Why Don't Republicans Want Sarah Palin to Run?
Later today, Sarah Palin will be speaking to a large gathering of Tea Party supporters in Iowa, then she will be flying to New Hampshire to speak at a Tea Party Rally sponsored by Tea Party Express. (Judson left this morning to join the same tour.) Her speech in Iowa is greatly anticipated and many of her supporters are driving and flying from all over the country to hear her speak.
She has stated that this speech will not be an announcement that she is running for President and those who have previewed the speech say she will focus on slamming the establishment and Obama, while praising the Tea Party movement itself. While I am of the personal opinion that she will not be running for President, many not only think she will not, they think she should not.
Earlier this month, Tea Party Nation had a poll asking you if you thought Sarah Palin should run for President. Almost 60% of you said no, she should not run. A few days ago, Newsmax released the results of a similar Fox News poll where almost 75% of the Republicans polled stated they did not think she should run. From the article:
Americans overwhelmingly believe that Sarah Palin should remain out of the race for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, a new Fox News poll of registered voters reveals.
Respondents were asked: “Do you think Sarah Palin should run for president in 2012 or not?” Overall, 74 percent said no, just 20 percent said yes, and 6 percent said they’re not sure.
Among Republicans, 71 percent said the former Alaska governor should stay out of the race, as did 80 percent of Democrats, 66 percent of independents, and 66 percent of tea party members.
Tags: GOP, Hampshire, Iowa, New, Palin, President, Sarah, primary, run, speech
Permalink Reply by William Shipley on Permalink Reply by Alisha Rushing on Permalink Reply by Ken on 
Permalink Reply by Michael Scott on Permalink Reply by Fay West on 
Permalink Reply by Myrna McGhie on 
Permalink Reply by NWBill on Agreed. He's a little too much like a salesman to suit my view of the next Republican President. And he's changed policy positions too much to be seen as having strong convictions on most things; and that's NOT what the country needs right now. We have already had three years of strawman "leadership", what we need is someone with rock-solid principles that match what this country was built on.
I see that in Palin's eyes, in Bachmann's eyes, in Ryan's eyes, in Rubio's eyes ... and even in Perry's eyes - though I have some concerns about him as well.
I DON'T see that in Romney's eyes ... and if he gets the nomination, I'll be very worried.
Permalink Reply by Elaine West on NWBill: Just so you know: Rubio is not eligible to run based on the tenets of our Constitution. He could be a great senator, rep, cabinet member or advisor - but he is not a 'NATURAL BORN CITIZEN"! Neither is Bobby Jyndal. Read your Constitution. Stand by it. It's the only thing between you and being a member of a third world country.
NOTE: Our current Pres is also not a "NATURAL BORN CITIZEN" which is why he has hidden all his documentation.
Permalink Reply by NWBill on Hi, Elaine. Well, you're both right, and wrong. Here's where you're wrong:
Marco Rubio's parents were resident aliens when he was born here in the States; BUT, they had both received status as "naturalized" American citizens; which makes Marco eligible to be both a Senator and the President under the 14 Amendment:
"all persons born...in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the states wherein they reside."
Marco's parents became naturalized American citizens under the law, which means that their CHILDREN automatically became American citizens at birth. Keep in mind the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" portion of the Amendment: as long as Marco's parents received naturalized status, then according to the immigration laws "thereof", Marco is then eligible to be President.
By the way, the same applies to Bobby Jindal and Nikki Haley as well.
If this weren't the case, don't you think that the liberals would bring this up EVERY TIME someone mentions Marco Rubio running for the Presidency or Vice-Presidency? They'd be all over it like white on rice. But they HAVEN'T, because someone over there has read the 14th Amendment, and knows Rubio's birth history.
Now: this is where you're right: Barack Obama's father was a British citizen, and even though he attended school here in America, NEVER received legal or "naturalized" status; otherwise, the school he attended would never have asked him to leave the country after he failed to complete his degree there. And so, since HE wasn't a citizen, or had gained naturalization status; neither can Obama be - which would disqualify him. BUT, since Obama and his cronies (and, I suspect, certain other people in government on both sides of the aisle who don't want a Constitutional crisis) have hidden his true birth records from the public, we won't get the proof acknowledged until LONG after he's left office.
There have been investigators, though, who have determined his FATHER'S status - which proves your case regarding him.
As I said, though, the prospect of a Constitutional crisis regarding Obama being unfit to sit in the White House is, ironically, what keeps him there ... and not in front of the Senate, being impeached.
So, you're both wrong ... and right. Wrong on the 14th Amendment, and right on Obama.
Permalink Reply by Vern Shotwell on Good try on Rubio, Bill. You echo the thoughts of many of the 750,000 results here.
By posting one one minority viewpoint, while ignoring the preponderance of the arguments doesn't make it so, Bill..Elaine appears to be right.
Permalink Reply by NWBill on Well, you and Elaine still apparently don't understand present federal law. Immigration law holds that if a parent or couple is in the process of applying for naturalization at the time any children are born within the United States, and that application is subsequently APPROVED, then that child or those children are then by law considered naturalized citizens of the US.
I know there's a lot of material on the Internet about this, and I see that you've managed to find some of it that apparently supports your position - but if you would please research immigration law, the legal process for naturalization, and then go back and once more read the 14th Amendment, then you'll see what's in there. I suggest you start with the Federal Register. You might also read Jerome Corsi's "Where's The Birth Certificate" - it has some excellent research on this topic.
Of course, liberal websites are going to insist that Rubio would be ineligible - that's part of their strategy to hide the fact that Obama himself is ineligible - especially when there isn't any access to his birth records to compare against relevant law.
Now, there's no doubt that this could (and probably should) end up before the Supreme Court again because the original definition of "natural-born citizen" by the Founders is open to some legal debate. The Supreme Court has rendered four cases on this topic, and liberals won't want it to get that far because it would call into more question Obama's eligibility - and possible removal by impeachment from the office of the Presidency. So, even though you see stuff on the Internet about this, it will never be pushed to the courts now that Obama has occupied the White House. Imagine if this were to go to the Supreme Court, and they declared Obama ineligible (as he surely would be, once his true original birth certificate was located and investigated fully) - that would probably take place after his term of office (he surely won't be getting a second one), and it would do nothing except paint Democrats as the party who put someone who wasn't legally qualified to run for President in the White House .... could they survive that kind of publicity? Of course not! So, it will never get that far.
So, immigration law doesn't quite jibe with the rest of federal law on this subject, even though the 14th Amendment in my view is quite clear. In general, however, the courts will follow immigration law until the Supremes take up the subject again; and, after Obama, they probably won't in the near future ... unless the Democrats lobby strongly for it and they get enough liberal justices on the Court to steer the decision their way.
Bottom line: Rubio IS eligible, and if he decides to run the Dems won't question it--because they'd be shooting themselves in the foot, by virtue of twisting and hiding the precedent law in helping Obama conceal HIS true origins.
Simple enough?
© 2013 Created by Judson Phillips.
