Sunday Morning Talk Show Thread 10 February 2019

I meant to say I never knew that voter fraud was that bad.

There are very few places the Democrat Party could win in an honest election

Well done. The Senate Resolution that McCain was eligible based on the Tribe-Olson opinion was instructive as to where we are headed. Tribe-Olson included the gratuitous conclusion that Obama was also eligible.

In your opinion, Osama Bin Laden and Angela Merkel could have come to the US, delivered a child, and later have him be eligible to run for President.

I certainly agree in the case of Angela Merkel although she is a little long in the tooth. Osama Bin laden, impossible on several counts. Pick another example.

Of course, my opinion doesn't count. The Laws of the United States do count and your example is correct according to Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401] Change the law Persuade the Courts to define the clause in the Constitution There, you're done.

And, the issue will be decided by the politicians and the voters, not by the Courts. They have made it quite clear that they are staying out of this food fight.

The best thing for Trump, The Republicans, and the Country would be for Kamala Harris to be nominated by the Democrats as she can’t win. Unfortunately, that won’t happen.

The Sunday political talk shows 2/10/19

Below the FreeRepublic Sunday talk show thread link.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3726719/posts?page=1

The major talking points of the day

The border deal and, of all things, naked rich men and the National Enquirer.

FOX NEWS SUNDAY (Fox Network): Acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney; Sens. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., and (How the HELL did he get reelected???) Jon Tester, D-Mont.; Tara Westover, author of “Educated.” The panel will be Juan Williams of Fox News; Rich Lowry of National “Never Trump” Review; former Congresswoman Donna Edwards, D-Md.; and Michael Anton, former spokesman for the Trump National Security Council

Highlight of Fox News Sunday:
Mick Mulvaney, White House Chief of Staff, tells it like it is.

Link to Fox News Sunday Below:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnZwUmcsqzg

MEET THE PRESS (NBC): Mulvaney; Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo.; Rep. Adam Schitt, D-Calif. The panel will be Kimberly Atkins of WBUR, Boston Peoples re-public radio station; David Brody of CBN News and co-author of “The Faith of Donald J. Trump: A Spiritual Biography”; Markos Moulitsas, insane soyboy, founder of Daily Kos and co-founder of Vox Media; and Katy Tur(d) of NBC News and host of “MSDNC Live.”

Highlight of Meet the Press:

Schiff assures there is Russian collusion soon to be revealed

Link to Meet the Press show below:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMPxp16lGqI

FACE THE NATION (CBS): Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar; Saudi Arabian Foreign Minister Adel Al-Jubeir; Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C.; Rep. Don Beyer, D-Va.; Rep. Jennifer Wexton, D-Va.; former CBS anchor “Purple-faced rage” Bob Schieffer with a tribute to the late Rep. John Dingell (D-Berry); reports from Elizabeth Palmer in Iran and Charlie D’Agata in Syria. The panel will be Jamelle Bouie of The New York Slimes, Jonah Goldberg of National “Never Trump” Review, Ed O’Keefe of CBS News and Margaret Talev of Bloomberg News.

Highlight of Face the Nation

Saudi Adel Al-Jubier denies any complicity with the National Enquirer. What a crazy, crazy story this is.

Below the link to Face the Nation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bJmyoOthTc

THIS WEEK (ABC): Elkan Abramowitz, attorney for National Enquirer publisher David Pecker; Dan Abrams of ABC; Asha Rangappa, former New York Division FBI special agent; Alan Dershowitz, Harvard Law School professor emeritus; Rep. John Yarmuth, D-Ky.; Rep. Tom Graves, R-Ga. The panel will be Jonathan Karl of ABC; former Gov. Chris Christie, R-N.J.; Monica Crowley of Washington Times; Andrew Gillum, former Tallahassee mayor and Florida gubernatorial candidate; and Yvette Simpson, CEO of Democracy for America.

Highlight of This Week with George Stephanopolous

Jeff Bezos and penis…..no thanks. Lawyer for National Enquirer explains but still I do not understand the tumult

Link to This Week below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egUm-NpyigQ

STATE OF THE UNION (CNN): Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo.; Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn.; South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, a 2020 Democratic candidate for (who will NEVER be) president. The panel will be Congresswoman Nanette Barragán, D-Calimexico.; former Congresswoman Mia”No Trump” Love, R-Utah; Nina Turner, president of Our Revolution; and Ken Cuccinelli, former Virginia attorney general.

Highlight of State of the Union

South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg, Dem,
running for Prez. Openly gay. Says saving the planet is biggest need.

Link to State of the Union below:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_zIp2VPKsg

SUNDAY MORNING FUTURES (FNC): Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.; Rep. Tim Ryan, D-Ohio; Rep. Chuck Fleischmann, R-Tenn.; John Solomon, investigative journalist at The Hill.

