Tuesday, December 11, 2012 11:48:27 AM · by SeekAndFind · 634 replies
Business Insider ^ | 12/11/2012 | Grace Wyler
Posted on 01/10/2013 4:34:51 PM PST by Kolath
GOP establishment RINOs still haven't learned. They stick the middle finger up at conservatives once again and tout their think tanks that will embrace Democrats and shun conservatives. The fraud Glenn Beck announces that he has reinvented himself and his network once again. Do you still listen, watch, follow & support this fraud still? If so why? Do not forget Glenn Beck has a wrap sheet against good conservatives in the movement.
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
Bump, Bump, Bump!
I can't believe how we tear apart our own because of a slightest "infraction"
The party of stupid is a well earned adjective.
Hey laughing boy, where was it posted that this was news?
Ah, Alinsky isn't it?
By the way, how’s that eye condition going Mr Beck? A while back you were saying you were doomed to blindness. Shazam!!!
Yuk, yuk shazamm, you're an idiot troll!!
Yuk, yuk.
When did Beck become a GOP establishment RINO? The guy is a lot of things, but certainly not that.
Beck simply sees that the younger generations are more libertine and is dumping social conservatism in favor of a more libertarian brand of conservatism. Nothing more than. He sees a market share that Fox isn’t capturing and is trying to grab some of it.
That was embarrassing.
That was embarrassing.
And what purpose do you think this is posted for, hmmm?
Maybe not news, ridicule of Conservatives maybe?
Wake up.
You’re so full of s**t your eyes HAVE to be brown. Good God, get over yourself. You’re an embarrassment to this site.
Do you mean GB or the maker of this video?
Circular firing squad comes to mind. What an idiotic, mindless, worthless post. Next...............
Bears repeating, BTTT!
Yuk, yuk shazamm, you’re an idiot troll!!
Oh dear Lord, the slightest criticism or questioning and you go lose it....sheesh.
Previous poster was right, stupid party.
I was a fan of Beck at one time. I've followed him for nearly two years. I've subscribed to his news channel and what this guy says about Beck is true.
Beck is a fraud. He's been taking credit for other people's work, he's been known to stab people in the back should the political climate change and he's a huge cry baby narcissist.
Conservatives would be wise to rid themselves of this charlatan.
SENTINEL, weren’t you a Mormon Bishop or something, that converted to Christianity through discussions here at FR?
But this. This is a deal breaker for me. He is useless.
Popcorn PING!
Supreme Court cases that cite “natural born Citizen” as one born on U.S. soil to citizen parents:
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says: “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.' Again: 'I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
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.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
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.
Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939),
Was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child's natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents' origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship "and to return to the United States to assume its duties." Not only did the court rule that she did not lose her native born Citizenship but it upheld the lower courts decision that she is a "natural born Citizen of the United States" because she was born in the USA to two naturalized U.S. Citizens.
But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg 'solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.' The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship."
The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.
Glenn wants us all to do a Ghandi and passively resist gun confiscation. He think there are not enough jails to hold us. Thats because he believes his “expert” from Popular Mechanics who says there are no FEMA camps. All I can say to Glenn is prepare for disappointment.
I've heard Glenn Beck say on multiple occasions that the Republican Party is dead. He is not a Republican and that pi$$es off a lot of people on FR who think in terms of GOP uber alles.
Beck is wrong. The coming generation is not ‘libertarian’. It’s simply morally bankrupt, brainwashed, and moronic. I don’t blame them. Growing up in this society will do that to you, but I’ll put my money on the last election being only the beginning of a continuing slide in terms of voter volume. People don’t give a crap about politics anymore. It’s all, ‘I’m alright Jack,’. As long as they get to tune into “all my babies’ mommas’ and junk like Jersey Shore, watch Django Unchained at the theater, get to smoke weed all day and not have to worry about anybody taking away their sacred right to murder any unwanted children they have along the way, these kids are fine. Rush made a good point today raising the NYT idea that ‘wanting less government control decreases life-expectancy’. These kids will eat any crap fed to them by their sneering teachers and professors. You can never convince the majority of them that real freedom is important. The only freedoms most young people care about, pot and abortions.
Beck honestly thinks there’s a market to be cornered with the younger generation, providing “news” and insights into politics? Note to Beck: you better have your reporters carrying iPods and strap-ons, otherwise you’ll be lucky to get 2 viewers for this “rebrand”.
Also, will Beck be a real libertarian? I can’t imagine him advocating for heroin and prostitution legalization... but I guess principles are easy to abandon if there is money involved. Sad to see it, because he is a smart guy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.