Second American Revolution Open Thread

Turns out that we can rely on just 19 Senators – though I understand a couple of the GOPers who went against Cruz had genuine reasons for so doing.  Let’s call it 21 Senators who actually care about the fate of the nation…we need just 30 more to have a majority in the Senate.  To work in 2014 to increase our numbers.

That said, the battle is clearly joined – the Ruling Class wants one thing, the American people quite another.  Obama is simply too proud and too stupid to give ground.  His Democrats are too corrupt to give up their place.  The RINOs are too stupid and corrupt to give up theirs.  Fine and dandy.  We know where we are and what we need to do.  This, by the way, is not a call for abandoning the GOP…the vote in the Senate today does not, in my view, show the true strength of our side in the overall GOP.  I think we hold a majority of GOPers and GOP-leaning Independents…we just have some dinosaurs in the Senate which make it appear we’re weaker than we are.  I think we can fully take over the GOP and turn it in to the party of small business, the middle class and the working poor – a more populist and libertarian party which yet understands the vital necessity of preserving the old morality.  Perhaps I’m wrong and we’ll eventually have to go Third Party, but we shall see…we’ll know by the end of the 2016 cycle.  If the GOP Establishment gets us another “moderate” nominee then we’ll know the GOP is done for.

Have at it on this issue, or any other which comes to mind.

37 thoughts on “Second American Revolution Open Thread

  1. americanforchange September 27, 2013 / 11:42 pm

    I have always been in favor of a third party in American politics, and I do not mean a fly by night party but a serious contender to the Republicans and the democrats. We need that “tie breaker” in Congress because as we all know nothing is getting done with both of the current parties bickering like two school kids. Maybe a new third party would be a wake up call for as you say, the dinosaurs in Congress would realize that their cushy jobs are in jeopardy.

    • M. Noonan September 28, 2013 / 12:38 am

      Going third party is, of me, only an option of last resort – I think we can take over the GOP. McConnell will probably lose next year as the Democrats are running a candidate who will run against DC even though, once in, she’ll just be another hack vote for Reid and Schumer. Its pretty clear that McCain is planning on retiring in 2016 and probably a few other dinosaurs will exit that year – the old guard is about to exit the stage. We won’t have to fight against them much longer.

      That, in itself, doesn’t do the trick – because once we take over the GOP, we then have to secure a governing majority. That, I believe, is just lying there, waiting to be picked up. A coalition of small business, the middle class and the working poor would give us the majority – but to build it we have to go outside the “red” areas of the country…there are plenty of votes to be picked up even in the bluest cities, but the GOP Establishment is afraid to try…if we are fearless and go there, we’ll win enough among the blue areas that, when combined with the red areas, will be an unbeatable, government-reforming majority.

      But if the old guard defeats us, then we’ll have no choice. We can’t sit around just being votes for people who won’t do what is necessary. We’d have to go third party even at the risk of handing all power to the Democrats.

      • Bob1 September 28, 2013 / 5:11 pm

        You apparently believe that getting “a governing majority” of GOP representatives in both houses of congress would enable us “conservative minded” citizens to correct the problems in government that now confront us. But I don’t see how changing one small majority of 51% or so in one political party for a similar majority of the other party is going to change the grid lock or political wars that have been hampering the operation of our government for years. A simple majority of 51% is not an effective way to operate anything, not a jury or a business or a machine or a team or a government for a nation that is divided as is ours. And I assume that third party representatives are more focused on issues in the agendas that they get from their electors than they are in the basic matters of effective government, so they are just another representative body of citizens that are severely divided from each other. I don’t believe that 51% of the American people believe that we should operate our government in accord with the current Constitution. So we are left with the rule and guidance of “popular” politicians who are constantly at war with other politicians in their efforts to try to manage our government and spend our tax revenues.

      • M. Noonan September 28, 2013 / 5:38 pm

        You seem to be laboring under the illusion that the current governing majority cares about the United States. They aren’t trying to govern; they are trying to steal as much as they can for themselves. It is the way of ruling classes everywhere – whatever high and noble ideals might have motivated their progenitors, once they stay in power long enough, the only motivation is personal power and wealth. Obama is now rich, because he’s in government. Reid is now rich, because he’s in government. Pelosi is now rich, because she’s in government. To be sure, there are plenty of Republicans who are joining in to this festival of looting, but the Democrats make the running because they truly are the Ruling Class (the portion of GOPers allowed in are those who allow themselves to be tamed, in return for personal power and wealth).

        You think they care about health care, the environment, education? Then why does every proposal they make work out to they and their cronies getting richer? They don’t care if people are cured of disease – they only want to know how much they get out of it. ObamaCare is a clusterfark for the sole reason that it was apportioned out not as a means to health care, but to reward the Ruling Class…for heaven’s sake, if it was about health care then the Ruling Class would be lining up to participate…but they’ve exempted themselves from it. And if it comes to pass that the liberal dream of “single payer” is enacted, then you can rely on it that the Ruling Class will set aside medical assets just for themselves, so that they can get proper care.

        So, yes, getting to 51% will work, if that 51% is actually in favor of reform…because the only thing which stops reform is the fact that less than 51% of the power of government is in the hands of reformers. If we can get to that, then we’ll do as we please – and what we please is to bankrupt the Ruling Class and toss it out on it’s ear.

