This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
GOP Debate III Post Mortem: Trump Top, Fiorina Flop, Bush (& CNBC) Biggest Loser
"Debates in Turmoil" would have been an appropriate summary for tonight's free-for-all CNBC-sponsored screamfest in Boulder, Colorado. Argumentative moderators, mis-stated facts, time complaints, and general whining was everywhere but Trump still managed to come out the other side of this gauntlet unscathed. One major highlight included Santelli and Paul pushing 'Audit The Fed', calls for gold-backed currency,and exclaimed that The Fed "has been a great problem" in US society. However, what was odd was the apparent slights to Trump and Carson (questioned less directly) which resulted in an aberrantly low 'talking time' for the leading candidates.
Lindsey Graham won the undercard...
Lindsey Graham stands out in second-tier #GOPdebate: https://t.co/JZVUJLXDVY pic.twitter.com/OZuAJVn8eW
— The Hill (@thehill) October 29, 2015
But across all polls, Trump was the clear winner in the main event (and Bush nearly the biggest loser)...
Source: Drudge (left) and CNBC (right)
And Bush was the "biggest loser"..Jeb Bush finally, 85 minutes in, gets to talk about his plan for 4% growth. It’s hard to figure how bland talk of reform is going to win him much new support. There was no applause for his explanation...
.@davidaxelrod declares @JebBush the “Certain loser” in tonight’s #GOPDebate https://t.co/c3GW52JlgD pic.twitter.com/uvKs3Cc3ks
— Anderson Cooper 360° (@AC360) October 29, 2015
Trump also had the best "one-liners"...
* * *
Some highlights included:
Christie going off on Moderator Harwoord...
Christie to CNBC moderator: "Even in New Jersey what you're doing is called rude" https://t.co/8KAg6qV0Oj #GOPdebate pic.twitter.com/i6UEOgo6d0
— The Hill (@thehill) October 29, 2015
And slamming government regulation of Fantasy Football...
.@GovChristie on whether government should regulate fantasy football: "Seriously?" https://t.co/2uyOmzwGht pic.twitter.com/CX6pyYdnjP
— POLITICO (@politico) October 29, 2015
Fiorina nailed government excess...
Fiorina: Whenever government gets involved, "it gets worse” https://t.co/fhHCRCBCxc #GOPdebate pic.twitter.com/pyjIk6ub3T
— The Hill (@thehill) October 29, 2015
Huckabee said something that made some sense...
Huckabee: Trump would be a better president every day of the week...than Hillary https://t.co/wPwIHyjMnC #GOPdebate pic.twitter.com/0SgGSo7zzC
— The Hill (@thehill) October 29, 2015
Trump reacts to Harwood...
CNBC moderator jabs Trump: "Is this a comic book version of a campaign?" https://t.co/UcQSdarTFw #GOPdebate pic.twitter.com/yoVtKAua6F
— The Hill (@thehill) October 29, 2015
Cruz slams CNBC...
Cruz: This debate is "why the American people don’t trust the media"; WATCH: https://t.co/vAzfQMOR9i #GOPdebate pic.twitter.com/49rZsbabeh
— The Hill (@thehill) October 29, 2015
Trump sent Bush a message...
Jeb, just suspend your campaign now. Literally no one cares. I've never seen a bigger choke job.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonldTrump) October 29, 2015
As Politico report, CNBC was also the biggest loser...
The CNBC-moderated debate became, at crucial moments, a debate about CNBC, as various candidates and, at times, the audience, turned the tables on the network’s three moderators.
The repeated bursts of anger and anarchy were prompted, in part, by questions from the moderators that veered, at times, beyond sharp into contentiousness. By the end of the first hour, the audience seemed to be siding with the candidates, booing when CNBC’s Carl Quintanilla seemed to play gotcha with Ben Carson about his past work for a questionable company.
...
The pattern was established very early by Donald Trump, spurred by a question about his tax plan from CNBC’s John Harwood that suggested the businessman was running a “comic-book” campaign. Trump angrily proclaimed that the network’s own star host, Larry Kudlow, had praised his tax plan.
Soon after, Texas senator Ted Cruz picked up the cudgel declaring, in response to a question from Quintanilla about raising the debt ceiling, “Let me say something at the outset. The questions that have been asked so far in this debate illustrate why the American people don’t trust the media. This is not a cage match. The questions shouldn’t be getting people to tear into each other.”
