Posted on 10/29/2013 9:02:51 AM PDT by txrangerette
Jim, with all due respect, I am not nor have I ever been anti-Cruz and I do not understand why such a claim is being leveled against me.
If others here believe that I am anti-Cruz and have reported as such to you, then I submit they have misinterpreted my remarks.
And, if you are going to ban me for expressing an honest opinion, please say so.
You are picking out a few raisins and imagining that you have the whole cake. Ten minutes on Google is not a substitute for an informed viewpoint - especially when the source it gives you is Granma, the official communist news organ of the Castro regime.
You don’t know the background or the trajectory of this chapter of Cuban history. Everything Kennedy said was wrong - he was a complete ignoramous - the opposite was true - he was being fed disinformation by a left-leaning State Dept. - the men on the Cuba Desk had been over the top pro-Castro and working in collusion with him since the mid 1950s.
Since the 1930s, Cuba had been a leader in every front of modernism of Latin America - including progressive social services - the 1930s through the 1950s was the golden age of the Cuban business, literature, music, and painting. Which is one of the reasons that Cuba had a huge flow of immigration from Europe. (Oddly, the terrible Batista dictatorship did not generate flotillas of boat people escaping the island).
Furthermore, everyone in Cuba knew what you have yet to learn - that Castro and his revolutionary movement were infamous domestic terrorists - he had been arrested in 1953 for attacking an army barracks - and had had a public trial at which he had declared “History will absolve me.” There was no one in Cuba - not one person over the age of ten - who did not know this. And in 1958, Eisenhower’s own ambassador to Cuba went to Washington to warn Ike that Castro was a communist - his reward for this was to be removed from his post.
If the U.S. had sins in relation to Cuba, it was in ignoring these and other warnings to support - financially as well as politically a known communist with a public history of thuggery and terrorism.
Anyone allied with Castro’s march to power would have had to have been a thug, placing bombs in public transportation and movie theaters, kidnapping and assassinating politicians and businessmen, blowing up voting places during elections.
If you’re going to seriously claim that Ted Cruz is ineligible, then I don’t need you here. Period.
Exactly. Given to them by the Constitution.
Article I, Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power ...To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization....To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers,
I see your point, in the end, it all comes down to what we believe is right, under our own rules....mine are based in God and freedom.
Any way you look at it, the one who is best able to defend their belief will win, no matter the weapon.
LOL! 'It doesn't exist because I say it doesn't' is a pretty sad argument.
The co-author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, Mr Jacob Howard;
"Every Person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11%20
It seems the Founders as well as subsequent members of Congress thought Natural Law and Natural Rights were a bit more than an 'abstract concept'.
That’s so strange, because I live in NY where people who actually know me criticize me for being a right wing extremist.
LOL! The Founders have got to be spinning like tops by now.
How could they have ever thought we would become so ignorant of their Intent that we would one day no longer realize they constructed government the way the did PRECISELY to keep governmental edicts from affecting Inalienable Rights.
No, I don’t want to create dissension. I’m bringing you a reality check. It’s shocking to me to see members of FR behaving exactly the way the Obama-ites do: “He’s the messiah! If you question him in any way you’re bad! Go away!”
It’s creepy and pathetic.
We live in an imperfect world, and history teachs that the worst people tend to "win" on earth. Not always, of course, and sometimes what is right and what the skunks want happens to be the same thing.
"Freedom," now there is a word that invites all manner of definition.
So your argument is that JFK was an ignoramus, even though president of the USA that Ronald Reagan copied in cutting taxes, and that even though the president at first misunderstood Castro, that a teenager in Cuba under Batista wasn’t likely also to be initially swayed by a con man?
I’m old enough, kabumpo, to have lived through the presidency of Kennedy...and Eisenhower, too, for that matter, and a wee bit of Truman.
I remember our family was for Nixon. I also remember naming our new puppie Muttnik because the pa Ruskies launched Sputnik.
What is the relevance of that power in the context of who is qualified to be president? I'm of a mind that the words "natural born citizen" define a class of persons that is distinguishable from "naturalized citizens".
Unless you modify the phrase "rules of naturalization" so as to avoid that distinction, and perhaps that's what you have in mind.
As it stands, anchor babies (for example, born in the US, raised in Korea or Japan or China, or Russia) are natural born citizens by dint of being born on US soil. They can be raised as Koreans (just to pick a nation) and be eligible for the US presidency. But, Congress claims it can reverse that, I believe.
Anyway, it just feels weird that Congress can effectively amend the constitution with legislation.
What’s creepy and pathetic is attacking the guy when he’s trying to fight illegal amnesty and obamacare.
And what are you attacking him for....an office he’s not even said he’s going after that isn’t even a topic until about 2015...a few years from now.
So, why are you so “concerned” in 2013?
The constitution left “natural born citizen” virtually undefined and then gave the power of defining it to the Congress, AND gave them power to create all the laws necessary to bring about what they intended.
Very true!
Janis Joplin "Freedom's just another word for nothing less to lose"
Subjective for sure.
Say, I’m concerned this country is going the way of socialist Marxists commie bastards.
Am I a concern troll?
Why not debate and not be afraid of differing opinions?
Ever consider changing a mind with thoughtful argument versus belittling a thought?
You may be interested in this thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3083780/posts
Kabumpo was asked direct questions (including by me) and steadfastly dodged and/or refused to answer them.
The central question I put to him was that since he vociferously opposed Palin and Cruz (surprise, surprise), which candidate met his impossibly high standards for President ? He, of course, wouldn’t answer. Classic concern troll.
Post #318. There’s no debating concern and anti-Cruz birther trolls.
No, you're missing the point all together. The issue is not whether or not I am right or wrong. The issue is that we are now living in a post constitutional America.
People cannot be picking and choosing which parts of the US Constitution is valid (based on their agenda)and which parts are not. When this happens the whole document is taken with a grain of salt.
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.