This isn’t by any means an exhaustive analysis of the second part of the Stossel LP presidential debate but I wanted to share the video now before too much time passes and this becomes irrelevant.
In this second part, Fox News hosts Bill O’Reilly and Geraldo Rivera each posed a video question regarding drugs. O’Reilly said he had a question for “the libertarian geniuses” which it seemed that he thought he really had a question that would stump them. As it turned out, O’Reilly’s question made him look like a fool. What he thought was a fast ball was actually a hanging curveball that any libertarian worth his or her salt would have hit out of the park (It’s clear that either he doesn’t watch Stossel’s show because he crushes these kinds of questions on a regular basis). All three candidates indeed did hit it out of the park (bonus points for Petersen for calling O’Reilly a pin head).
Geraldo’s question was a bit more nuanced: Should government have programs to help drug addicts? Among the three candidates, I thought McAfee had the best answer. Treatment cannot be forced on those who don’t want it.
From there, Stossel addressed more of the issues in which libertarians are outside the mainstream.
Combining the two parts of the debate together, my opinion hasn’t changed much. I feel like Austin Petersen “won,” I liked much of what John McAfee had to say (he has a great voice too; he should get into broadcasting), and if anyone “lost” it was Gary Johnson.
All of that being said, any one of these individuals is lightyears better than what the blue and red teams are offering.
In case you missed it, the first half of the Libertarian Party Presidential Debate aired on Stossel on April 1st (the second half will air on Friday, April 8, 2016). The three participants were 2012 Libertarian Party presidential nominee and former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, software developer John McAfee, and the founder of the blog The Libertarian Republic Austin Petersen.
After watching some of the GOP debates and the first Democrat debate, watching the Libertarians debate was refreshing. No name calling or commenting on the appearance of the other candidates. No scolding the debate moderator for asking questions the candidates didn’t like. To the extent that one candidate challenged or disagreed with another they were on the substance of the issue at hand (more on that in a moment). There seemed to be more areas of agreement than disagreement (and even a kiss on the cheek) among them. This debate was more about presenting to a national cable audience the case for Libertartian policy alternatives to those of the Republicrats.
Did any candidate “win” Part 1 of the debate or help/hurt his chances with the LP faithful or viewers who are open to supporting a third party candidate?
I can only answer for myself. I enthusiastically supported Gary Johnson in 2012 all the way back from when he was running for the GOP nomination to election day as the LP’s nominee. Of the three, he’s the only one I was all that familiar with. I took the Isidewith.com survey on the issues (mentioned in the debate) several weeks ago and found that I sided with Austin Petersen 97%, Gary Johnson 92%, and Ted Cruz 77%. I’m not sure why John McAfee wasn’t among those I sided with because I found myself in agreement with much of what he said in the debate. Due to these results, though Gov. Johnson is sort of my default favorite I watched with an open mind.
To my surprise, indeed I did find myself agreeing more with the thirty-five year old Austin Petersen than the other two. For libertarians looking for “purity” of libertarian principles, Petersen is your guy it seems (based solely on one half of one debate). When asked about whether a cake decorator should be forced to make a cake for someone based on personal or religious reasons, Johnson (to my profound disappointment) said they should while Petersen said the market should decide making the freedom of association argument (an argument every good libertarian should have down pat).
The second strike against Johnson and for Petersen was the question of the so-called gender pay gap. Johnson sounded like a progressive echoing the “equal pay for equal” work line but said he would be hesitant to sign any equal pay legislation because “the devil is in the details.” Petersen on the other hand skillfully explained why the gender pay gap is a progressive myth. McAfee, for his part argued that if a person doesn’t like how much they are being paid they are free to look elsewhere.
There’s certainly more in the debate that I didn’t get into here. My conclusion as far as my opinion goes: Petersen helped himself, Johnson hurt himself, and McAfee is intriguing. In a world where Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are looking to be their party’s nominee any of the three would be hands down a better choice.
I hate all the candidates who aren’t libertarians.
I hate the voters continuing to lend their support to the authoritarian politics of the two major parties.
Most of all, I hate the endless raving about a possible Trump candidacy.
Trump Isn’t the Problem. His Supporters Are. An ocean of words has been written about Donald Trump’s detestable politics and undiagnosed personality disorders. Every one of those words is true. He is a sleazy multi-level marketer with a cheap spray tan and a bad comb-over; a low functioning bully with the attention span of a second-grader, whose first policy instinct will always be authoritarianism and who lacks even the most basic conceptions of constitutional governance, separation of powers and individual freedom.
If nominated, he will, without one shred of doubt, lose the general election to Hillary Clinton.
Nonetheless, anyone who thinks the GOP establishment can do much to stop this slow motion train wreck misunderstands the nature of government.
Government is not the party elite, big money donors, or the politicians in Washington. Government is us. We the people. The voters (and non-voters) who put and keep those politicians in office. Ourselves, our neighbors, our friends, family and co-workers.
The establishment cannot fight Trump because he is not the target. His supporters are.
How has endlessly pointing out how racist, xenophobic and stupid they are worked thus far?
Squeezing out other candidates won’t force any voters to shift their support to an establishment pick. As Trump himself discerns, with his trademark narcissistic clarity (but his detractors somehow miss), those supporters might just as well shift to Trump. And squeezing him out won’t force any of them to turn out for some other, better, more respectable, nominee in the general.
Therein lies the rub.
Trump’s candidacy reveals something ugly and festering on the American right, something with the potential to do nuclear-level damage to the GOP’s credibility with everyone from moderates, independents and swing voters to Christians and mainstream Republicans.
On the other hand, if the party squeezes him out—whether through an onslaught of establishment attacks or a brokered convention—it risks alienating his pissed off contingency of Republican voters.
At a time when voters are fleeing the major parties in droves, the GOP is between a rock and a hard place. A Trump candidacy might be fatal, but so might the loss of his fans. To move forward without them, the party would need to replace its Trump-wing with a new supply of liberty voters.
There’s a lesson in the numbers, for a party willing to make hard choices, and it’s not the only one of the 2016 cycle.
It turns out those demographics, like all the others, are not stereotypic representatives of monolithic groups, but individuals with political concerns that transcend gender, heritage and religion. Candidates who ignore this modern reality will continue to be confused about why Evangelicals and Hispanics are voting for Trump—and continue suffering backlashes for their insulting rhetorical devices (like the importance of beginning each day on one’s knees or special places in hell for free-thinking women).
Money Does Not Buy Elections. There’s some evidence money buys politicians and pundits. But Trump’s candidacy annihilates the myth that an entrenched two-party system, dripping in advertising wealth, subliminally messages clueless voters into supporting the status quo.
Neither establishment donors nor the politicians themselves are in control this election cycle. Jeb Bush, Chris Christie and their respective Super PACs paid through the nose to perform poorly in the early voting states. Trump, on the other hand, without the support of any Super PAC, is paying minimally to outperform expectations.
That Trump is a phenomenon unto himself might explain why it costs him so little to win. It does not explain why Bush and Christie have paid so dearly to lose.
What does explain it is that rebellious primary voters are not beholden to any amount of campaign advertising, political spending, establishment credibility or ideological purity.
The GOP Might Not Survive the Trump Campaign, But the Country Undoubtedly Will. Trump is a monarchist who wants to use the office of President to crown himself king and savior, while cutting through the red tape for his next casino parking lot. Unfortunately, all too many people—including plenty of Republicans—are ready to go along with the cult of an imperial presidency.
Notwithstanding that problematic trend, we still have Congress, the Constitution, and the limits on presidential power set forth in Article II.
That might not be true if Ted Cruz got his way and turned SCOTUS into just another political branch of government. Party loyalists desperate to stop Trump may not understand how dangerous that is.
As a libertarian, I have never enjoyed an election cycle in which the viable candidates were anything but clowns. For me, 2016 is just par for the course. The rest of the electorate is now feeling the way I always do.
Maybe now is a good time to ponder what they’re so desperately trying to save.
Unless It Can Reinvent Itself, the GOP May Not Be Worth Saving. I suspect my political aims are vastly different from those of most Trump supporters. I nevertheless also suspect we have similar reactions to the prediction that he is going to destroy the GOP and/or conservative movement:
Are we supposed to conclude that’s a bug…or a feature?
Amid all the handwringing about the wreckage that will be left in the wake of Trump’s candidacy, precious little is devoted to convincing voters there’s anything worth saving.
Remind me again, what is the point of the GOP?
It’s clearly not to restrain spending. Once they obtained control of both houses of Congress, Republicans drove a stake through the Budget Control Act, broke budget caps, suspended the debt ceiling and doc-fixed Medicare to the tune of $500 billion. Along the way, they extended No Child Left Behind, passed a $305 billion highway bill (muh roads!), and reauthorized Ex-Im.
I’ll grant them abortion. That’s one. What else? Carpet-bombing and traditional marriage?
This is me yawning.
If the GOP wants voters like me to come to its rescue, it’s going to have to start selling something we want to buy. It will need to cut lose the growing horde of populist authoritarians, the seedy underbelly of racists and xenophobes venturing from their closets, and the dying remnants of traditional marriage zealots. It will need to replenish its base instead with the growing numbers of liberty-minded voters currently spread out across the two major parties, a few third parties, and the sizable ranks of swing-voting independents.
It will need to unite its disparate factions around common principles of limited government and apply those principles consistently across social, economic and national security issues.
And it will need to convince us that this time it means it.
If I had a dollar for every time I heard someone say that Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are ineligible to run for president because they are not “natural-born citizens,” I would have more money than the recent $1.5 Billion Powerball winners. Donald Trump is wrong. The Constitution and case law are clear. Both Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are natural-born citizens, and therefore eligible to run for president.
Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution makes it clear that only a natural-born citizen, who is at least 35 years old, is eligible to be president:
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 are Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio natural-born citizens under the Constitution? The answer is yes. While the Constitution does not define natural-born, statutes and the common law, dating back to pre-colonial English common law have addressed and settled this issue.
Ted Cruz is a Natural-Born U.S. Citizen
Ted Cruz was born December 22, 1970 in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. His father, Rafael Cruz, was born in Cuba and his mother, Eleanor Wilson, was born in Wilmington, Delaware. The family relocated to Texas in 1974.
Most legal scholars agree that a natural-born citizen is one who does not need to go through the naturalization process. The Naturalization Act of 1790 addresses the issue of children born outside our borders to American citizens:
[T]he children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.
Many birthers, such as Ann Coulter, make the argument that at the time the Naturalization Act of 1790 was passed, citizenship only passed through the father, requiring that the father must be a U.S. Citizen. While this is true, they hold the false belief that the Constitution has not been amended to change this. At the time of the signing of the Act, women also could not own property without her husband. Since it is not mentioned or amended in the Constitution, I hope that Coulter is prepared to forfeit her property she owns on her own since that is her interpretation of the Constitution. But I digress. Furthermore, the definition of a natural-born citizen was later codified at 8 U.S.C. 1401(d). It reads in pertinent part:
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
Since Ted Cruz’s mother is a natural-born citizen, Ted Cruz is also a natural born citizen. It does not matter that he was born in Canada. The Supreme Court has also answered this question. In Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971), the Court held that the federal government may revoke the citizenship of a natural-born citizen if certain requirements were not met. In this case, Aldo Mario Bellei was born in Italy to an American mother and an Italian father. Mr. Bellei held both Italian and U.S. citizenship.
While the primary issue reviewed in Bellei was not on the definition of a natural-born citizen, the Court first had to determine that Mr. Bellei was a natural-born citizen. Upon determining that Mr. Bellei was a natural-born U.S. citizen, the Court held that the federal government may set a condition subsequent on citizenship for those born outside the United States. Specifically, the government may revoke the citizenship of natural-born citizens born outside the United States when citizens do not establish domicile within the United States by age 23 and remain for at least five (5) years. See Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952 sec. 311.
In the case of Ted Cruz, he moved to the United States at the age of three (3) years old and has maintained domicile in the United States since then. Therefore, he is a natural-born citizen of the United States and eligible to run for and serve as President of the United States.
Marco Rubio is a Natural-Born U.S. Citizen
Presidential candidate, Donald Trump recently stated that he is unsure that Marco Rubio is eligible to run for president. The case for Rubio’s citizenship is more clear-cut than the case for Cruz. Marco Rubio was born on May 28, 1971 in Miami, FL. His parents came to the United States in 1956. At the time of Rubio’s birth, his parents were Permanent Residents of the United States. This means that his parents were here legally with their “green cards.” Federal law is clear that those born on U.S. soil and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States are natural-born citizens. 8 U.S.C. 1401(a) reads in pertinent part:
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
Of course, the 14th Amendment sec. 1 provides that:
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.
(emphasis added)
Since Marco Rubio was born on American soil (last time I checked, Miami is still American soil), and he is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, he is clearly a natural-born citizen.
The Supreme Court has also ruled on this. In U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the Court held that a child born on U.S. soil to permanent residents of the United States is a natural-born citizen by virtue of the 14th Amendment. Justice Horace Gray, citing to U.S. v. Rhodes (1866), stated in his majority opinion that:
All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . .
Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 662. (emphasis added)
Conclusion
The fact that Donald Trump and other birthers would raise questions as to the eligibility of either Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio to run for president is absolutely absurd. Any litigation of these issues is frivolous and a waste of taxpayer money. It is this lawyer’s belief that anyone who brings such a frivolous suit should be sanctioned and responsible for government attorney fees. Enough is enough. It is time to put the birther argument to rest.
Albert is a licensed attorney and holds a J.D. from Barry University School of Law as well as an MBA and BA in Political Science from The University of Central Florida. He is a conservative libertarian and his interests include judicial politics, criminal procedure, and elections. He has one son named Albert and a black lab puppy named Lincoln. In his spare time, he plays and coaches soccer.
I’m by no means a Ted Cruz supporter but damn this is clever. If you think you have seen something like this before, this is a parody of that wonderful scene from the movie Office Space.
This isn’t by any means an exhaustive analysis of the second part of the Stossel LP presidential debate but I wanted to share the video now before too much time passes and this becomes irrelevant. 
It’s clearly 