      • Amazona September 28, 2013 / 8:13 pm

        “…for heaven’s sake, if it was about health care then the Ruling Class would be lining up to participate..”

        And here is your ad campaign. Against every single Dem Senator or Congressman who voted for the Act, simply ask, if it is good enough for us why isn’t it good enough for them?

        Go on, if you want, to play on the American concept of fair play and equality, and point out that we are increasingly becoming a nation of classes, with different rules and laws and demands for different classes. I’d use the terms Ruling Class, or Ruling Elite, all the time, and eventually tie that into the ruling elites we saw in communist countries, where, as the system went on, more and more people were standing in line for hours to buy basics while the Ruling Elite had limos and vacation dachas.

      • M. Noonan September 29, 2013 / 2:22 am

        It would be – if the GOP establishment would go for it. But, they won’t – because they are part of the problem. All here know that my heart is set on Jindal in 2016. I’d take Santorum as my 2nd choice. But however it may come out, the main thing is that we need some one who will fight…and that means, by default, someone who is already known to be a foe of the establishment. As of this moment, the three people who most personify this are Scott Walker, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul. None are perfect, all are still only partially tested on the national stage…but if we waved our magic wand and made this September of 2015, it would have to be one of those three being the nominee. Only those who prove themselves warriors for the cause are even worth looking at – because only a warrior will fell Clinton and the Establishment Machine which will rise up to try and install her in the White House.

      • Amazona September 29, 2013 / 10:16 am

        Mark, I like Jindal, too. But we have a serious problem, created right here in the Republican Party, that is not only going to haunt us but is going to derail any of three Republican hopefuls if it is not addressed and resolved.

        There was a lot of fuss, regarding Obama, for a long time—–something which still rises to the surface every now and then. For years I dismissed it as tinfoil-hat stuff, but some of the blog posters sent me enough links to enough compelling information to make me realize that they not only had a valid point they were probably right. And this is the definition of Natural Born Citizen.

        Now, whether or not this IS a valid point, whether or not the definition IS one of a person born to citizens or at least whose father was a citizen at the time of birth, that is only one aspect of this. The other, and the one that will bring down Jindal, or Rubio, or Cruz, is that we made a big fuss about it, tried to use it to disqualify Obama, AND ARE NOW PRETENDING THAT IT NEVER EXISTED.

        I think the Left is so eager to have us nominate one of these guys they are tingling with anticipation, because we would be handing them the entirely defensible claim that we are not only just a bunch of hypocrites, we were so biased against Obama all we wanted to do was bring him down even if it meant inventing something to do so. The nomination and support of any of these fine men would solidify the image of Obama as victim of racism and hatred, and would be based on the ugly truth that we ARE hypocrites.

        I’ve been saying this for about six years and I will say it again. We are clumsy, bumbling fools if we pass up the opportunity to publicly and rightly take the High Ground and go to whatever body would have the jurisdiction to rule on the meaning of Natural Born Citizen, once and for all. This is the best time to do this. Jindal and Rubio and Cruz ought to step up and jointly demand, of Congress or SCOTUS or whatever legal authority is appropriate that they want this cleared up and settled. We could all agree that this has absolutely nothing to do with Obama, he has been inaugurated, sworn in, and has acted as president, and we agree that there will be no challenge to the validity of his presidency, but now that the nation has had four candidates in less than eight years whose fathers were not citizens at the time of their births we have to recognize that in this day and age this is likely to happen again, and we must resolve this now.

        Personally, I don’t care which way the ruling would go. I have come to see the wisdom in what I believe was the intent of the Founders, as we have had so much opportunity to see what happens when the President of the United States grew up and reached adulthood without the slightest background of being an American, or the slightest family loyalty to this nation. But I am not arguing for one side or another at this time, just concerned that we are going to repeat history and make a colossal blunder that will undermine our candidacy and add to the perception, created and advanced by the Left, that the Right is dishonest.

      • M. Noonan September 29, 2013 / 11:46 pm


        It has always been my opinion that even if it were proved that Obama was born in Kenya, he was born to an American woman and thus is a “natural born citizen”. No one will ever get me to say otherwise than that those born of Americans are American. The other half of it is covered by the 14th Amendment – if you are born in the United States, you are a citizen of the United States. True, the 14th doesn’t say you are a “natural born citizen”, but it doesn’t really have to – its redundant to say that. Here is what the excellent legal minds over at Legal Insurrection have to say on the subject of natural born citizen:

        …As much as we want certainty, the term “natural born Citizen” is not defined in the Constitution, in the writings or history of those who framed the Constitution, or in a demonstrable common and clear understanding in the former British colonies at the time the Constitution was drafted. Nor has the Supreme Court ever ruled on the issue, and it probably never will.

        The modifier “natural born” is not used anywhere else in the Constitution, and its precise origins are unclear, although it is assumed to be derived in some manner from the British common and statutory law governing “natural born Subjects.”

