HOME/ABOUT  Prayer  SCOTUS  ProLife  BangList  Aliens  StatesRights  ConventionOfStates  WOT  HomosexualAgenda  GlobalWarming  Corruption  Taxes  Congress  Fraud  MediaBias  GovtAbuse  Tyranny  Obama  ObamaCare  Elections  Polls  Debates  Trump  Carson  Cruz  Bush  OPSEC  Benghazi  InfoSec  BigBrother  IRS  Scandals  TalkRadio  TeaParty  FreeperBookClub  HTMLSandbox  FReeperEd  FReepathon  CopyrightList  Copyright/DMCA Notice 

Please keep those donations coming in, folks. Our 1st quarter FReepathon is off to a great start and we have a chance of getting 'er done early! Thank you all very much!!

Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Free Republic 1st Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $41,465
47%  
Woo hoo!! And the first 47% is in!! Thank you all very much!! God bless.

Posts by Armando Guerra

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • There's More to Being President Than Deal-Making

    01/25/2016 6:27:07 AM PST · 19 of 48
    Armando Guerra to Kaslin
    the reason to be in office is not to pass legislation, but to pass what they consider good legislation

    The problem is that the vast majority of politicians are in office for themselves. They want to accomplish something, anything really, so they can point to it for re-election and perpetuate their source of power, prestige and wealth.

    Frankly, I would prefer a do-nothing Congress. No laws are better than more bad laws. My record of posts show that while I support Cruz I have been complimentary of Trump and very glad that between the two of them they have taken out the establishment Republicans. However, my biggest complaint with McConnell and Boehner/Ryan has been their willingness to accept a bad deal as opposed to no deal. Cruz is being criticized for being the one saying to just walk away from the table until you get a better deal. I hope that Trump criticizing Cruz for not being willing to strike a deal is just politics and not indicative of a proclivity to take a bad deal instead of walking away from it.

  • What the Stupid, Awful Spat Between Trump and Cruz Says About the Sad State of the GOP Primary

    01/15/2016 10:14:28 AM PST · 27 of 36
    Armando Guerra to SeekAndFind
    The real headline should be: "Trump and Cruz trade blows, Bush KO'd."

    I am disappointed at some of the hate here among Freepers between the Trumpsters and the Cruzers. I'm in the Cruz corner but am just happy to see that between Trump and Cruz the establishment candidates can't gain traction. It wasn't too long ago that Bush was the heir apparent to the RINO loser crown and he is dead in the polls. Can't we all just get along by agreeing to continue hating Bush and the rest of the GOPe?

  • Where is Ted Cruz CRBA? Shows you were ZOTTED ...

    01/12/2016 6:43:20 AM PST · 45 of 175
    Armando Guerra to Curmie
    Seriously, what is your point? You want him to prove he was born in Canada? You are asking for factual evidence of facts that are uncontroverted. He was born in Canada to a Cuban father and an American mother. Registration of birth is not required. He is not an "illegal alien" because he is a US citizen by operation of law whether he was registered or not. That is uncontroverted. You are muddling the issues involved.

    The legal issue involved is not whether he is a citizen or an illegal alien, but rather whether he is a "natural born citizen" so as to qualify for the office of President. To that point, a good argument can be made that it requires US birth to two US citizen parents. The other side of the argument is that it means that you were a citizen at birth without having to be naturalized. The latter is the argument that has prevailed by way of precedence. For the Supreme Court to now say otherwise would be to invalidate the presidencies of Andrew Jackson, James Buchanan, Chester Arthur, Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover and Barack Obama who all lacked two US citizen parents. Ted Cruz was a citizen at birth. He did not have to be naturalized. You may not like that interpretation of "natural born citizen" but that is what it has become. I don't agree that should be the interpretation either but I accept that is how it has been interpreted. That is the end of it. Accept it. Ted Cruz is qualified for the office and Trump is going to have to beat him on ideas and not by having him disqualified.

  • Germany on the Brink

    01/11/2016 5:49:12 AM PST · 11 of 34
    Armando Guerra to Petrosius

    There will be a push back. The question is how hard of a push back. I think Germany needs to find a bit of their nationalistic spirit but I am a bit torn because they don’t have a good track record with that.

  • Ryan Scores Dual Wins With Obamacare Repeal Vote

    01/07/2016 7:10:07 PM PST · 41 of 55
    Armando Guerra to Libloather

    Cruz’s epic speech on the Senate floor stated what this was: a show vote with no intention of really accomplishing anything conservative.

  • Doh! VIDEO OF TRUMP SAYING IN SEPTEMBER TED CRUZ WAS PERFECTLY ELIGIBLE TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT

    01/05/2016 5:34:22 PM PST · 27 of 110
    Armando Guerra to so_real
    The media is trying to pit these two against each other. Trump's statement was reasonable. Cruz's response was humorous. They are good with each other. Let's not fan the fires. (And I say that as a proud birther who does question Cruz's "pure allegiance" at birth, but will happily vote for him regardless since the democrats don't care anyway --- Obama --- and we genuine conservatives are in full revolution mode.)

