|
Patriot Headlines | Grassroots Commentary Daily Digest
January 7, 2016
THE FOUNDATION“I suppose, indeed, that in public life, a man whose political principles have any decided character and who has energy enough to give them effect must always expect to encounter political hostility from those of adverse principles.” —Thomas Jefferson, 1808FEATURED RIGHT ANALYSISIs Ted Cruz Eligible to Be President?By Allyne Caan
Cruz was born in 1970 in Canada to a U.S. citizen mother. The Constitution requires that the president be a "natural born" citizen of the United States, and Trump suggested Cruz's Canadian birthplace might imperil his presidential eligibility — or at least he suggested that other people might suggest it. Perish the thought. Trump claimed Cruz's birthplace was a "very precarious" issue that could be detrimental to Cruz should he cinch the nomination. "Republicans are going to have to ask themselves the question: 'Do we want a candidate who could be tied up in court for two years?' That'd be a big problem," said Trump. He added that "a lot of people are talking about it," and that he'd "hate to see something like that get in his way." Yes, we're sure he would simply hate that. But is there any validity to Trump's "concern"? In a word, no. The Congressional Research Service, the arm of the Library of Congress which for more than a century has been tasked with providing (allegedly) non-partisan research and legal analysis to members of Congress, has described a "natural born" citizen as one who is a citizen "at birth" or "by birth," as opposed to a "naturalized" citizen. According to the U.S. Code, those who are citizens at birth include "a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years." Cruz's mother was born and raised in Delaware and attended college in Texas, more than fulfilling this requirement. Furthermore, Neal Katyal and Paul Clement wrote for Harvard Law Review last year, "Despite the happenstance of a birth across the border, there is no question that Senator Cruz has been a citizen from birth and is thus a 'natural born Citizen' within the meaning of the Constitution." The pair liken the case to that of John McCain, who "was born outside the United States on a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone to a U.S. citizen parent," as well as Sen. Barry Goldwater and Gov. George Romney, who each ran for president without problems regarding their places of birth. In short, despite Trump's musings, Cruz is constitutionally and by statute eligible for the nation's top elected office. Still, it's not surprising that Trump has summoned the ghosts of eligibility to haunt the campaign trail — conveniently blaming "other people" for raising the topic. What better way to stir up doubt among Cruz supporters in the weeks leading up to Iowa — where by the way Trump trails Cruz — than to use the Left's typical tactic of passive aggressively wondering, "Nice candidacy you've got there; shame if anything happened to it." Indeed, although Trump still leads most polls, in Iowa as well as in delegate-dense California, Cruz is in front. For a campaign that's big on splash and much smaller on substance, going after the birth issue is only par for the course. It's worth noting that Trump seems to be following the same political playbook as Obama, using radical leftist tactics drawn from Saul Alinsky for his own political gain. Suggesting Cruz's ineligibility for the presidency, for example, aims to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty among the "enemy" — Alinsky's third rule. Throw a grenade and watch the scramble. In truth, Trump's raising the citizenship issue says more about where his own campaign is heading than it does about Cruz's eligibility. Next thing you know, Trump will be challenging the validity of the Constitution itself. Oh wait, he already has. Footnote: In addition to all the above considerations for Cruz's citizenship, those of us who hold the life of unborn children sacred believe they have citizenship standing as well.Comment | Share TOP RIGHT HOOKSObamaCare's Impact on The Patriot Post
Take The Patriot Post for an example of how ObamaCare is affecting small businesses. We just completed our year-end financial review and part of that was to see, again, that our health insurance premiums increased a whopping 25% last year — and that's for a group of healthy professionals whose average age is a tick under 40. Next, the GOP must move beyond the critique of ObamaCare and work on a replacement to the health care boondoggle. Finally, after years of criticism, we'll see just how well the Republican Party can lead by promoting policies steeped in conservative values. Comment | Share NRA Declines Debate With ObamaThe question is this: Can the Second Amendment hold up before a freewheeling and possibly rigged debate? Should a defender of Liberty enter a situation where he or she is unfairly targeted and present their ideas to a potentially hostile audience, hopefully winning some over? While we believe that the truth ultimately prevails, the National Rifle Association declined to send a spokesman to defend its views on firearms to Barack Obama's face. CNN is scheduled to hold a town hall event with the chief executive to talk about the issue of "gun violence" in Virginia Thursday night. But as the NRA told the network through its spokesman Andrew Arulanandam, "The National Rifle Association sees no reason to participate in a public relations spectacle orchestrated by the White House." They're absolutely right about Obama's intentions, but perhaps this was also a jab at CNN, which regularly carries water for the administration. But in a way it's a lost opportunity. Now, more than ever, Americans need to hear that owning a firearm is not only not bad, but good. It's participating in American government.As David French so aptly wrote in his response to Obama crying while announcing his executive orders on gun control, "Gun ownership goes to the heart of what it means to be a responsible citizen in our constitutional republic. It goes to the heart of what it means to be a responsible parent or spouse. It isn't merely about