Open Thread: Romney's Razor-thin Iowa Victory
The results are in from last night's Iowa presidential caucuses and it appears Mitt Romney has pulled off a 7-vote victory, apparently the closest ever in the history of Iowa. Second place went to Rick Santorum, whose low-budget campaign came from nowhere to nearly first. Ron Paul took third.
Exit questions: We know his showing in Iowa will be a boon to Rick Santorum but how much will the Hawkeye Cauci matter to the other candidates? Do you think there will be some changes in the media's coverage of the campaign?
- NB Staff's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Winnowing the threshing floor
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 7:38am.
It's over for Gingrich, Bachmann, and Perry. Only Gingrich seems ready to continue flailing.
Paul did even worse than I had hoped. The results couldn't be better.
I'll buy off on either Romney or Santorum. I only hope it soon turns into a one-horse trot before Romney, Santorum, and Paul rip each other to shreds leaving clear sailing for that other guy.
This has been Romney's
Submitted by Gat New York on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 10:13am.
This has been Romney's nomination to lose and he has turned out to be a teflon candidate which is exactly what is needed to go up against an incumbant President - even one as failed as Obama.
I do hope Gingrich stays in the race and for only one reason. Being the little man that he is, he will try to rip Romney apart on opposition research that Obama would use which, assuming Romney weathers the attacks, will then be rendered ineffective in the November election.
Given Paul's foreign policy views, the results from Iowa were just right. He did not win or even come in a close second that could be used by the media to measure GOP sentiments.
In the end, I believe Romney will make sure Paul is a major player in the GOP platform coming out of the convention. That together with the fact that Ron Paul will not do anything to damage his son Rand as a GOP Senator will ensure that Paul will not run on a third party line and hurt the GOP.
this is a a good plan - i
Submitted by TruthMonger on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 4:41pm.
this is a a good plan - i concur
Congratulations Jimmy Carter!
Romney a Telfon Candidate?
Submitted by NL207 on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 11:42am.
Horsefeathers!
Do not confuse the MSM's desire to make him the Republican nominee with a non-stick coating. The MSM have not started throwing the sticky stuff at him yet. Recall how they treated McCain in 2008 until he secured the nomination? This is exactly what they are doing today for Romney and the scathing media attacks that McCain endured in the last two months of the campaign are exactly what Romney will be treated to in the press if he becomes the nominee.
I would prefer to nominate a solid Conservative that the MSM has already savaged. Let them shoot their bolt now. That candidate will be inoculated against further attacks of the same sort later.
I am severely disappointed,
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 10:58am.
I am severely disappointed, Romney will ensure an Obama win.
Come on, Dan. Buck up!
Submitted by Newsbubba on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 11:34am.
I'm no flaming Romney fan myself, but if he is the opposition to Bambi, I will vote for him all three times. (I do live in FL)
The only thing that will ensure an Obama win is for one single conservative to stay away from the polls come election day.
If Elmer Fudd is on the top of the Republican ticket, he will get my vote.
Time to man up and get the RBFSOB out of office.
I'm stuck here in Virginia
Submitted by HelenS on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 8:15am.
I hate that it looks like I only have two to choose from: Mitt and Paul. I DON"T want to vote for either one.
But who to vote for - assuming I HAD a vote - is still confusing to me. Maybe I can write someone in.
This is a tiresome race and I really don't think anything that happens in Iowa or beyond is going to inspire the media to start doing their jobs. They'll continue to miss the point and avoid the truth.
Peletoids of floculated aragonite! (or coprolite, more likely)
Me - "The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years - the cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil."
Well, Helen, the good news is
Submitted by motherbelt on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 8:56am.
Well, Helen, the good news is that Virginia will have zero influence on anything, because of this situation.
In the 08
Submitted by misterbee241 on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 11:37am.
primary we had no influence either. By the time the primary took place here, McCain already had a lock because everybody else was finished. It was merely a formality.
So, Helen, ...
Submitted by Newsbubba on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 11:46am.
Peletoids of floculated aragonite! (or coprolite, more likely)
I assume you're referring to the "bull" variety? If so, I totally agree.
Indeed! :o)
Submitted by HelenS on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 1:42pm.
With an upper-case B and an upper-case S
Me - "The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years - the cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil."
# of Iowa delegates elected last night: zero
Submitted by mom_rox on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 9:00am.
Last night was a glorified straw poll. Candidates should try to hang on through South Carolina, if possible.
edit: Just saw the Drudge link: McCain to endorse Romney. Woohoo, Romney has the support of both Dole and McCain. /big time sarc.
Yeah, big surprise there,
Submitted by motherbelt on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 9:25am.
Yeah, big surprise there, right? RINO is as RINO does.
Next we'll be hearing that it's Romney's "turn."
Santorum was my fave from the beginning, but I never thought he would get any traction. I was going with Gingrich because I thought Santorum was a non-starter. This changes things.
Romney's "turn"
Submitted by mom_rox on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 10:33am.
(just searched for the quote, but cannot find it, so I'm going from memory...)
About a month ago, someone published a quote from the 2008 campaign where Romney said (paraphrasing) that the voters should not support McCain just because he is next in line.
Recount! Recount! Calling Algorithm!
Submitted by CO2Maker on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 9:00am.
Senator Franken! Wisconsin Fleebaggers! Recount!
Rev. Tawana Sharpyton says, "Recount we much!"
Keith the Sports Boy says ... glub glub glub
Virginia exemplifies the
Submitted by motherbelt on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 9:36am.
Virginia exemplifies the difference between Republicans and Democrats.
Everyone remember the Torricelli fiasco in New Jersey?
Democrats fought all the way to the state's Supreme Court to be allowed to replace Torricelli on the ballot (because they knew he was a loser) after the deadline had passed.
Republicans in VA just say "Oh, OK" and give up.
Right you are MB, the friggin
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 9:38am.
Right you are MB, the friggin GOP has the spine of a wet noodle. Libturds will lie, cheat and steal to get their way with no backlash at all.
The GOP seriously needs leaders in the mold of Allen West, Marco Rubio, Jim DeMint, Paul Ryan and yes, even Sarah Palin. No more Mr. Nice Guy, the gloves should have come off a long time ago.
Agree. Put up the GOOD fight. Convince them with facts.
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 1:04pm.
R's roll over, play dead, or compromise all too often; not too little. The conservative message is a 100% winning message if presented as doggedly as the LSM and D's present their spin and partial coverage as fact and sound logic. The people do need to hear it and have it contrasted with the statist media message, which has shown itself to be a recipe for a failed social state and thus follows with economic disaster. GIGO... Garbage In, Garbage Out!
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
The real result is a 3 way tie.
Submitted by han_solo on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 10:29am.
What people don't realize is that the real result of Iowa is a three way tie, with Santorum, Romney and Paul all having 6 delegates.
delegates to select delegates
Submitted by mom_rox on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 10:38am.
plus, these are delegates to select delegates who will choose in June.
Actually No
Submitted by Denny Crane on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 1:15am.
The amount of delegates that those three won last night was exactly ZERO.
We Are The 53%
the quest
Submitted by MidAmerica on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 10:31am.
The only winner last night was Santorum. But then, he had almost nothing to lose, polling near the bottom. It remains to be seen whether he can translate an Iowa win into national momentum.
Romney, Paul and Gingrich have nothing to celebrate about.
Romney now needs the other minor candidates to stay in if he does not start getting votes anywhere near 50% To put it another way, if after a couple more primaries the minor candidates do not drop out and support the top conservative alternative candidate then they are actually assuring Romneys nomination. These candidates will have to wrestle with a politicians ultimate demon, ego. Will they step aside for the cause or will they continue in the pursuit of vanity's campaign.
Fact
Submitted by paulnashtn on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 10:38am.
Romney scored 25% of the caucus vote in 2008 -- after 4 more years of campaigning, this year he managed to score.........25% with 66 more votes
the 4th place finisher wound up the nominee
I'm a little surprised Paul took 21%
Submitted by bkeyser on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 10:40am.
I predicted much lower. Of course, I don't know Iowa; there must be a strong bent toward libertarianism there. I hear he got a lot of Independents and Democrats to vote for him. I suspect, however, he'll not garner this strong a showing from here forward. Two debates before next Tuesday's vote (I think) and someone should surely ask Paul about new allegations regarding Iranian nuclear rods.
I mentioned last night that Bachmann was done. In about an hour and a half from now, she'll make that official. It was a good run, and she's a good Conservative; at least she still has a strong vote in the House. Good luck Michelle.
Perry is also done. Maybe he'll hang on to South Carolina, maybe not. We'll see on that one. But effectively, his chances for the nomination ended with "Ooops." He was over-hyped upon entering; maybe he'll be better prepared in the future.
Gingrich is also done, though he's got a few things he wants to say in the coming debates before he packs it in. He's not happy about Romney (that's an understatement) and I think he wants to air some of that on national TV to Romney's face. I also don't think Newt ever expected to be a front-runner; he did really well as the media attack dog. Outside of blasting Romney, I suspect he'll go back to that role soon.
Huntsman.
Roemer.
So that leaves Romney and Santorum as the Not-Romney. I like Rick, but I'm waiting for the inevitable media firebombing we'll see this week and next. Will he survive it, or fall to the wayside like all the rest? And if he survives, will enough money flow in to keep him competitive on the air? As much as he'd embody the grassroots rise to the top, I don't think it has staying power in a presidential election; the money is just too important.
So, I think again, it's Romney that will get the nomination. And, like the man who's endorsing him today, we'll have to coalesce around a moderate in November. The best we can hope is that the sea-change of red tide that flooded DC in 2010 has altered his way of thinking enough to know that if he doesn't live up to his born-again conservatism, he'll get booted in '16. Dumping some GOP establishment heavyweights in the House and Senate would be a good reminder for him. Buck up Conservatives, it's going to be Romney. Hopefully he'll select a conservative voice for VP; he's gonna need to, to turnout the base.
bkeyser,
Submitted by Agnostic on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 11:06am.