    That's how I have been seeing it. They finally started to go after each other with gentle taps. Neither has hurt the other or said anything new that the media hadn't already said. In the meantime, it is all that is being hyped in the news and the other candidates are nowhere to be seen. Rather than inflicting damage to each other as the media hoped in pitting them against one another, the rest of the candidates are languishing further. Whichever candidate wins (and I am hoping for Cruz but do enjoy Trump's candidacy) I expect to see them up on the stage together congratulating the other with a smile.

  • Ted Cruz Would be a Better President than Marco Rubio

    12/17/2015 6:50:52 PM PST · 18 of 20
    Armando Guerra to 2ndDivisionVet

    Rubio took out Charlie Crist and Kendrick Meeks to become Senator. He was the best candidate running in that election. He is definitely not the best candidate here. Go home Marco.

  • RNC officials meet team Trump to discuss general election

    12/11/2015 9:01:41 AM PST · 11 of 37
    Armando Guerra to GonzoII

    Hmmm. I wonder if they told Trump they would only back him if he picks Rubio (or some other GOPe candidate) as his VP the way they foisted Bush on Reagan. Trump and Cruz are both nightmare scenarios for them. The combination would be unbearable to the establishment and they may be trying to soften the blow by getting one of their own on a potential ticket.

  • Ted Cruz's Campaign Is Using Psychological Data About You

    12/11/2015 8:54:40 AM PST · 25 of 45
    Armando Guerra to HapaxLegamenon

    My advice to my kids is that if you are not paying for it, you are not a customer. You are the product.

  • This University Already Knows Our Next President

    12/10/2015 9:20:51 AM PST · 31 of 51
    Armando Guerra to Dallas59

    They may be right. I could see a scenario where the Democrats run Sanders/O’Malley (after the Hillary indictment); the GOPe ignores the primary preferences and runs Bush/Rubio as the Republican ticket; and, Trump/Cruz bolt and go third party. The votes being 39% for the Democrats, 38.5% third party, and 22.5% for the GOPe. Then we can hear Rove and all the GOPe consultants on Fox blaming the across the board loss to the Democrats on Trump and Cruz. The college may have it right, just having left the third party out of the equation.

  • Finland’s residents may be given a monthly income of $868 – for doing nothing

    12/07/2015 1:11:53 PM PST · 41 of 57
    Armando Guerra to Teacher317

    No dispute with your point that lower taxes and much fewer bureaucrats would be better. I was just making the point that if Finland did this it would be better than what we currently have in this country with a hundred different assistance programs administered by a million bureaucrats and a strong disincentive to not work. The problem is that the progressives in power want people thinking that they can’t afford medicine, food, housing, heating, communication, transportation or education unless they vote the right party into power. Get the sheeple wholly dependent on the handouts and not realizing that if government got out of the way they actually could afford it.

  • Finland’s residents may be given a monthly income of $868 – for doing nothing

    12/07/2015 12:43:20 PM PST · 26 of 57
    Armando Guerra to markomalley

    Honestly, compared to our current system this is better. If it replaces all other benefits and there isn’t a disincentive to work it is a step in the right direction. With the system we have here, you get money for nothing but you lose it if you actually work. Why do we have so many people not working in this country (besides the Obama’s war on business)? A single parent earning $4,800 has about the same take home income as one making $21,000 because of the loss of benefits. I would rather see “here’s $1,000/mo, now go get a job” where they keep the $1,000/mo no matter what they make than “here’s a $1,000/mo, but you’ll lose it if you shovel someone’s sidewalk or try to do something productive to make any more than that.”

  • Can a man who specializes in making enemies be elected president?

    12/02/2015 8:28:22 AM PST · 27 of 170
    Armando Guerra to BlackFemaleArmyCaptain
    Cruz has created the impression that he places his own ambition ahead of the interests of his country

    Funny, I got the impression that he was putting his principles and the interest of the country ahead of his own personal gain.

  • Ted Cruz is the sleeping giant in the Republican race

    12/02/2015 8:24:30 AM PST · 8 of 18
    Armando Guerra to aquila48

    My preference is Cruz, but I think your assessment is accurate.

  • CRUZ VIDEO: "Attacking Hillary on "Condom Police"

    12/01/2015 6:35:38 AM PST · 8 of 10
    Armando Guerra to VinL
    Was this the awkward part?

    "Just imagine you're Hillary Clinton...It does kind of look like Leavenworth here."

    Yeah, I guess that could be considered awkward for Hillary.

  • H-1B reform right on time

    11/24/2015 6:47:03 AM PST · 21 of 23
    Armando Guerra to central_va
    Then we will have to respectfully disagree. I do see a need, although rare, for H-1B visas to be used to meet domestic market imbalance. I gave a very real world example where, via government professional licensing issues conflicting with government requirements for providers, demand could not be met no matter what salary was being paid. The total number of licensed professionals in the US was less than the total number of openings in the US.

    Even where professional licensing is not an issue, there have been times where industry growth created a number of openings that could not be met by the domestic labor market. Hampering industry would be detrimental to the US being competitive in the world market. It is not a common situation, and the current H-1B system is too broad and open and does not adjust to true need. H-1B visas should be used to keep the US competitive by meeting shortages of high demand professionals, not to depress wages where there is already a sufficient supply.

  • H-1B reform right on time

    11/23/2015 10:57:07 AM PST · 19 of 23
    Armando Guerra to central_va

    I do think the current H-1B system is being abused. However, an H-1B is, by definition, for a professional requiring at least a 4 year degree. Do businesses have to wait 4 years for more people to get training to catch up to the demand? The smaller business will be closed by then. Your point is that there should never be an H-1B visa category. My point is that there may be a need for it, but only in very limited circumstances where the market clearly shows that there is a imbalance between the supply and the demand in that profession. I gave a real world example of that happening. My point is trying to balance the needs of business with protecting labor. Your point is just pro-labor. Bernie will appreciate your vote.

  • H-1B reform right on time

    11/20/2015 11:19:19 AM PST · 13 of 23
    Armando Guerra to ConservingFreedom
    Real H-1B reform should use the laws of supply and demand to dictate the need for additional workers. If wages for a particular profession are stagnant or falling, new workers are obviously not needed. However, if wages are rapidly rising then it shows that the supply is inadequate for the need. Lack of sufficient skilled workers could impair employers here in the US. For instance, years ago the government changed regulations requiring nursing homes to provide physical and occupational therapy. All of the sudden, it would not have mattered what you were paying there were just not enough therapists to meet the demand. The growth in wages was so rapid that only the bigger assisted living facilities could compete and the smaller ones were being squeezed out. The therapist market at that time was a heavy H-1B user. Without access to these additional workers, many smaller assisted living facilities would have closed.

    To petition for an H-1B professional visa would require that the need for foreign workers be demonstrated with rapid wage growth that considerably exceeds the overall market growth level. I haven't really thought it through fully, but I could envision a system were the Department of Labor certifies that a certain profession had an annual salary growth in excess of whatever the threshold is set at. The Immigration Service could then issue a number of visas linked to that level of growth for the profession. As an example, let's say that overall wage growth for the economy was 1% and the wage growth for "widget maker" was 3% (or 3 times the overall rate, the trigger in this example). Then and only then could visas be issued in this profession. A formula could also be set to determine the number of visas to be issued. For example, 0.1 of the growth rate times the number in the profession. If there were 1,000,000 "widget makers" then (0.1 x .03 x 1,000,000) would allow 3,000 visas for "widget makers" in this example. If the threshold wage growth level continued to be met or exceeded, additional visas as per the formula could be issued. If the wages had leveled off, then visas could no longer be issued in that profession. In this way, industries that truly face a worker shortage and have been paying wages growing at rate considerably faster than normal can continue to do business until domestic supply has caught up. However, workers in a profession where there is no great shortage and wages are not exceeding the threshold growth levels would not have additional workers brought in to depress their wages or take their jobs.

  • How Blue Zone GOP Could Veto Conservative Candidates

    11/18/2015 3:11:04 PM PST · 7 of 28
    Armando Guerra to ek_hornbeck

    Sorry for the system hiccup.

  • How Blue Zone GOP Could Veto Conservative Candidates

    11/18/2015 3:10:05 PM PST · 6 of 28
    Armando Guerra to ek_hornbeck

    It would just mean the end of the Republican party. I can’t be the only one waiting to see if they finally nominate someone decent to decide if I remain a registered Republican. I am fed up and ready to walk. This is their last chance.

  • How Blue Zone GOP Could Veto Conservative Candidates

    11/18/2015 3:10:01 PM PST · 5 of 28
    Armando Guerra to ek_hornbeck

    It would just mean the end of the Republican party. I can’t be the only one waiting to see if they finally nominate someone decent to decide if I remain a registered Republican. I am fed up and ready to walk. This is their last chance.

  • Our President Doesn't Know That a "Religious Test" for Refugees Seeking Asylum

    11/18/2015 3:06:19 PM PST · 7 of 29
    Armando Guerra to Kaslin
    Rush must be coming to FreeRepublic for show.

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3361401/posts

    I cited that exact section and made the same point yesterday. Keep coming here, Rush, you'll see a lot of good stuff on this forum.

