A Few More Things on Nikki Haley

RUSH: Moving back to Nikki Haley just for a brief moment, starting with a couple of sound bites here. Jonathan Karl on World News Tonight last night.

KARL: South Carolina's governor, Nikki Haley, the rising conservative star, who famously called for the Confederate flag to come down, included an attack on Trump in the official Republican response to the State of the Union. The line caught conservatives, including Rush Limbaugh, by surprise.

RUSH ARCHIVE: It's the first time in my life I can remember the response to the State of the Union not going after the president but rather going off on the front-runner of, in this case, her own party.

RUSH: It is remarkable, and not just Trump. She made it clear later that she wasn't just talking about Trump. She was talking about some in the media. Now, some of you out there say, "Hey, Nikki Haley, she's not establishment. She's Tea Party." Fine. That's what I always thought. But this is clearly an establishment angle of attack, to go after this mythical anger out there and to try to distance Republicans from it as though, "Oh, my God! Those people, they embarrass us. We're not them!

"Don't think of us as one of those people. We're not mad here in Washington. We want to cross the aisle and work with the Democrats. We want to cooperate with the Democrats. We want to be bipartisan. We want to show we can govern, that we can make government work. We want to show that Washington can work, so don't accuse us of being mad." I mean, that's how the establishment talks, of their own people. Here is Erin Burnett on Erin Burnett OutFront last night on CNN.

BURNETT: Haley said she was referring to Trump and others last night in her State of the Union rebuttal when she warned against following, quote, "the angriest voices." Her speech bringing a brewing battle within the Republican Party out into the open. Some praising Haley for the message. Others, like Rush Limbaugh, slamming the governor, saying it is the first time in his life he can remember a response to the State of the Union not the going after the president but after one's own party.

RUSH: That does concern me, and I want to thank Jonathan Karl and Erin Burnett for focusing on the thing that I said rather than making something up.

RUSH: Just to wrap this up here, folks, and then moving on to other things involving me, 'cause we have 'em. And I've got...

Anyway, wrap up this Nikki Haley thing. What bothers me and what bothered me about the response is, with all of this damage that Obama and the Democrats have done and continue to do and promise to do, all of the wreckage that they have made of this country, focusing criticism in a response to a pathetic Obama speech on people in your own party and to criticize them, I don't understand that.

Sadly, I do understand it. It comes from a position of almost guilt and defensiveness. If you think that in the middle of the opposition party literally transforming and destroying the founding and the principles and the moral fiber, everything else that's under assault, in the middle of that, you can't comment on that, you've gotta go out and attack people in your own party for being mad or for being outrageous or what have you.

It just seems really to miss the point. It seemed misguided. It seemed not helpful at all. And I think it's either one of two things, and one of the things is a defensiveness and a guilt, a belief that in this case Trump's behavior, "Yeah, it's making us all look bad. It's making the media look right. It's making all of our critics look right. Oh, my God, oh, my God, I don't want to be associated with that so I have to criticize it so that they won't lump me in with it."

It's either defensive, with a little tinge of guilt making it happen, or else it was strategic and comes from a position of trying to make sure or deny Trump the leadership and the nomination. But I don't care. Whichever those two it is, it doesn't make sense that when the opposing party gets a nationally televised shot to tell the American people what's wrong, why it's wrong, and how we're gonna change it, you don't do that. You go out and start ripping, criticizing people in your own party, it doesn't connect with me.

Anger over what's going on in this country is legitimate. So is loud anger over what has happened and continues to happen. And the Republican Party's continued focus on criticizing their own members, as though they are embarrassed of them, confuses me. I don't understand or appreciate defensiveness, the seeming need to send a message to the whole country that you disagree or are embarrassed of people in your own party, because it's also interpreted as questioning their sincerity and motives and competence. And it doesn't seem helpful to me.

And I don't know -- well, I do know who it's designed to impress, who the intended audience for that kind of thing is. And that's all it is. It's not personal. Like I told you, I like Nikki Haley. I've always thought she's had a great, great future. That's why all this came as a huge surprise to me. And sadly, a missed opportunity. But that's that. Enough of that.

RUSH: I mentioned, ladies and gentlemen, that CBS dragged Bob Schieffer out of retirement to talk about me and I guess it's... Well, me and whatever else I'm saying, along with Charlie Rose. And we set it up with this. CBS This Morning. This is not Bob Schieffer. He's still on his way. This is Gayle King, the BFF of The Oprah, and she is talking with Norah O'Donnell about the Nikki Haley response to the State of the Union and reaction to that. Here's the exchange that they had. This, again, is Gayle King and Norah O'Donnell.

KING: Conservative critics also bashed Haley's message. Rush Limbaugh called her part of the Republican establishment that is trying to stop Donald Trump.

SCHIEFFER: I started out saying, "Well, he's a reality TV star." I've changed my definition. He is a master showman who has this impeccable timing and this ability to sort of control the conversation.

