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  Cruz  Kasich  OPSEC  Benghazi  InfoSec  BigBrother  IRS  Scandals  TalkRadio  TeaParty  FreeperBookClub  HTMLSandbox  FReeperEd  FReepathon  CopyrightList  Copyright/DMCA Notice 

Please keep those donations coming in, folks. Our 2nd 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 2nd Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $36,590
41%  
Woo hoo!! And the first 41% is in!! Thank you all very much!! God bless.

Posts by Bill Russell

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • VIDEO: Epic Showdown Between Cruz and Pro-Trump Protestors: "Lyin' Ted!"

    05/02/2016 1:18:36 PM PDT · 59 of 131
    Bill Russell to i88schwartz

    The protester reminds me of so many of the Trump posters here on FR; Repeating the same tired statements again and again, unable to argue based on substance, and refusing to hear the truth.

  • Pray for Kate

    05/02/2016 11:00:54 AM PDT · 39 of 76
    Bill Russell to annalex

    Prayers Up!

  • Ted Cruz Responds To John Boehner With A Really Weird (And False) Comeback

    04/28/2016 6:17:00 PM PDT · 19 of 25
    Bill Russell to Trumpinator

    I believe this article is misleading in making it sound as if Cruz was Boehner’s only attorney. In 1998, Cruz was less than three years out of Harvard Law School and had been working for the firm which represented Boehner in the case less than one year. It is highly unlikely that Cruz, at that point, would have been the personal counsel to a sitting US Congressman in a Federal case involving the Speaker of the House. As a junior attorney, he was probably doing the research on the case to develop the legal briefs. I seriously doubt he was the lead on the case. It is quite possible that, although he worked on the case, he probably never met the client (Boehner).

  • Donald Trump Shatters His Ceiling (Trump On Way To Nomination)

    04/28/2016 9:35:31 AM PDT · 70 of 71
    Bill Russell to patriot08

    Patriot08: First, Nothing in your response speaks to the fact that Donald Trump is totally untrustworthy. Secondly, don’t you think Hillary will trump out all the dirt on Trump? —His treatment of women (he already has the highest negatives of any candidate in history), his crony capitalist profit taking and treatment of small land and business owners? Not to mention his repeated endorsements of Hillary and political contributions to her campaigns? The press will turn on him right after he has won the nomination. They are in the tank for Hillary and she will destroy Trump.

    Open your eyes and seriously look at the man screeching the platitudes you want to hear. You are trying to hand the leadership of our beloved republic to a sociopath with no integrity who has no understanding of our Constitution, our laws, nor our strategic situation beyond what he can use to line his own pockets.

  • Donald Trump Shatters His Ceiling (Trump On Way To Nomination)

    04/28/2016 6:05:42 AM PDT · 65 of 71
    Bill Russell to patriot08

    Patriot08, you could not be more wrong. Trump is an untrustworthy, liberal, crony capitalist, and political opportunist. You cannot trust a single word the man says. He loses to Hillary in every major poll.

    He is not the nominee yet; not by a long shot. He will be mathematically eliminated from being the nominee in the coming weeks. He has shown himself to be anything but presidential. I will continue to support Cruz for the nomination until all the delegate votes are counted.

    V/R

    Bill

  • Donald Trump Shatters His Ceiling (Trump On Way To Nomination)

    04/27/2016 1:16:18 AM PDT · 20 of 71
    Bill Russell to WilliamRobert

    Ref:”Trump statistically will not win 57 percent of the delegates to get to 1237. He’ll be out by the second ballot.”

    You are correct, Sir. The Trump-ets are trying to drown out any reasoned discussion on the on going competition. The NE is Trump’s liberal back yard and he was expected to win it. But he has run a campaign that is all hat & no cattle (in fact, when it time to produce some milk on his actual policies, he keeps putting the bucket under a steer). He will not make his margins in the delegate count and his invested delegates, who are already suffering buyer’s remorse, will start pulling out after the first ballot.

  • Trump gains as disgruntled Pennsylvania Democrats switch parties

    04/24/2016 10:22:55 PM PDT · 23 of 42
    Bill Russell to bobsunshine

    Trumps gains are mostly part of Hillary’s version of “Operation Chaos.” The Democrats want Trump to win the nomination because he is weakest candidate with historically YYYUUGE negatives. He is the one candidate Hillary can beat hands down.

