Posted on 01/27/2016 12:51:33 AM PST by monkapotamus
Trump said he would host his own Iowa town hall to raise money for veterans and let other networks cover it. One clear sign of the gravity of tonight's development is the sense of confusion that is swirling throughout Fox. The network is split between Kelly's allies like Brit Hume and conservative anchors that are furious that Kelly - who graces the cover of Vanity Fair this month - has become the face of the network. An anchor fumed that Kelly hosted Michael Moore on her program tonight and the lefty filmmaker defended her against Trump. "That would be like Rachel Maddow laughing along with Charles Koch as he trashed Hillary Clinton!" the anchor said. One producer speculated that Fox could go "National Review" on Trump and start attacking him...
No matter how loudly GOP candidates complained about Fox's loutish politics in private, none risked taking Ailes on in public for fear of losing access to this crucial constituency - until Trump, that is. Even if Trump's boycott backfires, he's already achieved a historic victory: Exploding the myth that a Republican candidate can't openly challenge Fox.
(Excerpt) Read more at nymag.com ...
I just realized I never specified the thing Cruz claims some birthers believe. Namely, that the ONLY way to get a Natural Born Citizen is via two NBCs, whose parents were NBCs, whose parents were NBCs, etc., on out to infinity. It is a stupid, impossible claim that no real life so-called birther makes.
post 140: Excellent!
One more thing.
Several people have said that Trump is less like Reagan and more like Patton.
That remark put battle imagery in my mind whenever I try to imagine what Trump is doing.
Trump is like the American Armed forces in 1991 moving into Iraq with overwhelming force and precision. All the others, including the humpty dumpty media (Fox, NRO, all of them) are Saddam bragging about the Mother of All Battles.
Oh, they are going to get mother-battled alright... but not the way they think!
Wow! You have some great graphics!
ROTFLMAO!
You gave me the ideas — they are yours for the taking.
And, CNN will not miss the opportunity to try to regain some of their credibility by staying impartial on Trump’s brilliant move.
I’m sure MK is telling Mikey Moore, “Now that you know I’ll sell it the only thing left is to agree on how much you’ll pay” !!
Brett Hume probably pays a lot .
Being skated over is the active involvement of the google/youtube juggernaut into the political process utilizing their databases and ability to set up instant internet feedback during the debate.
A far greater threat to the republic than the sophomoric actions of Fox talking heads. Google’s offer of instant “fact checking” would/will be used by face time grabbing M. Kelly and Baier the moment received without doing their own due diligence research. Thw lure of the instant “gotcha scoop” is one they are unable to resist. In the context of silly non sequitur Q&A chaos is guaranteed for the candidates. The whole field of GOP candidates will be mown down in an instant.
Ask yourself why google/youtube [g/y] has not offered their services to the DNC whose prime candidate has an infamous record of lying.
One has only to look back on the google exec that inserted himself into the Arab Spring. Unleashed hell upon the world.
The g/y offer coming on the heels of the statements from the Davos meeting, avering that Hillary will be the next president regardless of the GOP nominee was the first shot of open warfare by the globalists. Two of the globalists flat out stated that the “kill shot” would happen during the debate.
Could be that Trump had this as his underlying concern and the greater danger. Question is why has Cruz yet grasped it. Fodder for crazy threads.
‘Art of the Deal’ is NOT ‘Roll over and play dead.’
Political fact checking needs time for the world to vet each ‘fact’.
At least twenty four hours of debate on both sides. More and longer is even better.
Then lets look at the exact text from the debate...
"I would note that the birther theories that Donald has been relying on - the more extreme ones insist that you must not only be born on U.S. soil, but have two parents born on U.S. soil."
Every word I said was true. Thank you.
I said this ---> "Cruz said that some of the more extreme birthers think that, not that he does."
So he created a class of birthers that doesn’t exist
Then you says "You can find halfwits who believe a lot of nonsensical, impossible things. What does that prove?"
Listen, I gave up on the Obama birther threads because there was people that believed all kinds of things and it wasn't worth my time to suddenly become a unpaid lawyer in the debate. Personally I would like both parents to be natural born on US soil, but that is not what is required. There is more requirement for a Congressman than for President. Cruz basically has a case like Obama had, without the mother age issue. Obama got a pass, Cruz should too. I believe my IQ is probable better than 80, but never have been tested (did score an 28 on my ACT college entrance test). Not too impressive since dad scored the highest in the state the year he took it.
“Save your lies for someone that hasn’t followed this. Cruz said that some of the more extreme birthers think that, not that he does.”
You have now falsely accused me of stating lies. You also claim to be someone “that hasn’t followed this....” Let us then look at the facts to see who is using lies. The following is the statement of Ted Cruz I referred to when I said he got caught telling lies in the debate:
[Quote, Ted Cruz]
I would note the birther theories that Donald has been relying on some of the more extreme ones insist that you must not only be born on U.S. soil, but have two parents born on U.S. soil, under that theory, not only would I be disqualified, Marco Rubio would be disqualified, Bobby Jindal would be disqualified, and interestingly enough Donald J. Trump would be disqualified, because, because Donald’s mother was born in Scotland, she was naturalized....
