One heck of a lot more natural than barry...

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:

quote:

Originally posted by highroundcount:

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by highroundcount:

Number two........maybe she can get excited about voting Ivanka Trump ....

So ridiculous.

I understand your feelings on this. Just wondering if such an engaged young person can get excited with it.

Ridiculous could be used to described Trump a few years ago.

The box has been opened and anything is possible.

Take care my friend.

From what I've read, Ivanka was born in 1982, but her mother Ivana did not become a US citizen until 1988. By my reading of "natural born", Ivanka does not qualify.

flashguy

I believe she was born in New York to a US citizen father. What’s the problem with natural born?

The original concept of "natural born" as applied to the President was that both parents had to be citizens at the time of birth. And yes, Obama did not meet those criteria, and several of the ones seeking the office in 2016 did not, either.

flashguy

https://hotair.com/archives/20...ion-dems-win-senate/

Wednesday, Senator Dianne Feinstein participated in the one and only debate with state Sen. Kevin de León, her challenger in the California Senate race. The debate was really more of a dual interview but one of the questions raised was whether or not Democrats should reopen the investigation into Justice Brett Kavanaugh if Democrats take the Senate. Feinstein’s initial answer was long-winded and not entirely clear. When the moderator asked her a point black follow up question about re-opening an investigation into Kavanaugh, Feinstein replied, “Oh, I’d be in favor of opening up the allegations, absolutely.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham appeared on Hannity’s show last night and reacted to Feinstein’s statement. “Apparently one kick of a mule is not enough for Senator Feinstein,” Graham said. In other words, there’s some pretty good evidence that the treatment of Kavanaugh by Democrats served to get Republicans worked up prior to the election. Does anyone doubt that relitigating this after Kavanaugh is already on the court would create an even more powerful backlash?

Graham also raised another point worth mentioning. This isn’t just some back-bencher making this statement. If Dems win the Senate, Feinstein would likely become the new chairman of the Judiciary Committee

“I think every voter in all these Trump states that have Democratic Senators needs to ask that question. Are you with Dianne or not?” Graham said.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I hope we pick up 3 to 4 Senate seats. If American voters had a truthful awareness of how bad and how treacherous the DEMs are, this would be a devastating election for DEMs.

On 6 Nov, we get to do one of the biggest, and easiest, things we can do to influence our country: Vote

quote:

Originally posted by highroundcount:

quote:

Originally posted by Ryanp225:
My youngest daughter is 15 and is a HUGE Trunp supporter as she is very active and up to date with her politics.
She is utterly and completely heartbroken by the fact that she will not be old enough to cast her first vote for DJT. I told her that it's no problem. All she needs to do is work to convince as many as she can to vote for him in her stead.

Number one......she is politically invested at 15. Awesome daughter and great job dad!

Number two........maybe she can get excited about voting Ivanka Trump or Nikki Haley.

Thank you!

Some insight into the Mueller investigation process

"a post-Watergate law expired in 1999 that required investigators to submit findings to Congress if they found impeachable offenses"

Mueller must notify Rosenstein on his budgeting needs and all “significant events” made by his office, including indictments, guilty pleas and subpoenas.

When Mueller is finished, he must turn in a “confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions” — essentially why he chose to bring charges against some people but not others.

it will be up to DOJ leaders to make the politically turbo-charged decision of whether to make Mueller’s report public.

https://www.politico.com/story...tion-findings-914754

President Donald Trump's critics have spent the past 17 months anticipating what some expect will be among the most thrilling events of their lives: special counsel Robert Mueller’s final report on Russian 2016 election interference.

They may be in for a disappointment.

Mueller’s findings may never even see the light of day

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:

From what I've read, Ivanka was born in 1982, but her mother Ivana did not become a US citizen until 1988. By my reading of "natural born", Ivanka does not qualify.

flashguy

I believe she was born in New York to a US citizen father. What’s the problem with natural born?

The original concept of "natural born" as applied to the President was that both parents had to be citizens at the time of birth. And yes, Obama did not meet those criteria, and several of the ones seeking the office in 2016 did not, either.

flashguy

That is a novel and imaginative explanation. Any links?

How about distilling this one?

Link

quote:

The original concept of "natural born" as applied to the President was that both parents had to be citizens at the time of birth

Don't think so. When Ted Cruz was born, his father was not a U.S. citizen

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:

quote:

The original concept of "natural born" as applied to the President was that both parents had to be citizens at the time of birth

Don't think so. When Ted Cruz was born, his father was not a U.S. citizen

And I have previously said (several times) that I did not consider him eligible to be President. (Nor Rubio nor Jindall)

The legal dialogue on this issue is complex and contradictory. I just reread a treatment of it on line. My beliefs are based on the original idea that it was important to the Founders that the President not have any allegiances to foreign powers, and that "dual citizenship" was not acceptable. If either parent were still a citizen of a foreign power when the person was born, that person would have dual citizenship, and questionable allegiance. A number of legal minds have agreed with this concept. Others do not. I am allowed to have my opinion, even though IANAL.

flashguy

Congressional Research Service report on “jus sanguinis” (nationality of parents) on citizens born outside of USA, as versus “jus solis” (nationality of birth of place). This should answer your question.

https://www.everycrsreport.com...b638d80c2841a994.pdf

President Trump at Mesa, AZ (Live)

I think it is about to start

https://youtu.be/QStdlgiU70k


President has arrived

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

That's pretty straight forward. If you're born in the United States and are subject to its jurisdiction (the only real exceptions being foreign diplomats on the "blue list"-- those with immunity from U.S. law-- and invading armies) you're a "natural born" citizen.