        There are two ends of the spectrum as which just about everyone agrees: (1) A person born in the United States to parents both of whom are United States citizens is a “natural born Citizen”; and (2) a person born outside the United States to parents neither of whom is a United States citizen is not a “natural born Citizen” even if citizenship later is obtained through naturalization. These are what law professor Lawrence Solum refers to as “cases of inclusion and exclusion.

        Rubio, Jindal and Cruz, as did Obama, fall between those points of inclusion and exclusion. Rubio and Jindal were born in the United States to parents neither of whom was a United States citizen at the time; Cruz was born in Canada to parents one of whom (his mother) was a United States citizen.

        Under the law existing at the time of their birth, each became a citizen of the United States at birth. Rubio and Jindal by the 14th Amendment, Cruz by statute.

        I’ve spent a considerable amount of time examining the issue of what “natural born Citizen” means in this context. While concepts such as “jus soli,” jus sanguinus” and ”natural law” are part of the equation, such concepts do not adequately answer the question, no matter how many times or how vigorously they are repeated. Similarly, relying on statutes governing citizenship does not answer what ”natural born Citizen” means in the Constitution and does not render the question trivial.

        There is a false construct all around that this is a purely legal question subject to some absolutely right or wrong conclusion. We should all just admit that we don’t really know for sure what “natural born Citizen” means or meant between the points of inclusion and exclusion.

        So what to do in a constitutionally and politically important area in which there is no clear legal answer?

        The key to understanding why I reach that conclusion that Rubio, Jindal and Cruz are “natural born Citizens” requires understanding the problem.

        There are strong arguments in favor of Rubio, Jindal and Cruz each being a “natural born Citizen” as that term most reasonably can be understood through its plain text because they became citizens by birth. Their “natural born Citizen[ship]” also is consistent with the concepts, respectively, of citizenship by birth place (Rubio, Jindal) and parentage (Cruz), from which the term “natural born Citizen” is believed to derive historically.

        The arguments that the term “natural born Citizen” excludes Rubio and Jindal (because their parents were not citizens) or Cruz (because he was born abroad to a citizen mother only) at most raise doubts. Those doubts, however, never rise anywhere near the level of making the case that Rubio, Jindal and Cruz are excluded. Most of the counter-arguments are historical conjecture, at best, and rely on speculation not connected to the text of the Constitution or any demonstrable actual intent or understanding of the Framers.

        To me, the issue is laid to rest and if Democrats want to bring it up, then that is their business.

      • Amazona September 29, 2013 / 10:23 am

        And, as far as candidates go, I am quietly hoping that as the time nears Mike Pence will step up and enter the race. He has played it quite well so far, becoming known to hard-core conservatives but keeping a low national profile, working his way from the House to the governorship of Indiana, and I hope he has a plan that involves staying under the radar and then coming forward closer to the time we start to identify our prospects.

        I look to Pence, who has it all——background, creds, charisma, political skill—-as well as to Rand Paul and Scott Walker. I like governors as candidates. I like people who have executive experience in government. Personally, I would like Rubio and Cruz to move into their respective statehouses for a while, serve as governors of their states, and lay down a stronger base of experience across the board. They are young, and they have time to establish themselves. Ditto for Paul.

        But we have to resolve, legally and with finality, the Natural Born Citizen thing, or it will not only come back to bite us in the butt, it will tear us a new you-know-what.

      • 02casper September 29, 2013 / 8:26 pm

        I agree with your 10:16 post 100%. My only questions is if Jindal and Rubio and Cruz jointly demand, of Congress or SCOTUS or whatever legal authority is appropriate that they want this cleared up and settled will anyone believe they are taking the high ground, or will people assume they are only doing it for political reasons?

      • Amazona September 29, 2013 / 10:51 pm

        Of course SOME “.. people (will) assume they are only doing it for political reasons…”

        After all, some people believe that the only reason anyone disagrees with Obamacare is “political reasons”. Some people believe that the only reason anyone objects to radical expansion of the power of the Executive Branch is “political reasons”. And so on.

        What is funny about this is that these people can’t even define “politics”, thinking the word is all about superficial fluff like scandals and personalities instead of how to govern the nation.

        But what would be a negative “political reason” for waiting till the middle of Obama’s second term, agreeing that he would be accepted as president no matter what the outcome might be, and asking for a ruling that would at this time affect only three of the GOP’s top potential candidates?

        Afraid that some people might wonder why the Dems didn’t have this much integrity? I wouldn’t fret about that. At least half of the nation seems completely indifferent to the lack of integrity in the Dem party, just as they don’t care about honesty or intelligence. I sure don’t see Dems standing up to object to Reid’s lies or Obama’s ignorance as he talks about going to 57 of the 58 states, or corpsemen, or the Maldives.

        So I think the Left is impervious to questions of why they don’t act ethically, or care about the rule of law as laid out in the Constitution. Those questions are only asked by the Right, and they are swept under the rug by the Left and its Complicit Agenda Media. Doubt that? Check out the in-depth journalistic investigation of the Benghazi debacle.

      • Amazona September 29, 2013 / 11:22 pm

        casper. I got an email about a little mutual butt-sniffing between you and the wattle over on the dark side. Why don’t you stand up on your hind legs and tell us what you posted over there about my post? Afraid of the explanation you would get that would, once again, identify you as a craven coward and liar?

