Scott Walker Surges Past Field In Iowa Poll….

Scott Walker 2We have talked about Republican Governor (WI) Scott Walker since 2010 and the Stand With Scott campaign. For all intents and purposes Walker remains very high in favorability because of what he has actually accomplished, not what he has talked about, amid a field of GOP hopefuls.
In my humble opinion Walker is the best candidate to actually unite the GOP. Scott Walker is acceptable to conservatives, Tea Party groups, and increasingly to establishment Republicans. It is good to see him getting the recognition.
(Via Bloomberg) Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker is surging, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush is an also-ran and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is dominating in a new poll of Iowans likely to vote in the nation’s first presidential nominating contest.
GOP 2016

The Bloomberg Politics/Des Moines Register Iowa Poll, taken Monday through Thursday, shows Walker leading a wide-open Republican race with 15 percent, up from just 4 percent in the same poll in October. Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky was at 14 percent and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, who won the Iowa caucuses in 2008, stood at 10 percent.
Bush trailed with 8 percent and increasingly is viewed negatively by likely Republican caucus-goers. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is in even worse shape, with support from just 4 percent. More troubling for Christie: He’s viewed unfavorably by 54 percent, among the highest negative ratings in the potential field. At 9 percent, retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson pulls more support than either Bush or Christie. (read more)
walker_untouchables_maksim

This entry was posted in Election 2016, Heros, media bias, Tea Party, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

204 Responses to Scott Walker Surges Past Field In Iowa Poll….

  1. MaryfromMarin says:

    Would love to see these numbers recast, now that Romney is out.

  2. tappin52 says:

    Mike Huckabee at 10%? Good grief. He could spoil things for Walker if he has thoughts of helping Jeb Bush.

    • tappin52 says:

      I just can’t believe he can pull in those numbers, but he is way down (actually, not even on my list) in the pack for me.

    • doodahdaze says:

      That is the Hucksters job.

      • ShepherdDawg says:

        QUOTE: “That is the Hucksters job.”
        Yep. Huckabee’s only contribution to the 2008 campaign was to divide the vote of the conservative grassroots, allowing John McCain to win in South Carolina, and consequentially, the GOP nomination.
        Huckabee is desperate for a Cabinet position, and if he actually runs in 2016, it will be with the intention of dividing the conservative vote again, letting a RINO squeak through to the nomination.
        Huckabee is pro-amnesty for illegal immigrants, pro-political correctness, pro-open borders, and pro-criminal (see his record of handing out pardons and early releases to violent criminals left and right, when he was governor).

  3. RoyBaty says:

    Not entirely sure why so many conservatives dislike Romney. States are constitutionally permitted to try things like Romneycare, etc. and MA is a liberal state. Romney has high character, intelligence, fairness and made his money honestly. Having said that I greatly prefer Scott Walker, Ted Cruz or another Conservative. Afraid that when more moderates drop out (Hucklebee, Christie, Rubio, etc), ole Jeb might pickup steam.

    • doodahdaze says:

      Because he is a liberal prog.

    • georgiafl says:

      Romney was a vulture capitalist who made his money at taxpayer expense. When he took over a company, drained its capital, including pension funds, the government/taxpayer had to cover for the poor souls who were laid off. Romney bailed out the Salt Lake City Olympics (and his rich Mormon friend) also at taxpayer expense.
      He’s an opportunist and without principle. He claimed to be a conservative, but governed like Obama. He is a two face liar. I counted 8 lies in the Jacksonville debate alone. Romney and his supporters used ruthless Alinsky tactics (and vile language on the blogs) against conservatives, yet soft-pedaled and lost against Obama. His sons are friends with Ponzi scheme wheeler dealers. He is disgusting.
      I still have my links and files on corrupt politician Romney.

      • RoyBaty says:

        Don’t let your emotions get ahead of you, you sound just like a drooling liberal (“rich Mormon friend”, “disgusting”, “taxpayers expense??”). If Romney comes out and supports Jeb or Huckabee or another RINO, I’ll apologize; but if he comes out and supports Scott Walker or other conservative, I’ll accept your apology.

        • stella says:

          Try not to attack another Treeper personally. Make it your goal to inform, rather than demonize.

          • rashomon says:

            Then let’s reframe the answer because, while I am a huge supporter of Walker, Romney needs credit for what he’s accomplished in his life. He didn’t make the rules regarding venture capital; the government did. He didn’t devise the Pension Guaranty Benefit Corporation; the government did. Poorly run companies need to be weeded out in some fashion or another. What are the options? The employees will lose if the company just goes defunct. A venture capitalist comes in with the ideal of revamping the errors and keeping the company going. Sometimes it doesn’t work for a variety of reasons.
            What would have the consequences been if Romney hadn’t rescued the Olympics? He didn’t make the problem.
            Healthcare has been an issue for decades; Romney was stuck with a plan that his citizens demanded. The states are the perfect venues to test a variety of different plans IF the government would allow insurance companies to market across state lines. One size doesn’t fit all. Competition works; ask those who benefitted from the break-up of AT&T. Obamacare does NOT encourage competition; it’s crony corporatism alloveragain.
            That said, Romney made a good decision not to run.

          • stella says:

            Very good assessment.

          • Lou says:

            glad to see some objectiveness, and not just rah rah Republican. both parties are pretty much the same IMO who support different contributors. I know many people who are lobbyists Stella, and to support one party or another is just uninformed thinking. follow the money is a jingoistic term, but it’s true.

          • ShepherdDawg says:

            QUOTE: “He [Romney] didn’t make the rules regarding venture capital; the government did. He didn’t devise the Pension Guaranty Benefit Corporation; the government did.”
            The “government” consists of corrupt legislators who sell their votes to the highest campaign contributors. Not to mention those lucrative “consulting” jobs, non-executive directorships and corporate “vice-president” jobs that so many Congress members and Senators magically obtain after they retire or lose reelection.
            In other words, elite corporate interests like Romney’s Bain Capital use their power, money and influence to get the “government” to enact laws and policies that benefit them.
            The “government” is supposed to represent the American people. Instead, it usually represents special interests who contribute campaign $$$ and promise obedient legislators a nice lobbyist job or “consultancy” when that legislator leaves office.
            So yes, Romney and people like him DID make the rules regarding venture capital.
            Excusing Mitt and blaming “the government” is like saying “the banks didn’t want to be bailed out, the government made that decision.”
            Everyone knows that the government’s decisions are actually made by the special interests who control elected officials through legalized forms of corruption.

      • joanfoster says:

        I would have to disagree with 90% of what you believe about Romney, georgiafl. Without the privilege of going into details, I am privy to a number of companies that were purchased by Romney through Bain Capital and I can speak to certainly one thing and that is you cannot allow the Democrat media to influence your thinking that Romney is the ugly side of capitalism. Whenever you read or hear a progressive talk about the success of a Republican, it is always couched in terms that play on class warfare.The ads were some of the most despicable that I have ever seen in a campaign – out right lies bought and paid for by Democrats and all aimed at getting the middle class riled up against the wealthy. That’s the prog mantra and the cloak of deceit they all wear. I could not agree more that he should not run again because frankly he is simply not a good candidate on the stump. He would have made a good President at the time we needed a strong leader and an astute businessman to lead us out of the economic slump we were/are in. In my view he wore ballerina shoes to the party instead of combat boots and that is the reason he lost the election in addition to those ridiculous Republican voters who couldn’t stomach his religion nor the fact that he was a moderate . So where did that leave us? It left us with a Muslim sympathizer leftist.

