Posted on 06/16/2013 10:00:00 PM PDT by teg_76
So a few a days ago Rubio comes out with a proposal for an amendment to ban Obamacare. He really gives us no credit for having any intelligence. If this immigration bill passes Obamacare will be set in stone. The electoral demographics of this country will be fundamentally altered, and in the words of Barack Obama, we will be fundamentally changed as a nation. Unless Lyndsay Graham is right and the illegals will love the Republicans if they help pass this amnesty bill...lol. These guys are so out of touch. If Mitt Romney would have made this an issue, we would have won...
So now is the time for Rush, Levin, and Hannity to decide if they would rather still be friends with Rubio and have this bill, which will destroy America as we know it, pass, or side with the American people and call Rubio out for what he is. Talk radio and the grassroots saved us from the Bush amnesty in 2007, but we are utterly failing to this point.
Simply not true. At the framing of the Constitution....18th century definition of the term, "Natural Born Citizen" did not mean what you suggest.
“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 natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, "in order to be of the country", it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
You will find this 18th century definition of the term in the publication, "Law of Nations" authored by "Emmerich de Vattel".........section #212.
For some reason folks continue to kid themselves about this simple definition...........but it means what it says. If your parents were not citizens at the time of your birth (in this country) you are indeed a "Citizen" by right of birth.............but not a "Natural Born Citizen". Therefore....you can be an elected Representative of the House, an elected member of the Senate....and even a Supreme Court Justice. But you can never be the "Commander in Chief" because of possible divided loyalties. The framers of our Constitution understood this simple definition.
Barack Obama is not a "Natural Born Citizen" as his father was a British subject of the Commonwealth (Kenya). Barack could have been born in Philadelphia, in the lobby of Independence Hall, on the 4th of July, with the Marine Corps Band playing "God Bless America" outside on the lawn. Because his father was not an American citizen he would still not be considered (by the 18th century definition of the term) a "Natural Born Citizen".
His birth location has nothing to do with his birth status. The citizenship of his parents has everything to do with his birth status. That's why this "Dog and Pony" show about an Hawaiian birth certificate is so much a waste of time. Who cares.....where he was born? His father was not an American citizen!
Now.....just to reiterate. Your parents do not have to be citizens for you to be a "Born Citizen" within the territorial limits of the nation. But.....your parents must be American Citizens at the time of your birth for you to be considered a "Natural" born citizen!
I agree that the “what is a citizen” is a relevant issue. I agree that Obama’s birth certificate is also extremely relevant. I love Sheriff Joe for the work he is doing as it at least puts out the evidence for all who are willing to look at it.
Now What?? If the congressmen refuse to take up the issue, if the courts, as a whole, refuse to give anyone “standing”, if the SCOTUS refuses to look at the case - barring armed revolution, what can we do??
As to Rush and Levin - who else explains conservatism better and more clearly than they and with the level of entertainment as they do? Rush alone has an audience of 20 million - you don’t think he’s had a positive influence on the country at all? He himself, after this last election, has stated that the problem he and other conservative talk show people have had is that they all assumed that Americans, in general, could be reasoned with and could follow a logical thought.
Rush has also stated that he always believed that if one could explain conservatism to people, as opposed to liberalism, that conservatism would win every time, but the problem is reaching the low-information voters who DO NOT GIVE A D-MN about politics except where it affects them with the freebies. The way Rush puts it, “How do you compete against Santa Claus?”. They don’t care about balancing a budget, securing the borders, socialized medicine - until it somehow affects them. And, they don’t listen to Rush.
Is it Rush’s responsibility for him to reach the idiots? You say his show is preaching to the choir, isn’t preaching meant to inspire the congregation to go out themselves and share what they’ve learned?? Is it the pastor’s job to reach all the lost? No, it is up to that congregation. It is up to conservative talk show listeners to take that info and talk to our neighbors, family members, and co-workers, etc. They will listen to us where they would never listen to a talk show.
Rush has also pointed out how every item of Obama’s agenda, healthcare, fast and furious, illegal aliens - the majority of Americans oppose Obama’s stand on these things - yet, he still commands decent ratings because many Americans do not attribute the lousy economy, the monstrosity that is Obamacare, etc. with Obama. It’s like he hasn’t been governing for the last 5 years. How does one get through that kind of mindset??
As to Rush and others “not even getting our low-info” voters out - I ask you, what more can be done to reach quasi-conservatives?? If, after 4 years of Obama, they cannot see the problem, assuming a quasi-conservative is more politically educated than the “47%” takers and low-info liberals, what the hell else could be done to get them off the couch to vote?
Rush presents conservatism in as clear, entertaining, and educational way as I’ve ever heard. That’s why his program has the largest following of ANY other talk radio program.
What would you do differently from Rush if you were in Rush’s shoes? What would you do to reach the low-info voters that he and Levin aren’t doing?
As to the selling of “stuff” on these programs - they have to do advertising to make money. These are for-profit programs. If they don’t do that they won’t stay on the air. Stations won’t subscribe to their programs without it. They are not NPR. Does NPR have the listener-ship of the conservative talk shows? Not even close.
The election of 2016.
Looks like no conservatives are going to be allowed into that one, i.e. if the liberals can help it.
I used to be a liberal.I suppose I’m complicit in some way of setting this nation on the quasi-socialist path it’s on. I came to my senses(so I thought) and came to the conservative side. I did so in time to see the Republican Party become Democrat-Lite.
Liberal and conservative mean hardly anything anymore because the party elites, the academic elites, and the media elites have been allowed to define liberal and conservative. Shilling for George W. Bush had nothing to do with conservative and shilling for Obama has nothing to do with liberal.
There are those who attempt to define conservatism on the social issues but that doesn't not work for me.
I am with Reagan, and once he went from being a New Deal Democrat to a conservative, he stayed firm in defining conservatism as limited government.
Bush and his Svengali Karl Rove took office in 2000 with a majority in both houses and the first thing he did was crawl in bed with Teddy Kennedy and let the Democrats write the No Child Left Behind Act.
This was before 9/11.
If Reagan had a majority in both houses, I would have taken him at his word and the first thing that he would have done would be abolish the Department of Education not expand it as Bush did.
Conservatism means nothing if does not stand for limited government.
That is what makes these police state disclosures so maddening.
They have expanded the NSA so rapidly, that they cannot find enough people to man the spy network without depending on outside contractors who are so corrupt or so incompetent that they would not think twice about giving a 29 year old high school dropout who is little more than computer hacker a TOP SECRET security clearance.
When the citizens grow tired of being put into the boxes of Republican and Democrat, liberal and conservative and told what to think by all the elites, there may be some hope of reclaiming what is left of what was a Free Republic.
I sometimes used to see the difference between conservatism and liberalism as conservatism was mom and dad and the nice home in the suburbs and liberalism was when mom and dad went away for the week-end and the kids were in charge. One could imagine what would happen next seeing that the ‘’kids’’(liberals) were the kids from “Lord of the Flies’’. But you’re right. There’s no difference anymore. The only thing that matters now is who turns out the light when America collapses.
If only THEY could convince me that they have changed anyone's mind they way you have mine!
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.