Posted on 01/20/2016 6:02:56 PM PST by The Truth Will Make You Free
I had the opportunity to attend the Trump rally in Tulsa today. I wanted to hear him first-hand without media bias. Palin being there was an added bonus.
I was asked to give a full report and here's my views:
1. Trump seems trustworthy. If you're surprised to hear that, so am I to write it. I'm not saying he'll always be right. Look, the President is going to face situations we don't know about yet. How will they be handled? Trump rightfully blasted the stupidity, incompetence, and weakness of the present administration. He made no bones about it. Calling a spade a spade creates trust.
2. Trump has long cared for America. He understands the responsibilities of the President. He will be a refreshing America-first President.
3. Trump knows how to negotiate. He blasted the $150 billion Iranian deal from the community organizer. He said we have political hacks negotiating. He committed to getting strong negotiators and businessmen involved for America's interest.
4. Trump keeps up on current events. This is unlike the current White House occupant, who like Schultz in Hogan's Heros claims "I know nothing" (my analogy). He knows what the poll results are, and likes sharing them because he's in the lead.
5. Trump is a leader. He is driving the discussion. John Maxwell says, "Everything rises and fall on leadership." Under Obama's leadership, America has fallen. As much as I love Cruz, he has not demonstrated leadership, but instead principled strategy.
6. Trump is responsive to criticism. Before the event it was announced that this was a private event and the protesters were to remain outside. When a few rose up, they were quickly escorted out. Trump explained that when that first happened he was criticized for being too harsh. So he tried to tone it down and was called weak.
7. Trump is strongly aware of media dishonesty. He said the good thing about the protesters is that they force the cameras to show the size of the crowd.
8. Trump may overstate things. He said there were 15,000 people present. There were no more than 10,000, probably 9,000 or maybe 8,000. I'm not sure why he did this. Was he given bad information? Did he deliberately overstate? Was he given no information and made his best guess. In any case, this weaken my assessment above that he's trustworthy.
9. Trump is a winner. He says America will begin to win again. He said if he doesn't win the election, then all this is for nothing.
10. In everything Trump shared, he was sensible to me. America currently spends the most on education, yet is ranked #28 in the world. We should spend less and be rated higher. He's against Common Core. He isn't afraid to say "radical islamic terrorism". He wants to help vets and strengthen the military. He is against open borders and says he'll make Mexico pay for the wall. He is strongly pro-second amendment.
11. Trump is high energy. He slammed Jeb as being low energy. He said low energy people don't get things done, and that politicians are all talk and no action.
12. Trump recognizes that liberals and the establishment are the enemy. He recognizes that people are sick and tired and fed up.
13. Trump is pro-Christian. I am not saying that he personally is a strong Christian. He said Christianity is under assault and we will stop the assault against Christianity. (As further evidence, I've also heard him say "I'll be the Christian's best friend.")
14. Trump claimed to use his wealth for all Americans. He said "I'm talking about winning the presidency for you." and "This success is going to you." Could it really be that we in America are so jaded, disappointed, and used, that we refuse to believe a person of means who isn't beholden to the "donor political class" will really do what's best for the country? Or could it be we are again on the verge of selecting a hypocritical, lying, self-centered, anti-American deceiver?
Overall I left feeling that I'd be happy if Trump won. I didn't feel like I had the complete picture of all his positions, and might not like some as they are revealed. However, the key parts of being pro-America, pro-Christian, anti-GOPe, and anti-liberal, along with his demonstrated leadership, sensibility, and intelligence were enough to move me into his camp. An added bonus is that if he maintains his sizable lead, he will have over a full year to prepare for the Presidency and all it's duties and personnel selections.
As for Palin, she had some great lines. "What we need now is a fundamental restoration." "We can believe our best days are ahead of us." "We need a Commander-in-Chief who will respect troops and treat veterans better than illegal immigrants." "The permanent political class is doing the bidding of the donor political class." We currently have a "weak-kneed capitulator-in-chief." She also shared that her son is a wounded warrior.
The 19th amendment is about women’s right to vote
It addresses the two previous mentions of Natural Born Citizen not one iota
Natural Born Citizen is mentioned twice
Once in Constitution :
“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
Only once again in 1790 :
“The Naturalization Act of 1790 stated that “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: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”
The 1795 Act repealed some of the 1790 act for simple citizenship requirements but it did not address the section one article II of the US Constitution where the term was first realized in detailing POTUS eligibility
That’s about it. There have been other rulings and acts on citizenship but those two areas are the ONLY place where the term Natural Born Citizen exists in founding documents and acts and subsequent rulings and legislations
#8 We heard him say there were 9 to 10,000 at the event, and 5,000 outside. He never said there were 15,000 inside.
Look it up.....
And get back to me
I took a loan a few years ago...from a brokerage house...I had the collateral..they fronted me the money. This type of thing may be beyond your scope...but don't worry. Plenty of people have not a clue..about these things.
If Trump was asked point blank...he probably would tell you the same....
Maybe,,,maybe not..nowadays.
I guess George Washington...wasn’t legit.
Someone who worked at the facility could look out a window during the event. He said many people were turned away, maybe 5,000. This plus 9,000 in attendance is close to 15,000 total.