Cruz, his voice rising in indignation, cited Harwood’s “comic-book” question to Trump and one from CNBC’s Becky Quick to Carson that declared that his flat-tax plan wouldn’t bring in nearly as much revenue as he claimed. After Cruz waxed on about a double standard between Democratic and Republican debates, Quintanilla seemed visibly irritated, and he and Harwood each refused to give Cruz any extra time to answer the original question.
A few minutes later, they seemed to think better of it and did give Cruz the time. But the spuriousness of the decision left them open to further expressions of outrage by other candidates whenever the moderators tried to cut them off.
The unruly atmosphere was a far cry from what CNBC seemed to want and expect, from a gauzy opening photo montage to a series of promotions emphasizing what Quintanilla, at the outset, called, “CNBC’s top experts in the markets and personal finance” and “the best team in business” journalism.
"The CNBC anchors are just desperately filling airtime with absolute nonsense to kill time,” conservative writer John Tabin tweeted.
* * *
@NYTGraphics did an excellent job of breaking down key aspects of each candidate's plans...
All of the candidates in the #GOPDebate favor lowering Americans’ income tax burden. https://t.co/kf1vrlC5BA pic.twitter.com/oa5BW27hvr
— NYT Graphics (@nytgraphics) October 29, 2015
Several candidates in the #GOPDebate have spoken out against the recent budget deal. https://t.co/kf1vrlC5BA pic.twitter.com/0vQYuzXviM
— NYT Graphics (@nytgraphics) October 29, 2015
Republican candidates have offered many strategies for Social Security reform. #GOPDebate https://t.co/kf1vrlC5BA pic.twitter.com/GmmgLri5cU
— NYT Graphics (@nytgraphics) October 29, 2015
* * *
A lot of social media was notably disturbed by the lack of direct questioning and comments for Trump and Carson...
@nataliewsj @CharmaineYoest Moderators not giving @realDonaldTrump and @RealBenCarson questions. Deliberate slight to diminish their ratings
— Tangoqueen (@HostetterGmail) October 29, 2015
Which led to aberrantly low talking times for the highest-ranking nominees in the polls...
Wow. Bush has the shortest talking time. His campaign... #GOPDebate #CNBCGOPDebate pic.twitter.com/nQcv1kROzB
— Shari (@circuitangel) October 29, 2015
Thanks for the laughs, #CNBCGOPDebate pic.twitter.com/R4yC54SAGt
— FreakyDeak (@DeakInABox) October 29, 2015
Finally, a little context for tonight's debate...
America is going to be OK. https://t.co/Ytry7Tf9me pic.twitter.com/qwdQPWBUTE
— Philip Bump (@pbump) October 29, 2015
»
- 70504 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Carson is a genuine scholar and totally a fish out of water in this DC thing.
At least reach-around Lindsay, that loafer-wearing sack of blowhard pus, no longer has a seat at the table with the men.
Maybe we need a genuine scholar and a fish out of water in DC instead of a steady stream of puff and blow fish
Maybe we just need to pick some redneck with superior scores out of HS who got blocked out of college by numerous AA and rascist college aid staff, who didn't go to dope dealing and pimping, or any cracker trying to resolve never ending unjustifiable back tax IRS penalties for nothing they did, but that they did not know how to, or could not fight, of any amount, or any cracker who's ancestors were slaves, some to africans, to drop.
You're all stupid brainwashed pissants. My ancestors would have put you on the front line.
The shit is here. You're all hoping you'll be saved. You won't. It won't be the blacks or the beans who screw you to the wall; it'll be the imperialists. They don't give a fuck about race. They use everybody.
Catch up. Not just for you. I'm not going to fund your vacation. No way around that.
I QUIT
I had to give up on Democrats over the past few decades as they increasingly embraced Marxism. But for the life of me I don't understand the fascination with Trump. I just don't get it.
The best line of the night, and maybe this election cycle, was Rubio's taking up on Trumps comments about the danger of super-pacs when he (Rubio) said (something like) 'The Democrats have the ultimate super-pac in that they have the benefit of support by the majority of the mainstream media."
Wow!
As long as zh is saturated with giant piles of artery clogging shit like you, you parasite.
Go Home.
Television audits you. Cybermedia audits you. Your phone spies on you. Not just NSA, every spy agency of every government is a layer in this torte.
2 outcomes: Dana or JHVH
*Breathing through mouth*..."Huh?"