Hypothetical: I was born in the United States to a USC father and LPR mother. I'm a citizen by birth (but would have been had I been born abroad, anyway, since I'm the legitimate child of a USC father who DID meet the "physically present in the USA [for x number of years prior to my birth]" requirements of the INA).) I've lived in the USA for my entire life with the exception of time spent abroad in the service. By your argument, I'm NOT "natural born" because Mom naturalized when I was 1, not when I was -1.

By contrast, my cousin was born in the United States to two USCs who emigrated to Europe when he was only 6 months old. His English is spotty, he was educated abroad, he lived abroad until he was 35, and only recently returned. He never actually acquired foreign citizenship. He's now running for President. By your argument, he meets every aspect of the citizenship requirement for the Presidency, but I don't.
I realize this is a "straw man" but....

quote:

natural-born citizen ...

Why do we care about this?

https://www.breitbart.com/poli...lly-venue-holds-18k/

Nearly 78,000 people have signed up to attend President Trump’s rally with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) on Monday, which is scheduled to take place in a venue that holds only 18,000.

The real news, though, with this 78,000 number is how popular Trump remains with his supporters. The idea that he can still overfill these venues (as he has consistently done all over the country) two years into his presidency is unprecedented.

A number of presidents were, during their first successful campaigns for the Oval Office, considered rock stars: Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and especially Barack Obama. All pulled in massive crowds as they captured the country’s imagination. This was also true of Trump, but his crowds during the 2016 campaign were breathtaking, and those who defied conventional wisdom and correctly predicted Trump would triumph over Hillary Clinton pointed to this phenomenon.

And it is not just that they show up; it is that thousands of them wait in line for hours and hours for the chance to get in.

Who would have ever predicted, however, that two years in, Trump would still be able to draw the kind of crowds an actual rock star would envy? And what this might mean for another surprise round of Republican turnout in the upcoming midterms is anybody’s guess.

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:]
The original concept of "natural born" as applied to the President was that both parents had to be citizens at the time of birth. And yes, Obama did not meet those criteria, and several of the ones seeking the office in 2016 did not, either.

flashguy

According to Quora:

At least eight US presidents have had a parent born outside what is currently the United States:

Thomas Jefferson’s mother was born in England to a colonial father and English mother.
Andrew Jackson’s parents were both born in Ireland.
James Buchanan’s father was born in Ireland.
Chester Arthur’s father was born in Ireland.
Woodrow Wilson’s mother was born in England to Scottish parents.
Herbert Hoover’s mother was born in Canada.
Barack Obama’s father was born in Kenya.
Donald Trump’s mother (above) was born in Scotland.
A fair few more presidents had parents born in North America prior to US independence.


From Fenris:
I know this is not specifically on your point, but I thought it interesting.

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:
The original concept of "natural born" as applied to the President was that both parents had to be citizens at the time of birth.

This is literally the first time I have run across this claim. Anything you can point to support it? (Or did I miss it somewhere above?)

I haven’t made any attempt to follow and understand all the other exceptions to the old rule as I understood it, but I spent some of my high school years in France where my father was stationed in the Army. At that time a complaint by those of my classmates who had been born outside the U.S. to two fully-native American parents who were overseas by U.S. military orders when they were born was that they were not eligible to become President. I.e., “natural born citizen” was understood to mean born within the borders of the United States. Period. Either the exceptions that now exist didn’t then, or there were many concerned high school students who were ignorant of them.

And I also recall that merely being born to U.S. citizens outside the country didn’t automatically confer citizenship on the child; it was necessary to go through some paperwork process for the child to be recognized as a citizen.

Geeze..., can we get back to the President?

quote:

Originally posted by EZ_B:
[FLASH_VIDEO]<iframe frameborder="0" height="408" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/-kwPjrTsV4k" width="725"></iframe>[/FLASH_VIDEO]

This is a great ad. Love the Terminator music in the last few seconds.

The Real Reason They Hate Trump


Every big U.S. election is interesting, but the coming midterms are fascinating for a reason most commentators forget to mention: The Democrats have no issues. The economy is booming and America’s international position is strong. In foreign affairs, the U.S. has remembered in the nick of time what Machiavelli advised princes five centuries ago: Don’t seek to be loved, seek to be feared.

The contrast with the Obama years must be painful for any honest leftist. For future generations, the Kavanaugh fight will stand as a marker of the Democratic Party’s intellectual bankruptcy, the flashing red light on the dashboard that says “Empty.” The left is beaten.

This has happened before, in the 1980s and ’90s and early 2000s, but then the financial crisis arrived to save liberalism from certain destruction. Today leftists pray that Robert Mueller will put on his Superman outfit and save them again.

For now, though, the left’s only issue is “We hate Trump.” This is an instructive hatred, because what the left hates about Donald Trump is precisely what it hates about America. The implications are important, and painful.

Not that every leftist hates America. But the leftists I know do hate Mr. Trump’s vulgarity, his unwillingness to walk away from a fight, his bluntness, his certainty that America is exceptional, his mistrust of intellectuals, his love of simple ideas that work, and his refusal to believe that men and women are interchangeable. Worst of all, he has no ideology except getting the job done. His goals are to do the task before him, not be pushed around, and otherwise to enjoy life. In short, he is a typical American—except exaggerated, because he has no constraints to cramp his style except the ones he himself invents.

Mr. Trump lacks constraints because he is filthy rich and always has been and, unlike other rich men, he revels in wealth and feels no need to apologize—ever. He never learned to keep his real opinions to himself because he never had to. He never learned to be embarrassed that he is male, with ordinary male proclivities. Sometimes he has treated women disgracefully, for which Americans, left and right, are ashamed of him—as they are of JFK and Bill Clinton.

But my job as a voter is to choose the candidate who will do best for America. I am sorry about the coarseness of the unconstrained average American that Mr. Trump conveys. That coarseness is unpresidential and makes us look bad to other nations. On the other hand, many of his opponents worry too much about what other people think. I would love the esteem of France, Germany and Japan. But I don’t find myself losing sleep over it.

The difference between citizens who hate Mr. Trump and those who can live with him—whether they love or merely tolerate him—comes down to their views of the typical American: the farmer, factory hand, auto mechanic, machinist, teamster, shop owner, clerk, software engineer, infantryman, truck driver, housewife. The leftist intellectuals I know say they dislike such people insofar as they tend to be conservative Republicans.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama know their real sins. They know how appalling such people are, with their stupid guns and loathsome churches. They have no money or permanent grievances to make them interesting and no Twitter followers to speak of. They skip Davos every year and watch Fox News. Not even the very best has the dazzling brilliance of a Chuck Schumer, not to mention a Michelle Obama. In truth they are dumb as sheep.

Mr. Trump reminds us who the average American really is. Not the average male American, or the average white American. We know for sure that, come 2020, intellectuals will be dumbfounded at the number of women and blacks who will vote for Mr. Trump. He might be realigning the political map: plain average Americans of every type vs. fancy ones.

Many left-wing intellectuals are counting on technology to do away with the jobs that sustain all those old-fashioned truck-driver-type people, but they are laughably wide of the mark. It is impossible to transport food and clothing, or hug your wife or girl or child, or sit silently with your best friend, over the internet. Perhaps that’s obvious, but to be an intellectual means nothing is obvious. Mr. Trump is no genius, but if you have mastered the obvious and add common sense, you are nine-tenths of the way home. (Scholarship is fine, but the typical modern intellectual cheapens his learning with politics, and is proud to vary his teaching with broken-down left-wing junk.)

This all leads to an important question—one that will be dismissed indignantly today, but not by historians in the long run: Is it possible to hate Donald Trump but not the average American?

True, Mr. Trump is the unconstrained average citizen. Obviously you can hate some of his major characteristics—the infantile lack of self-control in his Twitter babble, his hitting back like a spiteful child bully—without hating the average American, who has no such tendencies. (Mr. Trump is improving in these two categories.) You might dislike the whole package. I wouldn’t choose him as a friend, nor would he choose me. But what I see on the left is often plain, unconditional hatred of which the hater—God forgive him—is proud. It’s discouraging, even disgusting. And it does mean, I believe, that the Trump-hater truly does hate the average American—male or female, black or white. Often he hates America, too.

Granted, Mr. Trump is a parody of the average American, not the thing itself. To turn away is fair. But to hate him from your heart is revealing. Many Americas were ashamed when Ronald Reagan was elected. A movie actor? But the new direction he chose for America was a big success on balance, and Reagan turned into a great president. Evidently this country was intended to be run by amateurs after all—by plain citizens, not only lawyers and bureaucrats.

Those who voted for Mr. Trump, and will vote for his candidates this November, worry about the nation, not its image. The president deserves our respect because Americans deserve it—not such fancy-pants extras as network commentators, socialist high-school teachers and eminent professors, but the basic human stuff that has made America great, and is making us greater all the time.

https://outline.com/TFnHMu

^^^^^^
Re: “Every big U.S. election is interesting, but the coming midterms are fascinating for a reason most commentators forget to mention: The Democrats have no issues.”

That’s the reason that they’re trying to manufacture an issue with the Central American “migrants”.