RUSH: I misspoke. Bob did get there in time to appear on this, and then after Bob showed up, then they asked him, they start asking questions about me, and Charlie Rose is part of the whole deal. So you have here, you have Gayle King, you have Bob Schieffer and Charlie Rose all weighing in on all of this.

ROSE: Even Rush Limbaugh said, "It's starting to dawn on the elites," he says, "that Donald Trump could win the presidency." He's way ahead in most of the primary states.

SCHIEFFER: I have said from the very beginning that I took Donald Trump seriously, and I took him seriously because I know how angry people are. People are frustrated. I mean, the government does nothing. You know, Ronald Reagan called this the shining city on the hill has become the town where nothing works. And people are fed up with it. And along comes Donald Trump, who says the things that a lot of people wish they had the nerve to say to their boss.

RUSH: Whoa. Do you understand, Bob Schieffer knows how angry it is out there and the Republican establishment doesn't. That is astounding that a retired member of the Drive-By Media understands it. Isn't it interesting. Does that sound like the Bob Schieffer that you've known? It does not. It's Bob Schieffer justifying everything Trump's doing, justifying the anger, justifying all this and saying he knew it from the get-go, that he knew Trump was serious from the get-go. And Bob continued. Charlie Rose said Donald Trump is one big surprise, about how about Bernie Sanders and how about the Democrat race and the challenge that he's mounted to Hillary in Iowa and New Hampshire, Bob? What about all that?

SCHIEFFER: This is unbelievable, really, when you come right down to it. Here you have the Democratic Party, the oldest party, it's been around for a long, long time, and yet it has managed to come up with one legitimate candidate, Hillary Clinton. I mean, where are these candidates now? So along comes a guy who is a confessed socialist, says he's a socialist, says he is not a capitalist in a country built on free enterprise, and he's giving her this -- that just shows you that this frustration people are feeling, it's being felt on the left as far as the right.

RUSH: Right. So Bob is essentially agreeing here the Democrats have become the Jurassic party. They can't find anybody but Bernie Sanders, a committed socialist, to oppose Hillary? Now, what that should tell him is about the Democrat Party, not the country. The fact that the only serious opposition that party can mount is an anti-capitalist, anti-free enterprise, anti-free markets, pro-government socialist? And, by the way, this is getting serious. I mean, it's been serious for a while. It's getting "seriouser."

Hillary's now attacking the source of money for Bernie Sanders. Washington Post: "Clinton's Attacks Produce Windfall of Campaign Cash for Sanders." She's attacking Bernie Sanders, but that's creating beaucoup fundraising dollars for him. It's like Obama. He goes out there and promises to take executive action on guns and causes gun sales to go through the roof. Hillary's going out there and hitting Bernie Sanders and his fundraising is going through the roof. He's raising even more money. He's lapping her when it comes to fundraising.

Everything Hillary is doing when it comes to Bernie Sanders is backfiring. And that, I'm here to tell you, is not within the realm of Clinton experiences. The Clinton experience and their world is when they set out to criticize and rip somebody, they're finished. That's it. When the Clintons hit you, the media join with them and take you out. What's happening now is Hillary hits Bernie, his fundraising goes sky-high, his support ratchets up, and it's backfiring on her. And now, as almost a hail Mary, they've sent Chelsea out there.

Chelsea Clinton, who has been shielded and protected and told hands off her whole life to the media. You don't talk to her. You don't say anything about her. You don't publish her picture. You don't take any video. You don't do diddly-squat. Now, the Clintons have thrown Chelsea out there. She's on the attack against Bernie Sanders, and the Democrats almost en masse are saying, "What in the heck is this about? Why is Hillary doing this?" They think it's ineffective. They think, furthermore -- this is a bit of a stretch -- but they think it's a misuse of Chelsea's talents. You got me. I don't know, what are Chelsea's talents? Doing reports on CBS? No. NBC. What are her talents? Don't misunderstand. I'm not saying she doesn't have any. I just don't know what they are.

But some people think she's got some that are being misused. They note that Chelsea Clinton has mostly been used to go out there and say great things about her mother. She goes out there and talks about her mother's softer side and how her mother likes to play pinochle and Hillary likes umbrella drinks and she's just the funniest person. I've had this happen to me, by the way. I've had it happen to me. People say, "you misunderstand, Hillary's the most fun person in the world to be around. She laughs at everything. She's one of the funniest people you ever met. She loves umbrella drinks. You ought to see some of the jokes she does with the umbrellas when they bring out a pina colada."

I've actually heard all this, and my reaction, "Well, where is it? And why are you having to tell me? Why is it not self-evident? Why can't she get past the Nurse Ratched persona?" That's what they use Chelsea for, send Chelsea out there to there tell everybody how nice her mother is and how sweet and what a great mother she is, what a great grandmother she is. And now they're sending her out there as attack dog on old Bernie, and it's not flying with a whole lot of Democrats out there.

Those whose futures depend upon the media, with at least one notable exception, are afraid of the Alinsky tactic, Rule 5, “ridicule is man’s most potent weapon”. The term “Birthers” was a brilliant propaganda tool, perhaps on par with “McCarthyism”. It is a symbol that appeals to tribal instincts. But it is also a tool.

It is not coincidental that Obama, Cruz, Jindal, Rubio, and Nikki Haley are all naturalized citizens. Even Mark Levin, sadly avoids using the term “natural born citizen” when he deploys his bluster. Ann Coulter, who lost some of my respect when she mis-cited the law, Ann, who served under a Supreme Court Justice, as have several of the obfuscators, had the integrity to tell us she was wrong. http://humanevents.com/2016/01/13/were-all-ruth-bader-ginsburg-now/?utm_source=coulterdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

There is a rule, with no pretense that this is easy to understand, based upon Article 1 Section 8, “Congress...shall create an Uniform rule for Naturalization”, and Article II Section 1 Clause 5, “No person except a natural born Citizen or Citizen of the U.S. at the Adoption of this Constitution...”
If Congress could write code interpreting or abrogating articles and amendments of the Constitution the Supreme Court and Constitution are irrelevant. Congress could, as they have already begun to do, replace the Constitution with U.S, code - laws created by corruptible men, not rules based upon Natural Law, with which most, if they read about Natural Law, would agree. Naturalized citizens are all created via Article 1 Section 8, which was the foundation for the 14th Amendment.

Our framers couldn’t provide a rule for Naturalization because many states would not have ratified the Constitution and we would probably have become at least two nations, as Canada was partitioned between the French and English. It took an abolitionist judge from Ohio, John Bingham, to write the Naturalization clause, section 1 of the 14th Amendment. He made it perfectly clear that he was not touching the definition of natural born citizen, “I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizenâ€¦.”

Why would Nikki Haley be rolled out as a vice presidential candidate? This is obviously not-so-wild conjecture, but based upon Amendment XX. Were Republicans to elect a ticket of two attractive young naturalized citizens anyone in Congress, and states might also provide standing, could challenge. If our judiciary is as corrupt as it appears to have been under Obama, denying standing to everyone even as Barack himself told us he was “Born a Subject of the British Commonwealth”. If a challenge gets past the “standing” barricade, the choice of both the president and vice president goes to Congress. That is Amendment XX. The naturalized citizens may be stalking horses throwing real control of trillions of dollars to executives they select and control, which is just what was done with Obama, who was protected by our CIA, Wahhabi convert John Brennan, and State Department.

It has happened before. Remember Alger Hiss, confirmed a senior KGB officer by Venona decrypts, Harry Dexter White, assistant treasury secretary, KGB officer, and creator of the IMF and World Bank, and who influence the denial of funds to Chiang kai-Shek, throwing China to Mao with KGB backing. Read Diana West’s American Betrayal and “Stalin’s Secret Agents” by Stanton Evans and Herb Romerstein. History is full of conspiracies, and much of our history has been concealed by our own government. Trust original documents. The Constitution doesn’t, by design, contain definitions. Only the Supreme Court may provide such interpretation, and they have provided that definition dozens of times, with Minor v. Happersett, 1875 the first time this writer knows of that the decision required the definition. Wong Kim Ark and Perkins v. Elg cited Minor. Congress has no authority to alter that definition.

The often cited 1790 Naturalization Act, cited by Larry Tribe and Ted Olson for why McCain was natural born, is a “Naturalization Act”, and was entirely rescinded in 1795, with natural born citizen replaced by “citizen”.

Many of us owe to Obama the inspiration to read about our founders and framers, as few of us, including, sadly, most attorneys with whom I’ve spoken. To really understand natural born citizenship, you could read Chief Justice John Marshall’s contribution to “The Venus”, 12 U.S. 253, 1814, or preferably, because the definition was essential to the decision, Chief Justice Morrison Waite’s elegant and precise, and unanimous, decision in Minor v. Happersett. 88 U.S. 162. Minor was first explained to me by two heros of the quest for legal honesty by attorneys Leo Donofrio and Mario Apuzzo, is the case whose citations were corrupted by the Center For American Progress (CAP) fellow, Tim Stanley, and its CIO, Karl Malamud. tanley is CEO of Justia.com, the Internet’s largest resource for legal documents. Malamud had friends at Cornell where references to Minor v. Happersett were “munged”. Stanley pled a “computer error”. Who would bring him to court”.

A relatively famous professor at Boalt Hall, U.C.’s on-campus law school, subtly exposed Stanley and Malamud, explaining why “free” legal cites (like Justia) might not be trustworthy. He didn’t accuse them, but explained that he assigns his students the task of comparing information provided by the commercial sites with the free sites, two of which were founded by the progressive Stanley. Stanley blocked access to his “Wayback” site records, in which Minor v. Happersett citations were mangled, during the Summer and Fall of 2008. Shortly after exposure Stanley added a disclaimer about the accuracy of Supreme Court cases presented by Justia.com. Many had copied the early versions of cases, before Stanley blocked access to his “Wayback” records. Justia had correct citations before the Summer of 2008.

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.