  • Whoa: Trump just revealed who he’d pick for VICE president…

    11/18/2015 6:24:27 AM PST · 40 of 66
    Armando Guerra to Caipirabob

    I would prefer Cruz as President and do not think a Trump/Cruz ticket is a high probabilty, but I have thought that this would work too. Trump is much more media savvy and knows how to generate national press. However, the Cruz campaign is the best organized and has the local ground game prepared. Cruz is also backed financially and Trump has made his fortune leveraging other people’s money and not burning through his own. From that sense the fit would be good. And, let’s face it, Reagan’s greatest failure was allowing the elder Bush to be forced as his running mate. It gave the whole Bush dynasty credibility when the oldest Bush should have just been allowed to fade away and take his family with him into semi-obscurity. If it does end up a Trump/Cruz ticket at least the number 2 spot would be a conservative rather that a RINO.

  • McCain slams Cruz's call for religious test for refugees

    11/17/2015 1:32:12 PM PST · 65 of 74
    Armando Guerra to VinL
    I posted this on the "Obama slams Cruz" article so I will post it here too.

    A "religious test" for refugee status is un-American? What an absolute bunch of frickin' idiots. By definition, a religious test, or other specifically enumerated basis, is a requirement for refugee status:

    8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(42) The term 'refugee' means (A) any person who is outside any country of such person's nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, is outside any country in which such person last habitually resided, and who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, or (B) in such special circumstances as the President after appropriate consultation (as defined in section 1157(e) of this title) may specify, any person who is within the country of such person's nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, within the country in which such person is habitually residing, and who is persecuted or who has a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. The term 'refugee' does not include any person who ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of any person on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.

    An Immigration Judge would be required to conduct a nexus determination to ensure that the well-founded fear is as a result of religious persecution or other specifically enumerated basis. A general assertion that the conditions in the country suck would be insufficient for refugee status.

  • Ted Cruz: Not surprising Obama is attacking me personally

    11/17/2015 7:12:10 AM PST · 12 of 15
    Armando Guerra to Isara
    A "religious test" for refugee status is un-American? What an absolute bunch of frickin' idiots. By definition, a religious test, or other specifically enumerated basis, is a requirement for refugee status:

    8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(42) The term 'refugee' means (A) any person who is outside any country of such person's nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, is outside any country in which such person last habitually resided, and who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, or (B) in such special circumstances as the President after appropriate consultation (as defined in section 1157(e) of this title) may specify, any person who is within the country of such person's nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, within the country in which such person is habitually residing, and who is persecuted or who has a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. The term 'refugee' does not include any person who ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of any person on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.

    An Immigration Judge would be required to conduct a nexus determination to ensure that the well-founded fear is as a result of religious persecution or other specifically enumerated basis. A general assertion that the conditions in the country suck would be insufficient for refugee status.

  • GOP candidate Ted Cruz acts out 'Princess Bride' scene

    11/13/2015 9:41:56 AM PST · 32 of 33
    Armando Guerra to Timber Rattler

    Any hesitation I may have had in voting for Cruz has now been erased. One of my favorite movies and he has it memorized along with being able to do a spot on impersonation. I am willing to bet if you asked him “What is your quest?” he would reply “To seek the Holy Grail” in a British accent.

  • Hurricane Refugees Coming to U.S.? (VANITY)

    10/23/2015 9:06:43 AM PDT · 18 of 22
    Armando Guerra to TigerClaws
    Good point. From USCIS regarding Temporary Protected Status (TPS):

    The Secretary of Homeland Security may designate a foreign country for TPS due to conditions in the country that temporarily prevent the country's nationals from returning safely, or in certain circumstances, where the country is unable to handle the return of its nationals adequately. USCIS may grant TPS to eligible nationals of certain countries (or parts of countries), who are already in the United States. Eligible individuals without nationality who last resided in the designated country may also be granted TPS.

    The Secretary may designate a country for TPS due to the following temporary conditions in the country:

    •Ongoing armed conflict (such as civil war)

    •An environmental disaster (such as earthquake or hurricane), or an epidemic

    •Other extraordinary and temporary conditions

    During a designated period, individuals who are TPS beneficiaries or who are found preliminarily eligible for TPS upon initial review of their cases (prima facie eligible):

    •Are not removable from the United States

    •Can obtain an employment authorization document (EAD)

    •May be granted travel authorization

    Once granted TPS, an individual also cannot be detained by DHS on the basis of his or her immigration status in the United States.

    TPS is a temporary benefit that does not lead to lawful permanent resident status or give any other immigration status. However, registration for TPS does not prevent you from:

    •Applying for nonimmigrant status

    •Filing for adjustment of status based on an immigrant petition

    •Applying for any other immigration benefit or protection for which you may be eligible

    El Salvador and Nicaragua have had TPS status since 2001.

  • Have Conservatives Betrayed Ted Cruz?

    10/22/2015 12:36:40 PM PDT · 29 of 186
    Armando Guerra to Windflier
    And Ronald Reagan was once a Democrat union boss. He woke up, and so has Donald Trump.

