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 ...
“Were we also siding with the Left’s position when we raised the same issue about Barack Obama?”
Actually, yes. The Obama birth certificate issue was originally raised by Hillary’s campaign during the 2008 primary.
Otherwise, I appreciate the rest of your response. I may not agree, but I thank you for being reasonable and thoughtful.
RE: “are those born IN the country of PARENTS who are CITIZENS.”
Let us not simply quote Vattel in part and ignore what he acknowledged in other parts of his treatise.
An English-language translation of Emerich de Vattel’s 1758 treatise The Law of Nations (Le Droit du gens), stating that “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens”,was quoted in 1857 by Supreme Court Justice Peter Vivian Daniel in a concurring opinion in Dred Scott v. Sandford, as well as by Chief Justice Melville Fuller in 1898 in his dissenting opinion in United States v. Wong Kim Ark.
However, two paragraphs later, Vattel says, “ ... there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.”
Therefore, I have to conclude that:
1) It is still unclear what the framers meant by the term
2) It is also unclear whether the framers referred to Vattel when they used that term.
RE: Did you expect Mr. Trump to publicly excoriate his own sister?
No, but I would expect him to KNOW the position of his sister and at least inform us that he loves her but does not always agree with her.
That would at least tell us that he differentiates between blood and ideology.
At this point in time, I am not even sure what kind of judge he will appoint.
I hope to God I am wrong because a Hillary President will be the end.
Well, I did listen to his Presidential bid announcement. It was about 40 minutes and this is all he said about the illegal immigration issue:
“I would build a great wall, and nobody builds walls better than me, believe me, and I’ll build them very inexpensively, I will build a great, great wall on our southern border. And I will have Mexico pay for that wall.”
Now, go look at the speech transcript here: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/transcript-donald-trump-2016-presidential-announcement-article-1.2260117
If you printed the transcript, it would be 20 pages long and this sentence is included after he talks about Obamacare, how bad repub candidates are, more Obamacare, making the “brand” of the US great again, getting jobs back from china, debt with china, how dumb our leaders are, tariffs, china advancing militarily, tariff against Ford in Mexico, weakening military, weakening infrastructure, how rich he is, his wealth, more about his wealth, our high debt again, THEN THIS SINGLE SENTENCE, then immediately into ISIS, 2nd amendment, then trashing Jeb and a little line about airports.
That is his list of priorities at the time of his announcement, and yes, I consider one sentence that was so late into the speech, to be a throw away line. It wasn’t until the press grabbed that line and started hammering it that Trump made the “Mexico is sending us their criminals” point. That is when he realized that it was a winning issue with the Conservative base, so he started using it as his focus.
I give him credit for picking up on that, but if we want to be truthful, illegal immigration is not the reason WHY he decided to run and it wasn’t his focus at all. It became his focus AFTER he realized it was a winning issue.
“The relevant sentence - “are those born IN the country of PARENTS who are CITIZENS.†- is self defining!”
Are you actually making the claim that the if our military members have children born OUTSIDE of the borders of America, then those children are not “natural born” and can never serve as President? If that is the case, then I don’t see any connection to the intention of the framers at all....I couldn’t think of a more patriotic group of Americans than children of military members...
“The donor class promotes crony capitalism not the free market.”
Would the donor class include the actual crony and the donor? Isn’t that what Trump brags about?
Yes, just got tetanus and flu shot. I've also made sure I've filed everything correctly with the government, unlike Cruz.
Is there a link to that rebuttal of Trump,point by point,to which you refer? Does it include a rebuttal of Levin’s characterization of the issue about the meaning of the Article II presidential eligibility phrase “natural born citizen,” that is to say, something besides calling anyone who raises the issue a “nutjob” or trashing Lawrence Tribe’s opinion on the subject because he is a “lift-winger?”
So, your argument is that his immigration point is a “throw away line,” based on the order it appeared in his speech? Excuse me for stating that your position is a bit weak.
Maybe I’ve finally had enough of Senator Cruz’ more “enthusiastic” supporters - those who obviously get a pass on degrading, with every derogatory term imaginable, we who support Mr. Trump.
Now, even those who have been on FR for over a decade get called “liberal” by these self-appointed “Storm Troopers” for Ted ...
Well, enough already! I think the site owner ought to be made aware of this inane crap. I’m fed up with it.
I’ve been respectful of Senator Cruz, even while I question some of his associations ... But these mocking clowns need a reality check on their behavior - and that is why I pinged the Boss.
No, you are incorrectly summarizing my position. My point is that it WAS a throw away line in his original speech. As a result, his position on immigration was NOT one of his original areas of focus. His speech is proof of that.
Then the media started their nitpicking attacks on that one line and Trump fought back against the media. To his credit, he realized that it was a winning issue with the Conservative base and THEN this position became a focus for his agenda.
It happens, they get too self important.
I would say that the majority on that list are definitely Conservative as far as I’m concerned but Carson is definitely not one of them. I think a lot of us were fooled by him. I believed with my whole heart Gowdy was now I think I’ve been fooled by him too. Rush is establishment and always has been. Levin is, “ If those Republicans do something one more time I’m leaving the Party,” blah, blah, blah he used to be worth listening to now he’s a joke selling books. The Liberty Amendments won’t work because it ultimately requires politicians following the law or voting in a way that doesn’t benefit them. Hello!!! Where the hell has he been? Horrific economy! Stealing us blind! Still manage to vote themselves a raise. Look at all the lawbreaking going on now by this Administration and the “cough, cough” opposition party turns a blind eye. Get real. Levin dropped his basket just like Beck did.
But Scalia and Robertson not conservative? Hahaha that’s hilarious!
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.