Nikki Haley Ping
South Carolina Governor 
Send FReepmail to join or leave this list.
I think Governor Haley dug her own political grave Tuesday night. With a backhoe. It was bad enough having to endure obama going after the Republican candidates but then to get part two on the GOP response was unforgivable.
When Haley was running for governor in 2010, she was dead last. Palin made a special trip to SC to hold a rally for her, and a few days later she was in first place, and went on to win. When someone asked if she owed anything to Palin for that, Haley said “I don’t owe her anything.”
Now, she attacks Trump who has contributed lots of money to her campaigns.
She’s essentially been a backstabber all along.
Chelsea Clinton, from her recent quotes, is the spitting image of her mother.
They will be winning a total mess of a country...
And the Dims will sit back and blame EVERYTHING on the Pubbies...24/7.
Bank on it...........
I think one reason the GOPe picked Haley to speak was to raise her profile to set her up to endorse the GOPe pick for president in the upcoming SC primary next month.......
Nothing new here. Every 4 years the Rockefeller Republicans attack the conservatives and the conservatives attack the Rockefeller Republicans. The left has no such principals because their only goal, from center left to far left is bigger government.
most women are liberals, some are closet liberals, others more upfront....
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 citizen….”
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.