        No one expects the wattle to do anything but lie, but you posture as such an upstanding guy, you ought to be man enough to post the same thing on both sites. Since you are now allowed to sit at the Losers’ Table, why don’t you tell us what you guys talk about over there?

        Oh, that’s right. You can only post your crap where there is no danger of rebuttal.

      • 02casper September 30, 2013 / 8:28 am

        I didn’t realize you had such an interest in my posts. Here they are:
        September 29, 2013 at 5:12 pm

        I was also struck by her comment. Her problem now is that she must either reject Jindel, Rubio, and Cruz or risk being called out for being a hypocrite. The same goes for all of the other birthers who have questioned Obama’s citizenship over the last six years. This is one time I agree with her 100%.
        September 29, 2013 at 7:58 pm

        “Neither Cruz, Jindal or Rubio will ever win the Republican nomination. In 2016 those folks will be ancient history.”

        By attacking Obama for not being American, they are eliminating their own people from running. While I don’t consider any of the three to have a great chance, they are some of their stronger choices.


      • Amazona September 30, 2013 / 9:11 am

        Mark, I understand your point. But you are missing mine.

        To put it bluntly, your opinion doesn’t matter, and neither does mine. There are only two things that DO matter. One is the statement, in the original Constitution, that to be eligible for the presidency one must be—-and this is a precise phrase—–“a natural born citizen”. The other is the LEGAL definition of that term, as it was used and intended at that time. It was put in for a specific purpose.

        Like you, I dismissed comments that Obama was not a natural born citizen. The reading I did back when he was first promoted as a candidate indicated to me that citizenship could not be assigned to him just because his mother was a citizen, based on the law requiring a certain time spent in the United States by the mother prior to the birth to allow her to convey citizenship to the child. I have since been told that this is not an issue. However, before claiming that simply being an American citizen automatically conveys citizenship to a child, you might want to check that out, because evidently that alone was never adequate.

        I have made some points you have ignored when you simply stated your opinion.

        One is that the issue IS valid, based on extensive historical data regarding the meaning of the term AT THE TIME THE CONSTITUTION WAS WRITTEN. The understanding of the term now is irrelevant. For example, if a statement in 1800 described a man as “gay” it would be foolish to claim, in 2013, that someone was saying he was a homosexual. To comply with the Constitution, we have to apply definitions as they existed when it was written. And there is compelling evidence that the accepted definition of that particular phrase, at that particular time, was of a person born to citizens, or at the very least to a father who was a citizen at the time of the birth.

        No subsequent amendment has changed that wording, nor defined it.

        The other is that to look the other way and pretend this has not been raised, and argued, and that a solid if not conclusive case has been made regarding the meaning of the term when it was used, would be hypocritical. And it would also be damaging to our candidacy.

        Because it IS an issue, because there IS the question, because there ARE enough historical data to support the conclusion that the term means born to citizens or to a father who is a citizen, what is the problem of addressing it and resolving it?

        I don’t pretend to have the answer. And I don’t have a dog in the hunt, so I am not arguing for any particular definition or ruling. I can, and will, accept whatever ruling might be made. I just want it settled, so it is not lurking in the shadows to be dragged out later. I think it is a valid, and important, question. I think it essential that we follow the Constitution, and not let personal opinions or preferences dictate how we define it or what parts we consider important and which we can simply dismiss. This just happens to be an ambiguity that I think needs to be examined, carefully and thoroughly, so it will no longer be ambiguous.

      • Amazona September 30, 2013 / 9:33 am

        casper, quit preening in your mistaken assumption I am interested in you. I do, however, find it interesting that you post different things on different sites, and think this is yet another indication of your inherent dishonesty.

        Now that you have provided us with what you have offered your new little buddies to ingratiate yourself with them, let’s take a look at it.

        “I was also struck by her comment. Her problem now is that she must either reject Jindel, Rubio, and Cruz or risk being called out for being a hypocrite. The same goes for all of the other birthers who have questioned Obama’s citizenship over the last six years. This is one time I agree with her 100%.
        September 29, 2013 at 7:58 pm

        “Neither Cruz, Jindal or Rubio will ever win the Republican nomination. In 2016 those folks will be ancient history.”

        By attacking Obama for not being American, they are eliminating their own people from running. While I don’t consider any of the three to have a great chance, they are some of their stronger choices.”

        As usual, any reading of what you write has to include the question of whether you are lying or just plain stupid—not that the two are mutually exclusive.

        Surely you cannot have missed the point, made so many times by me, that I have not come to any conclusion about the natural born citizen status of any of these three men. Maybe it’s because you don’t understand the meaning of words I use, so you don’t realize that when I say there is “compelling” evidence I don’t mean “conclusive” evidence.

        Without a conclusive legal ruling on the issue, I have no reason to, as you so shrilly put it, “REJECT” anyone.

        I do, however, think it is something we should lay to rest. I see arguments on both sides, and I really don’t care which ruling might be made. I am not coming at this question with a partisan approach, supporting one side or the other. But I think it is important, primarily to make sure we are actually following the Constitution as it was intended by the Founders and then to avoid the inevitable attacks from your kind for being inconsistent.

