Ted Cruz, Matt Salmon Win Straw Polls at Maricopa County Republican Election

Here are the results of the straw poll conducted during the January 10th Maricopa County Republican Committee Statutory meeting. The poll gauged precinct committeemen support for the 2016 Presidential candidates and support for the Republican nominee to the US Senate (currently held by John McCain).  Twenty-five poll sheets were provided to each of the 20 legislative districts to distribute to the first precinct committeemen to register.  The poll was separate from the balloting for officers and resolutions.

2016 Presidential Candidate – Votes
Ted Cruz – 66
Scott Walker – 59
Ben Carson – 49
Mitt Romney – 43
Jeb Bush – 30
Rand Paul – 29
Mike Huckabee – 16
Rick Perry – 13
Allen West – 10
John Kasich – 7
Newt Gingrich – 5
Bobby Jindal – 5
Condoleezza Rice – 5
Dennis Michael Lynch – 4
Rick Santorum – 4
John Bolton – 3
Marco Rubio – 3
Chris Christie – 2
Susana Martinez – 2
Sarah Palin – 2
Mike Pence – 2
Herman Cain – 1
Mitch Daniels – 1
Nikki Haley – 1
Paul Ryan – 1
John Thune – 1
Kelly Ayotte – 0
Haley Barbour – 0
Carly Fiorina – 0
Peter King – 0
Tim Pawlenty – 0
Rob Portman – 0
Brian Sandoval – 0
Tim Scott – 0

 

2016 Senate Candidate – Votes
Matt Salmon – 106
David Schweikert – 66
Sarah Palin – 49
John McCain – 39
Trent Franks – 38
Write in – 34
Christine Jones – 13
Jan Brewer – 8

Write-Ins – Votes
Paul Gosar – 18
Claire Van Steenwyk – 3
Gabby Saucedo Mercer – 2
Ray Kouns – 1
Joe Arpaio – 1
Wendy Biggs – 1
AJ LaFaro – 2
Kelli Ward – 1
Bill Montgomery – 2
Steve Smith – 1
Susan Bitter-Smith – 1
Mickey Mouse – 1

UNCIVIL WAR! McCain Purging Conservatives From AZGOP

John_McCain

SEN.JOHN MCCAIN | Photo: JillGreenberg.com

ArizonaInformer has learned from published reports and interviews with several precinct committeemen that TeamMcCain is attempting to remake the AZGOP in his image prior to his reelection bid for Senate.

In recent months precinct committeemen around the state have been solicited by a group called ‘Arizona Grassroots Action PAC’ which is, oddly enough, based in the Beltway according to OpenSecrets.  Conservative PCs allege this is being done to support McCain-approved candidates for precinct committeemen in order for these PCs to support Liberal Republicans for Legislative District leadership positions and subsequently, State Committeemen who can vote for AZGOP leadership.

This hijacking of the AZGOP comes as no surprise for many Conservative activists as Jon Kyl tipped his hand in this Hill.com article where Kyl was asked to respond to the AZGOP censuring McCain.  Kyl’s response indicates this campaign was well thought out in advance.

 “I think you’ll see a different party make-up after the primary election. There will be a new group of precinct committeemen. I don’t think you’ll see many of the same old faces” ~ Jon Kyl

In the next several weeks, Legislative Districts will be holding their mandatory organizational meetings which will decide the direction of the local party organizations and the state party for the next 2 years.  If you are a ‘Tea Party Republican’, or a ‘Reagan Conservative’, it may be best to get involved in the local level political structure to ensure the Arizona Republican Party remains, well, Republican.

ArizonaInformer will monitor this story and update as the situation warrants.

 

ArizonaInformer.com is a new-media site with the main purpose to call out bias and activism by the local media, monitor Arizona’s institutional left, hold Republicans accountable, and reclaim our rightful place in pop culture.  It’s our primary mission to inform Arizonans with the Truth and amplify the voice of Arizona Citizen Journalists — all with a heavy dose of snark.    We are factually correct and politically incorrect.  #War

Senator David Schweikert?

Rollcall is reporting that David Schweikert is mulling over the idea of launching a primary challenge against Pro-Muslim Brotherhood, pro-Amnesty, unpopular, liberal Republican John McCain.

If Schweikert runs, he will be a formidable challenger with a strong chance to unseat McCain.   David Schweikert, who has a stellar 97% rating from the grassroots organization Conservative Review, is well positioned to garner most Conservative activists who do the hard work of door-knocking in addition to establishment gadfly organizations such as Senate Conservatives Fund, FreedomWorks, and several others that can help fund a strong campaign against the liberal Republican Senator.

David Schweikert

With the grassroots up in arms after President Obama’s unconstitutional amnesty power-grab tonight, Arizona is itching to back a fighter that would join the Constitutional Conservative Stable of Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, and newly-elected Senators Ben Sasse, and Joni Ernst in the Senate and Schweikert fits the mold.

“My wife and I made an agreement that we would wait until after the holidays, and then we would have a family meeting,” Schweikert told CQ Roll Call in between votes Tuesday, his wife by his side. “The whole thing: whether you’re gonna run at all over again, do you weigh options for other things.”

As this news breaks, several Conservative activists in Arizona have begun contacting one another to build a grassroots framework to offset the deep pockets of career politician John McCain. Conservative activists expect McCain to use his deep pockets in the Primary to carpet-bomb the airwaves with a negative ad campaign which he would never run against any Democrat.

 

David Schweikert speaking at FreedomWorks “Free the People” event in 2013:

YouTube Preview Image
We just had a moment imagining Schweikert making a similar speech about Individual Liberty, the Framers, and the Constitution in the Senate Chamber.    All we gotta say is — RUN DAVID, RUN!

 

ArizonaInformer.com is a new media site with the main purpose to call out bias and activism by the local media, monitor Arizona’s institutional left, and reclaim our rightful place in pop culture.  It’s our primary mission to call out local hacks who mask as ‘journalists’, inform Arizonans with the Truth, and amplify the voice of Arizona Citizen Journalists — all with a heavy dose of snark.    We are factually correct and politically incorrect.  #War

Arizona Legislators Ask Tom Horne to Bow Out of Attorney General Race

Thursday, nine Arizona legislators sent a letter to Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne to exit the Republican Primary and race for AG. Spearheaded by State Representative Paul Boyer, the letter expressed grave concern over Horne’s ability to lead and serve the public has been severely compromised by a number of legal, ethical and personal problems.

Eight of Boyer’s legislative peers also signed the letter affirming that “integrity matters in our elected officials and our elections.”

Boyer, who also authored the letter wrote:

Dear General Horne:

We write to express our grave concerns over the recent allegations leveled at you, your official staff, and your campaign.

We acknowledge the investigations into wrongdoing are not complete, but that in no way lessens the dark cloud of impropriety that hangs over you and your administration.

We trust that the authorities conducting these investigations will enforce the law to the best of their abilities. We also acknowledge this process will take time and that you have a right to your day in court. Your ability to lead and serve the public, however, has already been severely compromised.

We, the undersigned, have a responsibility to act in the best interest of our state and our party. We are convinced that if you continue in your campaign for re-election, both of these interests will be damaged.

For this reason, we take the difficult step of formally requesting that you withdraw from the race for Attorney General.

Integrity matters in our elected officials and our elections. We expect more from our Attorney General, the individual who is tasked with directing the Department of Law. Arizonans have a right to expect more out of the highest-ranking legal officer of the state.

Please do what is right for Arizona and for the Republican Party.

Sincerely,

Paul Boyer
Rick Gray
Warren Petersen
Nancy Barto
JD Mesnard
Karen Fann
Steve Yarbrough
TJ Shope
Kelli Ward

 

Here is a copy of the letter:

HorneLetter

 

Tom Horne Letter

The letter follows other high profile requests by members of the congressional delegation asking Horne to withdraw from the race. Last week, Congressman Matt Salmon called Horne and personally asked him to exit. The following day Senator Jeff Flake stated publicly that Horne should exit. Senator John McCain also stopped short from saying Horne should get out but did note that the AG should recognize his political situation and.

Over a week ago, this blog asked the Attorney General to drop out of the race.

Rep Paul Boyer: Support the Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act

By Rep Paul Boyer

Paul BoyerThe Iranian regime remains the United States’ greatest national security threat despite the recent efforts at diplomatic outreach. Iran continues to be the world leader in state-sponsored terrorism and provides significant support to terrorist groups such as Hamas, Hizbollah, and President Assad’s regime in Syria. It is a regime that has the blood of American soldiers on its hands.

A nuclear-armed Iran would further elevate the status of the regime that already finances terrorism around the world. It would allow Iran to continue its illicit activities with less constraints and its global influence would increase dramatically. A nuclear-armed Iran poses an existential threat to Israel since Tehran has continually threatened to eliminate our democratic ally.

The Obama administration inked an interim agreement with Iran over the status of the regime’s nuclear program last November, but concerns remain over the terms of the agreement. Under the interim agreement, Tehran is continuing to enrich uranium – the key step in the development of a nuclear weapon – and retains its current nuclear material and infrastructure. The agreement is also worth between $6 and $7 billion in sanctions relief to the regime in Tehran, which could be used for illicit purposes or to perpetrate terrorism.

That’s why a bi-partisan majority of the U.S. senate is supporting the Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act, sponsored by Sens. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and Mark Kirk (R-IL). The bill, which currently has 59 cosponsors in the Senate, legislates new sanctions on Iran should it violate the current interim agreement or fail to reach a final agreement on the status of its nuclear program. The bill provides U.S. negotiators with the needed leverage to achieve a diplomatic solution.

In order to achieve a final agreement with Iran, U.S. negotiators must be given as much leverage as possible. Should Iran violate the terms of the current agreement, or fail to reach a final agreement with Western negotiators, new and increased sanctions should be levied on the Iranians. This provides negotiators with an important diplomatic tool to convince the Iranians to negotiate in good faith. And should the regime not follow through on its commitments, increased sanctions provide the U.S. with an insurance policy to prevent Iran from rapidly developing a nuclear weapon.

Senator John McCain (R-AZ) immediately cosponsored this important piece of legislation and should be commended for his commitment to stopping Iran’s nuclear program. I strongly encourage Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ) to also join the majority of his colleagues in the Senate and cosponsor this bill.

The U.S. must use all tools available to prevent Iran’s nuclear program from accelerating and to ultimately prevent a military response. All Americans agree that a diplomatic solution is far preferable to a military one. But in order to achieve a strong diplomatic agreement and prevent military action, we must provide our negotiators with the necessary leverage.

Arizona State Rep. Paul Boyer, a Republican, represents District 20, which covers parts of Phoenix and Glendale.

Will Hispanics Kill the Republican Party?

Hispanics

“Reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated.” – Mark Twain

by Raoul Lowery Contreras – In my 23rd year, I met U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater (R-AZ) at the University of Oregon. He signed my copy of his earthshaking book, Conscience of a Conservative.

Being a Republican before I was a “conservative” however, I answered the call to arms of my former boss United States Senator Thomas H. Kuchel (R-CA) to join the fight for the Republican 1964 Presidential nomination on the side of New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller.

I was disappointed when the Goldwater wave overrode Governor Rockefeller for the nomination and further disappointed when Lyndon Baines Johnson overwhelmed Goldwater in November, 1964. The GOP was almost killed by the Democratic wave.

The day after the election, pundits of all sorts pronounced the Republican Party dead, dead forever.

Rest in Peace GOP, November 1964… I was 23.

Fifty years later, I am hearing the same words about the Republican Party being dead. More than 95% of Blacks voted for Obama for racial reasons and that won’t happen again. 73% or so of Hispanics voted for Obama, as well, with higher percentages among Puerto Ricans and Dominicans than among Cubans and Mexican Americans. Will that happen again?

Most of the pundits are ultra-liberal writers/commentators of the mass media. Then there is MSNBC’s Chris Mathews who apparently had an orgasm when Obama won in 2008 (“I Felt This Thrill Going Up My Leg”).

YouTube Preview Image

Are they right? History tells us they are not. Republicans were routed in 1932 but came back in 1938 when they won 81 House seats and 6 new senators, and actually did so in 1952. Republicans just missed in 1960 after 8 years of President Eisenhower.

After the Goldwater defeat, the GOP was declared dead and buried but the GOP came roaring back just two years later around the country and elected Richard Nixon in 1968.

The 1966 midterm elections were a Republican romp just two years after Goldwater was heavily defeated. 47 new Republican House members were elected; 3 new senators, 8 new governors including Ronald Reagan (CA) and George Romney of Michigan and 700 new state legislators.

Nixon was reelected by the greatest victory wave in the country since Franklin Roosevelt, a victory in 1972 even greater than Eisenhower’s second victory in 1956.

Watergate came and the GOP stumbled but would have won the 1976 Election if President Gerald Ford had just received 10,000 more votes in Ohio.

1980 came and Ronald Reagan’s win was so convincing that Jimmy Carter conceded hours before the polls closed in California, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii and Alaska.

He did better in 1984. In 1988 George H.W. Bush was elected President and carried forth the Reagan/Bush policies for another 4 years.

The Republican Party is not dead, though Democrat partisans wishfully insist that it is.

For example, the Democrat Latino Decisions (LD) group of Hispanic academics based at the University of Washington has published their projections of a growing Latino electorate and how it feels now and will feel in the future if there is no Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR). Despite the fact that it was Democrats led by Harry Reid and Barack Obama that torpedoed the 2006-7 Bush CIR proposal, Latino Decisions tells us that Latinos will blame Republicans even if Obama sits on his hands and allows CIR to die.

More importantly Latino Decisions predicts growing Hispanic electorates in their projections but insist on a static 25% of the Latino vote going Republican in their future scenarios.

That, however, is a faulty assumption that destroys their conclusions of how Latinos will vote. They assume, wrongly, that the GOP Hispanic vote will remain at 25% despite the fact that the Hispanic Republican vote has approached 50 percent in past elections; i.e. Hispanic votes have been documented only since 1968.

Their 25% is based on the Romney Hispanic vote of 2012. Belying that assumption are actual Hispanic votes cast for John McCain — 31% and George W. is credited with 44% in 2004. No one knows how Hispanics voted in 1952 and 56 but we can guess that they voted for their Commanding General just like the rest of America did.

The percentage is the key. But it is not when one uses a static 25% based on an outlier election result of 2012.

We know this, since Hispanic votes have been counted and studied, each Republican that has earned 35% or more of the Hispanic vote has won the Presidency; that includes Nixon, Reagan, Bush I and Bush II.

hispanics juntos con romney

Can Republicans increase their Hispanic vote by a third more than Mitt Romney received in 2012? Fact: Hispanics hold two governorships (Brian Sandoval in Nevada, Susanna Martinez in New Mexico) and, one U.S. Senator named Marco Rubio.

Do pundits and Latino Decisions think that more Hispanics won’t vote Republican in 2016 if one of those three Hispanic political giants is on the Republican Presidential ticket?

If they do, they are blind and/or consider Hispanics to be stupid.

Editor’s Note: reposted from Cafe Con Leche Republicans with the author’s permission – original link

####

Raoul Contreras Lowery

Raoul Contreras Lowery

Raoul Lowery Contreras (1941) was born in Mexico, raised in the USA. Former U.S. Marine, athlete, Dean’s List at San Diego State. Professional political consultant and California Republican Party official (1963-65)…Television news commentator, radio talk show host…published Op-Ed writer (1988 to present)…author of 12 books (as of 1-05-12). His books are available at Amazon.com

Senator John McCain Introduces Legislation for À La Carte Cable Consumption

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) today introduced the Television Consumer Freedom Act of 2013, which provides consumers the ability to buy cable channels individually, also known as “a la carte,” giving Americans more control over their viewing options and, as a result, their monthly cable bill.

Video of Senator McCain introducing the legislation HERE

The full text of the legislation HERE

Text of Senator McCain’s statement on the floor of the U.S. Senate introducing the legislation:

“Mr. President, today I am introducing the Television Consumer Freedom Act of 2013. This legislation has three principal objectives: (1) encourage the wholesale and retail ‘unbundling’ of programming by distributors and programmers; (2) establish consequences if broadcasters choose to ‘downgrade’ their over-the-air service; and (3) eliminate the sports blackout rule for events held in publicly-financed stadiums.

“For over 15 years I have supported giving consumers the ability to buy cable channels individually, also known as ‘a la carte’ – to provide consumers more control over viewing options in their home and, as a result, their monthly cable bill.

YouTube Preview Image

[Continue reading…]

Senator John McCain Moves Money from McCain-Palin Compliance Fund to Senate Campaign Account

More revelations how money moves in the political campaign world. Here’s an article by David Levinthal on PublicIntegrity.org about our senior senator that also reveals his plans for 2016.

More than four years after the fact, John McCain the senator is benefiting big time from John McCain the presidential candidate.

That’s because the McCain-Palin Compliance Fund Inc. of a presidential election more than four years distant transferred $819,200 this winter to the Arizona Republican’s U.S. Senate campaign committee, according to a document filed today with the Federal Election Commission.

Cash transfers between established political committees are in general, legal, and McCain for several years after the 2008 election routinely shuttled funds among the several political committees under his watch. They include his 2008 presidential committee, a Senate committee, joint fundraising committees and a leadership political action committee.

But the McCain-Palin Compliance Fund was supposed to raise private dollars to pay for legal and accounting costs associated with McCain complying with presidential campaign finance rules.

It now will ostensibly fuel a Senate re-election bid, which would next come in 2016 for the 76-year-old senator.

(Continue reading)

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

Senator John McCain: You need to know about Jeff


Dear Friend,

I am writing to ask that you join me in supporting Jeff Flake and his U.S. Senate campaign.

There is no doubt that the wheels of the entire liberal campaign machine are turning to stop Jeff from reaching the U.S. Senate, becoming part of a Republican Majority, and to working with Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan and John Boehner to get America back on the right track to prosperity.

This race is so important to the Democrats that it was a “rare personal call from President Obama” that helped recruit Jeff’s opponent.

Frankly, Jeff is a target for defeat because he refuses to waste your money.

Friend, Jeff Flake is a common sense conservative you can count on and I hope you’ll partner with me in doing all we can to elect him on November 6th.

The most urgent challenge Jeff faces is raising funds get out his message to Republicans and Independents. This means the best step you can take today toward winning a Republican Senate Majority is to rush contribute a gift of $100, $250, $500, $1,000 or even $2,500 more to Jeff Flake for U.S. Senate.

Friend, for the next generation of Americans to have the same opportunities to succeed and forge their own American dreams, we must bring allies like Jeff Flake to the Senate to vote for free markets, less government regulation and an end to wasteful spending that has us nearly $16 trillion dollars in debt.

In advance, thank you for joining me in helping elect Jeff to the Senate.

Sincerely yours,

John McCain
John McCain
U.S. Senator