12 votes

Why Rand Paul Is Marco Rubio's Biggest Political Threat

"David Adams, a Kentucky tea-party activist and former campaign manager for Sen. Rand Paul, remembers a conference call from the 2010 Senate race when the conversation turned to talk of their favorite presidents. Some said George Washington, others Abraham Lincoln. Adams's pick? "Rand Paul in 2016," he recalled.

Three years later, Paul is acting like he’s already preparing a future presidential campaign, courting activists from early-primary states, smoothing out his positions on foreign policy, and delivering a high-profile national address, competing against a potential future GOP rival, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida.

Last week the Kentucky Republican spoke at the Heritage Foundation, seeking to dispel the perception that he's an isolationist and embracing George Kennan's containment philosophy. The speech comes after a high-profile visit to Israel where Paul, a vocal opponent of foreign aid, met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and called the country America's "most vital ally in the Middle East." Accompanying Paul on the visit were evangelical activists from the early-primary states of Iowa and South Carolina, a sign the senator wanted to shore up his relationship with devout Protestants, a key part of the Republican voting bloc."

Read the rest of the article @ http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/why-rand-paul-is-mar...

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

You can't confirm it because

You can't confirm it because you were not yet born? What an odd argument from someone who has clear opinions about Supreme Court rulings in the nineteenth century.

Let me help you. Here is the what the New York Times said on June 9, 1880 in a completely non-controversial statement about his father:

"Gen. Chester A. Arthur was born in Franklin county Vt., Oct. 5, 1830. He is the oldest son of a family of two sons and five daughters. His father was the Rev. Dr. William Arthur, a baptist clergyman, who emigrated to this country from County Antrim, Ireland in his eighteenth year and died Oct. 27, 1875, in Newtonville, near Albany."

There is NO evidence that this raised a red flag with anyone despite the fact that Americans had far more respect for the Constitution in 1880 than we do today.

Minor v. Happersett didn't settle anything. It clearly stipulates “for the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts” (”these doubts” referring to citizenship of those born in the United States of alien parents). How can a ruling which finds the issue to be in "doubt" be cited as supporting your position?

By comparison, Kim Wong Ark was crystal clear. You cite an "attorney" to argue otherwise (without specifying why). I prefer to look at the words of the ruling itself:

According to the Court, the English common law rule was “any person who (whatever the nationality of his parents) is born within the British dominions is a natural-born British subject.” Such rule was “in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.....The term citizen, as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term subject in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of governments” hence “subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives.” Accordingly, “[a]ll persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.”


very good that you have cited the alleged NY Times (alleged because I have not done further research as to the veracity of this citation) article. Does that mean, though, that no one complained, that no one contacted their Representative, that no one took any measures to change it?? "Things" were at a much slower pace back then--there was no instantaneous exchange of information like today. Telephones were not even a common household item. Also, the article says his father emigrated here at the age of 18. It does not say he NEVER became a citizen. If he became a citizen and Arthur was born in Vermont, as stated, AFTER his father became a citizen (assuming his mother who is not mentioned was a citizen), would that not make Arthur a natural born citizen?? It seems to me that there is not enough information in that article to ascertain one way or the other--further research would be necessary (what year did his father emigrate here, was the mother a citizen, did the father ever become a citizen, was his father a citizen when Arthur was born, etc.) And just how slow a process was 'doing further research' back then, huh?

I have clear opinions about Supreme Court rulings from the 19th century because I have read MANY articles concerning the matter (both pro and con), not because I was there. I have not read articles concerning the alleged widespread notification that Arthur was ineligible to be POTUS...and the (alleged) one you cited is too vague, imo.

Anyway, I don't know if you're an attorney, Atkinson, but Mr. Apuzzo is, and I agree with his stance on the natural born citizen controversy. Then we have the Law of Nations, of which our founders were well aware.

O.P.O.G.G. - Fighting the attempted devolution of the rEVOLution
Ron Paul 2012...and beyond

Why haven't you done further

Why haven't you done further research? Aren't you in the least bit curious? It isn't hard to do. You are the one, after all, who is making the affirmative claim that a whole class of American citizens should be banned from the oval office, not me. If you like, I can do your research for you, make a scan of the article and post it. If I did, would it make any difference to you? Please let me know if it would be a waste of time...or have have you already made up your mind?

Let us review. When this "alleged" article appeared in much cited national newspaper it was very early in the 1880 presidential campaign....yet birthers, who like to boast about their historical detective skills, have not presented shred, even a shred, of evidence that it raised ANY red flag among Arthur's political opponents (who were legion).

If you are right, Americans in the 1880s were clueless idiots who couldn't see the nose in front of their collective faces. I would argue that, to the contrary, that Americans had far more respect for the Constitution than most of their modern birther counterparts (most of whom, btw, are warmongers) do. Things may have been "slow" in 1880 but people back then weren't idiots. Any of any Arthur's many critics in Washington, DC, for example, could have easily walked down the street to check out his father's naturalization records but you have not provided ANY, and I mean ANY, reason to believe that a single one of them even contemplated doing so. Heck, you haven't provided a shred of evidence that anyone in the "slow" 1880s thought of doing so during the rest of the nineteenth century!


Thanks for the clarification :-)

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

Obama's Kenyan father kinda shows us how that would be

Handled. And there is this "a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "by birth" or "at birth", either by being born "in" the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents"


I am!

It's called 14th amendment citizenship.


14th amendment has nothing to do with Natural Born Status

it only deals with simple citizenship and specific to a particular situation at that

you are mixing apples with oranges