The Fall of Marco Rubio

Winston Churchill said: “The price of greatness is responsibility.” If one wants to excel, and be recognized in any field, one must reach for the heights of greatness to even get a shot. We live in a world where the bar has been set so high in many respects that achieving greatness requires extraordinary gifts. For example, the race for President begins earlier every cycle; those vying for the nomination are scrutinized more critically; and the bar for candidacy is set higher. Throughout the Republican nomination process, I moved from one candidate to another in an instant, because I would discover something that I perceived to be a fatal flaw. I understand now that as human beings, politicians will never be flawless; but sometimes, it seems like Conservatives willfully terminate their candidacy. Example: Marco Rubio.

Marco Rubio raced to the front of the pack in many minds for the 2016 Republican nomination following his star turns at the convention, and throughout the 2012 Presidential campaign. For all intents and purposes, he was the candidate I was looking forward to supporting in 2016. He had all the prerequisites: he is pro-life (my biggest concern), fiscally sound, a defender of the second amendment, and he possesses numerous other qualities that are attractive to a staunch Conservative, like myself.

Then came the Gang of Eight immigration deal; and thus began the fall of Marco Rubio. Within the short span of a few months, my enthusiasm for Rubio has plummeted, due entirely to his foolishness in regard to the new immigration bill. In his misguided efforts to compromise, he has helped craft a worthless bill, that doesn’t even appeal to Democrats! How he managed that, I am still not sure. Marco Rubio fell into the trap of naïveté.

Rubio wants to be seen as someone willing to “reach across the aisle,” which, according to the Leftist media, is a great thing. But what he failed to understand is that reaching across the aisle never works. “Reaching across the aisle” is a misnomer, in that the other side will never reach back. This effort only ever proves to make Conservative politicians look naive, and foolish.

As a result of his desire to be seen as a great compromiser, Marco Rubio fell flat on his face. The bill is a disaster, to be sure; but above everything else, this bill has lost Rubio the confidence of his base. The base that saw him as a rising star; a Conservative force to be reckoned with, now has grave doubts about his ability to discern. This early on in the race, with immigration being such a hot-button topic, Rubio has shot himself in the foot. He will not be our nominee.

“Compromise” never works for two reasons: Democrats never reciprocate, and it weakens your convictions. We hold positions for a reason. We believe in ideas because we think they are right. Why is it so difficult to find a Republican politician who understands that? Oh, wait, there’s Ted Cruz.

A new star has risen in Senator Cruz. His scalpel tongue and brilliant ability to tear apart his opponents, coupled with his Conservative views, makes him the perfect candidate for 2016. So long, Marco. You had greatness in the palm of your hand, and you fell flat on your face.







Comments

comments

Posted in Immigration, Politics Tagged with: , , ,
  • http://michellemalkin.com/ wolfeatworld

    You took all these words right out of my mouth, Frank. I felt exactly as you do, and my support for this man is now at its lowest point, (in addition to, and for even more reasons than you outlined). After all these years it seems I still have not fully learned that we can put our trust in no ‘man’ –– but in God only.
    I don’t think Rubio is evil, or bad or not a good father and husband. But I don’t want him to represent me either. Thanks for permitting me to know I’m not alone on this issue. I haven’t read much about others who feel as you & I do.
    Sam

  • RageFury

    I don’t vote for a candidate to compromise the principles that causes me to vote for them. 
    What we need is candidates that NEVER Compromise on the Constitution.

    • http://michellemalkin.com/ wolfeatworld

      RageFury 
      Well, Now I know I’m not alone ;-)
      Thanks RF…

  • LawrenceKeithBrown

    Marco has lost my vote and support. His oath means nothing to him or we the people. He sold his soul to shake hands with devil.

  • tbjwebmaster

    I was never that keen on Rubio, though he was one of the better of the lead candidates.  We must however send a very strong message in the Primaries and in the following election that RINOS are NO LONGER WELCOME in our party (if they ever were). 
    As the blog says, and as anyone familiar with the fight for the 2nd can attest, Liberals never give an inch.  Offering them a deal means giving in to their way of thinking completely.  And immigration espeically.  I was not born an American, I am naturalized, but there are rules and procedures to be followed.  I’ve worked hard for my position here, and paid in full (and more) for any benefits I may eventually receive.  Watering down the welfare system by spreading it too think on people who often have no intent of contributing, and adding 22 million to the mainly democrat voting pool is simply ridiculous.  What is even more amazing is that the RINOS do not seem to realize they are cutting their own, and our, throats.
    Every time I read “We must move to the left to attract mode voters” I want to cringe.  We have strong principles.  Let us stand by them and defend our principles and our constitution.  NO MORE RINOS!!!!!!!

    • Cherieo3

      I have NOT lost my confidence in Marco Rubio!!!!  I DO NOT THINK of him as a R.I.N.O….as is the case with John McCain and some others.  I believe Marco DOES HAVE THE RIGHT IDEA concerning the illegals…
      CLOSE THE BORDERS FIRST!!!!   Deal with those already here later!!!  I am a strong Tea Party Conservative..and let us NOT LOSE SIGHT and getting too many candidates like happened the last time.
      I’d like to see Rand Paul and Marco as a team…either way!  We have a couple of others for cabinet seats.
      Let’s NOT SCREW THINGS UP AGAIN THIS TIME!!!

      • http://michellemalkin.com/ wolfeatworld

        Cherieo3
        WELL, WE’RE SO GLAD TO HEAR THAT CHERIEO!!!

        (oops. Was I shouting? My Bad)

        ;-)

        • Cherieo3

          Good Wolf…glad ya’ll heard that….lol

  • PhillipeViolette

    Dear Marco, we do not want anything but the borders reinforced. That is what has to happen before there is any talk about citizenship. Do not move until the fence is up and the immigration laws are revised and enforced. Those 11 million folks are not going anywhere there is plenty of time to address the immigration problem. Fix the border, build a high fence with plenty of razor wire.

    • http://michellemalkin.com/ wolfeatworld

      PhillipeViolette 
      Excellent post.
      ;-)

    • Woodworker

      Phillipe
      Good call. I heard Rubio say we need to fix our broken immigration policy. Let me see. Use to be, you needed to have a marketable skill, be self sustaining for a period of time, be free from disease, want to become an American, and not become a burden on the government. I’m trying to find what part of this is broken. What part is he going to fix. Yes, the borders need to be secure. But, way back then, people had a high regard for the rule of law. Now, it’s what can I get away with.

      • Bob2002

        Woodworker  Rubio has bought into the Democrat legislature because he truly believes the Democrats want to do something about illegal immigration.  He is still wet behind his ears because the Democrats and especially Chuck Schumer can not be trusted.  They are liars, crooks, and just want to get more Democrat votes.  For this reason alone, it is not wise to pass any legislature until the borders are closed.

        • http://michellemalkin.com/ wolfeatworld

          Bob2002 Woodworker 
          I find myself agreeing with you, again, Bob ;-)

  • Fred_Campbell

    A very limited (and skill specific) amenesty can only be considered after the border is sealed.  Any other approach is guaranteed to fail (as it has several times already).
    Now about Rubio:  Once again a “conservative” betrays us by his willingness to compromise basic principles.  Goodby and don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
    Fortuately, we still have many “clean and principled” candidates.  My personal preference is for Sarah Palin. She seems to have survived the most intense personal and moral scrutiny that our enemies can “buy”. Goodby Marco.

    • Bob2002

      Fred_Campbell I agree that Sarah Palin would make a good candidate for president, the media and the left-wing have just about killed any chance of her ever getting elected President.  I would rather see her go to the Senate and stay there for at least one term before getting her feet wet again.  Perhaps she would be a viable candidate in 2024.

      • http://michellemalkin.com/ wolfeatworld

        Bob2002 Fred_Campbell
        Excellent points Bob. The only other thing I might contribute is perhaps this, (which I’ve persuaded myself is some kind of immutable law of nature –– or something): It has been my observation, that when one (anyone) is held up to severe public ridicule or scorn, for some lengthy period, it is nearly impossible to come back to their former place within that arena, i.e., politics, entertainment, business, school, sports, etc.
        I won’t presume to bore the readers with examples here; I’m sure we can all think of many this applies to. But it most assuredly, and unfortunately, applies to our own Sarah. In fact, few in modern times have born the brunt of ridicule as deeply, and personally and for as long as she.
        I know she is a good, brave and decent mother, wife and American. I know she was never guilty of a single act for which she was accused; I know she is strong, and could take round two with courage and grace –– however, I don’t believe the general public will give her a fair hearing.
        I hope I’m wrong – and my law of ridicule is not so immutable after all.

        Sam

  • sheileaghleens

    I wonder exactly how many of you Monday morning quarterbacks are either immigrants, the family of immigrants, or even perhaps associated with REAL immigrants!  As a legal immigrant who is now a naturalized citizen of the US, I understand where Sen. Rubio is coming from.  It’s not a matter of compromise, it’s a matter of being FAIR & BALANCED.  It appals me that so many people, who have never experienced life outside you own narrow domains in this great country – leave alone having actually lived anywhere OUT of the US – are so quick to criticize any person who does not adopt you narrow path of bigotry!  
    No, I am NOT a Democrat, (heaven forbid!) – I am a proud Independent – & I will never be a Republican as long as there are those like you who cannot move outside your selfish & narrow, personal zones of comfort, to even try to comprehend the difficulties that transplants like me (proud to call ourselves Americans & who would die to protect America’s constitutional freedoms) continue to experience on a daily basis.  We are caught between the loony progressives, who are much more intensely insane than mere leftist liberals & the self-righteous judgemental ‘right’ees’, who think their way is the only answer in life.  I really wish that all of you, including the author of this particular article, would just stop, look at & listen to yourselves.
    What sort of clonish society would this great country be reduced to, if everyone in America moved along in only one cognitive direction?  Reaching across the aisles is but one way of attempting to NEGOTIATE.  It is most certainly not a negative act, but your interpretation of that process has now rendered it not only uncertain, but perhaps even quite useless.  Those of you who are criticizing the very process of  negotiations – which is really what reaching across the aisle means – would do much better to retrace your own roots first.  I believe that you will discover that somewhere in your own past, some sort of negotiation actually occurred to bring you to the place you yourself are at now.
    While I was in Gov. Romney’s corner the last election, I would just as easily have backed Sen. Rubio, had he been the primary choice of Republican’s.  It’s not that I dislike Democrats, there are several that I really did like, just not the ones who were presented as their party’s (some of the worst) choices.   The next election is creeping up rather quickly & I for one am definitely backing Sen, Rubio, should he be ‘chosen’ – I hope he is.  If someone else rises to the surface, than I will familiarize myself with one’s abilities, capabilities & accomplishments & not allow my own personal biases to dictate what I deem to be right or wrong in that individual’s presentations.  It is my sincere hope that other level minded, intelligent & just people – regardless of party affiliations – will do likewise.  After all is said & done, what we should all want is what is best for America & it’s peoples. 
    As for you critics, well, I urge you to stop & think, really THINK before you go shredding another very good candidate again – yes, again – – – because we know that it was that idiotic destructive process which was partially responsible for nullifying Gov. Romney’s valiant run for Presidency & allowing the current, totally & pathetically inept POTUS to be re-elected.

