by Javier Manjarres
Conservative author and TV pundit extraordinaire S.E. Cupp took a dive into the Shark Tank during her visit to Orlando for the Presidency 5 and CPAC-FL events. Cupp is well known for her sharp insights on all things conservative, and she gave her take on Senator Marco Rubio’s potential selection as VEEP and how she thought the Presidential candidates did in their debate in Orlando. At the very end, I took it upon myself to ask S.E. the golden question, I asked her if she…watch the video 
10 Responses to “S.E. Cupp Interviews with The Shark Tank, Talks About Love”
oh, BOY!! Sharkie, I do believe you made the girl blush!! TOO FUNNY!
Seriously though, she brings up some VERY good points about Marco ..how he loses something maybe if he’s a running mate for Perry or Romney..that doesn’t apply to any of the other possibles, though!! I do wish everyone would stop assuming it WILL NECESSARILY be one of those two!! I love the way she says Marco has complete credibility…he sure does!!
Great job! She is so lovely and such a nice girl!!
The key is to defeat Obama, keep the House and win the Senate 60+.
Marco Rubio should not ignore her observation. The ticket is important.
And yes, S.E. Cupp is very intellegent, thoughtful and attractive. She had the correct answer for your question.
What a smart gorgeous delicious woman SE is. I’ll miss seeing her on FOX because I don’t intend to watch GBTV. I think it will go the same route as the Oprah network, especially being on the internet.
The Republicans and many pundits continue to promote Rubio as the shoe-in for the VP slot in 2012 and also as a future president. This premise ignores the FACT that Rubio is constitutionally ineligible to hold either position. Rubio IS NOT…I repeat IS NOT a Natural Born Citizen as mandated under Article 2 Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. Rubio’s parents WERE NOT U.S. citizens at the time of his birth. The same holds true for Bobby Jindal, another “rising star” who is often touted as a future VP or presidential candidate. Of course the presidency has most recently been usurped by AKA Barry Obama who is not only not a Natural Born Citizen but who has also failed to definitively provide proof that he was born even in the United States. Plus there is the fact that he later became a citizen of Indonesia through adoption. One can scoff and laugh all you want …but these are the incontrovertible facts that will not be reported by the leftist media and will not be addressed by a corrupt and complicit Congress. Don’t take my word for it…the information is out there for anyone who is intellectually honest and curious.
“Rubio IS NOT…I repeat IS NOT a Natural Born Citizen as mandated under Article 2 Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. Rubio’s parents WERE NOT U.S. citizens at the time of his birth.”
???? Gary W, this is “birther” NONSENSE. The Constitution does NOT define “natural born citizen” as meaning your parents were citizens of the United States. In fact, it doesn’t define the term *at all*. And no REASONABLE interpretation of the phrase (that is, any non-”birther”, non-bat-sh*t crazy interpretation) would bar Obama, much less Rubio or Jindal, from the White House.
By your “logic”, no president born before roughly 1796 (1809 if you consider the ratification of the Constitution to be the nation’s true start) were “eligible” to be president, because NONE of their parents were born “in the United States”. Good luck explaining how Washingon, Adams and Jefferson – not to mention The Father of the Constitution – were all legally barred from the office by the document he largely wrote.
Why don’t you go troll somewhere else. Serious defenders of the Republic don’t have time for cranks, crazies and consipracy theorists. Maybe you’d be happier on the Left, they love such people.
Regards,
Joe
Hey Joe,
It’s called the “GRANDFATHER CLAUSE” [in CAPS]…
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.
Joe, you need to do your research before you spout off about things of which you are ignorant.
And yes, the Supreme Court has affirmed the definition of NBC in Minor v. Happersatt AND the Senate affirmed the two parent citizen requirement in April of 2008 with it’s non-binging Resolution 511 as it pertained to McCain. Finally the internet of the Founding Fathers as to NBC can be found in their writings.
Do your homework! And stop the OBOT nonsense!
On the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives in 1862, Congressman John Bingham—the “father of the 14th Amendment”—stated, “All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.”
In 1866 Bingham stated, “Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” Bingham’s definition was never disputed by other Congressmen. (Obama supporters—including attorneys filing briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court—have omitted the words “of parents” when quoting Bingham’s statement, in a shameful and intentional effort to mislead.)