This staff member had a window and guessed that about 5,000 were turned away. This validates the number Trump gave, which I realized after I had already given my report. Post 62 said Trump tweeted 10,000 were present and 5,000 turned away. The concern raised in my original post was unwarranted.
The intend of Palin’s comment seemed to be that he capitulates to foreign nations.
“I don’t think having PTSD qualifies one to be a wounded warrior.”
It does. I know a number of vets whose only WW qualification is PTSD.
As for demographics, it was mostly white adults with a fair number of young people. With the late start a number of young people left midway through, evidently to attend classes. I was told the 11 AM ORU Chapel had a lot of students missing, who were likely at the event.
Palin spoke first, and was not seen again. I suspect she went straight to her son and family on the plane waiting for her, as reported in Tuesday evening's thread on the private plane flying Alaska-Des Moines-Tulsa.
Before Trump came an announcement was made that this was a private event hosted by Donald Trump. Protesters were instructed that they could do that outside, but not in the arena. The crowd was instructed that if someone began protesting inside, we should hold up placards around the person and begin shouting "Trump. Trump. Trump." to alert security. I think there were 4 protesters during the event.
Wasn’t he assigned to a striker brigade or something? I don’t imagine they deployed them to sit on their thumbs.
“And the only people who capitulate to him are McConnell, Ryan, and John Roberts.”
What an UGLY trio...The Three Stooges.
That's what I'm trying to do ...without the blinders. So, Glen Beck endorsed Cruz is that anymore significant than Dennis Rodman, who thinks Kim Jung Un is a really cool guy, endorsing Trump?
I supported Cruz for Senate and have seen no reason to disown him for anything he has done since he has been there. My respect for him grew when he stood (almost alone) to filibuster against the annual government shutdown hoax.
I began this campaign with very high aspirations for Trump, that hasn't changed either. I hope his nastiness shown towards Cruz will be extended to democrats and members of the beltway society if he manages to be elected.
I also hope all the people showing up a supporters in polling are actually voters. There's an unmentioned element of self funded campaigning in that people who aren't donors may not be as committed as those who've written a check. There are also voters who are going to want to hear substantive policy positions.
As I said before, my one vote in the primary is insignificant and I will support Hillary's opponent regardless of who it turns out to be.
There are only two categories:
Natural
Naturalized
Natural is the same as Natural born.
There is no third category, never was.
The third category is fiction born of fear of Obama’s true allegiance and loyalties. They are valid fears.
However, the genuine fears of Obama’s loyalties should not be carried over to fine Americans such as Ted Cruz.
Pre-19th Amendment America allowed for natural citizens to be sons of American citizen fathers inside a legitimate marriage. Such natural citizens could be born at sea, in a territory (Barry Goldwater), or abroad if domicile was maintained inside the United States and other factors such as no record of renouncing American citizenship, etc.
Post-19th Amendment America allowed for natural citizens to be sons or daughters born of either or both an American citizen father or mother. And that is how it was codified into law and regulations. You should look it up.
Today natural citizen (meaning not naturalized) is a status given to any child born anywhere of a citizen parent that meets certain criteria. The criteria is the codification used to determine if naturalization is applicable or not.
You should review the history of President Madison in these matters. Everything I said above for pre-19th Amendment America is directly supported by such history.
In pre-19th Amendment America, a woman in a legitimate marriage to an American citizen carried the status of her husband. She was under his authority. She was in effect naturalized by her legitimate marriage to an American male.
The reverse was also true. If a pre-19th American woman married a foreigner, she was in effect renouncing her American status and allegiance for both herself and her children. Dual citizenship was prohibited.
Therefore, if an American male married a woman, any woman, and the marriage was valid as evidenced by signatures from a parish or a justice of the peace, then the married couple would be considered an American family and their sons were considered natural born and they would become natural citizens when they were old enough to vote.
Vattel references are misleading because English common law addressed status of subjects rather than citizens. A large part of the Revolutionary War was fought over whether Americans were subjects or citizens. The words of Vattel and other references have been taken out of context.
The Framers also used prints of ancient tomes of Roman Jurisprudence. They used them as reference works for study and ideas. Because they were used does not mean Americans are to follow ancient Roman law. Same thing with Vattel and others.
I told you where the term natural born is used only twice by the founders
You ignore that same as Levin does cause it suits you which is disappointing in smart people
Cruz will be challenged
A court ....the big one I’d guess....will decide
It’s never been tested
It does not apply to Rubio or Jindal because because they were born on US soil
It would apply to Obama if born in Kenya to foreign dad
Will the courts rule that the 1795 act overrules the Constitution language and the 1790 language about natural born specifically?
I don’t know
It’s never come up
We are aware what parts of 1790 were superseded because they are specified in the 1795 act but the term natural born and the father clause is not amongst them
So we shall see if Cruz wins the nomination which looks less likely
Even though he’s one of my two choices
Truth matters especially constitution wise so let’s find out
It was understood that American birthright was soley determined by an American father in pre-19th Amendment America.
Natural born American son meant that he was born of an American father in a legitimate marriage. Dual citizenship was prohibited.
I already knew what you posted. But I know much more than you as I see that you do not comprehend the full information of the history.
Of course you do
Legend of a Mind
Donald J. Trump -
Verified account @ realDonaldTrump
Congress must protect our borders first. Amnesty should be done only if the border is secure and illegal immigration has stopped.
11:08 AM - 29 Aug 2013
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.