Posted on 01/01/2013 11:46:53 AM PST by T.O.K.
Edited on 01/01/2013 12:54:57 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
The following letter, written by U.S. Marine Joshua Boston and headlined “No ma’am.,” was posted in the CNN iReport on Dec. 27 with the included note from the producer and photo. It has struck a nerve with many and is being circulated around social media venues like Twitter and Facebook.
Senator Dianne Feinstein,
I will not register my weapons should this bill be passed, as I do not believe it is the government’s right to know what I own. Nor do I think it prudent to tell you what I own so that it may be taken from me by a group of people who enjoy armed protection yet decry me having the same a crime. You ma’am have overstepped a line that is not your domain. I am a Marine Corps Veteran of 8 years, and I will not have some woman who proclaims the evil of an inanimate object, yet carries one, tell me I may not have one.
I am not your subject. I am the man who keeps you free. I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. I am not your peasant. I am the flesh and blood of America.
I am the man who fought for my country. I am the man who learned. I am an American. You will not tell me that I must register my semi-automatic AR-15 because of the actions of some evil man.
I will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the media and your misinformation campaign against the American public.
We, the people, deserve better than you.
Respectfully Submitted,
Joshua Boston
Cpl, United States Marine Corps
2004-2012
You trespass on my property and you'll need to do better than your fists.
Man up or shut up u insult a million patriots who serve u and our blessed constitution just so u can bow up over ur birther bs
Obama is potus, I dont like it either but it isnt an excuse for ur immature insults to so many who have given their last full measure of devotion
You on the other hand, have threatened trespass and assault.
All real men will have some similarities with each other but we are all different individuals from each other. These “subtle signs” you mention are a projection of your own experience with your husband onto this man who is likely very different from your former husband. It is true that both this man and your husband are/were military men and both will have warrior(sheep dog protective instincts) that some of us “civvies” may find that are irritating. Yet this marine is not your husband and you can not judge his personality just because his straight forward manner as expressed in a letter reminds you somehow of a side of your husband that you found to be unpleasant.
Did your husband develop dementia? You mention living 44 years with him and that he had at one time been in Korea. The Home Depot store started in the late 80’s early 90’s so we’re talking about a man in his 50’s or early 60’s when the incident you described happened? The social revolutions have left a lot men in that generation of Korean vets out of the loop where-as women, even their own wives of that generation and beyond have received great benefits from those cultural changes.
The bottom line is you can’t judge all men by who your husband is or was....and none of us will ever know what you might have been like to live with!
Wait. This guy has been a marine for eight years and he’s only a corporal? ???
U called me a mercenary for serving while obama is potus thats an insult to my 32 years of honorable service. in my opinion u r a simpleton for conflating birther pablum with the kids letter to fienstein
Oh I didnt threaten I challenged u to a fight u name aplace and time
>>I got this letter emailed to my twice today. I wonder what the government’s response would be if a few million or so wrote a similar letter.
The government response would be to create a database of all the people who sent those letters and go after them. I’d suggest sending similar but anonymous letters.
Your fight is with yourself, not me. Good luck with that.
Thanks for the US connection to wold.
No matter what the subject, there’s someone of FR who knows it!
Ur a chicken shyte, what have u personally done to correct the birther issue. Did u serve in the military did u demand ur state establish elegibility screening if not shut ur pie hole and apologize to this kid
Yikes! That was random and personal and un-related to this soldier's letter. But as a side note at least your late husband was willing to work on the house. :p
What do you care? You've already publicly stated you believe Obama is legitimate and lawful. I disagree.
All whine and no action. So u talk shyte and do nothing about ur birther views. He is potus I didnt say I thought he should be I voted against him twice and within the limits of the hatch act campaigned against him as well as donated to cain and the nra.
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”.
Good cut and paste skills any original legal citations a writ of mandamus to ur states atty general or county election officials maybe
There will be many martyrs this year with regards to religious liberty and the God given right to defend your family, yourself and your property.
Fortitude is needed and this man has shown he has some.
BINGO! Perfect response.
What a contrast to see the arrogant fraud in such close proximity to a real hero. Your quote is perfect for the occasion.
Thanks, FRiend. I thank God for the brave men who have served our country, and despise those politicians who would betray us.
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.