Eight GOP candidates met Tuesday for a debate sponsored by CNN, The Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute. The debate was held at Constitution Hall in Washington, DC. The focus was primarily national security and foreign policy.
Original Air Time: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 at 8pm ET on CNN
Participants: Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich, Huntsman, Paul, Perry, Romney, Santorum
Here is the entire 90 minute debate video courtesy of MRCTV:
Report from CNN:
Washington (CNN) — A Republican presidential debate on Tuesday focused on national security issues exposed deep fault lines within the GOP over how to grapple with the nation's challenges overseas.
The eight Republican candidates who took to the CNN debate stage in downtown Washington differed on a range of issues confronting the United States, including the war in Afghanistan, aid to Pakistan and cuts in defense spending.
The issue of illegal immigration also arose again as the newest Republican front-runner, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, called for a "humane" approach to immigration policy, a position at odds with many conservative activists who dominate key nominating contests in Iowa, South Carolina and Florida.
Gingrich stressed the importance of securing the United States border with Mexico and penalizing employers who hire illegal immigrants.
But he expressed sympathy for people who entered the country illegally and since became contributing members of society.
"I don't see how the party that says it's the party of the family is going to adopt an immigration policy which destroys families which have been here a quarter-century," Gingrich said. "And I am prepared to take the heat for saying, let's be humane in enforcing the law without giving them citizenship, but finding a way to give them legality so as not to separate them from their families."
The answer was reminiscent of Texas Gov. Rick Perry's response to a question about a 2001 bill he signed that granted in-state college tuition to the children of illegal immigrants.
In a September debate, Perry said Republicans who oppose the legislation "don't have a heart" — and his standing in the polls plummeted in the following days.
The discussion was certainly lively between Ron Paul and most of the other candidates which made for some passionate debate. This debate was worth watching with a lot of extensive answers and substantive questions from moderator Wolf Blitzer.
Auto-Generated Tags:
- cnn national security debate
- cnn republican national security debate
- watch cnn national security debate
- gop national security debate full video
- full cnn republican national security debate
- watch national security debate
- national security debate video
- watch republican national security debate
- republican debate 2012 election
- cnn national security debate video
- gop national security debate video
- CNN GOP National Security debate
You know, I might just have realized what it is that I personally, love about Ron Paul. It is that he is not afraid. He has faith; and faith in the american people.
Further, he seems to have faith in America.
BTW, I am of no affiliation to any political group or party (or organized movement).
…I too just love the PROMISE of America.
RSVetti,
I agree - it is Dr. Paul's bravery and willingness to stand alone when the crowd is sweeping away everyone else that sets him apart and makes him the best man on the stage. Now, that isn't exactly the same thing as being the best candidate, but I do also believe he is the best candidate.
The other candidates are [almost] entirely without character when it comes to issues that require them to choose between following the law or following what they think is "the way things should be done". We simply do not have the option of making that choice.
Setting up a faux bank for the purpose of printing fictitious money, borrowing that money from it, at interest, to "run the government", is nowhere authorized in our federal Constitution.
"Executive orders" applied outside the Executive branch and carrying a force of law equivalent to acts of Congress, is nowhere authorized in our federal Constitution.
Prohibiting foods, drinks, or other substances to the people (from alcohol to raw milk to peyote) is nowhere authorized in our federal Constitution (it was for a time, with respect to alcohol only, but is no longer).
Assassination of U.S.A. citizens based on the opinion of the President, and without a jury trial (i.e. depriving them of life without due process of law) is nowhere authorized in our federal Constitution.
Searching and seizing property without due process and without a warrant is nowhere authorized in our federal Constitution.
Actions of military aggression toward another country, without the consent and declaration of war by our Congress, is nowhere authorized in our federal Constitution.
Nearly everyone "on the stage" in the GOP nomination campaign is in favor of doing all those things. Some of them want to mix a bunch of it all up together, advocating the following actions against Iran: "maximum covert operations to block and disrupt the Iranian program, including taking out their scientists, including breaking up their systems, all of it covertly, all of it deniable.
If we wish to be a "shining city on a hill", inspiring others to join in our exercise in self-governance, we must be honest and restrained to live by our own laws. We cannot be a nation built on the rule of law when we, as a nation, ignore our own laws. We have means provided to legally change even our most fundamental laws. The means and mechanisms are cumbersome and slow, on purpose, to ensure that such things do not happen frequently or lightly.
