Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ann Coulter Says Marco Rubio as VP Pick Would Be a ‘Mistake’
ABC News ^ | 04/01/2012 | George Stephanopoulos

Posted on 04/01/2012 12:18:45 PM PDT by SeekAndFind

While pundits, politicians and prognosticators have tapped Florida Sen. Marco Rubio as one of the most likely GOP vice presidential picks, conservative commentator Ann Coulter warned today that such a choice would be a “mistake.”

“I think that would be a mistake because the same people who loved Rubio loved [former presidential candidate and Texas Gov.]Rick Perry,” Coulter told me Sunday during the “This Week” roundtable discussion. “I want someone who’s been a bit more tested.”

As the rising star of the Tea Party and a Hispanic from the delegate-rich state of Florida, Rubio would fix Romney’s two biggest problems: enthusiasm among the Republican base and lackluster support from Hispanics, argued conservative commentator George Will.

But Coulter, who is a firm Mitt Romney supporter, said the GOP frontrunner needs a running mate who is tried and tested, which, as a first-term Senator, Rubio is not. Coulter suggested Romney pick someone like New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie or Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.

“He’s been tested, he’s steady, he’s not frightening,” Coulter said of Kyl. “He could certainly step into the job.”

Van Jones, a former environmental advisor in the Obama White House, threw a brand new name into the realm of vice presidential speculation: former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who served under George W. Bush. “She ticks off a lot of boxes as far as women, persons of color, but she’s actually tested, she’s a national figure and she has foreign policy experience” Jones said. “You want to do something bold, put Condoleezza Rice on the ticket and watch the Obama campaign go crazy.”

(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2012veep; anncoulter; coulter; eligibility; marcorubio; naturalborncitizen; rubio2012; vp
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-171 next last
To: Godebert
Well, then:

1) I feel sorry for you if you think that Rubio's OR Obozo's citizenship is in question at all, much less by virtue of the ancient 1874 matter of Minor vs. Happersett (the link to which you have provided complete with some lawyer D'Onofrio's editorial opinions) which can be further be linked to the Justitia website version of the SCOTUS decision in the matter.

2) There are plenty of other issues whether you imagine otherwise or not: abortion, perversion posing as "marriage," the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Obozocare, Romneycare, whether Iran should be allowed to develop and deploy nuclear weapons, religious freedom from oppression by Ms. Sebelius's regulations, whether the governments should be allowed to take real estate such as modest homes by eminent domain to facilitate the construction of large private commercial projects merely because they will pay higher amounts of property tax, whether citizens or even persons who are not citizens may be detained by authorities in the US without trial or a right to counsel or even to communicate to the world outside their place of detention to seek relief just because the authorities wish to detain them upon whatever unproven allegations, the rate of taxation, the amount of spending, further corrupt bailouts of corrupt institutions by our corrupt politicos, etc., etc., etc. That list just barely scratches the surface but noooooo, you believe that "natural born citizen" issues are the ONLY issues "as far as (you are) concerned." How very special!

3. Minor vs. Happersett is, BTW, not at all on point. It simply notes that where a person such as Mrs. Minor who was a white woman born in the State of Virginia to parents were both citizens of the United States, she is unquestionably a citizen (but the main holding is that, in Missouri at that time, she nonetheless had no right to vote enforceable against the State of Missouri and its local county or municipal registrar of voters, Mr. Happersett. It specifically also notes that there is controversy as to whether one born in the US of foreign citizens was to be regarded as a natural born citizen or whether one born elsewhere of American citizens would be so regarded without resolving either of those questions. It also notes questions as to whether one who is born wherever of only one citizen parent might be so regarded without resolving that question.

4. "Binding" holdings of the court are applicable and thus "binding" when the circumstances are the same. If Mrs. Minor (apparently a radical suffragette in her time) had all those qualities but also had red hair and blue eyes, the last two characteristics would be irrelevant, having nothing whatsoever to do with the laws before the SCOTUS. OTOH, the court did not have occasion to make any ruling whatsoever as to people with lesser qualifications than Mrs. Minor as to number of citizen parents or place of birth, but at least some credentials.

5. When the now disposed of and quite despicable (and thank God) former Connecticut Senator Lowell P. Weicker, Jr., angered by the magnificence of Ronaldus Maximus, expressed a desire to run for POTUS to restore the GOP's fatal historical flaw of being run by the GOP elites and the peasants be da*ned, it was noted that he had been (unlike most of us) born in Paris, France, when his American citizen father and mother were there due to the senior Mr. Weicker's business duties for Squibb Drug Company (or whatever its formal name was). Trust me. Those of us who despised the younger Weicker as though he were Lucifer's younger brother as well as his most faithful servant on so many of what you regard as non-issues, first saw to his defeat by Joe Lieberman and then tried to cut off his attempt to run for POTUS on the birther issue. It was and is a bogus issue as to Obozo, McCain, George Romney (whose status may have been questionable since he was born in Mexico at a permanent Mormon settlement there) and therefore, by your standard, perhaps throwing Mitt Romney's natural born citizenship status into question, and as to Weicker. Nice try but no ceegar.

6. Weicker then was elected on his solemn and oft-repeated promise to NEVER impose a Connecticut state personal income tax on wages and salaries. His lips moved. Therefore he lied and he made the buying and bullying and bribing of the Connecticut General Assembly his primary obsession, got it enacted in his first year as governor and well understood that he was finished politically as a result but, hey, he got his revenge against his conservative enemies.

7. What you regard as "binding" in the ancient Minor vs. Happersett matter is nothing but dicta at best. Dicta is the term for judicial shooting the breeze and in this matter for nothing more relevant than suggesting that SCOTUS was in 1874 more profound than ever it has been. Dicta amount to mere words or sayings and not "binding" holdings.

8. You may well disagree with me in good faith on paragraph 7 but, if you think Obozo, or any of the rest of them to be other than natural born citizens, file a federal or state action with the courts for a declaratory judgment to uphold your point of view and ask for an injunction against the appearance of his electors on any state ballot and you will lose as soooooo many others have already. If you think that proves the courts lawless you are wrong on to think so on the birther issue but at least you will surely understand how pro-lifers, pro-marriage folks, and others have long regarded our elitist courts.

