Alan West. The next POTUS?

[Guest ThePunisher]

Cruz has already renounced his Canadian citizenship so it wouldn't be a hindering factor if he chooses to run which I believe he will. The Hispanic hopeful Rubio shot his self in the foot with his immigration stance. If we can gain a lot of new TeaParty seats in Congress in 2014 then maybe we can have hope of electing a good conservative candidate in 2016. I believe there will be a lot of people reversing course on voting democrat by 2016. People are getting tired of this commie s### in America.

[Oh Shoot]

You all are ascribing much to much to some sort of conservative shift in this country.

 

Only a near catastrophic breakdown to where most everyone feels the pain will give a true conservative like Cruz, West, or Rand Paul even an outside chance. And Paul has none at all even then, he's just too "weird" in personal mannerisms. A different weird than his Dad, but still weird to the mainstream.

 

Actually, I'll be shocked if any of them even get the nomination.

 

I'll be be even more shocked if Hildebeest doesn't win going away. If she doesn't it may well be because most all of us may unfortunately have more pressing concerns than an election -- and almost certainly it would have to get that bad for a true conservative to be elected.

 

- OS

Edited September 24, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[tartanphantom]

I like him but his recent defeat is not a good sign.  It was darn close, so maybe... but still not a good sign.

 

Yes, Obamacare should be embraced fully and allowed to fail on its own merits now.  Dirty tricks like refusing to fund it looks childish or worse.   A %  based funding of everythign would send a damn clear message.....  once *everyone* and *all programs* get 10% of their needed budget by dividing the money in hand equally amongst those with a hand out, everyone will be mad as hell (both sides!) and maybe then the light would be seen.

 

I agree. At this point, the token attempt to "de-fund" the program is a shallow exercise in futility. At best, it would take 67 strong votes in the Senate-- because a presidential veto of ANY bill de-funding Obamacare is inevitable. Sorry folks, but hell will freeze over before 21 Senate Democrats vote for any sort of de-funding mechanism. If the strategy is to simply call them out by "putting their vote on record", that's pretty futile too. Low-info voters have very little to virtually no memory of anything political that is more than one week old.

In this particular case, Republicans taking a stand on principle have already lost. It's better to let this fiasco play out... even if the results are a replay of Greece-- at least maybe THAT will get their attention.

 

The Republican leadership in both congressional houses is almost devoid of any sense of politcal strategy-- much less any perception of the will of the unwashed masses.

 

 

Regarding the original topic, as much as I like Alan West and would vote for him in a heartbeat, The MSM will do their level best to not only controversialize the "retirement" issue, but they will also do their utmost to portray him as an "Uncle Tom."

 

It's the "Clarence Thomas" strategy.

Edited September 24, 2013 by tartanphantom

[Guest TankerHC]

Doesn't matter. He is still not Constutionally eligible. He knows it, which is why he renounced that citizenship to begin with and filed a month ago under the same rule as Obama, the McCain ruling. Which isn't a ruling at all but a Constitutional amendment by Congressional fiat. If the Constitutional requirements for running the Country can be written off as a technicality, so can everything else.
Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk 2

[Guest ThePunisher]

The two most pressing concerns for people by 2016 will be jobs to put food on the table and sky high premiums and costs for healthcare. If the median drop of income is $4,500 to $5,000 now from 5 years ago, what will it be by 2016. You start affecting people's pocketbooks especially the ones that have to work, then they start thinking this fundamental changing of America is not working out so well for them. Evidence of economic factors playing a role in presidential elections need not look any further than 1980 after 4 years of Jimmy Carter's Double Digit Everything Economics. The economy and Obamacare/HillaryCare and reversing communism in America will be on everybody's minds when voting in 2016.

[Guest TankerHC]

That foot is already in the door. I want that door slammed shut.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk 2

[tartanphantom]

The two most pressing concerns for people by 2016 will be jobs to put food on the table and sky high premiums and costs for healthcare. If the median drop of income is $4,500 to $5,000 now from 5 years ago, what will it be by 2016. You start affecting people's pocketbooks especially the ones that have to work, then they start thinking this fundamental changing of America is not working out so well for them. Evidence of economic factors playing a role in presidential elections need not look any further than 1980 after 4 years of Jimmy Carter's Double Digit Everything Economics. The economy and Obamacare/HillaryCare and reversing communism in America will be on everybody's minds when voting in 2016.