        You go on to whimper that I am a “birther”—-a profoundly ignorant term, as it appears to cover anyone who acknowledges that Obama was born. If the truth has any importance to you, you will have to admit that I have never, ever, taken any stand on any issue of Obama’s birth or citizenship. The problem with knee-jerk hysterics like you is that if someone merely points out that there is a question about something, you flip out and then extrapolate a whole series of assumed meanings, intents and beliefs, and then integrate your own fantasies into what passes for reality and proceed as if something was said when it never was.

        But you are so pathetically eager to be accepted into this crowd over there, you quite willingly produce the kind of brainless lying pap you know they will eat up with a spoon. Seriously, casper, you really have no dignity, do you?

      • Amazona September 30, 2013 / 10:01 am

        Mark, this (“… Most of the counter-arguments are historical conjecture, at best, and rely on speculation not connected to the text of the Constitution or any demonstrable actual intent or understanding of the Framers….”) is a specious argument.

        “..rely on speculation not connected to the text of the Constitution…”? Really? This is all he can come up with? That nowhere else in the document is there a definition of the term? Who defines terms that are commonly understood? If the Constitution had stated that only a man could be president, would this author be complaining that this was not specific enough because the word “man” was “…not connected to the text of the Constitution..”? What if this was a stand-alone statement, without any “…. demonstrable actual intent or understanding of the Framers..”? Would we be quibbling about the meaning of the word based on the fact that it was not accompanied by a treatise on its meaning and on why it was stated?

        As I understand it, the concern was that a man (and anyone considered for the presidency at that time was assumed to be a man) should not be the leader of this nation if he grew up with loyalty divided between his father’s nation and his own. There was the belief that the truest and deepest nature of allegiance to a nation could only come from being a part of it from birth, brought up in a home with undivided loyalty to that nation.

        The issue is not whether they were correct. It is whether or not that formed the decision to use that particular term in that particular context in that particular document, to narrow down the criteria for that particular position.

        And I suggest that the last four, nearly five, years, have provided us with a glaring example of the folly of electing a president with only a technical definition of being an American. We have seen the result of having a president who never set foot in the continental United States until he was an adult, and more significantly who was not reared as an American but by a mother, a stepfather, and grandparents with little or no love for or allegiance to this nation. His mother was anti-American, his absent but idealized father was even more so, his stepfather was for most of Obama’s life and when he started to change his opinion of this country Obama’s mother left him and took Obama to her parents, who were certainly never described as patriots and who sent the boy to be mentored by an ardent and avowed Communist who hated the United States.

        We could not have a clearer explanation of why the Founders feared having the nation led by someone with divided loyalties. We could not have a better example of the difference between being an American citizen solely by nature of a legal technicality and being an American citizen by nature of a lifelong experience AS an American.

        As anyone who has spent much time in other nations, or who has known people who have, understands, when you are in another nation you retain your own sense of who you are. And that is formed by who your parents are, by your experiences, by the day to day life as you grow up. As a purely personal opinion, I would expect Marco Rubio, or Bobby Jindal, or Ted Cruz, to be American in their hearts, in their attitudes, in their heritage, because their parents fought to be here and brought them up AS Americans, with love and respect for the country. So I would be quite comfortable with any of them as President, based on my understanding of the circumstances of their lives.

        I have new respect for the Founders’ wisdom if they truly intended that only people with a history of being American, in an American family, with undivided loyalty to this country going back to both parents, should be allowed to be president.

      • M. Noonan September 30, 2013 / 11:54 am

        That Obama’s mother was a poor, little rich girl who went about doing things to piss off her parents is not in doubt. That Obama’s father was anti-American goes without saying (it was, at the least, part of his father’s Marxist, anti-West ideology). But that Obama was born of an American woman is also not in doubt – and as such, he’s American. He’s one of our own, God help us!

        But if your concern is whether or not someone was raised with a devoted love for our nation, then you have no worries on the part of Rubio, Cruz and Jindal…from their words and actions, all of them are clearly devoted to the United States of America…and as Rubio and Jindal were born here and Cruz born to an American, I don’t see any need to get worked up. There simply will not be a case which comes to the Supreme Court to define “natural born citizen”. Its not going to happen – and so all of us will just have to use our wits, with the only certainty we have is that someone born in foreign lands of foreign parents is not a “natural born citizen”…all else is up to our common sense.

      • Amazona September 30, 2013 / 12:42 pm

        “…as such, he’s American…”

        I would correct that to read: “…as such, he’s technically an American..”

        Growing up in a foreign land that has a distinctly anti-American attitude, with parents who hate America, worshiping an absent father who is ardently anti-American, and then being turned over to another father figure who is also ardently anti-American—that is, having absolutely no foundation of love or respect for this country—is hardly the recipe for being American, no matter what the official legal status of citizenship may be.

        AN American, yes. But American, in the sense of love of country, not so much.

        But none of these abstract quibblings address the resistance to asking that the term “natural born citizen” be formally and legally defined, regarding eligibility for the presidency. To me, it is obvious that this is a question that will cast a shadow over many more prospective candidates in the future. What is wrong with being proactive and getting it resolved now?

        I just don’t get it. What is the rationale behind leaving this question on the table, subject only to partisan opinion?