God bless you and yours and bless your efforts on the birther quest if you actually try but don't hold your breath!

101 posted on 04/02/2012 12:47:36 AM PDT by BlackElk ( Dean of Discipline ,Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Society. Burn 'em Bright!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Freeper
"Don't worry - - Obama is not going to run either."

Mark this post."

Okay. Marked.

102 posted on 04/02/2012 1:02:22 AM PDT by Flotsam_Jetsome (If not you, who? If not now, when?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
I have said nothing of you that you have not earned.

Let me add for other FReepers who might be tempted to then blame you for things I post here that you and I are not clones of one another and the fact that I post on whatever issue does not mean that you agree with me, even if I ping you. We are only in agreement 95+% of the time and a higher percentage of the really important stuff.

Please keep in your prayers two friends of mine: The first is a mother of many children and a superb wife and mother, a determined Christian lady who has, by great surprise and quite suddenly been diagnosed with Stage 4 colon cancer. Pray for her recovery, or for her speedy and happy death and for the fine family that she may leave behind. The other is a very fine young man, himself an ambulance attendant/EMT, who was horribly injured and maimed in a head-on collision riding a motorcycle on Sunday morning. He has lost one leg at mid-calf, my lose a hand or even an arm or its use, has several areas of bleeding in his brain, and undetermined other injuries. His mother is an athletic coach who has been particularly kind to each of my three daughters. The entire family are exemplars of character. He was part of a crew of two EMT's who took me 25 miles by ambulance to an ER in early February with the utmost consideration when briefly I could not walk due to heart issues and pneumonia. When such tragedies strike two such fine people and their loved ones, it puts life and other matters into sharper perspective. Whatever God's plans may be, they just have to be better than our own. His will be done.

May God continue to bless you and yours!

103 posted on 04/02/2012 1:07:37 AM PDT by BlackElk ( Dean of Discipline ,Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Society. Burn 'em Bright!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
Coulter would likely prefer a "tested" Republican like Richard Lugar or Olympia Snowe, or maybe even a tested former Republican like Jim Jeffords or Lincoln Chafee.

Sorry to say, but Ann has made herself passe. She's washed up.

104 posted on 04/02/2012 1:34:51 AM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

Wow.. That’s a pretty good graphic right there.


105 posted on 04/02/2012 1:38:43 AM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Godebert
"It's the only issue as far as I'm concerned."

Correct. If the constitutional requirements for the presidency itself are open to negotiation, then all bets are off.

This is really not that hard, and one doesn't even need to resort to Minor v Happersett to reach the natural, logical conclusion:

If the purpose of inserting the Natural Born Citizen language in A2S1C5 of the Constitution was to preclude, to the greatest degree possible, the potential for divided loyalties in the Executive (and you'd better believe that is was), then a citizen born on the country's soil to two citizen parents represents the gold standard (completely natural, not being able to be any other kind) in citizenship. Just what you'd want in the person entrusted with the authority to wield the presidential levers of power; a person with presumed undivided loyalty to the Republic.

Nominating an ineligible candidate on the GOP ticket is just about the only thing that will make me vote 3rd party. And if I do, it won't be for a candidate that shrugs off the foregoing exercise in basic logic.

106 posted on 04/02/2012 2:18:05 AM PDT by Flotsam_Jetsome (If not you, who? If not now, when?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk

TREASON!


107 posted on 04/02/2012 3:05:34 AM PDT by Godebert (NO PERSON EXCEPT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: LibFreeUSA
Al Sharpton just lost his cachet with the NAACP ~ (bet most folks here missed that one eh!) ~ which means there'll be a vacancy at MSNBC ~ Ann could go there quite easily after her showing this year, and bring in David Brock for interviews every evening.

It'd be the kind of show that'd have you hungering for that former NY Governor and that woman, good ol' what's her name!

108 posted on 04/02/2012 6:12:42 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: theBuckwheat
While I like Rubio a lot, he is NOT natural born.

Thank you. Why did it take 18 posts to get this said?
Have we still not learned to pay attention to the Constitution, even here on FR?

109 posted on 04/02/2012 6:16:37 AM PDT by TexasVoter (No Constitution? No Union!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk

It’s amazing the clarity that a glimpse of our own mortality brings.

Prayers up.


110 posted on 04/02/2012 7:34:54 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (You can be a Romney Republican or you can be a conservative. You can't be both. Pick one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Godebert
No, you won't be charged with treason for pressing your embarrassing armchair "constitutionalist" imagined theories before the courts. Humiliated by the judicial response? Certainly! Charged with treason? Puhleeze!

The specificity of your argument is far more eloquent proof of how badly you would be hammered in the court system than anything I would feel moved to spend precious time composing in responding to you.

I spent 25 years practicing law, including constitutional law before retiring. I am betting you have not spent a day as a lawyer. OK, contact this Attorney D'Onofrio, hire him, spend your hard-earned money on his fantasies and watch him go down in flames. Has he EVER tested his own fantasies in court on the subject? IF he is still practicing and has ever been competent, he KNOWS he will not be charged with treason although he may be financially sanctioned for bringing a frivolous lawsuit under federal court rules. Best he embarrass himself in some state court which would be more charitable to him unless he insists on ignoring all the rulings on the subject that have already been entered by courts state and federal after losing a few of his own.

REST WELL!!!!

111 posted on 04/02/2012 10:32:32 AM PDT by BlackElk ( Dean of Discipline ,Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Society. Burn 'em Bright!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Did Ann say something? LALALALALALALALALA


112 posted on 04/02/2012 10:43:00 AM PDT by bmwcyle (I am ready to serve Jesus on Earth because the GOP failed again)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Flotsam_Jetsome; Godebert; TexasVoter
See #s 101 and 111.

1. Let's flesh out your opinion.

2. Senator John McCain was born of American parents in Panama when his distinguished father was in a substantial command position in the US Navy. I believe he was later the head of naval operations for the Vietnam War when the senator, in his youth, was shot down as a naval aviator over North Vietnam and wound up being badly injured and taken to the "Hanoi Hilton" prison. Was John McCain a "natural born citizen" when he ran for POTUS in 2008 or at any time in his life? If so, why? If not, why not?

