Posted on 10/01/2014 3:18:37 PM PDT by smoothsailing
NATIONAL REVIEW
SEPTEMBER 30, 2014 12:34 PM
God save us from self-professed "conservatives" who will announce they'll stay home on Election Day as a demonstration of their power.
Because as we all know, you become more influential in politics and government and public life by staying home and doing less.
....
Does the "I'm staying home" crowd apply this to everything in life? "I don't like the way the company is run, so I'm not going to work."
"Honey, I'm just not happy with your performance as a spouse, so I'm going to be less active in the marriage until you improve."
"Kids, I'm disappointed with your performance in school. Until you improve, I'm ignoring you."
The thing is, I wonder how often the "I'm staying home this year" crowd voted before. In fact, I wonder if they ever vote.
I don't understand the "I've never been more fearful for the future of this country, but I'm not willing to do anything about it" mentality.
Ronald Reagan is not walking through that door, folks.
...
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
But you apparently believe that (P ^ ~P) is true.
>> blind faith in your own belief is a losing strategy
>
> Not THIS one!
Ever notice that God doesn’t require BLIND faith?
In his personal ministry here on Earth, as Jesus, he used miracles to prove he was who he said.
(John 10:31-38)
The Jews took up stones again to stone him.
Jesus replied, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these are you going to stone me?”
The Jews answered, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you, but for blasphemy, because you, though only a human being, are making yourself God.”
Jesus answered, “Is it not written in your law ‘I said, you are gods’? If those to whom the word of God came were called ‘gods’—and the scripture cannot be annulled— can you say that the one whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world is blaspheming because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me. But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.”
An excellent question — there are several possibilities, but I think Blacstone would be a good place to look, this site breaks his explanation down into three possible definitions; two of which render Mr. Cruz ineligible and one the author claims renders him eligible. However, in order to do this he has to rely upon the history of English parliament expanding natural born subject
via statute — but we have a Constitution and no mere normal act of the legislature can alter the Constitution to [re]define its terms.
Aye &mash; I've taken to calling them invaders myself, as it is certainly a more apt description.
>> ...that promise saved me from the shame of voting Romney.
>
> There appears to be NO shame for those that continue to ENDORSE Romney to this day!
You are very right.
It’s why I equated their shamelessness with religious furor — and their replies were somewhat amusing.
When I was a kid a long time ago in a galaxy far ... I had a friend who one day announced he was born in China. I looked at him with amazement and said “but you don’t look Chinese.” His father was in the Navy and stationed in China with his mother when he was born.
I tend to look at such situations and ask, what would our founders say to express their intent about his nationality? Is he a natural born American or is he Chinese? Is there any reason his innate loyalty (if there is such a thing) to the United States is compromised by his birth in China? We have plenty of “native born citizens” who are despicable people that have no loyalty whatsoever to the constitution or this country and would see all us enslaved to government.
Legalistic acrobatics may be interesting but are they honest in fathoming the original intent and purpose of the law, or employed on a situational basis? Is a baby born of American parents not an American? Or of one parent, unless that parent has renounced their citizenship?
I see your point; while the Natural Born Citizen requirement cannot guarantee loyalty (human nature itself proves this), it is the codification of a nationalistic sense in that it is utterly stupid to think that loyal to America and her people
is a quality found in any great proportion in the general world population — that is, by reducing the population they greatly increase the probability that quality exists in any particular candidate. (If it was just citizen
than Pedro, who gets naturalized the week before his inauguration, would be perfectly eligible… but the founders were concerned with exactly that sort of situation, and so headed it off by requiring the President to be a Natural Born Citizen [or a citizen at the time the Constitution was adopted].)
Another point to consider is this: the NWO-types must abolish all forms of nationalism in order to institute their one-world government, as such America's NBC-requirement is a thorn in their side (so long as America is a significant power) and weakening that qualification serves their interests. — Make no mistake, the NWO-types are enemies of the US.
Son of a gun, this thread is still getting replies! LOL, I’ve created the immortal thread! B^)
That’s nothing. The Noah movie earlier this year (anyone remember it?) got at least 50 different THREADS!
Noah.
HA! (couldn't resist)
B^)
In their wisdom the founding fathers deliberately made the requirement to be president minimal.
For the same reason a doctor has to meet requirements to be licensed, it doesn’t mean he will be a good doctor, if you have no requirements at all, then you have chaos.
Only three requirements the be president, you can argue any of the requirements are unreasonable, but eliminating any or all does not guarantee you won’t wind up with an obama, who would be hard pressed to meet the requirements most people would expect to have for carnival ticket taker.
To get to the root of our current situation, as I have comment numerous times, we have to look at “We The People”, we are where we are, because “We The People” have neglected our responsibility to overthrow our corrupt, lawless, unconstitutional, criminal government and IMO until we do that the only thing that will change is the faces. We may get some limited relief from a new face, but the corruption is too deeply embedded, the fabric of our government is now communism, and those who would restore a Free Republic are a decaying fringe, short of God’s direct intervention, nothing but a revolution will restore our Constitutional Free Republic, I know it sounds extreme and many will disagree, but the reality has been staring us in face for far too long and “We The People” have failed to rise to the occasion, not just in the immediate, but for many, many years past.
Ben Franklin said “we have given you a republic, if you can keep it” we have not kept it, for all intents and purposes “We The People” have let it slip away, for nothing more than convenience, it just has not been convenient to rise up; and it appears it shall always be.
Fiberal Phlegmocrats, since the end of the Reagan administration, have slowly killed us with incrementalism. They have bided their time, asked for a mile, gotten and inch and have done it over and over again, putting us in the position we find ourselves now as a country. I am curious why conservatives do not engage in the same politics. What is blatantly obvious is we are simply not going to get the home run. We have to pick our spots and move things the other direction and we must have patience. Staying home is no expression of power. It is surrender. There will be no perfect conservative to save the day and that includes some of the favorites of this board, such as Cruz.
Reversing the damage done by out of control fiberalism will take at least a generation, but only if we as a group are willing to chip away at the damage over years rather than looking for something overnight.
Yet we can trust a British jurist who defined it, as you say, several different ways?
RE Circular Firing Squad:
Ain’t nuthin’ that a well-placed “STFU!” and a giant middle finger won’t solve, brother SOL...
>> but we have a Constitution and no mere normal act of the legislature can alter the Constitution to [re]define its terms.
>
> Yet we can trust a British jurist who defined it, as you say, several different ways?
I didn’t say that he was the definitive source, but he was honest enough to show the changes explicitly and give some reasonable explanation — I’m not saying that we should accept one of the definitions he presents w/o question, merely that his explanation is a good place to look as he lived from 1723 to 1780 and was well respected ( See the paragraphs immediately preceding the Death section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Blackstone ) even in America (presumably by the founding fathers) because his commentaries on the law sold out so quickly.
Indeed, and that is all the more reason to see to it that the requirements are not loosened by re-defining [or completely ignoring] the natural born citizen clause.
I suggest we stick with the Constitution itself. The Constitution identifies two forms of citizenship; natural born and naturalized. If you’re not one then you’re the other, and Cruz isn’t naturalized.
Naturalized is anything done by statute, the item cited for his citizenship would be a statute [ex this statute]; therefore, it could well be that he was naturalized at birth.
Naturalized is the process of turning a non-citizen into a citizen. Since Cruz did not need to go through that process then he's not naturalized. Which makes him natural-born.
That process is accomplished via statute, the statute can cover births — as congress only has power over a uniform rule of naturalization
then such people who gain their citizenship at birth are naturalized citizens, not Natural Born Citizens.
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.