Posted on 01/14/2016 7:57:06 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Mark Levin has been trying to stay out of the conflict between Donald Trump and Ted Cruz. He says he likes both men and has both on his show. But as Trump has escalated his birther attacks on Cruz, Levin has spent hours of airtime defending Cruz against these arguments...while studiously not mentioning who is making these arguments.
Well, it looks as though Levin has finally had enough, because ConservativeReview.com, of which he is editor in chief, has published a piece (that Levin has tweeted a link to) that exposes Donald Trump's political inconsistencies, point by point.
Entitled Trump's Questionable Political History, the article talks about how Trump met with illegal alien activists in 2013 and said he was "convinced" to support amnesty. The article also quotes Trump saying he wanted to "expedite" the return of illegal aliens into the country and notes a quote that Trump simply had no opinion either way on the "Gang of 8" amnesty bill that Marco Rubio is being so criticized for.
The article also cites how on September 8 of last year, Trump was for bringing in Syrian refugees, but he changed his mind on the 9th.
Here's what author Daniel Horowitz also wrote:
Conservatives need to know if Donald Trump is really the man who will put Americans first and demolish the "dummies" in Washington or if his lack of a coherent philosophy will lead him to reflexively parrot the very politically correct talking points he so vehemently assails and yet has so often adopted. Is Trump who we think he is on immigration or is he pragmatically trying to tap into a frustration to win the primary with a plan to revert to his original talking points
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
He's competing in the Republican primary. Why would he?
Save that ammunition or later, when it will have greater effect.
Probably for the most part...the birthers are also part of it (not sure if they’re all Trump supporters).
Freedom Works, like the CATO Institute, are Libertarian bastions - and the same may be stated of Tea Party Patriots ...
The common thread between them is that none of these three, true to libertarian “principles,” gives a flying doughnut about moral integrity, public or otherwise. As long as there is fiscal solvency, limited government and unlimited personal freedom, then such is all that is necessary for a vibrant nation.
Well, bullocks! on their political theory.
Financial integrity goes hand in hand with moral integrity - and the moral absolutes that are the necessary bedrock of any legitimate government.
Moral absolutes, as derived by both the Divine and Natural Law, having there application in both the public and private spheres, are what make possible our Representative Constitutional Republic ...
And, more pointedly on the subject, I shall here quote one of the greatest conservative minds ever to make commentary on the subject”
“Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites, - in proportion as their love to justice is above their rapacity, - in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption, - in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.”
EDMUND BURKE, “Letter to a Member of the National Assembly,” 1791. - The Works of the Right Honorable Edmund Burke, vol. 4, pp. 51-52 (1899).
That stated, I must confess to having some reservations about Mr. Trump - even as I much appreciate his other qualities of leadership. That he does not seem to care much about whether sodomites may maintain a legal recognition by the State of their politically coerced and illegitimately imposed “marriages” is a constant issue for me. Particularly since, as Trump is a very well-educated man, he must see the ontological impossibility of such “unions.”
This moral failing, is not to be found with Senator Cruz ...
However, OTOH, neither is it really a serious possibility that Senator Cruz could win the general election - his demographic appeal is simply too narrow ... I state this even as it is true that, should he win the Republican nomination, I would vote for him without reservation. This is an unsolvable conundrum for me - but that is life.
You better go read Vattel’s Law of Nations (Book 1) - b/c THAT treaties was, at the time of the drafting and ratification of our Constitution, THE authority upon which the founders derived THEIR understanding of the meaning to NBC.
The fact of such understanding and usage cannot be seriously disputed. The idea that the writers of the Constitution should have included an “index,” so as to secure for posterity the intended meaning of the terms used is an absurd proposition, given that all those possessing a sound education in jurisprudence - and most did - understood the plain meaning of such terms and therefore would have no reason to otherwise define them.
One only needs to review the legal documents relevant to that historical period to appreciate what I have just stated.
See: CHAP. XIX. OF OUR NATIVE COUNTRY, AND SEVERAL THINGS THAT RELATE TO IT ... Article 212. Citizens and natives. http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01.htm
“... He’s the polar opposite of the PC, spineless, unprincipled schmucks currently running this country...into the ground.”
EXACTLY.
Good post - Thanks for the effort.
Mark also supported Orin Hatch’s reelection.
_________________________
I talked, albeit briefly, to Orrin Hatch during the Romney campaign when he was running for re-election. He seemed completely incapacitated as in demented. Surrounded by “helpers”. Senator Hatch is the Pro Tem. The country is so screwed by these career politicians.
Did I catch him on a bad day? I don’t think so.
And what if Trump was/is sincere about the issue? What if he in fact wants this thing put to rest and deny the democrats any legal ammunition?
Here is what I find interesting on the point - that Senator Cruz did not address the issue head on, but rather chose to attack Trump for raising it. Now, he could have just said, sure, I am a NBC - and here is my legal proof ... That should be very easy for a man who is a constitutional lawyer. In fact there is no reason that Senator Cruz should not obtain a declaratory judgment about his citizenship status. That he does not do so raises questions. The quickest way to put an allegation to rest is to put it to rest. What more effective way could there be to silence Mr. Trump on this issue than to ask for a declaratory judgment? All that Senator Cruz has done by his “counter attack” on Mr. Trump is to further inflate the suspicion of ineligibility.
In any case - If Senator Cruz wins the nomination, then I will vote for him - just as I will vote for Mr. Trump should he win.
Perhaps his response was before he got wind of what the Democrats were planning ... After all, he is well-enough connected to discover such plots. Just a guess, on my part.
The treatise by Emmerich de Vattel (1758), frequently is invoked by people arguing against natural born Citizenship for Rubio, Jindal and Cruz because the term “natural born Citzen” as used by Vattel allegedly requires that the person be “born in the country of parents who are citizens.” (emphasis added)
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
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.