    • http://michellemalkin.com/ wolfeatworld

      sheileaghleens
      Dear one:
      Perhaps it would be helpful if, when considering the views of others, if you laid aside your own long enough to actually hear what they’re saying. Then you can come back to whatever position you’re comfortable with. But the deal is: we have to ‘listen’ if we want to develop teachable spirits and hope to grow beyond our own limited experience. It’s possible another might persuade us of the rightness of an issue, if we allow that our own view – might not be the accurate or truthful one.

      It’s always more important to grow –– than to speak volumes of words and ideas. Those we can pick up rather easily.

      With all respect intended,
      Sam

    • Woodworker

      Elieg
      What brought you to the good ‘ol USA? Was it the freedom? The chance to become a millionaire? How about the American Dream? Is that why you left the country you came from? Do you ever notice that the Democrats NEVER compromise! Take abortion. First it was only during the first trimester and very rarely. Then they added the second, then third trimester. When Bill Clinton was prez, someone wanted abortion to include up to 30 days after giving birth and still call it an abortion.
      This country was founded on simple principles that, in 200 years went from 13 colonies to the worlds only superpower. These principles are freedom to do as you please, as long as it is legal. You make your choices! Not the government. You decide what to eat, where to live, what to drive, what kind of medical care you are willing to pay for/ or none at all. All of what freedom meant to our founders are being flushed down the drain by this Socialist president. He goes after business like it is a disease. He goes after our savings and retirement accounts. The Democrat think that ALL monies are theirs. If Rubio compromises, then he is becoming a moderate and not a conservative. Almost VP Paul Ryan is doing the same thing, in my view. I’m looking at Ted Cruz, Alan West, Michelle Bachmann. They act like a conservative.
      Have a nice day!

    • Cherieo3

      EXCELLENT!!!   Exactly how I look at Marco and the Republican Party.  I was a Republican County Chairman for over 10 years…but I do not like what the Elites in the GOP have been doing.  I am now a Tea Party Patriot.  I have listen carefully to Marco several times and he does have the right ideas.  The issue of illegals here in this country is a BIG issue and will take some time to deal with all these people but we MUST close our borders FIRST…not only south of the border but elsewhere as well.   We do have an opportunity to make a difference in our Congress and in the Whitehouse…let us NOT blow our chances by being so small minded!

      • DougSchexnayder

        Cherieo3 Thanx…I am theconservativecrawfish…
        been on radio as co-host, written a number of newspaper LTEs etc…
        we should all keep in mind that the arrogant apostles of utopian secular socialism have the same tactics all over the globe…bold lies/smears/demons and distractions…these are required to sell their naturally toxic socialist schemes…and the promise, always thew promise of next year…Fidel is so proud of Barack and his cadre of kooks who buy votes with dependency and bold lies.  They ignore the basic laws of economics and rot nations as they arrogantly lie until the end…whether the end by Cyprus or California.  Gird your loins…the utopian socialists have a mental disorder but they mean it, they really mean it…they believe utopian socialism fits America.  
        Reality and time are their enemies and must be dealt with as the negative data piles up…debt/monster gov-meant/printing-borrowing megabillions we do not have to buy votes/grow gov-meant. The media changes the full dirty diapers of OzBama and stays in denial…as well as millions of duped gullible voters who never do their homework as their nation rots.  Yes, the Tea Party is all that seems left…thus they are smeared/demonized now instead of debated…its the utopian socialist way…avoid real debate, always avoid reality.

        • Cherieo3

          You are right-on, Doug.  Exactly how America and the uninformed people of this great land are being duped…and have no idea.  The Tea Party is being smeared/demonized and those who know ‘nothing’ about the Tea Party…Believe!!!

        • http://michellemalkin.com/ wolfeatworld

          DougSchexnayder Cherieo3
          Wonderfully informative post, Mr. Doug ;-)

    • Melahal

      sheileaghleensFirst, not only did both sets of my grandparents legally immigrate to the U.S, but I was also an immigration paralegal for 5 years back when ICE was the INS.  We already have immigration laws on the books AND THEY ARE NOT BEING ENFORCED! Our borders are porous and are not being protected. Additionally, my brother-in-law is Honduran.  He was born in Chicago,
      but his mother, her parents, and several other family members had
      immigrated to the U.S. over 40 years ago.  However, his 1 aunt who is
      still in Honduras, has been waiting for 20 YEARS, on the WAITING LIST,
      to legally immigrate to the U.S.  So, yes, the system is broken … however, the last reform and “compromise” during the Reagan years was a joke because we agreed to changes in the system on the condition of extra border protection, and the Dems reneged on the protection aspect.
      If any new bill would (God Forbid!!) pass, that would happen to include ANY path to citizenship for ANY of the lawbreaking illegals, and my suggestion to some ambitious attorney would be to find several LEGAL immigrants, whatever their status, and file a class action law suit against the federal government for every single penny they spent on their 1) application fees; 2) time spent/wasted waiting in their home country to win the “lottery” to finally immigrate to the U.S.; 3) attorney fees for gaining their legal status; 4) whatever other fees and expenses that were incurred during the time that it took for them to become legal/naturalized.
      And, last but not least, Rubio.  Even though I had a “like” for him prior to the RNC Convention (which I attended as a delegate), I always reserve my judgement on politicians and the immigration issue is 2nd for me after pro-life.  Therefor, I didn’t really trust him, because I knew what his stance was on the issue prior to the convention.  He gave a great speech, he was pandering, and after I ran for Congress in 2010 in my area and received NO help from the national party and other issues with same, I look at our so-called “up-and-comers” and even our “powers-that-be” in a much different light and listen to there words differently also.  Let’s just say, when you’ve been in it, you see the bull much more easily, and it was already there before he tried to “compromise”. This isn’t an attempt to compromise … this is what he wants and believes.

      • NoCrud

        Melahal 
        Very good comment. Thanks!

  • DougSchexnayder

    Rubio is still on trial with me…
    he has yet to learn (fully) that the arrogant apostles of utopian secular socialism never ever really compromise. 
    He is young and has not looked closely at the thug “no boundaries” dimdem socialist record whereby they boldly lie or last minute change or using the GOP as the 4-ever demon. 
    I give him a bit more time to realize these things plus actually have enough GOP Senate votes before delivering my verdict.  
    I see we have posters crying about immigration…boo hoo…you enter illegally so your are a lawbreaker in the eyes of every nation…stop changing reality…they are illegal aliens!!!
    What are Mexico’s immigration laws?    Oh, they are way too harsh for you to post.  See American citizens crying about that?   Why not just enforce our laws?    Then the parasites get tens of millions in taxes via the welfare system reserved (or should be) for legal citizens…note the Boston Bomber family parasites getting 100k from out paychecks.  Did I mention America is broke?   Is 17 trillion in debt?  Why do we have anything in Spanish for thousands of American companies HERE?  The socialist borg are posting as if somehow America owes the illegal aliens from 27 countries anything!!!

  • http://www.digitaldesigndev.com/ pjki

    This obviously didn’t apply to BO: We live in a world where the bar has been set so high in many respects that achieving greatness requires extraordinary gifts. The guy in OUR White House is nothing but a pot-smoking hippy loser.  While other young men were out sacrificing life and limb to defend OUR FREEDOM, this LOSER was out smoking pot having parties (I’m sure he still does behind closed doors — once a pot-smoker, always a pot-smoker).  He is the most disgusting representation of the free United States of America.  I’m ASHAMED of “not my” president.  It’s embarrassing that we have let him get away with treason, scandals, and flakiness in doing his job.  We must be the laughing stock of the world!!! A once great Nation has been weakened in every respect by this fraud: politically, religiously, militarily, economically.  But the morons who still support him just can’t see beyond his so-called charisma.  I just don’t find a man, who is systematically destroying this blessed nation, charismatic. Piece of garbage IMHO.

  • NoCrud

    AND, he’s not a Natural Born Citizen and, therefore, not eligible to be presiden, vice-president or speaker of the house since the speaker is in line for the presidency. And Rubio knows it: his birth certificate, where it states that his parents were not American citizens when Rubio was born, has been hidden or, at least, not made public. Jindal and Haley have revealed their birth certificates and these two are good, honest people in that alone.
    But, guess what…? Our president is not a Natural Born Citizen, either. Washington is full of lawyers who know that the president is not a Natural Born Citizen and they say nothing about it. Why? Maybe its because they are afraid of being branded a racist by the Left and the Media. But, I have a simple solution for this: I don’t like his White part, either. He’s a fraud, a pretender and a usurper. And Rubio has his sights set on being the same?

    • http://michellemalkin.com/ wolfeatworld

      NoCrud 
      Boy, do I like it when you post…
      ;-)

    • Cherieo3

      Well, NoCrud….a Presidence HAS BEEN SET…with Obama!  All heads have been turned away..the media, the Supreme Court, Congress and everyone in between.  So…………….ANYONE now who wants to run for ANY office in this country CAN and will!   Our Constitution was been thrown to the winds…it’s OLD-FASHIONED..and the Progressives will use what they wish and pitch the rest and no one will do anything about it!  The writing is already on the wall!

