Posted on 02/23/2026 10:08:10 AM PST by RandFan
Glenn Greenwald
The leading icon of the American Right in the 1960s into the 1970s was Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-AZ). He was so beloved that the party’s base made him their presidential nominee in 1964 despite the widespread belief that he was too “extreme” to ever get elected (LBJ crushed him in a landslide). He represented Arizona in the US Senate for 30 years.
Goldwater (whose father was Jewish) talked to Pat Buchanan in 1988 about many topics. Here’s what he said about Israeli influence in the US:
(Excerpt) Read more at substack.com ...
Who said anything about sacrificing a religion?
If anyone wants to sacrifice your religion and people it’s the leftist jews and you should go after them.
They’re your biggest enemy. They are your modern day Kapos.
“Oooh that’s interesting.”
The first 7 Presidents were all born as British subects. As was the 9th, Wm Henry Harrison.
Using Macoozie’s goofball claim none of them would have been Natural Born Citizens.
“ My problem is not with Jews, it’s with leftist Jews.”
But leftist non-Jews are cool with you.
“My problem is not with Jews, it’s with leftist Jews.”
Given that leftist gentiles outnumber leftist Jews 50:1, it’s a strange fascination you have.
Me, my problem is with leftists, writ large.
James K Polk, born after the Revolution, born in SW Territory.
Pretty sure Andrew Jackson was, too, but I need to check.
That's the point I was making, evidently not good enough. LOL
Funny, I notice Jew-haters, be they supposed conservatives or leftists have one thing in common.
They spout vile lies about Jews then claim to be victims of censorship when called out on their endless streams of bullshit.
Fair enough.
Most of these threads get filled with the usual squad of morons who demand FR be Judenfrei. So the usual benefit-of-the-doubt is not given.
Apologies for the crossfire.
I’d think if the presidential election was tomorrow Massie would get at least 10-15% of the vote, probably a third of that from the left based solely on the Epstein handling debacle alone
Lots of people in echo chambers don’t get just how pissed off a lot of us are over this
According to wikihahahahahahapedia, Andy Jackson was born in the Carolinas in 1767 ... IOW, not just prior to the Constitution, but prior to Independence. He qualified under “citizen at the time of adoption”.
“From my limited knowledge (im a spring chicken) he was a straight talker with traditional views and you can’t have that in politics so he was smeared relentlessly”
“Traditional”? Hardly. Goldwater despised the Religious Right. His wife Peggy and Margaret Sanger founded Arizona’s first birth control clinic in 1937. After leaving office he supported gay rights, legalizing pot, and big environmentalism. But none of that was an issue in the 1964 campaign.
What was an issue was his position on Vietnam. Goldwater was a reserve AF major general who supported aggressively fighting the war there. LBJ denied that we were even in a war and portrayed Goldwater as dangerous and liable to start slinging nuclear bombs.
A Democrat win in 1964 was a given anyway due to the public’s reaction to Kennedy’s assassination just a year earlier. I was a Goldwater fan in 1964, too young to vote, but I was already a political junkie.
Actially, radical Islam is our and your biggest enemy, not each other.
Mega dittos!!
I’m seeing Polk’s birthplace listed as Pineville, NC, 1795.
Some people tried arguing that John McCain wasn’t a valid candidate due to his being born in the Panama Canal Zone.
Excuse me?
I have always viewed that as a BS argument ... The idea that "legitimate" children of US Military or Diplomatic personnel born overseas, when their parents are serving overseas, are not NBC is kind of retarded.
We really need an authoritative definition of that term.
“Buckley famously back stabbed Buchanan, Sobran and basically the movement that would end up as MAGA.”
That’s true.
https://harvardlawreview.org/forum/vol-128/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/
Volume 128
Issue 5
March 2015
The Constitution directly addresses the minimum qualifications necessary to serve as President. In addition to requiring thirty-five years of age and fourteen years of residency, the Constitution limits the presidency to “a natural born Citizen.” All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase “natural born Citizen” has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time. And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States.
While some constitutional issues are truly difficult, with framing-era sources either nonexistent or contradictory, here, the relevant materials clearly indicate that a “natural born Citizen” means a citizen from birth with no need to go through naturalization proceedings. The Supreme Court has long recognized that two particularly useful sources in understanding constitutional terms are British common law and enactments of the First Congress. Both confirm that the original meaning of the phrase “natural born Citizen” includes persons born abroad who are citizens from birth based on the citizenship of a parent.
As to the British practice, laws in force in the 1700s recognized that children born outside of the British Empire to subjects of the Crown were subjects themselves and explicitly used “natural born” to encompass such children. These statutes provided that children born abroad to subjects of the British Empire were “natural-born Subjects . . . to all Intents, Constructions, and Purposes whatsoever.” The Framers, of course, would have been intimately familiar with these statutes and the way they used terms like “natural born,” since the statutes were binding law in the colonies before the Revolutionary War. They were also well documented in Blackstone’s Commentaries, a text widely circulated and read by the Framers and routinely invoked in interpreting the Constitution.
