(01-15-2016 01:54 PM)Hotwheels Wrote:  Rubio also being challenged on his "natural born citizenship"

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/pres...-challenge

Quote:A Florida voter filed the suit, which claims that the senator isn't a true "natural-born citizen" under the Constitution because his parents were not both U.S. citizens at his birth in Miami.

The challenge occurs as 2016 rival Ted Cruz has been thrust into the spotlight by repeated "birther" challenges by party front-runner Donald Trump and other critics because the Texas senator was born in Canada.

So far, only Cruz has faced significant questions from those challenging his natural-born status. But the legal brief shows Rubio's lawyers trying to cut down the accusations at an early level.

The 34-page document, first disclosed by the Tampa Bay Times, casts aside the claim, noting that under the voter's logic "at least six other Presidents of the United States were not natural born citizens and were therefore ineligible for that office."

I have yet to see any mention of either of these lawsuits on Fox. Imagine the rest of the MSM is ignoring it as well.

Rubio was born in the United States. Under the 14th amendment, he qualifies as a "natural born citizen."

Cruz does as well, by the way. The courts have consistently held that being born abroad to an American parent makes you a "natural born citizen."

(01-15-2016 03:09 PM)eradicator Wrote:  

(01-15-2016 02:43 PM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  In Croatia, if both your parents are Croatian citizens when you're born, you're also automatically a citizen, no registration needed. The only case where naturalization is required is when only one of the parents is a Croatian citizen and the child is born abroad.

Which ironically is the case with Cruz, Born in Canada and only his mother is an American citizen, which is enough to make him a citizen of the USA, but is he automatically naturalized or is he natural born? Honestly, I think he would qualify as natural born the way I read the law. But I guess it's arguable that he is naturalized.

I think that the argument is that "natural born" means born inside the country.

The spirit behind the rule is that only a natural American citizen, one who hopefully identifies with the culture and has an allegiance to the country, is leading the nation.

In a case like Cruz, he would have had both Canadian and American citizenship upon birth (?). So which one is he first? Canadian or American?

He's lived most of his life in America, yet he just recently renounced his Canadian citizenship if I'm not mistaken. That makes it even murkier.

Where do his ties lie? Which values is he aligned with?

Whereas someone who is born in the US is American without a question. Obviously that doesn't necessarily prove anything about their allegiance, but it gives a better idea.

(01-15-2016 02:54 PM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

(01-15-2016 02:46 PM)Lucky Wrote:  The master re-framer does it again

Is she really that brain-addled? Or is it her campaign staff? Who the fuck thinks these things will raise her popularity?

Probably hoping for a position in his cabinet haha

(01-15-2016 03:24 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  Rubio was born in the United States. Under the 14th amendment, he qualifies as a "natural born citizen."

That is going to be challenged when Trump gets in office.

It's crazy to me that everyone skipped over that Farrakhan video. Those comments are huge. He still has a pretty big influence over blacks, American Muslims, and even Arab Muslims.

Rubio is a despicable faggot:

Quote:Rubio is one of 12 Republican senators collaborating with the administration by co-sponsoring legislation that would codify requiring improvised campus disciplinary proceedings to supplant law enforcement and the criminal justice system. Proposed by Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) , the legislation is, as Taylor and Johnson say, “designed to advance the administration’s agenda.” The legislation’s language radiates prejudgment: By repeatedly referring to accusers as “victims,” it presumes the guilt of the accused. Taylor and Johnson write:

“America’s universities are in the grip of a dangerous presume-guilt-and-rush-to-judgment culture. . . . An entire generation of college students is learning to disregard due process and the dispassionate evaluation of evidence. And dozens of clearly or at least probably innocent students, whose cases we will detail in a book we are now writing, have been branded sex criminals, been railroaded out of their universities, and seen their hopes and dreams ruined.”

By co-sponsoring S. 590, Rubio is helping the administration sacrifice a core constitutional value, due process, in order to advance progressives’ cultural aggression. The next Republican president should be someone committed to promptly stopping this disgrace, not someone who would sign S. 590’s affirmation of it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/..._tw-bottom

Can someone shop a pic of Rubio carrying Emma's mattress?

Quote:Rubio is a despicable faggot.

I agree and I dislike him the most of all of them, even more than Jeb, who I almost feel a bit sorry for. Last night he looked like he could have fallen off the stage at times.

Trump: "Jeb is weak!"