Could you articulate a rational argument? Worthless ground zero hump.
Trump support has nothing to do with "fasination". ]
It's "I'll build a wall and make Mexico pay for it".
With 60+ millions of illegals, counting the H1B'ers with their anchor babies taking jobs 94 million unemployed Americans, will do, it's desperation.
All anyone has to do is look at Califas, home to 1/3 of all welfare spending and the 7 time deported muderer of Kate, to see the writing on the wall.
Senator Cruz and Rubio (doesn't show up in the useless Senate anymore) had the best time aggravating the prog moderators.
There should only be 5 in the next debate but the chaos is helping the GOPe and their DIMe spread the pain of seeing all their coronated lackeys rejected.
CNBC showed itself to be the flaming sack of dog shit we all know it is. WTF were with those questions? Did the DNC write that shit? The moderators all took the fucking short bus to the debate.
No. They just asked difficult questions. No arse-licking.
How can this be a "democratic" debate when CNBC restricts live coverge to its paid up subscribers?
The debate was BS and so were the presenters.
No wonder everyone thinks the mainstream media sucks.
It was carried on most AM radio Fox affiliated stations and it was also on dozens of radio stations through the free app of IHeartRadio. Also, many local PBS and FOX TV affiliates carried the debate..
About the only thing I can think of as to why CNBC got to host the debate is that Priebus and the traditional Republican leadership decided to let these liberal cable networks try to take out Trump. There would be just as many viewers and much better debates if they had real conservatives as moderators and just showed it on C-Span.
Contracts signed before Trump was a factor.
Republicans announced the schedule in January - Trump was invited to speak at the Freedom Summit in Iowa in January. Hmmm...
The highest paid Ph.d shrinks in the world produce TV, cybermedia and msm. You aren't one of their beneficiaries. Clear?
All candidates get puppet prize money. Thank you stupid | greedy | self centered | misguided cunts for betraying everybody you know, and your children, and mine, and our unborn too.
Unfuckingbelievable. But, considering that every brain in the US either was conscripted and slaughtered in Nam, or mindfucked by Ollie North's vast crown investments in addictive drugs and weapon manufacturers, or beatdown by the NEA State "teacher" (those man-hating bitches who allegedly received substandard edu), or left the country, this idiocracy is what's left.
I do not bend to weeds.
Fwd Detroit. Long puppets.
Go to guns.
Trump is a vote for "Shits broken white guy please fix it"
Fiorina is a vote for "lets give a woman a shot maybe she can fix it"
Carson is a vote for "God will save us and hes black-ish"
lol
I can't even run for state senate because of shit like this "debate". There was Shillary on dipshit Colbert last night as well. I would just blow up into excessive expletives and probably need a large pipe wrench if I was in the opposing position. I have never liked the federal aspect of government anyway. I really do not know that I could help if I pursued this state senate endorsement. I was looking at Idaho and I still am. I have an immediate family to consider first. I am referring to my wife and two children and maybe I do not have a big enough ego to do it and sacrifice them for the sake of what I believe to be true. I do not have that kind of money.
Politics is just a game and I do not see anything to win at the state level that might be of import to myself. I really have no personal financial agenda on the state level and that is a problem for a campaign. I have set myself up to leave this state(of MN) so why run for office? I also do not have a particular state to go to as of today.
I have given a great deal of thought to the whole idea of running for public office. There are some issues to address but it would cost a lot of money to get me elected. Economically speaking it would be positive overall for the state of MN and there is no doubt of that. I have no special interests in what the legitimate business operations are though although I am familiar with them.
Whatever. Someone else can do this just as well as I could.
It does not mean that I won't or can't run though. No one knows exactly what I will decide to do. I can have major party status endorsment if I want it. That means that I am on the ballot. That is where the money comes in. I was a republican officer in two districts and once as a treasurer. I know how much money they have to throw at me. I can personally beat them all financially if it came down to life or death but it would break me and we would live under the bridge down by the river.
BUT>>>> Is it worth it?? Is that going to help anyone on ZH? Will that help my children? I am not seeing that.
One thing you have going for you; you sound like a politician with many words and no substance.
Sorry, no time to read the comments...As a Canadian, I'm still rolling on the floor and pissing myself over Ted Cruz's Karate kick to the media's cunt! Those "moderators" were a fucking joke! Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That was never debate.
Debate is present one issue only at a time.
Not intentional loaded baits...
history will not be kind.