Excellent, if for no other reason than I agree with you.
Santorum can take Florida and SC if he goes unmolested by the media - which would make things extremely interesting. However, I don't see that happening unless the media decides Santorum would be better to run against President Obama.
If Romney is still their guy then by NH Santorum will be cast as a cross between Torquemada and Jerry Falwell (at least his most infamous moments).
Agnostic,
Submitted by bkeyser on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 11:27am.
I saw an interesting tweet by Allahpundit:
And another one:
She didn't go after Mitt in the debates and some have speculated she may have been eyeing a potential VP position. She was kind of the Santorum twin though, so would she support him over the moderate if it meant no possibility for VP? I can't see a nominee Santorum picking another staunch conservative and risk alienating independents.
Finally, another interesting if not unexpected development.
Unexpected development?
Submitted by Agnostic on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 11:38am.
Interesting!
I also can't see Santorum selling the VP to Newt as a way of getting him to drop out but perhaps a cabinet position would do - you know, a position that actually means something, unlike VP.
I can't see Bachmann and Romney. Romney, whether you like him or not, is politically savvy and the ticket doesn't sell because they can't be seen as a team. When McCain selected Palin then McCain was lost to the media frenzy and it became all about Palin as being the only Conservative - Romney will not risk that happening again, he will want to keep control of the message because he is walking a thin line to maintain his Conservative swagger - sucha as it is. However, he probably will go Conservative even though the top choices have already declared that they would not accept.
They'll all want Rubio
Submitted by Blonde on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 1:00pm.
Although I don't think Marco is interested at this point in his career. I think he's playing the long game here. His kids are still young. He's looking at 2020 as top of the ticket.
That "unexpected development" thing bothers me, a lot. Who do these people think they are? They had the opportunity to run "their" ideal candidate.
I don't see Bachmann as VP either, but I would like for whomever wins the White House to force Boehner to put her in a big leadership position and on point to repeal ObamaCare.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
I think it would be a good
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 1:52pm.
I think it would be a good idea for Marco Rubio to play the long game you mentioned Blonde. He and Allen West both should do that to gain a little more seasoning.
There are a few others besides Rubio and West that I would like to see eventually make a run for the White House. Folks like Mike Pence, Paul Ryan or even Jim DeMint.
One thing I would really like to see is a major shakeup of the leaders in Congress. Boehner and Cantor have been major disappointments to me. They were put in charge because the Tea Party put them in the majority and they have been acting like that group does not exist.
From day 1 they should have been passing bill after bill defunding Obamacare, repealing Dodd/Frank and passing Paul Ryans roadmap for the budget. Keep passing them and letting the Dem controlled Senate kill them. And when the Senate killed the bills they should have been screaming and shouting at the obstructionist Democrat Party and yelling at the media for covering for the Dems. NO MORE COMPROMISING!!!!!! This country cannot afford it!!!!
We need leaders in the GOP that have cajones and a spine, we will support them.
As I said before, no more Mr. Nice Guy, the gloves have to come off and the brass knuckles need to be polished.
Rubio is out
Submitted by Agnostic on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 2:54pm.
most likely but if I were running (HA!!!!):
I would be dropping names as the replacement of Holder in the DOJ since there isn't anyone thrilling me for VP. Perhaps names like - Brian Sandoval or Susana Martinez
I was super impressed with Sandoval
Submitted by Blonde on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 3:55pm.
And I think Pam Bondi (Florida again) has done a great job at the fore of the Obamacare suit that the Supremes are going to hear.
I just heard on the radio this a.m. that the Republican! Legislature is going to gerrymander Allen West's district (like it isn't in liberal Broward/Palm Beach already) to include some of the more western areas. Such nonsense, this district has run along the coast forever and ever. I don't know what their game is, but I'm getting ready to find out and kick up a fuss!
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Pam Bondi
Submitted by Agnostic on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 1:15pm.
I'm afraid she doesn't have the experience yet to run the DOJ but whe would be someone that would be good to groom down the road.
Rubio, like Obama, ...
Submitted by NL207 on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 4:38pm.
is Constitutionally unqualified to be President of the United States.
He is NOT a natural born citizen. He is amongst those naturalized at birth under the terms of the 14th Amendment.
Yes, Rubio IS Constitutionally qualified
Submitted by Blonde on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 4:58pm.
Here is the reason why:
Now, consider Marco Rubio. His parents were resident aliens when he was born in 1971, seeking and soon to receive their status as naturalized U.S. citizens. Under the Fourteenth Amendment, "all persons born...in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the states wherein they reside." This "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause shows why Rubio is -- and, very likely, why children of illegal aliens are not -- a "natural born citizen of the United States."
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Blonde is absolutely correct
Submitted by Galvanic on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 5:17pm.
Article II Sec. 1, Clause 5 reads . . . "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
Rubio is a US citizen by virtue of having been born in the United States, and meets the age requirement for the Office of the President.
What is a Natural Born Citizen?
Submitted by NL207 on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 5:43pm.
According to SCOTUS, the Framers of the Constitution, and Hon. John Bingham, author of the 14th Amendment, a Natural Born Citizen is a person whose parents were also citizens. This requirement exempts Marco Rubio.
For pete's sake...Not THIS again!
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 11:48pm.
NL, you and your sidekick Willis_Leon_Johnson can flog that horse until your arms fall off, but you are indulging only in theory and advocacy.
And meaningless SC dicta, the musings of Bingham, and what you think the Framers must have thought do not change the plain and simple truth: There is no controlling precedent on the issue. In fact, the weight of what authority exists appears to militate against your view rather than support it.
Jer
If there is precedent law other than
Submitted by NL207 on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 12:49am.
Minor v. Happersett and the 25 or 26 subsequent cases that cite it, I am certain you as a lawyer, should be able to cite it.
If there is indeed any American authority that militates against my view, you should be able to cite that as well.
Since you can't seem to produce anything more that flatulence here, I must conclude you have nothing of substance to substantiate your argument.
You describe SC dicta as meaningless. If it is meaningless, then why would the court publish it in conjunction with its rulings? The Framers' intent in requiring all future President be natural born as recorded in their debates and writings is well documented. Bingham WROTE the 14th Amendment Citizenship Language. To presume his publicly stated intentions in writing this is not an expression of the intent of his words irrational. These arguments are semantically equivalent to saying the Constitution means whatever its beholder desires it to mean and not what its authors intended it to mean, which is the same as saying it means nothing at all. In this you are no different Obama and the other radical leftists.
I'm curious
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 12:52am.
Are C-sections "natural born"?
Read the decision yourself
Submitted by NL207 on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 1:11am.
"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."
Save the ridicule debate tactics for Jer and his leftist pablum.
dicta est aut non dicta est, qui quaestione.
Submitted by NL207 on Fri, 01/06/2012 - 3:20pm.
Some legal minds think the natural born citizenship language in Minor is a part of the binding precedent and not dicta at all.
"The definition of natural born citizen in Minor v. Happersett is binding precedent; Ex Parte Lockwood acknowledged Minor as precedent for the definition of federal citizenship; and the statements in Minor fit the description of precedent established by the Court in Ogilvie Et Al., Minors v. United States."
Care to elaborate on your claim in light of these arguments?
NL207
Submitted by Denny Crane on Sat, 01/07/2012 - 1:55am.
Did you bother reading the precedent that you are referencing?
(bolds are mine) source
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words 'all children' are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as 'all persons,' and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.
Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as early as 1790, provided 'that any alien, being a free white person,' might be admitted as a citizen of the United States, and that the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under twenty-one years of age at the time of such naturalization, should also be considered citizens of the United States, and that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens. 8 These provisions thus enacted have, in substance, been retained in all the naturalization laws adopted since. In 1855, however, the last provision was somewhat extended, and all persons theretofore born or thereafter to be born out of the limits of the jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were, or should be at the time of their birth, citizens of the United States, were declared to be citizens also.9
As early as 1804 it was enacted by Congress that when any alien who had declared his intention to become a citizen in the manner provided by law died before he was actually naturalized, his widow and children should be considered as citizens of the United States, and entitled to all rights and privileges as such upon taking the necessary oath;10 and in 1855 it was further provided that any woman who might lawfully be naturalized under the existing laws, married, or [88 U.S. 162, 169] who should be married to a citizen of the United States, should be deemed and taken to be a citizen. 11
We Are The 53%
follow up
Submitted by Denny Crane on Sat, 01/07/2012 - 2:01am.
It never says that a child born in the US to non citizens are not considered natural born.
Also the site you are linked to? LOL "Occupy Grand Jury" and youtube links from comedy movies.
We Are The 53%
You need a logic lesson.
Submitted by NL207 on Sat, 01/07/2012 - 2:53am.
"It never says that a child born in the US to non citizens are not considered natural born"
It does not say any children of mixed parentage are natural born citizens either! In fact, the only definition of 'natural born citizen' the Minor decision affirms is one that flatly excludes children who have one or more foreign parents. That would be Obama. Do I have to draw you a venn diagram? This is simple set theory.
Beyond Minor, we know the authors of the 14th Amendment did not intend to change the definition of natural born citizen nor did they intend that every foreigner born on US soil be granted US citizenship.
Wrong
Submitted by Denny Crane on Sat, 01/07/2012 - 4:23am.
Nowhere in that opinion does it specifically define what isand what is not "natural born". It says what is definitely considered natural born, and what is considered natural born but has been contested.
It does not say any children of mixed parentage are natural born citizens, but it doesn't say that they aren't natural born either. It specifically states that it has no bearing on the ruling in question (whether a woman is a citizen and has a right to vote)
It's kind of like debating whether or not a tomato is a fruit. And then using the definition of an apple to back up your point.
We Are The 53%
try reading it again.
Submitted by NL207 on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 4:19am.
Chief Justice Waite said that the only form of natural born citizenship that is indisputable is both parents were citizens, presumably at time of birth, though Waite did not explicitly say that last bit. He also said 'other authorities' claim other forms of natural born citizenship. That is a clue that neither Chief Justice Waite nor SCOTUS recognized the legitimacy of these other opinions, in particular, by declining to name the sources or giving even a single example pf what other circumstances might be acceptable.
Wrong
Submitted by Denny Crane on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 7:42am.
You are inferring a meaning that isn't there. They said it has no bearing on the ruling because the ruling was about suffrage. They NEVER DEFINED WHAT IS NOT CONSIDERED NATURAL BORN.
We Are The 53%
Denny Crane ...
Submitted by NL207 on Sat, 01/07/2012 - 2:43am.
The portion you have highlighted does not say the Court holds all persons born within the jurisdiction of the United States are natural born citizens. It says "some authorities" without naming them. What authorities? Since the author of this decision is Morrison Waite, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, we can safely conclude 'some authorities' are other than SCOTUS. If those authorities are not SCOTUS, then their opinion in this matter is irrelevant.
If we refer back to the Framers original debate on this subject, we learn the reason for their insistence the President be no other than a natural born citizen. By inference, the Framers are telling us what they meant by 'Natural born'. They intended the President be subject to no foreign influence. Barack Obama is by his own admission, a dual citizen. He was most certainly a citizen of Kenya until his 23rd birthday and he likely is or was, owing to an adoption in Indonesia, an Indonesian citizen. His father was a Kenyan and he has admitted in "Dreams of My Father" to have been inspired by his father and Kenya. These are exactly the kinds of sympathies and associations the Founders were attempting to exclude from the Presidency.
The 14th Amendment does not alter this view in any way.
" During the original debate over the amendment Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan -- the author of the citizenship clause -- described the clause as excluding not only Indians but “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.” Howard also stated the word jurisdiction meant the United States possessed a “full and complete jurisdiction” over the person described in the amendment. Such meaning precluded citizenship to any person who was beholden, in even the slightest respect, to any sovereignty other than a U.S. state or the federal government. "
Rep. John A. Bingham’s (OH) comments about Section 1992 of the Revised Statutes. Rep. Bingham is the author behind the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
“Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))
P.A. Madison provides context to Bingham’s definition.
Bingham subscribed to the same view as most everyone in Congress at the time that in order to be born a citizen of the United States one must be born within the allegiance of the Nation. To be born within the allegiance of the United States the parents, or more precisely, the father, must not owe allegiance to some other foreign sovereignty (remember the U.S. abandoned England’s “natural allegiance” doctrine). This of course, explains why emphasis of not owing allegiance to anyone else was the affect of being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
The bottom line here is that Obama's father owed allegiance to Kenya. Obama's adoptive father owed allegiance to Indonesia. Obama is not a natural born citizen. He is a citizen naturalized by birth within the United States.
It should also be crystal clear that we are interpreting the 14th Amendment wrongly when we bestow citizenship upon the children of illegal aliens born here.
Guy? Dude? Buddy?
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 01/07/2012 - 3:36am.
You are not being very fair. You are going over the same ground again.
He is a citizen naturalized by birth within the United States.
Dude? Did he take the oath? Did he pass the literacy portion? That is the toughest part. Reading and Writing English if you never spoke or wrote it before.
naturalization: The process under federal law whereby a foreign-born person may be granted citizenship. In order to qualify for naturalization, an applicant must meet a number of statutory requirements, including those related to residency, literacy, and education, as well as an exhibition of "good moral character" and a demonstration of an attachment to constitutional principles upon which the United States is based.
Again. There are 2 methods to acquire citizenship. You are born into or you take an oath into it.
Natual-born simply describes the born into citizenship method.
You gonna carry this right up to the bitter end? Right up to the swearing in of the next President. For heaven's sake, this is 4 years old now. You might figure that if your arguments carry so much weight, someone might have said something to someone else and AT THE VERY LEAST had the whole thing spelled out for sure so we will not have this issue in any future presidencies. Please Please Please stop. Your arguments are reed thin. Reed thin. Case in point - the election of Barack Hussein Obama still took place despite ALL of this, ALL of it being fully known in 2008.
And I am being very very very nice when I say reed thin.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 01/07/2012 - 4:17am.
There is not a snowball's chance in hell of your arguments ever going anywhere in any court of law in this great country. Why?
Because it has already been looked at in a court of law and decided. And it has gone no further.
From that case ----
Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.”
--- End court decision
Now please please please, for the love of God, let it go. We have the law on our side of this argument. This will never ever ever ever ever go anywhere. It is done.
Vet ...
Submitted by NL207 on Sat, 01/07/2012 - 11:48am.
I am going over this again because I am dead right about this. The Founders explicitly wanted to prevent anyone like Barack Obama from assuming the powers of the Presidency. Their reasoning was crystal clear : men subject to foreign influence and allegiance can never be allowed in the Presidency.
The case you cite is an Indiana Decision. It is not binding in the other "56" states. It also misinterprests Wong. Wong never said the subject was a 'natural born citizen' for purposes of ArticIce II. It says Wong is a US citizen by virtue of birth on US soil to parents who were in their day, legal US residents.
The truth here is that you do not cite settled law. State Courts do not have ultimate jurisdiction over US Constitutional issues. This Indiana case need not proceed anywhere to be overturned. Any similar case originating from another state could be pushed up through the Federal Courts. There is in fact just such a case filed in Georgia right now.
Even if this were settled law, so too were Dredd Scott and Plessy v Ferguson. They were for many years settled law as well and most certainly WRONG! Would you have been among the defenders of those mistakes at the time?
I am being nice here because I like you.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 01/07/2012 - 3:54pm.
But you are not being nice to me. I listened to you. I show you exactly where and why you are wrong and you insult me. Seriously, you insult me. By treating me as if I am a nothing little stupid to be pushed aside in your quest. Why? Have I insulted you? Why am I being treated like this? Your hate for this President is so overriding, you would insult someone one talking to you and being respectful to you?
The case you cite is an Indiana Decision. It is not binding in the other "56" states.
Whatever. It is the highest your argument ever got. It was shot down. There is nothing out there currently. You can play your binding games all you want. The Indiana case never made it any higher than the Indiana Appelate court.
Whatever. I thought you... Whatever. I have the law on my side. Still. You want to continue down this road. Do it. Three years and the man is still President and there ain't nothing on the horizon birther courtcasewise that will ever ever ever see the light of day. I am not a lawyer and I am tired of looking this up every six months because you will absolutely not ever stop.
Have at it. Pound away. If it ain't this windmill, there is one down the road. But I gotta tell you this. This continued unrelenting nonstop instanity in the face of all facts actually makes me feel for this President. Whatever. You win. I will quit arguing it. Have the frell at it.
But for the last friggin' time. This President, the duly elected President of the United States, the man that more than half the voters in the election of 2008 pulled that lever for, will be standing there Inauguration Day 2013. He might be the outgoing guy, he might be elected again, I can't predict it. But I will say this. You insane nonstop birther arguments will have done nothing and gone nowhere and that man will still be standing there as the President of the United States.
So congrats. You have won nothing.
All right, I have had some sleep.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 01/08/2012 - 9:33am.
This is why I feel insulted by your post.
1. We say your argument is the thinnest of reeds (not settled law), you cite court cases and opinions. We cite court cases, you tell us it is not settled law.
2, It also misinterprests Wong. I take the time out of my day to research this stuff time and time again. You take zero time out of your day to try and understand where I am coming from. If you bothered to read the decision, and I cannot fathom why you would not since you argue this constantly, you would see the judges said the Wong decision was instructive.
They noted that “[t]he interpretation of the constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.”
The Wong Kim Ark Court explained:...
Also, as quoted in Wong Kim Ark, Justice Joseph Story once declared....
The Court also cited Justice Curtis‟s dissent in Dred Scott v. Sandford....
Further, the final decision I quoted said GUIDANCE. They read through the entire opinion from a previous court case not just the final decision as you are trying to claim. So your claim It also misinterprests Wong. Wong never said the subject was a 'natural born citizen' for purposes of ArticIce II. is dishonest to the core and frankly an insult to me for taking the time out of my day to bring forward a cogent , researched reply for you. It is a straw man argument and an insult to me.
3. The case you cite is an Indiana Decision. It is not binding in the other "56" states. Once again, I am forced to be a lawyer and look up crap that is just thrown out there with little thought. Are you saying this has to be litigated 50 times in 50 state courts before you will let it drop? The fact is 2 judges whose very livelihood is the law, looked at a constitutional issue, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE, researched it heavily, and concluded the argument is false. And the Indiana Supreme Court declined to even consider it, meaning they have no issues with the lower court opinion.
Frankly, I am sick to death of wasting collectively days of my life looking at this. I have no idea how this falls under the full faith and credit clause. It is not the point anyway that the decision should be binding. Your argument, again, is the thinnest of reeds. And I cited a case where real judges in a real court making a real decision decided your argument carries no weight. And for this, I get crap about bindings.
3. Any similar case originating from another state could be pushed up through the Federal Courts. --- An argument to the future. Frankly, I am so sick of arguing this when I HAVE THE WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE AND LAW ON MY SIDE, that I am pretty much ready to wait until the future arrives before I attempt to say anything again.
4. I don't even know what to make of your final paragraph. You claim it is not settled law so it can be argued endlessly. You then claim that even settled law can be argued endlessly. And finally you insult me insinuating I would be behind some very bad decisions of the Supreme Court. I have never argued anything remotely close to saying the Supreme Court is infallible. And it is insulting to try and say I may do so in the future.
Seriously NL, you are seeing things that aren't there.
Submitted by Denny Crane on Sat, 01/07/2012 - 4:31am.
Both Obama and Rubio qualify under both of the definitions below.
Once more do you read your links? From your newest link.
Current definition
Here is where the definition of “natural born citizen” currently stands.
State Department Foreign Affairs Manual
• U.S. citizenship may be acquired either at birth or through naturalization.
• U.S. laws governing the acquisition of citizenship at birth embody two legal principles:
1. Jus soli (the law of the soil), a rule of common law under which the place of a person’s birth determines citizenship. In addition to common law, this principle is embodied in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the various U.S. citizenship and nationality statutes.
2. Jus sanguinis (the law of the bloodline ), a concept of Roman or civil law under which a person’s citizenship is determined by the citizenship of one or both parents. This rule, frequently called “citizenship by descent” or “derivative citizenship”, is not embodied in the U.S. Constitution, but such citizenship is granted through statute. As laws have changed, the requirements for conferring and retaining derivative citizenship have also changed.
• Naturalization is “the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever” or conferring of citizenship upon a person. Naturalization can be granted automatically or pursuant to an application. Under U.S. law, foreign naturalization acquired automatically is not an expatriating act.
U.S. Code definition
Title 8, Section 1401, of the U.S. Code provides the current definition for a natural-born citizen.
• Anyone born inside the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, which exempts the child of a diplomat from this provision
• Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
• Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
• Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
• Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
• Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
• Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
We Are The 53%
As we have the law on our side and we are arguing law here....
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 01/07/2012 - 4:41am.
As we have the law on our side, I, The Vet, am hereby entitled to make a joke, and my good friend Denny Crane may laugh should he be fit to do so.
From Denny Crane's post ---
Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
Well, that settles it then. Superman is a natural born citizen. He was found in a meteorish space ship thingy in a Kansas corn field, under the age of 5, and his parentage could not be determined at that time.
Superman for President 2012!
HAHAHAHA HAHAHAHA
Submitted by Denny Crane on Sat, 01/07/2012 - 5:15am.
I second that! We have 2 signatures, do you think we can get enough to get him on the VA ballot?
We Are The 53%
More faulty logic ...
Submitted by NL207 on Sat, 01/07/2012 - 12:38pm.
Which of these situations are 'natural born citizens' for purposes of Article II? Which are not?
Clearly, some of these cases would be excluded form the Presidency if we were to apply the Founders' definition of 'natural born', which is exactly what we should be doing : Constitutional Originalism. YOU are arguing against originalism.
Since you like to play with examples, I will put this question to you : would you judge Anwar al-Awlaki, born a US citizen prior to his treason, a natural born citizen eligible to the Presidency, again, prior to his treason? I would not.
Right - originalism is what we need. Agree 100%
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Sat, 01/07/2012 - 3:43pm.
I don't care what the current definition or law is if it has been corrupted and not in alignment with the intent of our founders. Just because the true definition has been redefined and weakened on purpose does not make it right and it is CERTAINLY reversible if we want to correct the problem. Those with the attitude that we are somehow stupid for thinking this, please stop! WE acknowledge the wisdom of our founders and would like everyone to start working to make things right. Then to get condemned for it by other conservatives is frustrating.
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
Strawman much?
Submitted by Denny Crane on Sun, 01/08/2012 - 10:12am.
Anwar al-Awlaki? Seriously? That is how you are trying to defend your position?
"Since you like to play with examples," What? Where in this thread have I used an example? But the answer is NO. He wasn't 35 until 2006.
I am not arguing against originalism. I was merely pointing out things in your links that go against your premise.
I am pointing out the law as it stands today. You can argue until you are blue in the face that the laws that are on the books today are not what the founders envisioned, but it still doesn't change what the law of the land is NOW. No court has ever said any of those definitions are NOT valid for article II. Until they do, the law is the law.
I have a question, my daughters were born in the USA to a citizen father, and a Japanese national mother. When they reach 35, will they be eligible to be president? Using your Originalism intent? Also, what about women? Does Originalism exclude women? Clause one specifically says "he".
We Are The 53%
NL207 already answered that.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 01/08/2012 - 12:03pm.
He has said my 17 children are not allowed to be President.
I suggest that all military people never get married. Never. Because many military people by nature of their being stationed overseas and visiting other countries will marry foreigners and quite a few do not wait the obligatory 3 or more years to have their spouses apply for citizenship before having children.
So if you join the military, there is a good chance your children will never be allowed to become president accrding to NL207.
Chief ...
Submitted by NL207 on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 3:58am.
I do have that right, do I not? Chief. Most likely E8. A highly respected position. Especially by all JO's including yours truly.
I'll give you this little bit of insight. My own children can never be President for the same reason Obama is ineligible. Do I think that an injustice? Not at all. I can tell you they have divided loyalties, exactly Obama's problem and exactly what the founders wished to avoid in the Presidency.
And which two or more sovereign states have you determined
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 4:23am.
to be the objects of Obama's multiple loyalties?
Jer
Wake up.
Submitted by NL207 on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 4:11am.
"No court has ever said any of those definitions are NOT valid for article II. Until they do, the law is the law."
And no court has ever said they ARE valid either. The only case any court has said is valid for purposes of Article II is BOTH parents citizens at child's time of birth. Because there is one definition in existence for 'natural born citizen' that has been explicitly endorsed by SCOTUS and that very decision REFUSED TO ENDORSE 'other authorities', all others are implicitly rejected unless a later SCOTUS endorses them. That is the law and Obama doesn't pass muster.
So that leaves YOU making law that does not exist. You presume other forms of 'natural born citizenship' are acceptable when no competent authority has ever endorsed such, even when it had the opportunity to do so.
Your kids are dual citizens and as such excluded form the Presidency? What makes you think you are so special?
Open your eyes...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 6:19am.
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. [Excerpt from Happersett v. Minor]
The Happersett Court doesn't venture into the 'natural born citizen' thicket except to acknowledge that there is no question as to this petitioner's citizenship. Beyond that, her status as a citizen is not an issue. The question--and ONLY question--is: Does such citizenship confer upon the petitioner, a female, the same voting privileges enjoyed by males. In other words, suffrage is the matter before the Court, addressed by the Court, and ruled upon by the Court. Preliminary and limited ruminations by the Justice writing the majority opinion elaborating on the historical backdrop regarding who may or may not qualify as a citizen may be of some academic interest, but it has virtually nothing to do with the case. The petitioner's citizenship is presumed.
You will note, NL, that the Obama scenario--native birth with one parent being a US citizen--isn't even mentioned in the decision. Only the two extremes: 1) native birth to parents, both of whom are US citizens; and, 2) native birth to parents, neither of whom is a US citizen. The former confers citizenship irrefutably. The latter may confer it, but the question is unresolved. [And it is unnecessary for this Court to resolve it. So it doesn't.] And that's all that can be said for Happersett.
Jer
Huh?
Submitted by Denny Crane on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 7:48am.
"So that leaves YOU making law that does not exist. You presume other forms of 'natural born citizenship' are acceptable when no competent authority has ever endorsed such, even when it had the opportunity to do so."
Are you serious? I pointed out LAWS that were quoted in YOUR LINKS.
The manual from the Dept of Homeland security.
And the US code. (Which is the LAW OF THE LAND)
We Are The 53%
Rubio is indeed a citizen by virtue of ...
Submitted by NL207 on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 5:21pm.
his birth.
He is not, however, a 'Natural Born Citizen' as that term was understood by the framers of the Constitution AND more importantly, the authors of the 14th Amendment.
The term 'Natural Born Citizen' refers to those persons born of parents who were themselves citizens of the United States at the time of their birth and only those persons. Marco Rubio is not one of them as his parents were not naturalized until after his birth.
Obama does not even come that close to being a natural born citizen, his father never having been naturalized.
This understanding of the meaning of the term 'Natural Born Citizen' was both affirmed and explained by the Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett, 1874, a case trying the equal protection clause of 14th Amendment. That opinion was written by then Chief Justice Morrison Waite.
Then by your interpretation . . .
Submitted by Galvanic on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 5:28pm.
. . . George Washington was not a natural born citizen since neither he nor his parents were citizens of the United States at the time of his birth.
That's right. Washington was not ...
Submitted by NL207 on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 5:52pm.
a Natural Born Citizen. In fact, none of the first 9 Presidents of the United States were Natural Born Citizens, all of them being born before the adoption of the Constitution. The Framers thought of that as well when they wrote the Constitution, further proof that Natural Born Citizenship was more in their minds than just being born in the United States.
"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
An otherwise seat-warming president
Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 8:56pm.
Martin van Buren was the first President to meet that Constitutional qualification in full.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Martin Van Buren was born ...
Submitted by NL207 on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 12:20am.
December 5, 1782. He was a citizen of the United States at the adoption of the Constitution. Since he was born before the current Republic existed, his parents cannot have been citizens of that Republic at his birth and therefore, he is not a Natural Born Citizen.
Similarly, van Buren's successor, William Henry Harrison, was born February 9, 1773, also not a Natural Born Citizen.
The First Natural Born President was John Tyler, born in Virginia to US parents on March 29, 1790.
But...
Submitted by Unsane on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 9:03pm.
Van Buren and WHH were born after 1776.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Happy New Year Uns!
Submitted by Denny Crane on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 10:12pm.
But the constitution wasn't signed until September 17th 1787.
But NL is completely wrong about what a natural born citizen is. Rubio is eligible.
We Are The 53%
OK?
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 10:36am.
So the United States did not exist until then?
If that's the case, why do we bother celebrating the 4th of July?
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
To have great BBQs!
Submitted by Denny Crane on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 10:57am.
Seriously though, July 4th is Independence day. As in the Declaration of Independence.
September 17 is Constitution day or Citizens day, as in the celebration of the signing of the Constitution of the United States. The day the U.S. Constitutional Convention signed the Constitution in 1787.
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Hey Uns, I feel special, it's not very often that I know something that you don't! :-)
Denny Crane
We Are The 53%
Office vacant until 1811
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 12:02pm.
That line exists because at that moment, if that language was not in the clause, no one would be able to hold the office of the Presidency until 1811. The "natural-born Americans" didn't exist until July 4, 1776 and beyond. It goes without saying that exactly zero of the Framers qualified to hold that office at that point in time.
:)
People forget that the Constitution is the second attempt at forging a national government.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Agree NL 100%
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 4:28pm.
Attorneys I know can't read the simple words you bold above and the meaning & reason! It is SO simple and so right. Obama IS not qualified no matter what because is father never was a citizen. The founders state the reason even in other documents. So there will not be a person of split loyalties like now, as with Obama to his Marxist father! Early census people would right Natural Born if both parents were citizens. Otherwise they right down to the right where each parent was from on another line. The meaning is not unknown!!!!
""No person except a natural born Citizen, *** OR a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution*** , shall be eligible to the Office of President"
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
Yet that decision
Submitted by Blonde on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 6:37pm.
...doesn't address the "jurisdiction" clause.
IOW, it is going to have to be litigated. Which will, of course, entail the framers "intent" if it even gets that far. And look how that's turned out for Obama.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Framers' "Intent"
Submitted by stratman on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 7:35pm.
Sadly, three of the Supremes don't give a rat's behind about the Framers' intent and two others are post turtles who can fall off their perch either way.
Sadly four of the Supremes ...
Submitted by NL207 on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 12:53am.
don't give a rat's posterior about the Constitution at all. Two of them at least have publicly admitted the use of foreign law in preference to our Constitution to decide cases before them. Those two need to be impeached.
Two more were appointed by this faux President. They are no more legitimate than the one who appointed them.
They said nothing of the sort...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 1:12am.
and suggested nothing different from what Supreme Court justices have been doing in considering cases before it and rendering opinions throughout the Court's history.
Jer
And how do you like your crow served?
Submitted by NL207 on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 1:32am.
" Supreme Court’s decision last Monday in Graham v. Florida, which cited foreign law to strike down sentencing guidelines used by 37 states, the District of Columbia, and the federal government. Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion joined by Ginsburg, Stevens, Breyer, and Sotomayor."
"Justice Anthony Kennedy taught a summer program for McGeorge
School of Law at the University of Salzburg in Austria. He returned to Salzburg
in 1990 and every year thereafter for fifteen years. He is enamored by foreign
cultures and ideas, and they inform his jurisprudence. In 2003, he drew on
several foreign sources to write his majority opinion in Lawrence v Texas."
Enjoying your crow yet?
Served with something other than the partisan drooling
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 2:44am.
of a right-wing activist.
And besides, it neither corroborates your claim [a preference of foreign law over the Constitution] nor contradicts mine.
Jer
Rubbish.
Submitted by NL207 on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 5:33pm.
If the governing logic of foreign law is inserted into a line of reasoning in a decision, that is, by its very presence, an implicit claim that the point of law in question cannot be formed under the Constitution and existing US law and that this foreign authority is being used in place of US Law. Otherwise, any reference to such foreign law would be irrelevant in the context of the United States, would it not?
I would go further to hold that only the US Constitution and US laws enacted under its authority have any place in US Jurisprudence. Any references therein to foreign law implicitly violate US sovereignty by erection of that foreign law as legal authority in place of Constitution and Congress.
Perhaps we should serve your crow with some of your liberal smugness ? I prefer the term 'Conservative' to right-wing activist.
Congress needs to "help" ...
Submitted by NL207 on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 12:57am.
the high court understand this intent.
Congress can do two things here. It can pass a resolution defining what the language in question means. Even better, it can make this law. It can outright impeach any Federal Judge it deems unfit including a Supreme [see Samuel Chase, 1807].
I agree with you on that point, NL.
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 1:18am.
Jer
Good Lord!
Submitted by NL207 on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 1:36am.
I must be wrong on this point!
I tried my damndest to find something wrong, but,
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 2:06am.
I finally had to admit to myself you had somehow stumbled into a position with which I couldn't disagree. :-)
Jer
Truth has a funny way of doing just that...
Submitted by vrwc13 on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 10:08am.
...that is finding people able to agree.
v
The burden of life is from ourselves, its lightness from the grace of Christ and the love of God. - William Bernard Ullanthorne
Impeachment of judges strongly needed
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 4:36pm.
Judicial activism away from the Constitution has led us squarely where we are today. The judicial had attacked our social norms as illegal and has led to the decay of our society. This has left us with a deficient citizenry and thus candidates that don't mind putting themselves in front of our Country's best interests.
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
Impeachment of judges strongly needed
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 4:36pm.
Judicial activism away from the Constitution has led us squarely where we are today. The judicial had attacked our social norms as illegal and has led to the decay of our society. This has left us with a deficient citizenry and thus candidates that don't mind putting themselves in front of our Country's best interests.
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
Debbie Wasserman-Shultz
Submitted by Gat New York on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 10:57am.
I cannot help but laugh the minute this woman opens her mouth as she did this morning on CNN.
Aside from her departure-from-reality statements that are comical - the first words out of Debbie Downer were: "Mitt Womney is wimping into New Hampshire."
No I did not make typos because that is the way she speaks. She is the female version of Elmer Fudd (I'm gonna get dat wabbit).
This woman is supposed to be the DNC attack dog. How can anyone take someone who sounds like Elmer Fudd seriously??
You must laugh a lot, ...
Submitted by Newsbubba on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 12:03pm.
... because that bitch NEVER shuts up!
I was driving along this morning listening to FNC and heeeeeeeeer's Debbie! I'll swear, I don't know how anyone puts up with the Wasserman Test. Yap, yap yap, yap, etc, etc, etc. She literally never shuts her yap. It was all Gretchen Carlson could do to get the next question in over Debbie Blabbermouth Schultz's talking points.
Since I couldn't see her on the radio (thank God), did she have fresh mayonnaise in her hair this morning?
Newsbubba,Radio guy, Top and bottom of the hour news.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 7:28pm.
Flooded with praise and accolades for McCain, touching the garment of Romney.
'Bout time for Rush to buy out top of the hour news, then we get ad's about Spatula City.
OOH And in other bug slapping news... Confusion over government permits will delay the planned release of genetically altered mosquitoes in Key West for several months.
Stay safe...
You Didn't Build That.
Have you considered?
Submitted by KornKing on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 12:15pm.
I'm thinking old Elmer has a higher IQ, up there with Mika's breast size
Litle Debs a good opponent
Submitted by Blonde on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 1:02pm.
Running for her House Seat....Karen Harrington.
Of course the media will never tell you this.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
We are dead in the water now,
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 11:07am.
We are dead in the water now, get ready for ano0ther McLame fiasco. I am ready for the wilderness.
The media will have a field day with Santorum
Submitted by shawn. on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 11:11am.
I think a big reason why he lost his reelection is because of his comments about gays and implying sodomy should be illegal. However I still think he will give Romney a run for his money.
What worries me
Submitted by KornKing on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 12:16pm.
It's hard to explain away an 18 point margin with that
ABR continues...
Submitted by vrwc13 on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 11:39am.
Romney did no better than four years ago...
So with Santorum picking up the AnyoneButRomney votes,
Gingrich faltering,
Bachmann not gaining any ground,
Perry should stay in to see if he picks up Gingrich and Bachmann support.
Yes Perry, he did ok in Iowa and he needs to stay around until Santorum is 'vetted' by the msm. Once that is over (in a few weeks) then it will be evident whether it should be Santorum or Perry as our conservative nominee.
...nationally Romney gets his 20%, Paul his 10%, the other 70% is left for someone else.
PART II - because...
v
The burden of life is from ourselves, its lightness from the grace of Christ and the love of God. - William Bernard Ullanthorne
Reuters calls Iowa for ....... Obama!!
Submitted by Agnostic on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 11:22am.
I am so shocked. Shocked, I tell ya!
I wonder how long ago this theme was written.
That Iowa video of him
Submitted by jon_torlin on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 12:51pm.
Has anyone seen that video of Soetoro where he addressed the Iowa caucus? Anyone see how orange he looked? That's like those times he gets himself made up to look darker than he really is, except for some reason they went a bit more orange.
-Jon
Yeah, he looked orange, and
Submitted by killa37 on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 12:01am.
Yeah, he looked orange, and his hair looked like somebody dusted it with flour.
I Pick Rick
Submitted by Free Stinker on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 11:23am.
Santorum 2012 !
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Obama to recess-appoint
Submitted by bkeyser on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 11:32am.
Richard Cordray. He's in full combative mode and using today -the day after the Iowa caucuses- to change the media narrative. Total d-bag move. Chicago on the Potomac.
They All Suck
Submitted by kilrod on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 11:59am.
And therein lies the rub. Howsomever, McCains endorsement of Romney could be the kiss of death. The sub-slime media will go light on Santorum as he would be easier for odumb-uh-uh to beat. Newt will launch a version of bare nucks politics like has never been seen and if he attacks and runs against the sub-slime media and odumb-uh-uh he will win the nomination. Still dose'nt change the fact "they all suck". Look for a third party run from ???? Makes little difference, in the end it will be settled in the streets anyway. Depends on if and when the financial collapse comes before are after the election. Depends on if and when the Middle East goes up in flames in time for odumb-uh-uh to stage an Oct. surprise. (see "in the end it will be settled in the streets anyway.")
(grins) kilrod "the Birther"
If an unborn child cannot trust you, why should I,??
Santorum is a flash in the pan
Submitted by han_solo on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 12:30pm.
Santorum is one of the biggest money wasters the GOP has ever had in the Senate.
Translation: how dare he do
Submitted by Free Stinker on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 12:39pm.
Translation: how dare he do better than Ron Paul!
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Romney can't beat obama
Submitted by han_solo on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 12:33pm.
I just don't think Romney will be anything but another Dole or McCain....the guy who only gets the bare minimum of core republican voters, and totally gives all the independents to Obama.
Rick Perry "stay the course"
Submitted by vrwc13 on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 1:30pm.
Perry tweets: On to South Carolina
v
The burden of life is from ourselves, its lightness from the grace of Christ and the love of God. - William Bernard Ullanthorne
Happy to see that
Submitted by KornKing on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 3:38pm.
I have 500 bucks invested in Perry
Never
Submitted by mawendt on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 1:39pm.
I will never vote for Romney, and I will encourage every person I meet to not vote for him, either, regardless.
I read the posts, I see the pundits, I hear the discussions - Romney is not a conservative. He's the lesser of evils... he's a LIBERAL people. It doesn't matter about the argument of 'electability'.
You're actually telling me to compromise my standards just to get a democrat-lite in the white house? Not gonna happen.
What embarrassass me is hearing all these so called conservatives trying to create some kind of praise for this guy, a compromiser, a flopper, an opportunist, in order to make him 'look' good enough to vote. The guy has a failed history when it comes to doing the right thing.
If you claim to be a conservative, and vote for romney, you have no principals. Is this what it has come to?
Not voting or itching for a 3 rd party..Equals An O'bama vote...
Submitted by upcountrywater on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 2:34pm.
Well then we get 4 more years of crap like this: Obama bucks Republicans by making unprecedented recess appointment
The Republican party is all we conservatives have.
You Didn't Build That.
UCW, This President has
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 2:58pm.
UCW,
This President has shown he does not give one s**t about the Constitution. When will the GOP grow the cajones to start the Articles of Impeachment?
Scoob, Oaf in Office
Submitted by upcountrywater on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 4:47pm.
His first seconds of rulership he Spewed forth jibberish, while handling his favorite book.
Articles of Impeachment, Oaf took no oath, so that plan won't work.
EDIT!!!! Gawd....Obama bypasses Senate to fill labor board posts
The Hugo Chavez MO...
The following video should to be watched on MUTE
Oh wait use this video as a voice overlay.
You Didn't Build That.
He's doing it
Submitted by jon_torlin on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 5:19pm.
He's starting his takeover. There's still a chance to stop him, but I don't see that happening. Bonehead and Can't-Do-It won't do anything. SCOTUS should, but they won't.
Whatever evil there is that's striking fear in the hearts of good men to keep them from doing the right thing is going on full strength.
If he's going to do this, what the hell makes anyone think we're going to have elections in November? Seriously, I mean that, if this is being allowed to happen, what person in their right mind thinks we will be able to vote this fraud out of office and that he'll go quietly?
This is the new beginning, the dictatorship is coming out of its shell.
-Jon
Jon
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 6:28pm.
I'm in total agreement. The only way we're going to have elections in November is if they smear the GOP candidate enough to assure victory, or they can get Ron Paul to run as a third party and split the conservative vote. Otherwise...we'll have internet and phones shut down due to some "emergency" and certain people will be "detained" indefinately.
A few of us here, you, Dave, myself, have seen this coming and warned everyone, but we get the typical "it can't happen here" response. Yes it can, and yes he will.
edit
And George Soros is pulling the strings to make all this happen.
Ol' combover, after running his daddy's business into the ground
Submitted by upcountrywater on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 7:37pm.
The great and powerful O'bama, will offer Trump a get out of debt free card if he runs.
You Didn't Build That.
jon, Now that the repubs have handed the keys to the gulags over
Submitted by Dave. on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 11:33pm.
...to Little Caesar Obumma, he now knows he can do anything he damn well pleases, and the repubs will do nothing about it.
I really hate to say it, but we're there.
This is not America anymore.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
a line has to be drawn
Submitted by vrwc13 on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 2:52pm.
I agree with you mawendt.
If you don't draw a line and keep it there it will just keep moving left.
The line of acceptance for Romney's, McCains, etc. has moved too far. We must stop it now or it will just keep moving and those to the right will become even more of Hillary's VRWC.
If it continues, today's moderates will become tomorrows conservatives.
v
The burden of life is from ourselves, its lightness from the grace of Christ and the love of God. - William Bernard Ullanthorne
The America-hating communist MSM will now put on their Ceasar...
Submitted by Dave. on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 2:00pm.
...Obumma kneepads and go after Rick Santorum, the only conservative left standing.
Santorum's surprisingly strong finish last night (I didn't see it coming) makes him a clear and present threat to the Kenyan Muslim commie's ability to deliver the coup de grâce to America - for which a second term will be required, and therefore Santorum must be destroyed.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Will be there changes in the media's coverage of the campaign?
Submitted by Conservator on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 2:50pm.
Yes - just read The Washington Post today. Now it's fair game to attack and belittle the entire field of Republican candidates.
Question for thoughtful NBers:
Submitted by bkeyser on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 3:38pm.
Actually, a line of questions I suppose.
We're all looking for the perfect candidate, and I think we all know that person probably doesn't exist. So we've got to compromise somewhere. So my questions relate to a candidates past positions. Much is being made today about Rick Santorum being a "big government Conservative" based on past positions and votes. I don't know enough yet to determine if this is the case, or if he's modified some of those positions, but I'm wondering how things like his vote for "No Child" will -or should hurt him. Romney's past positions surely com under scrutiny, but is he allowed to change?
It seems to me that conservatism has grown monumentally since the rise of Obama and the radical left-wing agenda pushed on us. Where was it before? Is it fair to say that conservatism has moved rightward as liberalism has moved left? And if so, then were the positions Romney held (in Mass. no less, a place where a hardcore conservative could never be elected) to some degree, and Rick Santorum held to a greater degree, reasonable conservatism at the time and place? And are they allowed to tack right with the rest of us? Before the Tea Party, few publicly held such strong positions for if they had, wouldn't we have seen them lining the Washington Mall when Bush passed Medicare Part D? And if we selected someone from the Tea Party, what are the chances they might be facing the same kind of scrutiny Romney and Santorum are?
I guess I'm willing to forgive what might now be considered transgressions; hindsight is 20-20, of course, and different times lead to different actions. Anyone?
"compromise somewhere?"
Submitted by vrwc13 on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 4:23pm.
Only where compromise is acceptable.
Where it's not:
Where it is:
So who's that leave?
Santorum and Perry or someone else not yet running.
v
The burden of life is from ourselves, its lightness from the grace of Christ and the love of God. - William Bernard Ullanthorne
Perry called Tea Partiers
Submitted by Free Stinker on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 6:23pm.
Perry called Tea Partiers heartless.
He is done.
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Free, you and other Tea Party folks need to get over it...
Submitted by vrwc13 on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 10:18am.
"Perry called Tea Partiers heartless"
"Though Perry has since profusely apologized for calling conservatives "heartless" when the Texas Dream Act proved too complex for a soundbite..." from:
Rick Perry nabs Tea Party fave Sheriff Joe Arpaio endorsement
...what's it gonna take Free Stinker, this? "...the endorsement of Arpaio is one of the most sought after of two Tea Party endorsements -- the other being Sarah Palin."
So Free, if Sarah endorses Perry, will you?
v
The burden of life is from ourselves, its lightness from the grace of Christ and the love of God. - William Bernard Ullanthorne
i think most rightwards and
Submitted by TruthMonger on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 5:03pm.
i think most rightwards and independants will like romney because he is as good of a right/moderate balance as we are going to get. conservatives will hold their noses and vote romney to get obama out of offfice.
repubs will take the senate and hold the house and and so some solid repair of this democrat disaster is possible. with these bully pulpits and some good balanced behavior the country might warm up to more conservative people and positions.
careful but strongly rightward behavior will maximize the length of repub control over the next 5 to 10 years. remember the dems held the house for 35 years so this is possible.
Congratulations Jimmy Carter!
~Bk
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 10:16pm.
Here's my take on it:
I don't think that conservatism as a whole changed; I think that a lot of people who'd simply been living their lives suddenly started paying attention to politics. I know I was one of those people.
I didn't watch political shows, still don't actually, and while I could have told you basic details about national politics and a little more about local politics, I've never fit the definition of a news junkie or a political activist. If anyone had told me in '07 that a year later I'd be passionately involved in politics, I'd have laughed. I didn't become more conservative in '08, I just became more politically aware because of the danger I perceived the country to be in.
That said, I didn't like what was going on while the Repubs controlled the WH and Congress, but being active against things I didn't agree with, like going into Iraq, would have put me on the same side as people like Code Pink. *shudder*
And being against Medicare Part D and amnesty would have put me on no side, essentially, since the pols on "our side" were pushing it and I didn't use the internet or listen to talk radio.
I was considerably relieved in '08 when I got a Blackberry and discovered sites like NB. Suddenly I had "people", if you know what I mean.
So now it's Santotum that's
Submitted by Rusty Shackleford on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 3:47pm.
So now it's Santotum that's surging? Good grief it really is like they are taking turns. When's Huntsman going to come out on top?
I'm sure the media's pleased because it looks like they're going to succeed in getting the White House's preferred candidate nominated. Then every conservative will need to sit back and keep quiet about Obamacare because their candidate is guilty of something similar.
This is '08 all over again and at some point you have to blame conservative voters for a lousy nominee instead of the media. There's no reason someone should be voting for Romney. This country is on a death spiral and simply being "better than Obama" isn't good enough anymore.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Matthews: The Joy Behar of MSNBC.
Bill Maher: The Joy Behar of HBO.
Paul Krugman: The Joy Behar of The New York Times.
Rusty, I can see your point.
Submitted by Liberallies on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 10:27pm.
Rusty,
I can see your point.
I would say if we Republicans and Conservatives are not careful, we will end up like the Democtratic party did in 2004.
Democrats ran on a "anyone but Bush platform". They got flip-flopper, I voted and was for the Iraq War before I was against it John Kerry and look where it got them.
I am not a fan of the slogan, "Anyone, but Obama". I thought it was silly when Democrats said, "Anyone, but Bush" same goes for the "Anyone, but Obama".
We MUST be excited about the candidate we pick and his policies. We can't merely be excited that it is not Obama because as Democrats learned the hard way, simply not being the current President will not get you into the White House.