      • M. Noonan September 30, 2013 / 1:59 pm

        Ok, then I recommend the House and Senate in Congress assembled define “natural born citizen”. I’m certain such an action would confirm the eligibility of Obama, Cruz, Jindal and Rubio.

      • Amazona September 30, 2013 / 12:48 pm

        How insulting and dismissive to say I am “worked up”. It is what I would expect of a Lefty who wants a subject dropped so attacks the person who brought it up.

        Since when is a calm and reasoned suggestion that a matter of extreme importance, such as eligibility for the highest office in the land, be clearly defined snidely dismissed as being “worked up”?

        But if I WERE to become “worked up” I could find few reasons more compelling than simultaneously clarifying such an important national and Constitutional issue and removing it from the arsenal of future political attacks.

      • M. Noonan September 30, 2013 / 1:59 pm

        Well, I do apologize if my wording came out offensively – I meant no such thing. But its not an issue I’m terribly concerned about. To me, Obama, Rubio, Cruz and Jindal are as much American as I am.

      • dbschmidt September 30, 2013 / 2:05 pm


        I will leave President Obama out of this discussion; however, the determination of Natural Born Citizen needs to be resolved but by whom? With consideration of the definitions at the time of the writing of the Constitution and consideration this was during a patriarchal social system (not matriarchal) and great regard to fear of fiefdoms, kingdoms and the elite ruling class (we now have) being built in the new America–the only definition left is a man child born to an American citizen father would be eligible for the Presidency. Look no further than the principal of Occam’s (or Ockham’s) razor.

        As to my first question–the US law has been so polluted by “case” law that my (now sold) 1923 T-Bucket Ford had no resemblance to what rolled off the assembly lines but fell under “the law” as a 1923 Ford. Same with all of the mucking about eligibility for President. There is a great deal of work that needs to be done to restore America to America. From what the Progressives, over 100 years of concerted small and large efforts, created back to the America we will need to survive as “a shiny city on the hill” and not Detroit. Deciding Presidential eligibility and case law v. Constitutional law being just small parts of the changes needed.

      • M. Noonan September 30, 2013 / 2:10 pm


        I don’t see it as important. I think the whole genesis of it was to prevent some of the political leaders of the United States from offering the crown to a foreign prince – as the Dutch had done earlier and the Mexicans were to do later. It goes with the prohibition on an American accepting a foreign title…this to prevent a foreign prince from bribing our leaders to make said prince King of the United States. Remember, getting a title back in those days wasn’t the empty vanity it is today – the titles came with lands and income. Our young, weak Republic had to withstand many things – including a corrupt deal to sell us to foreigners. Its just not a relevant issue for me – it still stands as a Constitutional provision and must be obeyed, but as it is not defined in the Constitution we are free to make of it what we will…and I make of it based on nativity; either being born of an American or being born in America.

      • dbschmidt September 30, 2013 / 2:19 pm


        As time permits I will go back through my documentation on this very issue but I can assure you it has nothing to do with Titles and such. I do not want this to sound bad but your start to the response “I don’t see it as important.” is what the Progressives have used as a reason to dismember the Constitution including the 10th amendment. IMHO

      • M. Noonan September 30, 2013 / 2:31 pm

        Well, have at it – let’s see the debate and how it goes.

      • dbschmidt September 30, 2013 / 3:05 pm


        Until I get other items completed and have the time to further this discussion–I would recommend you and all other interested parties re-read a previous posting.

        Natural Born Citizen
        This is the second in a series of Constitution-related posts.
        Natural-born, Native-born, and Naturalization

      • 02casper September 30, 2013 / 8:57 pm

        Amazona September 30, 2013 at 9:33 am

        “casper, quit preening in your mistaken assumption I am interested in you.”

        I’m sure you have minions send you emails about what lots of people that you aren’t interested in.

        “I do, however, find it interesting that you post different things on different sites, and think this is yet another indication of your inherent dishonesty.”

        Or, maybe it’s because I was posting to different people on different sites. I don’t have the same conversation with everyone I talk to, so why should I post the exact same things.

        “You go on to whimper that I am a “birther”—-a profoundly ignorant term, as it appears to cover anyone who acknowledges that Obama was born.”

        No, it covers any of the nutcases who don’t want to believe Obama is president because his father wasn’t an American or because they “think” he was born somewhere else. You fit the definition.
        In the long run run though, I’m pretty sure that if Jindal, or Rubio, or Cruz are nominated for president you will come up with some long convoluted reasoning to believe that any of them can be president. Meanwhile, I’m sure you will find a lot of other things to get worked up about.

      • Amazona October 1, 2013 / 9:12 am

        casper, once again you produce a post that is a bizarre combination of delusion and outright lies. No wonder we think that you are capable of nothing BUT delusions and outright lies.

        You say: “I’m sure you have minions send you emails about what lots of people that you aren’t interested in.”

        Yeah, minions. A whole cadre of people waiting to snap to attention and curry favor with me. And, of course, in your weird fantasy life, that would include keeping me posted on your latest insanity. Which would, we can see here, be nearly a full-time job. Well, if I did they would be able to construct a sentence that makes sense (“….about what lots of people that you aren’t interested in.”) No, you engage in the multiple delusions that I (or anyone else, for example) finds you interesting, and that whole fleets of “minions” contribute to my eagerness to follow you.