    I truly hope that you are correct. Reagan was the last President I have voted "for." I refuse to continue to vote for the lesser of evil because I just keep getting evil elected. They only reason I have kept my Republican affiliation is to be able to vote for Cruz in the primary. He isn't perfect but is the most conservative in action (not just talk) that there is in the field. I may go independent after the primary if another RINO is nominated and stay home next November. The jury is still out for me whether I would be willing to vote for Trump, but your argument that he has seen the light gives me hope.

  • Barack Obama, Jackass

    10/08/2015 1:17:37 PM PDT · 30 of 37
    Armando Guerra to Kaslin
    Jackass? Or, brilliant?

    As much as I cannot stand the man, I must say that I am impressed with how he has been able to dictate the conversation. Not only are the sycophants in the media talking about gun control, but so are the so-called conservative media.

    A man walks into a black church and shoots black people and, the next thing you know the Confederate flag is banned and the country goes on a Stalinesque purge of our country's history eliminating anything associated with the south.

    A man walks into a college and shoots Christians. As soon as the eyewitnesses start mentioning the targeting of Christians Obama rushes to the microphone demanding gun control. It wasn't just politicizing or being a jackass, he got ahead of the situation and set the topic of conversation. I am tired of yelling at my radio or television at so-called conservatives, "why are we even talking about gun control and not about Christians being martyred on American soil?" I will just have to give the devil his due and acknowledge the evil genius of Obama on being able to set the agenda.

  • Top 25 Political Donations from 1989 to 2014

    09/24/2015 7:07:08 AM PDT · 7 of 7
    Armando Guerra to george76
    Microsoft pays gives its protection money political donations to Democrats. Microsoft wasn't always a big donor. Despite their size and prominence they only gave $16,000 in 1995. After the antitrust action was brought against them by the Clinton's DOJ the political donations increased 10,000% until a surprise settlement agreement was reached in 2000.

    http://www.zdnet.com/article/microsofts-lobbying-efforts-eclipse-enron/

  • Deconstructing "Birthright Citizenry"

    08/28/2015 3:37:03 PM PDT · 10 of 78
    Armando Guerra to betty boop
    but the Court has never decided whether the same rule applies to the children of aliens whose presence in the United States is temporary or illegal. [That would likely be because the Court understands that it does not have the constitutional power or authority to do this. To recognize the plenary power of Congress in this matter is to recognize that the issue must be decided through the political, not the judicial branches of government.]

    You have WAY more faith in this court than I do. They likely haven't ruled because they have not needed to. Jus soli has already carried the day. If Texas were, for example, to be refusing to issue birth certificates to children of illegals, I would expect a federal judge (at the behest of the Obama DOJ) to order Texas to do so. The argument being what you have stated that Congress decides who is a citizen and they have not stated otherwise. If it were to go to the Supreme Court the "wise Latina" would issue the order agreeing the horse has already left the barn. Boehner would just cry about the poor children.

    Your points are well reasoned and well presented. I do not disagree with the issues raised. I just have no faith in this Court or Congress to do the right thing and I am not yet convinced that Trump would either (nor even Cruz and I support him).

  • Megyn Kelly eyeing move to Fox News' rival?

    08/28/2015 12:18:24 PM PDT · 50 of 91
    Armando Guerra to Armando Guerra

    Oops. Upgraded to W10 and have been having hiccups with my system. Sorry.

  • Megyn Kelly eyeing move to Fox News' rival?

    08/28/2015 12:16:55 PM PDT · 47 of 91
    Armando Guerra to Jan_Sobieski

    Replace her with Sarah Palin and watch the ratings increase tremendously.

  • Megyn Kelly eyeing move to Fox News' rival?

    08/28/2015 12:16:04 PM PDT · 45 of 91
    Armando Guerra to Jan_Sobieski

    Replace her with Sarah Palin and watch the ratings increase tremendously.

  • Levin: Cruz,Trump,Sessions,"Are Right",14th Amendment Doesn't Mandate Birthright Citizenship

    08/20/2015 6:31:34 AM PDT · 19 of 21
    Armando Guerra to Sans-Culotte
    Unfortunately, it would take only one case to get to the Supreme Court to get a ruling that says all anchor babies are citizens, with Alito, Scalia and Thomas dissenting.

    Expect the majority opinion being drafted by the "wise Latina." Congress should still pass a law stating what the 14th amendment is supposed to mean, but you are right that the constitutional challenge would probably succeed with the current court. In the meantime while that is litigated, what would not be challengeable would be cutting the rope to the anchor babies. Congress could change the law tomorrow preventing parents from being petitioned by U.S. citizen children if they were not either outside the U.S. or present in the U.S. in lawful status (not including visitor, student or diplomat status) at the time of the birth of the petitioning child. Who can petition, who is deemed admissible and the process for immigration is still up to Congress.

  • Suburban Governments Were Just Nationalized by the Federal Government

    07/21/2015 12:21:08 PM PDT · 44 of 55
    Armando Guerra to Sopater

    Cruz has said that the first thing he wants to do is repeal Obamacare. That won’t be enough. He would need to repeal the entire previous 8 years. Every law, Executive Order, and regulation that has come out of this administration needs to get the ax. Pretty much every SCOTUS decision too. While at it, every SCOTUS appointment. Maybe he would just need Hillary’s reset button.

  • As SCOTUS decision on Obamacare sinks in, momentum grows for Convention of States

    06/28/2015 4:53:13 PM PDT · 104 of 111
    Armando Guerra to Greysard
    You do not define what a man or a woman is.

    It's a sad world that we live in that you are absolutely correct that the terms man and woman would have to be defined.

  • As SCOTUS decision on Obamacare sinks in, momentum grows for Convention of States

    06/26/2015 3:15:30 PM PDT · 44 of 111
    Armando Guerra to cotton1706
    I posted this yesterday but I will post it again today in light of today's announced decision. Here is my wishlist. I heard Ted Cruz today mention merit retention for the SCOTUS judges. I added such a section for all Federal appellate judges, including SCOTUS, but warn that section was thrown together without detailed thought or research. I would also only favor it if the 17th amendment can be repealed with the retention vote happening in the Senate only under those circumstances. I would not want a merit retention as part of the popular election nor with the Senate as it is currently.

    WHEREAS pursuant to Article V of the U.S. Constitution the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States may call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes as Part of this Constitution when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, the following Amendments to the Constitution are proposed:

    AMENDMENT XXVIII (Repeal of Income Tax)

    The sixteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

    AMENDMENT XXIX (Repeal of Direct Election of Senators)

    The seventeenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

    AMENDMENT XXX (Marriage Defined)

    Marriage in the United States shall consist solely of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of alternative unions to marriage. State established alternative unions to marriage shall not be imposed upon other states. No marriage benefits established by Congress may be provided to alternative unions.

    AMENDMENT XXXI (Balanced Budget)

    Section 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts for that fiscal year, unless two-thirds of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress shall provide by law for a specific excess of outlays over receipts by a roll call vote.

    Section 2. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed 18 percent of the gross domestic product of the United States for the calendar year ending before the beginning of such fiscal year, unless two-thirds of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress shall provide by law for a specific amount in excess of such 18 percent by a roll call vote.

    Section 3. Prior to each fiscal year, the President shall transmit to the Congress a proposed budget for the United States Government for that fiscal year in which--

    (1) total outlays do not exceed total receipts; and

    (2) total outlays do not exceed 18 percent of the gross domestic product of the United States for the calendar year ending before the beginning of such fiscal year.

    Section 4. Any bill that imposes a new tax or increases the statutory rate of any tax or the aggregate amount of revenue may pass only by a two-thirds majority of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress by a roll call vote. For the purpose of determining any increase in revenue under this section, there shall be excluded any increase resulting from the lowering of the statutory rate of any tax.

    Section 5. The limit on the debt of the United States shall not be increased, unless three-fifths of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress shall provide for such an increase by a roll call vote.

    Section 6. The Congress may waive the provisions of sections 1, 2, 3, and 5 of this article for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war against a nation-state is in effect and in which a majority of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress shall provide for a specific excess by a roll call vote.

    Section 7. The Congress may waive the provisions of sections 1, 2, 3, and 5 of this article in any fiscal year in which the United States is engaged in a military conflict that causes an imminent and serious military threat to national security and is so declared by three-fifths of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress by a roll call vote. Such suspension must identify and be limited to the specific excess of outlays for that fiscal year made necessary by the identified military conflict.

    Section 8. No court of the United States or of any State shall order any increase in revenue to enforce this article.

    Section 9. Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United States Government except those derived from borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States Government except those for repayment of debt principal.

    Section 10. The Congress shall have power to enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation, which may rely on estimates of outlays, receipts, and gross domestic product.

    Section 11. This article shall take effect beginning with the fifth fiscal year beginning after its ratification.

    AMENDMENT XXXII (Term Limits)

    Section 1. No person shall serve in the office of Senator more than twice, and no person who has held the office of Senator, or acted as Senator, for more than two years of a term to which some other person served as Senator shall serve in the office of the Senator more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of Senator when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of Senator, or acting as Senator, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of Senator or acting as Senator during the remainder of such term. Senators currently serving at the time of ratification of this article will be subject to this article at the time of their next election.

    Section 2. No person shall be elected to the office of Representative more than four times, and no person who has held the office of Representative, or acted as Representative, for more than one year of a term to which some other person was elected Representative shall be elected to the office of the Representative more than three times. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of Representative when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of Representative, or acting as Representative, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of Representative or acting as Representative during the remainder of such term. Representatives currently serving at the time of ratification of this article will be subject to this article at the time of their next election.

    AMENDMENT XXXIII (Merit Retention of Supreme Court Justices)

    Section 1. The Justices of the Federal Appellate Courts, including the Supreme Court of the United States, will be subjected to a merit retention vote in the United States Senate. The merit retention vote will consist of a vote as follows: “Shall Justice (name of justice) of the (name of the court) be retained in office?” and thereafter the words “Yes” and “No.” The voting Senators will vote in either the affirmative or the negative as to the retention of the Justice. A Justice will be retained only upon receiving the majority of the votes in the Senate in the affirmative.

    Section 2. Beginning in the legislative session following the ratification of this amendment, one-third of the Justices of the Federal Appellate Courts, including the Supreme Court of the United States, will be subjected to a merit retention vote in the United States Senate and shall appear on the ballot in alphabetical order. In the following legislative session another one-third of the Justices that had not been subjected to a merit retention vote in the prior legislative session shall appear on the ballot in alphabetical order to be voted on in the United States Senate. In the following legislative session, the remaining one-third of Justices that had not been subjected to a merit retention vote in the prior two legislative sessions shall appear on the ballot in alphabetical order to be voted on in the United States Senate.

    Section 3. The process of merit retention shall repeat as stated in Section 2 beginning in the following legislative session and continuing thereafter so that every Justice in the Federal Appellate Courts, including the Supreme Court of the United States, will be subjected to a merit retention vote in the United States Senate every 6 years.

  • A PERMANENT ANSWER TO SUPREME COURT AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ABUSES (Hostage)

    06/25/2015 11:03:47 AM PDT · 59 of 242
    Armando Guerra to Hostage
    Here is my wishlist:

    WHEREAS pursuant to Article V of the U.S. Constitution the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States may call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes as Part of this Constitution when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, the following Amendments to the Constitution are proposed:

    AMENDMENT XXVIII (Repeal of Income Tax)

    The sixteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

    AMENDMENT XXIX (Repeal of Direct Election of Senators)

    The seventeenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

    AMENDMENT XXX (Marriage Defined)

    Marriage in the United States shall consist solely of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of alternative unions to marriage. State established alternative unions to marriage shall not be imposed upon other states. No marriage benefits established by Congress may be provided to alternative unions.

    AMENDMENT XXXI (Balance Budget)

    Section 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts for that fiscal year, unless two-thirds of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress shall provide by law for a specific excess of outlays over receipts by a roll call vote.

    Section 2. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed 18 percent of the gross domestic product of the United States for the calendar year ending before the beginning of such fiscal year, unless two-thirds of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress shall provide by law for a specific amount in excess of such 18 percent by a roll call vote.

    Section 3. Prior to each fiscal year, the President shall transmit to the Congress a proposed budget for the United States Government for that fiscal year in which--

    (1) total outlays do not exceed total receipts; and

    (2) total outlays do not exceed 18 percent of the gross domestic product of the United States for the calendar year ending before the beginning of such fiscal year.

    Section 4. Any bill that imposes a new tax or increases the statutory rate of any tax or the aggregate amount of revenue may pass only by a two-thirds majority of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress by a roll call vote. For the purpose of determining any increase in revenue under this section, there shall be excluded any increase resulting from the lowering of the statutory rate of any tax.

    Section 5. The limit on the debt of the United States shall not be increased, unless three-fifths of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress shall provide for such an increase by a roll call vote.

    Section 6. The Congress may waive the provisions of sections 1, 2, 3, and 5 of this article for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war against a nation-state is in effect and in which a majority of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress shall provide for a specific excess by a roll call vote.

    Section 7. The Congress may waive the provisions of sections 1, 2, 3, and 5 of this article in any fiscal year in which the United States is engaged in a military conflict that causes an imminent and serious military threat to national security and is so declared by three-fifths of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress by a roll call vote. Such suspension must identify and be limited to the specific excess of outlays for that fiscal year made necessary by the identified military conflict.

    Section 8. No court of the United States or of any State shall order any increase in revenue to enforce this article.

    Section 9. Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United States Government except those derived from borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States Government except those for repayment of debt principal.

    Section 10. The Congress shall have power to enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation, which may rely on estimates of outlays, receipts, and gross domestic product.

    Section 11. This article shall take effect beginning with the fifth fiscal year beginning after its ratification.

    AMENDMENT XXXII (Term Limits)

    Section 1. No person shall serve in the office of Senator more than twice, and no person who has held the office of Senator, or acted as Senator, for more than two years of a term to which some other person served as Senator shall serve in the office of the Senator more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of Senator when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of Senator, or acting as Senator, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of Senator or acting as Senator during the remainder of such term. Senators currently serving at the time of ratification of this article will be subject to this article at the time of their next election.

    Section 2. No person shall be elected to the office of Representative more than four times, and no person who has held the office of Representative, or acted as Representative, for more than one year of a term to which some other person was elected Representative shall be elected to the office of the Representative more than three times. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of Representative when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of Representative, or acting as Representative, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of Representative or acting as Representative during the remainder of such term. Representatives currently serving at the time of ratification of this article will be subject to this article at the time of their next election.

  • Record Flooding Could Mean Big Problems for Gulf of Mexico

    06/11/2015 12:39:54 PM PDT · 35 of 78
    Armando Guerra to corkoman
    The pressure build-up could push the Florida peninsula out into the Atlantic.

    :) I'm good with that. Isla Florida. Could we secede to form an island nation?

  • Florida child sex sting nets former workers from Disney, SeaWorld and Universal Studios

    06/04/2015 12:42:38 PM PDT · 4 of 17
    Armando Guerra to Brad from Tennessee

    Imagine how many theme park employees they would catch if they posed as 12-14 year old boys.

  • The 2016 election will be decided by seven states and Florida is an absolute must-win

    05/07/2015 10:17:21 AM PDT · 20 of 25
    Armando Guerra to rktman

    I am voting for Cruz. However, I predicted a Walker/Rubio ticket a while back. Definitely not my first choice, but I will be happy with that ticket if a President Walker appoints Cruz to the US Supreme Court to replace Ruth Buzzie.

  • Justice Alito: Why Not Let 4 Lawyers Marry One Another? [Romans 1]

    04/29/2015 3:51:22 PM PDT · 30 of 41
    Armando Guerra to Jan_Sobieski
    Marriage laws usually involve certain limitations:

    1. One human (presumed) male;

    2. One human (presumed) female;

    3. Of a certain age;

    4. Not of a certain level of familial relationship.

    If "love is all you need" then none of the other limitations should be applicable either. You should be able to marry your 12 year old sister and her little dog too based on the same arguments made in favor of gay marriage.

  • Veterans, Dependents - Disproportionate Share of Mental Defective Category on Gun Ban List

    04/16/2015 6:57:28 AM PDT · 6 of 20
    Armando Guerra to KeyLargo

    Citizens who know how to use guns and know military tactics pose the biggest threat to a tyrannical government. Hence, letting them die off while waiting for VA healthcare and the pretense for banning them from owning guns.

  • When Rubio Was the Man of Floridas House (A look at his record as Speaker of the House)

    04/16/2015 6:53:10 AM PDT · 28 of 28
    Armando Guerra to Bob434
    We already have a Hispanic from florida running- Jeb

    LOL - Your right. Did he finally start correcting people that it is pronounced "Heb?"

  • When Rubio Was the Man of Floridas House (A look at his record as Speaker of the House)

    04/14/2015 6:48:06 AM PDT · 4 of 28
    Armando Guerra to SeekAndFind

    I think Rubio showed poor judgment and let himself get snookered into the immigration deal. Bad choice and I am supporting Cruz for President. That being said, he is still the third most conservative Senator and I would not have minded if he stayed there, particularly since I think he learned his lesson. I don’t think he is going to win the nomination although being Hispanic and from Florida makes him a VP candidate if Walker gets the nod. Otherwise, I think he is tired of the games in the Senate and will be running for Governor in Florida after Rick Scott. The big issue is who will run for his Senate seat in Florida.

  • GOP Descends Into Madness As Ted Cruz Vaults Into Top Tier Of 2016 GOP Candidates

    04/01/2015 8:34:35 PM PDT · 39 of 51
    Armando Guerra to 2ndDivisionVet
    Yes, it is total madness and Cruz has absolutely no chance of winning in the general election. Therefore, the best tactic for all those Democrats who turn out to vote in the Republican primaries and previously voted for the likes of Dole, McCain and Romney to ensure a Republican defeat should go out and vote early and often for Cruz to be the Republican nominee.

    Really, if they think he has no chance of winning then they should be celebrating his rise in the polls and not trying to knock him down. The more shrill the left gets over Cruz the more it means they fear he actually can win. If his campaign was the madness they claim they would be standing back to watch the self destruction.

  • NFL's secret Super Bowl demands revealed

    04/01/2015 6:10:48 AM PDT · 13 of 35
    Armando Guerra to TurboZamboni

    They are going down the road of the IOC and FIFA making ridiculous demands. They will continue to make demands until enough say “no more” and they find themselves in the position of the 2022 Winter Olympics where nobody wants to bid other than crackpot dictators. Expect to see only San Francisco and Chicago offering to host.

  • Tampa Bay Times: Shall Not Be Infringed Does Not Mean What It Says

    03/31/2015 7:46:15 AM PDT · 39 of 50
    Armando Guerra to rstrahan
    Tampa paper is just barely right of WaPo, NYT.

    I believe that they would take umbrage with that statement. They work very hard to be every bit the leftist rag of the NYT or WaPo. Nothing right about them.

  • NASAs chief confirms it: Without Russia, space station lost

    03/08/2015 8:32:45 AM PDT · 10 of 77
    Armando Guerra to rktman

    I bet there would be a buyer at the right price. First orbiting hotel and it would probably be profitable.