2. Mitt Romney's great grandfather apparently fled Utah for Mexico when Utah Territory, as a condition of admission to the United States, outlawed polygamy. Romney's great grandfather reportedly had four wives at the time. Assume that he fled to Mexico not only to avoid criminal prosecution for polygamy which had previously been quite legal in Utah Territory, but also to reject what he reharded as the USA and the Utah Territory infringing on his religious "right" and that of his four wives to be a polygamist and intended to renounce his citizenship when he moved to a Mormon colony in Mexico with others of similar views. Mitt Romney's paternal grandfather was born in Mexico not in the USA at all. I suspect but do not know that his paternal grandmother was likely to have been born there as well and to parents either Mexican (in which case we would have heard by now) or of a Mormon family who had fled to Mexico either as polygamists or simply as Mormons offended by what was perceived as US and Utah religious discrimination. If one assumes the foregoing, was George Romney, Mitt's father, a natural born citizen? Is there any evidence that he or anyone in his family line (and according to your theory both maternal and paternal ancestors) had regularized any alleged citizenship in the US? When? Where? Before or after Mitt was born? I will stipulate that Mitt's mother was a natural born American citizen according to your apparent standards. Does her citizenship plus Mitt's birth in Michigan suffice to make him a "natural born citizen?" Even if his father was, for whatever reason, NOT a natural born citizen or not a citizen? This issue arose in 1968 when George Romney ran for the GOP POTUS nomination but no one bothered to DO anything about it because George Romney was going to get his ass kicked for making such a fool of himself claiming to have been "brainwashed" into supporting the VietNam War after figuring out that he would get little credit for supporting the war when contesting Nixon (flip-flopping with outrageously empty-headed and not credible rationalizations is an old Romney family tradition). Short question under that complicated history, is Mitt Romney eligible as a "natural born citizen" to run for POTUS? If so, why? If not, why not?

3. A man is in the US military and fought for our country in the VietNam War. His family history is such that his natural born citizenship is based upon BOTH of his parents being natural born citizens and both being descended from families going all the way back to George Washington's officer corps and even those ancestors were born within the thirteen (really fourteen since Connecticut consists of the colonies of Connecticut and of New Haven). While in South VietNam, he meets and falls hopelessly in love with an astounding young VietNamese woman, marries her, brings her back to the USA to reside permanently (and joyously) with him. Before her citizenship is final, their first child is born in, say, Kansas. Is that child a "natural born citizen?" If so, why? If not, why not?

4. Same situation as #3 but that child is born in VietNam and those parents are legally married there prior to the birth. Mom returns to Kansas in 1975 as the Reds take over the South? Is that child a "natural born citizen?" If so, why, If not, why not?

Recognize that these questions seek your opinions but also your reasoning. For the latter, something more substantial is needed than that you REALLY, REALLY want your personal definition of "natural born citizen" to be the law just because it makes sense to you personally and to others who understandably despise Obama and want him gone. Courts require proof and preferably some legal precedent. As to these questions, Minor vs. Happersett is generally silent, deals with entirely other issues, gives mere lip service in the form of non-precedential dicta to even the qualifications of a woman differently situated might have successful access to federal courts to force Missouri to allow her to vote in its elections after she moved there, based on what one of you called "the gold standard" of two American parents and birth in Virginia (or any other state of the USA). The decision does NOT address anyone with only one citizen parent (or none) or who was born elsewhere since no such person was a party before the court.

Emotional "outbursts" are not arguments and are no substitute for the real thing. As someone once observed of a particularly silly position, the proponent's "argument" could be accurately summarized as "Shut up!" she argued. If there is nothing other than Minor vs. Happersett (1874 no less) for you to rely on, then it would seem likely that the matters of George Romney, Mitt Romney, John McCain, AND Obozo would be cases of "first impression," i.e. virgin issues never decided by our courts previously and quite ripe to be decided. Yet every case brought against Obozo's qualifications have foundered and been dismissed by the courts or lost by the petitioners just as Mrs. Minor (for entirely different reasons) lost her case.

Your collective definition of "natural born citizen" does not hold water (at least not yet) and has no apparent precedent. Of course, SCOTUS handed down Roe vs. Wade in 1973 and has kept it on life support ever since, so, who knows? Nonetheless, I suspect not. If you disagree, hire this Attorney D'Onofrio. It will be cheaper if yo pool your resources to do so. Whatever you do, don't agree to pay his fines for frivolous lawsuits in federal court when he loses. The courts have entertained literally dozens of these suits and rejected them by decision or dismissal in every case I am aware of. Eventually the judges tire of wasting scarce judicial time on such repetitive bad claims and fine those responsible (particularly the offending attorneys).

113 posted on 04/02/2012 12:01:41 PM PDT by BlackElk ( Dean of Discipline ,Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Society. Burn 'em Bright!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
=============================================
=============================================

Before things get beyond the point of no return, I'd like to see the following documents made officially public for Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, and Rubio....

a. Certified copy of candidate's long-form birth certificate proving birth on U.S. soil.

b. Certified copies of documents showing U.S. citizenship of BOTH of the candidate's parents at time of candidate's birth and birth certificates of each.

Is this too much to ask?

=============================================
=============================================

114 posted on 04/02/2012 12:02:53 PM PDT by Scooter100 ("Now that the fog has lifted, I still can't find my pipe". --- S. Holmes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexasVoter

“Why did it take 18 posts to get this said? “

Great question. Perhaps this is a lesson in human nature that conservatives are just as vulnerable as liberals to the passion of the moment. The difference is that conservatives generally recognize the rules quickly, while liberals never will.


115 posted on 04/02/2012 2:27:01 PM PDT by theBuckwheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk; Flotsam_Jetsome; Godebert; Scooter100

You ask big questions, BlackElk.
That’s okay; only little answers are required.

see #114 (with thanks and a tip of the hat to Scooter100)

My definition of NBC (both soil & blood, to be succinct) does not matter one whit. The Supreme Court owes us all a definition that is clear and in keeping with the Framer’s intent.