Sunday Morning Futures:

Link below
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEtTR4vh6m8

From DMZFrank | 12/22/2018 2:58:29 PM PST

The SCOTUS has never directly ruled on the meaning of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the constitution with regard to POTUS eligibility. But in SCOTUS cases wherein they have given a definition of what a NBC (or a 14th amendment citizen in the case of Wong Kim Ark)is, Minor vs Haperstatt, Venus Merchantman Case of 1814) they defined an NBC as a person born of TWO, count them TWO citizen parents (the parents don’t have to be NBC) and born in one of the states of the Union, or the territories.

The authors of the 14th amendment, in the Congressional debates on the matter, also defined an NBC in the same manner. Rep. Bimgham and Senator Jacob Howard were the principal authors of the 14th amendment. Here is a quote from Howard which clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment in 1866, which was to define citizenship. He stated: “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. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.”

Until this matter is formally adjudicated by the Court, I will defer to their NBC stare decisis definitions. Harris, Obama and a host of others were not, are not, and can NEVER be constitutionally eligible to be POTUS.

Whatever one thinks what the meaning of Article II, Section 1, clause 5 is, it is clear that the adoption of the 14th amendment did not alter it in any constitutional sense. How else can you account for the fact that the constitution only specifies for the office of senator and representative citizenship for a period of 9 and 7 years respectively, while the constitution requires the POTUS, to be NATURALLY born, owing allegiance to no other country? That is the ONLY constitutional provision for NBC. Obviously, there is a singular distinction with regard to that office. Under Jamaican and Indian citizenship law, for instance, It is conceivable that Jamaica or India could claim that Kamala Harris, thru her parents, is a citizen who owes allegiance to both of those countries FROM HER BIRTH. It was conferred upon her by those countries citizenship laws, just as valid as our own.

By the way, Ted Cruz (who I admire very much) made a very public demonstration of the fact that he was going to FORMALLY renounce his CANADIAN citizenship. What NATURALLY BORN US citizen has to do such a thing?

The framers of the constitution were patriarchs. (Yes I understand that is completely out of tune with modern sensibilities, but nonetheless it is true.) They believed that the citizenship of the FATHER was conferred upon his children. SCOUTUS incorporated in toto the ENTIRE 212th paragraph of Emerich De Vattel’s Law of Nations in their 1814 Venus merchantman case as they defined what an NBC is. Here is the money quote that Justice Livingstone that was cited when he wrote for the majority, “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 the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”

I suspect the reason that many do not want this issue formally examined is that they wish to foster and enhance the globalist influence on the office of POTUS. The NBC requirement was never intended to be a guarantee of allegiance, but a safeguard against undue foreign influence on the office of POTUS, PARTICULARLY from a father owing allegiance to a foreign sovereignty. The oath of naturalization requires a formal and legal renunciation of any prior national allegiances.

Jennie Spencer-Churchill, known as Lady Randolph Churchill, was a natural born US citizen, and a British socialite, the wife of Lord Randolph Churchill and the mother of British Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill.

Under US citizenship law at the time of Churchill’s birth, despite the fact that his mother was a NATURAL BORN US citizen, she could not transmit her US citizenship on to young Winston owing to her marriage to a foreign national, Sir Randolph Spencer Churchill, who was Winston’s father. That would not be legally allowed until the passage of the Cable Act of 1922, well after Churchill’s birth in 1874. The Cable Act only confers citizenship, NOT NATURALLY BORN citizenship. It did not refer to, or alter the meaning of an Article II, Sec. 1, clause 5 “natural born citizen” in any way.

Churchill was granted HONORARY US citizenship by an act of Congress on 9 April 1963. It was understood that his birth to a an NBC citizen US mother in Great Britain did not make him a citizen by law.
This is just one more indication of the fact that Obama, Cruz, Rubio OR Harris can NEVER be constitutionally eligible to the office of POTUS. We need to have this issue finally adjudicated by SCOTUS for the first time in US history, and finally get a definitive answer one way or another.
We have enough naturally born anti-american, anti-constitutional cultural marxists in our country now who aspire to be POTUS. I say let’s eliminate all those who don’t even meet the basic Article II criteria. Winnow the opposition.

This matter is SCREAMING for a definitive ruling on the meaning of Article II, Section 1, clause 5, by the SCOTUS for the first time in the history of the US. It is revealing to note what Clarence Thomas told a House subcommittee that when it comes to determining whether a person born outside the 50 states can serve as U.S. president when he said that the high court is “evading” the issue. The comments came as part of Thomas’ testimony before a House appropriations panel discussing an increase in the Supreme Court’s budget in April of 2017. Thomas said that to Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y.

After two Obama terms, I think they are terrified of the implications of a ruling based on originalist constitutional intent and interpretation. That does not excuse the cowardice in refusing a grant of certiorari for those who wish to have SCOTUS exercise it’s Article III oversight on this matter.

IMO Harris has a good shot at winning given our demographic transformation. I heard similar things on FR about how Obama couldn't win. The Dems have won the popular vote in 6 out of the last 7 elections. Obama had the two highest vote totals in history and Hillary the third highest.