The problem with that argument, however, is that the English translation of the 1758 edition did not use the term “natural born Citizen.” That term did not appear until the 1797 edition, a decade after the Constitution was ratified.
The Congressional Research Service, in its 2011 report by attorney Jack Meskill, Qualifications for President and the "Natural Born" Citizenship Eligibility Requirement, notes:
It may be noted that some have argued that the relevant common meaning of natural born citizen that was prevalent in 18th century America should not be the one that was actually applicable in the American colonies during that time from British statutory and common law, and which was adopted specifically by the states after independence in 1776 (and which, as noted by Justice Story, formed the "foundation" for American jurisprudence), but rather should be recognized as a Swiss legal philosopher in the mid-1700s.99 This particular treatise, however, in the editions available at the time of the drafting of the U.S. Constitution, did not actually use, either in the original French or in English interpretations at that time, the specific term "natural born citizens."100 It was not until after the adoption of the Constitution in the United States did a translator interpret the French in Emmerich de Vattel's Law of Nations to include, in English, the term "natural born citizens" for the first time, and thus that particular interpretation and creative translation of the French, to which the Vattel enthusiasts cite, could not possibly have influenced the framing of the Constitution in 1787.101
But don’t take Meskill’s word or sources for it. Two of the leading attorneys challenging Obama’s eligibility admitted that the term was not in the edition available in 1787, and they make the illogical bootstrap argument that the later change in the Vattel verbiage somehow applies retroactively:
AMICUS BRIEF by Leo Donofrio in Georgia Presidential Eligibility Case (emphasis added):
In 1775, Benjamin Franklin wrote a gracious note to Charles Dumas, for "the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations." Franklin also stated that Vattel's treatise was, "continually in the hands of the members of our Congress." (From a letter, Benjamin Franklin to Charles Dumas, Dec. 19, 1775.) ….
Vattel's treatise was first published in 1758, in French. The first edition contains the exact same passage as the 1775 edition give to Franklin by Dumas. In 1759, the first English edition was published in London, translated as follows:
"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." "The Law of Nations or Principles of the Law of Nature", E. de Vattell, (London, 1759), § 212, pg. 92. (App. Pg. 159.)
"Les naturels, ou indigenes", was not accurately translated. The proper translation of "indigenes" is "natives". The 1759 London edition makes the mistake of repeating the same word twice, once in English and once in French; "natives or indigenes" means "natives or natives".
The influence of the U.S. Constitution may have played a part in correcting the error, since, in the 1797 London edition, and thereafter, the French passage was correctly translated as follows:
"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." (Emphasis added.) "The Law of Nations or Principles of the Law of Nature", E. de Vattell, (London, 1797), § 212, pg. 101.
(App. Pg. 161.)
Additionally, Vattel did not purport to explain the meaning of the term in the context of British law or the common understanding in the British American colonies or newly formed United States. It is, at best, highly speculative to assert that the Framers looked to Vattel for the definition of “natural born Citizen.”
Yes, as in Cruz voting for the Obama agenda.
“... on the other hand he calls his sister ( a Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ) a great judge. The problem with his sister is she’s pro-choice (once even once rejected a lawsuit to stop partial birth abortions ) and pro-gay marriage.”
Did you expect Mr. Trump to publicly excoriate his own sister? I have two sisters - both of whom are liberal - and yet, no matter how much I may disagree with their politics and personal choices, I would never publicly ridicule or excoriate them.
“Now Trump is carrying on with a position of the left, simply to attack a true conservative. His supporters should be worried that they are aligned with Alan Grayson on this issue....but they won’t care...”
I have to call foul on this point.
Were we also siding with the Left’s position when we raised the same issue about Barack Obama? Were we aligned with Alan Grayson at that time too? I think the issue is legitimate to be raised - and I would raise it against Mr. Trump as well, if such questioning needed to be raised. I do not give a flying doughnut about which side of the political spectrum the issue may come from. What matters is getting to the truth.
And, just to be clear, I will support Senator Cruz should he win the nomination ... But I have to state that I am in no way convinced that he could win in the general election - his support demographics are just to narrow. As much as that sucks, and despite how often others attempt to deny it is so, still I think it is the reality. I would like nothing more than to be proven wrong.
“Mark Levin told us about Casper mattresses...”
“And Rush is now selling sheets and pillowcases. Is there a connection?”
Sorry, but I can’t resist the setup ... They’re sleeping together?
” ... However, the reality is that this issue was originally a “throw away” line for him.”
Please explain the term “throw away,” and how you came to this conclusion.
Do you specifically know such to be true b/c Mr. Trump said as much, or is this just your personal opinion.
You nailed it. This is the greatest weakness of Senator Cruz - he’s thinks he may enter a mud bog, riding a tricycle. He is a gentleman, but not a street fighter.
Insofar as the FBI / DOJ issue - the story is already out that if the FBI sends its report with a recommendation to indict, and the DOJ balks, then a great many of the FBI will resign in protest - including its Director. Think about the consequences that response would create for national security in the wake of domestic Islamic terrorism.
“If Hillary and Trump weren’t coordinating Hillary would simply have the news media stop covering Trump giving him free publicity and force him to spend his own money. As it is Trump is keeping Hillary and her legal problems out of the news.”
You are freaking delusional!
You must not follow Mark on Twitter.
He was absolutely pushing Rubio.
I don’t listen to his show anyway. Its his show and I do not care what he says.
I have to agree with the other opinion on this one ... There is something wrong with the OTT affection Mark projects over his pets - it’s not masculine, and it comes across as childish if not bizarre. I’ve lost a dog too - and like everything else, it’s life. I find that people who treat animals as if they were equal to human beings, even superior to human beings, are rather creepy.
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.