With any luck, John McRino's endorsement of Mittens RINOmney...
Submitted by Dave. on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 4:10pm.
...will sink him with the voters.
LOL - That's almost as bad as an endorsement from Jihad Jimmy Earl.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Well, 2 liberal Republicans
Submitted by VBaxter on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 4:24pm.
Well, 2 liberal Republicans got the top 2 spots in Iowa. I hope everyone there is happy. Now the country has little chance to turn around.
Let's all hope Paul gets (at least) second in New Hampshire. We can't let last night bring us down. Let's keep fighting for a true conservative. Let's keep the message of Freedom going.
Article: http://reason.com/archives/2012/01/04/the-bright-side-of-ron-pauls-third...
Ron Paul 2012
Santorum is hardly a Liberal
Submitted by stratman on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 7:25pm.
Santorum is hardly a Liberal Republican.
Huh?
Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 9:00pm.
How can there be maximum freedom when your hero as indicated that he is completely unwilling to defend it?
And, maximum freedom for who, exactly? Certainly not the people that racist bigot hates with a passion.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Ron Paul? Ron Paul is a
Submitted by Liberallies on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 10:13pm.
Ron Paul?
Ron Paul is a racist proven by the newsletter that bares his name. He is anti-Jew, anti-black, etc.
all one has to do is pick up his newsletters to know that Ron Paul is the nutty politician.
Ron Paul needs to be kicked out from the Republican party. I can't understand how any district in the USA would elect this crazy guy.
I was listening to the Michael Medved show today and he had a Ron Paul supporter call in. Medved pointed out, with sourcing, Ron Paul's racism. The poor Paulinista had no chance. The only thing he could do is avoid addresing the facts about Ron Paul's racism and made an attempt to change the conversation by attacking Romney. It was quite funny.
Well, it is actually always funny to here Paulinistas rant and rave about Ron Paul. Most of them are as nutty as he is.
Why?
Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 10:16pm.
The reason his district in TX keeps voting for him, as The Economist speculated about 5 years ago?
His signature is on the bottom of roughly 4000 district residents' birth certificates. I am not kidding.
But then, I suspect a lot of people voted for our wonderful President strictly because of His HOT, BEAUTIFUL SMILE.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Unsane, Wow! really? Name
Submitted by Liberallies on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 10:22pm.
Unsane,
Wow! really? Name recognition is what gets this guy elected and re-elected?
Are we the voters, on both sides, this dumb?
no wonder politicians are turning the great USA into Ancient Rome and that is the end days of the Roman Empire.
Feed us, give us games, keep us busy with empty entertaiment which keeps our senses pleased while politicians destroy Washington.
You know, as a Venezuelan, well now an American, but when Hugo Chavez was ELECTED back in 1998, I remember my parents shaking their head in shame and saying, "Nations deserve the politicians they elect". I hate to say it, but the same goes for the USA. Americans deserve Obama. I have countless of friends who were so drunk in the Hope and Change that they never stopped to think about his policies. Today, of 100 people I know voted for Obama, 70 of them deeply regret their vote.
The problem is that those of us who did not vote for these terrible politicians also suffer.
Name recognition works
Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 10:35pm.
Name recognition works, unfortunately.
Now, maybe WE on NB are more informed than the average voter and can avoid these traps. (I say "maybe" because we are ALL human.) But name recognition and fame is more effective than you know. I point you to the TX Governor of old, "Pappy" O'Daniel. He was a populist conservative Democrat who was gov during WWII. How was he known? Why, as a radio personality and a musician who, among other things, led the "Light Crust Doughboys". Was he effective as a Governor or a U.S. Senator? No.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Unsane
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 10:56pm.
Name recognition accounts for all the political signs with the candidates names on them during elections. No information about the candidate is on the signs, but we know it works or they wouldn't be putting their money in printing up all those signs, which, by the way, are real eyesores.
~Given a choice between a name they know and a name they don't
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 10:58pm.
whether we're talking about peanut butter, laundry detergent, or a politician, people pick the name they know. Anything that gives people a sense of familiarity will be picked every time, which is why incumbents automatically have an edge.
Wrath
Submitted by MrShy on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 11:11pm.
I dunno, not when you're piss-poor like me.
I'm trying all sorts of new no-name brands at the grocery store because they're a buck cheaper here, two bucks cheaper there, etc..
But yes, bad analogy. All our votes and who we vote for cost the same -- nada.
- shy on vinyl
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
~I feed our family of six
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 11:36pm.
on $200 a month, on average. Costco all the way, baby.
Of course, that's buying all raw ingredients and cooking everything from scratch. Which I revel in, but it ain't fer everybody. Tonight was pot roast, but if you need bean soup recipes, I've got oodles of 'em. ;)
(admission: I spend the heaps of cash I save on groceries buying scrumptious things for the house from Pottery Barn and Williams-Sonoma. And doing fun stuff with the kids, like taking them to see performances at the local children's theater. All guilt-free because the bills are paid and the pantry is full.)
Jeez,
Submitted by killa37 on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 12:37am.
Jeez, Ms.Brunette............I'm single (except for my two idiot cats) over here on an outer island in Hawaii, and there's no way I can feed myself on $200/mo!!! Of course, we're talking about a place that hasn't seen gasoline for under $4/gal. for the past 2-3 years, and the whole idea of the 'cost of living in paradise' has been shoved down people's throats for so long that nobody questions it anymore.
Family Of Six For $200/Month?
Submitted by stratman on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 2:49am.
I hereby nominate Wrathful Brunette to head up all food stamp programs!
Hell, strat, the food-stamp
Submitted by killa37 on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 3:10am.
Hell, strat, the food-stamp recipients would be revolting (motto of the OWS bowel movement - 'we're revolting!!!') in a New York minute if you only gave them $200 for a family of 6!!!!! These people probably eat better than you or I!!! I've been behind them in line at the store......they're buying pricier stuff than I am, but then again, I'm using my OWN damn money!!!!
killa
Submitted by MrShy on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 11:52pm.
Absolutely right. The "poor" that the OWS headless chickens (sorry for the food reference :p) run around bemoaning about, are so used to being "AMERICA POOR" which ain't poor at all.
They are rebelling after decades (generations, even) of being spoiled and handed freebies, all thanks to leftist brainwashing and being told they are the downtrodden and "poor" 99%. It's all so idiotic. This amazing country is being attacked from within for..... being too amazing.
- shy on vinyl
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
~Strat
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 10:23am.
20 lbs of potatoes cost $6 and change at Costco, a 25 lb bag of flour costs the same. Whole chickens are .89 lb, and don't even get me started on how cheap the veggies are. We live high on pot roasts, chicken and dumplings, vegetable beef and barley soup and biscuits, potato bacon torte, quiche, white chicken chili and homemade cornbread, leek and potato soup in homemade bread bowls in the winter time, and on veggies picked fresh out of the garden in the summer.
My kids graze on the snow peas and green beans while picking them to be steamed with baby French fingerling potatoes scrabbled out of the potato bed for lunch. I just drizzle a little melted butter over it all with a sprinkle of sea salt and fresh cracked pepper. They love picking and eating the cherry tomatoes out there too, I hardly ever have any make it into the house.
I'm making myself hungry...
Speaking of cherry tomatoes
Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 10:46am.
The Wrathful Bru even recycles her tomato seeds, sending them to the Blonde One. We're expecting to begin eating the beautiful little things by month's end.
Today on the menu....Mole Negro de Oaxaca, a mere 30 ingredients! Blog entry to follow.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
~Don't forget
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 12:39pm.
all the ones I sent you are heirlooms so you can save some seeds for next season. Next fall I think I'll send you a bunch of rooted basil cuttings, since I lose mine in the frost right about the time your season starts up.
Bru and Blonde - Couple of Hot Tamales Talking About Tomatoes
Submitted by stratman on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 9:24pm.
In all seriousness, nothing like a freshly picked ripe tomato out of the garden. That is good eating. So many things you can do with the humble tomato, like Forrest Gumps' army buddy and the all the ways to eat shrimp. :-)
Even the lovable tomato couldn't escape American politics:
Apparently, politicians and Supreme Court Justices have been odious money grubbers for years.
~Obviously
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 01/06/2012 - 8:52am.
none of those greedy, money-grubbing !@#@!$$@ ever had tomato ice cream. ;)
thanks W Bru...
Submitted by vrwc13 on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 11:14am.
...my family of seven (at home) is going to follow suit. Although we have Sam's here not Costco. We just loaded up the freezer with a side-o-beef from a local farmer so we need all the pot roast/veggie beef soup ideas we can get.
We also get fresh stuff from the Amish too. Gotta watch out for their donuts though.
v
The burden of life is from ourselves, its lightness from the grace of Christ and the love of God. - William Bernard Ullanthorne
~Pm me your e-mail addy
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 12:40pm.
and I'll send you a bunch of recipes and some useful links.
Donuts...I haven't had a donut in I don't know how long. I want one now, though!
For your sake, and the sake of your family, WB...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 7:52pm.
I urge you to stay clear of warm-out-of-the-oven donuts from Krispy Kreme, lest you start telling your kids and husband you'll be gone for awhile to check on some new herbal hybrids when in fact you'll be lurking around the nearest KK waiting for the next fresh batch.
Then, eventually, the agonizing dozen-step program for Kreme addicts.
Jer
Jer
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 8:38pm.
As one in KK recovery please stop. Now.
Rad...If I were a cruel person, I would mention
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 11:25pm.
that my wife just walked in with a box of a dozen, delectably fresh and warm, slightly glazed Krispy Kremes, one of which I am currently savoring its every morsel of irresistible, melt-in-your-mouth scrumptiousness.
But, I'm not, so I won't.
Jer
~I'm going to miss being young, when I'm not anymore
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 01/06/2012 - 8:49am.