        “I do, however, find it interesting that you post different things on different sites, and think this is yet another indication of your inherent dishonesty.”

        Or, maybe it’s because I was posting to different people on different sites. I don’t have the same conversation with everyone I talk to, so why should I post the exact same things.

        Of course you don’t have the same conversation with everyone. That was my point. You try to hide your weaselness when you post here, and you flaunt it there because that is the price of admission over there. Thanks for acknowledging that.

        “You go on to whimper that I am a “birther”—-a profoundly ignorant term, as it appears to cover anyone who acknowledges that Obama was born.”

        No, it covers any of the nutcases who don’t want to believe Obama is president because his father wasn’t an American or because they “think” he was born somewhere else. You fit the definition.

        And here we come to your Outright Lie Of The Day—-though we have to remember, the day ain’t over. I have never, ever, EVER, stated an opinion on the birthplace of Barack Obama. I have also never stated an opinion that I “…..don’t want to believe Obama is president because his father wasn’t an American ” You really ought to try to get a handle on this lying thing. People are starting to talk.

      • 02casper October 1, 2013 / 8:45 pm

        I’m going to make it easier for you in the future. If you really want to know what I’m posting on the other blog here is a link.

        Wouldn’t want you to have to depend on someone else.

  2. Retired Spook September 28, 2013 / 9:21 am

    I wouldn’t be surprised to see the rise of a third party, although, like Mark, I see it as a last resort. However, I also don’t think the GOP is going to become competitive on a national basis again strictly on the strength of its message. There’s just too much bias in the media to distort Conservative ideas and cover up Liberal failures. In order for the country to change course, it’s going to take some major event or series of events where the failures of Progressivism are so blatant and so obvious that even the media can’t hide it. I tend to agree with those who think the trigger might be the failure of ObamaCare, and that we just need to let it move forward and either succeed or collapse on its own. Just have a little faith that, as it’s set up, it has little chance of success. And, if it fails, it should fail on it’s merits (or lack thereof) and not because of obstructionist GOP fingerprints all over it. Just my opinion, though, and I could be completely, totally wrong.

    • Amazona September 28, 2013 / 9:50 am

      I think it would be foolish to just up and start a third party. However, I think if Republicans were to shift to discussing only politics—that is, to defining Left and Right in simple terms relating to a belief in a small federal government severely restricted as to size, scope and power with most authority at the state and local level (Right) or a massive and infinitely expansive federal government with nearly all power centered in Washington DC (Left), as well as working on clearing up the definition of “conservative”, we would attract enough people who agree on the idea of a small central government to overwhelm the Old Guard of the GOP.

      And at some point, a third party, if still necessary, would have naturally evolved, as an alternative between the Left and the Old Guard GOP, but at that point it would be big enough to be a factor.

      We, as a nation, have allowed our terminology to become so cluttered and so inaccurate that our words no longer mean anything. Last week I was reading the autobiography of E. Howard Hunt (fascinating, by the way) and he referred to a “far right-wing group”. What did this group represent? They were racist and anti-Semitic. Now just what does that have to do with politics? But the Left, so brilliant at semantic infiltration, have redefined so many terms that everyone now accepts those definitions, no matter how wildly inaccurate they are.

      Tell me, who is more racist and anti-Semitic than the radicals on the Left? Yet even there those characteristics are characteristics of a certain pathology, not of political orientation. But we have allowed these snapshot definitions to take hold, where they take on the power of truth even though they contain none. And when they do take hold, they then have the power to sway people into alignment with political parties because of attraction to, or repugnance toward, these snapshots—-none of which have the slightest thing to do with how best to govern the nation.

    • Amazona September 28, 2013 / 10:04 am

      Spook, I think a beginning in a change in perception could start with our candidates. They do get press time, they do get interviewed, they do get to have televised debates. They could make a point of defining conservatism as the belief in a certain form of government, and nothing else, and they could deflect questions into mini-lectures on the Constitution.

      Tiny George: “Tell me, sir, do you think states should be allowed to ban contraception?”

      Candidate: “I’m not quite sure why you are asking me that, George. If you are not a shill for my opponent, trying to set up a sound bite he can use against me, you are either asking me, in a very clumsy way, to discuss my opinion on state sovereignty, or you are simply ignorant of the Constitution and the authority of the office for which I am running. My answer to either of the latter is the same—–I apply all ideas about government to the 10th Amendment, which basically says if something is not specifically delegated to the federal government in the 17 enumerated duties laid out in the Constitution, it is either forbidden by the Constitution or it is the responsibility and authority of the States.”

      Tiny George: “No, I just want to know your opinion…”

      Candidate: “My opinion is that, as a conservative, which only means that I believe our Constitution is not only the only LEGAL rule of law in our nation but the best way to govern it, every single opinion I have about government, whether at the federal or state level, can be found there. If you don’t know or understand the 10th Amendment you really ought to take a look at it. It’s only a few words, but it condenses and defines the essence of the entire Constitution.”