[Unquote]
First, Ted Cruz saw fit to insult his critics with a dismissive and ridiculing usage of the “birther” terminology; instead of answering his critics as if they were sincere and reasonable people.
Second, Ted Cruz stated “the birther theories...insist that you must...have two parents born on U.S. soil....” That statement by Ted Cruz is a lie, an impossible lie, and he is obligated by his oath as an officer of the court to know and respect the actual definition used by the Supreme court of the United States cited by those critics of Ted Cruz.
For example, one of the many sources his critics are using is the Supreme court decision: 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.”
Nowhere in that definition of a natural born citizen used by the critics of Cruz does the Supreme Court of the United Sates say a natural born citizen must have “two parents born on U.S. soil....” The Supreme Court decision only says “parents who were its citizens”, which makes no distinction between natural born citizen parents or naturalized citizen parents. The critics of Ted Cruz cited this Supreme Court decision when they challenged his eligibility, so Ted Cruz was obligated to refrain from denying the existence of that citation by misrepresenting what it says with his lie claiming two parents had to be born on U.S. soil.
Next, the Supreme Court of the United States said: 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.”
Nowhere in that definition of a natural born citizen used by the critics of Cruz does the Supreme Court of the United Sates say a natural born citizen must have “two parents born on U.S. soil....” The Supreme Court decision only says “those born in the country of parents who are citizens.”; and not “two parents born on U.S. soil....” as claimed by Ted Cruz in the debate.
Next, the Supreme Court of the United States said: Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)...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.
Nowhere in that definition of a natural born citizen used by the critics of Cruz does the Supreme Court of the United Sates say a natural born citizen must have “two parents born on U.S. soil....” The Supreme Court decision only says “Again: ‘I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen”; and not “two parents born on U.S. soil....” as claimed by Ted Cruz in the debate.
Even more to the point is the Supreme Court decision: 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....”
Nowhere in that definition of a natural born citizen used by the critics of Cruz does the Supreme Court of the United Sates say a natural born citizen must have “two parents born on U.S. soil....” On the contrary, the Supreme Court decision only says in no uncertain terms the exact opposite of Ted Cruz’s statement, “a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen....”
These above sources are evidence far beyond any reasonable or shadow of a doubt that the citations of case law from the Supreme Court of the United States being used by the critics who Ted Cruz accuses of being “more extreme birthers” do not require the parents of a natural born citizen to be born on U.S. soil as false stated by Ted Cruz in the debate. Given the fact Senator Ted Cruz is an attorney at law and an officer of the Supreme Court of the United States, he was obligated to know and respect this case law; yet he failed to do so which qualifies as a lie.
Additionally, I note the fact you made no effort whatsoever to respond to the fact it is an impossibility for the parents of a natural born citizen to always be natural born citizens themselves or to “to be born on U.S. soil” in an unbroken succession back to the first generation. At some point in time the parents had to have been born not on U.S. soil and not as natural born citizens of the U.S. If you want to deny this fact, then you only have need to diagram out how its is even possible.
Ted Cruz also lied about Donald C. Trump’s mother and her status as a naturalized U.S. citizen making him ineligible under the definition of the natural born citizen clause we are using to challenge the eligibility of the Canadian born Ted Cruz. This fact is proven by 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....”
Likewise, your accusation against me saying I wrote lies is proven to be false and a lie by the above evidence from the case law of the Supreme Court of the United States. So, are you now going to deny the express words of the Supreme Court of the United States and call it a liar too, or will you admit Ted Cruz lied in the debate?
I made a transcription of those comments made by Ted Cruz at the time of the debate. My comments and accusation that he lied are based on that transcription, the case law of the Supreme Court of the United States, and much more that I have not mentioned in Post #153. His lies are extremely egregious and irrational insofar as they appear to wrongly assume no one would notice the misdirection and falsity of his comments as he uses misplaced ridicule of his critics to deceive the audience. See Post #153 for the details.
In the over-saturated social media world of instant response via, texting, twitter, facebook, etc. the demos/mob demands immediate gratification.
Those that control the flow and direction of information have an inordinate influence on the body politic.
Cloak self rightously with the First Amendment the damage is done before its full effects are perceived. Like a data-bomb-vest with a global kill/damage radius.
I agree, I think its a total win and takes balls. But I think the fox press release was the last straw for him. The release was unbelievable and snarky toward him specifically.
Trump probably realizes that there is not much more to be gained at a debate. Skipping the debate makes a far bigger statement than any canned sound bite. All of the sound bites have been used and we are getting pretty sick of hearing them. It’s like a 9 month pregame show before the Super bowl. Too much pre-game.
Can you imagine yourself shaking hands with that fat anti-American commie-leftist slug? Without wearing asbestos gloves? She is FAR DIRTIER than the dirtiest crack whore.
Trumps mother was naturalized before he was born in America so he had two citizen parents.
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.