Jeb: "Oh come on!" (Looks butthurt)

(01-15-2016 03:24 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  

(01-15-2016 01:54 PM)Hotwheels Wrote:  Rubio also being challenged on his "natural born citizenship"

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/pres...-challenge

Quote:A Florida voter filed the suit, which claims that the senator isn't a true "natural-born citizen" under the Constitution because his parents were not both U.S. citizens at his birth in Miami.

The challenge occurs as 2016 rival Ted Cruz has been thrust into the spotlight by repeated "birther" challenges by party front-runner Donald Trump and other critics because the Texas senator was born in Canada.

So far, only Cruz has faced significant questions from those challenging his natural-born status. But the legal brief shows Rubio's lawyers trying to cut down the accusations at an early level.

The 34-page document, first disclosed by the Tampa Bay Times, casts aside the claim, noting that under the voter's logic "at least six other Presidents of the United States were not natural born citizens and were therefore ineligible for that office."

I have yet to see any mention of either of these lawsuits on Fox. Imagine the rest of the MSM is ignoring it as well.

Rubio was born in the United States. Under the 14th amendment, he qualifies as a "natural born citizen."

Cruz does as well, by the way. The courts have consistently held that being born abroad to an American parent makes you a "natural born citizen."

I'll wait for the courts to decide.

Naturalized Citizen and Natural Born Citizen are completely different meanings...

Words have meaning especially in our Constitution where it is the original intent of the Framers that matters most...

Like HW I will wait for the Supreme Court of the USA to decide...

Read this analysis: http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2016-01-13.html

Quote:Relying on English common law for the meaning of "natural born," the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held that "the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents" was left to Congress "in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization." (U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898); Rogers v. Bellei (1971); Zivotofsky v. Kerry (2015), Justice Thomas, concurring.)


A child born to American parents outside of U.S. territory may be a citizen the moment he is born -- but only by "naturalization," i.e., by laws passed by Congress. If Congress has to write a law to make you a citizen, you're not "natural born."


Because Cruz's citizenship comes from the law, not the Constitution, as late as 1934, he would not have had "any conceivable claim to United States citizenship. For more than a century and a half, no statute was of assistance. Maternal citizenship afforded no benefit" -- as the Supreme Court put it in Rogers v. Bellei (1971).


That would make no sense if Cruz were a "natural born citizen" under the Constitution. But as the Bellei Court said: "Persons not born in the United States acquire citizenship by birth only as provided by Acts of Congress." (There's an exception for the children of ambassadors, but Cruz wasn't that.)


So Cruz was born a citizen -- under our naturalization laws -- but is not a "natural born citizen" -- under our Constitution.

Jeb continuing to wear the beta mantel of shame:

Quote:Probably not coincidentally, Bush does far worse with them than he does with Republican women. (The alpha male/beta male dynamic between Trump and Jeb may have special resonance with men. Who knows.)

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/01/08/ga...-ted-cruz/

Hey guys,

I'm watching the Republican debate and I'd love it for Trump to win the candidacy.

However, I've heard him talk tough about guys like Assad and countries such as Iran (Russian allies, despite Trump saying he doesn't mind Putin)...but has he ever spoken badly about Saudi?

They're the real enemies in all of this, funding Wahhabi/Salafist terror around the world.

I understand it may be politically difficult to 'diss' them due to political/oil/financial ties the US has with them, but if he is really going to make a difference, then he has to criticise them at least. And Israel for that matter.

I'm not saying this to be argumentative, I'm just genuinely interested if any of you guys have any vids of him calling them out?

We sure do! He's called them out on twitter.
Here's one:
"Saudi Arabia should be paying the United States many billions of dollars for our defense of them. Without us, gone! @AlWaleedbinT"
And he called out a saudi prince by name, and told him that when he's elected Saudi Arabia will have much less influence.
"Dopey Prince @Alwaleed_Talal wants to control our U.S. politicians with daddy’s money. Can’t do it when I get elected. #Trump2016"

Teedub- http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35083150

Cheers lads, unfortunately, that guy is one of Saudi's most 'liberal' (as in, 'western' by their standards) princes. I wanna see The Donald go against the proper regime there. As I said, it is tricky.

(01-15-2016 03:24 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  [quote='Hotwheels' pid='1193255' dateline='1452884087']


Cruz does as well, by the way. The courts have consistently held that being born abroad to an American parent makes you a "natural born citizen."