All candidates for any public office should have to show their bona fides, the same as anyone opening a checking account, getting a driver’s license, or joining a little league team.

Rubio seems like a no-brainer - parents were nto citi=zens when he was born.
McCain, as far as I can tell - not eligibile - born on Panamanian soil.
Romney, depends on if his parents were citizens under US law when he was born; probably should be decided by a court.

At issue is not whose opinion here will ultimately prevail so someone earns “I told you so” rights. What really matters is that our gov’t is ignoring legitimate grievances by earnest citizens about perceived violations of a national security provision of the Constitution. PERIOD


116 posted on 04/02/2012 4:00:58 PM PDT by TexasVoter (No Constitution? No Union!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk; EternalVigilance; Flotsam_Jetsome; tomdavidd; Freeper; Gvl_M3; Berlin_Freeper; ...
Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Check out # 113 , also other thoughtful comments in this thread.

See # 84 about Eternal Vigilance, who has been on the ping list from the git-go. ... Nice.

Great recommendation.

Thanks, Flotsam_Jetsome.

117 posted on 04/02/2012 5:15:05 PM PDT by LucyT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Scooter100; TexasVoter
With no clear support in the text of the constitution itself (other than eccentric resentful definitions of "natural born citizen" which are those of the critics and not at all in the text) and without any relevant court decisions on the subject at hand: what business have you making demands for such documents?

This is especially so since you seem to imagine that to be a natural born citizen, a person MUST be born of TWO US citizens AND be born on "US soil" which also needs definition. Are American military bases "US soil?" Are American diplomatic facilities "US soil?" If there are birth complications requiring hospitalization for such personnel on foreign soil but near where they are stationed, is the child denied "natural born citizen" status by the accident of the medical condition of his American citizen mother at his birth who is married to his American citizen father?

Texas Voter seems to imagine that McCain's birth to a father serving in the United States Navy in a substantial capacity outside the country at American Naval Base and who somehow failed and neglected to send his American citizen wife back to "US soil" to ensure that Senator McQueeg would satisfy imagined qualifications which seem closely related to the much later fantasy agenda of today's border mania crowd. This, in spite of the fact that his paternal grandfather was a truly major figure in the Pacific theater of the navy in World War II. I hope that the words "thank you very much for your service" are not uttered by people who believe such nonsense as this "birther" baloney to anyone who has served abroad.

That being said, I certainly believe it would be a wonderful if each and every POTUS and VPOTUS candidate would provide each and every document you request as to self and parents so that we can fully air this "issue" and demolish it in the public square. It would appear that either that the candidates' long form birth certificate proving US birth OR documentary proof of one parent's citizenship would suffice. However, it would not put the controversy to rest. I believe that the Congress would have jurisdiction to enact a law requiring such documentation as a pre-condition of any candidacy for those two offices and each state might have jurisdiction to do likewise as a condition of the candidate being listed on any primary or general election ballot and that would include requirement that no potential delegates (in state legislation) or electors for any candidate (state or federal legislation) be listed on a ballot if such documentation is not submitted.

118 posted on 04/02/2012 5:23:48 PM PDT by BlackElk ( Dean of Discipline ,Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Society. Burn 'em Bright!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: TexasVoter; LucyT
Texas Voter:

Still seeking clear constitutional language and/or relevant and controlling court decisions which are claimed to support your opinions.

As Ronaldus Maximus used to say, there ARE simple answers just no easy ones.

"Legitimate" (from the Latin lex, legis meaning law) would be grounded in, well, law! Likewise "legitimate grievances."

"National security provisions of the constitution?????" Show me that one as well in the specific language of the constitution. I believe it provable from public documents that Obozo's buddy Bill Ayres and his wife, the former Bernardine Dohrn (whose actual name was Ohrnstein) were born respectively in Illinois and Wisconsin.

He is the son and namesake of the man who became the very wealthy and quite left-wing Chairman or CEO of Com Edison, Illinois's major supplier of consumer electricity and, among the very many valid accusations against Mr. Ayres and and even more against Ms. Dohrn, I have never heard it said that either was not legally a citizen by birth and/or parentage.

Mr. Ayres and Ms. Dohrn WERE founders of the quite criminal Weatherman faction of Students for a Democratic Society and were apparently involved in and responsible for a wide variety of quite serious crimes for which I do not believe either was ever brought to justice. Keeping the two of them out of the country and away from its officers and facilities WOULD be a matter of national security and a great improvement in that security since neither has apparently abandoned the wild-eyed and ultra-radical and ultra-violent intentions of their respective misspent youths. Check them out and I bet you will agree.

Alexander Hamilton (not a particular favorite of mine) was born out of wedlock to a British subject mother resident in the Bahamas and I believe a Scottish merchant father who also resided long enough in the Bahamas to impregnate his mother. He participated notably as an officer under Washington in the American Revolution, as the apparent chief ideologist of the Federalist Party and as one of the major proponents of the constitution. By virtue of the exception contained in Article II, paragraph 5 of the constitution he would have been eligible for the presidency. Now, Marco Rubio, for example, was apparently born in Florida to parents who were not yet citizens. He is no more a threat to "national security" than was Hamilton unless you know something I don't know. McCain is certainly an eccentric excuse for a GOP senator and candidate for POTUS but, whatever his corncucopia of drawbacks, is no national security risk just because he was born in Panama. And so forth.

What is at stake here is not my opinion or thine but the relevant words of the US constitution on eligibility and what the constitution actually says rather than what folks may wish it means. The Founders are entitled to the judicial presumption that they said what they meant and meant what they said. When we deviate from that standard as a society, we join the Elena Kagans and the Ruth Bader Ginsbergs and the Herod Blackmuns and like in regarding our constitution as being "what the judges say its is" and regarding the SCOTUS as an ongoing self-annointed constitutional convention (see Roe vs. Wade) without any need for ratification by the Congress or by the respective states.

119 posted on 04/02/2012 7:09:31 PM PDT by BlackElk ( Dean of Discipline ,Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Society. Burn 'em Bright!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: TexasVoter; LucyT
Texas Voter:

Still seeking clear constitutional language and/or relevant and controlling court decisions which are claimed to support your opinions.