      • NoCrud

        Cherieo3  
        You are right, a precedent has been instilled on America but we do not have to accept it. We can go along with it and be Accessories after the Fact an equally guilty or we can protest and avoid being part of it and sleep with a clear conscience. Those who cannot are the sheeple, so called, that meekly follow the bleating impostor all the way to the sacrificial alter.
        It sure is revolting, isn’t it???

        • Cherieo3

          Yes, it is revolting…but because any Republican who may run for office, the lapdog media will make certain it doesn’t happen.  But a Progressive…they will be right with them.  Even if Obama should decide to run for a THIRD TERM..the media will chug along and the uninformed voters will do his bidding!  Sad to say, but I believe this country has BOUGHT IT…and it will take something really MAJOR to straighten out some minds…or it may take a couple more generations; if this country will survive.

        • NoCrud

          Cherieo3 
          There is always hope. Hope rests in visions of what could be.
          “…herein differs fact from fancy, things as they befall us from things
          as we would have them, human ends from human hopes; that the first
          are moved by a thousand and the last on two wheels only, which (being
          named) are desire and fear. Hope of course is nothing more than desire
          with a telescope, magnifying distant matters, overlooking near ones;
          opening one eye on the objects, closing the other to all objections….”

        • NoCrud

          Cherieo3  
          The quotation was from R.D. Blackmore’s “Lorna Doone.”

    • MichalS9

      NoCrud Natural Born is not defined in the constitution, but is read primarily as being born in the U.S. OR being born to U.S. Citizens while abroad. Nothing in the constitution says your parents have to be citizens as this is a nation of immigrants, (especially back when it was written), though if they were here illegally that might be a different issue. So if Mr. Rubio was born here, he is a natural born citizen. As for the president, who knows. He is a disaster for our country either way.

      • NoCrud

        MichalS9NoCrud 
        I have no doubt that you have not read the Constitution. Let me give you a clue.
        http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html says:

        Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of U.S. Constitution as adopted 17 September 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.

         http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/04/article-ii-natural-born-citizen-means.html says, in part:
        Article II of our Constitution has a lot to say about how a would-be
        President is born. “Natural born Citizen” status requires not only birth
        on U.S. soil but also birth to parents who are both U.S. citizens by
        birth or naturalization. This unity of jus soli (soil) and jus sanguinis
        (descent) in the child at the time of birth assures that the child is
        born with sole allegiance (obligation of fidelity and obedience to
        government in consideration for protection that government gives (U.S.
        v. Kuhn, 49 F.Supp.407, 414 (D.C.N.Y)) and loyalty to the United States
        and that no other nation can lay any claim to the child’s (later an
        adult) allegiance and loyalty. Indeed, under such birth circumstances,
        no other nation can legally or morally demand any military or political
        obligations from that person. The child, as he/she grows, will also have
        a better chance of not psychologically struggling with conflicted
        allegiance and loyalty to any other nation.
        Since a “purist” will continue to insist that it does not say what Natural Born Citizen in the Constitution, it is established by other evidence such as court cases and judges’ opinions. Apparently, the founders/writers of the Constitution thought that a person who could read would know and understand that Natural Born Citizen meant. But they probably did not visualize the state of our educational system where students art taught by the unqualified or they are intentionally misled by supposedly qualified teachers.
        Here is a discussion that just might enlighten you as to what Natural Born Citizen means:
        http://www.birthers.org/USC/14.html
        There is much, much more to this issue but most who want to excuse Obama, Rubio, Jindal, etc., etc., are always going to throw out obfuscatory material as if it really matter and/or is all that they need/want to know about the issue.
        These are clues, it is up to you to want to see the light enough to actually see it and not try to continue to justify erroneous opinion.

        • NoCrud

          MichalS9 
          By the way, where it says:
          ” No Person except a natural born
          Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption
          of this Constitution,….”
          The reason it says “a natural born Citizen or a Citizen of the United States” is because at the time that the Constitution was written, there was no United States so no one would have qualified as Natural Born Citizen being born of American Citizen Parents. 
          Also not that it speaks about being born of ParentS and not Parent. Some opine that it only means the father but if this is what it meant, why did the Constitution not say Father?
          Here is more info and I encourage the reader to read ALL the writer’s words and not see the extract and respond to this only. If you do, then you again prove to not care to see ALL the evidence and prefer to pick-and-choose in the question and answer arena. 
          In http://www.newswithviews.com/JBWilliams/williams191.htm it says:
          The
          true definition of Natural Born Citizen

          “Simply
          stated, a Natural Born Citizen is a second (or more) generation citizen
          by birth right. None of the Founding Fathers were Natural Born Citizen
          as they all became first generation citizens the moment they created
          our nation. As a result, they had to exclude themselves from the NBC
          requirement, even though most of them were born on soil (aka Native
          Citizen), or none of them could have held the office of President.

          “The
          term Natural Born Citizen was borrowed from Vattel’s treaties The Law
          of Nations, based upon the unalienable rules of Natural Law. Most people
          understand and agree on this. Then, they begin cherry-picking their
          facts from there, in all cases, based upon their individual political
          agendas rather than a careful and complete study of the facts.”
          At this point, the author gives supporting evidence/documentation.
           Love for Rubio is not enough to make him qualified/eligible for the candidacy for president. Try to find a man who you can say is a vote for the country and not merely a vote for some kind of adored hero.

  • ketrout

    Rubio should have stayed clear and not been one of the “Gang of Eight” . I too have lost confidence in him just on this issue alone!!!

    • Cherieo3

      Don’t ketrout……………stay the course.   They put him on there  for a reason…hoping to destroy him..just as they did everything in their power to destroy Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman, West, Herman Cain  and so many others.  They know how to get down and dirty and unfortunately, Republicans want to be LIKED and don’t get down in the mud with the Progressive/Marx/Libs..and they know it and that’s why they do what they do!  Nice guys finish last!

  • Bob2002

    You would have thought that someone would have gotton to Rubio and tell him what happens to people who want to reach across the isle.  John McCain is a good example of one of these types and look at him.  He lost to someone who isn’t even a US citizen.

    • NoCrud

      Bob2002  
      The Obamaroids like it when people question whether or not he was born in America. I could care less but hope he was not because it somehow leaves a mark on America’s history.
      But his father was not ever an American citizen and this was necessary for The Obamaroid to be a Natural Born Citizen. This alone is enough to make him a pretender and a usurper and someone who should not have been a candidate for president.
      Rubio is in the same category, He also is NOT a Natural Born Citizen and ineligible for the office of president.

      • Cherieo3

        If Obama could get away with two terms as  President…ANYONE can now be elected whether or not a natural born citizen!  Congress and the Supreme Court did not do their job out of fear so that part of US history is over.

  • wsthomas

    No telling how much money, blackmail, etc. goes on in DC. Seems to me that compromise is a buyout of sorts. I had hopes, being from Florida. Rubio has disappointed me as well. Just how many more elected officials will be looking for “exemption” from this current administrations “change” is yet to be seen. Makes the 2nd ammendment even more vital as we continue as a country on the path of self destruction.

    • NoCrud

      wsthomas  
      When a lawyer starts talking about Compromise, it means that he/she lost the case and is trying to come out of it looking good. Also, it allows for more court appearances, more talk, talk, talk with the hope that some miracle will take place.
      The Connecticut Convention, an old church covenant in booklet form,  had a last page for church members about how to prepare a will. The final admonition on the page was that the less said, the better because if there were too much said, it only gave lawyers more to talk about. The booklet was written in the late 1890’s. It seems little has changed in the legal arena since then as to the way lawyers (liaryers?) operate.

    • Cherieo3

      I’m from Florida too.  Marco was set-up  and notice even in Obama speech down in Mexico to the college kids…he brought up Marco’s name on the Immigration issue…knowing the bill will not  pass..using Marco’s name and not mentioning any of the others.  Sneaky pete!

      • NoCrud

        Cherieo3  
        Very good observation. And all the while, the Obamaroid though no one on this side of the border would notice. However, if the immigration/amnesty bill fails, then Obma has already linked the failed bill to Rubio. It borders on propaganda.

  • rjweber1st

    He is just another Obozo his parents were not citizens so he is not eligible to be president.

    • Woodworker

      As I understand, HE was born in the USA. He is eligible to be president. Whether we want him as president or not is another topic.

      • rjweber1st

        Woodworker Not so his parents were not citizens at the time of his birth read the constitution both parents have to be citizens which is why we have an imposter in the White House now.

        • Woodworker

          I stand corrected.

        • rjweber1st

          Woodworker No Problem I liked him but we don’t need another with questions about citizenship like the the imposter in the office now. It is too bad the wimps in Congress do not have the cajonnes to oust him from the office he holds illegally.

        • Cherieo3

          @rjweber1:  Democrat Dingy Harry in Senate; Democrat Nancy P in House…NO ONE VETTED HIM..so there’s the whole story.  John B. knew nothing would come of it…and EVERYONE was hoping for the best without a Civil War again in this land.  So HE/THEY WON!
          Now…ANYONE can run for any office in this country!!

        • Woodworker

          I agree. Nobody, in the Republican Party, has the cajonnes except Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, they’re a new gal, can’t think of her name ‘ Ayote’?
          They have more b*lls than our Speaker of the House.
          Keep up the good work, brother rj1

  • pearlnpeter

    He was never eligible in the first place. Why do some “conservatives”  fall all over themselves trying to emulate the democrats?  This is a perfect example of how the Republican Party was on the verge of legitimizing Obama, by promoting an ineligible candidate of their own.

    • Cherieo3

      Well, so much for the chit chat here.  Just the few of we posters here…and WE ALL CAN’T AGREE…..this is what is wrong with the Republican Party.  The DEMORATS..stand firm together…and Republicans have to ‘out-think-each-other’….just too smart for their own britches…and the Republican Party is DONE!!!!   This my friends  is the perfect example!  Farewell…. I see this is going no where!