Sounds more like "Job Interviews" from Hell!
The competition.
http://time.com/4092058/republican-debate-hillary-clinton-reaction/
CNBC is pure dogshit and this was well known before these debates.
CNBC just reaffirmed this.
CNBS is pure dogshit and this was well known before these debates.
CNBS just reaffirmed this.
Fixed it fo ya...
Cruz and Rubio are not even eligibible natural born Citizens they are naturalized at birth by statute (Rubio 8 US Code S. 1401(1), and Cruz 8 US Code S. 1401(g))
Notwithstanding the curiously and recently added August 2013 State Dept regulation that those made citizens abroad by 8 US Code S. 1401 "are not considered naturalized" (7 FAM 1131.6-3), or that the 14th Amendment is not a vehicle of naturalization for those born of less than 2 US Citizen parents in the US (7 FAM 1131.6-1), both the 14th Amendment and 8 US Code S. 1401 are NATURALIZATION statutes enacted by Congress via the necessary and proper excercise of the power to enact uniform immigration and naturalization law.
The definition of "naturalization" established by INS 1952 and still used by the State Dept. today is the "conferrence of citizenship by any means whatsoever". That means the statutes and Amendments themselves NATURALIZE BY ANY MEANS WHATSOEVER. The 14th Amendment did not make the freed black slaves natural born Citizens eligible to be POTUS, it made them "citizens of the US".
Anyone who is not born in the US to US Citizen parents (the natural born Citizens who need no statute to "naturalize them"-- and that it why there is no statute) are naturalized either by statute or oath. at the beginning of the Republic (1789) there were only 2 types of US Citizens. The natural born Citizens, born of adherents to the Declaration of Independence, since 1776, and the residents of the new states who were NATURALIZED when their state ratified the new US Const. Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 was the first naturalization statute ("or a citizen of the US at the time of the ratification of this Constitution."). There was no other naturalization statute until a year later. They did not define natural born Citizen (no term in the Constitution is "defined" by it) because it was a well known term of art of the Original Common Law (natural law or law of nations), i.e "one born in a country of parents who are its citizens".
The original naturalization statutes did not confer citizenship on those born of aliens within the US until their parents naturalized (w/in the child's minority) after a 2 year residence requirement (SEE NA 1802 S. 4). Anyone born in Marco Rubios situation (2 US resident alien parents in US territory) was not a US Citizen until the parents naturalized, and this was the practice until 1898, after the 14th Amendment (1866), with the holding of Wong Kim Ark 169 US 649 @693 (1898), that those norn to LEGAL RESIDENT ALIEN parents are US Citizens because the legal habitation of the parents created an allegiance to the host country that was passed to the child, making them subject to the jurisdiction of the US within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. That SCOTUS construed the 14th Amendment as a vehicle of naturalization,
It is impossible to think therefore that Rubio was of the class of natural born Citizens thought of in the Original constitution, and A2S1C5 has never been amended, therefore he is not a natural born Citizen today.
As for Cruz, a person born in his situation-- to 1 US Citizen mother and foreign father in a foreign Country--- would not have been considered a US Citizen and would have had to naturalize by oath. That practice ended with the Cable Act (1934), which allowed US Citizen mothers to pass along US Citizenship to children born abroad, since they would be born "subject to the jurisdiction of the US within the meaning of the 14th Amendment." (now codified at 8 US code S. 1401(g)). Again, it is impossible to think the unamended A2S1C5 would have considered Cruz a natural born Citizen when he would bot have been considered even a US Citizen at the time he was born until 1934.
If you think it is an accident that these 2 are "considered eligible", and are in the race, you are sadly mistaken. It has been the wet dream of the NWO to infiltrate the White House with foreign influence by breaking down the eligibility requirement. It could not be done by statute (See all the bills introduced redefining natural born Citizen, which failed--easily googled), so now it is being done by Usurpation.
First the office was Usurped by a man (supposedly) born in Hi. to (supposedly) a US Citzen mother and foreign (supposedly) father--- Hussein Obama.
Now they want to "consider eligible" other combinations of foreign influence-- Rubio-- born in the US of legal resident alien parents, and Cruz-- born in a foreign country of 1 US Citizen parent. Both were naturalized at birth (any means whatsoever) by statute.
You are sadly mistaken if you think that this circumstance is an accident or that Rubio and Cruz do not know that they are helping legitimize the Presidency of the Usurper Hussein Obama. It is all about taking away US Citizen sovereignty. It is all about power.