The vision of our nation was one governed by clear laws, devised and revised by such good and honest men as the people chose to govern (and who would cease to govern when the people would so dictate). Our nation has started down the dangerous road of lawlessness (ignoring the law), discarding that original vision. Without a vision, we flounder. Without a vision, the people perish.
I will never support a candidate solely because of the party label attached to their name. I am a past 2-time-chosen GOP state delegate, but do not always support the official GOP candidate (in fact, I did not in either of those 2 elections). I will not support pragmatism over the law, or try to game the system by voting for someone anointed as the "most electable" (what a foolish concept) instead of the most ethical and capable. I also realize that a President is intentionally limited in their powers (and for that, I am very glad), and therefore cannot make very many blanket promises about what they will change. That's okay. I want a man who will do his [own, limited] job well, including doing his part to make sure that others in government limit their actions to their constitutional job description but fully exercise their responsibilities within those limits.
Neville,
Amen.
It seems to me that all of these rally cries for unilateral and unsanctioned rolls in leadership and CONTROL put us dangerously close to becoming that very thing which our main stream media, war propoganda, and 'war efforts' speak out against.
This is very troubling to me and constitutes what I feel, may be one of the largest modern threats to our sovereignty as a country and our sanctity as a people with the inalienable right to persue happiness.
I am further concerned that our freedom of speech is being written off for some type of noise pollution in many of these policies and actions that are so CRUCIAL to our way of life.
To add to this list, I must also mention my discontent with some of the candidates defense of the Patriot Act. Bachman went so far as to define that those people accused of treason or committing acts of war should not have no quarter in regard to our civil rights and civil liberties.
Well, my question is this: aren't (or shouldn't) we as citizens be eligible to those rights of due process until proven guilty? Because it seems that this is no longer the case…
This is especially scary when hearing rumors of a US military forces being trained in Montana to face off against the american people for the first time in US history. This paired with our mutual agreements with Canada to lend military force in the event of civil disobedience.
WOW. I say, this is something we really need to think about.
I tell you, I fear like anyone the prospect of being unable to find a job and to support my family; but these conditions seem just a little bit more alarming…
..
Neville, B RSvetti
So well-stated, Thank You! We can no longer compromise it's too late!
I am in a cast and cannot respond at length left-handed.
RON PAUL 2012
I agree with you, he is unafraid to stand by his convictions.
RON PAUL 2012
Amen.
It seems to me that all of these rally cries for unilateral and unsanctioned rolls in leadership and CONTROL put us dangerously close to becoming that very thing which our main stream media, war propoganda, and 'war efforts' speak out against.
This is very troubling to me and constitutes what I feel, may be one of the largest modern threats to our sovereignty as a country and our sanctity as a people with the inalienable right to persue happiness.
I am further concerned that our freedom of speech is being written off for some type of noise pollution in many of these policies and actions that are so CRUCIAL to our way of life.
To add to this list, I must also mention my discontent with some of the candidates defense of the Patriot Act. Bachman went so far as to define that those people accused of treason or committing acts of war should not have no quarter in regard to our civil rights and civil liberties.
Well, my question is this: aren't (or shouldn't) we as citizens be eligible to those rights of due process until proven guilty? Because it seems that this is no longer the case…
This is especially scary when hearing rumors of a US military forces being trained in Montana to face off against the american people for the first time in US history. This paired with our mutual agreements with Canada to lend military force in the event of civil disobedience.
WOW. I say, this is something we really need to think about.
I tell you, I fear like anyone the prospect of being unable to find a job and to support my family; but these conditions seem just a little bit more alarming…
I wish Ron Paul would stop trying to be the nice guy and "man up." He is way to trusting of high risk foreigners for anyone to every feel safe in the U.S. If he were to win (which he won't) I would have to move out of the states
Brandon
I have seen Ron Paul rear up, "man up", and just slam candidates, moderator's and news reporters such as Wolf Blitzer, while maintaining his dignity and very, very effectively setting the record straight. He is a contender when the need arises, this is important to me too, during the 2007-2008 debates this is what finally set me on course in finding out more about Ron Paul. I have no doubt that he would slam an enemy under attack and so importantly he would have the correct information unlike Bush and the infamous weapons of mass destruction.
