Well!
That clearly explains why they have such a crappy take on current events.
Posted on 04/26/2016 6:09:50 PM PDT by SkyPilot
RUSH should retire to his off shore opulent luxury mansion in Belize or wherever the heck his out of country "escape digs" are. He has made sure that HE is set for life, and can live off of the millions upon millions of dollars he has scammed his audience out of over the decdes schlocking everything from neck ties to tea while pretending to uphold "conservative values".
RUSH = GOPe propaganda mouthpiece.
Well!
That clearly explains why they have such a crappy take on current events.
I saw a picture of Cruz at a rally with his fat stomach sticking out of his suit waving at folks at his ILOST rally. Very sad. What will he do when he loses Indiana?
No leadership skills - make him a judge.
What will he do when he loses Indiana?
Probably continue to try and steal/bribe/buy delegates.
Trump is like the democrats from 75 years ago. The current democrats are bald faced Marxists.
America is not what it used to be. We are becoming a socialist country in all but name.
As long as there are taxes on your homestead you own nothing, you are merely a renter who pays whatever the government says you must. The time will come when you can't pay the tax then you will learn that your true property rights are merely an illusion.
Levin is an idiot.
Trump is up by hundreds of delegates and Levin thinks the race is just beginning? He’s a dunce.
Cruz is mathematically eliminated, and Levin is excited. He’s been hitting the wine bottle a bit too frequently.
“We all know that Trump will do very well tonight” in the northeastern liberal states”
Getting a little tired of hearing that BS refrain from Cruzbots.Was Trump stomping the canadian all over the South because of “liberal” support ????
No one is insulting your wife...
I thought your were a woman with your effeminate and whiny posts supporting establishment liberal talking points. Are you a gay woman?
Your statement is so true. Think of the millions upon millions of honest, hard working, American CITIZENS who have lost their homes this way, and the governments "Death Taxes" which results in nearly everything you own reverting to the almighty "State", leaving virtually nothing left as a posterity and inheritance to your rightful heirs. Unless you are part of the ruling class or one of the "elites" who are able to "game" and circumvent the system so that these "laws" don't apply to you or to your privileged extended family. Examples: Kennedy's, Cumo's, Harry Reid, the Clintons, the Kerry's... you get the picture.
America, "land of the free"... right.
Presidency as an office run by a human but a vessel for conservatism. I know Ted Cruz is ideologically the most conservative person in the race. He is a horrible leader and does not inspire.
I’ve learned a lesson this campaign season. Don’t over focus on the ideology the candidate believes in. It’s not how much the candidate knows about and believes in his heart about conservatism. It’s who bought him, whom will he be working for or owned by. Who is he forced to pay back?
Now that I know how deeply dirty the Bushes are, W is a case in point. I believe he did all the right things to be considered right of center, and I believe he is a Christian. Those things don’t matter if you will work towards an oligarchy’s elite global slavery lite cabal.
Ted Cruz’s conservatism and Christianity likewise will not be part of his governing because he is bought by the same cabal.
Think of rooting for your favorite baseball team. Don’t get caught up in the jersey and be for each player, when one seems to be throwing the game for money. Sure, he’s wearing the right jersey and playing at the right ballpark. But he is working for some other goal than to win with the team.
Levin was supposed to care about the Constitution. But since he was purchased, he doesn’t even look INTO Cruz’s eligibility situation. It takes a very big dope to hoodwink an audience like that.
When earlier this year Rush was proven a phony and a liar by the NYT and his half denial lies, that was the first thing I thought of. HE MUST HAVE ALWAYS BEEN SCAMMING HIS LOYAL AUDIENCE BECAUSE HE REFUSED TO EVER QUESTION OBAMA’S ELIGIBILITY. I really gave him the benefit of the doubt and liked him though he never said word one about it, and I would think that some of those facts are of national importance, especially that OUR PRESIDENT DOESNT PASS EVERIFY because he is using someone else’s social security number. NOT WORTH A 15 MIN SEGMENT ON A RADIO SHOW??
I am really respecting Sean Hannity more than any other talking head about now. He didn’t sign on for the nevertrump and was always fair. And during the Obama birther thing he talked about how people have been threatened for talking about it. My memory isn’t perfect about this but I believe he at least hinted he was threatened himself.
As for Mark Levin he makes a sound case for why he supports Cruz- which I agree with-It comes down to supporting the only Conservative in the race, and also that Trump will likely lose to Hillary.
If anyone thinks Trump will win easily against Hillary-Consider the fate of Mitt Romney in the last election.
Mitt had some negatives- People didn't like him, didn't like his religion exc...but he was nowhere near as antagonistic as Trump has been.
(It shocked me that people stayed home and gave Obama another 4 years after having gone through 4 years of misery and decline-But they did.)
If Trump is the nominee I see this happening all over again.
He ( Trump) has shown zero ability to unite anyone. If anything, his strongest skills seem to be causing division, anger, and strife.
These are not good qualities in a POTUS.
With that said however, as I did with Romney- I will vote for Trump in spite of my reservations, if he's the nominee. I know what Hillary will do to the country if she is president - continue to destroy it.
I'm still praying that Cruz will be our next president. We need a Constitutional Conservative to repair the damage that's been done.
See my previous post. Not only has Hannity been very fair to Trump, meaning he didn’t sign up to bash him from some unknown power, for dollars or whatever floats the boats of levin and rush, but cast your memory back to the questions surrounding Obama’s eligibility. They wouldn’t touch that subject. Hannity was the only one who did, and who discussed people being threatened if they spoke at all about it, I believe including himself somewhat obliquely as someone who was verbally threatened. I believe he also told of someone on the air in some local market who met with more than a verbal threat.