And the State Dept. even doubts the eligibility of Cruz:
"7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency
(TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)
a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural-born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.
b. Section 1, Article II, of the Constitution states, in relevant part that “No Person except a natural born Citizen...shall be eligible for the Office of President.”
c. The Constitution does not define "natural born". The “Act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization”, enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat. 103,104) provided that, “...the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born ... out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”
d. This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes".
NOTE: The only "Constitutional purpose" of the term natural born Citizen is with regard to eligibility for the Presidency.
You do realize that EVERY president of the United States, excepting those who were citizens of the United States, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, was "naturalized at birth by statute"?
No they weren't. The natural born Citizens are defined by Original Common Law (natural law or law of nations). They need no naturalization, they are citizens naturally. The "residents of the states at the time of the ratification of this Constitution". were naturalized by A2S1C5, just like "citizens at birth" are naturalized by the 14th Amendment and 8 US Code 14 if they are born "subject to the jurisdiction of the US" (of at least 1 US Citizen parent or legal resident alien.)
They may need no naturalization (or healthcare, or whathaveyou), but that that doesn't mean they are not also naturalized by the same statutes, hence 8USC§1401(a).
You do realize your contentions about Common Law are spurious? And that without those you don't have much of an argument, even if you could miracously find a majority of Supreme Court justices willing to solely apply (errant) originalism in their interpretation.
II. THE BRITISH ANTECEDENTS
We are left therefore with the conviction that the Framers were referring to the natural-born within the contemporary frame of under- standing in 1787. There were no conspicuous colonial precedents. Therefore it seems patent that those who uttered this term were influenced by the usage in the mother country.33
In 1787, the Colonies had just won their independence. But they had retained the language, the culture, and the traditions of Great Britain. And their legal system was grounded in the English common law. This was not infallibly true, since some of the common law precepts did not flourish in the more liberal climate of the new country. Thus, the common law doctrine of indissoluble allegiance to the Crown eventually was not followed in the United States. 4 But this deviation developed in the absence of any specific provision in the Constitution. It seems reasonable to assume, on the other hand, that when the Framers used an undefined common law term, e.g., "natural-born," they must have intended to accept the connotation of the common law, as it had developed in 1787." Indeed, in passing on the status of a person born in the United States, the Supreme Court remarked on the absence of a constitutional definition of citizenship, and observed :"
In this, as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution.
The British legal system had indeed long known of natural-born subjects. It is indisputable that the jus soli, under which nationality is determined by the place of birth, was always the basic tenet of the English common law. 7 This was a principle which emerged out of feudal concepts of allegiance and was peculiarly fitted to the isolated society of England in the early days of the common law.8
There has been some debate whether the common law also encompassed the jus sanguinis, a product of the civil law and followed in most European countries, under which nationality could be transmitted by descent at the moment of birth.39 The fact is that the issue did not arise in the static feudal society, since there was little or no travel to foreign nations and children were not being born to British parents abroad. But the problem provoked discussions as mobility and foreign trade increased. 40
In 1343, the situation of the foreign-born children of British subjects was discussed in Parliament. There was general agreement that the status of such children should be clarified in order to eliminate any doubts as to their rights of inheritance as Englishmen. The enactment of legislation was delayed by the ravages of the plague in England.41 However, in 1350, Parliament did enact a law for the express purpose of resolving existing doubts, which declared that the children born beyond the sea to British subjects "shall have and enjoy the same benefits and advantages" as their parents in regard to the right of inheritance.42 The first reference to such children as natural-born subjects apparently was in a 1677 law, which dealt with the children of persons who had fled to foreign countries during the Cromwell era, and declared such persons to be natural-born subjects."3 More general legislation was enacted in 1708, 4 and it provided that the foreign-born children of natural-born British subjects "shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be natural-born subjects of this kingdom, to all intents, constructions and purposes whatsoever." This legislation was further extended in 1773 to grant status as natural-born subjects to the grandchildren of natural-born subjects,: thus precluding the transmission of British nationality by descent or inheritance beyond the second generation. 5
In viewing this development, the leading British authorities agree that under the early common law, status as a natural-born subject probably was acquired only by those born within the realm, but that the statutes described above enabled natural-born subjects to transmit equivalent status at birth to the children born to them outside of the kingdom. These are the views expressed in Coke on Littleton,46 Blackstone, 7 Cockburn,48 and Dicey.49 The latter is most explicit in stating that a natural-born subject "means a British subject who became a British subject at the time of his birth" and that this designation includes a person born abroad whose father or paternal grandfather was born in British dominions.5
Wrong Obot.