Ron Paul 2012
[...] Here is what they said: [...]
Illegal Immigration = illegals that arrived after the year 2000/2001 NOT 25 years ago.
the 11 million arrived in the last 10 years.
AND children of illegals are also illegal
B Anderson
Newsflash: You are not god and this forum is for the election go to another site to preach!
RON PAUL 2012
Research Libertarianism it's about individual choice man. Get over yourself.
[...] Here is what they said: [...]
Windisea. I am not god? According to Mit and Huntsman's religion I am. Republicans do not encourage liberal ideas of name calling and booing other’s ideas. How would you know if I was preaching? Your blogs have seemed to be very rude to Republicans and others who wrote comments in the forum. This is an open forum. Even though I wish you would keep from making rude comments, I will not tell you to stop blogging. You blindly follow Ron Paul. I have said many times Ron Paul has some good point, but his main problem is that he is not a Republican, and is running in a Republican election. That will make his chances of winning this primary slim to none. I would rather vote for a Republican who is experienced, and knowledgeable, who knows how to get bills passed in the House and Senate. Ron Paul has been controversial all his political life. Even though he introduces his pet bills, he knows they will never pass. That wastes time, and time is money.(Which we do not have).
Many Congressmen put bills before Congress just so they can tell their electors that he is supporting such and such. However he really does not care about it, and does not work to get his bill on the floor for a vote. An example is; Senate S 334 and its House equivalent: HR 333. Both bills have many congressmen co-sponsoring them. These bills have to do with disabled career veteran benefits. It would end the offset of military retiree pay. Presently, a service member that receives retired pay, but has not had at least a full 20 years of ACTIVE duty, has his retiree pay reduced by the amount he receives from his veteran benefit. (He pays for his own VA benefit). The time a service member recuperates from an injury does not count as active duty time, only time in service. When the service member reaches 20 years in service, they are medically retired, with, or with out the request of the service member. That means he can never get 20 year of ACTIVE duty. This bill has been introduced on the first day of the legislative year, for years. Many Congressmen sign on as supporters. However they never bring it to a vote. They just want to tell veterans that they are “supporting” our disabled veterans. None do the leg work to get more support, nor bring it up for a vote. It is filed away in a sub committee for it to die, waiting for the year to end, so they can do it again next year.
I want to vote for a person that will do the leg work and be a leader to improve our country and return us to a powerful and moral world power, UNDER GOD.
I am curious B Anderson what your obsession is with mormons and why you just throw anti-mormon stuff in your posts that have nothing to do with any of the topics we are discussing. Its comical and makes me wonder if you even actually know anything about the LDS faith or know any LDS people for that matter.
LDS MAN, Why do think what I say is anti Mormon? The anti Mormon is only in your mind, not mine. Some of my best friends and bunk mates were Mormon. We have had many discussions on beliefs. It is no more derogatory than talking about the separation of church and state, a Baptist doctrine. Which does not seem to bother anyone.
[...] Here is what they said: [...]
B Anderson
Ron Paul is a Republican who believes and follows the conservative libertarian philosophy. All other Republican candidates are Republicans who believe and follow the neo-conservative philosophy. Ron Paul is a Republican; Christian, brave, intelligent, experienced and true to his beliefs and uncompromising in the stand for our nation's direction as tested and upheld by our constitution. As I informed you earlier, when you rudely told me your post's are private, this is an open candidate forum.
RON PAUL 2012
Windisea, Just because a mouse is in a cookie jar, it dosen't make him a cookie.
B Anderson
Newt Gingrich would have you believe he is the cookie. Ron Paul wouldn't try to deceive, Christian, Republican, Conservative, Libertarian philosophical beliefs, bound by the Constitution, National Sovereignty and Liberty.
Refreshing!
RON PAUL 2012
Did you see the O'Riley Factor and Hannady tonight? They agree with my opinion of Newt.
Windisea. I Don't understand your thinking. Newt is a Republican, running in a Republican primary. Ron Paul is a Libertarian running in a Republican primary. Ron just will not have the votes. Face it. I'm not saying it to mean he is a bad canidate, he just will not win.