To think that my own case of Internet mesothelioma stems from having to put on my asbestos suit to defend Hannity on FR over all these years. Freepers called him less intelligent. I stood up for him a zillion times here. His right hand man contacted me to thank me once. Sean has put himself on the line being the most accessible conservative (tv, radio, daily) voice out there, he’s been a hockey bulldog for the truth. He wasn’t a chortling sarcastic Intellectual fluffing himself on the air like the guys who were apparently playing us for fools all these years. He has just been steady and loyal, a fighter you want on your team.
Rush just really broke my heart. One day yukking to us about Chuck U Schumer, the next, stuffing his mouth with Chuck at Mortons, and promising to do his bidding, never telling us who made him that he was kissing Dem butt for money or just to play with the cool kids.
That wasn’t the Rush I believed him to be, which shattered when I realized he COULD NOT LOGICALLY BE the good conservative I thought him to be. He fooled us.
months ago, I was thinking how bad it would be when Rush hung it up. Fast forward, and Rush has become a pimple on the arse of the establishment! What a shame!
2. Ironically, it was a pimple on his butt that got him out of Viet Nam. I never really liked that about him. Even John Kerry served.
Note the reference to Natural Law in the first sentence of our Declaration of Independence.
It is crystal clear that the Founding Fathers used the Natural Law definition of 'natural born Citizen' when they wrote Article II. By invoking "The Laws of Nature and Nature's God" the 56 signers of the Declaration incorporated a legal standard of freedom into the forms of government that would follow.
President John Quincy Adams, writing in 1839, looked back at the founding period and recognized the true meaning of the Declaration's reliance on the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." He observed that the American people's "charter was the Declaration of Independence. Their rights, the natural rights of mankind. Their government, such as should be instituted by the people, under the solemn mutual pledges of perpetual union, founded on the self-evident truth's proclaimed in the Declaration."
The Constitution, Vattel, and “Natural Born Citizen”: What Our Framers Knew
The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law
The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.
Neither the 14th Amendment nor Wong Kim Ark make one a Natural Born Citizen
The Harvard Law Review Article Taken Apart Piece by Piece and Utterly Destroyed
Citizenship Terms Used in the U.S. Constitution - The 5 Terms Defined & Some Legal Reference to Same
"The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776."....David Ramsay, 1789.
A Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring Character & Privileges of Citizen of U.S.-by David Ramsay-1789
The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)
The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law
The Biggest Cover-up in American History
Supreme Court cases that cite “natural born Citizen” as one born on U.S. soil to citizen parents:
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says: “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.' Again: 'I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
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 their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
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.
Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939),
Was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child's natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents' origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship "and to return to the United States to assume its duties." Not only did the court rule that she did not lose her native born Citizenship but it upheld the lower courts decision that she is a "natural born Citizen of the United States" because she was born in the USA to two naturalized U.S. Citizens.
But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg 'solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.' The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship."
The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.
Citizenship Terms Used in the U.S. Constitution - The 5 Terms Defined & Some Legal Reference to Same
"The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776."....David Ramsay, 1789.
A Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring Character & Privileges of Citizen of U.S.-by David Ramsay-1789
The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)
The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law
The Biggest Cover-up in American History
Mark Levin Attacks Birthers: Admits He Hasn't Studied Issue; Declares Canadian-Born Cruz Eligible
Not much information exists on why the Third Congress (under the lead of James Madison and the approval of George Washington) deleted "natural born" from the Naturalization Act of 1790 when it passed the Naturalization Act of 1795. There is virtually no information on the subject because they probably realized that the First Congress committed errors when it passed the Naturalization Act of 1790 and did not want to create a record of the errors.
It can be reasonably argued that Congress realized that under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress is given the power to make uniform laws on naturalization and that this power did not include the power to decide who is included or excluded from being a presidential Article II "natural born Citizen." While Congress has passed throughout United States history many statutes declaring who shall be considered nationals and citizens of the United States at birth and thereby exempting such persons from having to be naturalized under naturalization laws, at no time except by way of the short-lived "natural born" phrase in Naturalization Act of 1790 did it ever declare these persons to be "natural born Citizens."
The uniform definition of "natural born Citizen" was already provided by the law of nations and was already settled. The Framers therefore saw no need nor did they give Congress the power to tinker with that definition. Believing that Congress was highly vulnerable to foreign influence and intrigue, the Framers, who wanted to keep such influence out of the presidency, did not trust Congress when it came to who would be President, and would not have given Congress the power to decide who shall be President by allowing it to define what an Article II "natural born Citizen " is.
Additionally, the 1790 act was a naturalization act. How could a naturalization act make anyone an Article II "natural born Citizen?" After all, a "natural born Citizen" was made by nature at the time of birth and could not be so made by any law of man.
Natural Born Citizen Through the Eyes of Early Congresses
Harvard Law Review Article FAILS to Establish Ted Cruz as Natural Born Citizen
Watch: Mark Levin declares Ted Cruz a "Naturalized Citizen"
Mark Levin Attacks Birthers: Admits He Hasn't Studied Issue; Declares Canadian-Born Cruz Eligible
The settled law of the land is that the US President must be a natural born citizen, and that to be a natural born citizen, you must have been born in the United States to parents both of whom were US citizens when you were born.
You may disagree with the goal of the Constitutional Convention, and/or with the means they chose to achieve it. But it's not a technicality, not an anachronism no longer relevant in modern times, nor is it racist. Especially in modern times, it enables persons of any race or ethnic heritage to become President. And it's what the Constitution requires.
You may also disagree with binding precedent regarding the meaning of "natural born citizen" as established in Minor. But in our system, the Constitution, and the Supreme Court's interpretation of it, are the "supreme law of the land." And if one faction gets to disregard the Constitution and/or the Supreme Court because they disagree, then that sets a precedent where all other factions can do the same.
That is also true.
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.