Tag Archive for: Marco Rubio

‘No Comparison’: Rubio Shuts Down Comparisons Between Trump And Biden Over Chinese Balloon

Republican Florida Sen. Marco Rubio said Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union” that there is “no comparison” between the Trump administration and Biden administration over their respective handling of Chinese surveillance balloons.

The U.S. took down the spy balloon Saturday afternoon after the craft was spotted floating over several states over multiple days, including Idaho and Montana. The Pentagon was tracking the balloon as it headed eastward over the Carolinas before hovering above the Atlantic Ocean. U.S. military jets were seen flying near the balloon while there were several recovery vessels in the waters below.

Tapper first asked what type of information the spy balloon may have been able to gather, with Rubio stating that while he doesn’t have a definitive answer on what type of information was collected but said the larger takeaway is that the balloon sent a “clear message.”

“I think beyond just the ability to collect information, it is the ability to send a clear message, and that is that we have the ability to do this and America can’t do anything about it,” Rubio said. “If they’re not going to be able to stop a balloon from flying over U.S. airspace, how is America going to come to your aid if we invade Taiwan, take land from India, or Islands from the Philippines and Japan?”

“The Pentagon says they know of Chinese doing this four other times, previously once at the beginning of the Biden administration, three times during the Trump administration,” Tapper said. “You’re saying ‘no, that’s not true’?”

“No, what I’m saying – well the difference is this,” Rubio said. “Have we seen the Chinese fly these balloons in the past? Yes. I think there’s Twitter pictures of it flying at one point off the coast of the U.S. down south somewhere. The existence of the balloons is not a mystery to people in that field. What we’ve never seen, what is unprecedented and whoever the source is at the Department of Defense would have to acknowledge this, what is unprecedented is a balloon flight that entered over Idaho, over Montana, over all these sensitive military installations, Air Force bases, ICBM fields, right across the middle of the country, that has never happened before, that’s unprecedented.”

“That it flew briefly over some part of the continental U.S., that’s one thing,” Rubio continued. “But what we saw this week, this is unprecedented. This is no comparison anything that may have happened up to this point.”

The Department of Defense released a statement Thursday claiming that “instances of this kind of balloon activity have been observed previously over the past several years.”

Former Defense Sec. Mark Esper, who served in the Trump administration from July 2019 through November 2020 said he was “surprised” to hear comparisons being drawn, noting he does not recall any similar incident during his time in office.

“I don’t ever recall somebody coming into my office or reading anything that the Chinese had a surveillance balloon above the United States.”

“I would remember that for sure,” he added, while on CNN.

AUTHOR

BRIANNA LYMAN

News and commentary writer.

RELATED TWEET:

RELATED ARTICLES:

About that Chinese balloon that floated across the USA

The White House KNEW About the Chinese Spy Balloon and Covered It Up

‘Why Did The US Not Shoot It Down Then?’ Tapper Grills Buttigieg On Why Admin Waited So Long To Shoot Balloon Down

Here’s How The Chinese Responded When A US Spy Plane Neared Chinese Air Space

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Marco Rubio Canvasser Brutally Assaulted And Hospitalized, Senator Says

Republican Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida claimed that multiple assailants attacked and seriously injured a canvasser backing the senator Sunday night.

“Last night one of our canvassers wearing my T-shirt and a Desantis hat was brutally attacked by 4 animals who told him Republicans weren’t allowed in their neighborhood in #Hialeah #Florida,” Rubio posted on Twitter Monday. “He suffered internal bleeding, a broken jaw & will need facial reconstructive surgery.”

Hialeah police arrested one suspect Monday, according to the Miami Herald. Rubio posted photos of the canvasser wearing a T-shirt from the Rubio campaign on a gurney that loaded him onto an ambulance.

“Sadly, we get the news and we’re still waiting for details. It’s always important to have details,” Rubio said during a Monday rally, the Miami Herald reported. “We’re not like these other people that always jump to conclusions, but we know this: Someone wearing a Rubio T-Shirt and a DeSantis hat was walking in a neighborhood not far from here yesterday when four individuals assaulted him, broke his nose, broke his jaw.”

President Joe Biden, Democrats and the media have escalated attacks against Republicans since the Aug. 8 raid on Mar-a-Lago, the Florida estate owned by former President Donald Trump. Biden labeled Trump’s supporters “a threat to democracy” during a Sept. 1 speech in Philadelphia while Democratic Rep. Tim Ryan urged America to “kill and confront” a movement he described as “extremist” during a Sept. 13 MSNBC appearance.

An 83-year-old woman campaigning against Proposal 3 in Michigan was allegedly shot in the back Sept. 20 while passing out campaign literature. In North Dakota, a man who allegedly ran down 18-year-old Cayler Ellingson on Sept. 18, reportedly claimed the teen was a “Republican extremist.”

“On Sunday, October 23, 2022, at approximately 6:30 p.m., Officers responded to 140 E 60 Street in reference to a fight. At arrival, officers located the 27 year old victim with multiple bruises and a laceration,” a Hialeah Police Department spokesman told the Daily Caller News Foundation via email. “The Initial investigation revealed the victim, was walking on the sidewalk passing out fliers when he was confronted by Javier Lopez (Arrested). Mr. Lopez told the victim he was not allowed to walk on the sidewalk and pass out fliers in his neighborhood. The victim, in order to avoid the confrontation walked across the street where he was again confronted by Mr. Lopez. During the verbal dispute, Mr. Lopez then struck the victim multiple times in the face and head causing the injuries.”

“Officers on scene located Javier Lopez and took him into custody,” the spokesman concluded.

This story has been updated with comment from the Hialeah Police Department.

AUTHOR

HAROLD HUTCHISON

Reporter.

RELATED VIDEO: ‘We All Want The Same Things’: Jesse Watters Says ‘Normal People’ Reject Dems’ Agenda

RELATED ARTICES:

Biden Says He’s In Favor Of Minors Getting Transgender Surgery

‘The Deepest Level Of Corruption’: Tucker Blasts FBI Inaction Over Firebombed Pregnancy Center

Gay Group Launches Protest Against Sex Ed Curriculum Teaching Kindergarteners About Gender Identity

MSNBC Host Asks Dem Congressman If Foreign Countries Should ‘Monitor Our Elections’

POLL: Republicans Prefer Ron DeSantis Over Donald Trump To Influence GOP

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Sen. Marco Rubio Calls Out Migrants’ Lawsuit Against Gov. DeSantis: ‘They’re Not Even Here Legally’

The Florida senator criticized the class action lawsuit filed by three Venezuelan migrants Tuesday over the flight to Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts. Alianza Americas, a Chicago-based network of migrant-led organizations and the migrants — Yanet Doe, Pablo Doe, and Jesus Doe — argued they were used “for the sole purpose of advancing their own personal, financial, and political interests.”

“Think about this, okay? People came into this country illegally, violating our laws and the first thing they do is get lawyers and use our laws to sue an elected governor, to sue a state,” the senator said. “I mean, just think about that. They just got here, they’re not even here legally, they didn’t enter the country the proper way, and they’re immediately in court demanding rights and claims under our laws. This is outrageous. What other country in the world would that even be allowed? What other country in the world would even tolerate that?”

“This is not immigration, what we’re seeing,” he continued. “This is mass migration. That’s a very different thing. But to just think about the fact that somebody just came here illegally and within a week they’re in court and they have lawyers representing them in court suing the American government whose laws they just violated is unbelievable. It’s outrageous. It angers me and it should anger everybody.”

The migrants alleged that accomplices acting on behalf of DeSantis and his administration “manipulated” and “stripped” them of constitutional rights protected under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The accomplices allegedly pretended to be individuals offering the migrants humanitarian assistance.

“Defendants manipulated them, stripped them of their dignity, deprived them of their liberty, bodily autonomy, due process, and equal protection under law, and impermissibly interfered with the Federal Government’s exclusive control over immigration in furtherance of an unlawful goal and a personal political agenda,” the lawsuit stated.

Taryn Fenske, a spokesperson for DeSantis, said in a statement received by the Daily Caller Tuesday that the migrants voluntarily chose to board the two planes chartered to Massachusetts.

“The transportation of the immigrants to Martha’s Vineyard was done on a voluntary basis,” Fenske said. “The immigrants were homeless, hungry, and abandoned – and these activists didn’t care about them then. Florida’s program gave them a fresh start in a sanctuary state and these individuals opted to take advantage of chartered flights to Massachusetts. It was disappointing that Martha’s Vineyard called in the Massachusetts National Guard to bus them away from the island within 48 hours.”

Migrants received brochures informing them of their destination before boarding the flight to Martha’s Vineyard. The packets showed the location and offered a variety of resources on job opportunities and community services areas.

AUTHOR

NICOLE SILVERIO

Media reporter. Follow Nicole Silverio on Twitter @NicoleMSilverio

RELATED ARTICLES:

DeSantis Keeps White House, Delaware And Media Guessing On Migrant Flights

‘Not In My Vineyard!’ Liberals Scream As DeSantis Air Flies On The Wings Of Their Hypocrisy

Will DeSantis Be Convicted For Kidnapping Over Martha’s Vineyard Flights? Experts Say It’s Unlikely

Border Patrol Released Illegals Into The US And Didn’t Track Them, Watchdog Finds

‘Take The Politics Out Of This’: Dem El Paso Mayor Outlines Situation At Border

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Social Justice Unionism Means Pro-Abortion Big Labor

Last week, Politico reported on a leaked draft of a Supreme Court opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade and return the question of abortion regulation to the states, ending the Court’s invention of a constitutional right to abortion. The draft opinion was greeted with predictable outrage from left-progressives, including those in organized labor.

Statements

Now, many people, especially those on the social-conservative right who are re-exploring aligning with organized labor, might not expect union bosses to be among the left-progressive leaders ready to jump on a leaked, not-finalized Supreme Court opinion, but they were. Examples include:

  • Liz Shuler, who ascended to the presidency of the AFL-CIO after the death of Richard Trumka, argued, “We must be able to control our own bodies—which has a direct impact on economic justice and the ability of working people to make a better life for themselves and their families.”
  • Mary Kay Henry, president of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), denounced an “extremist, anti-woman majority of the Supreme Court” (that, it should be noted, is suspected to include Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a woman) for taking away “a woman’s fundamental right to an abortion.”
  • Jean Ross, president of National Nurses United, said the opinion “should be viewed as part of the broader far-right assault on gender-affirming health rights in this country, including the laws targeting trans youth and their families, attacks on LBGTQ individuals, and homophobic bans on the word ‘gay’ in education,” presumably a deceptive reference to Florida’s Parental Rights in Education legislation, frequently misnamed in “objective” press accounts.

I Told You So

These statements and other pro-abortion activities by organized labor, such as SEIU Healthcare Illinois/Indiana rallying with Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D) and Planned Parenthood or the new Amazon Labor Union calling for protests in New York City, demonstrate that American labor unions are inseparable from social left-progressivism through an ideological practice known as “social justice unionism.” Back in 2021, we published a serial outlining how organized labor provided financial support to Washington State measures introducing Planned Parenthood–aligned sex education material into public school curriculums.

And what of the expressed hope of Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), that union organizations could provide a counterweight to “a requirement that the workers embrace management’s latest ‘woke’ human resources fad”? Well, I was skeptical, noting that “operatives who run the labor unions endorse woke H.R. fads. And to the extent they don’t, they support going even further.”

Now, I may enter into evidence the statement of Sara Nelson, head of the flight attendants’ union AFA-CWA and rumored candidate to challenge Shuler for the leadership of the House of Labor, last seen campaigning to extend the now-enjoined traveler mask mandate when it came up for renewal in March. Nelson explicitly called on her members’ bosses to engage in woke capitalism:

We call on airline management to stand with us and for equality, anti-discrimination, and mutual respect. It is not enough that corporations espouse these principles as core to their missions—now is the time to demonstrate this commitment to their employees and passengers. This is about our safety and our freedom. We cannot work if we are not safe.

Social justice unionism means that organized labor is an additional pressure point forcing capitalists to be woke, not a point of opposition. The reaction to the Supreme Court leak should prove that beyond doubt.

AUTHOR

Michael Watson

Michael is Research Director for Capital Research Center and serves as the managing editor for InfluenceWatch. A graduate of the College of William and Mary, he previously worked for a…+ MORE BY MICHAEL WATSON

Rex Tillerson is neither a yes man nor will he be boxed in on U.S. foreign policy

In a The Daily Signal article titled “9 Issues Discussed at Rex Tillerson’s Confirmation Hearing to Be Trump’s Secretary of State” Josh Siegel reported on the confirmation hearing of U.S. Secretary of State designate Rex Tillerson.

Reading Siegel’s article I came away with two impressions of Mr. Tillerson, first he will not be boxed in and second he is not a yes man. How refreshing.

First let’s look at Tillerson as a man who will not be boxed in when it comes to U.S. foreign policy. Siegel reported:

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., who ran for president against Trump, pressed Tillerson on whether he backs the assessment of U.S. intelligence agencies about Russia’s election-year hacking.

“Do you believe during the 2016 presidential campaign that Russian intelligence services directed a campaign of measures involving the hacking of emails, the strategic leak of emails, the use of internet trolls, and dissemination of fake news to denigrate a presidential candidate and undermine faith in our election process?” Rubio asked.

Tillerson described the findings by the intelligence agencies as “clearly troubling,” and called cyber attacks from foreign actors such as Russia “the greatest and most complex threat” facing the country today. He labeled Russia’s annexation of Crimea to be “illegal” and proposed tougher measures to combat the Kremlin’s invasion of eastern Ukraine, vowing that he would advocate providing Ukrainian soldiers with weapons.

But Tillerson expressed hope that he could help improve relations with Russia, potentially seeking to ally with it in areas of common interest even if America “will not likely to be ever friends with the Kremlin.”

“Dialogue is critical so these [issues] don’t spin out of control,” Tillerson said. “We need to move Russia from adversary always to partner at times.”

Read more…

Tillerson clearly understands that Russia, and many other countries, act in their own self interests and against the interests of the United States. His reply was measured in that he understood that cyberwarfare is a national security threat, that invading another country is wrong and both must be punished. However, diplomacy is not just about jumping into a hot or cold war, as Senator’s Marco Rubio, John McCain and Lindsey Graham seem to want. Rather it is about pressuring those who would do us harm using all means available. The above interaction shows the sophistication of Tillerson, a man who thinks outside the box. Tillerson’s statement, “We need to move Russia from adversary always to partner at times” is that of a man who understands Russia more than some members of the U.S. Senate, Republicans and Democrats alike. Again, refreshing.

Tillerson is not a yes man for President-elect Trump either. Siegel noted:

In the presidential campaign, Trump questioned the NATO alliance, and said members need to do more to earn the U.S.’ support.

Tillerson expressed a stronger commitment to NATO, promising to follow Article 5 of the treaty that enshrines the principle that an attack against one member is an attack against all.

“The Article 5 commitment is invaluable and the U.S. will stand by the commitment,” Tillerson said.

He also expressed concern for Baltic states that worry about Russian incursion on their borders.

“Our NATO allies are right to be alarmed about a resurgent Russia,” Tillerson said.

[ … ]

In another contrast with Trump, Tillerson did not say he explicitly opposes the Obama administration’s Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal.

“I do not oppose TPP, but I share some of Trump’s concerns that it doesn’t fully support American interests,” Tillerson said.

[ … ]

Echoing Exxon Mobil’s evolving calculus on climate change, Tillerson said he recognized the threat of a warming planet, and that the U.S. should “be at the table” in coming up with solutions to limit greenhouse gas emissions.

If confirmed, he said he and others in the Trump administration would review the 180-country Paris climate change agreement before deciding whether to remain party to it.

“It’s important that the United States maintain its seat at the table with the conversations around how to deal with the threats of climate change,” he said.

As chief of Exxon Mobil, Tillerson publicly backed a tax on carbon in 2009, and expressed support for the Paris Agreement in 2015.

Yet, late in the hearing, he seemed to downplay the threat of climate change.

“I don’t see [climate change] as the imminent national security threat as perhaps other do,” Tillerson said.

Read more…

Tillerson will, on some issues, present a President Trump with differing views. That is healthy. It shows that President-elect Trump is filling his cabinet with quality people who think differently than him and provide opposing views. Once again, refreshing.

Donald Trump’s selection says as much about the President-elect as it does about Mr. Tillerson. There is a new way of thinking about foreign policy and a fresh approach that is pro-U.S. interests.

After reading Mr. Tillerson’s testimony it is clear he will not be foreign a policy rubber stamp as were former Secretaries Hillary Clinton and John Kerry and that he will think outside the foreign policy box of the Obama administration.

Very refreshing indeed.

RELATED ARTICLE: Secretary of State Nominee Tillerson Criticizes U.S. Decision to Abstain from UN Israel Vote

Three Names that will go down in infamy: Crist, Rubio and Cruz

There are now three infamous “Republican” names that will be remembered for decades to come. Each harmed not only their Party but also betrayed the American people. The names are:

  1. Former Florida Governor Charlie Crist, who when he lost his GOP Primary bid for the U.S. Senate ran as an independent, then changed party affiliation and is now running for the U.S. House of Representatives in Florida’s District 13 (prophetic).
  2. Senator Marco Rubio, who won the GOP Primary for the U.S. Senate promising that the word “amnesty” was not in his lexicon. Once elected Rubio became the face of the GOP effort for “immigration reform”. Rubio lied and Floridians carry the $5 billion burden to medicate, educate and incarcerate illegal aliens. Rubio is running to keep his seat in the U.S. Senate after a failed campaign to become the GOP nominee for president.
  3. Senator Ted Cruz, who began his run for the GOP nomination for president as an outsider and then became the consummate insider. Cruz failed to endorse the GOP nominee on July 20, 2016. This failure led to his being booed at the GOP Convention (watch the video below).

VIDEO: Wednesday, July 20 2016: During his speech at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, Ted Cruz refused to endorse Donald Trump and was booed by the RNC crowd – then Donald Trump shows up before Cruz is finished speaking and the crowd goes wild!

After Cruz’s remarks Ann Coulter Tweeted:

Last night, Cruz showed that he’s earned a leading role in the nation’s political future. And that nation is Canada.

An op-ed titled “That Moment When Ted Cruz Doused Himself With Gasoline and Lit the Match On Stage” notes:

It’s called self immolation.  July 20th 2016 will go down in Cruz family history as that moment when Ted Cruz detonated his career suicide belt and created the #NeverCruz movement.

Forget the non endorsement, that’s not the issue.  Senator Cruz had a remarkable opportunity, he blew it.  Cruz accepted an invitation to speak to the GOP convention then insulted the audience.  Cruz couldn’t rise above his own brutal ego and petty selfishness.  The arrogance simply went too far, he humiliated himself in front of millions.

It happened just like we predicted it would.  Donald Trump gave Senator Ted Cruz the rope, and Ted hung himself -diminished himself- on national TV.

Don’t be too angry…  The backlash Cruz is going to get from his prideful and arrogant display will be written in the annals of political history and shared with political science classes for generations.

Read more.

Ted Cruz now joins a rogues gallery of those who cannot abide losing and will do anything to win, even if it means harming their party and the people who trusted them and put them into positions of power.

I recall a Tweet that pointed out TrusTED was the past tense of the word trust. I guess that Tweet was prophetic. Can you say betrayal, traitor, establishment republican?

These three names will live in infamy.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Cruz gets booed after he declines to endorse Trump

Video: Laura Ingraham Challenges “Boys With Bruised Egos” To Follow RNC Pledge, Endorse Trump

Tucker Carlson: No Chance Cruz Will Ever Get Elected President, Voters Will Not Forget This

Cleveland Police: Protester Lights Himself On Fire While Trying To Burn American Flag

Who’s Driving The Trump Train?

WASHINGTON, D.C. /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Wondering who the key players are in the Clinton, Cruz, Kasich, Rubio, Sanders and Trump camps are? Qorvis MSLGROUP’s “Influencer2016” digitally shows the connections between the candidates and his or her staff.

“Hate them or love them, the 2016 presidential candidates have proven to be some of the most fascinating personalities we’ve ever seen,” said Michael Petruzzello, president of Qorvis MSLGROUP, “We think voters are curious about the people behind the scenes and, with Influencer2016, you can see who’s involved in the campaigns, where the spheres of influence are, as well as the extent of those links.”

CLICK HERE TO LEARN WHO IS BEHIND EACH OF THE CANDIDATES FOR PRESIDENT CAMPAIGN.

About Qorvis MSLGROUP

Qorvis MSLGROUP is the Washington, D.C.office for MSLGROUP, the flagship strategic communications and engagement consultancy of Publicis Groupe.

With more than 3,000 people across close to 100 offices worldwide, MSLGROUP is also the largest PR network in Europe, fast-growing China and India. The group offers strategic planning and counsel, insight-guided thinking and big, compelling ideas – followed by thorough execution.

About Publicis Groupe

Publicis Groupe [Euronext Paris FR0000130577, CAC 40] is a global leader in marketing, communication, and business transformation. In a world marked by increased convergence and consumer empowerment, Publicis Groupe offers a full range of services and skills: digital, technology & consulting with Publicis.Sapient (SapientNitro, Sapient Global Markets, Sapient Government Services, Razorfish Global, DigitasLBi, Rosetta) – the world’s largest most forward-thinking digitally centered platform focused exclusively on digital transformation in an always-on world – as well as creative networks such as BBH, Leo Burnett, Publicis Worldwide, Saatchi & Saatchi, public affairs, corporate communications and events with MSLGROUP, ad tech solutions with VivaKi, media strategy, planning and buying through Starcom MediaVest Group and ZenithOptimedia, healthcare communications, with Publicis Healthcare Communications Group (PHCG), and finally, brand asset production with Prodigious. Present in 108 countries, the Groupe employs more than 76,000 professionals.

School Is About Freedom, Marco Rubio, Not Just Money

Republicans including Marco Rubio parrot leftist lines about how education’s ultimate goal is money. It needs to be a great deal more than that if our republic is to survive.

Once again, presidential candidate Marco Rubio, when asked a question about education, disparaged liberal learning by repeating his well-rehearsed lines about preparing students for careers in a “global” and “twenty-first-century” economy.

During the CNN town hall last week, he said that rather than teaching philosophy (“Roman philosophy,” no less), colleges should teach practical things—like welding. Sadly, Rubio is not alone. Many Republicans, forgetting their conservative roots, have joined Democrats in advancing a utilitarian view of education.

Now, there is nothing wrong with being a welder. My father, an immigrant, was one. And there is nothing wrong with philosophy—for the student in a technical school. In fact, it was our Founders’ belief that only a literate, well-educated citizenry could govern themselves. Even the tradesman should be versed in the basics of literature, history, and ancient philosophy, they thought. “A well-instructed people alone can be permanently a free people,” said James Madison.

Modern Philosophy Is Merely Cynicism

Rubio, however, does not distinguish between legitimate philosophy and what philosophy, like the rest of the humanities, has become under the regime of tenured radicals. The problem is that philosophy professors no longer teach their subjects or, if they do, it is to cast suspicion upon the very enterprise, as I learned in graduate school in the 1990s.

Yancy would do well to review the Greek philosophers on the art of rhetoric and what they have to say about not insulting your audience.
My seminar on ancient rhetoric consisted of the professor elevating the sophists, the teachers who for fees taught the art of persuasion by making the worse case seem better. The ends were practical: so citizens could defend themselves in court. To my amazement, my professor ridiculed the traditional philosophical goals of searching for the truth.

In the intervening decades, the situation has become worse. Consider Emory University philosophy professor George Yancy. This full professor, according to the university’s website, specializes in “Critical Philosophy of Race (phenomenology of racial embodiment, social ontology of race),” “Critical Whiteness Studies (white subject formation, white racist ambush, white opacity and embeddedness. . .),” and “African-American Philosophy and Philosophy of the Black Experience (resistance, Black identity formation . . .).”

Yancy received national attention in December for penning the screed “Dear White America” in The New York Times. He began, “I have a weighty request. As you read this letter, I want you to listen with love, a sort of love that demands that you look at parts of yourself that might cause pain and terror, as James Baldwin would say. Did you hear that? You may have missed it. I repeat: I want you to listen with love. Well, at least try.”

Yancy would do well to review the Greek philosophers on the art of rhetoric and what they have to say about not insulting your audience (“Did you hear that?” “Well, at least try.”). Behind such appeals like Yancy’s is an implied threat. Invoking the names of Trayvon Martin, Eric Garner, Tamir Rice, and other allegedly innocent victims of police violence, he accused “White America” of being racist through and through. Such rhetoric presages and justifies the angry mobs on our campuses and in our streets.

Philosophy Doesn’t Mean Grievance-Mongering

College campuses, once the places where the civilized arts of debate and the pursuit of truth were taught, have become places where the PhDs, doctors of philosophy, lead mobs of students in pursuit of retribution against some “systemic” wrong, usually in reference to race, ethnicity, or gender. Socialist presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, supporter of the Black Lives Matter mob movement, is promising to make such education free.

Our presidential candidates should consider what philosophy, rightly understood, could do. Indeed, by studying Aristotle’s “Rhetoric” students would be able to distinguish between different rhetorical appeals and learn the legitimate arts of persuasion—those that allow us to live in a civilized manner, where we resolve our differences through debate, not violence.

Were students to study Plato’s “Republic,” they might understand the dangers of a popular democracy and why the American Founders rejected one. They would consider Thrasymachus’s contention that justice is synonymous with strength, with being a “winner,” regardless of the methods. They might decide to evaluate such rhetoric carefully when it comes from a political candidate, like Donald Trump.

They would consider whether it is good for the government to put people in certain classes, as craftsmen or “guardians,” instead of allowing them to choose for themselves, or whether government should raise children rather than parents. What has been the historical outcome of such societies with centralized government, five-year economic plans, government-assigned jobs, and child-rearing from infancy? Are there any similarities to what Sanders is proposing?

Education Is Ultimately about Self-Governance

This is not to say that a class discussion should center on current political candidates. Indeed, the truly philosophical professor will keep the discussion largely away from the immediate. If the lesson is taught well, the student should come to his or her own conclusions and be able to carry those lessons into adulthood. That is the purpose of an education, not regimented job training and political molding.

The student should come to his or her own conclusions and be able to carry those lessons into adulthood. That is the purpose of an education.
The responses to Rubio’s statements in November, by such leftist outlets as ThinkProgress, CNN, and Huffington Post, were quite telling. They replied in kind to his materialist arguments. “Philosophers make more money than welders!” they said. In this they betrayed their utilitarian view of education, one that dominates the Obama administration, specifically through Common Core, a federally coerced program designed to produce compliant workers in the global economy.

The job training part has lured some short-sighted or corrupt Republicans. In higher education, too, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker advanced short-sighted “careerism,” as if he had forgotten, as Peter Lawler pointed out, Alexis de Tocqueville’s argument for studying the Greek and Roman classics. Earlier this year, Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin suggested that electrical engineering was worthy of support, while French literature was not.

The other part of the progressive vision for education is to produce graduates who adhere to the state’s status quo. Students are trained to work collectively, focus on emotions, refrain from making independent judgments, and read in a way that does not go beyond ferreting out snippets of information. They are not asked to read an entire Platonic dialogue or novel. They do not get the big picture, from the dawn of civilization.

Our current educational methods are a far cry from the Founders’ robust views, of preparing citizens who are literate, logical, and knowledgeable; citizens capable of voting intelligently.

We Need Cultural Renewal, Not Materialism

We should embrace this conservative view of education. Although it is extremely rare in today’s college classrooms, it is being advanced in more than 150 privately funded academic centers on and off campuses. According to the John William Pope Center for Education Renewal, these centers “preserve and promote the knowledge and perspectives that are disappearing from the academy.”

One of these is the Alexander Hamilton Institute for the Study of Western Civilization, where I am a resident fellow. It was founded by three Hamilton College professors in 2007, and is located in the village of Clinton.

AHI offers students the option to read the classics in a manner that is increasingly difficult to find in the typically highly politicized open curriculum. AHI-sponsored reading groups have focused on the works of such important figures as Leo Strauss, St. Augustine, and Josef Pieper. This semester Dr. Elizabeth D’Arrivee is leading a discussion group on Plato’s “Republic.”

Political candidates would do well to explain how they will support such efforts for educational renewal, instead of disparaging philosophy and literature.

RELATED ARTICLE: Campus Protesters Try to Silence Conservative Speaker, Demand College President’s Resignation

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Federalist. Photo Crush Rush / Shutterstock.com

Marco Rubio holds the coat tails of Mitch McConnell

Why would Marco Rubio get behind and support a Republican in Name Only (a.k.a. GOPe) like Mitch McConnell (R-KY) over the conservative TEA Party patriot Matt Bevin?