Mostly because I will no longer be able to eat whatever I want. Cuz the only thing better than a fresh donut is a fresh, guilt-free donut. I may make it my mission to obtain one or a dozen of those this weekend. On my way to the nursery, of course.
Mr. Shy. Trailblazer.
Submitted by MrShy on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 11:43pm.
I had no idea I would blaze a whole new trail, setting off this thread-within-a-thread about food. Cool :)
- shy on vinyl
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
Yeah, Shy.........I just came
Submitted by killa37 on Fri, 01/06/2012 - 12:07am.
Yeah, Shy.........I just came back from working, and then surfing, and I was checking out the threads..............and this one started out as some conversation about Romney sqeaking by in Iowa - and look where it went!!! I actually like it when the threads go off on some tangents - they can get quite interesting.
I'm reading the prices of items from Ms. Brunette and others, and what they get for their money...........and it's just another ballpark over here - so it's hard to relate to what is going on in the good ol' USA. Remember, I'm over here in Asia!!! But I'll tell ya' sumpin - I've stood in line behind some useless, worthless welfare scammers - guys who are half my age, and doing nothing but getting stoned, being 'groovy', and living off the system ............as well as a lot of local folks here who just sort of 'inherited' the welfare state (hey, we ARE called the People's Republic of Hawaii!!!).........and sometimes I wonder what the hell I'm working for!!
Even when I was a young man, I remember thinking that these hippies and trolls who would come to Hawaii to lay on the beach, get high, 'find themselves', and collect welfare and food stamps (apparantly it's really easy over here!!! I wouldn't know.) were basically leeches and useless people. For different reasons, I didn't feel the same way about most of the local folks here, since they usually were trying to make ends meet, but often needed assistence. After all, this place is NOT cheap, on any given day!!
Mr. Shy, In Chicago, my
Submitted by Liberallies on Fri, 01/06/2012 - 3:44am.
Mr. Shy,
In Chicago, my father and mother, who had 7 of us, went to the Mexican Fruit Markets. It is the lowest prices for produce and fruits. Now that I am married with two kids of my own, I do the same thing. For example, just this past weekend my wife and I bought two pounds of Florida oranges for $.69/lb! I love oranges and so do my kids. A head of lettuce for $.89/lettuce., two pounds of tomatoes for $.45/lb. Meat is also incredibly cheap in these Mexican fruit markets, except "ranchera" meat. But if you have a Mexican or Latino fruit and produce market by you, I believe that is the way to go.
We usually go to Wal-Mart or Target for frozen food, bread and some can goods. I use to go to Aldi, but I don't like the taste of their food anymore.
By the way, I have a friend who has a LINK card (food stamps in Illinois). Yes, they eat much, much MUCH better than my family and I. He has a family of four children and he and his wife were getting $800 a month in food stamps! They make about $4,000 a month. He was complaining to me that Illinois just lowered his food stamps amount to a "mere" $500! Man, what I could do with an extra $500 a month for food.
On the same day Obama recess-appoints the CFPB chief,
Submitted by bkeyser on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 7:31pm.
and fills recess-appoints a democrat majority for the NLRB, Indiana House democrats refused to show up for work by taking a (so far) modified approach used by Wisconsin democrats in around this time last year. See, like the Fleebaggers from Wisconsin, these bratty democrats don't like a right-to-work bill that I assume will pass if they allow the session to begin. How ironic. You've got the president running against a republican House claiming they won't work with him, even though they passed mountains of legislation that has languished in the democrat Senate, and then you've got democrats on the state level who stomp off in fits when they don't get what they want.
Oh, by the way. Scott Brown is fine with Obama's use of power.
Scott Brown needs to be fired. I'd rather have an enemy in the seat than a traitor.
Which demon gets the seat?
Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 10:17pm.
I hate to say this - truly - but I'd rather have him than the Socialist Elizabeth Warren in that seat.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
At least, Unsane,
Submitted by bkeyser on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 11:20pm.
you know what to expect from Warren. Brown, apparently, needs to be bought.
Yeah, I think this was the first time in history a political
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 12:58am.
party had blocked an admittedly qualified nominee simply because it didn't like the department he was selected to head.
But since this GOP Congress has been the most obstructionist in history, it should come as no surprise.
Jer
You sound like a broken record with ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 1:16am.
your "this GOP Congress has been the most obstructionist in history" nonsense.
That is just your lefty opinion; and is typically phrased by a liberal as though the Republicans were solely in power and in charge.
Conservatives who pay attention know better.
MD
.
That's because it keeps breaking its own record, md...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 1:25am.
and thus requires continued updating.
;-)
Jer
Good morning Jer
Submitted by cocodrie on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 2:30am.
Records are made to be broken. You need a longer stick to poke them dogs with. Have a blessed year.
Good night. I have a long day ahead of me tomorrow,
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Cause and effect - Jer
Submitted by Agnostic on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 10:11am.
After two years of 'punch-drunk' power and an administration trying to do more than anyone since FDR to
bankrupt, I mean, create a social safety net so that their party can hold power (FDR showed the way with how many decades of Democrat control of Congress?) the natural response to the largest power grab in 80 years is going to be the largest obstruction. In this case the are actually doing their jobs - unlike what they did for 50-55 out of the previous 80 years where their vote meant little so they went a developed their putting game and worked on their approach shots.Obama In My Town Today
Submitted by stratman on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 7:56pm.
Obama revisited my city's high school today for a second time. Must get a lot of donations here. I know my neighbor's son donated $5K to take a picture with Barry and Moochelle last time.
While here, Obama announced three interim appointments for the NLRB, which have infuriated Republicans, and former Ohio Atty. Gen. Richard Cordray to head the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Cordray's not a bad choice, especially whom he could have chosen from Democrat Hell Ohio. No secret Cordray's appointment is part of a bid to garner votes in November, and, he's a favorite of former Governor Ted Strickland. Don't think it's going to help all that much because Cordray isn't a beloved household name and he's lost multiple elections over the years, the last to Republican Mike DeWine
Somebody PAID $5K to have
Submitted by killa37 on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 12:41am.
Somebody PAID $5K to have their picture taken with Boy Blunder and the Moooooooooooche??? Where the hell are the OWS bowel movement people on that one??? I'd accept a $5K buy-out to NOT have my photo taken with those two posers!!!
Un-friggin-believable!!!
And, by the way, did the photographer have to use a wide-angle lens to fit Mooooooooochie's wide-load caboose in the photo??
Funny You Should Mention That
Submitted by stratman on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 2:15am.
The photo does look like it's in panoramic mode. Developer must cost a lot more nowadays. ;-)
All I know is our street, which one side ends down the block at the high school Obama appeared at, was quiet of traffic for a couple of hours. I'm sure their was a collective O'gasm at the school but enough distance protected me from witnessing it.
Barf
kilrod is right,---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 8:25pm.
even allowing for the fact that there is no perfect candidate, ALL politicians suck to one degree or another.
While there are some decent people who have recently taken office - West and Rubio automatically come to mind - they are, in Washington, D.C., federal political neophytes in a very real sense, and their kind of fledgling commitment to their constituents means they are horrendously outnumbered, even by other "Republicans".
It seems that the word 'constituents', to professional politicians, means "those who will vote for me", as opposed to "those whom I have sworn, if elected, to champion".
There are no politicians, especially those at federal level, who reside in the onerous, politician caused, tax permeated world that I inhabit.
MD
Who is likely to get the votes?
Submitted by Boudin on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 8:36pm.
Now that Bachmann has quit? Mitt or Rick,
When Perry quits
Newt, Huntsmann, we all know Paul wont quit.
BTW, we can thank the media for ruining Bachmann.
Thank Bachmann for that
Submitted by boilermaker on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 9:22pm.
Every time she opens her mouth...
Hey there boil
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 9:26pm.
It looks as if we might have ourselves a new troll. If you're lucky, Dave will give you the welcome troll speech.
In any case, Bachmann opens her mouth and speaks conservatism comes out.
See how well it worked
Submitted by Boudin on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 9:45pm.
On you, of course you dont?
Boudin,
Submitted by boilermaker on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 5:06pm.
What did the media do to dissuade Republicans from voting Bachmann? Or are you concerned the media have tricked Democrats from voting for her in a primary or caucus they're not allowed to vote in anyway?
Great.
Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 9:54pm.
Just what NB needs. Another intellectually bankrupt Leftist.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Is there any other kind
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 10:04pm.
Is there any other kind Unsane? :^)
Blonde, I am soooooooo
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 9:39pm.
Blonde,
I am soooooooo jealous of you!!!!!
Why oh why can't I have this man representing me in Congress?
Allen West - "That's America"
Allen West - "I Am Their Number One Target"
Please watch these video's.
We need to get this man into the White House.
Draft West
Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 1:12am.
....does have its merits.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
I am glad Rick Santorum came
Submitted by Liberallies on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 10:07pm.
I am glad Rick Santorum came second, and for all intends and purposes, tied with Romney. Finally, he won't be ignored. However, I just don't see him winning a national election. But who knows.
Mitt Romney, I see this guy as a slick, well oild and groomed, typical, run of the mill, flip-floper, go where the polls tell him to go politician.
He is a self-admitted non-Republican "Republican", who is prefered by the Rhinos. McCain endorsing him today tells me enough of Romney, he better not win the nomination.
I do wish we had a stronger candidates, as some have mentioned, Allen West and Marco Rubio, WHERE ARE YOU?!!
Oh I can see it now, the Left wings racist and ridiculous anti-Latino attacks against Marco Rubio. It would be nice to see him run.
Rubio/West ticket, the dream team!
Here's a little Obama
Submitted by bkeyser on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 11:22pm.
wallpaper for your laptop. I think it's fitting.
Heh, Clem's son is getting clobbered in the Orange Bowl
Submitted by Dave. on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 11:50pm.
West Virginia is up on them 49 - 20 at the half. :-)
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
56-20 in the third...
Submitted by bigdaddy on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 12:02am.
...and I have $$$ on West Virginia...