      • http://michellemalkin.com/ wolfeatworld

        Cherieo3 
        Always appreciate reading what you have to say, Cherieo.
        I hope you’ll return under the banner of some other headline… ;-)
        Sam

      • klesb

        Cherieo3 Better reason to leave, Chiereo3!  Thatl reason is that the Republican Party stands dependably for nothing!  Its elected politicians are for and against amnesty, abortion, NPR, gun control, etc.  I suggest we all move to the Constitution Party, and use it to essentially replace the GOP.  Trying to defeat the GOP esablishment is a waste of the time that we have before 2014.  We conservatives need an existing party (no time to waste trying to qualify a new one) so that we can get the conservative message out to voters without it being tainted by the corrupt GOP’s reputation with voters.  Join us!  The Limbaughs and Levins will eventually follow their “followers!

        • Cherieo3

          I’m with you on this one…I say Conservative Party…but Constitution is ok too!  I never before thought a THIRD party would be good….but now, the GOP is proving me wrong.  John McCain  tripping over to the Progressives..(Marx/Libs)and Graham and others.  It’s time for a Conservative Party…as there ARE Conservative Democrats; and Independents and Republicans who believe as we do.   We do have some GOOD SOLID people who can think and act and it will take those people to bring about the change from where America is headed!

        • Woodworker

          The problem we have, as a conservative, is Beohner. Iowa loves him and keeps voting him back in. Same with Cantor and McConnell. Those states need to replace them with a Tea Party Conservative. We also need to get rid of Rove and that company he runs to re-elect RINOs. My ideal choice, for 2016, is a Sarah Palin with Alan West as VP. Also get Mark Levin as AG. Can you imagine the outcry the left would make? Mark Levin as AG going after all those Pelosi, Feinstein, Reid, all these illegal activities that they get away with.

        • Cherieo3

          Re: Woodworker:  John Boehner is not from Iowa…he is from Ohio.  John is a nice enough guy.. but that’s the problem…Nice guys finish last!  We do have some really good, intelligent people out there..some of whom you speak.  Steve King is from Iowa..and a great guy..the Progressives are after his head to unseat him and he is a real Conservative.  I don’t think Sarah could muster it…but would be great as Sec. of Energy…and work up thru the ranks.  Alan West is also a good one.  We have some really thoughtful people for Cabinet Posts…and CZARS, if you will…and these people COULD turn this country around; if given the chance.  But it MEANS EVERYONE AGREEING AND GO FOR IT!  We just must not out-think-each-other with in-fighting to get our way.

        • Cherieo3

          It would be great if ALL our people would meet and agree to a TEAM and work to make it happen!   Do you think it would be possible?

        • NoCrud

          Cherieo3  
          Getting together and fighting like a unified team would scare the pants off the Democrats. That’s what they do…
          Right or wrong, Democrats will vote for one of their own. They’d vote for a garage broom if it had a big “D” stamped on the handle.
          The Democrats love to divide the opposition/Republicans. 
          Remember when Hillary quit the race, after being “groomed” by Feinstein (If I remember correctly), and then she jumped on the Obma wagon while Republicans hoped that disappointed Democrats would either not vote for Obma or would vote in a divided way. It did not happen… The Democrats clustered voted, as usual. Even when a candidate is unworthy or rank low-life, Democrats will still vore for him/her. It’s part of the Union Mentality that has taken over the Left.

        • klesb

          Cherieo3 Absolutely!  But it would be greatly facilitated by the current conservative constitution parties’ leaders meeting, and agreeing to merge under the party having the most politically-viable political infrastructure – the one that already has its candidates qualified to be listed on the state ballots – and not as write-ins. 
           This has been the big problem for new parties – having to spend the resources necessary to qualify to get their candidates on the ballots – much time, effort, and expense that is not available to get its message out to voters.
          But what would really make this work quickly and powerfully would be for our well-known conservative “leaders” to ask for us to join them in moving en masse to that party!  This would give instant legitimacy to the party that will replace the GOP!  I have been emailing them about getting past the so-called “3rd party curse” preconception, and I think at least Mark Levin is tempted!  [And, wouldn’t he make a great Attorney General as Woodworker suggests!]
          Ross Perot’s 3rd party rode the same wave of voter frustration we are seeing with the Republicrats into a lead (36% to a 22% tie between the Republicrat candidate).  He then did some strange things that caused him to lose favor.  And, this was before there was the current power of talk radio, Fox News, and the Internet (1992).Conservatives have no political party to represent them, and we are the majority according to polls.  This is a demand that deserves a real supplier!
          Trying to work within the GOP, and against its power structure, will get us what?  We would still be GOPers, a brand rejected by voters – and for good reason!

        • Woodworker

          Thanks for correcting me on the state. I read, forgot who, on this subject about hyphenated races. I always thought of us as Americans. Silly me!

        • NoCrud

          Woodworker  
          Correction of the idea of hyphenated races will not be end-all/cure-all of the overall problem. However, just as it is one of the problems, perhaps the root problem, of the PC mentality, correcting it would conceivably start a correction once people understood the rational and necessity for the correction. 
          I hope I did not leave the impression that this is an overbearing factor in the problem pervading American politics but it still remains one of the incidental factors, I believe.

        • Cherieo3

          Excellent post..Agree

        • BobE

          NoCrud Cherieo3 as if republicians don’t vote for a “garage broom” if it has a big R on it? The truth is there’s about 40% of each party that vote the party line & a 20%  “swing vote”. the gop’s problem is that since they have become the anti science party & really become a cult of religious kooks they cannot get much more than 5%-7% of that swing vote & never will

        • Cherieo3

          @BobE.. I was wondering with all these interesting and intelligent conversations why SOMEONE hasn’t joined in by pulling figures and percentages out of the sky.  Can you provide a ‘link’ to your post here?  I’m sure we would all like to see it.

        • NoCrud

          Cherieo3  
          You sure BobE is not Joe Biden?
          Anyway, where Democrats will vote for a garage broom with a big “D” on it, Republican usually vote for Republicans because Republicans care more about honest and integrity than Democrats.
          Sure must be painful when people discover how Democrats vote — mindlessly.

    • NoCrud

      pearlnpeter  
      Very good comment…!

  • lavender lady

    We don’t want another inexpienced person in the white house. Been there done that.

  • morourke3

    Is Marco Rubio even eligible to run?  I don’t think he can run. He was born to Cuban Parents who didn’t become U.S. citizens until 1975. He was born in 1971, regardless of where.

    For the same reason, president Obama was never eligible because his father was Kenyan regardless of where Barack(Barry) was born. SO YOU’D BETTER START BACKING RAND PAUL because he is eligible.

    • NoCrud

      morourke3  
      Your first paragraph is right on. Thanks! And while Rand Paul is eligible, being a Natural Born Citizen is not all there is to being president regardless of the good things the Senator has to say. There are plenty of qualified/eligible people to run for presidency and it is a mistake to follow the Democrat hint to present the candidate as early as possible. This, if done too soon, only gives the Democrats more time to come up with a library of lies.

      • Paleophlatus

        Interestingly, there are only three legal requirements to becoming President, besides receiving the votes of the Electoral College, age, residency, and nbC. Yes, there are many other requirements unique to the individual voters. But none of the legal factors have to do with morality, character, honesty, religion (even tho the Constitution does say that a religion shall not be a requirement), political belief, association with undesirable elements, or any other “faults” a voter can feel.
        Apparently, the Founders realized only these three ‘necessaries’ need to be singled out as absolutes…all other “requirements” in the voters minds will be left with the voters to resolve at the polls.
        The Founders, even though thinking it so necessary to add the nbC requirement, didn’t think it necessary to define it !! At that time, loyalty to country was one of the reasons for separating from England, and so nearly all early Americans knew intimately what nbC was, and how and why it was important, and defined…no need to write it out.
        Perhaps their most glaring failures of prescience was failure to see the disregard which 20th century Americans would develop for their FREEDOM !

        • NoCrud

          Paleophlatus  
          A Most-Excellent Observation… Thanks!

  • klesb

    Mr. Camp, you, sir, are no conservative!  Conservatives believe in the Constitution.  Rubio is ineligible to be our President (despite the currrent pretender-in-chief not being prosecuted).  Yet, you (and several other supposedly-conservative “leaders”) would commit treason against our Constitution in hopes of winning an election!  This same issue dooms Cruz and Jindal – not that you would care.

    • stevetanton

      klesb  – I disagree with you on Cruz and don’t care about Jindal because he already showed his true colors by trashing Mitt Romney after the election. While Cruz was born in Canada – the Constitution does not mention where one is born it only says a “natural born American”.   What does that mean?  Natural born can just as easily mean of an American parent – the Constitution does not mention needing two American parents.  Yet if the Supreme Court ever defines it absolutely as meaning born on U.S. soil, then there is a problem.  But precedent has been set with Mr. Obama, thus there is no problem.  If it has never been absolutely ruled that way, let so-called Constitutional scholars say what they will but I contend that while Cruz’s father was a Cuban immigrant (and I assume he became naturalized), Cruz’s mother was American, thus I deem him to be American by natural means because of his mother.  As for the Pretender-in-Chief, we still don’t know where he was born, but his mother was American, thus by my logic, I do believe he is also natural born.  I simply disagree with his socialist agenda.

      • NoCrud

        stevetanton
        Here are a few observations:
        It does not say “parent,” it says “parents.” And the Constitution was not talking about Canadian citizens, ti was talking about American citizens and “America” refers to the United States of America.
        There is a vast difference between a person who was born naturally and a Natural Born Citizen. The term Natural Born Citizen is not talking about someone born “normally.” IF Obma was born by Caesarian Section, this would not be a factor in his or anyone else’s eligibility.
        And it does not mean that the parents must be citizens at some time or other except at the moment of the child’s birth. IF both parents are American Citizens at that moment and the child is born in America, then the child is a Natural Born Citizen. Check it out. Wishing it were otherwise is farthest from the fact.