  • Are You Perfect?

    04/17/2016 7:47:14 AM PDT · 13 of 30
    Bill Russell to elcid1970

    Ref:“Oh, Lord, it’s hard to be humble, when you’re perfect in every way....”

    But do you get better lookin each day?

  • We lost our son today (vanity - prayer request)

    04/13/2016 6:24:24 AM PDT · 323 of 419
    Bill Russell to Marie

    Prayers up!

  • Cruz will be eliminated after New York; Trump will then say ďItís me or Romney.Ē Good luck GOPe

    04/08/2016 9:08:15 AM PDT · 11 of 54
    Bill Russell to Oldpuppymax

    Trump will not make it to 1237 for a first ballot wint before the convention. After the first ballot, all delegates, including those currently dedicated to Rubio and Kasich, will be free to vote for whom they see as the best of the likely candidates. Cruz is way ahead in the delegate placement game for the follow on votes....Cruz will win the nomination, fair and square, in the second ballot.

  • Cruz will be eliminated after New York; Trump will then say ďItís me or Romney.Ē Good luck GOPe

    04/08/2016 9:06:45 AM PDT · 10 of 54
    Bill Russell to Oldpuppymax

    Trump will not make it to 1237 before the convention. Then all delegates, including those currently dedicated to Rubio and Kasich, will be free to vote for whom they see as the best of the likely candidates. Cruz is way ahead in the delegate placement game for the follow on votes....Cruz will win the nomination, fair and square, in the second ballot.

  • Donald Trump has collapsed in general election polls

    03/31/2016 1:00:36 PM PDT · 68 of 88
    Bill Russell to ilgipper

    Ref:”I wouldn’t be overly concerned about polls this far out, except that Trump has completely botched the past two months. He has utterly alienated everyone and has done his best to give everyone ammo to use against him. He’s also shown a complete lack of depth of knowledge on issue after issue. His core support is strong, but the rest has cratered. Not too optimistic, especially when the Clinton machine ramps up.”

    ilgiper, that’s a lot of great analysis packed into five short sentences....

  • Washington Times Fires Writer For Confirming Cruz Scandal

    03/28/2016 12:43:34 PM PDT · 31 of 31
    Bill Russell to Bill Russell

    pardon my gaff. Should read: “Clinton was the only President to win, not one, but two elections without ever getting a majority of votes (not even close to 50%).”

  • Washington Times Fires Writer For Confirming Cruz Scandal

    03/28/2016 5:45:24 AM PDT · 30 of 31
    Bill Russell to LoneRangerMassachusetts

    You are correct that Ross Perot was the one who siphoned the votes and that was the main game changer in the elections of 1992 & 1996. Clinton was the only President to not one, but two elections without ever getting a majority of votes (not even close to 50%).

    But I can say that the charge of the Bush affair from the Clinton camp helped to mitigate the moral charges against Clinton in the mind of many left leaning voters. It had a much smaller, but real impact on the election.

  • Washington Times Fires Writer For Confirming Cruz Scandal

    03/27/2016 2:13:04 AM PDT · 8 of 31
    Bill Russell to TigerLikesRooster

    This whole “scandal” is as big a lie the “sex scandal” the Clinton campaign floated in 1992 about George H W Bush to try and say he and Clinton were on an equal moral plane.....Of course, the Geo HW Bush rumor was attributed to a dead guy and both Bush and his supposed affair liaison denied it ever happened (the woman was a friend of the Bushs), but enough people believed the lie and Clinton was elected.

  • Restaurant Recommendations for Cassino, Italy

    03/26/2016 7:16:22 PM PDT · 23 of 23
    Bill Russell to Larry Lucido

    Great story, Larry....I am reading Norman Davies’ new book, Tail of Hope, in preparation for my trip. It looks like many of the Poles who survived Stalin’s Gulags and fought their way up the east coast of the peninsula had similar experiences to your father’s....Lots of good history there!

