Posted on 12/10/2012 10:18:24 PM PST by nickcarraway
GOP turned to GLOP (Grand LIBERAL Old Party).
The GOP has been trying to keep us on the plantation with rhetoric that includes candidates who are not conservative or patriots calling themselves “conservative” and “patriot”.
I’m not buying the BS. We must face it that 90 percent plus of the elected GOP officials are pretty much phonies, business as usual politicians bought by big money and special interests that have nothing to do with conservative policy or principles.
These are Murkowski-type politicians like Palin had to take on in Alaska.
Honestly, I cringe every time I see the word ‘patriot’ as it’s used lately.
I remember a conversation on FR with a guy that was fast and loose with his use of the term. When cornered, he wasn’t about to hurt his business or impact his income to go against the bs that was the subject at the time...but he was a ‘patriot’. And was proud of it. Just ask him.
Likewise the TEA party could stand to lessen their overall usage of the term until someone actually does something truly patriotic. And bitching online is a far cry from patriotism as the founding fathers defined it. “American”? Yes. “Partiotic”? no.
Words used to and still do IMO, mean things. It’s the bastardization of the language 1984 style that has made great strides in empowering the left and GOP.
I agree.
No point in arguing with idiots, so why don't you give it up, idiot.
Like all leftist scribblers who pose as moderate liberals, Chait avoids the central questions: what is the proper role of government, and what right does the state have to expropriate money from producers to squander on the takers? Nitwits like Chait like to believe it’s just a case of the greedy, selfish conservatives who don’t want to pay for the wonderful, modern welfare state where select groups must be unconstitutionally pandered to and the state allowed to spend/squander as much money on these groups as it wants. All lib/leftist scribblers follow the same course as Chait. They all avoid the central question.
So what are you going to do in 2016 when he gets the nomination, and nobody lifts a finger to stop him?
Rubio is not a natural born citizen, he cannot run for president.
Neither is Obama,but look who has the job.
One thing I’ve noticed on Free Republic is that the people with the least amount of facts and logic on their side in an argument are usually the first to start calling other people names.
According to Wikipedia, Rubio was born in Miami.
Well let’s really purge Bonehead - let’s support Nancy Pelosi for Speaker! Then former Governor Crist and Bonehead can become the new poster idiots of the Democrap Party!
Alan West? How does a conservative vote for 2011 NDAA and funding of Obamacare like Alan? You Freepers need to look closer. You missed those two votes.
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says: “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. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
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 society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.' Again: 'I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939),
Was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child's natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents' origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship "and to return to the United States to assume its duties." Not only did the court rule that she did not lose her native born Citizenship but it upheld the lower courts decision that she is a "natural born Citizen of the United States" because she was born in the USA to two naturalized U.S. Citizens.
But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg 'solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.' The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship."
The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.
http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html#Supreme%20Court
Did wikipedia mention that he was born to Cuban citizens?
Anyone who even thinks of Rubio as a “conservative”, is not one. Period
Rubio is Amnesty Liberal. Stop pushing Rubio as a conservative
Rubio’s parents were not US citizens at the time of his birth.
And he’s a huge pro-amnesty guy, which would guarantee the end of conservatism in this country anyway.
Not sure of the others... and as much as I like Alan West, no thanks.... voted for NDAA 2012 an abomination of a law...
“I haven’t seen Marco Rubio do anything at all.”
See... in this environment, that doesn’t matter. Charisma is the only thing that impresses people. Rubio is our token Hispanic, and he’s oh-so-cute, so he won’t have to “do anything at all”. What a shallow nation we’ve become.
Sad to say, in 2008 the MSM narrative discrediting Sarah was so vicious that even a LOT of the GOP and conservataives bought into it. I don’t think she can ever recover.
Also, she didn’t help herself any by “going Hollywood” on us with reality shows, putting her kids out there to dance with the stars, etc. I love Sarah, but those kinds of things cheapened her seriousness.
What I would LOVE to see is an impromptu debate on Civics and History among Sarah, Obama, and Hillary. I believe Sarah would wipe the floor with them. She’d definitely beat Obama who is one step away from the short bus. If there were some method of her overcoming all the negativity that was trumped up, she’d be one of the best presidents ever.
Part of the blame for the loser Mitt’s nomination should go to bona-fide skanks, Jen Rubin and ann Coulter, piss be upon them!
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.