As Ronaldus Maximus used to say, there ARE simple answers just no easy ones.

"Legitimate" (from the Latin lex, legis meaning law) would be grounded in, well, law! Likewise "legitimate grievances."

"National security provisions of the constitution?????" Show me that one as well in the specific language of the constitution. I believe it provable from public documents that Obozo's buddy Bill Ayres and his wife, the former Bernardine Dohrn (whose actual name was Ohrnstein) were born respectively in Illinois and Wisconsin.

He is the son and namesake of the man who became the very wealthy and quite left-wing Chairman or CEO of Com Edison, Illinois's major supplier of consumer electricity and, among the very many valid accusations against Mr. Ayres and and even more against Ms. Dohrn, I have never heard it said that either was not legally a citizen by birth and/or parentage.

Mr. Ayres and Ms. Dohrn WERE founders of the quite criminal Weatherman faction of Students for a Democratic Society and were apparently involved in and responsible for a wide variety of quite serious crimes for which I do not believe either was ever brought to justice. Keeping the two of them out of the country and away from its officers and facilities WOULD be a matter of national security and a great improvement in that security since neither has apparently abandoned the wild-eyed and ultra-radical and ultra-violent intentions of their respective misspent youths. Check them out and I bet you will agree.

Alexander Hamilton (not a particular favorite of mine) was born out of wedlock to a British subject mother resident in the Bahamas and I believe a Scottish merchant father who also resided long enough in the Bahamas to impregnate his mother. He participated notably as an officer under Washington in the American Revolution, as the apparent chief ideologist of the Federalist Party and as one of the major proponents of the constitution. By virtue of the exception contained in Article II, paragraph 5 of the constitution he would have been eligible for the presidency. Now, Marco Rubio, for example, was apparently born in Florida to parents who were not yet citizens. He is no more a threat to "national security" than was Hamilton unless you know something I don't know. McCain is certainly an eccentric excuse for a GOP senator and candidate for POTUS but, whatever his corncucopia of drawbacks, is no national security risk just because he was born in Panama. And so forth.

What is at stake here is not my opinion or thine but the relevant words of the US constitution on eligibility and what the constitution actually says rather than what folks may wish it means. The Founders are entitled to the judicial presumption that they said what they meant and meant what they said. When we deviate from that standard as a society, we join the Elena Kagans and the Ruth Bader Ginsbergs and the Herod Blackmuns and like in regarding our constitution as being "what the judges say it is" and regarding the SCOTUS as an ongoing self-annointed constitutional convention (see Roe vs. Wade) without any need for ratification by the Congress or by the respective states.

120 posted on 04/02/2012 7:11:39 PM PDT by BlackElk ( Dean of Discipline ,Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Society. Burn 'em Bright!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
Still seeking clear constitutional language and/or relevant and controlling court decisions which are claimed to support your opinions.

As I have said, my definition doesn't matter and neither does yours. I have no interest in an irrelevant exchange.

My opinion is the Supreme Court owes us a definition of NBC and Congress owes us some legislation that will require eligibility authentication and open documentation of that eligibility to challenge by any registered voter.

Again, the issue is not about what FReepers think, but the fact that our elected officials are sweeping a crucial, yet unresolved Constitutional issue under the carpet.

Everything else is for windbags obsessed with gratifying themselves.

121 posted on 04/02/2012 7:24:25 PM PDT by TexasVoter (No Constitution? No Union!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk

As far as I know, Romney, Gingrich, Santorum and Rubio have not provided thorough eligibility documents for public scrutiny. These guys better get off their tushes and do it, because voters are a whole heck of a lot smarter than they were in 2008 and will be demanding to see clear evidence. Out of the group, it’s my understanding that Romney and Rubio especially need to air out their credentials.


122 posted on 04/02/2012 7:31:53 PM PDT by Scooter100 ("Now that the fog has lifted, I still can't find my pipe". --- S. Holmes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
2. The distinction or lack thereof of McCain's father is completely irrelevant to the issue of constitutional elibibility. Likewise, Senator McCain's martial exploits or lack thereof have no bearing.

"Was John McCain a "natural born citizen" when he ran for POTUS in 2008 or at any time in his life? If so, why? If not, why not?"

Not, since he was born at a hospital in Colon. There have been attempts by members of Congress to declare the offspring of military members born overseas to be Natural Born Citizens. Why would such efforts be made at all, if these offspring are good to go already?

2.2 Romney is eligible if both of his parents were citizens at the time of his birth on US soil. The rest of your commentary regarding mormonism, polygamy etc is once again irrelevant, and as far as it goes, George Romney isn't running for President at the moment, so his eligibility is not part of the discussion except as a matter of speculation regarding whether or not the issue would have become a problem for him if he had stayed in contention longer than he did.

3. "A man is in the US military and fought for our country. . . going all the way back to George Washington's officer corps. . ."

I don't understand these repeated appeals to false authority, debts of gratitude for service to country, and emotional patriotism. The soldier's service, however valuable, and however long his NBC pedigree is, do not trump the Constitution. If his Vietnamese love isn't naturalized at the time of the child's birth, that child is not eligible to aspire to the presidency. I myself have a child who was born to a non-naturalized alien, and my child is in the same ineligible boat.

4. Same response as for #3.

"The decision does NOT address anyone with only one citizen parent (or none) or who was born elsewhere since no such person was a party before the court."

“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” “Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of the parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 168.

"Emotional 'outbursts' are not arguments and are no substitute for the real thing."

I'm sorry, I must have missed the "emotional outburst" part of my post.

"Your collective definition of "natural born citizen" does not hold water (at least not yet) and has no apparent precedent."

As another poster mentioned, SCOTUS owes us a ruling on it. "Of course, SCOTUS handed down Roe vs. Wade in 1973 and has kept it on life support ever since, so, who knows? Nonetheless, I suspect not. If you disagree, hire this Attorney D'Onofrio."

As I made no mention whatsoever of any Attorney D'Onofrio, I believe that last is what's known as an unsolicited verbal left hook.