The Original Common Law of the US is law of nations, and we are not "subjects" we are "citizens" --- big difference.
The Supreme Court acknowledged that law of nations is the "Original Common Law of the US" recently in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain (2004), and continues to quote law of nations (Vattel) over and over to this day, including the most recent cases.
The framers of the Constitution acknoledged that our citizenship law is based on "natural law and national law" in a quote that has been selectively edited in the Wong Kim Ark and Afroyim v. Rusk, and also by the Congressional Research service in its "analysis" of the 14th Amendment at the Library of Congress.
Here:
rhttp://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CDOC-108sdoc17/pdf/CDOC-108sdoc17.pdf
What those cases and the Congressional Research Service say about that quote by Senator Howard in the congressional Globe is certainly not what he said. The BIG LIE is at footnote (4) on page 1672. This is an explicit lie, not just a lie of omission, or of interpretation. The quote referred to is by Senator Howard, on page 2890 of the Congressional Globe, 1st session 39th Congress, 1866. There the debates before the ratification of the 14th Amendment are chronicled.
Here is what the CRS says he said:
“(4) The sponsor of the language said: ‘‘This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is . . . a citizen of the United States.’’ Id. at 2890.”
This is what it actually says:
“The sponsor of the language said: ‘‘This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by natural law and national law, a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the US who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of embassadors or ministers accredited to the United States, but will include every other class of persons.” Id., @ 2890
Look it up yourself, but you probably know this already.
They replaced "natural law and national law" with "...", and left out the part about not admitting the children of foreigners to citizenship.-- This same quote was repeated in 2 SCOTUS cases. The undermining of the Constitution has been going on for a long time. This proves that the framers of the 14th Amendment understood that natural law is the basis of our citizenship law, and undermines any thought that the Common law of England viz "subjects" has any validity.
The "law of nations" (jus gentium) is Public International Law not Common Law.
As to what is common law, under an originalist interpretation... see page 127 of vol 9 of the Statutes at Large of Virginia
That the common law of England, all statutes or acts of parliament made in aid of the common law, prior to the fourth year of the reign of king James the first, and which are of a general nature, not local to that kingdom, together with the several acts of the general assembly of this colony now in force, so far as the same may consist with the several ordinances, declarations, and resolutions of the general convention, shall be the rule of decision, and shall be considered as in full force, until the same shall be altered by the legislative power of this colony.
We have a Kenyan in office; these people are a law unto themselves. You need to stay away from any delusions to the contrary.
I have no illusions. When the executor of the laws is an illegal entity then there is no law, and the law is only what evil greedy persons say it is.
You may have no illusions, but you are delusional. Marco Rubio is NOT naturalized. He was born in Miami, FL.
He was naturalized by statute (8 US Code s. 1401)
In O'Bama's case I have to concur the if only his mother is on the birth certificate, he fit the bill. Common law also says that a deadman's will stands as he can not defend it and has to be attacked on other grounds, so the doctor's testament is irrefutable and of oath, to which the corporation (US government) will have to stand by such. If the marriage was not recognized by the corporation, entry of the father would be inconsequential.
Senator Cruz called for a gold back currency and kicked some to the bone progressive moderator ass.
Jebito showed up with half his brain tied behind his back and the other half pondering the "cool things" he's gonna be doing, like rakeing in millions from board room positions where all he has to do is sit passionately at the desk and breathe to get his legacy check.
I heard no substance from the donald, the amnesty loser Rubio kicked some moderator and Jebito butt, to no avail. Dr Carson wrasseled with the pinko moderators but showed no FIRE, like Senator Cruz, Gov Christie, or Rubio.
Other than a spark from Christie, the rest are 0's.
Cruz had a good debate and I support him whole-heartedly. We can all sit in our armchairs and throw darts at every one of these candidates but let's be real - Cruz is the best, most conservative choice with the best-equipped campaign to actually win. All the others have show-stopper issues for me. Cruz is the only one that, if nominated, would make me say I see a sliver of hope that America is not doomed.. yet.
Cruz is not eligible, knows he is not eligible and is protecting the Usurper Hussein Obama. Get a clue.
The only thing Christie is winning the race for is to lead the Schutzstaffel and crack some skulls in.