In Minor v. Happersett (1875) Chief Justice of the Supreme Court C. J. Waite wrote, “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”
In other words, the Supreme Court has confirmed that a person born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents is a natural born citizen, but there has never been a definitive court ruling regarding those who are native born but not have having two U.S citizen parents (such as Obama, Rubio, and Jindal).
It is reasonable to demand that the issue be brought before the Supreme Court, so that the Justices can research the history of the term and issue a ruling. It is not reasonable to ridicule those who make that demand simply because one fears a ruling that might go against Obama.
I was a delegate at Presidency V and went to a panel discussion
after the debates by Heritage Foundation with SE Cupp, Bill Kristol and Steve Hayes. It is a LIE that Perry and Romney both had a poor performance. Perry had a pitiful performance! Romney was a star!
Perry’s badgering of Romney monopolized the debate as Perry was trying to solidify his position. However, ROMNEY handled the assaults with his usual professionalism … good try! Romney was applauded by EVERYONE as the winner, including focus groups! My family over the entire country called to say it was a Romney win!
Why would SE Cupp and her team – just ignore these results? Answer,
the are for Perry! Rick Scott is for Perry! They are all making excuses for his positions such a college education for illegals (Romney turned this down in Massachusetts, a HUGE education state because Romney is PRO America!)
Perry’s performance was so poor that a huge silence came over the entire 6,500 audience and delegates. The Perry people, by far, were everywhere — reps, booths, buttons, etc. I heard many Perry peopel saying “who do we vote for now?” Later we heard several delegates express that they did a group “protest vote.” Frankly, I’m not sure who they were protesting … but Perry sank and Cain rose!
My main concern is Freedom of the Press and Beck is also a suspect as far as I’m concerned. He equally destroys both parties and it’s NOT a 50/50 argument. In fact, when it comes to freedom and tax issues: Republicans 90%, Democrats 10%. You’d never know this with Beck. I withdrew my membership when I saw the slanted chat line … no fair adult debate about candidates qualifications. Only distortions!
Romney had lead in the polls from time to time, however, when you see a discussion about the candidates, they rarely even mention Romney’s name. The press should REPORT … NOT pick our candidates!
The establishment is against Romney because he’s a free thinker and not owned by globalism. The Romneycare issue is a total JOKE as it has nothing to do with the draconian takeover of America by Obamacare. Did anyone read about his funding for a cilian army in Obama’s plan, why is this never mentioned! Why is it there?
Romney was tackling the financial solvency of Massachusetts and $1 billion in emergency rooms was, many times, fradulent or abusive waste of taxpayer dollars, while driving up premiums for responsible hard-working citiznes. How could he have overlooked that part of the budget? He added 6% of Mass to the insurance rolls because this assures healthy lives for all … it’s NOT the same as subsidizing illegals in college to the tune of $100,000, when a US citizen could benefit! Try get into an emergency room recently?
This kind of media cronyism has to stop … the media should only report … even on Fox!
Just as Clinton inoculated the GOP about anything sleazy, making any lib press drones who comment hypocrites, Obama has also inoculated his opponenets about birther issues. Personally, I hope they drop an Oct. surprise “bomb” on him exposing the fraud about his ID et al. It would best be done as a Swiftboating move by a 507, thus allowing the GOP candiddte to condemn it (triangulation) as W. did while still benefitting. Notice S.E. is quick to point out any est. Rep. ties are a kiss of death for Marco, she’s right. I can’t wait to see her bustin’ the butts of liberal moron kids and their indoctrinator professors in college settings. Young, articulate, conservative and
HOT. What else can you say about S.E.?
For Linna and all others surprised by Beck, you obviously haven’t been listening for years as I have. This is no surprise that Glenn Beck has been an equal opportunity critic of any politician who backslides on conservative constitutional values. He is just a man with a chalk board who educates people with the facts and is not in any political camp. Love him or hate him, but never accuse him of distorting the truth. He warned us all about the Soros-Obama-Union connection with the OWS charade for many months now. Just like Beck, I too am tired of Rino’s and want a candidate with steely resolve and conviction that doesn’t pander to the warm and fuzzy Independents and liberals. In 2012 we don’t have to merely settle, we can have our cake and eat it too. Cain and Bachman are those choices!