[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

"How Europe Fell Behind"

"The Epstein Conspiracy in Plain Sight"

Saint Nicholas The Real St. Nick

Will Atheists in China Starve Due to No Fish to Eat?

A Thirteen State Solution for the Holy Land?

US Sends new Missle to a Pacific ally, angering China and Russia Moscow and Peoking

DeaTh noTice ... Freerepublic --- lasT Monday JR died

"‘We Are Not the Crazy Ones’: AOC Protests Too Much"

"Rep. Comer to Newsmax: No Evidence Biden Approved Autopen Use"

"Donald Trump Has Broken the Progressive Ratchet"

"America Must Slash Red Tape to Make Nuclear Power Great Again!!"

"Why the DemocRATZ Activist Class Couldn’t Celebrate the Cease-Fire They Demanded"

Antifa Calls for CIVIL WAR!

British Police Make an Arrest...of a White Child Fishing in the Thames

"Sanctuary" Horde ASSAULTS Chicago... ELITE Marines SMASH Illegals Without Mercy

Trump hosts roundtable on ANTIFA

What's happening in Britain. Is happening in Ireland. The whole of Western Europe.

"The One About the Illegal Immigrant School Superintendent"

CouldnÂ’t believe he let me pet him at the end (Rhino)

Cops Go HANDS ON For Speaking At Meeting!

POWERFUL: Charlie Kirk's final speech delivered in South Korea 9/6/25

2026 in Bible Prophecy

2.4 Billion exposed to excessive heat

🔴 LIVE CHICAGO PORTLAND ICE IMMIGRATION DETENTION CENTER 24/7 PROTEST 9/28/2025

Young Conservative Proves Leftist Protesters Wrong

England is on the Brink of Civil War!

Charlie Kirk Shocks Florida State University With The TRUTH

IRL Confronting Protesters Outside UN Trump Meeting

The UK Revolution Has Started... Brit's Want Their Country Back

Inside Paris Dangerous ANTIFA Riots

Rioters STORM Chicago ICE HQ... "Deportation Unit" SCRAPES Invaders Off The Sidewalk

She Decoded A Specific Part In The Bible

Muslim College Student DUMBFOUNDED as Charlie Kirk Lists The Facts About Hamas

Charlie Kirk EVISCERATES Black Students After They OPENLY Support “Anti-White Racism” HEATED DEBATE

"Trump Rips U.N. as Useless During General Assembly Address: ‘Empty Words’"

Charlie Kirk VS the Wokies at University of Tennessee

Charlie Kirk Takes on 3 Professors & a Teacher

British leftist student tells Charlie Kirk facts are unfair

The 2 Billion View Video: Charlie Kirk's Most Viewed Clips of 2024

Antifa is now officially a terrorist organization.

The Greatness of Charlie Kirk: An Eyewitness Account of His Life and Martyrdom

Charlie Kirk Takes on Army of Libs at California's UCR

DR. ALVEDA KING: REST IN PEACE CHARLIE KIRK

Steven Bonnell wants to murder Americans he disagrees with

What the fagots LGBTQ really means

I watched Charlie Kirk get assassinated. This is my experience.

Elon Musk Delivers Stunning Remarks At Historic UK March (Tommy Robinson)

"Transcript: Mrs. Erika Kirk Delivers Public Address: ‘His Movement Will Go On’"

"Victor Davis Hanson to Newsmax: Kirk Slaying Crosses Rubicon"

Rest In Peace Charlie Kirk


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

politics and politicians
See other politics and politicians Articles

Title: Rand Paul: 'How Do You Out-Trump the Irrational?'
Source: NBC News
URL Source: http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-pre ... u-out-trump-irrational-n412451
Published: Aug 20, 2015
Author: Chris Jansing, Shawna Thomas
Post Date: 2015-08-20 13:41:10 by Hondo68
Keywords: Trump bone-headed, cant have, birthright citizenship
Views: 1645
Comments: 28

CAP-HAITIEN, HAITI — Republican presidential candidate Rand Paul says it's only a matter of time until the country wakes up to Donald Trump's insincere message, but he's worried that some Americans are blinded by his "celebrity."

In a series of interviews between performing pro-bono eye surgeries in Haiti with the University of Utah's Moran Eye Center, the Kentucky senator was relaxed in scrubs, dismissive of Trump and critical of the media's role in Trump's rise.

"How do you out-Trump the irrational?" he asked.

It's a question he and the other Republican candidates are puzzling over. Paul said the reason "people have gone gaga" over the billionaire real estate mogul is that he's tapped into anti-establishment conservative anger.

In many ways, it's not dissimilar from the anti-Washington sentiment that helped Paul rise to his own political fame. But in the case of Trump, Paul believes there's no substance at all behind the frustration.

"I've likened it to 'The emperor has no clothes.' He's saying things that are completely vapid, things that are completely vulgar and completely a non sequitur."

And Paul is confident that the Trump show can't last.

"There's no way the voters in the country will nominate him. Absolutely not," Paul said.

Paul acknowledged that Trump's organization has helped to fund Paul's charity eye surgery trips, which are planned by the Moran Eye Center. The organization confirmed to NBC Wednesday that the Donald J. Trump Foundation gave $10,000 to support the medical mission to Haiti that Rand Paul participated in. Trump's group also donated $10,000 in 2014 to support humanitarian work in Guatemala.

In the interview with NBC News, Paul took particular aim at Trump's recently released immigration proposal, which he said made "no sense" and is "bizarre."

"Even the people who think they might like him, when they hear what his bone-headed plan is, you think they might have second thoughts," he said.

Still, one element of Trump's immigration plan that Paul won't push back on is his proposal to end birthright citizenship.

Back in 2011, Paul co-sponsored a constitutional amendment to put an end to the right that allows everybody born on U.S. soil to be a citizen. He told NBC News that today's circumstances still warrant that move.

"What I would say is, if you have an open border you can't have birthright citizenship," he said.

He also said his preference is to fix the border, adding that "no Republican or Democrat president" since 1986 has properly enforced America's immigration laws.

One policy agreement with Trump isn't changing his thinking about the New York candidate, and Paul isn't changing his campaign plan.

Asked if he will change tactics to counter his faltering poll numbers when he is back on the campaign trail next week, he doesn't see a need to.

"I think I do exactly the same thing I've been doing," he said.

Next week, that will mean a West Coast swing that will take him to Alaska and other Western states where his campaign believes his message resonates.


Poster Comment:

Back in 2011, Paul co-sponsored a constitutional amendment to put an end to the right that allows everybody born on U.S. soil to be a citizen. He told NBC News that today's circumstances still warrant that move.

Does The Donald stand with Rand, or with the GOP establishment reconquistas?

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 20.

#5. To: hondo68 (#0)

"Back in 2011, Paul co-sponsored a constitutional amendment to put an end to the right that allows everybody born on U.S. soil to be a citizen."

Saying we need an amendment is a bullshit excuse to do nothing. He's smart enough to know that Congress has a history of allowing or banning whole classes of people from becoming citizens.

Congress only needs to pass a law prohibiting children of illegals to become citizens. If it wanted, Congress has the power to prohibit ALL Mexicans from becoming citizens.

Congress controls naturalization, not the courts.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-08-20   16:03:29 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: misterwhite (#5)

Congress controls naturalization, not the courts.

Naturalization, yes. But the 14th Amendment says that those born on US soil are citizens. They are not naturalized, they're natural born. Congress can't do anything about that, other than propose an amendment to the Constitution.

The way to fight it is by controlling the Border, to keep people from crossing it in the first place, and to control employment opportunities, by crushing employers who hire illegals. Make it hard to get here and financially unrewarding, and you will have the illegal flow dry up, and you won't have to worry too much about anchor babies anymore.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-08-20   17:02:51 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: Vicomte13 (#6)

"But the 14th Amendment says that those born on US soil are citizens. They are not naturalized, they're natural born."

If they are born on U.S. soil they are "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", and that jurisdiction can say they're not citizens.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-08-20   17:39:37 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: misterwhite (#8)

If they are on US soil and don't have diplomatic immunity, they are indeed subject to US jurisdiction. That means that they can be tried in US courts.

It also means that their children born here are US citizens, per the 14th Amendment. That cannot be changed unless the Constitution itself is amended.

This is a blind alley. This is the Polish cavalry charging the panzers. It's an unwinnable fight on the wrong battlefield.

Control the border and crucify employers of illegals, and the demand will go away and illegals will self- deport. But babies born here are US citizens if their parents don't have diplomatic immunity.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-08-20   20:35:50 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: Vicomte13 (#9)

"That cannot be changed unless the Constitution itself is amended."

Congress can simply pass a law. The ones who want you believe an amendment is required are those who don't want the law changed.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-08-20   22:06:43 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: misterwhite (#10)

I myself, personally, as a trainee legal professional, believe that the Constitution has to be amended to remove birthright citizenship.

OR that Congress could indeed pass a law regarding jurisdiction. But if the courts were to use any sort of standard at all - anything based on 230 years of precedent, then they would have to rule that if the US doesn't have JURISDICTION over illegals, they all have legal immunity and can't be prosecuted.

I myself, personally, think that if we just "pass a law" and play THAT fast and loose with the Constitution and the legal precedents, that the country is well and truly OVER.

Abortion sort of took us there, morally. But this would be a clean break with any rule of law. This would be Nazi Germany/Soviet Union stuff. Just do whatever the hell, and say whatever the hell, because you want to.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-08-20   22:46:41 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: Vicomte13, Y'ALL (#11)

I myself, personally, as a trainee legal professional, believe that the Constitution has to be amended to remove birthright citizenship.

OR that Congress could indeed pass a law regarding jurisdiction.

But if the courts were to use any sort of standard at all - anything based on 230 years of precedent, then they would have to rule that if the US doesn't have JURISDICTION over illegals, they all have legal immunity and can't be prosecuted

Misterwhite, at #14, told you how the courts can interpret/opine the issue without giving illegals immunity: ---

The courts can easily interpret "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" as meaning "owing allegiance to no other country". And there's 230 years of precedent for that interpretation.

He also gave you the worst example of court interpretation/opinion to date: --

The courts interpreted "to regulate commerce" as including "to prohibit commerce".

Obviously, such odious SCOTUS opinions can be, and should be challenged, -- and if the court refuses change, they can be ignored, as per Dred Scott...

tpaine  posted on  2015-08-21   12:46:54 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: tpaine (#16)

Mr White gave an historical example of a decision that is a non-sequitur to the issue at hand. And he gave an example of the courts just doing whatever the hell they want.

So yeah, the court could just do whatever the hell it wanted, and rule that illegals are not subject to US jurisdiction, and then rule that this doesn't mean that the courts don't have jurisdiction over them.

And they could rule that the right to keep and bear arms means that the government can confiscate all firearms, or that freedom of speech means that speech can be censored. They CAN, but it would all be nonsensical and it would simply be naked power on display, with no legal principle behind it other than "I'm the strongest and nobody can stop me."

In other words yes, if the Supreme Court wants to interpret everything to mean that tyranny is freedom, war is peace, and bad is good, and they have the army behind them, they can.

In fact, lots of governments do that all over the world. It's called "The rule of whatever-the-hell the ruler wants.

If words mean things, then the Supreme Court can't do that, even though lots of people want them to.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-08-21   13:16:10 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: Vicomte13 (#18)

Misterwhite, at #14, told you how the courts can interpret/opine the issue without giving illegals immunity: ---

The courts can easily interpret "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" as meaning "owing allegiance to no other country". And there's 230 years of precedent for that interpretation.

He also gave you the worst example of court interpretation/opinion to date: --

The courts interpreted "to regulate commerce" as including "to prohibit commerce".

Obviously, such odious SCOTUS opinions can be, and should be challenged, -- and if the court refuses change, they can be ignored, as per Dred Scott...

Mr White gave an historical example of a decision that is a non-sequitur to the issue at hand. And he gave an example of the courts just doing whatever the hell they want.

Exactly my point.. -- You seem to think that SCOTUS opinions MUST be obeyed, - this is not true.

So yeah, the court could just do whatever the hell it wanted, and rule that illegals are not subject to US jurisdiction, and then rule that this doesn't mean that the courts don't have jurisdiction over them.

And if we the people, and our local/state/Fed officials agreed, the issue would be resolved. -- But you and others would still be free to disagree, correct?

And they could rule that the right to keep and bear arms means that the government can confiscate all firearms, or that freedom of speech means that speech can be censored. They CAN, but it would all be nonsensical and it would simply be naked power on display, with no legal principle behind it other than "I'm the strongest and nobody can stop me."

Quite true, and that's why our system has checks and balances to prevent such displays of naked power.

In other words yes, if the Supreme Court wants to interpret everything to mean that tyranny is freedom, war is peace, and bad is good, and they have the army behind them, they can. In fact, lots of governments do that all over the world. It's called "The rule of whatever-the-hell the ruler wants.

Can't happen in the USA, because our armed citizenry trumps the army..

If words mean things, then the Supreme Court can't do that, even though lots of people want them to.

We agree..

tpaine  posted on  2015-08-21   14:11:42 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 20.

#22. To: tpaine (#20)

Exactly my point.. -- You seem to think that SCOTUS opinions MUST be obeyed, - this is not true.

Well, ok, that's true. As a matter of fact, if there is enough power arrayed to disregard the court, it can be disregarded.

In this particular case, it's the court itself that will be interpreting jurisdiction. it's true that the Supreme Court is not bound by earlier precedent: they can reverse it.

But in this case, two centuries of expanding the meaning of jurisdiction is what has given the Supreme Court such immense power (among other things). So, is the Supreme Court going to look at some weird re-definition of the word "jurisdiction", or the opinion of some guy from the 1860s, and say "Yup, our definition of jurisdiction for all this time has been totally wrong, and we're going to go ahead and reverse the meaning of a key word and concept, just to please some yahoos"?

No, that's not going to happen.

It's why this is such a sterile battlefield. It's an unwinnable battle. It's the Polish cavalry charging the panzers. You just get to a point where the outcome is foreordained, and you don't ride onto that battlefield at all, because you cannot win there, on that ground, with those weapons.

You don't sail a rowboat out to take on a battleship. You're gonna lose if you do.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-08-21 14:24:32 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 20.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com