from the noun it modifies. You could better make your argument by making reference to the phrase: natural-born athlete, and consider that it refers to something about a person's blood or genes and not that he was born in Yankee Stadium. But you would rather make your one-sided arguments and not consider the merits of arguments opposed to your view. I suppose that is your right, but it isn't helpful.
ML/NJ
>> the term natural born Citizen had only one definition at the time it was written into our Constitution <<
You may be correct. But in any case, your point is not relevant because the Constitution (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4) allows the Congress to change the definition of who is a citizen at birth, versus who must be “naturalized” to become a citizen.
Mark Levin Denounces Smear Attacks On Newt Gingrich
http://www.therightscoop.com/mark-levin-denounces-smear-attacks-on-newt-gingrich/
I have to tell you that I’m looking at these attacks on Newt Gingrich, as an example, and I’m very troubled by them. They go beyond substantive and intellectual analysis of the man’s record, into attacking what people are claiming are some kind of psychosis and so forth, really smearing the guy. Really smearing the guy. OK?
I’ve said it before and I want to say it again. Every single one of our candidates is head and shoulders over Obama. Every single one of them loves this country, loves the Constitution, loves our economic system. They’re imperfect in many ways in their personal lives, some more than others, and in their policy positions over the decades, absolutely.
But I do know this! Not one of them is a Marxist. Not one of them seeks the destruction of the private sector. Not one of them seeks to massively increase the central government.
Now I have strong disagreements with several of them. But I do not believe that when we are eleven months away from the most important election in my lifetime, where Newt Gingrich may well be the nominee – and I’m making no predictions – that all the trashing and attacking and opposition research that’s being used, not to challenge his positions, but to character assassinate him, to absolutely destroy him.
I’m not joining in on that! As a matter of fact, I’m denouncing it!
Because if he is our nominee, I intend to fight with 100% of my energy to get that man elected, good, bad, and indifferent!
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4:
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization
Naturalization (or naturalisation) is the acquisition of citizenship and nationality by somebody who was not a citizen of that country at the time of birth.
As you can see, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4 has NOTHING to do with natural born Citizenship.
>> As you can see, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4 has NOTHING to do with natural born Citizenship. <<
Wow! A new type of logic! Thanks!!!
My guess is something like the above was said to Sara too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.