There is a wrinkle to that statement. There are special rules according to INA 309 for children born abroad out of wedlock to American fathers where they are not automatically U.S. citizens. Makes sense, otherwise some of you raw-dogging players would be out there in the world creating hundreds or thousands of US citizen anchor babies.

http://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/P...ootnote-11

C. Child Born Out of Wedlock​ [11]
​
Child of a U.S. Citizen Father ​
​
The provisions listed above​ [12] for a child born in wedlock apply to a child born out of wedlock outside of the United States claiming citizenship through a U.S. citizen father if:​
​
•A blood relationship between the child and the father is established by clear and convincing evidence;​
​
•The child’s father was a U.S. citizen at the time of the child’s birth; ​
​
•The child’s father (unless deceased) has agreed in writing to provide financial support for the child until the child reaches 18 years of age; and​
​
•One of the following criteria is met before the child reaches 18 years of age:​
​
The child is legitimated under the law of his or her residence or domicile;​
​
The father acknowledges in writing and under oath the paternity of the child; or​
​
The paternity of the child is established by adjudication of a competent court.​
​
In addition, the residence or physical presence requirements contained in the relevant paragraph of INA 301 continue to apply to children born out of wedlock claiming citizenship through their fathers.

Bill O'Reilly is a globalist shill.

To hell with Bill and the rest of the Treason Class of pundits and politicians. We need to stock up on rope now.

(01-15-2016 06:30 PM)Teedub Wrote:  Cheers lads, unfortunately, that guy is one of Saudi's most 'liberal' (as in, 'western' by their standards) princes. I wanna see The Donald go against the proper regime there. As I said, it is tricky.

Me too. I'm on the edge of my seat just waiting for him to call them out as the backwards, goat-fucking Islamists they are. If he did that, he would definitely grab a big chunk of Independent/Libertarian leaning voters as well...

(01-15-2016 03:40 PM)Dusty Wrote:  Rubio is a despicable faggot:

Quote:Rubio is one of 12 Republican senators collaborating with the administration by co-sponsoring legislation that would codify requiring improvised campus disciplinary proceedings to supplant law enforcement and the criminal justice system. Proposed by Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) , the legislation is, as Taylor and Johnson say, “designed to advance the administration’s agenda.” The legislation’s language radiates prejudgment: By repeatedly referring to accusers as “victims,” it presumes the guilt of the accused. Taylor and Johnson write:

“America’s universities are in the grip of a dangerous presume-guilt-and-rush-to-judgment culture. . . . An entire generation of college students is learning to disregard due process and the dispassionate evaluation of evidence. And dozens of clearly or at least probably innocent students, whose cases we will detail in a book we are now writing, have been branded sex criminals, been railroaded out of their universities, and seen their hopes and dreams ruined.”

By co-sponsoring S. 590, Rubio is helping the administration sacrifice a core constitutional value, due process, in order to advance progressives’ cultural aggression. The next Republican president should be someone committed to promptly stopping this disgrace, not someone who would sign S. 590’s affirmation of it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/..._tw-bottom

Can someone shop a pic of Rubio carrying Emma's mattress?

I just have Paint but I think you get the idea.

   

So Cruz had a response to Trump's "NY Values" Statement.
It's getting a lot of positive play on twitter and on the blogs, but somehow it doesn't impress me. It just feels too long, too wordy, and too clever by half.
What do you guys think?

Quote:"“I apologize to the hard working men and women of the state of New York who’ve been denied jobs because Gov. Cuomo won’t allow fracking,” Cruz continued. “I apologize to all the pro-life and pro-marriage and pro-Second Amendment New Yorkers who were told by Gov. Cuomo that they have no place in New York because that’s not who New Yorkers are. I apologize to all of the small businesses who’ve been driven out of New York City by crushing taxes and regulations.

“I apologize to all of the African-American children who Mayor de Blasio tried to throw out of their charter schools instead of providing a lifeline ot the American dream. And I apologize to all the cops and the firefighters and 9/11 heroes who had no choice but to stand and turn their backs on Mayor de Blasio because Mayor de Blasio over and over again stands with the looters and criminals rather than the brave men and women of blue.”"

What do you guys think? Is this a solid hit on Trump, or is it just going to get a lot of cheers from people who are already Cruz supporters?

I think Rubio has a chance to outperform Cruz, or at least come close. He seems to be surging and Cruz waning. Cruz apparently think so, too - all of his negative ads are aimed at Rubio, not Trump, although Trump is the frontrunner. I think his calculus is, if he comes in No 2, he has a chance to outlast Trump in the southern states (and, of course, his home state of Texas). But third place would be a disappointment.

Rubio has a chance to be this year's Obama: Charismatic, telegenic, well-spoken first term Senator from a minority group long overdue for success on the national political stage.

...and has never actually done shit...