B Anderson
Naturally they like Newt all three are neo-conservatives. If you are happy with the Bush-Obama years vote for any candidate, they all intend to follow the same road with tweaks, for a real change choose Ron Paul. Try Lou Dobbs or Judge Andrew Napolitano for a wider perspective.
Ron Paul 2012
Andrew Napolitano's brain should have its own Secret Service detail. This man needs to be in a position of official power in D.C. to restrain the government as was the original purpose of the US Constitution. I just don't know whether I'd rather see him as CJ at the SCOTUS, or as Attorney General.
At this link is a 36-minute speech that Judge Napolitano gave about 4 years ago at the "Reason in DC" conference. It is an historical look at violations of constitutional from almost the beginning of our republic. http://reason.tv/video/show/napolitano-at-reason-in-dc
Here is a teaser intro to the speech:
"In late October, Napolitano gave the keynote address at the conference Reason in DC, where he delivered a spellbinding speech that blended a masterful understanding of American history with a blazing outrage at the excesses of the new security state. "Who [is] the greatest violator of the Constitution?" asks Napolitano. "George W. Bush has shown less fidelity to the Constitution than any president since Abraham Lincoln."
Most, if not all, of the rest of the crop of GOP hopefuls have bright red pragmatism flowing through their veins. It is their guiding force, and any other principles they may espouse are in fact fully malleable under the hammer of pragmatism. They seem to change their stripes almost as often as they change their pinstripes. This, instead, is what I need to see in a federal leader:
"No free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue; and by a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles." -Patrick Henry (channeling Ron Paul backward through history)
THE ONE THING that most stands out about Ron Paul, and which many people ignorantly decry as a political negative, is that when he trumpets, it is not to say what he will do, but what he knows full well he CANNOT do. He actually believes (how DARE he!!) that he is not the political savior of our country, but that our country can still be saved by the men and women in power humbly restraining themselves to live under the law. Perhaps more than any other quote from the founding fathers, this one seems to embody Dr. Paul's political philosophy:
"In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” -Thomas Jefferson
B Anderson
Whether a positive or negative response to a comment, this site wouldn't exist without opinions and I will state mine whenever I care to. Seiko's interest in our election was self-serving in supporting the candidate who would best serve his country's interest, not mine. America!
Ron Paul 2012 National Sovereignty
There is a difference in stating an opinion, and belittling the person with the opinion.
A person can have opinions on many subjects. On some he may have “liberal” ideas, some “conservative” and some on other name brand political idealism. Trying to label Newt, or anyone in one category and say that is what he is, would be inaccurate. The previous blogger said Newt is a neo conservative. However below are some of Newt's statements of his standings. None of them are neo conservative ideas.
Newt's Principles to protect life and religious liberty
1.Nominate conservative judges who are committed to upholding Constitutional limited government and understand that the role of the judges is to interpret the law, not legislate from the bench.
2.Combat judicial activism by utilizing checks on judicial power Constitutionally available to the elected branches of government. (Read an extended white paper on restoring the proper role of the judicial branch here.)
3.End taxpayer subsidies for abortion by repealing Obamacare, defunding Planned Parenthood, and reinstating the “Mexico City Policy” which banned funding to organizations that promote and/or perform abortions overseas.
4.Protect religious expression in the public square such as crosses, crèches and menorahs.
5.Protect healthcare workers right to conscience by making sure they are not forced to participate in or refer procedures such as abortion.
6.Protect the rights of home-schooled children by ensuring they have the same access to taxpayer funded, extra-curricular educational opportunities as any public school student.
7.Protect the rights of teachers to use historical examples involving religion in their classroom. Nor should they be discouraged from answering questions about religion or discussing it objectively in the classroom.
8.Protect the frail, infirm and the elderly from the state’s arbitrary decision to terminate life.
Newt Gingrich has no principles. He has no conviction to support any real ideals. He will espouse anything that will gain him support or favor. He does not care to serve the people, but only himself. He is but another corrupt and selfish member of the status quo establishment.
For a bit of reference for any who are actually willing to keep their minds open and are capable of critical thought; (the music is unfortunately annoying after a while, but feels rather appropriate)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=O1RKPfMqGOg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02HX5v5Thpk&feature=youtu.be
I just heard on the news that Herman Cain is to have some sort of announcement in the short future. Of course, I have no idea what it could be about. However, I remember back before the first debate, I thought that a Cain/Gindrich or Grindrich/Cain team would be great. During that first debate, the candidates were asked, who of the people debating would you choose as Vice President. Cain chose Newt. I wonder if Newt would choose Herman. Them joining forces would put them close to, if not over, 50% in their ratings.
If Herman Cain ends his campaign, which is quite possible, it will either be because he is guilty of some of these sexual offenses including possibly adultery, or it will be because he is innocent but is sick and tired of being hounded. In either case, I can't see why in the world he would want to link up on someone else's ticket, or why they would even ask him. The whole idea makes no sense.
For Gingrich in particular, it would be foolish. There are plenty of people who fall somewhere between you (okay with his past infidelities) and me (wary of him because of his past infidelities) who would quite possibly be swayed in the negative by his linking up with Cain and Cain's similar baggage. Maybe there is some double-think value in that, but not to my way of thinking.
Also, Gingrich (although I don't approve of him as a candidate) is far and away Cain's intellectual superior. It would hurt Gingrich by association, and hurt Cain by making him look like an intentional foil for Gingrich (which is actually, truthfully, probably the only value he could add to the Gingrich campaign).
I am not convince that the alligations against Cain are true. However, if true, it would not change my idea that he would be my second choice. As I said about Newt previously; Being a low down cheating no good so and so has never kept a person out of the White House yet. However the up comming announcement, if it is that he (Cain) is dropping out of the race, most of Cain's supporters would go to Gindrich. That would put him (Newt) way up the pole. (flag pole bar graph I see locally, I know what a poll is) By the way, my thought about them joining forces was before the first debate. I understand I was unclear about the time of my thought. Neville is correct in his thinking that it would not help Newt as much now. But I think that Cain should announce his support of Newt, if he (Cain) drops out. An announcement of who is Vice President does not come until after this election anyway.
How can this be??? If the allegations are true, then it would make Cain a liar, pure and simple. How could you cast your vote for someone that just lied to you, his wife, and the rest of the country? How could you trust that person?
The moderator constantly asks the candidates to answer the questions specifically, yet the candidates still continue to deliver the same empty slogans they spouted on the campaign trail.
Moderator: "How does your economic plan to create jobs differ from the current administration?
Candidate: "Americans need jobs. Iran must obey. Obama must go. Israel is our BFF.
RESULTS:
Mitt Romney won the game-show.
Mitt Romney looks great on TV. He should be an actor.
But in real-life, Ron Paul is the only politician worth voting for.
Neo-Conservative:
A devout vocal proponent of the conservative ideal of small government, low taxes, civil liberties, governed by the constitution who toss the ideal aside when it comes to private banking (the fed) and illegal taxation, in order to fund military spending, corporatism, entanglements with NATO, WTO, CFR and possibly theocratic rule. Allow the supplanting the constitution with the Patriot act. Believe it is okay to use force to tactically acquire every resource on the planet either through a client state system, or direct rule. Fringe groups (normally Christians) and secretive inner circles also believe that it is Americas divine right to do this. A neo-conservative will gnaw at the very soul of anyone who disagrees with him/her on moral issues, will fight life and limb against homosexuality and abortion because it is unchristian and "wrong" (i.e. he/she doesn't agree with it) but will justify and attack, murder, torture and kill people in unconstitutional, undeclared war's while engaging in an aggressive foreign policy of intervention, subversion, covert activities, economic sanctions, pre-emptive strikes and arrest without the right to trial.
Neo-Consevatives are not put off by presidential candidates who lie and do not have the personal character, moral, religious code of conduct they claim to uphold, live by and sell their candidacy on, apparently the end justifies the means to these people.
I continue to stand by Ron Paul for a real change back to a sound foundation of limited constitutional government.
B Anderson and Neville,
I really enjoyed your back and forth on biblical scripture. As an atheist, I had no idea that Christianity was so esoteric and legalistic. I think the two of you got a bit sidetracked, because the question should not be if God will forgive Newt for his infidelity, but if the American people should trust him with the presidency. I would like to read your views on this instead.
Thanks
Keven,
I think BA's response to you was a bit on the snippy side, but on content I would have to agree with him. I think we've addressed that question pretty thoroughly. However, I will summarize our views: BA believes that Newt's past is totally irrelevant and what matters is what he says he will do in the future (most, or all, of which, is in line with BA's political leanings). I believe that Newt has not shown himself to be trustworthy, but he has certainly shown a past propensity to lie with aplomb, to change his stance on a great many issues, and (it appears to me) to do so based on how it benefits him politically. Therefore I do not trust him and I do not believe anyone should trust him. BA, if I have misconstrued your position, please speak up with a correction.
However, if I did trust Gingrich to stick to his current positions, and to always tell the truth, I would most certainly NOT vote for him, as I believe that several of his current positions are unacceptable and in violation of the most basic law of our country.
As to your initial comment, I have to agree with BA there as well. Religion can be esoteric and legalistic. Christianity, however, boils down to the process of becoming like Yeshua HaMeshiac (Yeshua the Messiah) (note: "christ is a transliteration of a generic Greek title meaning "annointed one", just as "Baal" means the same as "Lord" or "Master" - hazards of translation). He promises, if we live under/submit-to his lordship and authority, he will transform us into his image. There are, however a great many "Christians" who believe that they can simply check certain items off a list, get their ticket to heaven punched, and then live however they wish with no eternal repercussions. That is both esoteric and legalistic, and totally antithetical to Christianity. The Apostle Shaul told his friends and fellow believers that while he knew he was a sinner, he desired to grow to be like Yeshua and encouraged them to imitate him as he imitated the Messiah. I want to see politicians like that - humble men (or women) who seek to emulate the most pure-hearted and ethical man who ever lived.
Keven. I do not need to repeat my post. Your view of Religion is correct. However, Christians have been releaed from the law… there is a big difference. For your last question, I stated my opinion of Gindrich clearly in my posts. You may go back and read them.
Thanks for your questions and comments. I believe that all the candidates have a “past”. Newt has had extensive scrutiny his whole career by the liberal media. Little, if anything “new” will be discovered for Newt. His “past” has already been considered, and his popularity seems to be increasing in spite of it. As you can see from Cain’s example, any winning candidate will be closely scrutinized. Even innuendo has damaged their popularity. My thought is that all the candidates are equally trustworthy. None of us have the facts to base ones integrity over another’s. Go back and read my post on past qualifications of presidents. I saw that today’s poll has Mit and Newt winning over Obama.
Opps! The poll now shows Obama over Mit.
Not that she didn't already have several other problems, but Michelle Bachmann may have just ended her chances with serious constitutionalists (among which I count myself) by floating the idea of Marco Rubio as a VP choice. Rubio is a birthright citizen under the 14th amendment and SCOTUS decisions (see US v. Wong Kim Ark), but as his parents were not both citizens at the time of his birth he is not a natural-born citizen according to the US State Dept., our country's founders, Vattel, John Bingham (author of 14th Amendment), and several SCOTUS decisions. This is exactly the problem that Mr. Obama has (forget the birth-certificate red herring), exactly the problem that Bobby Jindal has, and could even be a problem that Rick Santorum has (but his parents' naturalization records have not been made public, so we don't know). It is also the recently-discovered problem that Chester A. Arthur had, but which he covered up by lying about his father's date of naturalization and then burning most of his presidential records when he left office.
Going back to Bachmann, it irks me to no end to hear this kind of inconsistency coming from someone who wants to be the highest-profile protector of our Constitution.
Mark Rubio not being a natural born citizen may need to be checked. I have not looked to see how old his parents were, nor do I have the through knowledge of our constitution in that matter. I do not think the constitution addresses the definition of natural born. I think that was left to later law to decide. I would think if his parents were born at least 5 years before the take over of Cuba (in the 60's), both of his parents would have been US citizens. That would make Mark a natural born citizen.
I looked up when Cuba was lost. It was 1959.
BA,
Fall of Cuba and exit from Cuba have nothing to do with it. Marco Rubio was born a citizen (and also a Cuban citizen, for that matter). His parents became citizens 4 years later.
The Constitution makes it clear that being a citizen isn't good enough to be President. The explicit definition of natural-born is more stringent, although you are correct that the definition isn't spelled out in the Constitution (as is also the case with most terms used in our Constitution). The definition used by the writers of the constitution and the writers of the works that the constitution was based on, plus subsequent SCOTUS decisions, all make it clear that one must be born to then-current-citizen parents and be born under the authority and allegiance of only our country (exceptions made, of course, for the founders as none of them could have met the requirements without the waiver).
