Posted on 01/18/2016 6:23:12 PM PST by Isara
Four days since the debate and everyone is still talking about non-issues like Ted Cruz’s citizenship, his loan filing error, and “New York values.”
Editor-in-Chief Mark Levin advises conservatives not to get dragged into the media’s games or campaign squabbles, because he knows “if we do not nominate a solid conservative, we’re going to lose our country.”
He reminds the American people that this election is about them—not about Donald Trump, or Marco Rubio, or Ted Cruz, and goes on to ask—especially those furthering the “stupid talk”—a very serious and humbling question:
“Do we want to save the country or not?"
Listen to the full segment here:
Levin: "I'm Sick and Tired of Stupid Talk!" (Audio)
Levin reminded listener to not forget who the real enemy is: The Democratic Party represented by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Sen. Ted Cruz was once unanimously considered a hero of conservatism, a fighter against the Establishment, only now to have his words twisted and to be cast as a foe.
Levin believes the American people don’t have to be dragged into such stupidity.
Ping
The primary issue from my perspective is not the term natural born. It's the empty headed idea that jurisdiction ends at the border or shore.
IMO, A citizen carries with him that jurisdiction in the form of allegiance and of responsibility to the country he/she considers sovereign and home.
If you think of jurisdiction in that way, then a natural born citizen who has a child entirely due to happenstance, in a foreign country, then upon return the child should be considered a natural born or of the same status as the Mother in this case. This was the view in 1790. It is the majority view today, I believe. There are other views and some use the same sources, like Vattel..
I think therefore, that the founders wanted it this way. they wanted some argument for each case, as the goal was a firewall to prevent people of foreign allegiances from abusing our laws and salting the mine with foreign influences when they matured.....
If you think about it critically, the foreign influences could occur in a domestically born child of a foreign national or naturalized citizen, just as easily as a foreign born of a American natural born, and in fact I might argue that the latter is actually less risky.
So I think the ambiguity is quite intentional and has been for 200 years.
OK....Neither literally said, nor indicated that this was their thinking.
It’s conjecture based on political bias.
BTW, I am a graduate of Brookfield East High, Brookfield Wisconsin.
My fear is that Trump can only be trusted to address the illegals and the economy. Any serious person knows that the damage being done to this country is happening on multiple fronts, many of them hidden within Congress, the judiciary and the bureaucracy. I don’t know if these things are even on Trump’s radar.
oh yeah, Mark Levin is a national treasure in my opinion, he occupies much deeper waters than some of these people can appreciate!
I am not convinced he would be effective on all his promises to the degree that his supporters believe.
He calls 'em as he sees 'em, and that upsets those who expect him to abandon his conservative principles.
“Mark is right. Come November we’ll learn that Donald Trump is just a poorly mannered Mitt Romney. The American people will see this reality.”
Exactly!
“....Our long term deadly issues are not related to deals, or pomp and circumstance. They are fundamental to the constitution and the founding, and the reason why we were created as a republic ....”
Right, and President Cruz would pick Constitutional judges, while Trump would pick judges like the ones who supported eminent domain.
He is right. Yes, he can go overboard sometimes but again, he is right. We need to stop attacking each other’s candidates. If we do not unite as one, we are going to get another 4 years of Obama. I dont particularly like Trump but if he wins the nom, he will get my vote (even though I am pretty ticked off at him right now).
He has. He criticizes all of them
Whats a “ping”?
It’s getting harder and harder to distinguish Levin from Savage.
Do we want to save the country or not?
...
No, we want to scream at and call each other names.
Don't you mean two citizens as parents (not natural born). If it were natural born, then no descendants of immigrants (and their descendants) can ever be nbC.You are right that stated that way such a rule would be unworkable, but I suppose the intent was to define something else, to which I will give the label "hyper-natural born Citizen" (or hnbC) in order to distinguish it from the de Vattel nbC type.
A hyper-natural born Citizen (hnbC) is a citizen born in-country to parents who themselves were born in-country to parents who were citizens when the hnbC's parents were born.
A "hper-natural born Citizen" would go back an extra generation of citizenship purity over an ordinary natural born Citizen. While one might argue that this would add another protective generational layer of inbred allegiance and therefore make a beneficial requirement, this concept is almost exclusively a fabrication of those who are trying to further trivialize the founders' concept of nbC (which even large numbers of conservatives nowadays seem to have already rejected).
Those conflating this new hnbC concept with the historical version are almost all supporters of Ted Cruz who are disingenuously attempting to equate his birth bona-fides with Trump's in order to trivialize the very serious nature of Cruz's deficiency in this regard.
As far as I know, no one historically has ever advocated for the hnbC concept, but since it has been brought up here, I must state that I like it and think it would be good for the republic to require presidents to be hyper-natural born Citizens and for senators to be standard natural born Citizens (but that all is just silly fantasy at this point).
Mark made a mistake becoming a rabid Cruz partisan. He'd have helped Cruz more by being fair instead. [...] No one expects anything but rabid Cruz boosting from Mark now. So he has lost the authority he could have used to help Cruz.That is a very true and insightful comment!
I think Levin must know in his heart of hearts that Cruz's citizenship issues are serious and an unacceptable defect to many conservatives (25 percent by a recent Breitbart poll), but he really, Really, REALLY likes Ted Cruz, so he suffers from cognitive dissonance and fights back with emotion-laden intolerance rather than logic (which he secretly fears would undermine his position).
Ted Cruz can win this election, but not, in my opinion, by following the course his campaign advisers have plotted for him. It worked for Obama because he is a black liberal democrat. They effectively used "racism" to quell the argument. Ted Cruz does not have that luxury. He needs to try a different tactic.Well written and I couldn't agree more. I could happily support Cruz if he would squarely face this issue by owning it and probing it immediately and completely (all the way to the SCOTUS if need be) in order to settle it once and for all for the good of the country. Of course, if he were to pursue this approach, it would be absolutely critical that he select a running mate of the highest caliber since they might well end up in his place in short order.Embrace the conundrum and signal to the People that once seated as POTUS he will use the influence the Executive Branch of government to formally request clarity be provided by the Judicial Branch of government, whether it works in his favor or not. By showing conservatives that he is willing to face potential impeachment himself in order to protect the sanctity of the Constitution, he will show he is a genuine originalist, and encourage our trust and favor. That will go along with us conservative birthers; and I believe the bulk of us will happily stand down out of respect for the gesture and anticipated final resolution.
As it is now, he recent actions (such as questioning Trump's mother's birth in Scotland in the recent debate) suggest that he is disingenuously trying to "obama-ize" the issue away and that he is a man more interested in furthering his own political ambitions than in serving the country of his birth (well, perhaps not of his birth in his case, but you know what I mean).
The 1971 SCOTUS case of Rogers v. Bellei is a serious problem for Ted Cruz. Here is a snippet of the parts that may spell disaster for the Cruz campaign:
"Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory; or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens," (emphasis mine).
Honestly, I dont think you listen to Rush or Mark at all because they’ve been leading the charge against both parties for years now. Or maybe you dont believe Constitutional conservatism is the answer?
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.