 

 

I doubt it-- a similar scenario has been going on for years in the state of California, and it doesn't matter anymore. The inmates are already running the asylum. It's a different scenario from the 1980 election, when most folks still had some notion of common sense and hadn't been "bought" by some form of government largess.

Edited September 24, 2013 by tartanphantom

[Guest 6.8 AR]

If you mean a shallow exercise in futility doesn't expose the pols for what they are, then they shouldn't do this. It must be

more pomp and circumstance, eh? I just heard that a Tea Party leader just said his party doesn't need to support McConnell

after his tactics of ridiculing a fellow Republican(Cruz). It got my attention. I happen to agree with the Tea Party, completely.

 

Cruz had to do this. It's consistent with everything he's done since being in the senate. Cruz is setting the course for a new

party to come out of the ashes of the Republican Party. He exposed every Republican for what they are, and the ones who

went against him will eventually pay the price. That is, if the voters actually stand up and be counted, rather than not

participating.

[Guest TankerHC]

They can controversialise the issue of his retirement. One comparison between West risking his career to protect his troops vs Obama and Clinton allowing 4 Americans to die in Libya will be a positive. I look forward to it.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk 2

[tartanphantom]

If you mean a shallow exercise in futility doesn't expose the pols for what they are, then they shouldn't do this. It must be

more pomp and circumstance, eh? I just heard that a Tea Party leader just said his party doesn't need to support McConnell

after his tactics of ridiculing a fellow Republican(Cruz). It got my attention. I happen to agree with the Tea Party, completely.

 

Cruz had to do this. It's consistent with everything he's done since being in the senate. Cruz is setting the course for a new

party to come out of the ashes of the Republican Party. He exposed every Republican for what they are, and the ones who

went against him will eventually pay the price. That is, if the voters actually stand up and be counted, rather than not

participating.

 

No, I was referring to exposing the Democrats in a vote-- which will accomplish absolutely nothing unless 21 Dems get a brain by the end of the week. 

I DO agree with exposing the party-line RINOS... I guess that would be a small moral victory of sorts, but it ain't gonna stop the runaway train.

Edited September 24, 2013 by tartanphantom

[Guest 6.8 AR]

They didn't need 67 votes. They only needed 41 to filibuster which is what Cruz was trying to do on the vote that really mattered.

All it means now is Reid can play parliamentarian and use the rules of the senate to send a stripped bill back to the House. Now,

Reid will resort to using the 51 vote rule. That is bad. It also goes against constitutional authority, if anyone cares, any more.

 

Of course, if the House has it in them, they can stick to their guns. I don't know if they will. Boehner was forced into the first

round. He is a RINO, along with Cantor. They don't have much allegiance to the flag anymore, much less their own party. This

battle was well thought out and planned for by Cruz. The man was playing poker with the dogs in the picture. His own party

betrayed him.

[tartanphantom]

Boehner was forced into the first

round. He is a RINO, along with Cantor. They don't have much allegiance to the flag anymore, much less their own party. This

battle was well thought out and planned for by Cruz. The man was playing poker with the dogs in the picture. His own party

betrayed him.

 

+1

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I just realized Cruz is still on the floor. I thought by a news clip that he had already failed. Uncle Phil played the audio

that gave me the lift I needed today. Cruz, whatever his status, is an American, first, and a Hell of a speaker on the

floor of the senate. If he is getting any air time, he could singlehandedly change many Americans mind, if only they

listened.

 

Folks, this man is a first term US Senator, stepping on the toes of every progressive in both parties. That, alone, is

worth watching. He is a class act!

 

He has also brought Rubio back into the fold of Tea Partiers.

Edited September 24, 2013 by 6.8 AR

[JayC]

Under 1790's Black's Law dictionary he is not a natural born citizen...  He was 'naturalized' by an act of Congress which says that a person born to an American parent is a citizen of this country, it does not say that they are a natural born citizen.

 

More importantly is the intent of the framers and our founding fathers, the requirement that a person be a natural born citizen was to prevent people with foreign allegiances to become President...  Clearly Cruz who is not only a US citizen, but also a Canadian, and Cuban citizen as well has foreign allegiances...

 

He is the poster child of what our constitution meant to protect us from...  we must be principled in our beliefs, and that means no matter how good of a man he is, he isn't eligible to be President.

 

FWIW, I kinda keep an eye on the "natural born citizen" thing and it's far from settled for Cruz's situation. He was born a US citizen, not naturalized which is arguably the distinction.

 

In truth, it would probably have to go through the courts which would probably be something best avoided. And considering the lack of will to pursue all the irregularities in the past few elections, probably will be.

 

[bersaguy]

I think Cruz is still talking and it is being carried on C-span

[kieefer]

I think Cruz is still talking and it is being carried on C-span

http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN2/

 

Not sure how much longer I can stay up, I've got a big day tomorrow but this is like a Rush and Levin marathon.

[tnguy]

Under 1790's Black's Law dictionary he is not a natural born citizen...  He was 'naturalized' by an act of Congress which says that a person born to an American parent is a citizen of this country, it does not say that they are a natural born citizen.

 

 

The Wikipedia page seems not to agree with your point of view (Standard disclaimers about Wikipedia apply). The big issue is that the constitution itself does not define the term and since citizenship itself is an artificial concept not rooted in natural definitions, there is something of a quandry. As I say, I suspect it would have to be decided in the courts and I don't think that is a battle we are likely to see. I'll leave you with this quote from the top of the wikipedia article.

 

The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term "natural born" citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "by birth" or "at birth", either by being born "in" the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship "at birth". Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an "alien" required to go through the legal process of "naturalization" to become a U.S. citizen.^[1]

 

[JayC]

Well, lets use the wikipedia article against itself then :)

 

The current 2009 version of Black's Law: "A person born within the jurisdiction of a national government"

 

Ted Cruz doesn't meet that definition, does he?

 

But lets look a little farther back before the Obama mess to see what Black's Law said in 1891 before the progressives took over: Natural-born subject - In english law.  One born within the dominions, or rather within the allegiance, of the king of England.

 

And also from 1891 Black's Law: Naturalized Citizen - One who, being alien by birth, has received citizenship under the laws of the state or nation.

 

So then we look at the laws of Congress for guidance...  The 1790 Naturalization Act stated: "the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens"

 

But then in 1795 they changed the law to remove references to natural born citizens, and only state they are citizens of the US, which is the way the law is worded today.

 

Lets jump forward to the civil war when people were talking about slavery and citizenship for slaves and former slaves...

 

 

Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural-born citizen; but, sir, I may be allowed to say further that I deny that the Congress of the United States ever had the power, or color of power to say that any man born within the jurisdiction of the United States, not owing a foreign allegiance, is not and shall not be a citizen of the United States. Citizenship is his birthright and neither the Congress nor the States can justly or lawfully take it from him.

 

Ted Cruz wasn't born within the jurisdiction of the United States and was born to a parent that still held an allegiance to a foreign sovereignty at the time of his birth.  Ted Cruz became a "citizen" through an act of congress, if that law wasn't there then he would not be a citizen of the United States so he is a naturalized citizen, not a natural born citizen.

 

Using this same line of logic, Obama was born to inside the jurisdiction of the United States, but one of his parents still held a foreign allegiance at the time of his birth, so for that reason alone he is ineligible to be President, although there may very well be other reasons having to do with his step father that would also make him ineligible.

 

Using this same logic also precludes Rubio from being elected President since while born in the US, he was born to parents that still held allegiance to a foreign sovereignty at the time of his birth.  

 

You can't complain about one and not about the others and stay true to the facts.

 

I believe that Obama is unfit to hold office because he never was a natural born citizen...  Because of that belief I can't support Cruz for office because he also does not meet the requirements of a natural born citizen.

 

And I really like what Cruz stands for, I agree with his politics, and I like what he's trying to do in Washington...  I think it's a shame he isn't qualified to be President because I'd vote for him if he was.

 

The Wikipedia page seems not to agree with your point of view (Standard disclaimers about Wikipedia apply). The big issue is that the constitution itself does not define the term and since citizenship itself is an artificial concept not rooted in natural definitions, there is something of a quandry. As I say, I suspect it would have to be decided in the courts and I don't think that is a battle we are likely to see. I'll leave you with this quote from the top of the wikipedia article.

Edited September 25, 2013 by JayC

[tnguy]

Stuff

 

Sure. All that. But the overall information in the article leads to the indication of there being no settled legal definition of what it means to be a natural born citizen. Certainly Romney's father matched the same template as Cruz and he ran. I'm not really up for an argument about what it is or isn't and certainly, if you want to say that you should have to be born in the US to run for president, I don't have a strong argument against it. All I'm saying is that the requirement as it stands would have to be settled legally.

 

Your logic as to, for example, Obama is not without merit but does start to go out on a limb a little. And he is president so that is an indication of where things tend to lean there. I would argue that you do not bear allegiance simply because the nationality of one of your parents is not American. And how would this stand if you did not know who one of your parents was? Starting to get a bit tenuous in my opinion.

 

The differences between the 1790 and 1795 law could be important or it may not. If the clause was removed because it was considered redundant that is one thing. If it was removed because its meaning was supposed to be negated, they probably should have made that explicit. They didn't so, once more, it'll probably be for courts to decide should it go that far. Which it won't.

Edited September 25, 2013 by tnguy

[JayC]

I don't agree with the wiki article, if you want a laugh go back and reread all the pro/anti-obama stuff on the edits page...  I believe I understand what the meaning of the words 'natural born citizen' meant in the 1790's when the framers wrote the constitution and it means Cruz, Obama, Rubio, and possible McCain are ineligible to be President.  You may disagree with my understanding of historical facts, I'm not trying to convince you not to vote for Cruz, only if you have issues with Obama's issues with citizenship, then Cruz is in a much worse position.

 

And yes, being born in another country is the exactly what the framers were talking about in the Federalist papers when discussing the needs for these protections in the Constitution.  The entire point was not to have a foreign born President like what could happen in England at the time with the King.

 

You have to make up your mind for yourself, but I have issues with Obama's qualifications as a natural born citizen and therefore can't in good conscience vote for Cruz because of the exact same issue.  And trust me it hurts, because I'd like to be able to vote for the guy :)

 

Sure. All that. But the overall information in the article leads to the indication of there being no settled legal definition of what it means to be a natural born citizen. Certainly Romney's father matched the same template as Cruz and he ran. I'm not really up for an argument about what it is or isn't and certainly, if you want to say that you should have to be born in the US to run for president, I don't have a strong argument against it. All I'm saying is that the requirement as it stands would have to be settled legally.

 

Your logic as to, for example, Obama is not without merit but does start to go out on a limb a little. And he is president so that is an indication of where things tend to lean there. I would argue that you do not bear allegiance simply because the nationality of one of your parents is not American. And how would this stand if you did not know who one of your parents was? Starting to get a bit tenuous in my opinion.

 

The differences between the 1790 and 1795 law could be important or it may not. If the clause was removed because it was considered redundant that is one thing. If it was removed because its meaning was supposed to be negated, they probably should have made that explicit. They didn't so, once more, it'll probably be for courts to decide should it go that far. Which it won't.

[tnguy]

I'm not likely to be eligible to vote anyway :)

[Guest ThePunisher]

Heck, there may not even be another election.

[bersaguy]

Ok I only have a couple questions about this whole issue. If Obama did not have an American born father and an American born mother and an American born birth certificate showing that Obama was born in America could that be why he locked up any and all of his records and no one has been able to learn anything about him?  What we have been told by either the left of the Left Media in only hearsay without proof. Is it enough to take a man at his word this day in time to allow him to be the President of the United States?  How come not one person at either of the colleges he attended ever remember seeing him at either of them? The guy is a fraud pure and simple and a really bunch of simple minded people that put the man in the White House................jmho

[Guest ThePunisher]

Ok I only have a couple questions about this whole issue. If Obama did not have an American born father and an American born mother and an American born birth certificate showing that Obama was born in America could that be why he locked up any and all of his records and no one has been able to learn anything about him?  What we have been told by either the left of the Left Media in only hearsay without proof. Is it enough to take a man at his word this day in time to allow him to be the President of the United States?  How come not one person at either of the colleges he attended ever remember seeing him at either of them? The guy is a fraud pure and simple and a really bunch of simple minded people that put the man in the White House................jmho

Yep, lots of simpletons voted for this big ear simpleton.

[bersaguy]

How many folks here would like to see a debate between Alan West and Hillary Clinton raise your hands........ :wave: :wave:

How many people think Alan West would leave Hillary Clinton bleeding to death on the stage after he politely with intelligence, class and dignity cut her to ribbons raise your hands................... :wave:  :wave: