Former Arkansas Gov. Turned Fox Talk Show Host, Mike Huckabee Just Launched His White House Bid

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.Hat/Tip to WeaselZippers.

So the tally of GOP nominee-hopefuls grows longer with nearly each passing day. We’re up to a half dozen already and it’s not even summer time, yet.

At least it cannot be said that the GOP has shallow bench this time…

POTUS:

For the GOP:

  • Ted Cruz
  • Marco Rubio
  • Rand Paul
  • Dr. Ben Carson
  • Carly Fiorina
  • Mike Huckabee

For the Dems:

  • Hillary Clinton
  • Bernie Sanders

Will Huckabee get the nomination this time? If so, can he beat Hillary?

Mike Huckabee on Tuesday told Americans he wants to take the country from hope to higher ground as he became the sixth Republican to declare for president during a rousing speech in his hometown of Hope, Ark.

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

The former Arkansas governor, who ruled in Little Rock for over a decade before leaving office in 2007, is hoping to recapture some of the magic that transformed him from an unknown to Iowa caucus winner during his first run for president seven years ago. Huckabee, 59, delivered a late morning speech before a full auditorium on the campus of a local community college, making a populist pitch for the White House that included term-limiting Supreme Court justices, replacing the income tax with a national sales tax and vowing no changes whatsoever to popular retirement programs like Social Security and Medicare.

“It was eight years ago that a young, untested, inexperienced and virtually unknown freshman senator made great speeches about hope and change. But eight years later, our debt’s more than doubled, America’s leadership in the world is completely evaporated and the country is more polarized than ever in my lifetime,” Huckabee said. “Ninety-three million Americans don’t have jobs, and many of them who do have seen their full time job with benefits they once had become two part time jobs with no benefits at all. We were promised hope, but it was just talk, and now we need the kind of change that really get America from hope to higher ground.”

The spot Huckabee chose to reveal his 2016 plans was meant to send another message — that he is uniquely qualified to take on the Clinton political machine. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, got her start in politics as the wife of Bill Clinton, the other famous politician to hail from Hope, Ark. Bill Clinton served as governor before going on to be elected president in 1992.

Read the full story here.

.

.

.

 

Share

Is Rubio Eligible To Be POTUS?

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

Bipartisan Group Of Senators Announce Major Agreement On Immigration Reform

 

Hat/Tip to Javier Manjarres at Breitbart.

Editor’s Note: We ran a story about Marco Rubio which was written by Ken McIntyre at The Daily Signal. From the feedback of the comments, it would seem that, once again there are those who, armed with Google have their own interpretation of what the term natural born citizen means.

Here, reprinted in its entirety, is an article from April of 2013 by Breitbart.com, one of the MOST Conservative websites on the planet.

Conservative Hideout takes no sides on this issue, as we have ‘no dog in the fight’, so to speak. Our job is to present facts and historical data, and even opinions of Constitutional scholars so that our readers can make informed decisions.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The immigration reform issue is all the buzz across the country, and Senator Marco Rubio, who is aggressively pushing the newly unveiled immigration reform bill he  helped craft in the U.S. Senate, is once again be talked up as a possible 2016 Presidential candidate.

But while the Senator’s political  allies and supporters believe that he will run for President, there are those out there that do not believe that he is even eligible to become Commander-In-Chief of the United States.

I decided to take a stab at trying understanding why ‘Birthers’ believe Rubio is not eligible to be President of the United States.

Birthers contend that Rubio is ineligible to be President because his parent were not born in the United States. Rubio was born in 1971 at Cedars of Lebanon Hospital in Miami, Florida, making him a U.S. citizen.

While many of us will jokingly say that  a U.S. passport is required to travel to the ‘country of  Miami-Dade,’ the fact is,  Miami-Dade county and all of its municipalities are part of the United States.

Both of Rubio’s parents were born in Cuba and became naturalized U.S. citizens years after their initial migration from the island.

For this reason, and this reason alone, Birthers believe that Rubio is not eligible to become President. Many contend that in order to become President, both parents of any presidential candidate have to be U.S. citizens at the time of his or her birth. Yet, this is not stipulated in the U.S. Constitution.

Here is what is exactly written in the U.S. Constitution’s Article II Section 1-

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.

So as you can see, the Constitution does not specifically define the term natural-born citizen. Those challenging Rubio’s eligibility cite various opinions and interpretations of what the natural-born citizen term could mean.

According to a Tampa Bay Times story written two years ago, Birthers “cite the U.S.Supreme, which in the 1875 case Minor vs. Happersett, used the term “natural born citizen” in reference to persons who were born in the United States, of U.S.-citizen parents.

The story also says that Constitutionalists point to the 14th Amendment, “which conferred citizenship on former slaves born in the United States (now a contentious issue involving the children of illegal immigrants.) Birthers say the amendment fortifies their case because it does not use “natural” born.”

So, while these Birther arguments are understandable, and cannot be completely dismissed as crazy talk, considering  the lack of definition of a natural born citizen in  Article II Section 1 of the Constitution, there is nothing written, or amended to the document that directly defines or changes the original requirements to become President of the United States.

In 2011 Congressional Research Service released a  report that stated the following-

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.

Again, this is the interpretation of this particular think tank, or organization.

.

.

.

Share

Obama Stands Alone: Even His Cheerleaders in the Media are Baffled by his Deepening Isolation

Share

obama photo op 0017

Hat/Tip to FoxNews.

Obama seems to have been retreating more and more from the everyday responsibilities of being the President of the United States. He gives an obviously forced speech about the beheading of American Journalist, James Foley, and not even 10 minutes later, he is seen ‘fist-bumping’ on the golf course, yucking it up and having a good ‘ole time.

This brings to mind the lyrics from an old country song by the Statler Brothers:

“Counting flowers on the wall, that don’t bother me at all

Playing solitaire till dawn with a deck of fifty one

Smoking cigarettes and watching Captain Kangaroo

Now don’t tell me I’ve nothing to do…”

President Obama has few remaining friends—either in his own party or in the media.

That’s the unmistakable conclusion of two pieces this week in the New York Times. Just about everyone, it seems, is down on his single, solitary nature.

I’ve been saying for a year now that the president’s liberal media allies have soured on him. It started with the ObamaCare debacle and continued through his seeming passivity or slow reaction time in the wake of the VA scandal, the Bowe Bergdahl mess, the military collapse in Iraq and so on. At this point they’re basically Waiting for Hillary.

What is striking now is a growing sense, fairly or unfairly, that Obama is not capable of rising to the occasion, that he just doesn’t like politics, that he’s disengaged, that despite his soaring rhetoric in 2008 he has a passion deficit.

All the criticism about him playing golf and being at Martha’s Vineyard is kind of a code for his supposedly being unplugged from the job.

On this one issue, Obama is truly bipartisan, because he shuns lawmakers from both sides of the aisle.

A Times news story opens with a killer anecdote about the president meeting with Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell, which turned to Democratic complaints that the GOP was bottling up a number of Obama’s ambassadorial nominees.

“Mr. Obama quickly dismissed the matter. ‘You and Mitch work it out,’ Mr. Obama said coolly, cutting off any discussion. Mr. Reid seethed quietly for the rest of the meeting.”

Wow. And the nut graph: “Nearly six years into his term, with his popularity at the lowest of his presidency, Mr. Obama appears remarkably distant from his own party on Capitol Hill, with his long neglect of would-be allies catching up to him.

“In interviews, nearly two dozen Democratic lawmakers and senior congressional aides suggested that Mr. Obama’s approach has left him with few loyalists to effectively manage the issues erupting abroad and at home and could imperil his efforts to leave a legacy in his final stretch in office.”

Even people formerly and steadfastly loyal to the President have begun to sound the call on this issue:

Claire McCaskill: “For him, eating his spinach is schmoozing with elected officials.”

Joe Manchin, asked to describe his relationship with Obama: “It’s fairly nonexistent. There’s not much of a relationship.” And: “Some Democrats say, they have just learned to accept the president’s solitary nature and move on.”

All of which means the failure to get Congress to do much of anything in the second term can’t just be blamed on obstructionist Republicans.

Times columnist Maureen Dowd, who’s already been down on Barry, uses the story to ratchet up her complaints:

“The man whose singular qualification was as a uniter turns out to be singularly unequipped to operate in a polarized environment…

“Why should the president neutralize himself? Why doesn’t he do something bold and thrilling? Get his hands dirty? Stop going to Beverly Hills to raise money and go to St. Louis to raise consciousness? Talk to someone besides Valerie Jarrett?

“The Constitution was premised on a system full of factions and polarization. If you’re a fastidious pol who deigns to heal and deal only in a holistic, romantic, unified utopia, the Oval Office is the wrong job for you.”

Read the full story here.

Share

Putin Calls America “Godless,” Historical Irony Ensues

Share

Back in the days when Vladimir Putin’s bosses worked under the Soviet banner, that particular regime was called “Godless.”  It was called that because, well, it was Godless.  In fact, it persecuted Christians, Jews, and the like.  Now, it seems that the tables have turned…

In the irony of ironies, Russian President Valadimir Putin has criticized western nations for straying from their Christian roots. Putin’s statement, made during his state of the nation address this past December, contends that America has become a “Godless” nation.  What Putin actually said was: “Many Euro-Atlantic countries have moved away from their roots, including Christian values.  Policies are being pursued that place on the same level a multi-child family and a same-sex partnership, a faith in God and a belief in Satan.  This is the path to degradation.”  This is quite a statement coming from a former KGB officer who faithfully served a nation that executed more than 200,000 clergy in the years between 1917 and 1937.

Fear not folks; we know that Putin doesn’t wear a white hat.  It’s as I have been saying as of late; “Obama is so pathetic, that he makes Putin look good.”  But, does Putin have a point?  According to , Putin just might be onto something…

Putin is not alone in his belief that the West has strayed from its Christian roots.  Patriarch Kirill I of the Russian Orthodox Church has claimed that Western nations are guilty of “spiritual disarmament.”  Although it is a little easier to take such a statement when it comes from a religious patriarch than a former KGB officer, Kirill is simply saying the same thing as Putin.  Consequently, for those who want to ignore the message because it comes from an unworthy messenger—President Putin formerly of the “evil empire”—let me encourage you to respond to the following questions before making up your mind:

  • Have liberals conspired with leftwing academics to rewrite American history so that the Christian principals upon which the United States of America was founded have been expunged from the record and replaced by anti-Christian, anti-American tripe that focuses solely on our nation’s warts and blemishes?  Further, have liberal revisionists rewritten the textbooks so that American students spend 12 years learning why they should be embarrassed by and ashamed of our country?
  • Have liberals conspired to be tolerant of everything in America except Christianity?  Is it not true that in the public square Islam, Hinduism, moral relativism, and other religions get a pass while Christianity is to be neither mentioned nor tolerated?
  • Have liberals conspired to transform public education in America into 12 years of leftwing indoctrination that belittles and scorns Christians as Puritanical bigots while praising secular humanism?
  • Have liberals conspired to attack, undermine, and trash Christians who oppose same-sex marriage on Biblical grounds?  Do wedding businesses that do not wish to perform same-sex marriages on Biblical grounds immediately become targets of government coercion and threats from the homosexual community?
  • Have liberals conspired to ensure that the Lord’s Prayer and Bible readings are no longer a part of the public school experience as they once were in all 50 states?  Further, have liberals worked with the ACLU to deny Christians their Constitutional right to pray at high school athletic events and graduations?

Please read the rest of the post, as it is quite good.  Of course, Putin isn’t saying or doing anything for our benefit.  He is simply taking advantage of a weak POTUS with a sense of national loyalty that would make Quisling blush.  And, in the process, Vladimir Putin is forging a name for himself, and attempting to displace us as the world’s predominate super-power.

Share

Global Warming, Then and Now

Share

The POTUS mentioned global cooling global warming climate change the Big Lie in the SOTU speech last evening.  Of course, we documented here that the government was caught fudging the numbers, but you can’t expect facts to interfere with the narrative, can we?  At any rate, one of my Facebook friends posted this video, from the 70’s about the weather.  Seems that we had severe cold, even before it was called the OMG POLAR VORTEX!

That was 1977, but of course, the “science” of the time was telling us that we were heading for an ice age!

1978 wasn’t much better…

I remember the infamous Spring Break Blizzard in 1993…

Then, we had a blizzard the next year as well…

But no matter what, we need to remember that our rapidly warming planet, that hasn’t actually gotten warmer since 1998, is causing all of this cold weather that we are currently experiencing.  I know, it makes no sense, but SILENCE-THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED!

Share

The Fiscal Cliff, and Why We’ve Already Lost, and will Continue to Lose

Share

OK, we’re facing the infamous “fiscal cliff.”  What doe that mean?  It means that a crisis has been manufactured in order for Obama to triumph, and the Republicans to be scapegoated.  Here’s how it will happen.

1.  If both Houses and the POTUS fail to reach an agreement (read, if he Republicans fail to capitulate) there will be a rather unpleasant set of tax increases and budget cuts.

2.It doesn’t matter how many proposals the Republicans make.  It won’t matter how many times the Democrats change the rules or break their word-it will ALWAYS be the Republican’s fault.

3.  Reality doesn’t matter, and the MSM will spin all developments in favor of the POTUS.

4.  Tax increases will be demanded in exchange for future spending decreases.

5.  The tax increases will be immediate, if not retroactive.

6.  The spending cuts will never happen.

7.  Did I mention that it’s all the Republican’s fault?

Oh, and by the way, when the revenues fail to come in, or they even lose money on it, don’t expect to hear it from the MSM.  Unless, that is, the MSM spins it to be someone else’s fault.

And there you have it.

Elections have consequences, my friends.

Share

Another Luke Warm Obama Reception: Holds Speech in Family Garage-They’re not Sure They’ll Vote for Him

Share

Imagine, if you will, that the POTUS-the Great and Mighty Obama, shows up at a family home, and gives a speech.  Then, also imagine that very few people show up, and one of they home-owners later states that she might not even vote for him!  Well friends, that very thing happened just recently.  Ace has the details…

Hmmm. Probably not. I’ll call it “more Saturday Stupid.”

As leader of the free world President Obama will be used to making speeches to millions of people around the globe.So he might have felt the occasion was a little beneath him yesterday when he stopped off in Reno, Nevada, to deliver an address outside a couple’s garage.

In what could be a disastrous photo opportunity for the President’s campaign, Mr Obama spoke to a handful of people in the crucial swing state.

The president’s 15 minute address outside the home of Paul and Val Keller on Friday afternoon, drew a small audience of neighbours and supporters – though even his hosts said they were not sure if they would vote for him in the coming election.

So, let’s take this situation in light of what we know about Obama’s 2008 campaign.  We know that the entire was tightly controlled, and heavily scripted.  Crowds were ensured, even if they had to be bused in.  Questions were carefully crafted, and answers were rehearsed.  Nothing was left to chance.  So then, are we to now believe that the most tightly run campaign machine since Stalin is now intentionally leaving things to chance, or was it that troops were requested, and none showed up?  Was this family carefully vetted, or did someone in the campaign seriously drop the ball.  Either way, this doesn’t bode well for the Obama Campaign.  Because, either they are inept, or they they have a serious enthusiasm problem.

When we look at this sad event, as well as the recent failure to fill a college arena, can we say that the Obama campaign is in trouble?  Is this a question of the blogoshpere  believing the propaganda put out by the MSM and the campaign (or do I repeat myself)?  Or, is this a sign of a moribund campaign pretending to be successful and unstoppable?

Time will tell.

Share

Will Gingrich Respond to National Review’s Call to Drop out and Endorse Santorum?

Share

After surging in South Carolina,  Newt Gingrich crashed and burned in Florida, and shows no signs or recovering.  After several poor showings in a row, the vultures are circling over the dying campaign.  One influential source, The National Review, has called on him to drop out of the race, and lend his support to Rick Santorum.  Teresa, at Teresamerica, has more…

Today the National Review has taken a bold move and requested that Gingrich drop out of the race and endorse Rick Santorum.  With Santorum’s rise in popularity and continued surge, and Gingrich’s implosion I think this is a good idea.  

It isn’t yet a Romney–Santorum contest, but it could be headed that way. We hope so. Gingrich’s verbal and intellectual talents should make him a resource for any future Republican president. But it would be a grave mistake for the party to make someone with such poor judgment and persistent unpopularity its presidential nominee. It is not clear whether Gingrich remains in the race because he still believes he could become president next year or because he wants to avenge his wounded pride: an ambiguity that suggests the problem with him as a leader. When he led Santorum in the polls, he urged the Pennsylvanian to leave the race. On his own arguments the proper course for him now is to endorse Santorum and exit.

Santorum has been conducting himself rather impressively in his moments of triumph and avoiding characteristic temptations. He is doing his best to keep the press from dismissing him as merely a “social-issues candidate.” His recent remark that losing his Senate seat in 2006 taught him the importance of humility suggests an appealing self-awareness. And he has rightly identified the declining stability of middle-class families as a threat to the American experiment, even if his proposed solutions are poorly designed. But sensible policies, important as they are, are not the immediate challenge for his candidacy. Proving he can run a national campaign is.

This should be seen as the sentinel event that it is.  Some major sources on the right are turning on Gingrich.  The real question is, will Gingrich step aside for the good of the Party and Movement, or will he hang on for the sake of hubris?

The fall of Gingrich can be blamed on the same source that brought about  his surge.  He is well known for debating off the cuff, with little preparation.  Given his incredible fund of information, and his ability to communicate, he could hit them out of the park.  However, swinging for the fences is a double edged sword.  Sluggers like Gingrich do hit a lot of tape-measure shots, but, they also strike out a great deal.  And, in the end, that was his failing.  Playing off the cuff works brilliantly sometimes, and causes embarrassment at others.  That is not a way to run a Presidential campaign, no matter one’s level of intelligence, or grasp of the issues.

Santorum, on the other hand, has engaged in a wise strategy of sticking to issues, and communicating Conservative principals.  For a case in point, kindly take the time to look at his CPAC speech, courtesy of  Catholibertarian…

Slowly but surely, Santorum is uniting Conservatives.  While it might simply be that he is the most consistent Conservative in the field, or that he “isn’t Romney,” he is galvanizing support for the right wing of the GOP.  The real question now is if he can fend off the well funded, and unethical Romney smear machine.  If he does take Michigan, Romney’s home state, it’s a race.

And frankly, that’s where Gingrich comes in.  With Santorum running close to, and sometimes ahead of, Romney in the polls, he needs an additional bump to get over the top.  This is especially vital when Romney’s money advantage comes into play.  While Gingrich is getting 10 percent or so in races, most of his supporters would gravitate towards Santorum.  With an endorsement, almost all would go.  And, since there is little bad blood between the two, Santorum would likely take most Gingrich voters.  That would go far to help Santorum take on Romney and his deep pockets.

Any way it goes, it should get exciting.

Share

Chuck Norris Roundhouse Kicks Mitt, Rick and Ron…

Share

Chuck Norris, famed martial artist, action movie and television star has thrown a heart punch and told Newt he’s got his back saying, “we need a veteran of political war who has already fought Goliath.” In an article Norris wrote for World Net Daily, he says:

“President Obama has tried and failed miserably to fix our economy, deepening us and our posterity into more than $6 trillion in additional national debt – something he criticized former President Bush for as “unpatriotic” and “irresponsible.” Yet unemployment rates remain at higher levels than when Obama was elected, and the dollar is as unstable as the Middle East.

 As important as it is, now is not the time to be mincing through minutiae and infighting via typical partisan battles. Rome is burning, and we need to appoint the best firemen possible to rush in and put out her fury. What’s critical at this point is to appoint a commander in chief who can clearly lead America to a more solvent and secure future.

No man or candidate is perfect. We all have skeletons in our closet. If buried bones became unforgivable bones of contention, the world would never know or will never know another Benjamin Franklin, King David and others like them. We must remember that we’re electing a president, not a pastor or pope. And with the mainstream media and a billion-dollar Obama campaign coffer on the president’s side, we need a veteran of political war who has already fought Goliath, because he will be facing Goliath’s bigger brother.”

He then goes on to explain that he developed 10 questions to find our next POTUS.

“In the last few editions of my weekly column, I detailed “10 questions to find our next president” in no particular order of importance. I proposed that the name of the candidate that fills the majority of the answers deserved readers’ vote.

For my wife, Gena, and I, we sincerely believe former Speaker Newt Gingrich is the answer to most of those questions and deserves our endorsement and vote.

We agree with our friend and governor of the great state of Texas, Rick Perry, when he suspended his campaign and endorsed Gingrich, that Newt “has the heart of a conservative reformer.” We believe Newt’s experience, leadership, knowledge, wisdom, faith and even humility to learn from his failures (personal and public) can return America to her glory days. And he is the best man left on the battlefield who is able to outwit, outplay and outlast Obama and his campaign machine.”

It is a good article and well worth the read.

I know that when it comes down to it that celebrity endorsements aren’t that big of a deal, but it is a whole lot better to see a celebrity endorse a Conservative rather than the typical Hollywood leftist mooning over a Lib/Prog politician.

 

 

Share