Posted on 02/03/2016 10:04:12 AM PST by COUNTrecount
Earlier today Ted Cruz sent out a blitz of fundraising emails on the heels of his Iowa victory. Here's an example (screen grabbed), and pay attention to the two bullet points Cruz puts at the bottom of email:
Trump is a loser who runs away from girls.
:-) Ask & you shall receive. I really can’t believe my luck.
ps Bonus: One of the lefty commentators is a ringer for Jared Loughner- the guy who shot Gabby Giffords.
ROFLMAO..thanks for finding it. I am laughing so hard.
Oh wow. Pot, kettle anyone?
Conservative, showman, rino? The choice is ours to make.
(wipes tears) I know. You’re welcome. Thank you for the motivation.
Tou’ve been had, there was no zot.
A few of us are smart enough to see the games being played, trying to use Cruz to kill off Trump, then get rid of Cruz - so they can then leak all Rubio’s dirty laundry, leaving Jeb! the last man standing.
Flawed as he is, Trump is the best man to take the general, with all his warts. I am so disappointed in the Cruz supporters here who are unwittingly helping the Rinos do their dirty deeds.
I thought we were, as a group, able to see beyond these campaign dirty tricks. I started off preferring Cruz to the rest, but he has lost my support totally.
You left out:
Pro-Amnesty
Pro-Obamacare
Pro-Abortion
Pro-Cronyism
All things Cruz stands against and trump supports.
“...a big beautiful wall”. With a revolving door.
And I am not naive, Trump is no different than the rest even though he has never actually held a political office, he has benefited greatly from his associations with the DC political elite. Whether he could truly sign papers, turning 100% of the company over to his kids while he is in office remains to be seen. Asked about it, Trump dodged the question, therefore, Trump too has a political agenda that I have not been able to hone in on. Because of his history with BOTH parties, he is a peculiar character and this makes the layers of the onion harder to peel in order to expose the core.
The other major players on the R side of the coin, their layers are young and thin, thereby allowing us to get to the core very quickly, however, not so with Trump and so we must tread lightly and conservatively before jumping on that bull that might just come back to buck us off!
You will be known by your associates, even more than your own words.
So if something like that bothers you so much then who is left for you to vote for?
From the perp's homepage:
"This account has been banned or suspended."
Maybe he/she has been temporarily suspended.
“proof” never comes from one already discredited.
Most people don't know that.
However, jurists who actually relied upon common law pretty clearly state that natural born citizenship descends from place of birth. For instance, Blackstone unambiguously defined a NBC as "such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England," while "those who are born out of it" are aliens.
James Madison wrote in a letter dated May 22, 1789,
"It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other."
So first of all, you want the Founders' intent - THAT is a pretty good indicator of it, since Madison was a major author and propagandist for the new Constitution, and presumably knew what it's provisions meant to those who wrote them.
Zephaniah Swift, in his 1810 work A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut wrote,
"“It is an established maxim, received by all political writers, that every person owes a natural allegiance to the government of that country in which he is born. Allegiance is defined to be a tie, that binds the subject to the state, and in consequence of his obedience, he is entitled to protection...
"The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.â€
St. George Tucker wrote in 1803 in his commentary on Blackstone,
"That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence...
"A very respectable political writer makes the following pertinent remarks upon this subject. 'Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it.'"
In his Commentaries on American Law, James Kent, the "father of American Jurisprudence," defined a native-born citizen (which was used by pretty much all writers synonymously with "natural born citizen") as,
"Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States."
In William Rawles' 1829 work A View of the Constitution, he wrote,
"Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity...Under our Constitution the question is settled by its express language, and when we are informed that, excepting those who were citizens, (however the capacity was acquired,) at the time the Constitution was adopted, no person is eligible to the office of president unless he is a natural born citizen, the principle that the place of birth creates the relative quality is established as to us."
Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, in 1840 wrote in his A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States using the same definition of "native citizen" as used by Rawles and Tucker,
"It is not too much to say, that no one, but a native citizen, ought ordinarily to be intrusted sic with an office so vital to the safety and liberties of the people."
Earlier, in his opinion in the 1830 case Inglis v. The Trustees of Sailor’s Snug Harbor, Story wrote,
"Now, allegiance is nothing more than the tie or duty of obedience of a subject to the sovereign under whose protection he is, and allegiance by birth is that which arises from being born within the dominions and under the protection of a particular sovereign. Two things usually concur to create citizenship: first, birth locally within the dominions of the sovereign, and secondly, birth within the protection and obedience, or, in other words, within the ligeance of the sovereign. That is, the party must be born within a place where the sovereign is at the time in full possession and exercise of his power, and the party must also at his birth derive protection from, and, consequently, owe obedience or allegiance to, the sovereign, as such, de facto."
See also the 1844 case in the New York Court of Chancery Lynch v. Clarke in which the court explicitly stated that natural born citizenship derived from place of birth, AND that this finding is quite in line with English common law, upon which every state's (except Louisiana) laws, as well as the Constitution, are rooted.
We should also note the simple fact that the 14th amendment as affirmed by several cases postdating, including but certainly not limited to the Wong Kim Ark case, also makes the distinction been those who are born in the USA and those who are naturalised - the former are NBCs, the latter are not.
Another good resources - The Natural Born Citizen Clause as Originally Understood
QUITE clearly, natural born citizenship depends on place of birth in our common law system, not on Vattel's (non)argument for parentage.
Click this link and scroll to the bottom of the chart and you’ll find this info which was removed in the posting.
snip
This table lists the top donors to this candidate in 2011-2016. The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organizations’ PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals’ immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.
end snip
I repeat, why doesn’t Trump sue to kick Cruz off ballot?
Answer- trump doesn’t like to waste legal fees and KNOWS the court will bitch slap him so fast his head would spin.
Follow the money my friend.
“So why doesn’t Levin pick up on this?”
Levin isn’t stupid; he’s picked up on it just fine. He just isn’t mentioning it because his soon-to-be stepson is a D.C. staffer of Cruz’ campaign.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3386836/posts?page=82
Cruz wins, his family wins. Follow the money/power.
Hmmmm. welcome back...
I don’t see Haley Barbour’s BGR lobby firm on the list, oh Haley doesn’t support Cruz, Haley opposes Conservatives in his home state of Mississippi. That’s as good as any Cruz endorsement for me.
You are willfully blind then. Conservative Tree House did pulitzer prize level research on the Trayvon Martin case, which was used by news outlets worldwide. And it wasn't a popular opinion in the media, you can imagine.
Treehouse finds facts then works backwards. And they do a great deal of investigative journalism. Months and months ago, they did a step by step analysis of what would be the Repub strategy long term for the elite and it was exactly what is happening now.
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.