hunting, or the joy of an afternoon at the firing range, or 'looking tough.' It isn't about fear. It's about autonomy, independence, and a deep and self-sacrificial regard for the lives of those you love. It's about exercising the fundamental human right to defend oneself and others." What would Obama have to say to that? Comment | Share The Case for Clinton's IndictmentWill Hillary Clinton be indicted? This former U.S. attorney thinks so. Joe DiGenova, a Ronald Reagan appointee, says the FBI has "reached a critical mass in their investigation of the secretary and all of her senior staff, and, it's going to come to a head, I would suggest, in the next 60 days." He argues she'll be indicted because Attorney General Loretta Lynch won't be able to avoid it. "It's going to be a very complex matter for the Department of Justice, but they're not going to be able to walk away from it," DiGenova said. "They are now at over 1,200 classified emails. And, that's just for the ones we know about from the State Department. That does not include the ones that the FBI is, in fact, recovering from her hard drives. ... I believe that the evidence that the FBI is compiling will be so compelling that, unless [Lynch] agrees to the charges, there will be a massive revolt inside the FBI, which she will not be able to survive as an attorney general. It will be like Watergate. It will be unbelievable." Finally, he said, "The evidence against the Clinton staff and the secretary is so overwhelming at this point that if, in fact, she chooses not to charge Hillary, they will never be able to charge another federal employee with the negligent handling of classified information. The intelligence community will not stand for that. They will fight for indictment and they are already in the process of gearing themselves to basically revolt if she refuses to bring charges." Of course, only time will tell, but it sure would be earth-moving if he's right.Comment | Share Don't Miss Alexander's ColumnRead Every Patriot's Resolve, a few wise words from our Founders to serve as a beacon to all American Patriots.If you'd like to receive Alexander's Column by email, update your subscription here.
MORE ORIGINAL PERSPECTIVE
BEST OF RIGHT OPINION
TOP HEADLINES
 OPINION IN BRIEFVictor Davis Hanson: "Over the last seven years, the world has become acclimatized to the lead-from-behind role of the United States. Under Obama, friends and enemies bet that America was conflicted about the wisdom and morality of the entire American-led postwar global enterprise and reacted accordingly. But — who knows? — the next American president may identify radical Islam as the catalyst for terrorism directed at the West. Cuba in 2017 may no longer be seen as a newfound friend but as an old-time violator of human rights. Next year, will the Islamic State still be seen as a 'jayvee' organization, or as an existential danger to the U.S. homeland? In all of these cases, uncertainty rather than assured continuity in present U.S. foreign policy is likely — largely because the stubborn and tone-deaf Obama administration has lost the support of the American public on almost all of its foreign policy initiatives, from signing the Iran pact, to dealing with terrorism, to handling China and Russia. Unfortunately, the predictable corrections under a new president in 2017 will make 2016 more dangerous than any year since 1980."Comment | Share SHORT CUTSInsight: "No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear." —Edmund Burke (1729-1797)For the record: "There reportedly are more than 300 million privately owned guns floating around the USA. If just 1 percent of those guns were used to kill someone every year, there would be 3 million gun homicides in the United States. In 2014, according to the FBI, there were 8,124 gun homicides. It’s still way too many, and most of them are in cities or states with strict gun laws. But if my calculator is correct, that means 0.00002708 per cent of the guns in America were used in 2014 to kill someone and .99998 percent were not. I don’t know how many knives and sharp objects there are in the United States, but in 2014 about 1,561 of them were used to murder someone. Is an executive action on knife control next on the president’s emotional bucket list? Clubs and hammers? Didn’t Cain kill Abel with a rock?" —Michael Reagan Non Compos Mentis: "Our permissive gun laws are a manifestation of racism, an evil that, in other contexts, most gun-control advocates see as a fundamental threat to American society. ... If we fail to oppose with equal passion and vigor the relentless political pressure of (mostly white) gun advocates, we force a large number of black citizens to live with the constant threat of gun violence. We’re in effect letting the Second Amendment trump the Fourteenth Amendment, implicitly preferring the right of gun ownership to the right of black people to live free from fear." —Notre Dame professor Gary Gutting in a New York Times op-ed (Oddly enough, gun control started out as a way to prevent blacks from owning firearms.) We do too: “I regret it every day.” —Joe Biden reminiscing on his decision to forgo another White House run Dezinformatsia: "Hillary doesn't want to be a socialist. ... That title would kill her in the general, I assume, she's thinking. And it's probably not at all true. I think she is a centrist Democrat in my own thinking." —Chris Matthews Clinton's war on women: "I was 35 years old when Bill Clinton, Ark. Attorney General raped me and Hillary tried to silence me. I am now 73... it never goes away." —Juanita Broaddrick And last... "Gun control people don't need townhalls where they explain their views. They need introspection on why they've been failing for decades." —Frank Fleming Comment | Share Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis! Managing Editor Nate Jackson Join us in daily prayer for our Patriots in uniform — Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen — standing in harm's way in defense of Liberty, and for their families. |
Thursday, January 7, 2016
THE PATRIOT POST 01/07/2016
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment