Is It Time for a Hillary Clinton Coronation?

In an interview with George Stephanopoulos, Donna Brazile said if Hillary enters the presidential race, we can expect a Hillary Clinton coronation.

…if Hillary Clinton gets into the race, there will be a coronation of her, because there are so many Democrats who last time around supported her, who I think are anxious to see her back out there again.

Let’s Have a Hillary Clinton Coronation Now…

We shouldn’t wait for the 2016 presidential campaign to begin for a Hillary Clinton coronation. Let’s nominate Hillary Clinton for Queen of Benghazi and worst secretary of state in modern history, for her disastrous job performance as Secretary of State, culminating in the horror of Benghazi, and the cover-up that followed. Her testimony in Congress demonstrated indifference and insensitivity towards our fallen heroes at Benghazi and their grieving families.

Hillary Clinton: What Difference Does It Make?

“Qu’ils mangent de la brioche” (Then let them eat cake)
- Marie-Thérèse of Spain, wife of Louis XIV (note: quote often mis-attributed to Marie Antoinette)

Hillary Clinton coronation

Hillary Clinton: “What difference does it make?”

The comment “what difference at this point does it make” reminded me of the complete indifference and contempt European royalty often showed towards their starving masses.
YouTube Preview Image

I cannot help but wonder how the survivors and families of our fallen Benghazi heroes felt when they heard this insensitive comment. I’m sure they’re more interested in getting to the truth than Hillary Clinton’s rhetorical gymnastics to evade responsibility and preserve her chance for the presidency.

Hillary Clinton Amateur Hour

I blogged recently about Hillary Clinton’s lack of qualifications for Secretary of State, a job usually filled by those with considerable foreign policy and diplomatic experience, often with cabinet level experience as well. Hillary had none of those qualifications, unless we count sipping tea with foreign first ladies.

Her successor, John Kerry, is only slightly more qualified for secretary of state than Hillary Clinton. He served as chairman of the Senate foreign relations committee, not exactly the depth of foreign policy and diplomatic experience needed for secretary of state, but at least more than Hillary Clinton’s. Like Hillary Clinton, John Kerry had also never run a cabinet department, though the State Department is one of the largest departments, with far flung embassies, consulates, and offices in almost every nation.

Bad Secretary of State Appointments Reflect on Obama’s Incompetence

You’d think Obama would have learned that foreign policy and diplomatic experience makes a huge difference for a Secretary of State, but Obama still doesn’t ‘get it.’ Initially, Obama wanted to appoint Susan Rice as Secretary of State, but she withdrew after howls of outrage about her own lackluster job performance as UN ambassador, and as Assistant Secretary of State when our embassies in Africa were destroyed.

I’d like to propose another coronation: Barack Obama as the worst president in modern history. Jimmy Carter is smiling now, as he’s been surpassed as the worst modern president. Barack Obama is like ‘Jimmy Carter on steroids.’ Jimmy Carter threw our long time friend and ally the Shah ‘under the bus’, in the process creating conditions that led to the Afghan wars, the Iran-Iraq war, and the two Gulf wars.

One need only watch some of Morsi’s speeches to realize Muhammad Mursi and the Muslim Brotherhood represent radical political Islam, hardly a source of moderation. In Morsi’s campaign kick-off rally, Egyptian Cleric Safwat Higazi Launches Muslim Brotherhood candidate Muhammad Mursi’s Campaign: Mursi will restore the “United States of the Arabs” with Jerusalem as its capital. Video:

YouTube Preview Image

Obama has thrown Mubarak and several other friends and allies ‘under the bus’ and allowed the Muslim Brotherhood to take their places. I shudder to think what lies in store during the rest of Obama’s presidency, as conditions have deteriorated in the region, and should remind us of the Balkans just before World War I, needing only a spark to set off a major war.

The sad part about all of this is that the Middle East is burning, Iran is on the verge of becoming a nuclear terrorist power, and America has lost virtually all credibility in the region. The blog Debka reported recently that Obama called Egyptian military leader Gen. Abdel-Fattah el-Sisi, but he refused to take Obama’s call. Apparently el-Sisi didn’t want the same dressing down Obama gave Hosni Mubarak in February 2011, when Obama demanded that Mubarak step down. El-Sisi’s staff offered to transfer Obama’s call to interim president Adly Mansour but Obama refused.

For thousands of years in the Middle East, leaders have admired strength, and despised weakness. Obama set a tone of weakness during the first months of his presidency, with an ‘apology tour’ of the world, especially the Middle East. Obama even bowed down to Saudi King Abdullah, which is not the custom.

Hillary Clinton Coronation Obama Saudi King Bow

Obama Bows to Saudi King

Hillary Clinton continued the apology tour by apologizing for a third-rate video posted on YouTube that our government had nothing to do with producing. Initially, Benghazi was spun as a demonstration about the video that spun out of control. The apologies were apparently intended to reinforce the spin that Benghazi was nothing more than a demonstration that turned violent, but conveniently after the election it has emerged there was no demonstration, there was an organized terror attack, and the video had nothing to with the attack, and in fact the video was posted months before the attack. Here’s Hillary Clinton and Obama apologizing for something our government had absolutely nothing to do with, implicitly accepting blame for Muslims who were offended by the video.

YouTube Preview Image

The Benghazi Cover-up Has Clinton Fingerprints

The Clinton years were infamous for numerous scandals, and aggressive tactics designed to cover-up these scandals. All of the same trade craft tactics are evident in the Benghazi cover-up, such as intimidation of prospective witnesses, withholding evidence, and constant spin, spin, and more spin.

Two days after the attack the ‘spin cycle’ was in full play when Hillary Clinton testified before a Congressional committee. Rep. Adam Kinzinger told the Washington Times:

“Two days after this attack, we were in a briefing with Hillary Clinton and she screamed at a member of Congress who dared suggest that this was a terrorist attack. Now we find out that while it was happening, they knew it was a terrorist attack.”

Hillary Clinton Coronation as President?

Unfortunately, unless the GOP gets its act together, nominating a good candidate, and growing the base to include many more Hispanic and Asian voters, Hillary Clinton is likely to become the next president and we will indeed have a coronation!

####

Bob Quasius is the founder and president of Cafe Con Leche Republicans

Is Marco Rubio a Natural Born Citizen?

Now that President Obama has been reelected, likely 2016 candidates are emerging, especially Marco Rubio, and undoubtedly the birther movement will question is Marco Rubio a natural born citizen? Is Marco Rubio eligible to be president? The alternative media started raising doubts when speculation began about Marco Rubio as a potential presidential candidate or VP running mate in 2012, and for sure birther speculation will increase as Marco Rubio is in the limelight as a likely 2016 presidential candidate.

Birthers will also likely ask the same questions about another potential presidential contender, Bobby Jindal, whose parents weren’t U.S. citizens or permanent residents when Jindal was born.

Sadly, one likely reason Marco Rubio was passed over as Mitt Romney’s vice-presidential pick was the likelihood that Marco Rubio would have been constantly dogged by birthers. In my opinion, Rubio would have helped Mitt Romney immensely with Latino voters once they got to know him better, and low support among Latino voters likely cost Mitt Romney the election, along with his unfortunate self-deportation comment.

No amount of hard evidence can sway conspiracy theorists. If you disagree with them or confront them with hard evidence to disprove their theory, the immediately accuse you propagating disinformation as part of the conspiracy, almost a ‘no win’ proposition.

Anonymous e-mails from Hillary Clinton’s campaign during the Democratic primaries, igniting the birther movement when conspiracy theorists picked up on the issue. Most prominent among birthers is author Jerome Corsi, who makes a living creating conspiracy theories to sell books. Who can ever forget the North American Union conspiracy, which claimed President Bush would merge the U.S., Canada, and Mexico without the approval of Congress? Corsi even claimed there was a new currency, the Amero, but just try to find one. You can buy Corsi’s book “The Late Great USA: NAFTA, the North American Union, and the Threat of a Coming Merger with Mexico and Canada” for a penny from Amazon.com. Corsi’s North American Union is so lacking in facts and ridiculous that Corsi shouldn’t be taken seriously, but he continues to be a popular author. The more outrageous his conspiracy theories, the more books he sells!

Is Marco Rubio a natural born citizen?

Marco Rubio is undoubtedly a natural born citizen. So is Bobby Jindal, and so is John McCain, though John McCain was born on a U.S. military base in Panama. All three were U.S. citizens at birth and therefore are natural born citizens.

At the time our constitution was adopted, citizenship was determined by English Common Law. Birthright citizenship was part of English Common Law, except for children born of slaves, who were considered slaves rather than subjects.

Opponents of birthright citizenship claim the framers of our constitution and authors of the 14th amendment meant something entirely different than what our courts have consistently ruled for over 100 years. The plain language of the 14th amendment is crystal clear, which explains why no court has sided with birthright citizenship opponents. Section 1 of the 14th amendment states:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

Opponents deliberately confuse “allegiance” with “jurisdiction”, claiming that children born of unauthorized immigrants owe allegiance to their parents’ home nation, not to the U.S., and therefore are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Black’s law dictionary defines jurisdiction as:

The power and authority constitutionally conferred upon (or constitutionally recognized as existing in) a court or judge to pronounce the sentence of the law, or to award the remedies provided by law, upon a state of facts, proved or admitted, referred to the tribunal for decision, and authorized by law to be the subject of investigation or action by that tribunal, and in favor of or against persons (or a res) who present themselves, or who are brought, before the court in some manner sanctioned by law as proper and sufficient.