      • ShepherdDawg says:

        QUOTE: “Romney was a vulture capitalist who made his money at taxpayer expense.”
        This.
        QUOTE: “He’s an opportunist and without principle. He claimed to be a conservative, but governed like Obama. He is a two face liar.”
        And this.
        Romney is a globalist who, like all globalists, is dedicated to the destruction of the American middle class.
        And for anyone who thinks Mitt is a “wealth creator”, um………no.
        Supporting crony capitalism, globalism, outsourcing, and corporate welfare is not a conservative value (it’s actually a fascist value to support Big Business with state power and state funds).
        Leftists like crony capitalism because (in addition to wanting to get rich like Bill Clinton), they know that crony capitalism eventually leads to increased support for socialism/Marxism, when the “peasants” finally lose patience with a tiny oligarchy enriching themselves at everyone else’s expense.
        The leftists are aware of this effect, so they are deliberately allowing Big Business to outsource jobs, receive massive taxpayers bailouts, and other policies that impoverish the middle class, because they know that average Americans will eventually become resentful at the “elite.” The leftists hope that voters will express this resentment by voting for Marxism.
        Supporting a free market with minimal regulations for your local small business IS conservatism.
        Supporting Big Business entities like Bank of America, Monsanto, Walmart* or Bain Capital is NOT a conservative value.
        “Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains.”
        ~Thomas Jefferson
        President Jefferson wasn’t talking about your local small businesses in the above quote.
        He was talking about treasonous Big Business interests that receive taxpayer – funded bailouts, engage in unethical and/or reckless banking practices, support amnesty for illegal immigrants, outsource American jobs to the third world, import “skilled workers” from India and other places to take American jobs, and benefit from corporate welfare.
        *Regarding Walmart, I am aware that some conservatives like Walmart. I don’t understand why. Walmart imports cheap goods from China (often produced by slave labor), under-cutting companies that manufacture items in America and driving those patriotic companies out of business.
        Furthermore, Walmart benefits from corporate welfare in the form of entitlement programs like EBT and SSI/disability and TANF. A LOT of Wal-Mart’s revenues come from welfare recipients spending taxpayer $$$ to buy Walmart’s cheap junk.
        Thus, a mega-corporation like Walmart uses all of its influence and lobbying power to keep the welfare/entitlement benefits flowing to the underclass. The welfare recipients then spend their SSI check and EBT at Walmart, meaning that government policy enriches a private-sector corporation.
        Not to mention the fact that lots (most?) low-income immigrants shop at places like Wal-mart, meaning that it is in Walmart’s interest to encourage unlimited 3rd world immigration.

      • LiveFreeOrDie1776 says:

        Save your attacks for the Marxist Left. When you consider the creeps running this country, I’d say it’s ridiculous to spend so much time attacking Romney. It really is.

    • stella says:

      I don’t agree with all of the negative views of Romney expressed here. I DO believe these negative views are held by a large enough number of potential voters that they would guarantee another Republican loss in 2016.
      You are correct about the letter of the law on Romneycare; however, since Obamacare has been implemented there will be even more people who will view Romneycare in a negative light than did in 2012. It is the albatross around his neck that he can never overcome.
      Like you, I prefer one of the other potential candidates, and I think Walker would make an excellent candidate. With all he has already overcome, his vetting is as thorough as it can be. I can’t imagine there are any secret negatives about him still out there.

      • JohnAllen says:

        I am sure a few will be invented if necessary. It will take a tough conservative to withstand the attacks from both parties and I believe Cruz and Walker both have the fortitude to endure.

      • justfactsplz says:

        Thanks for getting this thread back on track on the subject of Walker. The big unions tried to find dirt on him and came up empty handed. He knows what it takes to win having won three elections in four years in Wisconsin. He is fiscally responsible and knows how to get more people off of welfare. His appeal is broad. He is one to watch in the polls imo.

    • joanfoster says:

      Ostensibly the reason Romney pulled out is because many of his wealthiest donors were already in Bush’s court. The Republican party needs a new face, not just a little botox here and there.

  4. doodahdaze says:

    Walker has the correct target in his sights. Government Employee Unions. He will take them on. Crown Prince Jeb will not. He is an “Oh well” lazy, wishy washy, no spunk, establishmentarian.

    • georgiafl says:

      I hope Walker will deal with amnesty, political corruption in DC and Islam with the same firm, unyielding tactics.

      • lovelyd24 says:

        I think he will. Walker is a straight shooter. Once he commits to something he is 100% in.

        • smarty says:

          May I politely disagree? He has basically backtracked on common core in Wisconsin to the dismay of his supporters. He also has been evasive on immigration and from what I have read he is on the side of the CoC.
          http://www.stubbornthings.org/scott-walker-close-inspection/

          • stella says:

            If Walker is the nominee, I will support him. No candidate is perfect, and he is a million times better than another Democrat POTUS.

          • georgiafl says:

            Open borders Republican is still a dangerous animal. I’ll stay home or write in Cruz if that’s Walker’s game.

          • Lou says:

            absolutely, georgiafl

          • John Galt says:

            let the vetting begin

          • Jim Brown says:

            It is ridiculous to call Walker an open border’s Republican.

          • smarty says:

            So, my concern is that Walker will not warm to the grassroots because he is by nature establishment. He has already done so with shutdown by publicly distancing himself from Cruz. Also by dissing grassroots publicly last year regarding primarying RINOS. This along with wavering on CC as well as parroting establishment pathway to citizenship shows how he really feels about the base. If he doesn’t set hearts on fire we will see 2012.2. We need a fighter. Just saying it could hurt him.
            We shall see how it all shapes up!!

          • rashomon says:

            Smarty, from Gov. Walker’s January 23rd newsletter:
            “I’ve called upon the Assembly and Senate to pass legislation that would eliminate any requirement that schools use Common Core standards, thus allowing education standards and goals to be set at the local level, by parents, teachers, and school board members who are cognizant of the unique needs of their children and students.”
            Regarding immigration, Wisconsin faces the same problems as other states: immigration reform so temporary workers (largely in agriculture) have a secure status within our laws, and the streamlining of rules toward citizenship for those who have been delayed (for whatever reason) in their efforts toward naturalization. He has addressed this multiple times. For some reason, progressive media and his opponents skew his words. Long before Gov. Walker was elected, Wisconsin accepted vast numbers of immigrants (for example, the Hmong from Southeast Asia) who have never been properly melded into the community or a road to citizenship. They are NOT going back to Asia at this point.
            My family has spent much time in Wisconsin and one graduated from Madison. Many branches of my family and many friends and colleagues live there. Gov. Doyle left the state $3 billion in debt with obligations resembling the mess Illinois is facing. Gov. Waker seems to be on a right track after overcoming enormous odds against every progressive their party could pull in to fight him. If he choses to run, he deserves the right to be considered based on his record.
            Who said, “A little less conversation, a little more action, please.”?

          • smarty says:

            I do not think I will ever warm up to Walker. He has not been unwavering in his positions, he has flipped with political winds. As I have said elsewhere in this thread he chose to join the RNC peanut gallery and diss Cruz during the shutdown, which in my opinion is the same as dissing the grassroots. He did it again with dissing grassroots about primaries last year. Little things to some people, but to me signals of a real problem. RNC has made it clear they would like to destroy and silence tea party.
            I dislike that because I sent him money for the recall and I know of many tea party activists did the same as well as physically go to WI to support the campaign.
            I simply do not trust him. Also he does not have the passion I see is necessary to win hearts and minds. He has given one wow speech “big and bold” and he did take unions down a notch, but didn’t go for the kill with right to work (why???). Now he is changing his tune on the biggies CC and immigration. That is opportunistic.
            But, this is me and my political instincts.

          • lovelyd24 says:

            Many people say that they do not see the passion in Scott. Mark Belling who hosts for Rush at times has predicted that Scott would lose every election, that Scott has run in, because of Scott’s laid back persona. Belling and Scott are long time friends and Belling is always happily surprised when Scott wins an election.
            Scott has a very laid back personality, he doesn’t seem passionate even when he is but that doesn’t mean he isn’t passionate.
            Anyhow I don’t think I will ever get my ideal candidate, but there is a lot to admire with Scott, he fought and beat the Teachers Union and all the power behind them. He is more Tea Party than you might think.
            I have argued with friends about Scott’s political astuteness and I am more of the belief that he plays his cards very close to his chest but once he shows his hand he will stand behind it. Anyhow I think he is very politically aware and will take hard stands and make good healthy changes for the country.
            All that said, anyone who gets anywhere in politics becomes part of the beast, I don;t think that he is perfect just a very good man for the job due to the current state of the union.

          • John Galt says:

            Who said, “A little less conversation, a little more action, please.”?
            Mac Davis and Billy Strange — performed by Elvis
            An Elvis hologram could probably win 2016.

          • janc1955 says:

            As long as it’s the Elvis around the time of his black leather comeback show. He’d get my vote. 🙂

          • lovelyd24 says:

            Scott has said that he will not remove Common Core at the State level, I disagree with him on this and would like to see it banished from the classroom, he has stated that it is up to the individual school districts as it should be, the problem being almost every school district is already caught in the web of Common Core and most aren’t going to put in the work to redirect their curriculum. And unfortunately most don’t want to.
            He is against amnesty but I agree that he has made some evasive statements about immigration.

      • Roy says:

        “I hope Walker will deal with amnesty, political corruption in DC and Islam with the same firm, unyielding tactics.”
        Yes, and all three of those are more critical to our immediate survival than government employee unions.

    • smiley says:

      worried about Florida in this.
      ie/ Bush and Rubio 🙁 !

      • stella says:

        More likely Kasich in the #2 spot – don’t forget Ohio!

        • smiley says:

          yep…a lot of people saying that about Kasich.

        • doodahdaze says:

          How could anyone vote for Bush? He has stated he does not like the whole base of the Republican Party? You would have to be a democrat to like him.

          • ShepherdDawg says:

            QUOTE: “How could anyone vote for Bush? He has stated he does not like the whole base of the Republican Party? You would have to be a democrat to like him.”
            Yep, or a globalist neocon who fantasizes about invading Iran/Syria/North Korea/Luxembourg/Paraguay/[insert preferred country here].
            I will not vote for Jeb under ANY circumstances. I bet he supports gun control too (regardless of what lies he says in public).
            Jeb, go away. Nobody wants you to be president.

          • Jim Brown says:

            Wrong. He has stated that he dislikes about 40% of the base, which is Tea Party/Conservatives. The rest of the base are moderates and those that will vote for person with the R next to their name and do not care what policies the candidate espouses. It is time to realize that the Tea Party/Conservative base does not represent the majority of the party. I don’t like it, but it is a fact none-the-less. It is time to see the world as it is, not as we wish it were. If Tea Party/Conservatives made up the largest part of the base we would have already taken over the party and would have unseated Boehner and McConnell.
            And for those who are anti-Walker, realize this certainty, he is the most conservative candidate with the political ability to unite the party and win in 2016, that’s just a fact. I love Ted Cruz but he will never get the moderate establishment wing of the party to vote for him, he has burned his bridges with them and if he should win the nomination the establishment wing will do to him exactly what the conservative purist wing of the party did to Romney in 2012, they will sit home and not vote and allow the dems to win thinking that they are punishing the Conservatives, just like the purists thought they were punishing the GOPe by helping the dems win in 2012. In effect, all either wing will do is punish America. Our best chance to go into the general election with a united party that can defeat the dems and their media propaganda machine is with Scott Walker as the standard bearer. He has defeated the dems and their propaganda machine three times in the last four years, he knows how to get it done. For the purists, you can keep grousing that Walker is not a perfect candidate, but he is our most realistic chance of getting a Conservative Tea Party kind of candidate elected. If you purists don’t start getting into reality you will help Jeb or Hillary or worse, Elizabeth Warren become the next President.

        • smarty says:

          Kasich expanded medicaid under Obamacare as well as supports common core fyi. He has lost a lot of support from grassroots. I am not sure what his stand is on immigration.

      • doodahdaze says:

        Florida does not like Bush. Even the dope Scott Walker was able to beat his team in the state election. Bush could easily lose Florida in a general to the Beest.

        • smiley says:

          I don’t know about that,..Florida is very divided.
          a LOT of people I talk to like Bush…I know..I know…makes my head explode..
          they’re not THINKING, they’re just for him based on his past as a popular Gov.
          but Cruz seems to be catching on..a little..not enough.
          Cruz, to me, seems like the real deal.
          Walker, too..but not sure about his immigration stand and a few other things..
          the sad thing is Clinton..what is it with some women that support her just b/c she’s a woman..or female…or whatever she is….?
          Its about time we had a woman in the WH !….that’s it…that’s as far as they think.
          but they’re out there..in large numbers.

          • smiley says:

            I asked someone(female) if she’d never heard of Benghazi…trying to discuss Clinton, the reality.
            she gave it a thought ..then : “Ben who?…you mean that actor ? ”
            Ben Gazzara…or something.
            whew.
            a Clinton fan.

          • joanfoster says:

            These are the same lowfos that supported Obama only because of the color of his skin. Many have buyer’s remorse today, but I am not sympathetic. It was all out there for anyone interested to see that he was going to do significant damage to this country if elected and he has. These same idiots will get their jack boots on and march in lock step to the polls for Hillary. It’s difficult to fathom that someone’s genitals could decide the election.

  5. deqwik2 says:

    I need to know about Walker but as of now I would pick a Walker/Cruz ticket.
    Friday, after Romney was out, the MSM was pushing Rubio as a rising star but I don’t see it. I guess he could make a VP but not POTUS & Bill O’Reilly was surprised to hear that Cruz’s name was popular with a lot of people. I think msm is going to be surprised when the polls start reflecting what most Americans really want.

    • labrat says:

      Cruz is toxic. He kicks progs into a frenzy, they will make what they did to Palin look like playing nice if anyone puts Cruz on the ticket.

      • tappin52 says:

        Cruz is first rate. They will try to “Palinize” him, but the man knows how to make an intelligent argument and can articulate a pro America agenda.

        • labrat says:

          Don’t get me wrong, I love Ted, but he’s already let the left paint him Public Enemy #1 and didn’t counter. The meme is entrenched.

        • Jim Brown says:

          Where Cruz is concerned it is not the dems or their media propagandists that need be worried about, Cruz is a brilliant orator and would swat them away like the gnats they are. It is the GOPe voters that would sink him in the general election, the same way the conservative purists sunk Romney in 2012 by sitting home and refusing to vote for him. The GOPe wing is a much bigger wing than the Tea Party, and it will sabotage a Cruz candidacy and let the dems win, gleefully, just out of spite. After all the moderate GOPe wing of the party is much more closely aligned with, at least on social issues, the dem party than they are with the Tea Party wing, so it would not seem like that big a loss to the moderate R’s.

      • auscitizenmom says:

        But, Cruz is not a woman. And, that does make a difference. Also, the way she was brought on to the national scene was poorly handled, to say the least.

        • georgiafl says:

          Most Republican campaigns have been poorly executed for a long while.

          • labrat says:

            Exactly!!! Their marketing is terrible and their message is muddled. I watch the left make mincemeat out of them year after year. They need to study the left and adopt some of their tactics. The left wins with LIES and the right thinks well those are just outrageous and ridiculous, why counter them? A lie repeated over and over again because accepted TRUTH. Instead of brushing off the left they need to go on aggressive offense and develop TRUTHS about the left. Simple but effective memes. The left enslaves people, the left destroys liberty, the left are the real racists, the left is destroying the middle class, the left is intolerant etc, etc.

    • doodahdaze says:

      I would take Cruz for prez. If not that then AG.

      • IntoTheFray says:

        Don’t get me wrong, I like Ted Cruz! But that said, by Article II of the U.S. Constitution, the President and Vice President are required to be “Natural-Born Citizens”, a term explained by the U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) as the child of two U.S citizen parents…This means that neither Ted Cruz, sadly, nor Marco Rubio, thank God, are qualified to be President or Vice President of the United States.
        Just because the lying, cheating liberals, assisted by the corrupt, milk toast, GOPe, managed to get Obama elected does not change the law.
        If Republicans run a Constitutionally unqualified candidate, they are no better than the Democrats (which we know is true for the current GOP leadership!).

        • georgiafl says:

          If Mark Levin says Cruz is eligible, he is.
          Obama was not eligible at all, either birth-wise, or ideologically. He’s a foreign entity and a malevolent one at that.

          • Jim Brown says:

            I believe that the reason Obama is not actually qualified to be President was not because he wasn’t a Natural Born Citizen – (his mother was certainly an American Citizen and that made him a Natural Born Citizen) – but rather because when his mother married his Stepfather Lolo Sotero and moved him to Indonesia, in order for Mr. Sotero to adopt Obama in Indonesia it was necessarry for Obama’s mother to renounce his American Citizenship. Once you’ve had your American citizenship renounced you must go through the naturalization process to get American Citizenship back, but one can never get back Natural Born Citizen status, that does not follow you, once renounced, Natural Born status is lost forever. That is according to investigation and research done by Wayne Allen Root a few years ago.

        • yankeeintx says:

          I thought the only ones still using the “birther” argument against Cruz were liberals? It’s been settled, he is eligible.

        • Jim Brown says:

          Natural Born citizen is no longer interpreted to mean that one must be born within the borders or territory of the US or that one must be born too two US citizen parents. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio were both American Citizens at birth. In fact, Ted Cruz was a dual citizen of the US and Canada at birth. In order to be qualified for President of the US one cannot be a dual citizen thus Cruz has since renounced his Canadian citizenship. Sorry Intothefray, but what is exactly a Natural Born Citizen according to the Founders is not explained in the Constitution and has never been adjudicated by the USSC. It is now interpreted by Congress and federal election officials as being an American Citizen at birth. There are two ways to achieve that status, one is too be born inside the borders or territory of the US and the other is to be born to at least one American Citizen parent no matter where you’re born. And by the standards and definitions used today, both Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are qualified to be President. As for Minor v. Happersett, That was a 14th Amendment case about whether a woman could be a Presidential elector for her state of Missouri and it did not answer the question of what constituted a Natural born citizen. In fact in the opinion it is stated that to make a ruling in the case at hand it was not necessarry to answer the question of what constituted a natural born citizen. You should go back and read the entire opinion to understand the context of the words you quoted.

      • deqwik2 says:

        I would take him as president but think his chances would be better if brought in as VP first. We could by pass all the arguments against him & let the nation get used to him so to speak if the focus was on someone else as the presidential candidate. Walker has the experience & reputation to pull that off. I definitely think he would be the best choice for AG.

  6. Paul Gandy says:

    Walker is Washington’s worst nightmare.

  7. labrat says:

    Scott who? I like him a lot and he would probably be my pick out of the choices we’ve got, but most people I know wouldn’t have a clue who he is. Anyone know his name recognition numbers?

    • RoyBaty says:

      Maybe you don’t remember the war with Wisconsin unions, big union backed recall election, millions of Obama backed union dollars, celebrities, in the press and on nightly news for weeks? Most of us have heard a lot about Walker.

      • labrat says:

        Of course I remember, I follow politics. The vast majority of people who vote – don’t. If I polled the people I live and breathe around on a daily basis (not my online friends) – I’d bet no more than 10% would have any clue who Scott Walker is.

        • 1American1st says:

          Tell them about him.

        • Jim Brown says:

          At this point it does not matter, just as long as people know about him when the general election rolls around. He will get known soon enough, we’re still 21 months away from election day 2016.

      • doodahdaze says:

        He left the studio floor at MSNBC littered with Sploded Head Libs.

    • tappin52 says:

      That will be remedied as soon as the campaign rush starts.

    • lovelyd24 says:

      Walker has pretty big name recognition because of his battle and defeat of the Socialist Teachers Union in WI, and all their supporters which included Team Obama, Hollywood, Communists across the nation, Sorros Inc. et al.
      Scott is an icon to many Conservatives and hated by all the DC rank and file Liberals and Democrats, Scott’s run will bring out the savage nutty left in greater masses than did Reagan. It will be a virtual cornucopia of daily meltdowns by those that hate America and their ignorant minions. The fits which Scott will throw the left into will show America just how unbalanced the “progressives” are.
      Remember in WI the left went absolutely mad because of Scott, they commandeered the State Capital, scared children, smeared human excrement on walls, screamed at and threatened citizens just going about their day, they played the drums for weeks on end and spewed the most vile hate filled things at anyone within ear range. The leaders who opposed Scott knew they were going to lose so instead of stating their case and taking a vote, a boatload of them jumped the state line and enriched IL with WI tax payers money, instead of going to work.
      O did I mention the guy who drove by Scott’s house everyday when the young Walker boys and their mom where inside of and honked his horn, screamed an expletive and flashed the bird?
      One other thing that drives the Left absolutely insane is that Scott dropped out of college. They consider him a dullard and they have been beaten by Scott again and again, they have been soundly beaten by a college drop out and Scott has been so successful that it makes the Left foam at the mouth angry.
      If Scott gets the nomination the unfurling of what little sanity the liberals have left is going to be sheer fun to watch.
      Get your popcorn ready.
      http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5013/5449470740_4f6b40455d_z.jpg
      More important than the anger Scott inspires from the left is the faith he has earned from Conservatives.
      Scott Walker;
      I hate big government, but I really hate a government that doesn’t work. So when ‘they say we either have to raise taxes or cut core services,’ it’s actually a ‘false choice.’
      So why am I facing a recall election? Simple: the big government union bosses from Washington want their money. They don’t like the fact that I did something fundamentally pro-worker; something that’s truly about freedom

      • doodahdaze says:

        He did it without the backing of the E too.

      • Roy says:

        The Democrats really revealed themselves over the Walker recall fiasco. Why there weren’t hundreds of criminal arrests is beyond me.
        They became more vicious with each successive Walker victory. The only shame if Walker leaves the Wisconsin governor’s office is that it may fall to the vile Democrats and become Minnesota’s twin.

      • labrat says:

        Walker only has name recognition among cable news watchers. In the real world where most voters conduct their lives he’s Scott who?

        • lovelyd24 says:

          Walker doesn’t have the name recognition of Bush or Clinton and you are right that for many people he will be a Scott Who? But I think he is more well known than you might guess. Stomping on the head of the Union here was a national event and had national consequences. I know, I know he is still relatively unknown.

  8. stella says:

    Supposedly Romney has talked with Jeb since making his announcement, and lunched with Christie. I hope that doesn’t indicate who he will be supporting. He says his decision was made because it isn’t about him being President, but about the strongest candidate being President. I would agree with that; we’ll see.