Well, first of all you must understand that Marco Rubio is not a TEA Party conservative. He just played one on TV in a previous movie role and fooled thousands of people across the great state of Florida.

Rubio is a weak capitulating boy wonder that is afraid of his own shadow. He does not belong in the U.S. Senate or in the White House. He is now owned and operated by the embedded GOP establishment in D.C.

Why Senior Chief, are you not friends of this guy? You have his cell phone and personal email accounts ?

Yes, indeed I do and that information will remain private and confidential. I will never release it. But with that said, my political opinion of Marco Rubio is that of disgust and disdain. He is a fake and a total failure to his constituents.

Marco Rubio stuck a knife in the back of this retired Navy Senior Chief Petty Officer after he got what he wanted from me politically. Then his true colors washed ashore like the wreckage from a Malaysian jet airliner.

Hmm, so you have a beef with the guy and want to hurt him politically?

I do what must be done to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Friendships are flushed when people on my very short friends list act in a treasonous way.

If I cut you off and bury you, the chances are you handed me the scissors and the shovel. In this case I had to pull a knife out of my back first before I could start digging the hole in which to plant this lair.

So to answer the question why is Marco Rubio backing Mitch McConnell over the TEA Party Conservative Matt Bevin. I offer you some suggestions.

In 1964, Mitch McConnell was ceremoniously thrown out of the U.S. Army for an incident whereby he propositioned another male soldier and grabbed his p****s for extracurricular activity. The recruit promptly reported this incident to his superiors who then took action against McConnell. McConnell was thrown out of the Army for engaging in homosexual behaviors and disrupting good order and discipline.

Then the alleged cover up started when McConnell used his connections to a U.S. Senator who very nicely changed the reason why he was thrown out of the Army. His discharge was changed from gay sex to having some sort of eye illness which was all bogus.

According to some accounts Mitch McConnell also loves going to Thailand to attend private parties where wealthy and powerful gay and bisexual American men procure young Thai men for gay sex.

One report has Mitch McConnell seen with one of his male buddies at one of these parties. Not accusing but lets get a Freedom of Information Act release on Mitch McConnell’s flights abroad. Just curious if the tax payer is funding it?

Perhaps Marco Rubio who was also allegedly engaged in foam parties can relate to this guy. Just my opinion. Not accusing. Do not hide who or what you are. Integrity!

So what other reasons would you see Marco backing this GOPe liberal Mitch McConnell instead of Matt Bevin the conservative TEA Party Senator? Does Marco Rubio agree with abortion? Good point.

Mitch McConnell actually supports Planned Parenthood and when the tax payers of the United States saw the videos of them selling baby parts for profit the out cry was to defund this slaughter house of unborn children. Planned Parenthood was scheduled to be successfully defunded in a Highway Bill but Mitch McConnell blocked an amendment that would have stopped it. Instead he let it go through as fully funded. That my friends is working hand in hand with Satan himself.

So you have to ask yourself why would a Catholic boy like Marco back a person that supports the slaughter of unborn children? Good question. Do you want this man Marco Rubio in the White House now?

Perhaps Marco Rubio was happy when the unconstitutional Obama-Romneycare passed because he signed up using tax payer money for the subsidy of about $15,000, which is our money by the way.

So why would Marco get behind Mitch McConnell and publicly support defunding Obama-Romneycare and then take the tax payer subsidy?

Perhaps it is because Mitch McConnell also supports Romney – Obamacare.

In May 2014 Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) implied and then followed through by funding Romney Obama care when he said he would not support repealing, Kentucky’s state-run health care exchange.

In order to stop Romney – Obama care one must defund it and return the money back to the U.S. Treasury. McConnell thinks other wise. Marco signed up for it.

Marco makes $174,000 a year and can well afford private insurance but instead he put his hands in our wallets and we are paying his insurance premiums now. The fact that Romney – Obamacare is unconstitutional does not matter to these two.

Perhaps Marco Rubio agrees with Mitch McConnell’s position much like Obama’s that the rich (the job creators) are not paying enough taxes and must redistribute more of their wealth. Forget the fact that nobody reading this has ever worked for a poor person unless doing a volunteer civic duty. Agreed ?

Here are Mitch McConnell’s own words, part of a verbatim transcript from Mitch McConnell’­s 1990 reelection campaign ad, entitled “Fair Share”:

“Hi, I’m Mitch McConnell. I’m sure you’ve been watching this mess in Washington. I’d like you to know how I feel about it.

I haven’t voted for one of these lousy budget packages for years and I won’t vote for this one. It would raise taxes on the wrong people.

Unlike some folks around here I think everyone should pay their fair share. Including the rich.

In a time of financial difficulty, we all need to make sacrifices, and asking people with a lot to pay just a little more, is not unreasonable. It’s just simply the way you solve financial problems”.

Patriots, who was the last person you heard say a rich mans pay check belongs to someone else because they must pay their fair share ?

OBAMA!!!!

We as tax payers are also funding illegal immigrants which Marco and Mitch also support. I can say with full authority that the U.S. Constitution is under a full frontal assault from these two guys.

They both need to be removed from office as soon as possible to protect the fiscal and moral and constitutional well being of this nation.

So there you have it ladies and gentleman. A perspective from the Senior Chief on the man leading the U.S. Senate Mitch McConnell and his man cub Marco Rubio, now holding his coat tails and learning from his Senate mentor how to steer this nation towards Socialism/Communism/Marxism.

Is Marco Rubio a man you want in the White House? An indecisive weak capitulating turn coat who gave John Kerry a job, gave Obama his TPP bill and has been MIA on most every other major piece of legislation critical to the constitutional governance of this nation?

I don’t think so either. He not only let down his constituents but he also is an embarrassment to his team that works hard for him. They are forced to cover their eyes when he acts and votes like a left wing New World Order socialist.

RELATED ARTICLE: Opinion: Marco Rubio goes into freefall among those betting on the New Hampshire primary

Marco Rubio’s Recent Climate Change of Heart ‘Disingenuous’

ken fieldsNEW YORK, NY /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — In response to Marco Rubio’s recent campaign event in New Hampshire where the candidate appears to have made a climate change of heart and has called for America to be “number one in wind, and number one in solar, and number one in biofuels, and number one in renewables, number one in energy efficiency. Let’s lead in all of these things,” independent presidential candidate Ken Fields (pictured right) responded by saying:

“For someone who has so vehemently opposed any acknowledgement of the scientific consensus backing the evidence of human-caused climate change due to our planet’s reliance on fossil fuels, Rubio’s change of heart seems disingenuous at best. He has voted against energy efficiency and clean energy tax incentives. It’s hard to believe him.”

When pressed for further comment, Fields stated, “The recent and continued volatility in global oil markets should be evidence enough that energy security is not simply a matter of having and exploiting our own fossil fuel resources, but rather being completely independent of fossil fuels altogether.”

Fields officially launched his campaign last week on January 8th, 2016. His platform revolves around his slogan, “Greatness Must Be Earned” and to do great things, he has advocated the transition to 100% renewable energy for the country over the next 20 years. His policy plan includes, but is not limited to, creating the public and private mechanisms to encourage and nurture the financial markets to participate, a tax holiday for repatriated corporate capital that is invested in renewables and a carbon tax and dividend plan.

For further information on his policies and positions feel free to visit www.kenfields.net.

Senator Marco Rubio straddling the fence on Muslim refugees/Muslim migration

Julia Hahn has another good piece at Breitbart yesterday (hat tip: Joanne) on the refugee resettlement controversy and how it is roiling the 2016 Presidential campaign.

Haven’t we seen what happens when a boy runs this country?  And, so I can’t believe that any thinking person could say that Florida Senator Marco Rubio is ready for the job—don’t you think it’s time for an alpha male?  (O.K. throw tomatoes, eggs, whatever at me, I said it and stick by it!).

Somali terror woman

This Somali refugee woman was convicted of terror funding in Minnesota in 2013.

Here is Hahn about what Senator Rubio said yesterday in an interview with Chris Wallace:

In a surprising twist in the 2016 election, presidential aspirant Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) has proposed a new plan for helping President Obama resettle Syrian refugees in the United States.

Under Rubio’s new proposal, outlined on FOX News Sunday, the United States would focus on resettling the oldest and youngest refugees inside the United States, including those orphaned and widowed in what has become an Islamist battleground.

Rubio argued these refugees could be admitted under the “commonsense” test: “the 5-year-old orphan, a 90-year-old widow, and well-known Chaldean priest, these are obviously commonsense applications, and you can clearly vet them just by commonsense.”

This new tactic may be a politically risky one for Senator Rubio, as an outright majority of all voters oppose any Syrian resettlement—and, according to Rasmussen, 65 percent of conservative voters want zero refugees admitted into the U.S. from the Middle East.

Rubio cannot be trusted on immigration, the most important issue this country faces, or may ever face!

rubio

Continue reading here and consider a few additional points.

Once the women (not all will be old because they won’t leave the young mothers and bring in the children) are admitted they can apply, under the present refugee program, for their family members to join them (this is called chain migration).  In 2008, the Wall Street Journal first reported the shocking (maybe not so shocking!) news that thousands of Somalis had entered the US illegally by claiming a relationship to those already here.  The family reunification (P-3) was closed by the US State Department for years, but is now wide open again.

We covered the discovery and aftermath extensively, here.  The fraud was originally reported at the Wall Street Journal in August of 2008.

Even for those who say the State Department could now catch the fraudsters, does anyone really think that the women and children won’t be quickly applying for more family members to join them.  On what grounds would the husbands be refused?

~ Hahn discusses it, but I want to reiterate that it is the next generation of a refugee family where the jihadist recruitment is happening.  The parents might pass security checks while it is those little children (grown up) we raised and educated with our tax dollars who are thumbing their noses at your generosity and heading off to join al-Shabaab and ISIS.  Remember this?  Just a few news stories beginning back in 2008!

~And, what on earth makes Rubio think that American taxpayers are willing to bring in old women who will be placed immediately on Supplemental Social Security? See here, once and for all—-refugees over 65 years old are eligible for benefits under SSI!

~Hahn mentions Senator Rand Paul who was brave back in 2013 when he realized refugee terrorists had been resettled in his home town and wondered out loud why we were bringing in all the Iraqis and putting them on welfare.  He has since stopped asking that question, why?  Here is our complete archive on Rand Paul and Iraqi refugees.   See especially here and here (what role did Grover play in dissuading Paul from earlier critical comments?).

Following that Syrian refugee “vetting” shiny object?

And, my final thought as I watch and listen to Syrian refugee news on TV and on radio:  Are we being distracted (I know Trump is!) by the Syrian refugee resettlement plan at a point in time when we are bringing in thousands of other Muslim refugees who frankly can’t be screened much better—thousands and thousands of Somalis and Iraqis for instance (Uzbeks, Rohingya and Afghans too)?

I think the average American (watching TV) is thinking that the Syrians are the only refugees we are bringing in from the Middle East and Africa, and it isn’t helping them understand the serious implications of resettlement when they think the resettlement is in the future and that Obama is to blame—Republicans have supported the migration for decades as well!  They are here!

And, on the vetting issue, we have plenty of evidence that the youngsters are growing up radicalized (more devout!) in the US and the West generally, so let’s stop talking about vetting for just a few minutes!

Ted Cruz: It’s In His Heart

A frustrated hopeless patriot wrote…

Unfortunately Mr. Marcus, it’s not only the left but also the right that is out to destroy America. Wicked people in high places, the elite if you will, control both parties. That is why no matter who is elected that nothing changes.”

This patriot brother’s discouragement explains why I want Ted Cruz in the driver’s seat as president. On numerous occasions, Ted Cruz has proven that he has no problem being odd-man-out in regards to Washington politics. Cruz desires the same for our country as We the People.

I have made the following point numerous times. Politicians promise the moon on the campaign trail. The 64,000 dollar question is who will have the cojones and core conservative instincts to follow through if elected? Atop my list is Ted Cruz.

A gospel classic is titled, “It’s in My Heart.” Folks, Ted Cruz has proven that conservatism is in his heart. Our only hope of liberating ourselves from the “Washington cartel” (both parties conspiring against the people) as Cruz perfectly described it is to select a presidential nominee with conservatism in his/her heart.

Cruz is well experienced in being hated by both political parties and the media. He acts like a duck, allowing their relentless venomous rebukes to roll off his back. Cruz stays laser focused on doing what is right for God, country and We the People. That’s what has me standing up and cheering for Ted Cruz.

I love Dr Ben Carson. However, early in his campaign, I wrote an article praising Dr Carson for standing firm on a non-PC comment he made. My publisher informed me he could not publish the article because Dr Carson apologized. As I stated, I highly respect and love the man, but that action scared me folks. Early in his campaign, political inexperience prompted Dr. Carson to imply that he may be open to controls on owning a semi-automatic weapon depending on where one lives. Dr Carson now stands strong for the Second Amendment.

Trump’s success at slapping PC in the face has emboldened other presidential contenders to do the same, including Dr Carson. Will Dr Carson stand strong for conservatism if elected president?

Donald Trump has been a huge blessing, voicing the frustrations, outrage and desires of millions who long to see America made great again. It is quite remarkable that because of racial guilt, we have allowed an anti-American regime to dethrone us as the world power and transform us culturally, morally and economically for the past seven years. But I digress.

Unquestionably, if elected, Trump will make positive changes regarding our economy and immigration. On social issues extremely critical to who we are as a people, I do not sense much passion, urgency or commitment from brother Donald.

Ted Cruz is the total package.

Here are just a few of Sen Cruz’s greatest hits standing up for America and conservatism. With facts and common sense, Cruz crushed can’t-we-all-just-get-along-with-the Left John Kasich in debating Obama’s insane Iran Nuke deal

Cruz fearlessly called out the CNBC debate moderators, exposing them as “left-wing operatives.” 

Cruz blasted Obama for supporting sanctuary cities that refuse to enforce immigration law; endangering the lives of Americans.

Democrats arrogantly refuse to obey laws they do not like such as immigration law. This same bunch of Democrats/Leftists jailed Christian clerk Kim Davis. Davis refused to betray her faith by issuing same sex marriage licenses. Some Republicans/conservatives faltered. Cruz sent out a clarion call to “constitutionalists and lovers of liberty” to stand with Kim Davis. 

Cruz promises his first day as president will be extremely busy. He will “rescind every illegal executive action taken by Barack Obama,” including his “executive amnesty.” Cruz will instruct the DOJ to investigate Planned Parenthood and prosecute any criminal conduct uncovered.

Obama has been using the DOJ and IRS as his personal hit-squads against anyone opposing his transformation of America. Cruz promises to instruct both agencies to “cease persecuting” individuals for standing up for their rights.

Remember the Catholic nuns that have been helping the poor and elderly since 1839 bullied by Obama for not signing on to birth control against their faith? Cruz said as president he will send the Little Sisters of the Poor a letter dismissing their case. Cruz would also invite them to the WH to tell the world their story.

Continuing his first day in the Oval Office cleaning house, Cruz will end Obama’s catastrophic Iran Nuke deal. Ending day one as president, Cruz will begin the process of moving the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. Cruz said moving our embassy to Israel’s “eternal capital” sends the world the message that we stand with our allies. 

Folks, any one of our GOP presidential contenders is far superior than soulless politician and sociopath Hillary Clinton. Hillary in the White House would be a continuation of the Barack Obama nightmare. The only difference is the MSM would characterize opposing Hillary’s far left radical policies as sexism rather than racism. You know the drill folks.

Therefore, I will wholeheartedly rally behind our GOP nominee; Dr Carson, Trump or any of the others.

But the candidate who checks all of my boxes for not giving a rat’s derriere about what the Washington cartel and media thinks of him; the candidate who places America and her people first; the candidate who is unapologetic regarding his Christian faith; passionately defends liberty and honors our Constitution is Sen Ted Cruz. Will Cruz remain the same person when elected? You betcha!

Amending the U.S. Constitution by Fiat – Part II

A great many Americans, including a substantial number of my own readers, remain confused about the question of who is and who is not a “natural born” citizen, eligible to serve as president or vice president of the United States.  They remain doggedly convinced that Barack Obama, Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindal, and Marco Rubio are all eligible to serve merely because they were born on American soil.  That simply is not the case.  From the comments I have received in response to a recent column titled, “Amending the U.S. Constitution by Fiat,” it appears as if some either read much too quickly, or are a bit lacking in reading comprehension skills.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution tells us, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”  It’s pretty straightforward.  Nevertheless, it appears that when many read those words they are immediately struck by a strange form of dyslexia.  What their brains register is a clause beginning, “No Person except a Citizen of the United States shall be eligible to the Office of President…” 

The qualifications related to the age of the president and the number of years of U.S. residency are not at issue… they are quite straightforward and leave no room for misinterpretation.  It is the status of the candidates’ citizenship that causes problems for many people… many of whom read the clause as if the legislatures of thirty-eight states had just approved an amendment dropping fourteen words from the middle of the presidential eligibility clause.

Clearly, the use of the word “or” early in the clause tells us that a natural born citizen is someone entirely different from a mere citizen.  That was true on June 21, 1788, the day the Constitution was ratified, and it is still true today; the provision has not been amended.  The term “citizen” encompasses a broad range of citizenship categories, including “native born,” “natural born,” and “naturalized.”  The term “natural born” refers to a specific sub-set of citizens.

When the Founders met in Philadelphia in September 1787 to approve the final draft of the U.S. Constitution, a deep-seated animosity toward all things British colored every aspect of their daily lives.  So is it even remotely conceivable that, just five years and eleven months after Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown, the Founders would have produced a Constitution that would allow an individual holding dual US-British citizenship to serve as commander-in-chief of the Army and the Navy?  It is a preposterous notion on its face.  To believe that they would have done so requires a willing suspension of reason.  Yet, that is precisely what those who use the terms “citizen” and “natural born citizen” interchangeably would have us believe.

To illustrate, let’s pretend that we are present at Independence Hall in Philadelphia on a cold winter’s day in January 1789.  It is just seven months after the people of New Hampshire voted to ratify the U.S. Constitution, making it the official law of the land.  The third session of the Continental Congress has just been called to decide who should be selected to lead our new nation as president of the United States.  The Constitution required that the man they selected had to be either a natural born U.S. citizen… or… a citizen of the United States on the day that the Constitution was ratified, at least thirty-five years of age, and a resident of the U.S. for at least fourteen years.

If those who drafted Article II of the Constitution had insisted upon the same qualifications for president and vice president as they had for members of Congress and members of the federal judiciary, including members of the United States Supreme Court, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution would have begun, “No Person except a Citizen of the United States shall be eligible to the Office of President…”  In a nation of 4 million people, nearly every male citizen over age thirty-five would have qualified.

But if the Framers had produced a document that began, “No Person except a natural born Citizen shall be eligible to the Office of President…” they would have been presented with an insoluble problem because, in 1789, when the first president of the United States was elected, the only natural born citizens in the entire country… those born after the signing of the Declaration of Independence to U.S. citizen parents… were less than thirteen years old.

Fortunately, the authors of Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution had foreseen the problem and, realizing that there could be no thirty-five-year-old natural born citizens during the earliest years of the republic, provided language making it possible for those born prior to the signing of the Declaration of Independence, to parents who were not U.S. citizens, to serve as president or vice president.

It is not as if the country did not enjoy an excess of strong and capable leaders, men of major accomplishments.  General George Washington, who led the continental Army during the Revolutionary War, was available.  He was born in Wakefield, Virginia on February 22, 1732, forty-four years before the Declaration of Independence.  Eighty-four-year-old Benjamin Franklin, a Pennsylvania delegate to the Constitutional Convention and one of the most prominent men of the time was available.  Franklin was born in Massachusetts in January 1705, and lived most of his life in the U.S.  George Mason, a Virginia delegate to the Constitutional Convention who came to be known as the “Father of the Bill of Rights,” was available.  Mason was born in Virginia on December 11, 1725, and lived his entire life in the U.S.

However, none of the three were “natural born” citizens because they were born to parents who were subjects of King George III, but who became U.S. citizens on July 4, 1776 when the Declaration of Independence was signed.  And since the Framers had foreseen the problem and had provided a “grandfather” clause to cover the situation, all three were made eligible under the Article II, Section 1 language reading, “or a citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution…”

In fact, none of our first seven presidents… Washington, J. Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, J.Q. Adams, or Jackson… were natural born citizens.  Martin Van Buren, our eighth president, born to U.S. citizen parent at Kinderhook, New York, on December 5, 1782, six years after the Declaration of Independence, was our first “natural born” president.  Every president since Van Buren, with the exception of Republican Chester A. Arthur, whose Irish father was a British

subject at the time of his birth, and Democrat Barack Obama, whose Kenyan father was also a British subject at the time of his birth, has been a “natural born” U.S. citizen, as required by Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution.

Those who doggedly insist that all that is necessary to be a “natural born” citizen is to be born on American soil, regardless of their parents’ citizenship status, have an obligation to explain why the Framers were so careful to distinguish between the terms “citizen” and “natural born citizen” while setting out the qualifications to serve as president of the United States.

Why did the Framers make that distinction?  Although it is impossible for parents to know beforehand how their children will ultimately develop, we can all agree that the most influential factor in a child’s upbringing is the parenting he/she receives as a child, and that the cultural, philosophical, political, and religious influence of a child’s parents fundamentally establishes the direction of his/her future conduct and intellectual development.  It was that hope of parental and environmental influence on which the Framers pinned their hopes for a Christian nation comprised of Godly citizens who would be capable of maintaining a constitutional republic.