In layman’s terms, if a court or government can hold you accountable under laws, then you are subject to its jurisdiction. Applying common sense, virtually everyone present in the U.S., regardless of any allegiance to any foreign government, is subject to U.S. jurisdiction. If a non-citizen throws a gum wrapper on the sidewalk in violation of anti-littering laws, they can be given a ticket or arrested. That’s jurisdiction! If children born of non-citizens were not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” then they would be immune to U.S. courts, could not be sued, fined, deported, etc. The legal status of their parents is irrelevant.

The only exception to birthright citizenship are children born on U.S. soil to foreign leaders, diplomats and their families, who have diplomatic immunity under treaty and international law, and cannot be arrested or sued in U.S. courts, and therefore are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction. If a U.S. born child of a diplomat throws a gum wrapper on the sidewalk in front of a cop and the cop tries to ticket him for littering, they can claim diplomatic immunity under international law and U.S. courts cannot fine him for littering.

Another frequent argument against birthright citizenship is that the 14th amendment was merely intended to ensure that newly freed slaves would be considered citizens and not to grant citizenship to children born of unauthorized immigrants. Its true the purpose of the 14th amendment was to address citizenship of slaves. Under English Common Law at the time the U.S. became a nation, children born of slaves were not considered subjects or citizens, and the 14th amendment was needed to reverse the infamous Dredd Scott decision in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that blacks could never become citizens.

The doctrine of 1776, that all (white) men “are created free and equal,” is universally accepted and made the basis of all our institutions, State and National, and the relations of citizenship–the rights of the individual–in short, the status of the dominant race, is thus defined and fixed for ever.

But there have been doubts and uncertainties in regard to the negro. Indeed, many (perhaps most ) American communities have latterly sought to include him in the ranks of citizenship, and force upon him the status of the superior race.

This confusion is now at an end, and the Supreme Court, in the Dred Scott decision, has defined the relations, and fixed the status of the subordinate race forever–for that decision is in accord with the natural relations of the races, and therefore can never perish. It is based on historical and existing facts, which are indisputable, and it is a necessary, indeed unavoidable inference, from these facts.

There is little doubt the purpose of the 14th amendment was to overturn Dredd Scott v. Stanford and ensure that Southern states respected newly freed slaves as citizens. However, transcripts of the Congressional debate showed that the status of children born of immigrants was vigorously debated. Some members of Congress wanted to exclude children born of Chinese immigrants, but when the vote was taken the 14th amendment passed.

Transcripts of debates in state legislatures that ratified the 14th amendment would no doubt show that citizenship of children born of immigrants was also considered. There is no grand historic misunderstanding! Congress did not intend to exclude the children born of immigrants from birthright citizenship. and a plain reading of the 14th amendment is crystal clear.

Prior to the 14th amendment, English Common law provided for birthright citizenship except for slaves. Upon independence, states passed reception statutes to implement and continue English common law except where it conflicted with state constitutions.

So just what did English Common law say about birthright citizenship when the constitution was adopted? The most authoritative text “An Analysis of the Laws of England” by William Blackstone, first published in 1765, and reprinted in 1770, 1773, 1774, 1775, 1778 and 1783. An updated version of Blackstone’s authoritative text was published by Henry John Stephen in 1841, and reprinted until after the Second World War.

Blackstone defined “natural born subjects” as those born within the dominions of England. In a monarchy, citizens are called “subjects” while in a Republic, “subjects” are called “citizens.” Americans stopped calling themselves “subjects” and began calling themselves “citizens”, consistent with the change in form of government from monarchy to republic. The most authoritative source on English Common law for over a century was William Blackstone. From William Blackstone (1765), Commentaries 1:354, 357–58, 361–62

The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it. Allegiance is the tie, or ligamen, which binds the subject to the king, in return for that protection which the king affords the subject. The thing itself, or substantial part of it, is founded in reason and the nature of government; the name and the form are derived to us from our Gothic ancestors.

Allegiance, both express and implied, is however distinguished by the law into two sorts or species, the one natural, the other local; the former being also perpetual, the latter temporary. Natural allegiance is such as is due from all men born within the king’s dominions immediately upon their birth. For, immediately upon their birth, they are under the king’s protection; at a time too, when (during their infancy) they are incapable of protecting themselves. Natural allegiance is therefore a debt of gratitude; which cannot be forfeited, cancelled, or altered, by any change of time, place, or circumstance, nor by any thing but the united concurrence of the legislature. An Englishman who removes to France, or to China, owes the same allegiance to the king of England there as at home, and twenty years hence as well as now. For it is a principle of universal law, that the natural-born subject of one prince cannot by any act of his own, no, not by swearing allegiance to another, put off or discharge his natural allegiance to the former: for this natural allegiance was intrinsic, and primitive, and antecedent to the other; and cannot be devested without the concurrent act of that prince to whom it was first due…

The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such. 

Since Obama’s election, another dimension to the birthright citizenship debate emerged, claiming that one is not a “natural born citizen” unless both parents were citizens.  Article Two of our constitution requires that our president be a “natural born citizen” but does not define that term:

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

A 2011 report prepared by the Congressional Research Office concludes:

The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term “natural born” citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth,” either by being born “in” the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship “at birth.” Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an “alien” required to go through the legal process of “naturalization” to become a U.S. citizen.

This conclusion is entirely consistent with Blackstone’s commentary on English common law:

The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such.

Blackstone also notes that children born abroad of diplomats are still considered natural born subjects:

Yet the children of the king’s embassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held (by a kind of postliminium) to be born under the king of England’s allegiance, represented by his father, the embassador. To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband’s consent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.

As per Blackstone’s commentary, Americans such as John McCain, who was born of American citizen parents on a U.S. military base in Panama, who would have been considered a natural born subject of England under English common law. McCain was born in Panama on a U.S. military base, and thus subject to U.S. jurisdiction when he was born.

Ditto for Marco Rubio, whose parents were permanent residents of the U.S. when he was born. No doubt birthers will seek to delegitimize Marco Rubio’s citizenship by claiming one or both parents weren’t here legally, but it’s clear the legal status of one’s parents isn’t relevant to the child’s legal status. Ditto for Bobby Jindal, whose parents were not yet permanent residents when Bobby Jindal was born.

The  Congressional Research Service also notes:

The term “natural born” citizen is not defined in the Constitution, and there is no discussion of the  term evident in the notes of the Federal Convention of 1787. The use of the phrase in the Constitution may have derived from a suggestion in a letter from John Jay to George Washington during the Convention expressing concern about having the office of Commander-in-Chief “devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen,” as there were fears at that time about wealthy European aristocracy or royalty coming to America, gaining citizenship, and then buying and scheming their way to the presidency without long-standing loyalty to the nation. At the time of  independence, and at the time of the framing of the Constitution, the term “natural born” with respect to citizenship was in use for many years in the American colonies, and then in the states, from British common law and legal usage. Under the common law principle of jus soli (law of the soil), persons born on English soil, even of two alien parents, were “natural born” subjects and, as noted by the Supreme Court, this “same rule” was applicable in the American colonies and “in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution …” with respect to citizens. In textual constitutional analysis, it is understood that terms used but not defined in the document must, as explained by the Supreme Court, “be read in light of British common law” since the Constitution is “framed in the language of the English common law.”

So why on Earth are some groups trying to rewrite hundreds of years of history and legal precedent? Clearly the birther movement is behind the effort to redefine ‘natural born citizen’ to de-legitimize President Obama, who clearly is a natural born citizen. There’s also a subliminal message that Obama ‘is not one of us.’

Clearly there are also those who do not like Marco Rubio because he is Hispanic and the son of immigrants. By raising the issue of ‘natural born citizens’ some hope to derail any chance that Marco Rubio might become a presidential candidate.

With regards to immigration, there is clearly an effort afoot to generate hostility to groups that are perceived either as immigrants or recent offspring of immigrants. It’s also become acceptable in many quarters to hate unauthorized immigrants, blaming them for a range of social problems. By making an issue of birthright citizenship, now it becomes OK to also hate citizens who are perceived as benefiting from birthright citizenship. Most Hispanics are either immigrants themselves, or 1-2 generations removed, and sadly many Americans view all Hispanics as either unauthorized immigrants or ‘fake citizens’ who are citizens due to ‘misinterpretation’ of that pesky 14th amendment.

####

by Bob Quasius, founder and president of Cafe Con Leche Republicans
Original link

Hillary Clinton: Shame on You Barack Obama!

YouTube Preview Image

Will History Rhyme for Barack Obama in 2012?

I am really starting to get a sense that we may see a repeat of this historic event as we continue into the 2012 Presidential race.

YouTube Preview Image

Let’s face it. President Obama has failed.

His public policy agenda was completely mis-prioritized with Obamacare. He can no longer pursue Keynesian economics to fix the economy. He has run out of leftist options, he’s losing leftist support and he’s running out of time.

Many are now arguing that President Obama does not know what to do.

As his legacy falls apart, Democrats are starting to panic and quietly call for someone like Hillary to prepare. (After all, Democrats love to tout the Bill Clinton economy.) Even the DraftHillary.com site is active.

And with the economy getting ready to possibly triple-dip, the list of Republican candidates is growing.

Every high profile Republican leader is probably having their adviser whisper in their ear, “this may be your only chance to run.” And why wouldn’t they buy into that political prompting? Now Congressman Paul Ryan, Governor Chris Christie and others are seriously considering. Governor Perry was a “no-go” up until a few months ago and now he’s pedal-to-the-metal in the race.

So don’t be surprised if  we see some dramatic changes in the course of the 2012 Presidential race similar to what happened in March of 1968. Just remember, history doesn’t repeat itself, it simply rhymes.

The Old Switcharoo?

Lots of rumors flying in the last 24 hours after Joe Biden floated the trial balloon that Hillary would be a better pick for VP.

Will an “October Surprise” cause the whole Presidential race to go sideways? Hillary could be waiting in the wings as Democrats try to change the game with a political switcharoo.

I’ve always held that Obama would pick Clinton as VP if he really wanted to win but he made a critical mistake that has resulted in tremendous remorse amongst Democrats. McCain then siezed the moment by choosing a candidate who ignited the GOP.

With time running out, Obama, Biden and Clinton may be scheming to throw one more curve ball in the game especially with early voting starting in early October.

Disenfrancised Voters and Le Morte d’Arthur

 

 
What if a political advisory panel feels their candidate might be in for a close race in the upcoming election?  Crystal balls are notoriously cloudy and tea leaves tend to stain. So to secure  the future with the ‘inevitable’ party nominee, make sure your advising voodoo spin doctors brew the alchemy Merlin would envy when they start to “Rock the Vote”.
 
I can feel Terry McAullife’s far reaching boney Wraith-like hand resting on the shoulder of the popular voters; he created this disenfranchised voter debacle well before Hillary offered up her  Blue State Kool-Aid. Jonesing for a sip, the liberal media took the bait.  It’s all about naughty state party members trying to get their way, they broke the rules, and now they pay.    Poor voters.  Poor Democracy. I smell a rat, and a touch of poison too. 
 
Was it not Terry McAuliffe, former Democratic National Committee Chair, who said prior to the 2004 election:
 
“Move your primary too early, Terry McAuliffe warned, and Michigan will lose half its delegates to the 2004 Democratic convention…The closest they’ll get to Boston will be watching it on television…I will not let you break this entire nominating process for one state. The rules are the rules.”(http://blogs.tampabay.com/buzz/2007/10/plenty-of-blame.html)
 
Clinton’s team saw an out:  Create a delegate disenfranchisement exit plan to help gobble up valuable delegates if Hillary starts to get heat from competition.  Make sure all of the votes are invalid, get the candidates to agree to not run or campaign in these huge states with mondo delegate counts, and if lucky, make sure only your candidate is on the ballot.  If all goes south, one can either claim the rules are the rules, or let the vote count, or just shout- “Do Over!”  This whole mess began the day the democrats nashed teeth about Al Gore not getting his win in 2000.  The democrats vowed retribution then.  But none really suspected the crazy fervor of lovestruck idolatry for Mr. Barack Obama. The Clinton Alchemists forgot about how important faith, worship, and a need for a hero really play with voters.  
 
So now, with at least three mastermindful exit strategies, what to do?  Lawyers never ask a question nor make an exit without a planned move.  Really, the voter disenfrancised makes perfect sense on paper.  But as I suspected months ago, the DNC and the Clinton machine cannot see beyond the strategy and science of brewing up witchy woman win.  They missed the boy-king scenario, Obama freeing  the sword from the stone.  Ah, the makings of a new Camelot.  
 
Yet while Hillary cannot win, she can still destroy.  Do any of these political hacks remember Le Morte d’Arthur?  Sir Thomas Malory did not pull punches.  Arthur’s reign goes down in defeat, death–to Avalon, legend taking back the boy-king to live another day. Everyone betrays Arthur.  I wince when I see the John F. Kennedy comparisons for Barack Obama.  Running for President can be inherently dangerous; just ask Bobby Kennedy’s kids.  Pile on a political adversary with virtual sociopathic-like advisors and I am truly afraid what the Clintonian Drones will do to win. They are about played out, desperate, financially strapped, and really angry.  Alas, Merlin is nowhere to be found.