        • Senior29

          NoCrud stevetanton   Please cite specific language in the Constitution stating the qualifications you allege, specifically the issue of “parents” having to be citizens of the U. S.   The only qualifications enumerated in the Constitution regarding qualification to be President, as far as i recall, is Article 2,  Section 1,  Clause 5 to wit: 
          “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.’
          Now, as to the meaning of “Natural Born”. The term has been generally determined to mean the same as defined in Black’s Law Dictionary  as follows: “Natural born citizen.  Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.”
          I’d appreciate some additional clarity if you can provide it, but it seems clear that my wife, who was born in Paris France of American Citizens, is as much a “natural born” citizen as I am who was born in Washington DC, or any child born in America of illegal aliens. .  If you disagree provide legal citation, not second hand guesses.

        • NoCrud

          Senior29
          Only someone who dared not read [completely] the links I have provided in other comments in this forum would make such a request. While the Constitution does not define in sandbox language what Natural Born Citizen means, mainly because they were well-acquainted with the term and meaning from Vattel’s Law of Nations, the writers of the Constitution  were legal minds and assumed that if anyone wanted/needed such language defining, all they needed do is look into it and find out by research for themselves. However, let’s walk through the details of his in a slow-witted way to make sure it is well understood. At least this is my intention.
          http://www.scribd.com/doc/79112841/AMICUS-BRIEF-by-Leo-Donofrio-in-Georgia-Presidential-Eligibility-Case says:, in part:
          [Natural Born Citizen] as defined by the United States Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), wherein Court identified, as natural-born citizens, only those who are born in the United States of citizen parents. That the holding in Minor v. Happersett was applicable only to persons born in the country of two citizen parents was confirmed in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), where the court approvingly reiterated the exact passage from Minor that defined the natural-born citizen class, not modifying it, or questioning it at all.

          There are many, may citations where the term has been adequately defined. But looking for the definition of the term itself is an attempt to lighten the burden of understanding.
          And, by the way, your wife could not be president, VP or Speaker of the House except in an Obamaroid type of U.S. government where we are plagued by Congresspersons who tremble in fear when the term Natural Born Citizen is uttered lest they be labeled Racist, forgetting that they are supposed to represent US and not just their bankers.
          Want to do further research? Go to http://startpage.com and type in Natural Born Citizen. You will get “About 4,939,782 results” and this will also include some small-minded attempts to turn the idea of Natural Born Citizen into something like a person being born “naturally” and not by Caesarian Section or some other such nonsense.
          Natural Born Citizen means that the person is born of American Citizen Parents. Period! 
          The best simple definition I’ve found for Natural Born Citizen is at:
          http://www.resonoelusono.com/NaturalBornCitizen.htm which says, in part:

          A “Natural born citizen” – the most crucial concept of the
          moment in America – is confusing (and deliberately
          confused). This
          concept is used in the Constitution of the US
          (Article II, Section 1, #4) as a precondition for
          presidency – and only for
          presidency, being clearly
          distinguished from ordinary
          citizenship. It has not been defined in the Constitution nor in
          any later statutes,
          because it had been self evident in the time when the Constitution was
          written,
          codified in the then contemporary encyclopedia “http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/vattel/index.html”
          (1758) by Emerich de Vattel. (As a legal source “Law of Nations” is
          mentioned
          in Article I, Section 8, #10 of the Constitution in respect to the
          authority of
          the US Congress to enforce the law of nations, in particular – against
          piracies
          and felonies on high seas).
          According to http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/vattel/vatt-119.htm of “Law of Nations”, the concept “Natural born
          citizen” is a twofold criterion meaning that: 

          Both parents must be
          the
          citizens of, and the
          birth must take place in the
          concerned
          country, assuming that the
          citizenship inherited by this
          child and the loyalty are never changed ever after.

          In
          other words, a natural born citizen means at least a second
          generation citizen of the country. Vattel’s own note on the margin  of
          his book refers to the Roman
          law: NEMO PLUS JURIS
          TRANSFERRE POTEST, QUAM IPSE HABET, meaning “No one can give more rights than he
          himself has” (by Dr. A. Altec). Except for Obama/Soetoro, the Vattel
          definition had been
          always applied, the last
          precedent being the http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=sr110-511 in 2008 (also http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=sr110-511
          and http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=292901)
          acknowledging Sen. McCain
          as a natural born citizen.
           —
          By the way, “driver’s license” is not defined in the Constitution, either. But it is a legally binding instrument that everyone accepts as a normal, everyday element in our lives. Since the writers of the Constitution knew well what Natural Born Citizen meant and did not need defining, struggling with the idea that it is not defined in the Constitution is nigh unto wanting it to mean whatever is in the mind of the questioner.

        • NoCrud

          Senior29 
          Additional info follows in
          http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm#ref04 where it says, in part:
          The modern-day consensus is that anyone born on U.S. soil (except the
          child of a foreign diplomat or alien enemy) is a “natural born
          citizen”, regardless of parental citizenship and regardless of any other
          citizenship acquired at birth. However, this viewpoint is not
          consistent with the manner in which the term “natural born citizen” is
          used in U.S. Supreme Court majority opinions throughout U.S.
          history, up to the present day. Whenever the Supreme Court has referred
          to an individual as a “natural born citizen”, the individual was always
          born in the United States, to parents who were both U.S. citizens. (See,
          for example, http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=307&invol=325 and http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/getcase/us/253/454.html [http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm#fn99]).

          In http://www.chanrobles.com/usa/us_supremecourt/28/99/case.php (1830) and http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=112&invol=94
          (1884), the Supreme Court ruled that, in the absence of an applicable
          State citizenship law or Federal naturalization act, a child born on
          U.S. soil, of a father who owes allegiance to a sovereignty other than
          the United States, does not acquire U.S. citizenship at birth [http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm#fn32]. At one time in American history, such children were not even citizens at birth. It is therefore unikely that they are natural born citizens, even today [http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm#fn95].

          A U.S. State Department document, http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-45077/0-0-0-48575.html, uses the terms “native-born citizen” and “natural born citizen” in a manner suggesting that the two are not
          synonymous; not all native-born U.S. citizens (citizens by virtue of
          birth on U.S. soil) are necessarily natural born citizens (http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/the-current-ins-officially-recognizes-a-delineation-between-natural-born-and-native-born/ http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/the-current-ins-officially-recognizes-a-delineation-between-natural-born-and-native-born/).

        • klesb

          NoCrud Senior29 Thank you, NoCrud!  I was so frustrated by Senior29’s placing the burden of proof on you, rarther than he/she doing their own research on a issue that has been forefront since before the 2008 elections!  Like the issues of immigration and gun control, all We the People need is for our employees to enforce our existing laws, including the Constitution.  Those who fail to do so are in violation of their own oaths, and subject to revolutionary tribunals!  What?  Tribunals?  If our system of laws has failed then it is up to Us to re-establish them!  What other option is there to a free People but a second revolution?

        • NoCrud

          Senior29 
          By the way, this last link is a “Presidential Eligibility Tutorial” that, printed out, is 234 pages deep. Very good, concise information. Here is the link again:
          http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm#ref04

      • Paleophlatus

        Instead of relying on your own powers of analysis and logic unfettered by opinings of admitted authorities, immerse yourself in the writings on the subject. Become aware of the dirth of support for the sole citizen parent theory of nbC, then consider the source for whatever support you do discover. There are several erroneous definitions, varying in birthplace requirement, citizenship of either or both parents, and most detrimental, definitions of nbC as applied around the world, in countries which have no relevancy to our established form of governmen

        • NoCrud

          Paleophlatus  
          I rely first and foremost on what the Constitution says. Others’ opinions are taken as personal views that very often are based on intelligent insight and understanding.
          As for what other countries think and do, isn’t this one of the main reasons our forefathers came to America, to escape the thoughts and actions of what was done in other countries?
          We as a nation are already admired and envied by many other peoples and this is one of the big draws that brings people our way. 
           Worrying what others think, here and abroad, gave us eventually the Political Correct madness. Just how far we want to go with this mania is in the hands of all of us and it will go as far as we, as a nation of supposedly thinking people, allow it to go. 
          First, we need to get rid of the hyphenated names that too many believe gives them a sense of heritage and, perhaps, life-based meaning. But, if this is so, then why was our nation made so great before these hyphenators came into being? Going into family trees and looking at our families’ heritages has some meaning but let’s pray it is kept a personal thing and not something shoved down our throats lest it gags us and causes gross reaction.
          We can all use words to further a personal agenda. For me, the only agenda that lacks backbone is the personal agenda of others because many so-called “agendas” are nothing more than a plan of action, valid within themselves. Democrats and those on the Left use the word Agenda as if it is a dirty word, especially when they see the ramifications of such agendas actually points the dirty finger at them.

        • NoCrud

          Paleophlatus 
          By “hyphenated names” I am referring to those hyphens that separate nationalities such as Irish-American, etc. When we came here and pledged allegiance to the USA, we may remember where we come from but the accomplishment of being here and American should take first place over all other considerations and our past should matter to each of us, individually. But, that is the beginning of the PC craziness that permeates our national consciousness now and it only came to be in the past 50-60 years to any great degree. What it does, in essence, is divide us as a nation. Although in a small way, it is yet one facet of the effort to divide us and bring the nation down as a unique, sovereign nation, by the enemy-within. 
          If ALL the tenets of Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals were known and understood, anyone could/would see how this continual nibbling at the soul of out nation is not isolated or a mere “happening.”

        • NoCrud

          Paleophlatus  
          I suspect you need to read my reply to the previous commenter as it appears to apply to you, also.
          And, as I said elsewhere in this blog, the word is “parentS” and not “parent.” It did not say “father” or “mother” — it says Parents. If the writers of the Constitution meant Father or Mother, they could have used the word or, as I just wrote: Father or Mother. But they did not. They said Parents with an ‘S’ which means plural, by the way, and not just one of the parents or, no doubt, they would have so said.

