Posted on 04/18/2014 9:52:49 PM PDT by Bigtigermike
Rand Paul will do his best to charm a group Mitt Romney’s top donors next week at an event facilitated by Romney finance director Spencer Zwick.
The Friday luncheon will take place in Boston at the offices of Zwick’s private-equity firm, Solamere Capital, according to a source familiar with the event. Romney’s eldest son Tagg is also a managing partner at the firm, and Romney is the executive chairman.
The event is yet another signal that Paul is preparing a for a serious presidential bid in 2016. Two years before the GOP primary, Paul is attempting to branch out beyond his libertarian-leaning base, and the ability to tap some of the establishment donors who helped Romney raise over $1 billion in 2012 will be critical to that effort.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
I think this is an example of how for many, their heart is in the right place, but they’re unwittingly part of the problem.
Care to explain how advocating amnesty for illegal aliens and a massive flood of third world “guest workers” squares with being “a great man and patriot?”
What do think about Sheldon’s outrageous, Bond villain-like spectacle at the airline hanger in Vegas? The creepy meeting where he made the leading GOPe presidential hopefuls grovel and humiliate themselves for cash. Don’t you think that kind of thing rubs the American people the wrong way?
As I said, we’ll continue to disagree but I consider Mr. Adelson to be the Haym Salomon of our era. And I’ll add that, in my estimation, the interests of America and Israel run parallel.
Rand may be able to grab Ohio, if he can get Ohio, maybe he can get Pennsylvania, if he can get Pa., GOP can probably win. I’m not in Rand’s corner but maybe he could pull it off and I’d be able to vote for him.
In an earlier motion to dismiss, or something similar, Bundy hit on all of the relevant legal topics raised in Gardner.
Does the the United States have an interest in granting amnesty to millions of illegals and increasing our intake of “guest workers?”
What do you think about Israel’s immigration policies, which involve detention and deportation of illegals and a border fence?
I was listening to some TV show when they brought that up. It almost had to be a Fox program, and I would guess it was Napolitano, but for some reason my recollection is blurry. Happy Easter, Scoutmaster. He is Risen!
Too much abortion in Israel and they recognize same-sex marriages from other countries there. Israel should be the good guy but I question it.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/abortion-counting-the-cost-in-israel-part-1-113397/
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-israel.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Israel
Though that may be the majority, those who believe in prophecy like to point that out and there seem to be Messianic Jews out there.
I support that no-nonsense stance 100% and, frankly, on this issue, yes, Mr. Adelson absolutely does need to be consistent.
Happy Easter to you. He is Risen, indeed!
In this case, I sincerely believe you would be better served by reading the federal court rulings and not filtering it through me. This will give you an idea of whether or not Cliven Bundy raised issues you deem to be relevant, and whether you believe Cliven Bundy received some some informed legal assistance.
U.S. v. Bundy, CV-S-98-531-JBR (RJJ) LEXIS 23835 (U.S. Dist. Ct. Nev. 1998
U.S. v. Bundy, No. 2:98-cv-531-LRH.
Others, especially FReepers have raised potential defenses not raised by Bundy. As a general rule, however, at the stage at which the court is enforcing remedies on a judgment, the losing party is not allowed to re-litigate issues he or she lost in the judgment, or to introduced legal theories that "dadgummit, I should have made that argument before the judgment."
I do appreciate the links. Not being a lawyer, I’m not sure what a good lawyer would have caught that laypersons like myself and others here on FR would have missed.
It’s a good thought exercise, and it’s always possible that it would be a comprehensive review, but I suspect lawyers exist because they do have a specialized knowledge.
IMHO, Bundy and the 1998 U.S. District Court were hamstrung on many arguments by the 1997 9th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals decision in United States v. Gardner 107 F.3d 1314 (9th Cir. 1997).
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.