      The TEA Party is a true grass-roots organism, growing organically out of resentment for the abusive and punitive and irrational tax structure in this country. I think that an election season in which every single conservative candidate stuck to the basic message outlined above would provide the information to start a similar movement regarding Constitutional government. The yeast, if you will, to the bread of change.

      • Retired Spook September 28, 2013 / 3:39 pm


        I don’t disagree with the strategy you outline, but I don’t think it will be enough. Just as the Left has re-written history over the last century or so, they are also adept, in real time, at putting words in people’s mouths and distorting or simply lying about what someone said. So let me play devil’s advocate for a second. Let’s say your hypothetical (but in actuality, real) question is asked in a TV interview or in a debate, either of which is followed up with analysis by a panel of talking heads. On all the alphabet channels you’ll have 3 Liberals and one Moderate or maybe a Conservative if you’re lucky. You don’t need a vivid imagination to see how your answers would be spun. Failure to answer the question for fear of being seen as a far right, out of touch radical. Hiding behind a 200-year-old, antiquated piece of paper. And the people watching? What are they going to remember — how the candidate answered the question or how someone afterward said he/she answered it or failed to answer it?

        I’m not saying conservative candidates shouldn’t adopt your strategy. In fact, if you don’t mind, I’d like to print it out and read it aloud at our Tea Party meeting next Tuesday. What I am saying is it needs to be part of a much bigger strategy that involves education as well as tying the failure of Leftist polices with the fact that they weren’t allowed by the Constitution in the first place.

      • Amazona September 28, 2013 / 8:08 pm

        Spook, I agree, it would not be enough. It would have to be followed up with a campaign to ask people just why the talking heads refused to address the actual message in what was said, but chose to focus on claims that the questions were avoided, etc. In every debate the conservative could point out that he has advocated, explained and defended the Constitutional model but his opponent has, for some reason, refused to do the same for his apparent preference for government, the massive and unrestrained federal government model. We already know that the Left fears discussion of actual government, that they avoid it and run from it and try to shift attention to the ISSUES they control. So back them into a debate corner and keep them there. The issues will still exist, but they are not federal issues.

        This is just my opinion, but I think there is a deep-rooted resistance in most Americans, at least those over forty or so, to coming right out and saying they don’t believe in the Constitution. The problem is, most people have no idea what it says.

        And I also believe that there is a deep-seated distrust of Washington DC. People are far more comfortable with state and local government. So I think an argument that the Constitution actually says most government is SUPPOSED to be at the state and local level would resonate with a lot of people.

        Remember, we are coming through a period of federal abuse of power, and as hard as the Complicit Agenda Media have tried to cover it all up, it is still simmering. We have had revelations of the federal government spying on citizens, and we have had the IRS scandal, which really resonated with people because of the inherent distrust of the IRS.

        I think a constant drumbeat of insistence that the election be about GOVERNMENT would start to hit home, especially with reminders of the abuses of our bloated central government as seen in the last few months. Combine that with a commitment to eliminating the IRS and replacing it with a completely new, bare-bones, agency and a Fair Tax instead of an income tax, and I think a lot of people would rally to that cause. And a nice side effect is what losing the IRS would do to Obamacare.

        We already hate and fear the IRS. A campaign which focuses on the basic choice between small federal government and massive controlling federal government, with the NSA and the IRS held up as examples of what will, inevitably, happen when central government becomes too huge and powerful, will start to get attention, no matter how the Left tries to shut it down.

        Our TV, radio and print campaigns can focus on two things——the shift from federal to state control and the extravagant efforts of the Left and the Complicit Agenda Media to make the election about everything BUT government.

        We don’t need to bring 20 million people to our side. We just need about 5 million, because that would not only be 5 million more votes for us, it would be 5 million fewer votes for the other side. We don’t need to convince everybody. The TEA Party, great as it is, didn’t offer much in the way of concrete ideas that people could understand and wrap their heads around. “Lowering taxes” is kind of a vague abstraction which then leads to quibbling about what would have to be cut, attacks on people for wanting to push Grandma over the cliff, etc. But the Fair Tax would generate nearly the same income as we get now, plus save billions now spent to run the IRS, plus get the domestic Gestapo shut down.

        We get accused of never having solutions. Well, we could implement immigration reform which includes registration of illegals to get temporary visas till they are investigated and approved for long-term work permits. And we could take the IRS employees who are already trained to snoop and investigate, move them over into Immigration to handle the investigations into the applications for long-term visas plus handle the shameful backlog of current applications, and then as they reach retirement simply not replace them. This is a way to reduce government that should appeal to most people, it is easy to understand, and it plays to the distrust of the IRS as well as presenting a reasonable way to shrink the federal bureaucracy.

  3. neocon01 September 28, 2013 / 12:05 pm

    Im personally DONE with, and supporting the GOP, I will support conservative candidates but the GOP and their traitorous RINOS can go straight to hell in a hand basket.

  4. dbschmidt September 30, 2013 / 9:31 am

    These folks cannot even mention that subsidies are taxpayer monies. “Oh, it will be subsidized and therefore cheaper”, yada, yada, yada. Thieves, Liars & Crooks for the vast majority starting at the top down.

Comments are closed.