Fucker
when I saw it was cnbc my first thougth was this is going to be 90% bullshit, destroy any real contenders and maintain the libtard agenda at any cost. That is exactly what happened and with 30 more minutes the moderators may have been circled and lynched for it. Jeez, that would have been a sight.
Sometimes I like what Fiorina says, though she is quiet as a mouse on immigration, but she just looks like a big rat to me. One with big sharp teeth, and I mean that in so many ways.
Though hyporitical, she laid down some truth on corporatism in america and how big government favors the rich. It sounded like she picked it up an hour before the debate because I didn't see any passion in her face.
Tell me it wasn't awesome to see Rick Santelli asking questions about the FED?
Should of kept him and douchbag Kramer along and let them ask more questions
Only 2 people got to answer that question unfortunately. And it is no where to be seen this morning on the recaps.
Presidents are selected, not elected...this is all, both Democratic & Republican, a bad reality TV show and the people will be made the worse for it all. The only Candidate with a moral compass, guide and restraint of conscience is Carson. It would take a divine act of God for him to be elected and stay alive.
Hillary has been able to get rid of all the crimes and felonies because she is the selected; no other reason. She will never win the majority, even among women, but since the voting machines are electronic; like the FED who is counting and accountable...no one, they are selected and it will come down to Ohio & Florida as it always does.
The only thing worse would be King Obama and that is also a possibility; God please have mercy (not getting what we deserve) on us and extend much grace (receiving goodness we cannot earn or deserve).
CNBC = "Cartoon Narrative Bullsh** Corporation"
CNN = "Cartoon Narrative Network"
FOX = "Fixated On Xanadu"
ABC = "Alternative Bullsh** Commentary"
CBS = "Common Bull Sh**"
CBS = see bs.
Cruz and Rand's response to the Fed question are no where to be seen on the MSM. Paul isn't even mentioned in some of them.
America want's to be told sweet little lies. They don't want to hear the logical truth about the ponzi scheme benefits America is peddling. Rand bust the American Exceptionalism balloon last night with the facts about fewer people paying into medicaire and social scam security. If there ever were fewer people paying into those fraud accounts than those taking benefits out, the whole thing will collapse. That is happening today, and it will collapse. The influx of illegal immigration from South America is the DNC/GOP plan to save social security. They could care less about the free labor, they really want to legalize these people and get them paying into SS and Medicaire. The children of the baby boomers aren't having as many kids, so some illegals here and there will make up the difference.
The MSM won't talk about the Fed for 3 reasons:
1) The average American doesn't know the first thing about the Fed.
2) The average American only has a vague notion that the Fed is a few really smart people with noble intentions on 24/7/365 guard against certain financial calamity.
3) The MSM and political elite have worked hard to establish #1 and #2, so they aren't about to undo all that hard work.
1) Is the biggest blocker. Economics is hard and takes a few books to understand. Can't be explained in soundbites on MSM. Probably why Rand doesn't have any traction.
Online polls are worthless. Anyone with a brain could see Trump was a nonfactor in the debate. He didn't have any one-liners, and filling his speaking time with superlatives doesn't equal substance. When I see online polls give him the thumbs up I know its not about his performance but an emotional appeal likely from his reality TV audience. Frankly, if I was a Hillary supporter, I'd want Donald Trump as my opponent, no doubt about it.
Chris Christie for Schutzstaffel 2016.
Jesus Christ that guy wants to kick in some doors and crack some skulls of non-conformers so bad.
none of this matters anyway. it'll be manipulated and engineered for Hillary to win one way or the other. everyone is hyped about Trump and so what if he doesnt get nominated and Bush gets nominated? then everyone disappointed will stay home and the bitch will win or something else will happen. Illegals will vote in droves voting machines rigged etc. The bitch will win.
Beckey gives the best Blowjobs. The other two marxists pretend to be males. Call it fence riding transvestite.
Career politicians and lawyers have the best skills in fooling people who generally are a trusting lot. And these are the types that get elected most of the time, until there is utter chaos and people lose all trust. How often have leaders with vision, strategy, or nation-building skills come from these career paths in history?
as poorly as Bush is doing I would say he is going to be next president for sure. (what was that line in the paper chase, you come to me with a skull full of mush and you leave her thinking like a lawyer) well someone is gonna fill that boys head with ideas, but first the election
The last debate I watched was Bush/Clinton/Perot.