Most of those sitting in positions of power in DC and the various States do not care about this. In 2008, we had a Nicaraguan national (not even a US citizen!) on the ballot in five states, with the blessing of those states' election official boards. How NUTS is that?
Neville
My thought is that the citizenship of pre 1959 Cubans gets a little fuzzy. Did the USA denounce the citizenship of all Cuban civilians, even though they were citizens at the time of the Castro take over? Did the Cuban citizens have to denounce their US citizenship? If so did the US recognize the denunciation? I really don't know. I know we have wet/dry foot laws now. But, lets not get lost in another thread. If I really cared I would look it up for myself.
The Cuban Adjustment Act, and the current wet-foot/dry-foot policy have to do with being granted legal permanent resident status. They have nothing to do with US Citizenship. I'm not sure to what you refer when you talk about "Cuban citizens have[ing] to denounce their US citizenship." At the time of the Castro revolution, Cuba had been recognized by the US as an independent country for over 50 years.
Neville, You are correct. My Cuban history lessons (more than 50 years ago) did not go much past the Spanish American War. They only told us we one it…
Anothe typeo. Won, not one. Sorry.
I voted for Obama but greatly became disillusion for his false promises. I am a register Democrat but I will vote for Ran Paul if he wins the primary. I do not agree with all his ideology, but I know what I would be getting not like the other candidates that are hypocrites and flip floppers. Ron Paul has pointed out so many issues that are wrong in this beautiful country. Stating his point of view without caring what is popular at the moment but what is right and needed to strengthened our country know that is something I respect. finally a candidate with some honesty…Ron Paul 2012
CSUstudent
Lot's of people are taking matters into their own hands! You can make a difference beginning with the primary.
Brief article-good points.
Democrats and Independents
If You Love Peace, Become a "Blue Republican" (Just for a Year)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com
Since you can't change the Democrat ticket, why not act where you can make a positive change, by telling the Republican party where you really want it to go. I offer you a special moniker to set yourselves apart: the "Blue Republican."
Blue Republican | Facebook
http://www.facebook.com/bluerepublican
Blue Republican - We're Democrats and Independents registering Republican to vote for Ron Paul! | Facebook.
Ron Paul 2012!
Gingrich Gets Worse Every Time You Look at Him-Tom Woods
In a 2007 interview from Freddie Mac’s website floating around the Web right now, Gingrich says:
Certainly there is a lot of debate today about the housing GSEs [Government Supported Enterprises -- in this case, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac], but I think it is telling that there is strong bipartisan support for maintaining the GSE model in housing. There is not much support for the idea of removing the GSE charters from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. And I think it’s clear why. The housing GSEs have made an important contribution to homeownership and the housing finance system. We have a much more liquid and stable housing finance system than we would have without the GSEs. And making homeownership more accessible and affordable is a policy goal I believe conservatives should embrace. Millions of people have entered the middle class through building wealth in their homes, and there is a lot of evidence that homeownership contributes to stable families and communities. These are results I think conservatives should embrace and want to extend as widely as possible. So while we need to improve the regulation of the GSEs, I would be very cautious about fundamentally changing their role or the model itself.
He adds, “I am more in the Alexander Hamilton-Teddy Roosevelt tradition of conservatism.” In other words, not conservative at all.
Meanwhile, courtesy of Lew Rockwell’s Political Theatre, we read that evangelicals are flocking to Newt. Every four years the various evangelical leaders seek out a transparent fake they can have betray and exploit them, and apparently Newt’s the one for 2012.
The Christian Case for Ron Paul: Tom Woods on Iowa Talk Radio (Steve Deace Show) ttp://youtu.be/sPqG3fiff1g
Ron Paul's Full Speech at the Value Voters Summit 2011 http://youtu.be/Wnj-5z9NJoY
Wow! Did I just hear a black guy say he'd profile for terrorists?
Really?
All these years and nothing learned?
Hope he doesn't get pulled over on the way home from the debate.
Shameful.
[...] Watch Entire Video (90 minutes) Location: DAR Constitution Hall in Washington, DC Sponsor: CNN, The Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute Participants: Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich, Huntsman, Paul, Perry, Romney, Santorum [...]