New Hampshire Consequences and The GOPe Road Map Moving Forward

The Conservative Treehouse ^ | 2-10-2016 | sundance

[smoothsailing]

February 10, 2016

New Hampshire Consequences and The GOPe Road Map Moving Forward

by sundance

Last night was a Donald Trump win, period. A YUGE win. For context: Donald Trump beat second place, John Kasich, by more votes (currently 51,000) than Bernie Sanders beat Hillary Clinton (currently 50,000).

A resounding victory for the vulgarian rebel alliance. Today, rejoice, dance well, be of good cheer and enjoy.

However, come sunrise we meet at the old mill, and ride south.

What does last night mean for the GOPe road map? That’s where it gets interesting.

Forget John Kasich; he is irrelevant as an individual candidate. Kasich has no organization, no structural pathway, no ballot access and is not a national candidate. However, his future endorsement of the GOPe candidate (Rubio or Bush) does bring with it his NH delegates…. but that is all.

The biggest loser is also one of our biggest loses, Governor Chris Christie. By coming in sixth, Christie has failed to make the cut for the upcoming CBS debate.

Debate Qualifications: Top three finish in Iowa, or Top five finish in New Hampshire, or top five polling nationally or in South Carolina. (link)

In addition to the debate issues and a financial hurdle, the sixth place finish essentially eliminates any path for Chris Christie. [Team Marco Rubio collectively breathe a sigh of relief.] However, with Christie gone – Jeb Bush also loses a key strategic partner for his own electoral pathway forward.

On the heels of a robotic debate performance, and with a poor fifth place New Hampshire finish, South Carolina just shifted into the MUST WIN column for Marco Rubio.

Rubio’s national strategy is dependent on building upon itself. We can expect some fireworks between camp Bush Super-PAC and camp Rubio Super-PAC over the next ten days as Rubiobot tries to ensure he regains his footing.

The CBS South Carolina debate is structurally set up to be as beneficial for Marco Rubio as the ABC New Hampshire debate was for Jeb Bush. New Hampshire was old GOPe money (Bush), South Carolina is new GOPe money (Rubio).

There’s a reason why Dana Perino lives amid her peers in South Carolina.

The FNB North Charleston GOP debate was filled with a Pro-Rubio audience, expect the same thing again with the CBS version. Remember, Paul Ryan and DC leadership approved the text of South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley’s State of the Union response speech against Donald Trump. Nikki Haley was/is lined up to be a top-tier Rubio or Bush VP pick (again, go back to the original road map).

Almost all of the DC GOPe players who are part of the South Carolina coalition will be aligned with Marco Rubio. Examples Tim Scott, Trey Gowdy et al. Lindsey Graham already endorsing Jeb Bush means all of the GOPe eggs are in the GOPe camp candidates. There will be a stacked audience in opposition to the vulgarian Trump.

Those who qualified for the debate include: Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, John Kasich and possibly/tentatively Ben Carson (depending on Carson’s polling). No more than six candidates will be in that debate – and it could possibly be five.

With Jeb’s fourth place finish in New Hampshire, ahead of Rubio, he has reasserted himself as the GOPe primary frontrunner.

If Jeb can finish stronger than Rubio in South Carolina Jeb will have the momentum he needs to begin re-establishing his argument. But that’s going to be a challenge.

To achieve his objectives, and to settle the nerves of the donor class, we can expect Jeb to attack Donald Trump in an effort to project his strength. Jeb’s only real opportunity to do this is during the debate.

The victor of the Bush -v- Rubio contest will be determined by who can project themselves (to the donor class) as the best candidate to defeat Donald Trump. Again, old money and old party teams preferring Bush, new money and modern GOPe types preferring Rubio.

The curious questioning on why Carly Fiorina continues in the race will probably intensify. But Carly’s later endorsement is not really a question – it will be either Jeb or Rubio.

South Carolina is going to be a real bloodbath ! There’s an increasing sense of desperation – and to make matters worse, Bernie Sanders is looming large over Hillary Clinton.

Remember, meet at the old mill – we ride at sunrise. !!

[kabar]

A little over the top? This country is in serious decline. Beyond the massive national debt, ballooning welfare rolls, lowest labor participation rates in 38 years, porous borders, and eviscerated military, this country's rapidly changing demographics fueled by mass immigration and minority birthrates will ensure that the Dems are the permanent majority party and the death of conservationism.

Phyllis Schlafly documented all of it in her study, How Mass (Legal) Immigration Dooms a Conservative Republican Party

When historians write about the decline and fall of the United States, they will point to the 1965 Immigration Act that caused it.

[kabar]

I never indicated he was not a citizen, he absolutely is. My contention is that he is not a natural born citizen as required by the Constitution.

And I stated that the matter has never been litigated and should be. It is not settled law despite Cruz's contention to the contrary.

The reason I asked about circumstances was because you said your child was a natural born citizen and not a naturalized citizen, while stating your child was born overseas. There is of course a difference between the naturalized citizens at birth, and natural born citizens.

You must have me confused with someone else. I never said my child was unequivocally a nature born citizen as it applies to being eligible to be President under the Constitution. I believe she is under my circumstances being an accredited diplomat stationed overseas born to two Amcit parents. But the matter has never been litigated in the courts. It should be.

Just as "anchor" babies are citizens at birth, they are not natural born citizens. Some here seem to think they also qualify as citizens who when they obtain the age of 35 are eligible to become the President.

It is not settled law. It needs to be litigated. We have 300,000 anchor babies born annually. If you look at the Laurence Tribe/Ted Olson opinion that was commissioned by the Senate in 2008 to determine if McCain was eligible, you will see that they believe birthright citizenship, i.e., jus solis, is NBC. McCain - Opinion of Laurence H. Tribe and Theodore B. Olson

Tribe/Olson also gratuitously offered the opinion that Obama was a NBC because he was born in Hawaii. FWIW: Obama's mother could not have transmitted citizenship to Obama due to the regulations at the time re her age and other factors if Obama had indeed been born overseas.

[Robert DeLong]

No, it was you. You said:

I am a retired FSO who held a consular commission. I also had a child born abroad while being posted at an Embassy. The applicable FAM reference is 7 FAM 1131.6-3 Not Citizens by "Naturalization".

Perhaps I misunderstood what you were trying to tell me, and instead interpreted as you refuting my claim that Ted Cruz is a naturalized citizen.

At any rate it is quite obvious why Laurence Tribe would claim McCain is a natural born citizen. Anything else meant he would have to admit that Obama was not a NBC as well.

It may not be settled, however, any ruling other than ruling a natural born citizen is anything other than a child born within the territorial borders of America to citizen parents is an act of subversion rising to the level of treason. Unless people on this board start realizing this fact they are aiding in the destruction of this country. And for what? Because they believe Ted Cruz is a conservative that will deliver them back their country? No proof whatsoever exists to support that belief. Ted has talked a good game, but has delivered nothing that I can point to.

[Duchess47]

...any ruling other than ruling a natural born citizen is anything other than a child born within the territorial borders of America to citizen parents is an act of subversion rising to the level of treason...

That needs to be repeated, over and over again.

[EDINVA]

Love that graphic.

[andy1954]

Actually a lot over the top.

[kabar]

Perhaps I misunderstood what you were trying to tell me, and instead interpreted as you refuting my claim that Ted Cruz is a naturalized citizen.

I am refuting your claim that Cruz is a naturalized citizen. The 7 FAM reference I provided clearly states that he is not a naturalized citizen.

At any rate it is quite obvious why Laurence Tribe would claim McCain is a natural born citizen. Anything else meant he would have to admit that Obama was not a NBC as well.

It was a joint opinion by Tribe and Olson. Again, none of this is settled law. In the 7 FAM reference I provided to you, 7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency clearly states:

a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural-born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.

b. Section 1, Article II, of the Constitution states, in relevant part that “No Person except a natural born Citizen...shall be eligible for the Office of President.”

c. The Constitution does not define "natural born". The “Act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization”, enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat. 103,104) provided that, “...the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born ... out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”

d. This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.

It may not be settled, however, any ruling other than ruling a natural born citizen is anything other than a child born within the territorial borders of America to citizen parents is an act of subversion rising to the level of treason. Unless people on this board start realizing this fact they are aiding in the destruction of this country.

It needs to be litigated. You are entitled to your opinion of what is or is not "treason," but we need a ruling from SCOTUS to clear this up once and for all. Cruz has standing and should seek a court ruling otherwise we will have another case of a person with questionable eligibility for the Presidency. The failure to properly vet Obama has set an unfortunate precedent. Many of the same people who questioned Obama's eligibility are turning a blind eye in the case of Cruz or for that matter, Rubio and Jindal who were born on US soil but not to US citizen parents.

I want a ruling period. I will accept whatever is decided. We can in the meantime, get rid of birthright citizenship, which would certainly solve any future problem with the children of illegal aliens.

[kabar]

What is over the top? Be specific.

[Stand Watch Listen]

[smoothsailing]

Grab it and put it to good use!!! 8^)

[andy1954]

Almost every point you make some of which are unavoidable. The ‘browning’ of Ameeica is going to happen. You have no way of knowing if the economy will be better under Cruz or Trump no matter how they frame it. I believe all the candidates no ‘get’ border security. And the 12 million all ready here we be treated basically the same way. Things are tough yes but can be turned around. I will take my chances with any of them.

[kabar]

Almost every point you make some of which are unavoidable.

What ones are/were unavoidable?

The ‘browning’ of America is going to happen.

Our immigration policies are what made it happen. Since 1990 we have brought in 35 million legal permanent immigrants, 87% of whom are minorities as defined by the USG. We are being colonized by the Third World. Do we really need 1.1 million legal immigrants a year at a time when we have the lowest labor participation rates in 38 years? Do you think it has any connection to the 94 million out of the workforce or that wages are declining and have been for four decades? We have a surplus of labor.

In 1970 one out of 21 was foreign born in this country; today it is less than one in 8, the highest it has been in 105 years; and within a decade it will be one in 7, the highest in our history. We had 9.7 million foreign born in 1970 and today there are 42.4 million. We have had the two highest decades of immigration in our history. By 2019 half of the children 18 and under will be minorities, and by 2043 non-Hispanic whites will be 50% of the population compared to 89% in 1970.

Immigrants and minorities vote more than two to one Dem. They favor Big Government and more services. Immigrants use welfare to a greater extent the native born. They are tearing apart our social safety net and increasing the costs to the taxpayers.

Immigrants are taking American jobs and depressing wages.

believe all the candidates no ‘get’ border security. And the 12 million all ready here we be treated basically the same way. Things are tough yes but can be turned around. I will take my chances with any of them.

You obviously still don't get it on immigration. I am talking about LEGAL IMMIGRATION. We continue to admit 1.1 million legal permanent immigrants a year along with 640,000 guest workers annually. Unless we drastically reduce legal immigration, the Dems will be the permanent majority party and the country will be destroyed economically. Demography is destiny.

Only one candidate has proposed reducing legal immigration. That is Donald Trump.

[andy1954]

Nice stats, still going to happen with or without immigration. Do you have a problem with race? I get the illegal immigration problem and I am dead set against Amnesty. I do believe there will be little difference how each of the Republicans govern. Trump and Cruz just got religion on this to win an election. I hope I am wrong but I don’t think so.

[kabar]

Nice stats, still going to happen with or without immigration.

What's going to happen with or without immigration? Demographic changes? Use of welfare? The Dems becoming the permanent majority party? The end of conservatism?

Do you have a problem with race?

No, do you? The political power base of the GOP is non-Hispanic whites, which voted 59-39 for Romney. Blacks voted 93$ for Obama along with 73% of Asians and 71% of Hispanics. We have entered the era of tribal politics and anyone discounting the importance of race in the electoral process is delusional. Dem strategists like Ruy Teixeira have said that changing the demography of the country is an electoral strategy that will transform America and make the Dems the permanent majority party. The 1965 Immigration Act changed where we get most of our immigrants from. The idea is to make America look like the rest of the world.

The 1965 Immigration Act: Anatomy of a Disaster

We are importing hundreds of thousands of future Dem voters every year. Why are the Dems so in favor of amnesty and increased immigration? Do you thing if immigrants were voting more than two to one Rep, they would sit idly by and let it happen. Phyllis Schlafly wrote a study two years ago, How Mass (Legal) Immigration Dooms a Conservative Republican Party You should read it.

I get the illegal immigration problem and I am dead set against Amnesty. I do believe there will be little difference how each of the Republicans govern. Trump and Cruz just got religion on this to win an election. I hope I am wrong but I don’t think so.

How do you define amnesty? My definition is any legislation that allows the lawbreakers to stay and work here is amnesty. Citizenship is just the cherry on top.

The political class has lied about what it would do to stop illegal immigration. I trust Trump more than Cruz to actually do something about it. FYI: Securing the border only solves part of the problem. 40% of the illegals came here legally and overstayed their visas.

Immigration, legal and illegal, has had and will continue to have a major and far-reaching impact across a broad spectrum of existential challenges that confront this nation, e.g., national security, the economy/global competitiveness, jobs, health care, taxes, energy independence, education, entitlement reform, law enforcement, social welfare programs, physical infrastructure, the environment, civil liberties, and a continued sense of national identity/shared sense of endeavor. Immigration is the defining issue of our time with enormous implications for the future of this nation and the preservation of our patrimony. Yet, seldom will you hear immigration mentioned by our political and intellectual elites in connection with solutions to these challenges

[andy1954]

You are way better informed than I am on this man. Look I agree about Trump taking this much more serious than Cruz. He is a Politician that really will do anything to get elected or even re-elected. I am not a Trump fan, so it is hard to know what to do really. I don’t trust any of them really. We have the same view of Amnesty. Enforcing our laws and making it virtually impossible to work here illegally will help, but many will still not go home and continue to have babies.

[kabar]

Legal immigration is a far bigger problem than illegal aliens. We could remove all the illegals tomorrow, but unless we reduce legal immigration the country as we know it is finished along with conservatism and the Constitution.

[andy1954]

So do you have a candidate in this fight?

[kabar]

Trump. It is time to take the temple down. He is no guarantee that anything will change, but we have tried everything else. We need a competent leader who is not beholden to special interests. And he will have to broker deals in Congress and abroad. I may not like some of them, but this country is in deep trouble. We need entitlement reform. We need to strengthen the military. We need a President who places our national interest above special interests.

Cruz is the most intelligent, articulate candidate of either party, but he lacks the interpersonal skills to be effective. And I don't think he is electable in the General election. He won't be able to make the same personal and emotional connection with the voters that Trump can. Nor is Cruz willing to get down in the mud and the blood and the beer to win against the Democrats. Trump is the street fighter who will.

[andy1954]

You might be right. I agree about Cruz. Trump seems like a time bomb to me.

[kabar]

I am sure the GOPe considers him a time bomb.