I appreciate your having taken time to author such a lengthy post to me, but after reading and re-reading everything that you've written, I'm of the opinion that it is nevertheless merely a verbose and eloquent *shrug* vis a vis the simple logic exercise that I posited.

123 posted on 04/02/2012 8:04:29 PM PDT by Flotsam_Jetsome (If not you, who? If not now, when?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: All
What would happen if the time we spend speculating about legal theory which we have no authority to adjudicate were, instead, spent on pressuring our legislators to resolve the issues of NBC definition and the establishment of a responsible process for authenticating eligibility?
124 posted on 04/03/2012 4:26:54 AM PDT by TexasVoter (No Constitution? No Union!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk; All
@...that Obozo's mother Sideny Anne...
Well thanks for that! My understanding was that her name was Stanley Anne.
You must really be "in the know" to know what her name really was instead of what us rubes have been told her name was.
125 posted on 04/03/2012 8:24:10 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
...much less by virtue of the ancient 1874 matter of Minor vs. Happersett...
What does the age of a case have to do with anything?

Minor vs. Happersett is, BTW, not at all on point.
It doesn't have to be "all on point". Certain points made are important.

It specifically also notes that there is controversy as to whether one born in the US of foreign citizens was to be regarded as a natural born citizen or whether one born elsewhere of American citizens would be so regarded without resolving either of those questions.
I note that you don't include there that there are any problems with the definition of what a natural born citizen is in that case.

...the court did not have occasion to make any ruling whatsoever as to people with lesser qualifications than Mrs. Minor as to number of citizen parents or place of birth, but at least some credentials.
Isn't that because the court neither had, nor needed that occasion?
And you're admitting that her two citizen parents made her a natural born citizen. You're skating right on the edge without quite going over with your, IMO, very guarded statements.

What you regard as "binding" in the ancient Minor vs. Happersett matter is nothing but dicta at best.
BS! Now you're talking smack! And you qualify your statement...again!
If it's dicta then how did it make it into the syllabus? Or is it your opinion that the syllabus is wrong?

126 posted on 04/03/2012 8:44:47 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: TexasVoter
Why did it take 18 posts to get this said?
Look at the amount of time that transpired, not the number of posts.
And be sure to consider in auto-response bots.
127 posted on 04/03/2012 8:48:26 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
No, you won't be charged with treason for pressing your embarrassing armchair "constitutionalist" imagined theories before the courts.

You really are a shill, aren't you. Anything that rocks the liberal boat and there you seem to be with a seemingly rational argument...until it's dissected.
And you pretend to not recognize to whom the treason charge was being levied. You turn it around to where you imply the charge is a self accusation upon the poster instead of on the POTUS as was obviously the intent.

I spent 25 years practicing law, including constitutional law before retiring.
REALLY! Somehow I don't believe you.
Post under your real name then, it'll give you more credibility.
Anyone can be anything under a pen name/screen name.

128 posted on 04/03/2012 8:56:15 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
I spent 25 years practicing law, including constitutional law before retiring.
And let's just narrow this down just to make sure...
Are you an actual lawyer?
And if you were, were you a civilian lawyer or a military lawyer as I suspect if you were?
The "before retiring" part makes me ask that.
129 posted on 04/03/2012 9:01:08 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
You have been around here for a while. I don't remember encountering you previously. When you have something of substance to say about an actual issue, let me know. If you are posting nothing but a series of ad hominem smartass comments, you may consider yourself ignored. If you post actual substance, you may well be ignored anyway.

If you disagree with my posts here, state substantive grounds.

130 posted on 04/03/2012 10:20:07 PM PDT by BlackElk ( Dean of Discipline ,Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Society. Burn 'em Bright!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Scooter100
And Ron Paul?

Those citizens who are a "heck of a lot smarter than they were in 2008" ought to go to court then and press their claims before one of those guys (or Obozo for that matter) get elected in 2012. I have also heard claims that Santorum's dad who emigrated from Italy in about 1929 was not yet a citizen when Rick was born here in 1958 and rumors despite a long marriage producing 7 children, that he is "gay." I suspect that such claims are strictly used bull food but, hey, you never know!

131 posted on 04/03/2012 10:32:23 PM PDT by BlackElk ( Dean of Discipline ,Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Society. Burn 'em Bright!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
I don't remember encountering you previously.
Really? I remember you! Perhaps this will refresh your memory...@24

When you have something of substance to say about an actual issue, let me know.
I have and you haven't responded to what I had to say.

If you disagree with my posts here, state substantive grounds.
I did. You didn't respond to them and you went into your little sanctimonious diatribe instead.

If you post actual substance, you may well be ignored anyway.
Translation - If I can't foment an actual response I'll fill in with BS.

132 posted on 04/03/2012 10:43:24 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
Don't bother stalking me.
I guess now you'll claim I'm stalking you...again!
133 posted on 04/03/2012 10:45:34 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: TexasVoter; All
What would happen if the time we spend speculating about legal theory which we have no authority to adjudicate were, instead, spent on pressuring our legislators to resolve the issues of NBC definition and the establishment of a responsible process for authenticating eligibility?

What would happen? We will continue to get nice sounding form letters just like we've all gotten in the past saying that it's already been settled or our concerns will be taken into consideration.
And that's it.

134 posted on 04/03/2012 11:16:05 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Flotsam_Jetsome; Godebert; TexasVoter
The post you are complaining of was posted to three folks, including Godebert, who mentioned Attorney D'Onofrio by linking to his rather editorialized version of Minor vs. Happersett and D'Onofrio has, however imperfectly, at least researched the question at hand. It was also posted to Texas Voter. Would you seek to hire an attorney who knows nothing of the subject?

The "emotional outburst" was not yours or Texas Voter's but that of Godebert shouting in all CAPS a one-word response: TREASON! rather than actually making an argument. Treason is very specifically defined in Article III, Section 3 of the constitution. Such an allegation requires a factual basis for the charge as specified in Article III, Section 3.

In reviewing the situation, it is obvious to me that by lumping three of you together because you have similar views as to the meaning of "natural born citizen," I have caused misunderstanding as to my references to Attorney D'Onofrio. That fault is entirely mine. I did not intend to deliver "an unsolicited verbal left hook." That left hook was aimed atone (Godebert) but managed to hit three including you. To you and Texas Voter, I acknowledge an obligation to apologize for that unintended consequence (a failing whether intended or not) and I hereby apologize to both of you (Flotsam_Jetsome and Texas Voter).

God bless you two and yours.

As you know from my previous posts on this thread, I thoroughly disagree with your answers. I do note that you have the integrity to provide those answers and the confidence to frankly state your position on them which differentiates you from many here.

I would note that if the constitution requires that one eligible to serve as POTUS be a "natural born citizen" as it does and, if that term somehow requires that the person have been born in the USA of two American citizen parents, GEORGE Romney was born at Chihuahua, Mexico, on July 8, 1907 which would disqualify him as a natural born citizen under such a definition. If GEORGE was never even naturalized and therefore never became a citizen, then those who insist that both parents of GEORGE must be American citizens (for him to run for POTUS) would, if right, have additional cause for complaint. AND if George were neither born in the USA nor the child of American citizen parents, and not formally naturalized, then he was not even a citizen and MITT would not, under that theory, be a natural born citizen. I do not doubt, BTW, that Mitt's mother Lenore was a citizen of the USA.

Many wish to rely on Minor vs. Happersett but that is false reliance. A relevant issue in that matter was whether Mrs. Minor, born in Virginia of American parents, and who sought to vote in Missouri contrary to Missouri's decision to limit suffrage to male citizens, had standing to sue Missouri to vindicate that right. She was found by SCOTUS to have standing and, once that preliminary jurisdictional standing was established, proceeded to agree to hear her claim and to deny it.

One ought to place claims in an historical context. The decision in that case was rendered in 1874. Feminism was not invented in our time. Feminists were using various tactics to force suffrage rights for women, among other things. It took a World War I era constitutional amendment to make women's suffrage universal. In the mid-1870s, feminists were aroused politically by the movement to also enact legislation on a state level that would "emancipate" married women so that they, and not their husbands, would control their property and estates. The common law had generally been that a woman's independent legal ability to control her property and estate was extinguished at marriage and for its duration AND that her status as an independent person was extinguished as necessary for her to be merged legally with her husband who would then exercise all control of her property and estate. If and when she became divorced or widowed, she would again, as a femme sole, be in control of her property and estate just as single and never married adult women were.

The Minor decision references Mrs. Minor's Virginia birth and her parents' citizenship. Would anyone dispute that those three qualifications certainly qualified her as a citizen? I don't think so BUT that does not mean that all three of those facts (place of birth, father's citizenship and mother's citizenship) necessarily were required to establish her simple citizenship much less "natural born" citizenship. Simple citizenship could be obtained by naturalization by a foreign born person born to foreign citizens. Being born in the USA unless to foreign diplomatic personnel of a foreign nation would suffice for simple citizenship OR having one parent who was an American citizen at the time of one's birth. One qualification of those three would suffice for simple citizenship. Would one qualification or two of those three suffice to be a "natural born citizen?" is the actual question. I say yes. You and others say no.

The SCOTUS cannot just reach down out of the sky in the absence of a case on point before it to determine the answer to THAT specific question. I lack the financial resources to hire counsel and I am too old and too tired to get a case there on my own behalf. The status quo is not goring my ox. Further, if a court of relevant jurisdiction (preferably SCOTUS) would make that determination in such a case, I agree that it would be a worthwhile and long overdue determination on the part of SCOTUS on an issue quite likely to recur in the future.

I would add that if Mitt Romney AND Obozo were ruled ineligible as not "natural born citizens," I would rejoice and gladly button my lip on all the arguments I have made on the issue here. America's survival is that important.

Again, God bless you and yours!

135 posted on 04/04/2012 12:29:10 AM PDT by BlackElk ( Dean of Discipline ,Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Society. Burn 'em Bright!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
How about that! We have met before on FR. I had forgotten because you were so substanceless as to be entirely forgettable. So much so that I had concluded that your posts did not merit response and that you certainly have no legitimate business engaging in what amounts to cross-examination tactics.

One LAST time: Engage in substantive discussion rather than ad hominem baloney. Alternatively, evaporate. AND, for a change, you are right on ONE thing: I do claim you are stalking me as is demonstrated by the thread you have linked, this thread and, at least one other thread of April 3. Ciao!

136 posted on 04/04/2012 12:49:24 AM PDT by BlackElk ( Dean of Discipline ,Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Society. Burn 'em Bright!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
And Ron Paul?

At this point in time, Ron Paul has lost his support, so it doesn't matter where he was born or what country his parents held allegience to. He's finished.

137 posted on 04/04/2012 12:52:12 AM PDT by Scooter100 ("Now that the fog has lifted, I still can't find my pipe". --- S. Holmes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: ArrogantBustard

It seems that we have a crackup in aisles #132-134. Check the links in the first two.


138 posted on 04/04/2012 12:58:03 AM PDT by BlackElk ( Dean of Discipline ,Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Society. Burn 'em Bright!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: Scooter100

Agreed, but it would appear that Gingrich and Santorum seem likely to also be finished before long and, if it is Obozo vs. Romney, the country is likely to be finished along with them, making this discussion somewhat moot. I would be delighted to see those two excluded from the POTUS race by natural born citizen claims, if necessary. SCOTUS ought to resolve the question but SCOTUS will recess for the summer in late June or early July and not return until the first Monday in October. That is not a very promising schedule for what would normally require a lengthy process.


139 posted on 04/04/2012 1:05:34 AM PDT by BlackElk ( Dean of Discipline ,Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Society. Burn 'em Bright!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
Thank you for the thoughtful, thorough and erudite commentary. You have my honest admiration for engaging in such a manner on this often "radioactive" subject.

The Romney clan's move to Mexico and what effect it may have had on George Romney's citizenship still concerns me somewhat. Based on what I've read on the subject (which is little compared to that done by others, since I didn't even take an interest until less than a year ago, a la The Donald's brief conniptions), I believe that George Romney's parents did not renounce their US citizenship when they moved to Mexico. I also believe that George Romney, having been born in Mexico to (presumed, for argument's sake) US citizens was nevertheless born as a citizen of other than Natural Born type and was therefore ineligible to actually hold the office of the presidency, though there's nothing stopping him from throwing money away running for said office. The best term I've seen used to describe this class of citizen would be "naturalized at birth" by virtue of having at least one US citizen parent when born at any location outside of the US or its territories. If George was even this type of citizen, it would still then make Mitt eligible. If anyone on FR has information that can incontrovertibly establish George Romney's citizenship bona fides, I'd be very grateful if they could post such.

"The Minor decision references Mrs. Minor's Virginia birth and her parents' citizenship. Would anyone dispute that those three qualifications certainly qualified her as a citizen?"

Again, I'll extend the invitation to any FReepers reading this who are (likely) more knowledgeable than I am to correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that Ms. Happersett was attempting to litigate based on the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. They denied her that tactic by pointing up her Natural Born citizenship status as a reason for denying her case under the auspices of the 14th, noting that there was nothing in law guaranteeing the right of women to vote and that such had been the case prior to the 14th Amendment.

"Would one qualification or two of those three suffice to be a "natural born citizen?" is the actual question. I say yes. You and others say no."

Fare enough.

God's blessings upon you and yours also.

(I figured out that the "verbal left hook" wasn't directed to me. You have to admit that it's a pretty good line, though. . .)

140 posted on 04/04/2012 1:31:01 AM PDT by Flotsam_Jetsome (If not you, who? If not now, when?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk

My charge of TREASON was directed at you personally.


141 posted on 04/04/2012 4:01:44 AM PDT by Godebert (NO PERSON EXCEPT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
We have met before on FR.
You're so phony it's laughable.

Engage in substantive discussion rather than ad hominem baloney.
@I did. Once again for your edification...
...much less by virtue of the ancient 1874 matter of Minor vs. Happersett...
What does the age of a case have to do with anything?

And once again, just like before and as is seemingly your typical ploy, you chose to avoid answering a question instead of engaging in a substantive discussion as such discussion would prove you have a bias as well as a misunderstanding of the issue.
And since you obviously don't want to get into a substantive discussion on the aspect of dicta, as your previous reply indicates, I'll let the other question slide. You had no intention of ever backing up your assertion anyway, did you?
You'll probably ignore my question this time as well, just like you did my other, since there isn't an easy answer that doesn't torpedo your boat.

And while your words may seem flowery your own ad hominems still manage to spew forth the same recognizable putrid aroma of puddled, disease ridden diarrhea, which spills forth from within your rotting, curdled, highfaluting oral pontifications. And the silver platter upon which you serve your words doesn't decrease the stink one wit, even as it tarnishes from such corrosive elements.

BTW, I see you called in your tag team partner.
Are you always so needy of such emotional support?

142 posted on 04/04/2012 5:24:04 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: Flotsam_Jetsome; BlackElk
Thank you for the thoughtful, thorough and erudite commentary. You have my honest admiration for engaging in such a manner on this often "radioactive" subject.

Black Elk seems to follow the adage of - If you can't dazzle them with brilliance baffle them with BS...and BE piles it up high when necessary.

143 posted on 04/04/2012 5:30:23 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
It's the little things that give you away...@you MAY be able to stop...
It's not...we MAY be able to stop...
144 posted on 04/04/2012 5:40:21 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
It was George Zimmerman's fault.
145 posted on 04/04/2012 4:14:19 PM PDT by BlackElk ( Dean of Discipline ,Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Society. Burn 'em Bright!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

Maybe it was Dubya’s fault.


146 posted on 04/04/2012 4:16:34 PM PDT by BlackElk ( Dean of Discipline ,Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Society. Burn 'em Bright!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: Godebert
I NEVER would have guessed.

And your charge was soooo articulate and well-reasoned and your scholarly arguments in support of that single word charge or your emotional temper tantrum or whatever: sooooo compelling! Who knew? s/off

May your vicinity be blessed with many fine and busily patronized and ever more profitable Mexican restaurants. Many are a LOT better than Taco Bell.

147 posted on 04/04/2012 4:26:36 PM PDT by BlackElk ( Dean of Discipline ,Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Society. Burn 'em Bright!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
Maybe that one was Pope Benedict XVI's fault or John Paul II's.

Your childlike faith in the "GOP" whores and bribe collectors constituting the "GOP" party leadership in the House and Senate is truly touching. My Congressman Don Manzullo just got purged in a primary reminiscent of Romney's lavishly funded campaign of lies and distortions against Santorum. Cantor endorsed his opponent Congressman Adam Kinzinger who does not even live in the district, funded Kinzinger's campaign out of the "Young Guns" PAC with Texas money. Manzullo had a twenty-year lifetime rating and a rating in the last term (Kinzinger's only term) that was MUCH more conservative than Kinzinger's from pro-life groups, pro-family groups, probably gun owner's groups, Illinois conservative groups, American Conservative Union, etc. The trigger was Manzullo's written demand to Boehner that the Republican controlled House pass a resolution telling Obozo in no uncertain terms that there would not be any further increases in the debt limit (Obozo's election year allowance) in this term. Who is this "we?" It's the little things that give YOU away with certainty. When I wrote "you MAY be able to stop," that is precisely what I meant.

Do not imagine that this post is an indication of any less contempt for you and your tactics.

148 posted on 04/04/2012 4:46:46 PM PDT by BlackElk ( Dean of Discipline ,Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Society. Burn 'em Bright!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
Jealousy will get you nowhere.

Maybe it was Cesar Chavez's fault.

149 posted on 04/04/2012 4:49:53 PM PDT by BlackElk ( Dean of Discipline ,Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Society. Burn 'em Bright!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Popman
...because Rubio parents were born in another country...

It's not (and never has been) about where the parents were born. It's about the citizenship status of the parents at the time of the child's birth.

In today's language, Rubio would be an "anchor baby," born in the USA of non-citizen parents. His parents got their USA citizenship years after he was born.

-PJ

150 posted on 04/04/2012 4:57:12 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (If you can vote for President, then your children can run for President.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-171 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson