PostHeaderIcon In Defense of Newt

My more ideological correspondents, conservative and libertarian alike, are frequently confounded by my attachment to reality, which purists tend to misconstrue as pragmatism. It is difficult to pin an ideological label on me, other than perhaps laissez faire capitalist. Since I desire nothing of government, but to be left alone, to live my life as I choose to live it, as a peaceful neighbor trading with others on a value for value basis, unmolested by altruistic busybodies, I don’t fit the mold of most ideologues. Individual Liberty being my highest ideal, were government not a necessary evil, I would be an anarchist. I must admit that the notion of a life devoid of politicians and politics is rather appealing; but since individual Liberty is actually enhanced, by a minimal level of law and order in my community, I can’t abide anarchism,.

The first step down into the real world, out of the cannabis cloud inhabited by the typical purist anarchist, lands one among the libertarians. These are the folks, typified by most of our Founding Fathers, who view government as a necessary evil, which must be kept to an absolute minimum, consistent with maintaining peace, law and order, and unimpeded free trade among freemen. Our Constitution, as originally written, is the epitome of a libertarian manifesto. As designed, it contains not one word regarding what a citizen must or must not do; but is entirely a constraint on what we will or will not permit government to do.

Interfering in our private economic or moral lives is patently unconstitutional. Our government exists to protect individual sovereignty and Liberty, thus assuring equal opportunity for all citizens, to fulfill whatever dreams their talent and industry are capable of achieving. It is not meant as a coercive tool for altruists, to pick winners and losers, redistribute the hard-earned wealth of individuals, or impose the morality of the majority upon a minority. Whether they wish to acknowledge it or not, altruistic Politically Correct and Piously Correct moralists alike, are the antithesis of Constitutionalists.

With only one glaring exception, which I have been unable to resolve (regarding the status of children), I find this a comfortable ideology and consider myself a libertarian, or more accurately, an objectivist (Ayn Rand). I can, and do, defend this worldview with zeal. However, like it or not, the preponderance of Americans have had the wisdom of our Founders ‘educated’ out of them, and have bought the notion that our republic is actually a democracy. They have been indoctrinated to believe that this ‘democracy’ is ideally organized into a two-party system, even though the Incumbrepublocrat Duopoly is an obvious farce, to those of us perched in the center of their arbitrary Left/Right political spectrum line.

Unfortunately, the Incumbrepublocrats have a pretty strong lock on the electoral process, and with the assistance of the complicit Media, Mainstream and not, very effectively marginalize any third-party insurgencies endeavoring to reform their oligarchy. Of course, it doesn’t help that staunch individualists are as difficult to organize as cats are to herd, and most of the activists in the (big el) Libertarian Party, are too dogmatic to consider downplaying their own lamentable penchant for cannabis clouds, to be taken seriously and endeavor to recruit conservatives. The vast majority of (small el) libertarians gave up on the official Libertarian Party years ago.

While as a TEA Party activist, I reckon I do my part to awaken sheeple and educate them on the true nature of our Republic, the reality of the world as it exists, constrains me to involve myself with Incumbrepublocrat politics. As a matter of practicality, it appears infinitely easier to capture control of one of the two established parties, than to organize and legitimize an effective third-party. Although the ideological bent of these parties has vacillated over the years, at present the Republican Party is the natural target.

Thus, since anyone meeting my ideals for the office of POTUS has a snowball’s chance in hell, for better or worse, it matters to me who the Republicans select as their candidate for 2012, because as it now stands, assuming the oligarchy permits the election to be held, and the ballot tallying is anywhere near honest, that individual will be our President for the next 4 or 8 years. Since my favorite (Palin) chose not to run, barring unforeseeable circumstances, my choice as a realist is going to end up being between Mitt and Newt. Some choice… but between them, I have to go with Newt.

Not surprisingly, the long knives are out in Newtville. The Republican Party establishment is having apoplexy over Newt’s meteoric rise in the polls, and the pundits are perplexed at his popularity among TEA Party types, and especially evangelicals. To me it is unsurprising, and their consternation is only further evidence of just how clueless the purveyors of conventional wisdom are, at gaging the mood of awakening Patriots in Flyover Country, and what makes us tick. Even Glenn Beck, who really ought to know better, is befuddled by Newt’s popularity and seems oblivious to the fact, that political ideology alone does not win the hearts and minds of the Jacksonian folk community, in the heartland of America.

First, full disclosure, I have always liked and admired Newt, even when vehemently disagreeing with him. The truth is, we have a lot in common. Born curious, we both grew up in the halcyon ’50s as globetrotting peripatetic Army brats, developing serviceable (if somewhat nerdy) minds, fascinated with emerging technology, space exploration, and futuristic speculation. Back then, ‘progressive’ wasn’t defined as regressing to serfdom in a totalitarian nanny state, and patriotic pride in America’s scientific advances was commonplace. With conservative fathers engaged in the business of defeating global communism, we were somewhat immune to the earlier Marxist professors, and escaped the looming hippy drug culture of the later ’60s by a few years.

We are both insatiable readers and avid writers, with very diverse interests beyond politics, which made it difficult to decide what we wanted to be when we grew up. With remarkably open minds, a willingness to consider alternative viewpoints, and enough common sense to modify our views as we matured, we readily changed careers as interesting opportunities presented themselves. Out-of-the-box and strategic thinking, novel idea showers, and a propensity for truthfully speaking our minds, are our trademarks. We have shared an enthusiastic outlook and zest for life, while utterly fearless in the face of adversity.

We have relished competition, unapologetically played to win, and were quite prepared to take the gloves off when necessary to do so. Finally, alas, we both failed to convince any woman to put up with our ever-changing interests and lifestyles, for more than 10 or 15 years. I don’t know about Newt; but as an erstwhile incurable romantic, I finally had to accept that with modern liberated women, life often consists of a series of monogamous relationships. Social mores have changed dramatically in our lifetime. When one’s mate is growing in a different direction, and home life becomes beyond unpleasant, staying together for the sake of appearances is dishonest, distracting, and sheer folly.

Thus, many of the bad raps Newt gets don’t resonate with me at all. He seems a perfectly fine fellow, so the first question becomes his ability to perform the job of POTUS, Since the bar has been set rather low of late, this goes without saying. Arguably, we haven’t had a real statesman in the office since Bush the elder. Of all the candidates in the field, I would only credit Newt with that label, although Huntsman shows promise. That is a big plus. Next, can he beat Obama? Of course he can; regardless of the media hype, the proverbial ham sandwich could beat Obama next year. Finally, is he conservative enough, or Is he a Progressive RINO? Does he really represent the Republican Party ‘establishment,’ who will sell out the TEA Party once he is elected?

These are the serious questions that we need to answer, and frankly, I am proud of the instincts of my fellow Jacksonians here. We can smell a phony a mile off. Carefully packaged candidates, obviously regurgitating the talking points their handlers think we want to hear, are a real turnoff to folks in Flyover Country. We would far prefer that a man give it to us straight, even if we disagree with him, than to piss on our leg and try to convince us it is raining. We like a man with spunk, who will brook no nonsense from the supercilious media elites, and will call them on their obvious agenda. Recalling our own youthful indiscretions, we are willing to forgive others theirs, if there is evidence that they have outgrown them and learned from the experience.

Those of us who are old enough to have been politically aware during Newt’s days in Congress, recall with fondness his achievements with the Contract with America, Welfare Reform, and a Balanced Budget. We understand that it took leadership, playing hardball, compromising with the opposition, and that not a few Republican elites got their egos bruised in the process. The very fact that so many establishment Republicans are squealing at the prospect of him as POTUS, seems like a pretty good reason to support him in itself.

For those of us who are sick of the Democrats always portraying Republican Presidents as idiots, and claiming Obama to be the most intellectual and erudite President ever, we relish the thought of Newt vs. Obama debates, and the notion of our pugnacious scrapper from Georgia, dogging their Harvard Law Review specimen all over the map, until he agrees to seven real Lincoln/Douglas style debates is truly delicious. They would be so popular, that they could probably sell tickets for enough to fund their campaigns with the revenue.

Then, the very nature of our system of government makes the job of POTUS rather inconsequential on so-called domestic issues, which the Federal government shouldn’t be involved with anyway. Thus, Presidents eventually tend to focus on foreign affairs, which actually is as it should be. Having a statesman of Newt’s caliber articulating American exceptionalism on the international stage, instead of an obsequious dolt bowing to foreign potentates and making toasts during their national anthems, would be a welcome relief to our sensibilities. One imagines our allies would sleep a little better at night, and our enemies a little less so.

But, as I have said before, the clincher for me was the astounding speech he gave, identifying the cancer on our body politic as the out-of-control judiciary, and suggesting what could be done to wrest control back from the lawyer class.  If you haven’t watched it, it is must-see TV. The man with the insight and guts to give that speech, without a teleprompter, and only an occasional glance at his notes, is the man we need endeavoring to put this country back on the right track. If he could accomplish this one goal alone, he would earn forgiveness for any and all past transgressions. Bar none! 

As for the notion that he is a big government Progressive, masquerading as a conservative, I think taken as a whole, his record suggests otherwise. I certainly have less fear that he is campaigning one way, but might govern another, than I do for Romney. My political positions have changed drastically over my lifetime, and I reckon a politician deserves the right to gain a little wisdom from his experiences in life too. Newt doesn’t deserve to be demonized any more than any other politician, for advocating reform of popular programs rather than outright repeal, even though today we consider them unconstitutional. 

The New Deal politicians are long gone, and those we elect now must play the hand they are dealt. A realist can’t expect miracles, and even if it were within the power of those we elect in 2012 to abolish all entitlement programs, doing so all at once would just start a revolution, by the tax spenders. Witness Greece. If it is a revolution we really want, why bother with elections at all? Just stop paying taxes, and watch what happens.  ◄Dave► 

25 Responses to “In Defense of Newt”

  • Troy says:

    While I recognize that the GOP race is pretty much a Mitt/Newt circus, I simply cannot bring myself to actively support either of them. The be bluntly honest, I consider both to be such creatures of the establishment that I would not expect any real improvement over 4 more years of Obama.

    Indeed, I am drifting toward the notion that Obama in the White House and the GOP in charge of both houses of the legislature might be the best we could hope for.

    In recent years, we have had periods where each of the duopoly parties controlled both the executive and the legislative. In both cases, the performance of government was equally bad. IMHO, the main reason it seems so much worse with each new administration is the “snowballing effect”.

    That said, I will, as usual, support the Libertarian candidate for the simple reason that this in in concert with my deeply held beliefs.

    I, perhaps foolishly, believe that a truly rational human is one whose beliefs, values and actions are all in concert. Any other combination yields a person in a state of confusion.

    At the end of the day, it is far more important to me to know how my thoughts and actions affect ME rather than how they affect the world at large. This is because, like a true Objectivist, I consider my own life, and the living of it, to be the most important thing in my universe. If I am somehow able to influence others, that is a secondary thing.

    I hope this did not come off as too strident because it was meant only as a personal testament, not a criticism of others.


    • Well said, Troy. I am not sure ‘support’ is an accurate description; but I will admit that this essay, which I have published in two other places, was meant to influence Republicans to choose Newt over Mitt in their Primary. As a registered Libertarian, I can’t vote for either one of them, and by the time California votes in June, the race is already over anyway. Then, in the General election, voting for a Republican is pretty much a waste of a vote, because the Democrat will always win here in Mexifornia. So I usually vote for the Libertarian, just help them get enough votes to keep their ballot access, on the off chance that they might someday get their act together as a viable third-party.

      Did you watch Newt’s Judiciary speech at my link? While I generally like the concept of divided government, to keep either Party from mischief, I cannot abide the concept of leaving the Obamunist on the throne, precisely because of the number of Federal judges that he would then get to appoint. Newt is absolutely right. When one thinks about it, it is the abomination of the supremacy of case law now taught in law schools, and the activist legislators in judicial robes, who claim to ‘interpret’ our Constitution, which has done the most damage to the original intent of our Founders.

      If one has any concern at all for posterity, and any hope of ever returning to Constitutional government, reining in the out-of-control lawyer class is imperative. With enough strict constructionists on the SCOTUS bench, a whole lot of Progressive mischief can be overturned and/or prevented. Then, there are a whole lot of executive orders that need to be canceled, and if Obamacare isn’t reversed somehow, there won’t be a country left to save. â—„Daveâ–º

  • Daedalus says:

    O’Bama has got to go. As to which of the Republican candidates is best—-what a motley crew we are presented with. Maybe the candidate won’t be picked until the convention, but O’Bama has to go.
    Key Items I look for:
    Support for the 2nd amendment.
    Sanity on anthropogenic global warming, that unproven hypothesis.
    Pro original intent of the Constitution.
    Pro American and proud of it!
    Defender of the free enterprise system.

    not necessarily in that order. Newt gives me a few hiccups on global warming.

    • Agreed. Newt, by nature, probably places a little too much faith in science and scientists. Perhaps I should send him a link to our old ‘expanding earth’ debates, John. 🙂 🙂

      Seriously, he is too smart to continue to be taken in by the nonsense, once he is forced to look into it in depth for himself. Besides, Congress would hold him back on that one anyway, and the issue is dying a natural death worldwide as the planet continues to cool.

      They don’t come any stronger on original intent. Watch the video…

      Pride in America is in his American History professor’s DNA. â—„Daveâ–º

  • Pierre says:


    I am surprised with your Libertarian beliefs that there is no mention of Ron Paul? Even if you don’t think he stands a chance for the Republican primary he has all the values which would turn this country around toward something it was. He is the only one who is not bought and paid for by the big money Washington lobbyist etc.

    Last time around they tried in the debates to only ask him idiotic questions which he constantly turned around on them, usually making the interviewer look as dumb as the question they asked while turning it into an opportunity to speak about issues. This time around they just ignore him and try to limit his exposure. In one debate he had a total of 89 seconds and the polls put him as winner.(If one cares about polls which anyone can make go their way if they want) He is constantly kept out of the lame stream media news, even when he is constantly rising in the poles. He has had more money donated to his campaign then all the other candidates combined by those serving in the military.

    The other candidates now speak using his speaking points as in the Auditing the Fed etc. These are things he has spoken about for years and was laughed at but now that the word is out and people are realizing the truth of what he has said it is popular to jump on that band wagon.
    Any of the other candidates winning would be no difference in the agenda America is now on. Considering recent events in politics, (Obama continuing the Bush legacy of ruling with out any oversight and no more checks and balances) You and I and anyone else voicing our opinions will soon be censored and there will be a knock on our door.

    As you say, you are retired now and don’t have the energy or care and see it as too late for America; maybe so, but then it will be me and the younger generation who will either take back America or lose it completely.

    I would hope you would at least point us in the right direction. A vote for Ron Paul is a vote to see some real change any other vote is just one moire vote for the status quo, business as usual, which would only continue our demise. As I see it there was a coup in this country and our political system was stolen by the Bankers/Oil Industry/Petro-Chemical or to summarize the military Industrial complex. They have dumbbed down the population through the Education Dept. Stolen our govt. through bribes and campaign contributions and then more recently just rotating out of their CEO spots into Govt the back.

    I see no evidence to the contrary and to think a Republican or a Democrat has any chance of or the balls to win and not toe the line is insane. Ron Paul is the only one who would do anything different as he owes no one and has stood by his convictions throughout his whole career. My only problem with a Ron Paul win is the simple fact if that was to happen I don’t know how long they would let him be President before they assassinated him.

    I will also agree with you however, that you and I don’t really count in the election as it is already decided before we get a chance to vote so the only difference we can make is in the here & now voicing our opinions on this and other similar blogs educating others to what the Lame Stream Media is not.

    • Hi Pierre. As I pointed out, my attachment to reality is unpopular with ideologues and dreamers. I really appreciate what Ron Paul has done over the past two campaigns, to force libertarian viewpoints into the national debate. Since he is not a fool, one must realize that this was his motive, and he never even dreamed of actually winning the Republican Primary, much less the Presidency. In the real world, my friend, that simply is never going to happen. His contrary positions on legalizing drugs and his pacifistic foreign policy, disqualify him completely for consideration by the Jacksonian folk community, which is the heart of the Republican Party (read it).

      I don’t know how closely you examine the polling data; but don’t be fooled by online polls, or what is being reported in IA and NH. Paulbots are well organized on the net, and they soon converge and saturate every online poll they hear about. As for the real polls, one needs to dig into the internal data to get the real picture. These two States permit Independents, and even Democrats, to cross over and participate in the Republican Primary. Most of Ron Paul’s support there, is coming from a really concentrated and effective effort by highly motivated Paulbots, to organize these outsiders. When one looks at the actual Republicans there and in national polls, Paul only gets about 10%. No matter what happens in the first two States, this is not going to change much.

      That is reality, and to be honest with you, that is a damn good thing. As much as I like Ron Paul, the specter of him as POTUS is rather disturbing. His naivete regarding geopolitics, and America’s necessary role in it, is stunning. He seems oblivious to the existential threat of Islam’s drive for a caliphate. His acquiescence to the concept, of allowing the fanatical Mullahs in Iran to acquire the bomb, is frightening. The notion that Putin or the Chicoms taking this whiny, often petulant, little pacifist seriously, is beyond laughable. To suggest that this doesn’t matter, and that we could somehow become isolationists at this point in history, is also naive. The moment we stop being the world’s hegemon, someone else will take our place, and we won’t much like the results.

      What is starting to disturb me, is his burgeoning role as spoiler. The best shot the ‘establishment,’ which you have identified as the military industrial complex, has of maintaining their status quo, is to get Romney elected. Beyond the obvious need to rid ourselves of the Obamunist, preventing that should be the Patriot’s highest priority. Currently, Paul is Romney’s best friend in IA and NH, because he is helping demonize Newt with massive negative advertising, and hold him back from trouncing Romney. More worrisome, however, is the impression I am getting that he might be taking the adulation of the Paulbot kids seriously, and be talked into mounting a third-party campaign, after it becomes obvious that Republicans are not going to select him. This could easily assure the Obamessiah’s reelection, which would be an unforgivable tragedy.

      BTW; If I didn’t still care about your and future generations, I wouldn’t still be bothering to even think, much less opine, about politics anymore. Think about it. Have I ever led you astray? 🙂 â—„Daveâ–º

      • Pierre says:

        “Tu Che”(two sh-ay). Nice retort, well spoken and backed up with substance. However, that being the case we really are F*$ked for lack of a better word.
        FUBAR I think it is called in the military. Really is too bad, this was such a great place to live. The sad thing is, these days the 3rd world looks more promising and a better place to live with more of a future, healthy without the GMO fed everything and more of a growing economy then living at home in the ole US of A. What can one do short of stringing up every last one of them in Washington DC and starting over? I don’t think I have that much rope?

      • Well hallelujah! A reasonable Ron Paul supporter has surfaced at last! I am impressed, Pierre. 🙂

        You organize the possee, and I guarantee I can organize the rope! Speaking of starting over, did you read:

        Troy and I have discussed it before, and if we were your age or younger, we would abandon these shores in a heartbeat, for someplace where a man can breathe freer air. Americans are so deluded, into thinking they live in the freest place on earth. Poppycock! Those with our education and even a modest income by American standards, are part of the aristocracy in a third-world country. When I lived in the Seychelles, at the tender age of 21, the cops would tip their hat and say, “Good morning, Sir,” as they stepped out of my way, while walking down the sidewalk.

        Btw: it is actually, ‘touché.’ 🙂 â—„Daveâ–º

  • MikeS. says:

    Perry is my 1st choice but it doesn’t look like he’ll make it. I like what Newt did as Speaker so he’s my 2nd choice. Mitt is too well handled and I didn’t like him as governor of Mass.

  • Greg says:

    Okay, I am going to go to town on this statement on my blog!

    “Arguably, we haven’t had a real statesman in the office since Bush the elder.” I was looking for maybe an entry on “Elder statesman” here to plug it, but it wasn’t happening :/

    • Thanks for the impetus to reread this, Greg. I sometimes forget how much of my true self I reveal in my writing hereabouts. Keep poking around, and you will come to know me pretty well. 🙂 â—„Daveâ–º

  • Greg says:

    Also, as to Newt:

    He’s a guy who knows a lot of stuff, but oftentimes has trouble articulating it in a way that doesn’t make him sound really stupid, like me ^_^. Of course, I wouldn’t want him as President (due to my left-leanings and the fact that I like OBama better than the others–however! If the GOP puts someone better than Obama out there that I like, I’d vote for them in a heart beat. I just don’t like the opposing field 😉 ), but I wouldn’t mind him being a professor and attending his class.

    Also, I have a “Game-type” thread up in my blog: What if you took all the field for the GOP, and made it so those candidates HAD to be part of his administration? Who would you place and where?

    I have Newt Gingrich as Press Secretary, for example.

    • Oh, good grief, Greg! Snap out of it, lad. Go read this year-old essay, and come back to explain to me what you find worthy or even likable about that utterly phoney Chicago street hustler, who has lied and conned his way into our White House.

      I actually ‘attended’ a dozen two-hour lectures Newt gave on the Civil War, as a college history professor in Georgia. It was televised via satellite (the ‘old fashioned’ type, which required a 9′ dish) back in the early ’90s. He is an awesome, animated, and captivating lecturer. Nobody could possibly fall asleep in his class. Stupid, he is not, and I would suggest that it takes a fair amount of selective editing for soundbites, for the media to create that impression, even in the mind of someone predisposed to dislike him for partisan reasons.

      Yes, I read you ‘game’ post last night; but decided to wait to see how the rest of the class responds, before replying. 😉 â—„Daveâ–º

  • Greg says:

    (The class is non-existent for the time being. Just hoping to get followers somehow. But that’s okay. If no one ever reads it, at least I have an outlet 🙂 )

    Back to your point: One of the things that I either lost in the essay, or lost somehow in the understanding of it, was what “natural-born” means. You mention that Obama was both a British citizen and a US citizen, yet I either missed the answer to this: Was Obama BORN as a dual citizen? That, to me, seems to be the very essence of the question. I also like the way in which you attack his citizenship. It is refreshing to see someone with a viewpoint other than “Show me the birth certificate,” and once the birth certificate is shown, that person says “it’s not real,” with little other than circumstance (unless they have it in their hand). You seem to bring up much more valid points than just this, and it refreshing to see that! Though, I must say that I am more of an agnostic when it comes to this stuff, preferring to believe the official status than something else, unless it has otherwise come out that it was wrong (see: most conspiracy theories). This has not been the case that your viewpoint is one of those odd conspiracy theories, but that the dual citizenship is certainly an issue. You bring intriguing facts to build your case, rather than just rely on “circumstantial evidence.” Whether I agree or not is a different story, but again, your perspective IS quite intriguing, both on a factual level and on an intellectual level as well. 🙂

    As to the czars; I’ll give you that point; it does seem as though he circumvents Congress a lot more than he should. In terms of not allowing another election–well, that certainly seems to have been allowed. Whether it will be rigged (in your view) or not is another story.

    Note above: I never said I LIKED Obama; I said I disliked him the LEAST. And again, show me someone better than Romney, I would take the GOP candidate in a heartbeat, mainly because I do not like Obama’s domestic leadership–however, I do not think Romney would be any better.

    • One of the things that I either lost in the essay, or lost somehow in the understanding of it, was what “natural-born” means. You mention that Obama was both a British citizen and a US citizen, yet I either missed the answer to this: Was Obama BORN as a dual citizen? That, to me, seems to be the very essence of the question.

      Wow! We are back to reading comprehension again, Greg. Imparting that definition to the reader, was the very point of the essay! Here, read this part again:

      There are three ways one may acquire U.S. citizenship, one of which is the “naturalization” process, whereby a foreigner renounces previous allegiances to become an American. For “birthright” natives, we recognize both “jus soli” (right of soil) or “jus sanguinis” (right of blood) citizenship; but the only way to be considered a “Natural Born” citizen is to qualify as both. Please read the following paragraph carefully… at least twice:

      We regard those born on our soil as “birthright” natives (jus soli), regardless of parentage; but they may also be regarded as citizens (jus sanguinis) of a foreign parent’s country. We also regard children born to American citizen parents as “birthright” natives (jus sanguinis), regardless of the place of their birth; but if born overseas, they may also be considered citizens (jus soli) by the country wherein they were born. (e.g. “anchor babies” are born citizens of both the U.S. and Mexico). By definition, “Natural Born” citizens are free of such potential divided loyalties, which means they must have been born on our sovereign territory (jus soli), to parents who were both already legal U.S. citizens (jus sanguinis). This legal term specifically means precisely that; it is not a synonym for “native born,” or “birthright,” or just the opposite of “naturalized.” It defines a citizen with no legal ties whatever to any foreign country, who thus could never be conflicted by divided loyalty.

      The recurring issue of divided loyalties during wartime, from the common intermarriage of European royalty, caused John Jay to suggest that we could avoid such international intrigue by Constitutionally requiring our CinC to be a “Natural Born Citizen,” an unambiguous legal term our Founders plucked from Vattel’s, “The Law of Nations.” Thus, it was purposefully inserted as an eligibility requirement in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of our Constitution, without objection or debate. No amount of lawyerly obfuscation, derision, or name calling by Obama supporters can change the plain meaning of this legal term at the time our Founders employed it.

      Did you follow instructions and read the second paragraph at least twice, to be sure you understood it? I have emboldened the key words, and perhaps I should go edit the original that way too. (I just added it to my Terms page – thanks for the impetus.) You cannot imagine how much time I spent editing and rewriting that paragraph to make it as succinct as I could, and still contain all the information necessary to grasp why it was so. I actually wrote it first, and then built the essay around it. A year later, it still averages over 50 hits a day; but if you couldn’t grasp it, there are a whole lot of sheeple that still won’t either. Talk about groupthink, the number of otherwise intelligent news personalities, pundits, and politicians who seem flummoxed by the suggestion that ‘Natural Born’ doesn’t just mean born naturally in America, is truly depressing.

      Yes, by Obama’s lights he was born a dual citizen, and he says so in “Dreams From My Father” and on his campaign website (at least in 2008). Because of the sham marriage, Obama was born a subject of Great Britain (wherever it occurred), because Obama Sr. was such, whether or not he was his biological father (which I have good reason to doubt). He also claims to have been born in Hawaii (which I also have good reason to doubt – I think he was probably born in a discreet home for ‘wayward girls’ in Canada); but at the least his birth was legally registered there (probably by his grandparents), which provided him the legal status of American citizenship (although he lost it again when he was adopted by his Indonesian step-father). Thus, he can legally claim he was born a dual citizen.

      Here, rather than rewriting much of what I know, why I know it, and why I care, go read my letter to Bernie Goldberg a year ago, and all the comments below it. It will help bring you up to speed. [One minor correction: I had not yet learned, at the time I wrote it, that SCOTUS had in fact defined NBC in Minor v. Happersett, and their definition comports with mine. Believe it or not, there had been some deliberate tampering with a couple online SCOTUS libraries, which prevented a digital search from discovering it. The ‘way-back machine’ and, of course, all the legal book libraries caught them red handed. I know this all sounds like conspiracy stuff; but it is deadly serious, with some truly brilliant legal minds working on it.] â—„Daveâ–º

      • Greg says:

        Aha! See, this is still much better than the typical stuff you see on TV: “Here’s the birth certificate.” “No way, it’s not real.” Whether I agree with you or not, I must say it is still rather refreshing to see an actual cogent argument rather than petty squabbling about the document itself 🙂

        Assuming that what Obama says in his book is true, and going by the definition you have provided, then your argument makes perfect sense–again, regardless of whether I agree with you or not, which again is refreshing. His father was not a naturally born US citizen to the best of my knowledge. He fails that right off the bat. I must read your letter and learn more about this.

        Allow me to pose a question then: If we took the definition found here, which you provided: ” By definition, “Natural Born” citizens are free of such potential divided loyalties, which means they must have been born on our sovereign territory (jus soli), to parents who were both already legal U.S. citizens (jus sanguinis).” — does this also not eliminate the need for the concept of anchor babies?

        • His father would not have needed to be a NBC, just a citizen, which he most definitely wasn’t. He was here on a student visa, and already married to his wife in Kenya at the time.

          There never has been a ‘need’ for the concept of anchor babies. That came about by a gross deliberate misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment. What is it about “…subject to the jurisdiction thereof…” that is so hard to understand? Technically, legally, we do not recognize dual citizenship. Before one can be naturalized, one must renounce all allegiance to one’s previous country. Why should being born on our soil while one’s foreign parents were visiting here, give one special status, the right to two passports, etc. It makes no common sense. â—„Daveâ–º

  • Greg says:

    I believe that “jurisdiction thereof” was referring to grandfathering slaves in, if I am not mistaken? I also contend that being born on Guam and Puerto Rico makes you a citizen as well as it is a territory. It is a shame that a lot of the Constitution is often looked at as just “This is what it literally means.” The Constitution, much the same as any document ever written, must be interpreted in the context of the times as well. If this is referring to making slaves citizens, would you not contend that the 14th Amendment (given its context) is somewhat moot except in very specific situations?

    There is something I also want to contribute here, and that is that the Department of State (I think that’s the one… my memory is fuzzy as to what does what 🙁 ) views dual citizenship as only one citizenry, and that is to the United States.

    And (Though I think I know the answer), I’m going to give you the standard Democratic talking point to make sure you and I are on the same page and stop any claims like this that may proceed from this post by others:

    Democrats often call what you are saying “Birtherism” (though your opinion doesn’t really fit the mold, as you pointed out in your essay succinctly, if I remember correctly) and claim it is based on racism, and that ALONE. If you are as fair a guy as I think you are (and know as well! 🙂 ), you would say a) That that is a somewhat manufactured assumption (and that, as an American, you have a right to ask questions and should!), and b) That had it been Romney’s father born in Mexico and not in the United States, that you would be raising the same issue and question Romney’s citizenship.

    The above^ is NOT my viewpoint and/or talking point; I know you better than that to call you a racist. However, that is the left’s criticism of those who question Obama’s citizenship. As such, I am simply asking you to respond to it. 🙂

    For the record, am I correct in assuming both a) and b)?

    • Greg says:

      The example I’ve given you is often what I say to people to draw out opinions and possibly give them more to respond to. When I ask questions about “Would you be fair to Romney in the same way,” I am saying, “This is not my opinion; this is what the other side would say to you. How do you respond?”

    • No, “…subject to the jurisdiction thereof…” was inserted to preclude precisely the notion of anchor babies, even for some legal residents, who are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction, such as foreign embassy personnel. Tourists and/or illegal aliens, are subject to the jurisdiction of their home countries, not ours.

      Yes, our ‘territories’ are considered our sovereign soil, and their residents are subject to our jurisdiction. Yes, the 14th is moot and should now be repealed to end this anchor baby fiasco.

      Romney’s father was born in Mexico; but his parents were both American citizens at the time, so George Romney was born an American citizen (jus sanguins). Mitt himself was born in Detroit, and both his parents were U.S. citizens, so he is a NBC. His father George, however was not, even though he tried to run for POTUS himself. He was a birthright citizen, but not a NBC, just like my younger sister.

      You choose a poor example to make your point. I detest Romney, and will never forgive him for the ruthless way in which he dispatched his competitors (especially Newt) while bludgeoning his way to buying the GOP nomination. I could not and will not ever vote for the bastard.

      A far better example would be Marco Rubio or Bobby Jindal, neither of whom are NBC’s, because none of their parents were yet US citizens at the time of their births. I have in fact vowed to scream loud and long, to virtually mount a jihad, if either of them is selected by Romney, and actually nominated by the GOP as VP candidates. That would simply be unacceptable to me.

      As for the feckless label ‘birther’ and the lame charge of racism, consider the source. It pretty much takes a bigot to see bigotry everywhere one looks. Generally, when one is taking such frantic fire, it is an indication one is over the target, and probably having an effect. Bring it. â—„Daveâ–º

  • Greg says:

    Well put, sir! I know better than to ask you who you are voting for…as that gets hot…! But it would be interesting to undertake a project the night before the election: assuming these are the only choices left, and assuming that Ron Paul is not running for a third party… and, further… if he is… I wonder, sir, would you undertake dueling endorsements with me? We may wind up voting for the same candidate or quite possibly (and likely) not. Note that I said I liked Obama better; I did not necessarily say I would vote for EITHER candidate 😉

    The shame, as it exists now, in the American political system is though you are not totally wasting your vote (A vote for a third party candidate seems more to me to be interpreted not as a “I don’t like anyone, so I’ll vote third party for the sake of voting,” but it is effectively–should enough people, over say 5% vote for them to make an impact, though it is STILL an individual statement 🙂 –interpreted by me as a “none of the above” choice, something that I think should be put on any ballot anywhere.)

    Also, well-played with my points. It is a shame that one questioning someone’s birth certificate should automatically be assumed as “racist.” I must ask, should Jesse Jackson or one of the others, question Mitt’s birth certificate–does this make them racist? They would say no. It is a delicate double-standard and a wedge issue to boot! As we spoke about before, best not to raise the alarm unless you can PROVE it is racist. Now, is there some element to racism in questioning his birth certificate in my opinion? Certainly, but it is NOT inherent, and, from what I’ve heard, may only be limited to a small segment within the segment of those questioning the his origin of birth. There are some racists within every party/faction in my opinion, as you have pointed out, but I prefer to think that it is a minority within a subgroup. Are you following me here? If not, I’ll try to explain better.

    To the point of George Romney, you would have had the same reaction as you would to Jindal and Rubio, correct, had I known you then and/or if it was one of your issues then as it was now? 🙂

    Finally, I’d like to say that, even though we may disagree from time to time on who is best suited for what job, or what form of government is best, and so forth– I really do feel (uh-oh 😛 ) that this blog a “safe” place where one can discuss and dialogue in a productive manner and wax philosophical about all things politics. You have changed my mind a few times; and I have seen your mind changed on occasion as well.

    Your blog makes me think, and it does make me rethink positions from time to time. For instance, had I read just the article on Obama’s citizenship about a month ago, I would have assumed you were a racist! See what the media can do to you? It is good that I did not jump to conclusions (Well, once 😛 ) and read your entry in its entirety, is it not? I used to have an example of media bias in general when teaching the one-man class, and that is a good thing. 🙂

    I am still working on the scattered stuff… it comes from being eager to learn new concepts and ideas. I enjoy soaking up as much as I can and from as many perspectives as I can, and it ultimately either helps me reshape my convictions, or helps me to shape my convictions to an understandable way and helps me to put it on paper. THank you 🙂

  • Greg says:

    I live in New York (Long Island). I already know who I am voting for for the Senate (Bishop v. Altschuler) and also for the President. I will review your article when I write mine in…August, possibly? I need to really think about how I would endorse someone, any one. And I will definitely respond to your own article (if that is okay with you, that is 🙂 )

    • Take your time; but you may want to read the article now, to grasp the idea of strategic voting. Since you live in NY, it really doesn’t matter who you vote for, Obama will win hands down. Same here in CA; unless one lives in one of the few ‘battleground’ States, the outcome for their State’s Electoral College votes is already predetermined, and the only reason to bother to vote is for local candidates. â—„Daveâ–º

Leave a Reply for â—„Daveâ–º

Political Spectrum
Political Circle

Think Up/Down not Left/Right

Internal Links