No doubt informed by this longstanding tradition, just three years after the drafting of the Constitution, the First Congress established that children born abroad to U.S. citizens were U.S. citizens at birth, and explicitly recognized that such children were “natural born Citizens.” The Naturalization Act of 1790 provided 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 actions and understandings of the First Congress are particularly persuasive because so many of the Framers of the Constitution were also members of the First Congress. That is particularly true in this instance, as eight of the eleven members of the committee that proposed the natural born eligibility requirement to the Convention served in the First Congress and none objected to a definition of “natural born Citizen” that included persons born abroad to citizen parents.
The proviso in the Naturalization Act of 1790 underscores that while the concept of “natural born Citizen” has remained constant and plainly includes someone who is a citizen from birth by descent without the need to undergo naturalization proceedings, the details of which individuals born abroad to a citizen parent qualify as citizens from birth have changed. The pre-Revolution British statutes sometimes focused on paternity such that only children of citizen fathers were granted citizenship at birth. The Naturalization Act of 1790 expanded the class of citizens at birth to include children born abroad of citizen mothers as long as the father had at least been resident in the United States at some point. But Congress eliminated that differential treatment of citizen mothers and fathers before any of the potential candidates in the current presidential election were born. Thus, in the relevant time period, and subject to certain residency requirements, children born abroad of a citizen parent were citizens from the moment of birth, and thus are “natural born Citizens.”
The original meaning of “natural born Citizen” also comports with what we know of the Framers’ purpose in including this language in the Constitution. The phrase first appeared in the draft Constitution shortly after George Washington received a letter from John Jay, the future first Chief Justice of the United States, suggesting:
[W]hether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a . . . strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the american [sic] army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.
As recounted by Justice Joseph Story in his famous Commentaries on the Constitution, the purpose of the natural born Citizen clause was thus to “cut[] off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interpose[] a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections.” The Framers did not fear such machinations from those who were U.S. citizens from birth just because of the happenstance of a foreign birthplace. Indeed, John Jay’s own children were born abroad while he served on diplomatic assignments, and it would be absurd to conclude that Jay proposed to exclude his own children, as foreigners of dubious loyalty, from presidential eligibility.
While the field of candidates for the next presidential election is still taking shape, at least one potential candidate, Senator Ted Cruz, was born in a Canadian hospital to a U.S. citizen mother. Despite the happenstance of a birth across the border, there is no question that Senator Cruz has been a citizen from birth and is thus a “natural born Citizen” within the meaning of the Constitution. Indeed, because his father had also been resident in the United States, Senator Cruz would have been a “natural born Citizen” even under the Naturalization Act of 1790. Similarly, in 2008, one of the two major party candidates for President, Senator John McCain, was born outside the United States on a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone to a U.S. citizen parent. Despite a few spurious suggestions to the contrary, there is no serious question that Senator McCain was fully eligible to serve as President, wholly apart from any murky debate about the precise sovereign status of the Panama Canal Zone at the time of Senator McCain’s birth. Indeed, this aspect of Senator McCain’s candidacy was a source of bipartisan accord. The U.S. Senate unanimously agreed that Senator McCain was eligible for the presidency, resolving that any interpretation of the natural born citizenship clause as limited to those born within the United States was “inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the ‘natural born Citizen’ clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term ‘natural born Citizen.’" And for the same reasons, both Senator Barry Goldwater and Governor George Romney were eligible to serve as President although neither was born within a state. Senator Goldwater was born in Arizona before its statehood and was the Republican Party’s presidential nominee in 1964, and Governor Romney was born in Mexico to U.S. citizen parents and unsuccessfully pursued the Republican nomination for President in 1968.
There are plenty of serious issues to debate in the upcoming presidential election cycle. The less time spent dealing with specious objections to candidate eligibility, the better. Fortunately, the Constitution is refreshingly clear on these eligibility issues. To serve, an individual must be at least thirty-five years old and a “natural born Citizen.” Thirty-four and a half is not enough and, for better or worse, a naturalized citizen cannot serve. But as Congress has recognized since the Founding, a person born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent is generally a U.S. citizen from birth with no need for naturalization. And the phrase “natural born Citizen” in the Constitution encompasses all such citizens from birth. Thus, an individual born to a U.S. citizen parent — whether in California or Canada or the Canal Zone — is a U.S. citizen from birth and is fully eligible to serve as President if the people so choose.
Yes i noticed on twitter they’re mentioning his name in polls already for 28
It’s very strange in my opinion if anything he would run for the GOP nod rather than Indy. He has shown no signs of quitting the party or anything like that
I’m sure he would be I don’t think anyone polling right now wants the heat that would come if he polls close or even higher than the the presumed candidates
I know a lot of conservative people under 30 and nearly all fo them are disappointing and disgusted with the current state of affairs and would back him without hesitation
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.