My wife and I are recently enamored of Ron Paul due to an interview with CNN's Glen Beck. Yet in his long interview with Glen I do not recall that he ever mentioned changing the constitution this way. So, as far as I'm concerned, Huckabee's the first.

But, that does not keep Huckabee from having to live up to what he actually DOES in office, nor does it erase the fact that as a "Baptist" he is considered a flaming liberal (maverick) by his peers.

So,by your criteria Rudy Giuliani is not a major candidate.

I knew you guys would pull the "major" candidate spin. However, you still fail to address page two of the article: "Members of Congress have never tried to change birthright citizenship by law." Are you going to tell me that Ron Paul is not a congressman? Or there must be something flawed with Ron Paul's statement on this position (from ronpaul2008.com) "I've introduced legislation that would amend the Constitution and end automatic birthright citizenship." - Ron Paul.

Robert,

Ron Paul has been in favor of repealing the 14th amendment for decades.

He didn't mention it on Glenn Beck and therefore you consider Huckabee the first?

By the way, it's interesting how none of the "major" candidates raised as much as Ron Paul in the fourth quarter.

Ron Paul's donations almost tripled Huckabee's

Ron Paul doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of becoming the Republican nominee for President . . . or Vice President, for that matter.

The man is perceived as a flake. Many of his supporters are perceived as flakes. And perceptions are what count at this stage of the game.

Paul's supporters and their continual griping are major turnoffs to a moderate electorate -- and probably a significant contributing factor to Paul's being unable to gain a foothold.

Paul is a very, very weak campaigner and candidate. Huckabee, on the other hand, is right up there with Barack Obama in being an excellent communicator and campaigner.

Huckabee, of course, has only a slightly better chance than Paul of becoming the Republican nominee for President.

Unlike Paul, though, Huckabee could well end up on the Republican ticket as the nominee for Vice President. Huckabee would not be a good fit on a ticket headed by Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson, but he could work well in that role for other candidates.

Thompson? While he may want to be President, he doesn't seem to want to be a candidate.

Congressman Paul has introduced legislation that is PENDING NOW in the House to amend the 14th Amendment to eliminate birthright citizenship.

He has spoken on this and advocated it for years.

The frustration Paul supporters feel is that Huck gets a story in the Post when he says it, and may win votes accordingly, yet Ron Paul has been waging this battle for years and it isn't reported.

And yet, for all the money Ron Paul has raised, and for all the publicity his rioting supporters are getting from the Sean Hannity lynching, he's still dead in the water and irrelevent.

Must be nice to waste money.

FRED THOMPSON is the best person to lead this country. He is a true conservative and has been his entire life. All one has to do is check his record to see this.

During my time in the Army as an Intelligence Analyst, I served under both Presidents Carter and Reagan (as my commanders in chief). Without argument, President Reagan was the best commander-in-chief a military person could ever have served under. Fred Thompson possesses the same qualities and vision as President Reagan in that he is strong on national defense and sees a dire need to secure our borders and control immigration.

OK, so we have Huckabee channeling Dr. Paul, then flipflops on it, and the Times then claims they were not tryign to slight Dr. Paul but focus on "the major candidates".

So tell me, Times, what is Dr. Paul, the $20M man and only anti-war GOP candidate, if he's not a major candidate, which he is???

Geez, you guys are just as bad as the rest of Last Millenium's Media!

Whether Dr. Paul is a "major" candidate can be debated. That he had taken the position Mr. Huckabee has now espoused cannot. Nor can it be denied that his leadership on this issue was ignored in the article in question. While I am not qualified to judge Mr. Dinan's motives, I hardly see how anyone can be surprised that the Paul camp feels slighted. And I wonder, if Dennis Kucinich or Bill Richardson held Paul's & Huckabee's position, would that have been ignored?

How is it then that Rudy is considered a "major" candidate when Ron Paul trounced him in Iowa and has raised more money then Rudy?

How can Ron Paul not be considered a major candidate when he has won the majority of straw polls (also not mentioned by the mainstream news media) and has raised more money than any of the other candidates in the party?

If the Media were to report as much about Ron Paul's position on the issues (without misinforming their viewers about them) and show him as much respect as they do the other candidates he might be a much bigger challenge for the other candidates to overcome. But that isn't what the mainstream media wants, is it?!

Any intelligent person would go to Congressman Paul's website, http://www.house.gov/paul, and clearly see that he had actually submitted legislation to change the 14th amendment. Of course, the Huckabee crowd and his willing accomplices in main stream media are trying conceal Huckabee's liberal past and make him look more conservative. For one reason only, to get the nomination. As far as ignoring Ron Paul that's another example of why the media can not be trusted.

The significant points of this story are: 1. Huck is not a man of his word, or: 2. Gilchrist is not reliable. In either case, TWT is not reliable. Do not take it upon yourselves to announce who is or is not a major candidate. You have all you can do to get your facts straight

If those are your criteria then that would mean that Rudy Giuliani is not a major candidate either. Since he finished behind Paul in Iowa and didn't "place or show" in NH, essentially tying with Paul. If anything Ron Paul is more major than Giuliani or Thompson since he has at least been consistent in his support from two very different states.
Ron Paul is consistent can't you be?

Oh, and what is easier (and more fair) to write, "no other major presidential candidate" or "Ron Paul"

The slight is obvious.

I guess this means that I'll be giving another "internet" $50.00 to Dr. Paul. He's got the bankroll now, let's take action!

Oh, and Dr. Paul, I apoligize for the disrespect of some reporters. If they say it enough, you might some day be considered a "major candidate"

Fight on!

Rich and family

Go back and re-read the 14th Amendment. That Amendment was written to insure that the children of freed slaves were to be U.S. citizens. It has nothing to do with the children of illegal aliens. In fact, the 14th was further stratified by its authors to specifically exclude those who were merely born on U.S. soil to parents who were not citizens of this country. Surely, we have a Constitutional expert out there SOMEWHERE who will present these facts to our elite media and end this misnomer of anchor babies being citizens merely by being born on U.S. soil. It's so simple an issue that a grade-schooler (one who's been properly schooled) could research and prove! It's a moot issue. Those babies take the citizenship of the mother's country. LEARN AMERICAN HISTORY!!

MAJOR candidate??

Well, in that case, I know I won't be reading any articles about Rudy Guiliani, so long as he keeps polling in the single digits or last...OF COURSE.

Dear Robert, Huckabee was NOT the FIRST...it's just a FACT that's all. You can check his record.

And also, since when does the MEDIA decide who is a "Major" candidate...

...I thought that was up to the public/voters?

BUT then again when the MEDIA "chooses" to profile, spotlight, and give, more than ample, camera time to the "Major" candidates, I guess they're giving the voters "their" choices.

It really is sad and a disgrace.

THE TIMES: "Members of Congress have never tried to change birthright citizenship by law."
-From MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10609068/) "With more than 70 co-sponsors, Georgia Republican Rep. Nathan Deal tried to include a revocation of birthright citizenship in an immigration bill passed by the House in mid-December. GOP House leaders did not let the proposal come to a vote."
-And to quote CONGRESSMAN Ron Paul, "I've introduced legislation that would amend the Constitution and end automatic birthright citizenship."

THE TIMES: "until he wins, or places, or shows, in a primary, it's difficult to make the case that Mr. Paul can be called a "major" candidate."
-This says The Times won't label a contender a "major" candidate unless they win (1st), place (2nd), or show (3rd) in a primary. Since at the time this article was published there were only full results available from one contest, The Times seems to be dimwittedly limiting the consideration other respectable and popular candidates are due.

THE TIMES: " Mr. Paul finished fifth in Iowa, behind Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson and John McCain."
-Does this suggest that Fred Thompson, who earned 13% in IA and a mere 1% in NH is a "major candidate" because he "showed" (came in 3rd) in IA, as opposed to Ron Paul who earned 10% in IA and 8% in NH? Thompson fits The Times' criteria for being considered a "major" candidate. Nationally, however, he is loosing to Ron Paul by nearly 10,000 votes (IA and NH combined as of this writing). Ron Paul is beating Thompson in NH by almost 14000 votes. Thompson only beat Paul by about 4000 votes in IA.

THE TIMES: "His new position on birthright citizenship also puts him alone among the candidates."
-This apparent statement of fact makes no distinction about whether a candidate is "major" or not. See CANDIDATE Ron Paul's quote above and it's obvious that The Times' statement is 100% false. Even if Huckabee actually were against birthright citizenship, he would not be alone in his views.

Any simple thought and/or research into the matter shows this article and "reporter" to be quite pathetic.

Mr. Dinan,

As a Ron Paul supporter.

I would like to THANK YOU KINDLY for following up on the Huckabee Immigration article.

BRAVO for you.

Sincerely,
Maria

RE: "That status quo could change tonight, or down the road. But until he wins, or places, or shows, in a primary, it's difficult to make the case that Mr. Paul can be called a "major" candidate."

So Rudy isn't a major candidate either?

For that matter, since this is written prior to the results of NH, shouldn't McCain be off the list also?

What is it with you guys? Why on earth would first through third in two states representing less than 1% of the population make any difference . . . particularly when a) no one appears to be walking away with this thing, b) you have a broad field, all of whom are garnering significant numbers, and c) your blacklisting of Dr. Paul has at least some affect on the outcome? Lou Dobbs got it right tonight (for once) when he lambasted the MSM for controlling the election. Shame on all of you.

Oh, and by the way, it's "Dr." Paul. Show a little respect!

The media determines who is a "major" candidate by how much they talk about him/her. The more they talk about a candidate's issues, the more popular he/she becomes. Look at the media blitz for Huckabee in the 3 weeks prior to Iowa: cover of Newsweek, front page newspaper, non-stop CNN/Fox/etc. It's no coincidence that his poll numbers went up. And it is how they talk about him. When Paul said he wanted to get rid of the IRS the media labled him a "nut". When Huckabee recently said he wanted to get rid of the IRS, and Giuliani said he wanted to phase out the IRS they are touted as being for change from government as usual. Why do you suppose that is? Huckabee is repackaging Ron Paul's positions and the media is eating it up!

Illegals should never ever be able to have a child here and declared a citizen. That time is over. Times now call for radical reform. Dont you realize YOU PAY for MEDICAL How is that going to last, taking and taking and never paying into the system. They work for cash.

Mr. Elbridge,

The elitist attitude shown in your reply once again shows the incomprehensible bias of your rag. To slight Congressman Ron Paul the way you have by creating a "major" candidate rule out of the ether is journalistic prostitution. You will only recognize the candidates you are in bed with. To your chagrin, Ron Paul basically tied Mr. Giuliani and trounced Mr. Thompson in New Hampshire, both of whom I am sure you recognize as "major" candidates.

Congressman Ron Paul raised more money than any other candidate in the fourth quarter, and set a record for one day campaign contributions, $100 at a time. The other candidates are relying on personal wealth and the political machine of special interest groups to fund their campaigns. Ron Paul is the candidate of the people. That should be very evident to you since by your own admission you received over 100 calls and emails within hours of printing your faux pas. How many Huckabee supporters called you to correct you and say that Huckabee does NOT support a Constitutional amendment? How many Giuliani or Thompson supporters have called or written since you have relegated their status to "minor" candidate by your criteria? Oh, that's right. The rules don't apply to them, since they are in the whore's little black book.

Observations from fly over country.

The Iowa caususes are the buzz, here in Omaha radio stations have had their share of politicos hawking their wares. I'm not buying.
Today the DOW is down 200 points, hmmm, while politicians shuffle their way to November, our economy is tanking because of 60-70 years of liberalism allowed to go on unimpeded. The fed playing with money policy and bailouts mentioned only staves off the inevitable. Where are the conservatives? The real ones. We exist but our voices remain unheeded.

I believe it has so worn down most people so much, that the relief when it is over, there will be an audible sigh of relief heard around the country. Only to start again with the same tired more and bigger bloated DC.

As a conservative (pre-moral majority), I find the field lacking substance. Peggy Noonan recently commented on the Iowa Caususes, and I found the article dead on spot. Verbiage wins over substance.

Promises of bigger and better government scares me. Most people who vote, claim to vote for whom they deem would be the best candidate that would meet their view of what government should be (our what the best polished politician tell them.) I believe people need to pick things apart more then they do. As I've lived nearly a 1/2 a century, the decay and decline of the republic has never been more apparent then it is today. Yes, Virginia, we are a representative republic, not a democracy. This is the first election year in a long, long time I have taken time to analyze the depth of which our country has began it's implosion.

About the time our original 13 states adopted their new constitution, in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh , had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years prior:
"A democracy is always temporary in nature ; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."

"The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years.

During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

1. From bondage to spiritual faith;
2. From spiritual faith to great courage;
3. From courage to liberty;
4. From liberty to abundance;
5. From abundance to complacency;
6. From complacency to apathy;
7. From apathy to dependence;
8. From dependence back into bondage "
I believe we are in step #7 and #8 already.

I don't adhere to the BELIEF that government should be the cradle to grave provider. I believe individual responsibility requires we seriously rethink the diversions we have taken from the basics established in 1787.

Since the 1913 with the questionable passage of the 16th amendment,for politicians to have as weapon for a full blown class warfare weapon. Now nearly a century has passed and we've been sliding toward a socialist state since. I believe in the 1950's Joe McCarthy had the right message in the wrong messenger. Communism exist in our society and at every level of government, entertainment, economics and politics. It has been indoctrinated since 1913, GW Bush is to many extents a socialist, using the name "compassionate conservative" allows for the use of the public treasury for feel good programs.

Democracies fail when people realize that they vote for the politicians that can rob from the Public treasury to give a "perceived" favor. We are witnessing this decay daily and you can disagree with me, that is fine, I can take that, but I have to say what invariably will be the outcome of this decline is absolutist rule. Whether that absolutism is in the guise of a single person or a monolithic bureaucracy is yet to be determined. I believe we are nearing that point. As a student of history, the facts bear my statements out. We cannot continue in this fashion without a thorough understanding of the inevitable outcome. Our country is dying and has been dying since the inception of the Income Tax Act of 1913. This effectively set up a class warfare system that became the way to wedge people. As wedges become more prevalent in a society, apathy and anger go hand in hand. During the Greek and Roman republics public works projects became more and more involved and lavish, (as today) the politicians gain power by making promises of money based projects for services.. I can stomach paying for needed infrastructure, but the service based economy will be our un-doing. The US no longer produces "Goods", the economic incentives of goods production is more cost effective overseas where the tax and labor structure favors it. We no longer produce "wealth" instead we "punish wealth" through our graduated taxes.

Our entertainment culture rivals the beginnings of the gladiatorial arena, such as the tween sluts, such as Paris, Britney and Lindsay, TV programs such as COPS, Reality TV, NFL football, hockey, boxing are mirrors only in the extent to which our culture will accept the nature of the violence and as in the days of early Rome the games become more graphic in nature. We are flooded with information generally about celebrities who have little to do with our daily lifes, as a distraction from the mundane existence most people live.

The sheep need to wake up. We have bunch of sponge heads running for the highest office in the free world.. They suck in the polls, and squeeze their heads and the ooze is spread forth as gooey populism, and our choices of dumb, dumber and dumbest are not much better then we'd get walking into a homeless shelter and just grabbing a bum..

We have the financially astute, but, politically niavete' of 2nd or (now 3rd) richest man on the planet endorsing one of the democrats, saying "he should pay more taxes" well Mr. Buffett, get out your damned check book and make the check payable to the US Treasury, I have little doubt they'd willingly accept the money.. Don't attempt to influence policy based on your myopia.

I am not happy with either of the current political parties and the lack of choice for a real candidate that isn't going to slow the dizzying growth of the federal government at the rate is has for the last 40 years. I've lost hope of turning that around. Every turn of the page over the last 20 years has been bigger government not less. We are looking at a nanny state because people are too damned lazy and stupid to wipe their own asses. Here is what we have, we have the democrats, intent on spewing the nanny state, la-la-land, global warming socialist mantra, and "compassionate conservatives" hiding liberal big government spending policies in the guise of a moral conservativism dictating their perception of morality through the run for the executive orifice.. This is not a choice, this is more of the same two types of people. We have politicians of both sides of the political spectrum spewing this junk.

2008 shows the insanity by the choices we have.

On the right we have Mit, Fred, Rudy, John, Mike, Tom, Duncan (and brother Ron, almost forgot, the other brother Alan..).

The mantra of moral conservatism is anathema to my beliefs about limited government. While I may place a high value on moral principles it is not my responsibility nor should it be governments responsibility to dictate to us "what is moral". People need to assume resposible for their actions. Moral is something that is God given, the nanny state should not have the responsibility to enforce anything other then the protection of life, liberty and property.

On the secular/socialist left we have Barack, John, Hillary, Bill, Chris, (God forbid I miss the aborted brother, Dennis )

Right or Left we have some serious issues facing our country, or division based on political lines is clearly a problem. Most people vote the way their parents did (if their parents even discussed politics) without understanding the basics of our founding documents. Most people failed to pay attention High school economics 101, if you tax corporations by proxy you are taxing the consumers through higher costs of goods, services and investment. Most people just hear from the politicians, "Yea lets soak the evil corporations and make them pay for government. I am sick of this ignorance..

Let me be a bit descriptive as to my assessments of the candidates presenting their wares.. For all intent and purpose, we have 2 viable candidates on the Socialrat side, Hillary and Obama, Not to defame the person but Hillary is riding on the coattails of her husband's presidency, she is a communist with fascist tendencies in the purest sense of the word. She and other Socialrats want to install fascist systems to dictate nany state ideals to businesses how to provide services, (ala Healthcare, Energy, you name it.) Hillary for all her blow is a veritable gold mine of nothing but political hot air. Maybe she can pay for all that with the contributions from the Chicoms attempt to buy her way into the Whitehouse via her husband's lobbying efforts. She won't discuss specifics of the programs she is proposing from free college, a 401k for every child, free healthcare cradle to grave, she only says that she will increase taxes (on the backs of the evil rich ) to make it happen. "Evil Rich", wow, is that me? as a family my wife and I gross over a 100k, does that make us "Rich"? Hillary tells us at every campaign stop how "rich" her and her husband are and don't pay enough taxes, well Ms Clinton, get your own damned check book out and write a check to the US treasury.I for one an sick of you bleeding the rest of us dry with your voting buying programs on the backs of those of us who "really" pay for it. If you don't get it, I don't like either Clinton in any way shape or form. Her husband left a bad taste in the mouths of many people. . And more of the depravity in the guise of Hillary is about as appealing as getting a prostate exam with a baseball bat. Need we talk about her smugness and the condescending cackle? It's more annoying then Michael Moore's bloviating or "W's" smirk.

Obama, man, don't know where to start with him, a junior house member from Illinois(or indiana.. Not sure which) with the experience of a wet labrador puppy chasing a wounded goose in the mississippi river. He is in over his head in most areas. He wants to get out of Iraq and attack Iran, he bounces like a spastic puppy chasing a ball. And Lord God almighty, the mighty "Okra" herself has endorsed him, so in the minds of many the "Okra" viewer sheeple, "He's gotta be the guy" right? Oprah, says so."Well, duh!" Bill Richardson, a relic of the Clinton administration, running in a party touting healthy eating and lowering transfats, Bill's face on the candidacy give me a good reason to chuckle. For god's sake Bill, follow Huckabee's example, lose a hundred pounds!! The other unmentionable "White guys" in the race, Chris Dodd, and Joe Biden, both sound more like emasculated sheep. They epitomize the 1990s demonrat party now more vitriolic and communist, spend, tax, spend and more tax. All without restraint.

On the republican side we have two major front runners, Rudy is a New Yorker from NYC that claims to have rescued the city in post 911, his stance on many issues while in his tenure as mayor was anything but conservative, Mit Romney rhetoric has changed as well, but is no less appealing then the unmuffed hair on his head. Huckabee, "another" buffoon from "Hope" Arkansas claims to be a conservative, but looking at his history in Arkansad his fiscal policy, and policies toward illegals as governor make him about as palatible as another GW Bush, FDR or LBJ guns and butter project. All three of the aforementioned have a history inconsistent with the idea of less government intrusion. Fred, the good ol' boy from Tennessee, is in the back pocket of the favorite target of the leftists, the "Right to Life" crowd gives him there endorsement. Wow, that is impressive Fred (not).. These people about as much sense as a manic bipolar in an AA meeting. And well, Fred, has the enthusiasm of an 10 year old redbone hound sleeping under the porch before it collapses. His excitement is infectious. Now Tom Tancredo, can we all say ILLEGAL? Yes, I believe we can, and I believe it is an important issue to address. (too late Tom's out..) We have 30 million people here illegally and more coming in each day costing our economy $338 billion dollars a year. Need to be addressed? yes, the only issue, NO. Duncan Hunter is so far down the scale of likely front runner people don't even know what he stands for. Hunter is a good man, he has a record that is admirable for his district. That said, it leaves the ones I've not even touched yet.

Here I sit a 1890's style libertarianin 2007 (registered as a republican for 36 years) , thinking our country has made some serious blunders over the last century. My view is if I don't butt into your business, I don't want government to steal from you to pay for something for me, I expect that respect in return. I would prefer to keep my retirement secure and safe from the Rob Peter to pay Paul mentality that is so prevalent in our society today. I would prefer my children have control of their own retirement and not expect 1/3 of their wages stolen from them before they get a paycheck. This means ending a bunch of government spending. Government theft through depression and LBJ era Ponzi schemes like medicare, social security. Ron Paul the closest thing to a real candidate echoing my economic views and political views (except his stance on defense), yet he has the charisma of a dogcatcher. He gathers attention from people like me, yet the message is lost because of the messenger. Ron Paul is saying many things I agree with yet in the political climate that is 2008 carries about as much weight as my vote. Especially when the verbal portion of his followers consist of the ignorant dolts of the Alex Jones, and Stormfront crowds. On the left you have Kucinich cavorting with Shirley McClain and telling the world he see UFO's, that sure buys credibility don't it. Alan Keyes, the absolute bottom of the moral hoitie toiltie cesspool the repubnicans can puke-up, a nutcase ideologue that makes Alex Jones or Lew Rockwell, look sane.

In a society there are givers, takers and clueless, giving denotes a choice, takers remove the choice from us and clueless assumes takers know better.

My hope has been waining for a long time. My reasons are specific.

Our country is under the control of strong special interests, (buzz word for lawyers and former politicians in DC acting as political lobbyists for profit).

Addressing lobbyists from the eco-lobbyists that hinder domestic energy production, to the pro-life/pro-choice dimwits, gay activists, moral authority activists, that provide distractions for amoral and moralistic politicians, lawyers make money off people's emotions. While it may be a feel good thing to send money to "Friends of the Earth" or "Joe's lobbying for Dummies" the only thing that happens is that is greases the palms of the pond scum. It is time for people to wake up and smell the coffee, the 5% considered rich in this country pay 70% of the taxes, is that truly fair?

As we live our lives our interdependence on foreign entanglement increases, the Chinese hold trillions dollars of our debt in US dollars, if they decide to dump this cash in exchange for Gold, or EURO's the US economy will be in a world o' hurt. We need to somehow end our dependence on countries outside for goods, and services, US citizens save at a negative 2% rate of their after tax income, while the Japanese citizen's save 18% of their after tax income. US Taxation is structured in such a way as to discourage personal savings.

The hurdles we face in 2008 as a country are pretty clear, unending deficit spending, pork barrel idiocy, guns and butter diplomacy, unbridled floods of illegal aliens at the border and within eroding the fabric of what it means to be American, NAFTA, CAFTA, SPP, debt held abroad, a federal reserve deflating the value of our dollar, energy prices on the rise, housing markets in a slump, farmers producing ethanol because of overly restrictive environmental policy, creating the potential for another ecological disaster that would parallel, if not exceed the dust bowl of the 1930s, all the while, the sheep continue to sleep. Politicians make promises they can't keep (and shouldn't) in a drive for power and control over our lifes. I've had enough. Do I have to vote for the dogcatcher?

One of the disenfranched from Fly over country.

first of all.. with the headline of you wanting to defy peoples right to be legal for being born in that country is 100% sure on my part that you wont win the election.
second... Your fascist and capitalistic ways will not be allowed have any say in this country ever.

Your a fool and waisting the time of a lot of people running such a terrible campaign.
Keep in mind that your fancy suits and shoes come from other countries. Unless your going to start wearing the "Pirated/Fake/cheap" copies of thoughs things. Perhaps you should consider yourself lucky that you havent been laughed out of the election as of yet.

You need immigration and world trade for many reasons, but you dont seem to understand that.

In the end...

CTI
SteroidBot
TPB
SceneDeathKnight
Paco420

Birthright citizenship should be ammended because there are too many people that come here illegally or on a student, tourist, or temp visa that aren't citizens and make sure they give birth in this country so that they can use these kids to get benefits and fight against deportation orders. The facts are that these are univited guest and an uninvited guest shouldn't be allowed to invite others. They have organizations that help them get social services from the states, they don't know english so the children need special attention in school. They receive medical insurance. Now we are seeing the children born to illegals becoming violent gangbangers with U.S. citizenship and there is nothing we can do about it. This law wasn't meant for them, it is outdated and a scam. It is time that the U.S. puts an end to this loophole.

Jeff,
Maybe Ron Paul HAS been "in favor of repealing the 14th amendment for decades", I'm sure you know better than me. Hmmm. Not a very good result to be seen today for his decades of work, wouldn't you think?
And to think I voted for Ross Perot. Never again will I go for a wannabe.
As for raising money, you shoulda seen what this guy Adolf was able to do back in 1935. Not really a criteria for voting.

Veterans and those currently in the United States Armed Forces, as well as those who will soon be in uniform, may not realize children born to them in an overseas location are designated U.S. citizens born abroad. These children are Naturalized Citizens of the United States of America and therefore can't even dream of becoming President of the United States.

On the other hand, the illegal alien who crosses the southern border tonight and gives birth to a child seconds later, her child CAN become President.

How can any veteran or service member even consider supporting a candidate who supports illegal aliens? For that matter how can any citizen consider such a position?

Stop granting citizenship to the children of illegal aliens. Aliens are willing to fight, let them fight to improve conditions in their native lands.

P.S. Pay off the National Debt!

We should bring our troops home so they can protect our boarders... Let the United Narions and Europe take care of the problems of the world!!! Why is it always the Americans that have to make this world right??? We have better things to do with the money spent...

Help the Legal Citizens of PWC enforce the "illegal immigration crackdown" as the Washington Post likes to report it.

The PW County has set up a fund for those who want to send a contribution to the County's efforts in this regard. Checks should be made payable to Prince William County and mailed to:

Prince William County
Attn: Chris Martino, Finance Director
1 County Complex Court
Prince William , Virginia 22192

Again, the LEGAL citizens of PWC appreciate your support.

In re Jose Ernesto Medellin

Jose Ernesto Medellin, a Mexican National, raped and murdered two daughters of Texas. He received the same treatment that any son of Texas would receive in that situation. He did not raise his nationality in the original proceedings. Mexico�s lack of an opportunity to aide and abet after the fact did not change the result of the case as observed by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and the United States Supreme Court. The execution will remind Mexican Nationals that they will not receive a pass when they rape and murder children in the United States.

The Constitution of the United State gives the United States Supreme Court, not the International Court of Justice (ICJ), to determine the domestic reach of international law.

United States Citizens in Mexico should avoid Mexico unless they are willing to take their chances. Mexican Nationals should avoid the United States unless they are willing to take their chances.

I would serve as Medellin�s executioner if allowed to do so by the proper authorities.