      • Paleophlatus

        Several Supreme court cases have used the same definition of nbC in the justification of their rulings. While the cases were not specific to primarily defining it, the definition has not been questioned since the principle case it appeared in, Minor v Happersett, 1874. The definition was “…born in the country to parents who were citizens.” Numerous other letters and articles of the time give essentially the same definition, in slightly different wording, but unmistakably same meaning. This cannot be said of the several other meanings offered by both those who should know better, and those who don’t. It has been said that the Founding Fathers expected every patriotic citizen should be familiar with the Constitution, and how it works, as a civic responsibility. The gradual erosion of our freedom and dilution of our rights is a direct failure of us all to live up to what was expected by the Founders.

        • NoCrud

          Paleophlatus  
          What you say is riddled with wise observations. As mentioned before, all such court cases as Minor v. Happersett that dealt with the Natural Born Citizen issue consistently said the same thing, no contradiction. And for those who insist on a written definition of the NBC (Natural Born Citizen) term, who better than a judge? However, I’m not sure any Obamaroid-appointed judge would go farther than to obfuscate the issue and tell people they have no standing to question the “powers that be.”
          The “gradual erosion of our freedom,” as you said, is a direct result in our education system where it is more important to a teacher to hear some student tell the class what he/she “feels” and not what they really know. Just as the system is questioned about the lack of understanding of the average student in the basics of education (the ABC’s), and it is most-often ignored, they fail also to teach what the Constitution means. 
          I once attended a course in American Government at a university that catered to government employees and soldiers. The teacher, who was also a psychiatrist,  went into a three-week grow and grumble session in his classes about how rotten Nixon was (this was in the mid-60’s). I asked him finally how a constant dose of Nixon related to American Government. He smiled smugly and said, “Nixon is the best example of what a government should NOT be…” I quit the class and then noticed it was after the date for getting a refund on the course! As I left the school that day, I filed a complaint against the teacher, stating all the facts of what he was doing in his American Government class. Result? He was appointed to a staff position at the university.

        • Cherieo3

          I had a similar situation in college.  It was a 1 pm lecture and the Prof was going on and on spewing his ‘pink’ thoughts and I looked around and saw that the majority of the kids were asleep.  Finally, at end of hour I just went up and told him I did not agree with what he was saying and I was happy to see most of the class was asleep and did not take in what he was saying.  It was later that I heard he was ‘fired’ and that he was a ‘card-carrying Commie’..it even made the newspaper.  Someone must have heard him and took action.  That would not happen today in a class or in government.

      • MikePurdin

        stevetanton klesb you must have missed when they vetted Mccain, he was almost denied running for president because he was born outside the USA, but he was born on a American military base, so that made him eligible And both his parents were American citizens.

        • NoCrud

          MikePurdin stevetanton klesb  
          To add more depth to your comment that was faithful to the truth,  the Coco Solo base, where McCain was born, was on the Panama Canal Zone which was at the time under U.S. control and much like a U.S. territory and, at the time, it was thought to be a permanent thing. But they sweated and groaned through McCain’s “vetting” while nary a word about Obma’s eligibility. This speaks directly to the qualifications of our representatives in Washington, as far as I’m concerned. And when I mentioned this to a former Republican presidential speech-writer, his only comment was, “If we get rid of Obama, then we’d have Biden for president.” Well, wasn’t this The Obamaroid’s strategy? Same strategy claimed by the Democrats for a former Republican politician who the Left fondly wished they could prove to be a dunce.
          I once used to spend time shooting rattlesnakes and water moccasins on the canals in South Florida. One guy said, “You should not shoot shakes, they kill rats.” My response was, “When the snakes are gone, then we can go after the rats.” There’s a message in there about how to deal with Biden. If he proves undesirable as a leader, does anyone really believe his funny mouth can save him?

    • AgThorn

      actually Rubio, like many presidents before him, is illegible to be same. His parents are citizens (although naturalized) and he was born in this country. True, those two features are not present with our current illegal POTUS.

      • NoCrud

        AgThorn  
        BUT, and this is a really big “but,” Rubio’s parents became citizens AFTER Rubio was born. At the time of Rubio’s birth, they were not citizens. THIS is what makes him ineligible (NOT eligible) to be a candidate for president. Same thing disqualifies The Obamroid and the reason that Jindal or Haley cannot serve as president, eitther. Meanwhile, the Democrats shout out people like us and call us Birthers as if we only question Obma’s birthplace. Shifting the subject is one of Alinsky’s tactics. In fact, I care less WHERE he was born. The fact that Obma’s father was never, ever a U.S. citizen is quite enough to make him a fraud and usurper to the presidency. That in turn brings up a hoard of other questions:
        Who paid his way through school? Is this why he bowed to the leader of Saudi Arabia? In fact, who pulled strings to get him into the Ivy League? It’s not something a nobody with his background could easily do unless for the old cause of Social Promotion, to satisfy minimums, and make a bunch of equal rights activists happy. And, as an extension, why is he hiding his transcripts? Could it be that the grades were so inflated, as necessary to keep a failing student in the program, that showing his grades would cause every honest academic to realize what is truly going on…? But, it may also be listed on his transcripts that he is a foreign student. Now, revealing THAT would be a  bummer, wouldn’t it?
        I can understand why he paid over three million (3,000,000) Dollars to keep his records hidden, at this rate. My only question is what other mischief is lurking in The Obamaroid’s records?
        Usually, the reason someone hides an answer is because the answer raises a multitude of other questions. And this is the simple side of it.

        • AgThorn

          NoCrud AgThorn  
          Plenty of past presidents had parents who became citizens after they were born.  There is nothing new here.  What is new is two strikes on Obama – his father NEVER being a citizen, or even applying for it … AND his questionable birth certificate.
          There is no parallel with Rubio and there is precedent for Rubio’s naturalized parentage.

        • NoCrud

          AgThorn NoCrud 
          Would you please advise me of the “plenty of past presidents [who] had parents who became citizens after they were born.”??? Sorry, but curiosity makes me ask this. It is news to me, the first I’ve ever head of it. If you have names, the award of the day goes to you.

        • AgThorn

          NoCrud AgThorn 

          Herbert Hoover had http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Hoover. Woodrow Wilson’s http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodrow_Wilson.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chester_A._Arthur and http://books.google.com/books?id=KoTpWjUsP1sC&pg=PA9&lpg=PA9&dq=james+buchanan+father+born+in+ireland&source=bl&ots=EInK6nbxhK&sig=dnWHEBYrJPD-iczxOdcFR0RwbSc&hl=en&ei=gC5ySqbWGI6sswPcsejnCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5#v=onepage&q=&f=false both had Irish fathers. Thomas http://books.google.com/books?id=yuRcu3pLRmIC&pg=PA9&lpg=PA9&dq=thomas+jefferson+mother+born+in+england&source=bl&ots=f53KpJHQQN&sig=IVwOUwEzry1ToaxVIXDyv-HFYZc&hl=en&ei=oS9ySuezAYzUtgOIxanNCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5#v=onepage&q=&f=false, and Andrew Jackson’s http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Jackson.
          Along with McCain, presidential contender Mitt http://www.nytimes.com/1995/07/27/obituaries/george-romney-dies-at-88-a-leading-gop-figure.html?scp=5&sq=romney%20born&st=cse, and Billhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Richardson, his father from Nicaragua and his mother from Mexico.

        • NoCrud

          AgThornNoCrud 
          Despite all the pretty pictures, your argument is null and void.
          Mario Puzo, a lawyer in good standing, responds to all your claims. He states in:
           http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2011/02/citizenship-status-of-our-44-presidents.html
          …a “natural born Citizen” can be produced by being born in the U.S. to
          naturalized parents who are “citizens of the United States.” Also, under
          our old naturalization laws, once a woman married a U.S. citizen, she
          herself automatically became a U.S. citizen derivatively from her
          husband. These laws apply to show that three of the six Presidents
          listed were “natural born Citizens.” Jefferson was not a “natural born
          Citizen” but, adhering to the revolution, was a “citizen of the United
          States.” Under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, he was grandfathered to
          be eligible to be President. Jackson, also became a “citizen of the
          United States” by adhering to the revolution and also grandfathered to
          be eligible to be President. Buchanan’s father naturalized to become a
          “citizen of the United States” prior to his son’s birth. Wilson’s mother
          became a “citizen of the United States” when she married her husband
          who was a “citizen of the United States.” Hoover’s mother became a
          “citizen of the United States” when she married her husband who was a
          “citizen of the United States.” So except for Jefferson and Jackson who
          were grandfathered, all these presidents were born in the U.S. to
          parents who were at the time of their birth “citizens of the United
          States.” They were all “natural born Citizens.”
          …..
          Under out naturalization laws, citizenship can be derived from a close
          relation to a family member. Historically, a number of U.S. laws have
          provided for the automatic naturalization of children or wives (not
          husbands) of naturalized U.S. citizens. In some periods of our history,
          these laws provided that married women derived citizenship from their
          husband and had no control over their status. Under the Act of 10
          February 1855, a woman automatically became an American upon marrying a
          U.S. citizen or following the naturalization of her foreign husband.
          Kelly v. Owen, 74 U.S. 7 Wall. 496 (1868). The 1922 Married Women’s Act
          (or the Cable Act) finally severed the link between naturalization and
          marital status for most women.

          ———
          Note that I pasted the most pertinent information that addresses your claims. The website is a real history lesson on this topic and I suggest readers bookmark it lest someone else comes along to try his/her luck at confusing the person targeted.

          I’m sure a good Democrat can find “evidence” for about anything. Why? Because they are not very good at research and find “facts” where a person accustomed to logical and intelligent thinking does not have a problem sorting out Fact from Desirous Wishes. Also, where “proof” most Democrats want to find and promote an idea is not found — no problem; they merely produce it themselves, publish it on the Internet and then say, “Voilà and Shazam. I’ve got the evidence.” —and then they spend the rest of the day patting themselves on the back.
          Furthermore, a “good” Democrat does not even need proof. Just ask Joe Biden. When someone asked him about a number he had just spat out to “prove” a point, he admitted that it was not a real number but “it sounded good to him.” More Old Joe logic, typical of most good Democrats.

          A “sure thing” in logic is not always that simple except in the mind of the person who thinks he/she is at the point of undoing someone they think just cannot be right. But that kind of person often tends to think that if you call a cow’s tail a leg, then it has five legs. Even the cow knows better.

        • NoCrud

          AgThornNoCrud 
          Correction: The author of the previous quoted paragraphs is not Mario Puzo. Here is his correct name and contact info:
          Mario Apuzzo, Esq., 185 Gatzmer Ave, Jamesburg
          NJ 08831, Email: apuzzo[AT]erols.com, TEL: 732-521-1900 • FAX:
          732-521-3906, BLOG: http://puzo1.blogspot.com

        • AgThorn

          so by some untested and undocumented definition of “natural born citizen” ones parents need to be citizen before candidate is born not before being elected AND one is automatically a US citizen simply by marrying one.
          interesting … two rules of definition never before heard but now I see your illogical on Rubio. So, based on your illogical Obama’s father was automatically a citizen by marriage ? Even though he had no desires to ever be a citizen. Not sure the founding falls would agree with you on that one.

        • NoCrud

          AgThorn 
          Obviously, you did not read Apuzzo’s website. You would have seen that it works from the man to the woman but NOT from the woman to the man.
          You also prove that you have developed a mindset and nothing short of dynamite will dislodge the erroneous thinking.
          Try reading the website I offered (http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2011/02/citizenship-status-of-our-44-presidents.html) and if you still have a problem in understanding the information, try reading it again. Mr. Apuzzo is not writing on an academic level, it is, apart from the vocabulary, at probably the 8th grade level. I suggest you take a good dictionary with you when you settle down to read it and, if you yet have a problem, read it again…
           And stop calling me illogical because I firmly believe you have a problem with such basic words and think they only apply to others. In this, you are terminally wrong, should you live so long. 
           Here’s an old Arabian proverb for you:
          OLD ARABIAN PROVERB
          He who knows not and knows
          not that
          he knows not is a fool –
          Shun him!
          He who knows and knows not
          that
          he knows is asleep – Awaken
          him!
          He who knows not and knows
          that
          he knows not is simple –
          Teach him!
          He who knows and knows that
          he
          knows is wise – Follow him!
          Are you “logical enough” to figure out where you fit in that proverb?
          As “wise” as you are, it should not be a problem.
          Oh, by the way, the parents need be citizens at the moment of the child’s birth and the child must be born in America. Is this too simple for you? If so, then you should be a theologian.

        • Bob2002

          NoCrud AgThorn I like your post on this subject, however, I am really confused.  My wife was born in Europe and I an a “natural born citizen” as both my parents were citizens when I was born here.  When we got married, she did not automatically become an American citizen.  She had to be “naturalized” in order to become a US citizen.  I hope everyone knows what it means to be “naturalized”.  She had to apply for citizenship, take and passs a citizenship test, and go before a judge to be sworn in as a US citizen.

        • NoCrud

          Bob2002 NoCrud
          Until 1922, as I understand it, your wife would have become a U.S. citizen at the time of your marriage. Then the law changed, I believe it was called the Cable Act. Whereas a green card holder is required five years wait to be able to apply for citizenship, it only requires a three-year wait for someone who is married to a U.S. citizen. That now is the only great advantage that marriage holds for a foreigner who marries, a reduction in the waiting time. How those geniuses come up with those magic numbers is anyone’s guess. But I’m sure they can bravely justify them.

        • AgThorn

          Bob2002 NoCrud AgThorn 
          Bob – probably late in replying but my wife is also ‘naturalized’.  Naturalized is not the same as ‘natural born’.  Natural born implies that citizenship is without question, not naturalized.  It will take a supreme court to finalize what the authors of the constitution meant, but everyone knows that it is a level above just being a citizen (born as one or becoming one, e.g. naturalized).   So if it’s a level above, what is it?   All precedent of court cases prior say that the person would have both his own citizenship and his parents not of question.  So if he/she is born in this country, and has parents of US citizenship, should meet all rules of being ‘natural born’. 
          @NoCrud says that it needs to go one steop further and the parents should have been naturalized (if immigrants) before the child of question was born here.  Not sure what law case shows that as a precedent but that is his definition, ruling out Rubio.

        • NoCrud

          AgThornBob2002NoCrud 
          The key is that the parents must be American citizens already/at the moment of the child’s birth for him/her to be a Natural Born Citizen.
          I have provided links to adequate proof of this. The writers of the Constitution did not define Natural Born Citizen because it was well known at the time of the writing of the document. Later Supreme Court rulings did not define the meaning, their rulings confirmed what it meant.
          See links in other comments in this forum for more info. And you must read all of them if you want to fully understand what NBC truly means.

          Her are a couple of videos that may help you understand it:
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esiZZ-1R7e8&feature=youtu.be
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=xoaZ8WextxQ&feature=fvwp

        • Woodworker

          If you are correct, then Obama can’t be prez. His father was Kenyan.

        • NoCrud

          Correctimundo. But, I am not the expert. Here is one of the best experts on the topic:
          http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2013/03/senator-ted-cruz-is-not-natural-born.html?showComment=1367795075482  
          Below is one of the comments at that website. Notice that BOTH parents must be citizens at the child’s birth for the child to be a Natural Born Citizen…

          Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 says a “natural born Citizen” is
          eligible to be President. It does not say a “citizen” who is not a
          “naturalized citizen” is eligible. In other words, one has to meet the
          definition of a “natural born Citizen.” You do not get there by simply
          showing that one is a “citizen” which status was not acquired by
          naturalization after birth, for that is not the definition of the
          clause. Again, the definition of a “natural born Citizen” is a child
          born in a country to parents who were its “citizens” at the time of the
          child’s birth. The is the only definition of the clause and it is that
          definition which must be satisfied, not some other definition under the
          Fourteenth Amendment or Congressional Act used to acquire the status of a
          “citizen of the United States” at birth (what you call a
          non-naturalized citizen).

        • NoCrud

          Woodworker 
          WHERE Obama was born
          is important but takes second place to another factor in The Obamroid’s birth.
          His father, by his own admission, was not ever an American citizen. The
          Constitution says that BOTH parents must be American citizens at the moment of
          the child’s birth for the child to be a Natural Born Citizen which is a
          prerequisite for being President or Vice-President or, under analysis, Speaker
          of the House since this is a position in line for the presidency.
          Instead of going the easiest and most direct way to finding our featless leader
          ineligible for the highest office in the land, the people have flown to the
          hardest way of proving him ineligible and this is WHERE he was born and this
          has been fed by the Left and Main Stream Media and those who are concerned as
          to the birthplace are gladly called Birthers by those on the Left. They are
          happy by the diversion from the most immediate manner of declaring him
          ineligible for the presidency and even the president himself has paid over 3
          million Dollars ($3,000,000) to a legal firm to keep all his records secret
          with the full expectation that We the People will think that there is something
          in them that will cause his downfall. But I contend that those records will add
          not one factor that of itself will prove without doubt that he is a fraud.
          There are, to me, many factors in his past that make him questionable but we
          already have before us the one factor that disqualifies him and makes him
          ineligible: He is NOT a Natural Born Citizen.
          For anyone who thinks the matter of being a Natural Born Citizen is a false
          trail, a canard or unworthy of consideration, I only say, “Do the research. Don’t
          be misled by those who have the most to lose.”
          Washington is
          filled with lawyers who know this truth but do they say a word against it, to
          declare it an unacceptable element of the Constitution? No, they are totally
          silent. They instead are promoting Cruz, Rubio, Jindal and Haley as good
          presidential material but none of these are Natural Born Citizens, either…
          Why do they do this? Apparently because then they can say that ignoring the
          Constitution regarding the Natural Born Citizen issue is easy to forget by The
          People since the people would then have accepted their acquiescence to The
          Obamaroid in 2008.
          Why did our Congresspeople accept Obama in 2008? They were apparently afraid of
          being marked by the Media and the Left as being Racist if they brought up the
          issue. This is the simple explanation that works, here. But, for my part, I
          have a simple solution for this concept: I don’t like his White part, either.

        • AgThorn

          We are all in agreement on Obama not being eligible to be POTUS on the NBC definition on more than one front. IT is a constitutional crisis that no one has the nads for!

        • NoCrud

          AgThorn  
          Philip Berg, the PA lawyer who filed the first lawsuit against Obama in 2007, said exactly the same thing; that if Obama is nominated, it would be a Constitutional Crisis. But,. because he thought that 9/11 was a government setup, he was poo-pooed and he became silent. Now his prediction has come true. This why Obama & Co. have tried time after time to undo the Constitution. It was first done in 2003 and the Democrats did it many times. Therefore, Obama is not the single enemy of the U.S.A., it is first and foremost the Democrats. Obama is just a tool but apparently he was being groomed for the job for many years. The RINOs in Congress have been docile enough to let it happen.

        • klesb

          NoCrud AgThorn Exactly!  There is no constitutional party – oh, wait!  There is one!  The Constitution Party!  But that would require a mass move away from the existing parties, and who of the “GOP Herd” has the” guts “to do that?

  • gparra9

    Rubio Turned out to be “JUST” another “B.S.” Two Faced  Washington politician……………………PERIOD!!!!!!!!!! Shumer & the Democrats Played him like a cheap Fiddle !!!!!

    • NoCrud

      gparra9 
      As an aside, what I find hilarious is about Schumer going to the Philippines when Marcos was outsted and Corazon Aquino was being ushered in as president. Schumer was asked why he was there, Schumer said it was “to make sure the election was fair.” 
      “Fair” to a Democrat means that their candidate wins. Outside of that, how it is done only depends on how far it is to the lake to see if uncounted votes can swim. This, by the way, is how JFK won against Nixon as they found 30,000 votes practicing the backstroke in a lake in the Chicago area. What led up to it is in a book by Bruce Herschensohn: “The Gods of Antenna — How they Slant the News from A to Z” http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Antenna-Bruce-Herschensohn/dp/0595149359 — I advise going to that website and reading all the reviews. They are an eye-opener. 
      This book was written by a person in the White House two years after Watergate; it is a primer on how the news is MIShandled by journalists now just as it was then. Once read and seeing the way news-people handle the news, you can see they are still up to their old tricks, thinking We the People are a bunch of fools.

      • NoCrud

        gparra9 
        Here’s another book that is probably good, merely from the book’s title alone:Obama’s Globe: A President’s Abandonment of US Allies Around the World
        http://www.amazon.com/Obamas-Globe-Presidents-Abandonment-Allies/dp/082530685X

        • Cherieo3

          @NoCrud.. I’m really enjoying your posts…Thanks for sharing the info.

        • NoCrud

          Cherieo3 
          You made my day. Payment received! [;->

  • DanaPreston

    All of these post below so concerned if Rubio ( I don’t like him) can be eligible or not, makes no difference. Do you think for one minute that it matters when the rules have been broken ALREADY for Obama? This type of FRAUD WILL CONTINUE PEOPLE! The buck doesn’t STOP here. WAKE UP! They (Congress and The ELITE) have been sucessful putting Obama in Office and THEY will do it again. with someone else. It makes NO difference if WE like it. Comprehend?
    Personally, I’m NOT convinced we are going to have another Election EVER!

    • NoCrud

      DanaPreston  
      Much of what you say is right on the mark…
      I am convinced that the Democrats want Rubio, Jindal or Haley on the ticket, even as a candidate of some sort, so it will excuse The Obamaroid for being sanctioned by Congress and thus give him a pass. If there are enough Conservatives, it also puts the “Undesirable” label on most all in Congress as Appeasers, Rino’s or simply Unpatriotic. Once people realize the country’s problems stem from the Pretender in the White House, they will finally and suddenly wake up. I will take very little to get them to that point, probably some Media mistake or slip-up, and then you will see the dust fly. We are too far along for the Left to “fix” it because so many are ready to be totally unforgiving once the realize that it is We the People on the edge of the cliff and the Left led US there.
      And, if things don’t happen soon, I agree that there is a risk of the U.S.A. having no more meaningful/honest elections.

      • Cherieo3

        @NoCrud  @DanaPreston………………AGREE with you both…
        To re-elect Obama in the first place..what is to stop a THIRD election???  Or More???

  • NoCrud

    You might also be interested in ;Mario Apuzzo’s latest article that concerns Ted Cruz, but which also applies to Barack
    Obama, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, and Nikki Haley.  Here is the
    link: 
    http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2013/03/senator-ted-cruz-is-not-natural-born.html?showComment=1367795075482

  • blackrosefarms

    Another reason compromise doesn’t work is that you cannot compromise with evil because such compromise is always a gain for evil.  Something like compromising on how many of your children should a terrorist group be allowed to kill.

    • NoCrud

      blackrosefarms  
      I find that when a lawyer advises “compromise,” it means that the case is lost. Compromise, therefore, means losing with an attempt at gaining the least loss.
      If I were to hire a lawyer and in the case’s process, the lawyer began talking “compromise,” I would know that the lawyer did not feel that a win in the case was forthcoming or, at least, there was not going to be a good and comprehensive win.
      Compromise has overtones of give-and-take and not a win-lose situation. In other words, neither side is a distinct winner and, hopefully, neither side is a distinct or complete loser.
      When you see lawyers huddled or find they are meeting surreptitiously, you can bet there is some attempt at compromise going on and no doubt their intention is that neither side really wins or loses. I also suspect that “compromise” is a healthy part of their training and something that lawyers are not really reluctant to endeavor. While one may assume that a simple lawsuit is going to pose some kind of compromise somewhere or sometime during the process, it is more commonly seen at higher levels case-wise and sessions of “talking it through” in Congress means an attempt to arrive at an agreement that is acceptable to all sides of an issue. In other words. it’s what they do. Therefore, while we may not really like the idea of compromise in cases at a personal level, Compromise is part and parcel of a lawyer’s professional existence. The more successful lawyers are those, I suspect, that are good at it and gets more for the client in a case than the average lawyer. We are expected to accept this as normal in Arguments at Law. Sure, we who want it all will be disappointed but not as much as if the case/argument is lost outright.

      • Cherieo3

        Well, what you say here is true!  Too many lawyers and how their minds operate.  Especially, those Progressives.  They are always talking Compromise…meaning Republicans GIVE IN to their thoughts…and then it is call Compromise.  If Republican do not Cave..then they are the Party of NO.. never do we hear that said about the Progressive/Marx..it’s always those mean-spirited Republicans who want to throw Grandma under the bus, want dirty water, starve CHILDREN and all that junk.  You never hear Republicans saying that about those Progressives.  That too…maybe be the problem with Republicans.  They don’t get down in the mud; because they want to be nice.  I say get rid of the lawyers and get some common-sense (which is completely lost) and get something accomplished instead of all these social issues to just take up the time in Congress and they leave to go back to campaign for the next election.
        DOWN WITH THE LAWYERS…lol

      • NoCrud

        blackrosefarms  
        In continuance, where a case or argument is a black & white issue, a case of absolutes, there can be no compromise or absolutism would not be forthcoming but, instead, the destruction of absolutism. Those who intentionally want to destroy absolutism are those who are good at putting light for dark and dark for light, so to speak, and are not willing to accept a rigid response without some kind of exception. A “you’re right, but…” response is one that leads a person into this scenario. 
        Absolutes do not have ands/buts/ifs in their format. Absolutes are represented by simple statements where there is no allowance for exceptions or intentionally-flexible variations. Absolutes do not contain either/or options, either. Otherwise, the concept is not absolute.
        Liberals hate absolutes with a passion. The think being Liberal, being free to “rubber” their attitude or decision is an indication that they are indeed Liberal versus Conservative. A Conservative is one who wants to preserve the ancient landmarks but a true Conservative is willing to improve implementation of a concept but only as long as the essential conservative concept is preserved. Liberals want no such binding of concept, they want to proceed with a free range of unaccountable variation of decision and actions where there is no answering to the demands of authority. A Liberal is a naive or childlike attitude in full play with no expectation that the Liberal will have to answer or account for any of his/her actions. And herein is the problem:
        The Conservative sees issues as rocks and hard places where one is confined between strict acceptable limits. The Liberal sees no such restriction. The Liberal is a free-ranging person who sees no bounds except where posed by Law or Tradition and in these situations, the Liberal sees constricting problems as something that must be circumvented, somehow. Pretending ignorance, the Liberal sometimes is also childlike and expects to get away with things that a Conservative would hardly attempt. But, the idea of “getting away with it” makes many Liberals think they are truly intelligent and far above the Conservative. Meanwhile, the Conservative plugs on through the straight-and-narrow and gazes with amazement at the brazen actions of the Liberal. The clash comes when the Liberal is challenged for being like a Pelosi or Reid and seem to care little for what people at large think as long as they get away with it.

  • BarackHussein

    Rubio has proven himself to be an idiot… like McCain.  What a rube!  Holder and Obama CHOOSE what laws they will enforce.  The border ain’t one of them… neither are criminal immigrants… heck, Holder is killing American INS agents.
    “Let the 20 million criminals in, give them houses, cars, cell phones, free medical, money, food, scholarships, unemployment”… and then we will close the border.  Trust me… ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha,  signed, Comrade Democrat.

    • NoCrud

      BarackHussein  
       Satire is a form of verbal bullying, in most cases. Here, however, I can see the agonizing wit here and must say it brings a sad smile to my lips.

      • http://michellemalkin.com/ wolfeatworld

        NoCrud BarackHussein
        But NC, satire can be so uplifting!  :-)
        “So, to ensure we Americans never offend anyone, particularly fanatics intent on killing us, airport security screeners will no longer be allowed to profile certain people…
        Absolutely No Profiling!
        They must conduct random searches of 80-year-old women, little kids, airline pilots with proper identification, secret agents who are members of the President’s security detail, 85-year old Congressmen with metal hips, and Medal of Honor winner and former Governor Joe Foss, but leave Muslim Males alone lest they be guilty of profiling.”See?
        Sam  ;-)

        • Cherieo3

          Right on Wolfe……………

        • http://michellemalkin.com/ wolfeatworld

          Cherieo3
          Cherieo – if you had an avatar, what might it be?
          Just that I usually have an image of a poster (blogger) that automatically goes with their screen name. Like with you, I’m always thinking Cheerios! In a bowl. With cream & sugar!
          ► Just kidding. ;-)
          So what might you choose or have you chosen in the past, but don’t use here?
          Sam

        • Cherieo3

          I don’t…but am on FACEBOOK..

        • http://michellemalkin.com/ wolfeatworld

          Cherieo3 
          Not a big avatar gal (?), huh?
          If ya ever need or want one, look me up. I’ve got tons ;-)

    • RhondaReichel

      Rubio didn’t take a stand on the NDAA either
      He’s a LOSER like McCain and Romney

  • http://carlwk3c.wordpress.com/ CarlStevenson

    The Obama regime,the “progressives” in congress, and their henchmen in the leftist media view the Constitution as nothing more than a deodorant disk in the urinal of life. Boehner, Toomey, and the establishment GOP are, at minimum cowards, and more likely complicit.
    Rubio has proved his worthlessness by his position on amnesty for illegals.
    The jury is still put on some of the “new” republicans like Cruz and Paul.
    Hopefully, they will continue to take principled stands and fight for our liberty and our rights.

    • NoCrud

      CarlStevenson  
      Progressive has been a buzzword for Communist since at least the 1950’s, as far as I know from reading books from that era. Typical of the Liberal Mindset, they always try to put some kind of acceptable spin on things. Just like the word “gay,” the word “progressive” has been hijacked by people who have their own “agenda” but let’s remember that there are good agendas and bad agendas and the difference is in the goal desired by the proponents.

    • Bob2002

      CarlStevenson Good post.  Somehow, the word needs to get through to these people in the House and Senate that they work for us, the voter, and not special interests such as illegal aliens and the anti 2nd Amendment folks.  It seems like every time we get a new Senator or Represenative that talks the talk of being a conservative, they change their tune as soon as they get to the Senate or House and get indoctrinated by the establishment.  In 2014, I would like to see all these establishment Senators and Representatives, who do not follow what “we the people” want, voted out of office.  We need to start with John Boehner, who has disappointed us all.