I know that the Presidency is not decided by the popular vote, but the electoral map is already stacked for the Dems. Trump will have a hard time taking PA and MI in 2020. NC is on a razor's edge along with FL.

Here is my answer. {TL/DR: is God made it; Science proves it.}

First off, I believe in God and Science.

Science is the way God gave us to understand Him.

Now having said that, it is proper to understand that God exists OUTSIDE of time and space. For time and space are part of His CREATION. What He made.

For example, when Jesus spoke of the plight of Jerusalem to come, He knew exactly what would happen as He already saw it. Time didn’t matter. Sure, his body incarnate as a man had to go through time, but his Godhead, the Father, already saw it.

When God created the universe, I am certain that He did indeed use the Big Bang.

Everything God does in His Creation is done in accordance to His rules. God established these rules, like a coder writing code, or a builder using math to build a house.

So too has God given us evidence of all that He has done, which is found in math and science. He does not deceive. He does what He does, and expects us to know by seeing.

So we have evidence, by listening to the earliest radio wave lengths, and using the Doppler effect to know if a electromagnetic wave is coming towards or away, how far things are. The earliest wave we get is the Big bang. Nothing, then noise. Further, that noise goes on as a static charge for about 400,000 years. At that time, we “hear” a wave of star noise, popping up everywhere.

Here’s how science explains this evidence we capture:

First there was the Big Bang—nothing—then EVERYTHING, and a expanding everything in existence, which was the element hydrogen, the only one present. A hot static soup of hydrogen. It took 400,000 years of time to condense much of this hydrogen into such massive “balls” of hydrogen that they stated nuclear fusion and became stars, that is suns—and millions, more or less at the same time, producing in the universe, for the first time LIGHT—photons, as part of the electromagnetic spectrum.

One of the first statements in the Bible. “God said, let there be light, and there was light.”

I do believe the science simply explains the rules of matter—gravity, sticking things together, the pressure of gravity to force hydrogen to alter it’s atomic weight through fusion, all of this, was God letting there be light.

Remember He is NOT part of or bound by time. Time is part of his creation, not Himself. Using His on rules, but taking 400,000 years to do so, makes perfect sense. You can do the math, and figuring out that eventually, enough hydrogen would coalesce to start fusion. Just a matter of time... A tool of God. A rule of God. God the builder, God the Architect God the Scientist. He made it ALL.

This explains how the universe, as we know it, and based on evidence, was created. Created, as in made, not just “formed” by nothing or no one.

So, rather than science being a contradiction of the Bible, it helps explain it. We did not know nuclear physics, or radio waves, or photons or anything of that nature when the Bible was first written, but the science can indeed explain it, if you can get past the part about the “day” being ONLY 24 hours in the Bible.

Early man could not comprehend the Creator being unbound by time.

You might want to read this:

https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/images/public_education/Reading-SCOTUS-Opinion.pdf

I have found countless threads and posts on this forum over the past 11 years who confuse the various parts of a Supreme Court decision. The most common error is to confuse the Main Opinion section with other parts of the published decision. This one is a good example.

I don’t think Hickenlooper will last long, but it’s a crowded field and a lot of the candidates may knock each other out leaving an unexpected candidate or two. I doubt Hickenlooper is one, but we’ll see. Trump could have a lot of fun with that name.

Well played!

I have given up trying to see this as having a decisive answer. I liked this posters posted I will look at your link. I know how to read court decisions, part of my job for about 15 years.

Either the supremes have to rule ir the secretaries of state have to refuse to put her on the ballot if she is the dem nominee. If she is rejected in 5 or 6 states, it will force the supremes to rule.

Good points, but winning against an incumbent President is a very tall mountain to climb. When Obama ran for President, there was no incumbent and he was a completely blank slate. His background, history, and political record was either unknown or manufactured by his supporters to tell the voters what they wanted to hear. Harris will not enjoy such an advantage. She has a record and it’s not a good one.

thanx,don’t see the relevance. The court has shirked their responsibility and they often avoid the central constitutional issue raised by the parties..

There is a little warming (in theory) from increased CO2. But there is a much stronger connection from increased temperature to increased CO2 with large increases in temperature (e.g. during the transition out of the full ice age)

AOC (AKA Alexandria Ortega-Chavez) is the opposite of the TARDIS. She’s bigger on the outside than the inside.

(Doctor Who reference—since Science Fiction was a big topic of thread today).

Completely relevant. But, you are correct about the Court shirking their responsibility. They will certainly continue to do so. Their private view is that the purpose of the Natural Born Citizen clause was intended to prevent a British subject from masquerading as an American, become President, and deliver the nation back to the King. Since that is clearly a moot issue, they don’t intend to waste their time on the question. They intend to let the voters sort it out.

The only reason anyone ever sided on the other side with McCain was because he was compromised and everybody knew it

I think the Dems will be scared to de about the march to socialism and they’ll put the camel on as vp they’ll go with the Slow Joe