    • smiley says:

      Romney is all “Party”, IMO.
      he wants “the Party” to win.
      I have a bad feeling that he might endorse either Bush or Rubio, or Bush will have Rubio on the ticket w/ him ?
      Romney is a RINO.
      he will support another RINO.
      hope I’m wrong.
      I’m liking Walker a LOT.
      (would also like to see Gowdy as DOJ/AG.)

      • doodahdaze says:

        I rather see Cruz or Palin as AG. The left would discombobulate.

        • smiley says:

          Cruz..ok..he’s very smart and VERY articulate.
          Palin..not as AG…she’s just a tad too shrill (my opinion) and tends to display a snarky cynicism that gets in the way…she’s a true patriot and heart’s in the right place.
          I do like Cruz..smart guy…

          • smiley says:

            the thing I like about Cruz is he doesn’t miss a beat.
            he seems to handle vitriol and leftist attacks w/ dignity and moxy, and he keeps ON POINT.
            he doesn’t allow them to derail him.
            he is very rational and communicates well.

          • doodahdaze says:

            Yes she grates on me too. But it would be worth it to see all the lib heads explode.

          • smiley says:

            (off topic a little….but I REALLY hope Gowdy doesn’t become another Issa on the Benghazi hearings re Clinton et al….)

          • joanfoster says:

            I believe the office of AG is held always by a lawyer. Palin is not a lawyer and I agree, she is shrill, snarky and a bit tabloid.

      • Roy says:

        We WILL vote for Scott Walker if he is the Republican candidate. We would never vote for Romney, Bush, Carson, Rubio, or Paul. Palin is too polarizing and distracting. Bridenstine is a good man. If Trey Gowdy really takes the bit in his teeth going forward, then he is on our short list too. He’s a very smart man, but we don’t need another Issa player. DO something Trey!
        We really, really like Ted Cruz, but have learned some disturbing things about him this weekend, actually about his wife. She is on the Council of Foreign Relations, and works for Goldman Sachs. I’m not going to explain why this is such a negative, it shouldn’t be necessary. Privately, I am also curious/surprised that he is also a Harvard/Columbia product and yet seemed to come out on such a divergent track than the rest. He, even if he is legally qualified to run for office, does not have the “working” qualifications like Walker. A junior senator just does not have the experience to be top dog.
        I have spent more time than ever in my life becoming involved in politics and reading as much as I can about all these people. If we get to a 2016 election, if it still makes a difference, then that election will be the most important of my 7+ decades.

        • rashomon says:

          Absolutely! This election is a Custer’s Last Stand for our constitutional republic.
          Gowdy is a crackerjack when he decides to fight. I hope the Benghazi issue is one of those times as it could cut Hillary off at the knees.
          Cruz should not be eligible, just as Obama was not eligible. Walker repeated several times that “we are a country of laws” in reference to immigration. The same applies to candidates for the presidency and vice presidency. Just because Obama got away with it, doesn’t mean it’s right unless the Supreme Court specifically addresses the issue; I don’t care what Levin or any other pundit says. The Founders knew that our country’s entire meaning could be lost if a president had divided loyalty and, if Obama hasn’t hammered that issue through to the ultimate extreme, no one will.
          Cruz would make an excellent AG eventually, but I would like to see him remain in the Senate for a while to reverse all the damage done by Obama. The same goes for Gowdy in the House. We need to replace some RINOs in those to bodies.

        • seeingeye2 says:

          It will be the most important of my 7+ decades too.

    • deqwik2 says:

      He also called Walker. Walker tweeted that he had a great conversation with Romney & Bret Baier said he was there when the call came in. Romney is also friends with Rubio & Rubio did a lot for Romney’s campaign so the wait is on but there is hope.

    • justfactsplz says:

      Romney also placed a call to Scott Walker. I heard that on the news at the same time they told about his plans to lunch with Christie.

  9. 1American1st says:

    I would love to see a Scott Walker – Jim Bridenstine OR Jim Bridenstine – Scott Walker ticket.
    The rest of the field above is a waste of air. Jeb & Rubio support Illegal Aliens over Americans. Left up to them we would have more Illegals becoming American Citizens than Obama’s numbers. Disgusting!
    We need someone who support AMERICANS!

    • auscitizenmom says:

      Absolutely!

    • Roy says:

      Jeb Bush flatters himself with being an education expert and was/is a big supported of Common Core, which is a disaster of epic proportion guaranteed to dumb down our students and indoctrinate them in anti-American ways.
      Rubio shot himself in the foot when he supported amnesty. He is hoping Hispanics vote him in, and the way our population demographic is going, that may one day happen, but not now.

      • Couldn’t agree more on both your points, Roy.
        I see Rubio as an establishment VP nominee, if somehow Bush does not win the primary.
        Rubio would garner many Hispanic votes.
        I am curious, though, whom the Bush (not that I would ever vote for the liberal Bush) VP nominee would be. He would already have the Hispanic vote – i assume he would try to talk Condi into accepting the position, to pick up so e of the female and black vote.

        • Roy says:

          I never thought of that but as soon as I read your post I knew you were right. Condi Rice would be a brilliant choice for Jeb and she’s already inside the Bush camp. Boy, oh boy, that could be a dangerous ticket as Condi could highly elevate Bush’s chances .

          • John Galt says:

            Condi Rice: “I Find It Insulting As A Republican Black Woman From The South”
            I won’t vote for anybody that plays race or feminist cards. I am woman, I am black = FAIL.

          • JG this may be the first time, in my short time here, that I’ve disagreed with one of your posts.
            As much as the quote you describe offends me, it’s not enough to make me discount Ms Rice if she can help a conservative into the office.
            She is more accomplished than probably any politician in recent memory, and she considers herself a Republican (by the way, I no longer consider myself a Repub but I understand only a Dem or Repub can win) so she can potentially help.
            If Condi would be willing to accept the role of 2nd fiddle, I could certainly overlook a particular statement she made a while back to get my guy into office.
            I would vote for a Walker / Rice ticket, and would not have to hold my nose to do it.

          • rashomon says:

            Interesting match. Rice carries excellent foreign policy experience, which Walker needs, and recognized financial chops from cutting the cr*p out of the Stanford budget.

          • She could, without even trying, COMPLETELY eclipse ANY b.s. ‘foreign policy experience’ that the Clinton camp would put forth.

      • joanfoster says:

        Rubio made a very weak appearance in the State of the Union rebuttal several years ago. He was constantly drinking water throughout the speech and looked totally J.V. He is going to have to get the dry mouth organized a bit better if he were to participate in any debates.

        • John Galt says:

          Cruz would crush everybody in debates.

          • smiley says:

            he’s unflappable under pressure
            conducts himself like a statesman, without being a condescending know-it-all (like Newt was),or carnival barking promise you everything you want to hear safe-bet politician.
            just wish people would snap out of this play-it-safe don’t rock the boat mode of the same old same old song and dance…and vote for a LEADER instead of another talking head sell-out to the disastrous status quo.

    • smarty says:

      Scott Walker is pathway to citizenship supporter. He is definitely establishment leaning, not grassroots. He also has waffled big time with common core in Wisconsin, which leads to Wisconsin chamber.

    • Dems B. Dcvrs says:

      Ditto!

  10. elvischupacabra says:

    GO! Anybody but Jeb!!!

  11. Pingback: Sorta Blogless Patriotic Pinup » Pirate's Cove

  12. Roy says:

    Oh, and by the way, I really enjoy that poster, the Untouchables!

  13. King Rogers says:

    Think about a Scott Walker/Allen West running ticket. More importantly, think about a Scott Walker, President/Allen West, Vice President IN OFFICE and what they could do for our country! The complimentary capabilities of these two as a team would be powerful and would get us back to where our country needs to be.

  14. I think a Walker / Condi Rice ticket would be formidable.
    Walker would be my 1st choice and Rice would give the establishment GOP their voice while possibly whittling away just enough of the female, black, and college grad swing votes to win.
    On the other hand, i have to believe Kasich is going to be involved somehow. Those Ohio votes are always important.
    As are Florida’s, thus Bush.
    That’s why Im thinking the GOP is lining up Bush – whether any voters actually want him/them or not – and Kasich as the VP.
    That would lock up 2 BIG state’s electorals. And with Jeb’s love for amnesty – and Rubio, Cruz, and Bush’s Mexican wife and kids campaigning – they would influence the Hispanic vote in other states as well.
    And Kasich would be forced on us ‘conservatives that don’t count’, us ‘flyovers’, as our “conservative” link to the ticket.
    And during the campaign it will be rumored that Walker, Cruz, Gowdy, etc are all being considered for high ranking posts within the potential administration, you know, just to keep us interested enough to vote.

  15. rashomon says:

    Walker was just interviewed by “Kookie” Roberts on ABC’s “This Week with…” and commented to her questions; i.e. she led the discussion:
    Syria: take the fight to ISIS and let our true allies as well as our enemies know we will take action.
    Immigration: I am NOT for amnesty. We must fix our borders and adhere to our laws.
    Sec’y Clinton: She embodies Washington DC and is for top-down government, believes that government knows best. I believe the people know best.
    (See my comment above for education quotes from his newsletter.)

  16. czarowniczy says:

    “(Walker……” the best candidate to actually unite the GOP”. Or is it more akin to ‘lest likley to damage it even more’? We’re down to this, once again the Party’s sort of sat back at the trough for the last 6 years, failing to develop and push new, younger and more dynamic leadership. It’s as if they say: “Oh S**T! The Convention’s in 6 months and we’ve gotta put down the feed bucket and find someone to run! Quick, everyone who wasn’t in at least junior high during the Johnson Administration sit back down and continue feeding while we put some lipstick on Party pig…”
    Hillary’s been primped and polished, as much as you can damaged goods, for well over a decade now while we’re still trying to find something in the back of the fridge to serve up. It’s getting to look as if Reagan was our last gasp, the Party’s really not serious about being a viable at the national level and sees the competition from the DemocRATS and their media castrati choir at the national level as too much to fight. I’m over 65 and I’d love to see the Party start polishing candidates under 40 that would appeal culturally to the younger (and also the not-primarily-English-speaking) demographics. Wake me when and if…

    • Czar I love reading your posts, your style of writing (invested in, and knowledge of, your politics) makes for a great read.
      And I believe you are exactly right regarding your “oh no, the convention is in 6 months” assertion.
      It is this type of disassociated, seemingly disinterested state of the Republican Party that has justifiably earned them the title of ‘country club politician’, content to live off other people’s money (whether that be taxpayer dollars or lobbyist dollars – or both) and not give a damn about anything other than their handicap (think: Boehner) for 21 out of every 24 months, or 42 of every 48.

      • czarowniczy says:

        Wish I could say ‘thanks’ but i feel like I’m doing a live commentary from the steerage-class communal potty on the Titanic. Don’t know how many times I’ve been to the Republican Party offices of my two states overt he last the last nearky 30 years, volunteering my time, only to be told they’ll contact me when they need money and, oh, by the way, would I mind throwing away the caviar and brie tins on my way out.

        • auscitizenmom says:

          Czar, you are going to HAVE to be more careful with your words.”Live commentary from the steerage-class communal potty on the Titanic.” There is no one here to revive me. 😯

  17. monroe says:

    IMO, the problem with Republicans is that if the candidate is not conservative enough (whatever that means) they don’t vote. I thank the Republicans for the gift of Obama in 2008. Many Clinton campaign workers shifted allegiance to McCain and jump started his campaign in Ohio and fought voter fraud in Wisconsin. While Clinton supporters were being physically assaulted and personal property vandalized, Republicans felt disappointed with McCain and stayed home.
    Whoever is selected, Repubs have to vote even if it is not the perfect candidate.

    • labrat says:

      I’m one of those that couldn’t even bring myself to hold my nose and vote for McCain. I voted 3rd party. I despise the chipmunk. Sorry. You can blame the idiots that chose him in the primary, don’t blame me.

      • monroe says:

        No blame…you took the effort to vote.

      • joanfoster says:

        I believe chipmunk McCain got the nomination because of so many primaries being states where there is cross over primary voting. The Dems found him to be the easiest to defeat and they weren’t wrong.

    • Dems B. Dcvrs says:

      “Whoever is selected, Repubs have to vote even if it is not the perfect candidate.”
      I can go along with voting for “not the perfect candidate”. But I refuse to vote for a RNC/GOP Republican (aka RINO) for President, for Senator, or for Representative.
      We got where we are at today with a worthless House Speaker because we previously held our Noses and voted for RNC/GOP candidates. These RNC/GOP stinkers are ones that reseated a Democrat as Speaker of House, instead of siding with true Republicans and Conservatives.
      RNC/GOP has slithered to Left to become Democrats of JFK period.

  18. Dems B. Dcvrs says:

    Be more interesting once the Dead-Wood and Drift-Wood are cleared from shore.
    For me the following are out:
    Mitt Romney was D.O.A.
    Mark Rubio and Bobby Jindal are no starters for same reason Obama is not Constitutionally President. Status of Ted Cruz is gray on being true NBC.
    Chris Christie to buddy buddy with Obama’s team.
    Jeb Bush is RINO if not a right leaning Democrat, forgetaboutit.
    Donald Trump thinks to much of his self and has a history of failures.
    Stopping there for now, being quickly running out of Candidates…

  19. yankeeintx says:

    “Scott Walker is acceptable to conservatives, Tea Party groups”
    I am not seeing or hearing that here in Texas. Of course with a senator like Cruz, our focus is different. Walker is for a pathway to citizenship (unless that has changed), and for common core (unless that has changed). I hope that Cruz announces and will do everything I can to see he gets the nomination. If it is Walker that wins the nomination, then I will vote for him, but will feel like we’ve ended up with a consolation prize.

    • John Galt says:

      I would like to see Mark Levin interview each candidate for half an hour. That would sort them quickly.

      • Roy says:

        I would buy that on Pay-per-view and I am not joking.
        Reading through the updated comments, I see Scott Walker/Alan West mentioned. I really like this combination, but believe the Democrat’s viciousness would quickly rise to the surface with exploitation of the West’s Iraqi incident and his subsequent retirement from the military. If there were a good defense for it, or he held strong military support regardless, he may be a viable choice.
        I’d be willing to pit Clint Eastwood against ISIS. Too bad he’s in his 80’s.

        • I would very much be on board for a Walker / West ticket.
          But it will never happen under the Republican banner.
          We will be lucky to get 1 conservative, we will never get 2.
          And a female on the ticket, especially when running against Clinton, is more important than a black American simply because blacks will never pull away from the Dems in numbers, especially won’t pull away to vote for a conservative.

    • rashomon says:

      As I quoted from Walker’s January 23 newsletter above: “I’ve called upon the Assembly and Senate to pass legislation that would eliminate any requirement that schools use Common Core standards, thus allowing education standards and goals to be set at the local level, by parents, teachers, and school board members who are cognizant of the unique needs of their children and students.”
      I have been against Common Core since the day it was named and the first draft released. Believe me, you’ve got an ally on this issue. Obama/Ayres/Duncan cronies who designed the policy are making billions on publishing and testing.
      Walker was interviewed this morning on ABC and said pointblank: “I am not for amnesty. I am for fixing the borders and adhering to our immigration laws.”
      Like it or not, every state has a problem with illegal immigrants amongst the population representing just about every country in the world. Congress has promised to address this ever since I can remember. I know some very educated people who have followed the law and have been waiting for papers for years, while others fly through the process because their country is at war or they have special contacts. You have Turkish Muslims working at the Texas (and other) Gulen schools under, I presume, H-1B visas only because the schools insist they have to have those people to fulfill their teaching standards. This is just darn wrong. Meanwhile, we have people coming here on student visas who “get lost” or have forged papers that allow them to stay. That is wrong. We have laws; they should be upheld.
      Anyway, only recently has Walker been in the position to make statements on the national stage, and the progressives fear him because he is the antithesis of their policies. They are out to get him. Our only responsibility is to make certain he is not misquoted, that socialists propaganda is identified as such. Then, it’s his responsibility to sell his platform.

  20. stella says:

    For those who have questioned his eligibility, just saw this on the FB:
    MARK LEVIN explains that Ted Cruz IS a natural born citizen…
    Read more: http://therightscoop.com/mark-levin-explains-that-ted-cruz-is-a-natural-born-citizen/#ixzz3QWTwAP71

    • justafly says:

      Sorry, Levin is dead wrong.

      • John Galt says:

        Sorry, you are dead wrong. Yes, I have a law degree.

        • justafly says:

          That holds no water with me. I guarantee I have more education on the U.S. Constitution, in particular this issue than you. Regardless, this is not the argument I was making. My point is there is a significant percentage of conservative voters who DO understand the constitutional requirement for a natural-born citizen who will refuse to vote for an ineligible candidate. (One question to ponder, I do not need an answer; can a “natural” right be legislated?)

        • Dems B. Dcvrs says:

          Okay you got a law degree. That does not mean you are correct and justafly is wrong.
          We got plenty of Lawyers running around Congress, and well we have seen what that has gotten us.
          If one is going to argue that having a law degree makes one correct, then why do we see court appeals arguing points of law?

      • stella says:

        Are you a constitutional expert? Or at least an attorney? If you only have an opinion, like me, then I agree with Mark Levin. Did you bother to listen to the linked audio?

        • Dems B. Dcvrs says:

          “Are you a constitutional expert? Or at least an attorney?”
          We have a supposed Harvard Graduated, BAR accepted Attorney, and Constitutional Expert as POTUS; would you except his opinion as qualified?
          Along similar lines, there is all those Climatologist experts and Scientists who claimed man-made CO2 caused Global Warming. Yet, they got it wrong on both counts.

          • stella says:

            If you have any real argument to make, by all means make it rather than turning the conversation in a different direction entirely.
            If you have studied the Constitution and know the law, please try to persuade me that you are right.

          • Dems B. Dcvrs says:

            Point is, demanding one be a Constitutional Expert or Attorney is call to Higher Authority. As if that makes what they say fact or have more credibility.
            Put another way, you are calling for dismissal of people’s points or arguments based on them not being _______.

          • stella says:

            I supplied legal references to support my opinion. You point to British Common Law and documents that are not part of our legal code.
            ADD: In my first comment, I wasn’t talking to you.

      • stella says:

        Sorry I was snippy in my first comment. I apologize. I do disagree with you, though.

        • justafly says:

          I was p.o.ed too when I understood that I had been lied to by the sources I thought I could trust. But once someone, honestly seeks the truth on what defines an NBC and WHY the Framers implicitly decided to change the language in Article II Section 1 Clause 5 from citizen to natural-born citizen you will understand why it remains such an important issue to those folks who understand it’s original intent.

          • stella says:

            Don’t misunderstand. I still don’t agree with you, but was sorry that my original comment was ungracious. You are still wrong.
            ADD: You’ll notice that my comment was made six hours ago, as part of our original conversation.

    • John Galt says:

      It is really pretty straightforward.
      “Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, on Dec. 22, 1970. His mother is a lifelong U.S. citizen. His father, born in Cuba, remained a Cuban citizen until he was naturalized as an American in 2005. When Cruz was born, his parents were living in Canada, where they had opened a seismic-data business in the oil patch. Cruz lived in Canada until he was 4 years old, and spent the rest of his childhood in Texas.”
      http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2013/08/sen-ted-cruz-i-will-renounce-any-canadian-citizenship.html/
      8 U.S. Code § 1401
      The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
      . . . .
      (g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years. . . .

      • justafly says:

        Correct Cruz is likely a U.S. citizen, but not all citizens are natural-born citizens. (A tree is a plant, but not all plants are trees.)

        • stella says:

          Tell me where the term “natural born citizen” is defined – either in the Constitution, or anywhere else in U.S. law. Citizenship is defined.

          • justafly says:

            Tell me where the term “piracy” or any other term is defined in the U.S. Constitution. The USC does not contain a Lexicon.
            The Constitution does not .., say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere … .. it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves… natural-born citizens,..CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 88 U.S. 162; 21 Wall. 162

          • justafly says:

            As you correctly stated, and I agreed, the U.S.Constitution is not a Lexicon and does not define ANY terms. Natural, means natural, not by man (fiat). Can we agree on that? If a law must be made by man to bestow citizenship or any other right, then it is by definition NOT a natural right. The Framers of the USC understood this. As confirming evidence, especially for our resident lawyer, the U.S. Congress (both houses) have attempted in recent years to redefine “natural-born citizen” to be as you seem to claim it means. Why would that be necessary is there was no doubt?

          • stella says:

            Clever, but not the answer. That’s circular reasoning. I have legal citations. You have none.

          • justafly says:

            I cited a Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, you cited some guy named Levin who some claim is a legal scholar. I’ll go with Chief Justice Waite and our FIRST Chief Justice as definitive legal authorities, thank you.

          • stella says:

            No, you cite your interpretation of Justice Waite, and attempted to slant that interpretation by leaving out part of the quote.

          • stella says:

            I said, “in the Constitution, or anywhere else in U.S. law. “

          • justafly says:

            Read Vattel’s “Law of Nations” 1758

          • stella says:

            Predates the Constitution, and not part of any law in the United States.

          • justafly says:

            The Law of Nations is cited in the U.S. Constitution more than a couple of times. Try reading the U.S. Constitution sometime. It is an interesting document.

          • stella says:

            Don’t be a prig.

          • justafly says:

            AGAIN, my point is, you may disagree, but there is a high percentage of conservatives who disagree with you and will not vote for Cruz, Rubio, Jindal, etc.

          • stella says:

            What percentage? Is this formalized by anyone, or just your opinion?

          • stella says:

            Who says? Can you cite some poll to bolster your opinion?

          • John Galt says:

            They had a meeting in somebody’s basement and determined that all U.S. laws pertaining to citizenship are henceforth deemed unconstitutional, dispensing with the usual requirement for judicial determination.

          • stella says:

            Full quote, in context:
            Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that ‘no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,’ and that Congress shall have power ‘to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.’ Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.
            Ted Cruz is a citizen by birth. In any case, citizenship was further defined, as cited by John Galt (above).
            The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
            (g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years…”

            http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401

          • justafly says:

            A citizen by birth but NOT a natural-born citizen. If you look, the U.S.C. deliniates four classifications of citizens. One is specific to POTUS (after the Founders died). ALL other classifications of citizen are citizens by fiat.

          • stella says:

            I thought you said that U.S. Code shouldn’t be looked at for a definition of “natural-born” citizen.

          • justafly says:

            Now who is being a prig?

          • stella says:

            I didn’t suggest that you hadn’t read the Constitution, as you did to me – in other words, you decided that I’m ignorant.
            I am merely tossing your own words back to you. What’s the answer?

          • Dems B. Dcvrs says:

            “Tell me where the term “natural born citizen” is defined”
            Similar argument could be applied to justifications or reasons for Impeachment – “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” There is no definition for High Crimes.
            Which has allowed Democrats and Lame Stream Media to sell idea that it takes a very serious offense, like say murder, to justify Impeaching President. (Unless of course he/she is Republican – ask Killary prior to Billary.)
            Whereas, we know from writings at time of Constitution, and basis of British laws; High Crimes refers to minor crimes performed by leaders in high places that by their vary position would know better. That same minor crime when performed by a commoner or layperson would be either overlooked or amount to slap on wrist.

          • stella says:

            Your interpretation of High Crimes and Misdemeanors is not strictly correct. I’ve looked at several articles about it. Here is one, from Heritage:
            http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/2/essays/100/standards-for-impeachment
            The way in which impeachment occurs in the USA is not at all like what happens in British Parliament.

        • Dems B. Dcvrs says:

          Bingo. Cruz is an American Citizen, but not a Natural Born Citizen.
          Obama is not even close, but until we have Patriotic Congressional leadership with cojones, it will all be swept under rug. FBI isn’t any better, they punted on subject under excuse it was outside their mandate. Ironic given all local level stuff they do stick their noses into, like Brown and Martin shootings.

      • pspsst says:

        Cruz is natural born by virtue of his mother. Barry’s illegitimacy for president hijacked the natural born issue, people confusing natural born with native born. Democrats kept alluding to Barry being born in Hawaii, barely high tailing it in after Hawaii was made a state of the U.S. Barry was not even a U.S. citizen because his mother was not old enough to be of age to be considered legitimate to pass on a proper upbringing to a child as a 17 year old, who had not resided in the US for ” a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years. . . .”
        After 14 years of age, Barry’s mother was only 17 or 18. I also suspect the manner in which Pelosi had to erase the term “Constitutionally” from eligible in the vetting document she signed, that Barry was not even native born in the U.S. He had two strikes against him, lack of citizenship and lack of native birth on soil. The obfuscation eventually worked its way into the minds of a die-hard natural birth mouth piece that native birth was natural born. Now, we’re stuck with this misperception about natural born being a native born citizen.
        Two illegal immigrants who escape to have a child in the U.S. makes the child a native born citizen, but certainly not eligible for presidency LEST THE DEMOCRATS TRY IT! The natural vs native born is a RUSE.
        The constitution spells it out clearly as you quoted. Ted Cruz is eligible. Barry never was eligible. His mother was far too young, easily swayed by propaganda, could not even vote yet, and promiscuous (the grandfathers were smart en-scripting the 5 year clause) and his father was an alien play boy scr-wing around with American girls. The result. The thing in the White House smearing the country and dragging it into an African hell hole.

        • stella says:

          I believe the clause you refer to only applies to citizens born outside the United States. Obama (ostensibly) was born in a U.S. state.

        • stella says:

          Full text:
          The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
          . . . .
          (g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years. . . .

          • justafly says:

            First this is fiat, not natural, second this speaks to “citizen” not “natural-born citizen” different terminology, even if you don’t believe they are different. If they were identical, why did the Framers of the U.S.C. even bother to change Art. II Section 1 Clause 5 to “natural-born citizen, from citizen? It really is simple if one honestly analyzes the facts and not the rhetoric.

          • stella says:

            Where does it say – in the quoted text – that citizen and natural-born citizen are not the same as defined here? How do you KNOW that the Justice did not consider a child born to a citizen was not “natural born”? You don’t; you just believe it is so. Belief isn’t enough. Sorry.
            I’ll be closing this thread to comments in about ten minutes. If you have anything else to say that isn’t a repeat of what you have already said, then go for it.

          • justafly says:

            I quoted one SCOTUS Chief Justice and mentioned our first Chief Justice as evidence and precedence. You can believe what you want. I am certain you choose to not believe the truth on this issue. That is your prerogative.
            My point is even if the percentage of conservatives who disagree with you is small, is it worth risking another loss?

          • stella says:

            I don’t believe what you are saying. That isn’t the same as not believing the “truth”.
            My point is that there are as many people who won’t vote for Scott Walker because they believe he is squishy on immigration. Far more people care about that.

  21. justafly says:

    Respectfully to all here, whether you agree or not that Cruz, Rubio, Haley, Jindal, Santorum, etc. are eligible to be president under Article II Section 1, there are a significant number of conservatives that understand they do NOT qualify as natural-born citizens. I will assert that number is significant enough to loose the race to those of us who can not vote for them, if nominated. YMMV

    • stella says:

      “I assert that number is significant enough to loose (sic) the race…”
      Citation? Poll? Just your opinion?

      • rashomon says:

        The source is Vattel. Seriously. I mistakenly put this too high up to be noticed, but it’s the one the simplifies the question, I believe.
        http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/01/what-our-framers-knew-the-constitution-vattel-and-natural-born-citizen/

        • rashomon says:

          See the footnotes addressing Thomas Paine’s explanation of “half-foreigners” in the presidency. Given our elites clamor for a NWO, Paine must have been led by God when he composed The Rights of Man.

        • stella says:

          That is some persons’ opinions.

        • stella says:

          I was talking about the source for his assertion “number is significant enough to loose (sic) the race…”

          • justafly says:

            There seems to be a percentage of folks here that disagree with you and could represent a high enough national percentage that it would seem foolish to chance having a Cruz nomination. Wouldn’t you agree? Is losing POTUS election by 1% acceptable instead of winning by 1%?

          • stella says:

            Yeah, there’s you and two other people. Huge percentage. Anyway, right isn’t decided by how many people agree. You lost on both counts.
            I’m personally leaning towards Scott Walker, actually. And there are plenty of people here who won’t vote for him either. There is something wrong with every candidate – just read the comments to understand that.

        • stella says:

          Vattel is not part of the Constitution or any U.S. law.

      • Dems B. Dcvrs says:

        That would be me for one. I rejected similar arguments by Obama supporters that Obama was Constitutionally Eligible to be President. Natural Born Citizen means born to American Parents. Not kids born to parents who later became Naturalized Citizens.
        As for Obama…
        Obama’s Father was not an American.
        Obama’s Mother was not old enough to pass on Citizenship by laws in effect at time.
        Even if it had been real, a Hawaiian Certification of Birth is next to worthless since Certifications were given out without legal proof upon request.
        Certificate of Live Birth presented in 2011 was obviously Photo-chopped. Thanks to Lame Stream Media and Obama’s Zombie Sheep, the fakes were easily passed off.

        • stella says:

          You didn’t plan to vote for a Democrat anyway, did you?

          • Dems B. Dcvrs says:

            What does that question have to do with my point?
            I don’t plan to vote for Republican who does not meet Constitutional Requirements to be President.
            Why?
            1) It would be Hypocritical to demand Obama meet such requirements then given a Republican a pass.
            2) Doing so would be stooping to level of Democrats.

          • stella says:

            The situations of President Obama and Ted Cruz are different. Why did you bring Obama up in the first place?

        • doodahdaze says:

          It does not seem to me that Obama is an American. I think he is a communist, anti american. The damage he and his whole administration are doingand have done is immense. But he got elected, twice, and we are stuck with it. Ughhh!

Comments are closed.