In the aftermath, what now?

In the aftermath of this election, I don't know what to say or what to do.

I fear that no matter what I say or what I do, I am going to offend someone.

If I point out one side, I will get hammered by the other side.

If I stay silent, I will be accused of complicity.

Right now, I am just drained dry.

For a week, I've had very little to give to anyone.

I do not want to hate or be hateful, but I fear that I will be labeled as a "hater" no matter what I say or what I do.

I don't know what to do in this aftermath of the most contentious Presidential election in my lifetime, and the most stunning upset since "Dewey Defeats Truman".  People are angry, and people are afraid. And nothing anyone says or does seems to calm this fear or this anger.

A Facebook friend said that she didn't think we'd ever heal, and I worry that she's right.

And while I hope I'm wrong, I fear a mass civil disturbance is on its way.  I fear an attack on the President-elect and/or on our country.  I'm not holed up in the house--I won't do that--but I don't think I'm being paranoid by saying that this is what I'm afraid of.

Mentally, I think I was more prepared for a Clinton presidency than a Trump presidency.  Now, my brain is trying to make the shift and it's not doing very well.

My writing is nil at this point.  The story I have been working on, I don't have the gumption to write on right now.  My poor best friend, also a writer, has similar feelings; and she carries a burden that I do not.  She's a caregiver to an elderly relative, and that presents its own challenges.

We are both drained dry.

So, in the aftermath of this election, and in this transition from Obama to Trump, what now?

I don't know.

Just my .04, adjusted for inflation.

Plot twists, primal screams, and Dewey Defeats Truman

For months, I have been waiting for the last, final plot twist in this unbelievable election season.

I thought the final plot twist was the "locker room" conversation between Donald Trump and Billy Bush where Trump said vile, disgusting things about how he could (and may have) treated women.

Then I thought the final plot twist was the FBI reopening the investigation into Hillary Clinton's emails.

But never, never, never, in my thoughts about this election did I think that I was going to write the words I am about to write:

President-elect Donald J. Trump.

Apparently that was the plot twist that I should have been waiting for.

I stayed off of Facebook on Election Day.  Perhaps I should also have stayed off of it today.

Already, people are venting their anger, fear, and frustration.  From the way some people are posting, we're either going to be living in the country of Panem (from The Hunger Games) or the Republic of Gilead (from Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale.)

I don't blame people for being concerned.  And I will not say that people shouldn't be angry or feel angry.  I didn't like it when people told me that "God is in control" when an election didn't turn out the way I wanted it, so I am not going to say to anyone now.

Last night, a political pundit on CNN describe the election results as a "primal scream" of the American electorate.  There may be more truth than he realizes.  People are angry, frustrated, and fed up.  People are tired of what they perceive to be an unresponsive government and a government that does not seem to listen to the electorate.

So, when an "outsider" came along who expertly tapped into the anger and frustration that many people feel -- and expertly exploited that same anger -- people turned to him.

Right now, I don't really have the energy to empathize.  I have empathy fatigue.  I'm sure that some rest and a resetting of the brain after this long, tumultuous election season will take away that empathy fatigue.  

But I think I can predict that, when Donald Trump actually does get into the White House, and he is unable/unwilling to do what he promised he would do, the same people who were so enthusiastic about putting him in the White House are going to be the same people that will feel betrayed, and they will be the same people who will start screaming about getting him OUT of the White House in four years.

In the meantime, I'm going to sit back and listen to the so-called experts try and dissect the events of this generation's version of Dewey Defeats Truman.

Just my .04, adjusted for inflation.

"You talkin' to me?"

"You talkin' to me?"

Travis Bickle, played by Robert DeNiro in Taxi Driver, asked that iconic question.

Well, I'm not talking to Travis Bickle, or Robert DeNiro, but I am talking to several other people.

Hey, you.

Yeah, you.

I'm talking to you:

Ted Cruz
Mark Levin
Sarah Palin
Rush Limbaugh
Sean Hannity
Bill O'Reilly
Ann Coulter
Newt Gingrich
Franklin Graham

And anyone else who calls themselves "conservative" but who's been willing to sell out their principles for the sake of not putting someone in the White House but for the sake of keeping someone out of the White House.

Hey, you.

Yeah, you.

I'm talking to you.

You have sown the wind.

You will reap the whirlwind.

Just my .04, adjusted for inflation.

Barbecued in the name of democracy . . .

Yesterday, I was barbecued in the name of democracy.

Yesterday was the very first day of early voting in my county.  There is only one place where people can go to vote (until more satellite stations open up in about a week or so), and it's at the Department of Elections in the county seat.

I am tired of this election, and a while back, I decided that I would go on the first day of early voting and get it over with.

Time of arrival:  about 11 a.m.

Time of departure:  about 3:45 p.m.

Yep.  I spent FOUR AND A HALF HOURS in line waiting to vote.  And as a result, I have a sunburn on my face.

During those four and a half hours, I stood outside in a line reminiscent of that you would find at Disney.  Complete with movable portable separators.

I had no hat, no sunscreen, one bottle of water, and two electronic devices unable to be charged.

I did have a small notebook, so I took a few notes about what was going on around me.

I also had a nice chat with the women waiting with me.

The weather was unseasonably warm for this time of the year.  Two people had to be treated by the EMTs for heat exhaustion.  Several left the line to go sit down.

But despite the heat, people didn't get angry with each other.  They grew impatient, but no riots or fights broke out.

Once we FINALLY got inside, I showed my ID, got my voting card, was shown to where the voting machines were, and pulled up my ballot.

First, I voted down ballot.  There was a US Senate race and a US Representative race I voted for; four amendments, several local races, and a SPLOST initiative (special local sales tax.)

Then, I moved back up to the top of the ballot and touched "write-in", trying to figure out what the procedure was.

I was confronted with a QWERTY keyboard.

So I took my index finger, and very slowly, and very deliberately, I pecked out the letters S-N-O-O-P-Y.

Then I hit "cast ballot".

My duty was done.

Yes.  I voted for Snoopy for president.  THAT is how disgusted I am with the slate we are being offered this year.  We had three candidates on the ballot, and I picked none of them.

Because, you see, for me it all came down to this:

I don't trust one candidate, I don't think one candidate is qualified, and I don't think one candidate knows what they are talking about.  Therefore, my conscience won't let me vote for either of them.

Why, you may ask, did I cast a protest vote for Snoopy instead of just leaving it blank?

And why not vote for any of the above?

I cast a protest vote to make a statement.

And I didn't vote for any of the above because . . . ?

In this election, it was not that I wouldn't vote for any of them.

It was that I couldn't vote for any of them.

I hope it was worth getting barbecued for the sake of democracy.

Just my .04, adjusted for inflation.

Tina to GOP: Bye, Felicia

Although my dad registered as a Democrat when we moved to Florida -- for reasons he never explained to me -- I grew up with Republican Party principals.  I remember riding in the car one time with my father when Ronald Reagan came on the air, and my father said, "Silence."

He also took me one time with him when he voted.  And we watched every evening news program that was on:  ABC at 6, NBC at 6:30, CBS at 7.  So I grew up with a knowledge of current events and the idea that it was very important to vote.

When I went away to college, I went to Florida State, and in Leon County, you could register to vote if you were within six months of your 18th birthday.  So I registered, and when asked for a party affiliation, I put down Republican.

The first time I voted for President, in 1984, I voted for Ronald Reagan.

I was young and ignorant in 1988, and I voted for Dukakis.

But ever since then, I voted Republican for president.

I've always believed in a rather limited government.  I'm a moral, fiscal, and social conservative, and I don't believe that the government should be giving "handouts".  (I also understand that there's a difference between a handup and a handout.  There is a place for short-term help and for help for those who cannot work.)  I worry about the increasing power of the federal government.  Ronald Reagan is quoted as saying, "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"

But the GOP has been sliding away from conservative principles for the last several years, and increasingly, I have grown very angry with their leadership.  They say they have principles, and yet they abandon them for the sake of "getting along".  You can say what you will about Sarah Palin, but in 2008, she did galvanize the conservative base of the Republican Party--a base that is now being ignored.

Over the past year, the Republican Party has rallied behind a man who, in my opinion, is not qualified for the Presidency.  He has had success and failure in business, but knows nothing about foreign policy or how to work with Congress or foreign governments.  If he HAS worked with foreign governments, it's in his capacity as a businessman and not as a world leader.

He has shot his mouth off about Muslims, immigration, Megyn Kelly, and other subjects, and he has refused to apologize.

He does not believe he needs to be forgiven by God.

People support him because "he says what everyone else wants to say but either can't or won't."

He wants to make America great again but has no specifics on how he will do it.

And one by one, the leaders of the Republican Party and conservative media have all fallen in line behind a Pied Piper playing his flute and leading the children, one by one, off to the side of a mountain, where the door will close behind them.

Last night, upon learning that Donald Trump had officially and formally secured the Republican nomination for President, I'd had enough.

My 35-year relationship with the Republican Party is at an end.

Conservative blogger Erick Erickson posted an article this morning that sums up much of what I also am feeling.  He says that he cannot be a water carrier for Trump.

Neither can I.

So, here's my farewell to the Republican Party:

Bye, Felicia.

Just my .04, adjusted for inflation.

Manic Monday: 1828 revisited!

The candidate had had it!

His opponent had committed the unpardonable sin:  insulting the man's wife.

Ted Cruz?

Donald Trump?

Nope.

Andrew Jackson.

The presidential election of 2016 has sunk to lows not seen since the election of 1828, when Andrew Jackson's wife Rachel was subject to repeated attacks on her character.

It wasn't the first time, unfortunately, that Rachel had been attacked.  She and Andrew were married--so they claimed--in 1791, after they received word of Rachel's divorce from her previous husband. However, records show that Rachel's first husband didn't even file for divorce until 1792, and the divorce was granted in 1793 on grounds of her desertion.  Rachel's side of the story was that he'd kicked her out of the house, and she never realized that her divorce hadn't been legally granted until 1794.

To make their union legal, Rachel and Andrew married or remarried in 1794. Over the course of their relationship, Andrew came to Rachel's defense many times--including fighting a duel in 1806, where Andrew's opponent wounded him before Andrew shot and killed him.

When Jackson ran for president against John Quincy Adams in 1828, Adams' campaign asked the question: "Ought a convicted adulteress and her paramour husband to be placed in the highest offices of this free and Christian land?"

Apparently, the voters thought so, because they elected Andrew Jackson to the presidency.

Rachel did not live to occupy the White House. She died of a heart attack before the inauguration. Andrew always maintained that Rachel died of a broken heart.

 This past week, Donald Trump took yet another handful of mud and slung it onto the character of Heidi Cruz, Ted Cruz' wife. Trump tweeted a less-than-flattering picture of Heidi next to a more-than-flattering picture of his own wife, threatening to "spill the beans" on Heidi.

Cruz fired back with the order to "leave Heidi the hell alone".

Not to be outdone, the National Enquirer then published a report accusing Cruz of sexual dalliances with no fewer than five--count 'em, five--women. At last report, Cruz has flatly denied it, and there's some question as to whether or not Donald Trump planted that story. The publisher of the Enquirer is a friend of Trump's.

Apparently, as far as running for President is concerned, the more things change, the more things stay the same.

Someone needs to distribute soap, shampoo, and towels to every American so they can wash the mud that's been slung so far in this election.

And then every American over the age of one needs to be issued a Hazmat outfit, because it's going to get worse before it gets better.

Just my .04, adjusted for inflation.

Are we ripe for another Arthur Bremer?

He took a gun to a campaign rally, and when the time was right, he pointed it at his intended victim and fired.  As a result, the victim, presidential candidate George Wallace, spent the rest of his life in a wheelchair.

The date was May 15, 1972; the place was Laurel, Maryland; and the shooter's name was Arthur Bremer.  Bremer was 21 years old when he shot George Wallace.  He spent over 35 years in prison before being paroled in 2007.

Bremer began a diary in 1972 in which he wrote about his plans to assassinate either Richard Nixon or George Wallace.  Why?  He wanted "to do SOMETHING BOLD AND DRAMATIC, FORCEFUL & DYNAMIC, A STATEMENT of my manhood for the world to see."  Later, he would write, "I'm as important as the start of WWI.  I just need the little opening and a second of time."

In other words, he wanted to be important, not unlike Columbine shooters Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold nearly 30 years later, or not unlike John Hinkley, the man who shot President Reagan.

I was eight years old in May of 1972, and I remember when this happened.  Since then, I've seen many times the video clip of George Wallace being shot, falling to the ground, with blood staining his shirt; his wife Cornelia throwing herself on him.

After last's night disturbance in Chicago which resulted in the cancellation of a Donald Trump campaign rally, I think we are ripe for another Arthur Bremer.

Who remembers 1972?  We were still in Vietnam, although we were beginning the process of leaving.  One month after George Wallace's shooting, five men would re-tape a door at the Watergate complex in Washington, D.C. and begin the downfall of a President.

Just four years earlier, 1968, Chicago's Democratic convention had been convulsed in violence that spilled out into the streets, with demonstrators chanting, "The whole world is watching!"  (The next year, Robert Lamm of the rock group Chicago would borrow that audio clip and use it on their debut album.)

Sound familiar?

I've previously referred to the Republican race as a food fight worthy of "Animal House".  These days, I watch the Republican debates for the entertainment value and the chance to throw virtual rotten food at the TV set.

But last night, in Chicago, things ceased being funny.

If, indeed, the whole world was watching in 1968 when demonstrators marched in the streets of Chicago, that's even more true now in 2016.  In 1968, there was no CNN, and Fox referred to the name of a movie-making company, not a news channel.  And people used the word "net" to refer to catching fish or butterflies, not as shorthand for "Internet".

Last night, in Chicago, I saw conditions that were ripe for the making of another Arthur Bremer.

When you have a dissatisfied electorate that has been battered by fears of terrorist attack and nearly eight years of economic malaise and uncertainty, combined with clashes between police and civilians, with the addition of mass shootings that are so common that people are numb to them . . . you have the makings of a situation that appeals to an Arthur Bremer.

Bremer was obviously mentally ill when he shot George Wallace.  But he also wanted to do something "bold and dynamic", and somewhere in that deranged mind of his, he decided that the way to do it was to shoot a presidential candidate.

In this age of YouTube and selfies and 24-hour news coverage which is fueled by violence and which magnifies every injustice, both real and perceived, what's to stop someone from pointing a gun at a presidential candidate for those very same reasons--to do something "bold and dynamic"?  Or, to think that THEY are the only ones that can put a stop to Donald Trump's increasingly shrill appeals to an angry electorate?  Or, to put a stop to the campaigns of Ted Cruz, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Marco Rubio, or John Kasich for similar reasons?

Donald Trump is right about one thing:  people are angry.

Just as I was writing this, I saw a news blurb quoting President Obama as saying that the GOP provided the conditions for Donald Trump's success.  Opinions are going to vary as to who is ultimately responsible for the angry American electorate.  I will say, that although Donald Trump isn't personally responsible for this current wave of anger in the country, he's not doing very much to keep it in check.  In fact, he's doing everything he can to fuel the fire!

I fear that this angry American electorate is just the right soil to grow up another Arthur Bremer, who one day will point a gun at a candidate and fire.  I pray to God that that does not happen.

Just my .04, adjusted for inflation.

Manic Monday: Food fight!

The Republican race for the White House has degenerated into a food fight worthy of Animal House!

I watched the GOP debate held a week before the South Carolina primary, and it was the worst display of political behavior I have ever seen.  You had Donald Trump accusing people of lying, you had Marco Rubio accusing a fellow Hispanic of not speaking Spanish, and you had moderators who were either unwilling or unable to keep order.

For the first time in my life, I am considering a protest vote.  I cannot, in good conscience, support Donald Trump for the White House.  He is full of bluff and bluster, he is rude, and he thinks that the White House can be run just like his reality show.  He does not realize that you cannot fire Congress. This is not The Apprentice.  And he has no specific plan on how he's going to run this country, other than "build a wall and make Mexico pay for it" and "we're going to make this country great again".

I don't support Hillary because I don't trust her, and I don't support Sanders because someone has to pay for all the "free" stuff that he's promising.  When those that Sanders wants to tax to pay for these "free" programs leave the US and/or renounce their citizenship, how is all this free stuff going to be paid for?  Who is going to pay for it?

My avatar on Facebook right now is a picture that says "Vote for Snoopy".  That sums up how I feel about this election.

The next Republican debate will be February 25th.  Do not be surprised if you see the ghost of John Belushi dressed in a toga, yelling, "Food fight!"

Because that's what this election has come down to.  If the GOP loses in November, it will be their own fault!

Just my .04, adjusted for inflation.

Manic Monday: Annnnd they're off!

Tonight is the Iowa caucus, the kickoff of the political season.  If you live there, go caucus!

This year we desperately need participation in the political process.  And in my opinion, if you don't vote, you have no right to complain about the government you get.

Just my .04, adjusted for inflation.

Manic Monday: Next week at this time . . .

Next week at this time, I'll be writing my first political blog post of the 2016 season.

I'll be honest:  I'm worried about this election.  I've been worried about the last two, and I'm worried about this one.  Our country is in serious trouble.  We have a major debt problem (heading towards $20 trillion). Even though we've been told that we're "in recovery", our economy is still shaky.  One of the reasons the unemployment rate has been going down is not because more jobs are being created, but because people have given up looking.

We are a people deeply divided.  No one wants to listen to the other side.  The other side is automatically "the enemy".

I don't have a lot of optimism when it comes to the political future of this country.  Everyone wants their own way and no one is willing to give an inch.  Or, there is complete capitulation by one side to the other side.

I've seen several reports recently of shootings and disturbances at malls.  And you can't get away from the reports of violence that daily dominate our newspapers.  We're sitting on a powder keg, like Europe was in 1914, and it's only going to take one match to light the fuse.

I have a countdown clock on my blog to the days before Iowa and New Hampshire, and the days before this election.  Frankly, I'll be glad when it's over.  I'm going to need a virtual HAZMAT outfit because of all the mudslinging that will be going on!

Brace yourselves.  The ride is beginning!

Just my .04, adjusted for inflation.

Manic Monday: A Whovian take on war and revolution

I'm a Whovian.  For the ignorant and/or uninitiated, 'Whovians" are fans of the BBC science fiction program "Doctor Who".  The Doctor, as he is known, is a time lord who travels throughout time fighting enemies and helping people.  There have been twelve doctors in the 52-year history of the program.  The latest Doctor is played by Peter Capaldi.

The Doctor traditionally travels with at least one companion, and that companion is, more often than not, female.  His most recent companion is Clara Oswald, played by Jenna Coleman.

In the Doctor's latest adventure with Clara, his enemy is an alien race call the Zygons.  As part of the plot, one of the Zygons has commandeered Clara's face and is looking for something called the Osgood box.  In the climax, there are two Osgood boxes with two buttons:  Truth or Consequences.

Push the wrong button, and serious consequences would ensue for either the Zygons or the humans.

The fake Clara and another character, Kate, are facing each other, ready to push the button.  

And at that moment, the Doctor delivers one of the best speeches I have ever heard on war and revolution:

I found a transcript of the Doctor's speech that someone posted at Reddit.com, and I'm using it as part of this blog post:

The Doctor: Ah. And when this war is over, when -- when you have the homeland free from humans, what do you think it's going to be like? Do you know? Have you thought about it? Have you given it any consideration? Because you're very close to getting what you want. What's it going to be like? Paint me a picture. Are you going to live in houses? Do you want people to go to work? What'll be holidays? Oh! Will there be music? Do you think people will be allowed to play violins? Who will make the violins? Well? Oh, You don't actually know, do you? Because, just like every other tantruming child in history, Bonnie, you don't actually know what you want. So, let me ask you a question about this brave new world of yours. When you've killed all the bad guys, and it's all perfect and just and fair, when you have finally got it exactly the way you want it, what are you going to do with the people like you? The troublemakers. How are you going to protect your glorious revolution from the next one?

Bonnie (fake Clara): We'll win.

Doctor: Oh, will you? Well maybe -- maybe you will win. But nobody wins for long. The wheel just keepts turning. So, come on. Break the cycle.

 * * * * * * * * *

The Doctor: Because it's not a game, Kate. This is a scale model of war. Every war ever fought right there in front of you. Because it's always the same. When you fire that first shot, no matter how right you feel, you have no idea who's going to die. You don't know who's children are going to scream and burn. How many hearts will be broken! How many lives shattered! How much blood will spill until everybody does what they're always going to have to do from the very beginning -- sit down and talk! Listen to me, listen. I just -- I just want you to think. Do you know what thinking is? It's just a fancy word for changing your mind.

Bonnie: I will not change my mind.

The Doctor: Then you will die stupid. Alternatively, you could step away from that box. You could walk right out of that door, and you could stand your revolution down.

 * * * * *

The Doctor: I don't understand? Are you kidding? Me? Of course I understand. I mean, do you call this a war, this funny little thing? This is not a war. I fought in a bigger war than you will ever know. I did worse things than you could ever imagine, and when I close my eyes... I hear more screams than anyone could ever be able to count! And do you know what you do with all that pain? Shall I tell you where you put it? You hold it tight... Til it burns your hand. And you say this -- no one else will ever have to live like this. No one else will ever have to feel this pain. Not on my watch.

Here's what got my attention:  What happens when "it's all perfect and just and fair, when you have finally got it exactly the way you want it"?

What happens with those who support Bernie Sanders, an avowed Socalist, when they have it "perfect and just and fair", the way they define "perfect and just and fair?"

Or what happens with those who support Hillary Clinton, and who support what she thinks is "perfect and just and fair"?

What about the conservatives in the Republican Party, and their definition of "perfect and just and fair"?

Each group can get their world "perfect and just and fair", but what do they do with the troublemakers?  What do they do with those that don't agree?  What do they do with the people that don't think that everything is "perfect and just and fair?" 

Right now, according to the coundown on my blog, there are 364 days until Election Day in the United States.  Although I say "each side", as if there were only two sides to this election, there are really multiple sides right now.  I'll address this to all sides:  

You have your definition of what is perfect and just and fair . . . but what are you going to do with those that don't agree with your definition of perfect and just and fair?  Because right now, on all sides, there are people who don't agree, don't even like, other's definitions of perfect and just and fair. 

Face it, there will be no definition of perfect and just and fair that is going to make everyone happy. Not with conservatives, who are unhappy with the current state of affairs in the Republican Party. Not with moderate Republicans, who think conservatives are too rigid.  Not with Republicans vs. Democrats, who both see the world through their own particular lens and believe that if one or the other party is elected, the United States of America is headed for certain doom.  Not with differing wings of the Democratic Party, with Bernie Sanders as a socialist and Hillary Clinton defending her record as a Senator and Secretary of State.

We may think that war and revolution are going to solve everything.  Each party, or group, may think that when they're in charge, the world is going to be perfect.  Socialists believe that if everything can be divided equally, then the world will be just and fair and perfect.  Conservatives believe that if everyone is given the opportunity with as little government interference as possible to better themselves, the world will be fair and just and perfect.

I happen to fall into the latter category.  Socialism has not worked in the countries where it has been tried.  I believe we all are intelligent enough to take advantage of opportunities and that we have the responsibility to help others along the way, without being coerced by a law that will force us to do so. True charity comes from the heart.

But on both sides, there are the "troublemakers".  There are those who don't think that conservatism is fair, just, and perfect; just as there are those who don't think that socialism is fair, just and perfect. And that's because no system is fair, just, or perfect.  Not even systems I believe in, such as conservatism, or democracy, or the US Constitution.  

The Doctor spoke more about war than I have covered in this blog post.  My question to consider is: Do we really think that the world is going to be perfect, just, and fair when we get everything exactly the way we want it?

Answer:  No, it will not; because we will always have the dissenters and the troublemakers.

How, then, do we learn to work together?

That's a question that only we can answer when we, as the Doctor has said, learn how to think.

Just my .04, adjusted for inflation.

Manic Monday: Why should I vote for your candidate?

I'm trying something new on this blog:  devoting Mondays to politics, Wednesday to religion, and Fridays to family and other personal stuff.

Mondays are Manic Mondays, because politics have a mania about them . . . and because I like the sound of it. :-)

So, here's my topic for today's Manic Monday:

Why should I vote for your candidate? 

In looking up the names of the Presidential candidates, I discovered this site, which lists presidential candidates that are running or thinking of running for President of the United States.  I couldn't count the number of people that think that they are qualified to run the United States of America.

So, I'm limiting my question to the major candidates of the Republican and Democratic parties. 

I'm going to list them in alphabetical order and include their party affiliation:

Joe Biden (D) (has not announced yet but may announce soon)
Jeb Bush (R)
Ben Carson (R)
Lincoln Chaffee (D)
Chris Christie (R)
Hillary Clinton (D)
Ted Cruz (R)
Carly Fiorina (R)
James Gilmore (R)
Lindsay Graham (R)
Mike Huckabee (R)
Bobby Jindal (R)
John Kasich (R)
Martin O'Malley (D)
George Pataki (R)
Rand Paul (R)
Rick Perry (R)
Marco Rubio (R)
Bernie Sanders (D)
Rick Santorum (R)
Donald Trump (R)
Scott Walker (R)
Jim Webb (D)


Why should I vote for any of the above?

Just my .04, adjusted for inflation.

Birther butt-biting

He's only been in the Senate for a short time.  He has little, if no, executive experience.  He attended Harvard Law School.  He has an odd-sounding foreign name and a multiethnic background.  There are questions about his birth certificate and his American citizenship.  

Sound familiar? 

His name is Ted Cruz, and at midnight today, he Tweeted the following: 

I'm running for President and I hope to earn your support! 

I don't know yet if I am going to vote for Ted Cruz. I'm still looking at candidates. 

But let's get one thing out of the way now: Ted Cruz is Constitutionally eligible to run for President of the United States. 

Back in 2008, when Barack Obama was running for President, the question of his citizenship arose, and it will not die.  For the record, I believe him to be a citizen of the United States, born in Hawaii, to a citizen mother and a Kenyan father.  I disagree with him on many things, and I didn't vote for him, but I have no question about his citizenship.

Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution lays out the following requirements for President of the United States: "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, the question is, what is a natural born citizen?

The 14 Amendment defines U.S. citizenship as follows, in Section 1:  "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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." 

So, according to the Constitution, if you are born in the United States, or are naturalized in the United States, you are a United States citizen.

Since the Constitution specifically states that only a "natural-born citizen" can be President, the question arises, what is a natural-born citizen?  

A report issued by the Congressional Research Service, a legislative branch agency within the Library of Congress, states 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."  (From Maskell, Jack, Qualifications for President and the “Natural Born” Citizenship Eligibility Requirement.  The full report is located at http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf)

So, a "natural-born citizen" is someone who is entitled to U.S. citizenship by birth. There are two ways a person obtains U.S. citizenship.  One is by the principle of jus soli.  Jus soli means that if you are born in a particular country, you are automatically a citizen of that country.  So, if you are born in the United States or in a territory of the United States, you are entitled to American citizenship.  It doesn't matter if your parents were American citizens or not; if you were born in the United States or a United States territory, you are an American citizen. (The one exception to this law is a child born on U.S. soil to a recognized foreign diplomat.)

The other principle governing American citizenship is that of jus sanguinis. Jus sanguinis means "by right of blood".  In other words, if one or both of your parents is an American citizen, you automatically have American citizenship, no matter where you were born.  If you were born overseas to an American parent, you are an American.

I have heard the argument by so-called "birthers" that "Obama may be a citizen, but he's not a 'natural-born' citizen, because he wasn't born of two citizen parents.  A 'natural-born' citizen is one born of two citizen parents." Also, "Obama wasn't born in this country (which is not true, he was born in Hawaii), therefore, he's not eligible to be President."

Well, with Ted Cruz's announcement that he is running for President, the arguments of certain birthers are about to come back to bite them in the butt.

You see, Ted Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, of a Cuban father and an American mother. He wasn't born in the U.S., and he didn't have two citizen parents.  So, by "birther" logic, he shouldn't be eligible for the office of the President, right?

Uh, wrong.  Ted Cruz's mother is an American citizen.  She was born in Delaware.  The law states that if a child of a U.S. citizen parent and a foreign national parent (Cruz' father became a naturalized American citizen in 2005) is born outside the U.S., the child is an American citizen if 1) one parent is a U.S. citizen, and 2) the U.S. citizen parent was "physically present in the United States for at least five years, including at least two years after 14 years of age." (From http://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual-Volume12-PartH-Chapter3.html)  Cruz' mother attended college at Rice University in Houston.  She also worked in Houston as a computer programmer.  I'm assuming this means she lived there for at least two years after the age 
of 14.  

Therefore, Ted Cruz is a U.S. citizen by birth, and thus a natural born citizen, and thus Constitutionally eligible to run for President.  

The principle of jus soli, by the way, also applies to Bobby Jindal and Marco Rubio.  While neither of them had U.S. citizen parents at birth, they were both born in the U.S.  That makes them both citizens at birth, which makes them natural born citizens, which makes them Constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States.

The Congressional Research Service report I cited earlier ​also states the following:

"In addition to historical and textual analysis, numerous holdings and references in federal (and state) cases for more than a century have clearly indicated that those born inthe United States and subject to its jurisdiction (i.e. not born to foreign diplomates or occupying military forces), even to alien parents, are citizens 'at birth' or 'by birth' and are 'natural born' as opposed to 'naturalized' U.S. citizens.  There is no provision in the Constitution and no controlling American case law to support a contention that the citizenship of one's parents governs the eligibility of a native born U.S. citizen to be President." (boldface emphasis is mine.)

So birthers, if you're going to use the argument of "both his parents weren't citizens, therefore, he's not a 'natural born citizen'" against Barack Obama--a man you don't like as President--you have to use the same argument against Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindal, and Marco Rubio, men you just might like as President.  If you want to go by the rule of law, the law has to apply to all people, not just to the people you don't like.  

Your arguments against a man you didn't want to be President have just come back to bite you in the butt.

Just my .04, adjusted for inflation.