RINOs Start Drive To Force Christie Down Our Throats

It's beginning, the liberal wing of the GOP who gave us John McCain and Mitt Romney are beginning their drive to give us another loser in 2016, New Jersey governor Chris  Christie (seen above showing off his new tattoo.  

Chris Christie is not the candidate to ignite the base in fact he might be the candidate to cause conservatives to form a third party.  On many issues important to conservatives such as: support for the 2nd Amendment, Obamacare, the global warming hoax, and sealing our borders before any comprehensive immigration plan Christie is more liberal than many Democrats.

According to the Newark Star Ledger, Christie is going to Utah as a featured speaker at a conference of donors and "thought leaders" the former presidential candidate is hosting in Park City, Utah.

The gathering, dubbed "Experts and Enthusiasts," will bring together bigwigs from the worlds of politics, philanthropy and policy, according to Romney adviser Beth Myers. It will be held June 6-7.


read more:

http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2013/04/uh-oh-rinos-start-drive-to-f...

Views: 931

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

while I dont feel Christie will be the candidate.  Our biggest problem once we rid ourselves of Obama is to not get stuck with another marxist such as the disaster Hillary Clinton.  Because the left mostly votes for gender, race or popularity contest, rarely for expertise or skill, we would be completely hammered with any more years of this kind of agenda.  We are suffering now with no jobs for our citizens, kids graduating.  Our house values, pensions, savings have been pummeled to hurt those in retirement and those saving for the future.  Our borders continue to stay open with millions of illegals coming as they wish, along with drug runners and gangs.  The vacant morons like Napolitano, Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Feinstein are so completely delusional that they cannot make a single decision for the American people to survive these onslaughts. So be very careful in this "3rd party, candidate" option.  Too many times it causes the likes of a Clinton, Obama to win.  Sometimes a not perfect candidate might at least hire competent dept heads, judges etc to correct the real source of problems.  Just like Obama cannot run every event or issue, he has hired those with the worse ideas and philosophy that affects our lives.  From incompetent judges like Kagen, Sotomayer, to his illegal czars and the dummies he hires in the depts...........from Napolitano, Kerry, Hegel, etc.  The objective is to remove all these cretins from any power......and you may not get the perfect candidate immediately that can win.....so an incremental improvement might be a compromise.  The Tea Party is on track for what is needed, but remember that half the population is stupid (ie 08, 12........obama) so you have to "sneak up" on them with techniques that make them believe they will be receiving what they expect.....in other words use the dem techniques, of bait and switch, deny, promise what they want etc......in order to save the country.

I don't think they'll really go with Christie.  I think he's a rat-bag pulled in to give the Overton window a jerk to the left.  Later they'll start to bring Jeb Bush closer to the limelight, and he'll seem like a regular Ronald Reagan by comparison.

We need to pound the cr*p out of the GOP establishment--Priebus, Rove, Boehner, Cantor--make it very clear to them that we see them as the enemies of America and we will bring them down.  Meanwhile, are we doing everything we can to support good candidates in the upcoming primaries so we can knock off some incumbent GOP RINO's???

Putting Ted Cruz Birtherism To Rest  Just The Facts,

and since in Erick Erickson's world, anyone who disagrees with his point of view -- and can successfully defend them -- cannot long survive at Red State; I have been summarily declared "persona non grata" at that particular website. However, I hope we can bring the contravening issues surrounding Sen Cruz's presidential eligibility, or lack there of, to a more enlightened web location so all Tea Party supporters can do what they do best: make up their own minds and judge accordingly.

 

Additionally, I have add, with his permission, Mario Apuzzo's comment regarding Erickson's attempt to circumvent his on standing rule, Rule #7, prohibiting eligibility issues from being discussed at Red State, yet breaks his on standing rule with the publication of Putting Ted Cruz Birtherism To Rest  Just The Facts.

 

Before going to Red State and actually reading this article, I feel it necessary, in the interest of saving time, to point out the basis for my conviction that, sadly; Sen Cruz is not eligible to stand for the office of the presidency of the United States if he acquires his US citizenship at birth by statute. Indeed, that is the very essence of the word: 'natural' in the idiom used in Art. II, §1, cl. 4:  natural born (US) citizen.  A natural born citizen is, by and under natural jurisdiction, a citizen without resort to positive law (man-made law). Any person who acquires their US citizen at birth by statute (positive law) is, in fact, a naturalized citizen at birth, as authorized by Congress under its naturalization powers.

 

From this point on, I will assume the reader has actually read the Red State article by somebody known only as "goldwaterconservative (Diary), who bases his/er opinion on the Naturalization Act of 1790

To come quickly to the point: the Naturalization Act of 1790 was the very first naturalization act enacted by Congress, and that this specific section addressing US citizenship of "persons born of two US citizens born beyond the Seas as natural born citizens" was changed in the very next naturalization act enacted by Congress in 1795 to simply designate..."children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States. 

The rest of both of these two naturalization acts cover the same ground, using virtually the same wording, with slight variations. However, they do provide some interesting insights into what the founders, framers and ratifiers of the US Const actually considered a "natural born" (US) citizen to be. Basically, they both rely exclusively on the residency of the "father" only. To the students of de Vattle's: The Laws of Nations, this will instantly become undeniable proof that de Vattle was, indeed, the controlling authority when it comes to defining the term "natural born citizen" by the framers of the article -- but I digress.

 

Erickson places all his hopes on Sen Cruz's eligibility on the following proviso: "Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States"... and herein lies the problem the Congress saw in their first naturalization act...allowing a "natural" born US citizen to devolve from nothing more than the father being a resident of one of the united states, which, itself could be obtained by any number of different state requirements, depending on each states legislative criteria, rather than having one single requirement of every US Citizen, even at birth under the cloak of allegiance of its father, to support and abide by the US Const. 

 

As I have said, at some point in time, I hope Sen Cruz will see the error of his ways, even if perhaps some of his more ardent supporters cannot, and step up to the plate and lead the charge in restoring our most cherished American birthright from the gutter it has been placed by our courts. If he does such a thing, I am sure he will find himself sitting on the bench of the US Supreme Court, perhaps even as its chief justice, with his head held high, secure knowledge his two daughters are Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born US citizens -- a rare gift, indeed.

 

 *   *   *

Again, with his permission, I have re-printed here Mario Apuzzo's response to Erick Erickson's Oct 19, 2014, article:

Putting Ted Cruz Birtherism To Rest Just The Facts, which he posted on his own blog at http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?postID=3651895997482884113&blo...

 

From: Mario Apuzzo, Esq. 

I just visited the blog, Red State. Red State maintains in its blog that it is a conservative blog promoting conservative principles and Republican candidates. Yet, here is a commenting standing rule at the Red State web site: 

"7. Promotion of certain theories and ideas contrary to site principles is not allowed. These ideas include, but are not limited to: . . . . Theories that Barack Obama is not eligible to the Presidency of the United States, or political movements based on that idea. Birthers must post their theories elsewhere."

Despite the Obama "natural born citizen" comment prohibition standing rule, there is an October 19, 2013 article published at the site by "goldwaterconservative," entitled, "Putting Ted Cruz Birtherism to Rest." It does seem a bit strange that the blog owner and moderators would allow this "natural born citizen" Ted Cruz article (surely much more than just a comment), but would not allow a mere comment discussing whether Barack Obama, surely not a conservative president, is a "natural born citizen." So, since "birthers" are banned from presenting their position on Red State, I will give here my brief objections to the writer's arguments and conclusion that Cruz is a "natural born citizen." 

The writer argues that Ted Cruz is a "natural born citizen" and therefore eligible to be President. Here is the writer's reasoning:

First, the writer gives a scenario showing that it is unfair not to allow foreign-born children to be eligible to be President. The point does not need much comment, for we can talk about the fairness of many provisions in our Constitution and our citizenship laws until the cows come home. 

Second, the writer tells us what the Founders', Framers', and Ratifiers' policy reasons were for their including the "natural born citizen" clause in the presidential eligibility section of the Constitution. He concedes that they had a special concern about foreign influence making its way into the office of President, citing and quoting Anti-Federalist No. 68 and Federalist No. 68. Rather than discuss what these documents said, the writer prefers to tell us what the Constitution and these papers did not say. He says that there is no mention in the Constitution or papers that someone has to be born in the United States in order to be President. Well, the writer fails to tell us that the Framers did not have to make such a statement in the Constitution or the papers because they used the word of art, "natural born citizen," which meant born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child's birth. But even more grave is that the writer does not explain how his theory that a "natural born citizen" includes a person born under the birth circumstances with which Cruz was born (born in a foreign country to a U.S. citizen mother, but a non-U.S. citizen father) does not violate those foreign-influence concerns. This is a critical omission, for any argument about the meaning of a "natural born citizen" and who is included in the definition must include a discussion of what the Founders', Framers', and Ratifiers' policy reasons were for including the clause as part of presidential eligibility. 

Third, having glossed over the policy for the "natural born citizen" clause, the writer then gives us his sources which he says prove that Cruz is a "natural born citizen." He first relies upon the First Congress's Naturalization Act of 1790 for his conclusion, saying that the act provided that children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents "shall be considered as natural born citizens." But the writer forgets to tell everyone that the Third Congress in 1795, with the aid of then-Representative James Madison and President George Washington, repealed that 1790 act and replaced it with the Naturalization Act of 1795 which, with surgical precision, said that those same children "shall be considered as citizens of the United States." Now, such treatment of those foreign-born children by the Third Congress is most telling, given that Article II says that "Citizens of the United States" were eligible to be President only if born before the adoption of the Constitution and that those born thereafter had to be "natural born Citizens." So, the Third Congress, with Madison's push and Washington's approval, in effect, said that "citizens" at birth were not necessarily "natural born citizens" and that those foreign-born children were no longer eligible to be President. So even assuming without deciding that Congress could through a naturalization act make anyone a "natural born citizen" who was not, including bestowing upon that person without constitutional amendment but rather through statute the constitutional right to be eligible to be President, and that just one U.S. citizen parent was sufficient under the act when it called for citizen "parents," we must also accept that what Congress can give it can take away. What is most telling in this connection is that Congress never again bestowed upon any person born out of the United States the birth status of a "natural born citizen." 

Fourth, the writer then goes on in his article to rely upon the the Nationality Act of 1940, which made a person born out of the United States to one or two U.S. citizen parents a "citizen of the United States" at birth. What the writer fails to tell us is that no where in this act do we find the words "natural born citizen." Rather, this act only makes persons "citizens of the United States." But we already saw that the Third Congress in 1795 decided that these children were no longer to be considered as "natural born citizens," but rather as "citizens of the United States." Since the Third Congress as early as 1795 made this specific change in the law and never used the clause "natural born citizen" again, this act simply is no basis to make Cruz a "natural born citizen." 

Cruz was not born in the United States. Hence, he cannot look to the original Constitution or the Fourteenth Amendment to make him a "citizen," let alone a "natural born citizen." He must, therefore, look for a naturalization Act of Congress for his U.S. citizenship. The double problem for Cruz is that not only does the Constitution not make him a "citizen" or a "natural born citizen," but no naturalization Act of Congress, upon which he must rely for his U.S. citizenship, makes him a "natural born citizen," even if it could which it cannot. The most grace that Congress exercised in his behalf is to make him a naturalized "citizen of the United States" at birth, a status that as early as 1795 the Third Congress inserted into its naturalization act to replace the status of "natural born citizen." What the Third Congress did says it all for Cruz. Cruz is not nor can he be a "natural born citizen." 

So, now we can more clearly see why Red State will not allow the Obama "natural born citizen" "birthers" to comment on its blog.

ex animo

davidfarrar

RSS

LIGHTER SIDE

 

Political Cartoons by Steve KelleyPolitical Cartoons by AF Branco

C o r o n a V i r u s

© 2020   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service