What the Founders feared most, and what caused them to limit access to the presidency only to the “natural born,” was the fear that a future president… during his formative years and during the years in which he was developing intellectually… would be exposed to an environment or a foreign political ideology that might cause him to reject the values and the principles embodied in the U.S. Constitution.

No president has been more emblematic of the worst fears of the Framers than the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania, Ave., Barack Hussein Obama.  His father was a Muslim and a black African socialist; his mother was a left wing socialist flower-child; his stepfather was an Indonesian Muslim, subject to Sharia Law; his grandparents were dedicated socialists, perhaps communist sympathizers; his father figure during his teen years, Frank Marshall Davis, was a nationally known Communist Party writer and propagandist; the people who were instrumental in launching his political career in Chicago were radical Weather Underground terrorists who had participated in the killing of U.S. law enforcement officers; and his religious mentor during his post-college years in Chicago was the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, an America-hater of the first order.  Nothing good can come from a lifetime of exposure to such people, so is it any wonder that he has dedicated himself to “fundamentally transforming” the government and the culture of the greatest nation on Earth?

Anyone wishing to take up the challenge outlined above might also wish to enlighten us by preparing a comprehensive list showing how Barack Obama’s governing principles mesh with governing principles contained in the U.S. Constitution.  After eight years of Obama rule in the White House, it may help us to decide which poses the greater danger: a) a competent socialist who knows exactly what he’s doing and why he’s doing it, or b) an incompetent socialist who hasn’t the foggiest notion of what he’s doing or how it might impact the greatest nation on Earth.  Of the many unknowns surrounding Barack Obama, this may be the most profound.

RELATED ARTICLE: Obama May Have Been Elected With Illegal Votes – Judicial Watch

Donald Trump and Ben Carson Top the GOP field, Jeb Bush trails nationally and in Florida

SAINT LEO, FL /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Retired pediatric neurosurgeon Ben Carson has basically tied with billionaire businessman Donald Trump as the leading presidential candidate among likely Republican voters surveyed nationally by the Saint Leo University Polling Institute.

Meanwhile on the Democratic side, likely voters nationally again put Hillary Clinton in the lead.

Carson Makes Impressive Show in Crowded National Field
Among likely Republican voters nationwide, those polled said their favored candidate was: Donald Trump (22.7 percent); retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson (22.2 percent); U.S. Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, (11.1 percent); former Florida Governor Jeb Bush (8.4 percent); former Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina (5.8 percent); and U.S. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas (4.0 percent).

“We’re starting to see some ‘Trump fatigue’ setting in,” said Frank Orlando, instructor of political science atSaint Leo University. “Donald Trump thrives on the media attention. With the lull between debates and his upcoming ‘Saturday Night Live’ appearance (November 7), the soft-spoken, ‘anti-Trump’ candidate Ben Carson, has emerged as a viable candidate,” said Orlando.

Interestingly, Orlando noted, when support for Carson, Trump, and Fiorina are combined, 51 percent of the national likely Republicans voters support non-politicians. Orlando interpreted the collective sentiment as a signal that: “These voters would rather have people with no specific plans than people who they are afraid would let them down.”

Democratic Politics Continue to Favor Clinton
Among the likely Democratic voters nationwide, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton drew 54.8 percent of the respondents’ support. Since Vice President Joe Biden announced on October 21 that he will not run for president, the 15.8 percent of Democratic likely voters who favored him will likely become Clinton supporters, Orlando said. U.S. Senator from Vermont Bernie Sanders was selected by 12 percent of the likely Democratic voters.

“Hillary’s still the horse in the Democratic race, and I think that [Vice President] Biden’s support will now gravitate to her,” stated Saint Leo’s Orlando. “It (Biden’s support) won’t jump to Bernie Sanders as he’s more of an anti-establishment candidate. At the same time, Sanders needs to be more aggressive in his attack on Clinton and increase his rhetoric.”

Florida Results Surprising

Among Florida likely Republican voters, Donald Trump is first (25.8 percent). Trump was followed in Florida by Senator Rubio (21.5 percent); then former Governor Jeb Bush (15.3 percent); and then Carson (14.7 percent). The margin of error was 7 percentage points, based on a sample of 163 respondents.

On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton has a substantial lead (50.9 percent). Senator Sanders pulled 13.3 percent. (Vice President Biden had 15.2 percent.) The margin of error for this question was plus or minus 7 percentage points, based on a sample of 165 likely Democratic voters in the state.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is courtesy of the Associated Press.

Trump Solidifies Support in GOP Field, Carson and Rubio Pull Away From Pack

BOSTON /PRNewswire/ — A new poll shows former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton extending her lead over Senator Bernie Sanders by a margin of 68% to 20%. This sizable boost may indicate she is winning over would-be supporters of Vice President Joe Biden, who was included in a prior poll in September, but not the most recent one. Support for Sanders has remained flat since September at 20%. Biden’s window of opportunity to join the race may be closing; when asked if he should run, 43% of respondents said no, compared to 32% who said he should.

Clinton’s bounce might also be attributed to last week’s Democratic debate. Fifty-seven percent (57%) of those surveyed watched the debate, with 36% saying Clinton won, 17% giving the nod to Sanders, and 40% saying they were undecided about the outcome.

On the Republican side of the race, Donald Trump and Dr. Ben Carson continue to lead the GOP pack. Trump’s 32% support reflected a 1-point drop from the September poll, while Carson edged up 3 points, from 20% to 23%. Marco Rubio improved from 8% to 14%, appearing to draw voters away from Jeb Bush, who fell to 8% from 12%. Ted Cruz and Carly Fiorina, with 6% each, trailed well behind the leaders.

The general election remains very tight. In head-to-head matchups, Clinton trails Trump (46% to 44%) and Carson (47% to 45%). She is tied with Rubio at 44%, and holds a slight margin over Bush (45% to 43%).

Of all the candidates, Carson is the one most favorably viewed by women and younger voters. His favorable/unfavorable ratio with women is 54/31 (+23) compared to Trump’s 42/50 (-8) and Bush’s 38/59 (-21). By a wide margin, women view Clinton unfavorably, 38/60 (-22). Sanders’ has the biggest gender disparity gap, -31 points among females. In the 18-34 age group, Carson’s net favorability is +14, compared to Trump (0), Clinton (-22) and Sanders (-10).

While religion has been a major element of discussion and coverage in past presidential campaigns, it appears Sanders being Jewish is at this time, not an issue.  The majority of voters are unsure of Sander’s religious views with 23% identifying him as Jewish, while 48% were not sure. If elected, Sanders would be the first Jewish president.

RELATED ARTICLE: Does Class Warfare win elections?

ABOUT THE EMERSON COLLEGE POLLING SOCIETY POLL

The Emerson College Polling Society poll was conducted from Friday, October 16 through Saturday, October 17. The polling sample for the Democratic and GOP primaries consisted of 390 and 403 likely primary voters, respectively, with a margin of error of +/-4.9% and +/-4.8%, margin of error and 783 registered general election voters with a +/-3.4%, and a 95% confidence level. Data was collected using an Interactive Voice Response (IVR) system. The full methodology and results can be found at www.theecps.com.