  • Restaurant Recommendations for Cassino, Italy

    03/26/2016 8:28:01 AM PDT · 21 of 23
    Bill Russell to Larry Lucido

    Thanks again, Larry. I am really looking forward to my visit.... I spent over 10 years in Europe during my Army career and never made it down to Italy!

  • Restaurant Recommendations for Cassino, Italy

    03/26/2016 8:03:39 AM PDT · 19 of 23
    Bill Russell to Larry Lucido

    Thanks for the pics..... I’ll try not to get “Godfathered” while there!

  • Restaurant Recommendations for Cassino, Italy

    03/26/2016 8:01:08 AM PDT · 18 of 23
    Bill Russell to Larry Lucido

    Thanks, Larry...... Trattorias are probably the “sweet spot” I am looking for. In Germany, you can find a great sit down meal in just about any gasthaus at a very decent price and a fast meal at schnel imbiss. Where do Trattorias fit in on this scale?

    As far as wines go, do you have any suggestions? I like a standard Cabernet with red meat or Pino Girogio with fish — the middle ground (what the Germans call “halb-trocken” or “half-dry”) I don’t care for real dry or sweet wines.

    Thanks again!

    Bill

  • Restaurant Recommendations for Cassino, Italy

    03/26/2016 4:17:02 AM PDT · 13 of 23
    Bill Russell to DoodleDawg

    Wait, I can get Italian food there? Who does the cooking?

  • Restaurant Recommendations for Cassino, Italy

    03/25/2016 6:59:12 PM PDT · 12 of 23
    Bill Russell to stuck_in_new_orleans

    It has been a while since I was stuck in New Orleans.....I went to high school just up the river, in Donaldsonville. I had several interesting adventures involving alcohol in the Quarter back in the day....

  • Restaurant Recommendations for Cassino, Italy

    03/25/2016 6:51:59 PM PDT · 11 of 23
    Bill Russell to moovova

    Thanks, moovova... I will check out Rick Steve’s book...

  • Restaurant Recommendations for Cassino, Italy

    03/25/2016 6:48:47 PM PDT · 10 of 23
    Bill Russell to Hotlanta Mike

    Thanks for the trip advisor list...I had not thought to look at them, but it looks like there are a number of great places listed.

  • Restaurant Recommendations for Cassino, Italy

    03/25/2016 6:47:21 PM PDT · 8 of 23
    Bill Russell to Wolfie

    Ref:”See if you can find an Olive Garden.”

    That will be right next to the golden arches, right?

  • Restaurant Recommendations for Cassino, Italy

    03/25/2016 6:46:12 PM PDT · 7 of 23
    Bill Russell to goodwithagun

    Ref: None, but I’m super jealous! Enjoy, and please post pics and food reviews!”

    Thanks, I will do my best to get some good pics.

  • Restaurant Recommendations for Cassino, Italy

    03/25/2016 5:40:35 AM PDT · 1 of 23
    Bill Russell
  • Uber for Trucking: Matching Freight with Haulers

    03/24/2016 7:36:03 PM PDT · 22 of 22
    Bill Russell to patlin

    The shipping party would probably have to register with credit card of some sort with a minimum clearance. Uber and its drivers are pretty much guaranteed payment as the customer already has a credit card on file which is automatically charged.

  • The Poles No Longer a Joke

    03/24/2016 6:46:17 AM PDT · 43 of 43
    Bill Russell to topspinr

    Ref: “Thank you for informing those who are not aware of the history of the Polish people.”

    Thank you.I am in the process of writing a historical novel on Monte Cassino and the triumph and tragedy of the Polish II Corps, which I hope will get more Americans interested in Poland.

  • The Poles No Longer a Joke

    03/23/2016 5:13:25 PM PDT · 29 of 43
    Bill Russell to huckfillary

    Many of the “jokes” about Poland are a result of 75 years of Nazi and Soviet post war propaganda which painted the Poles as ignorant, antisemitic peasants who charged German tanks with lances and participated in the Holocaust. This was done to undercut support for Poles in the US and England during the Soviet conquest and reconquest of Poland during the war.

    Don’t forget the Polish contributions during World War II. They were one of the few countries who had to fight both the Nazis and the Soviets at the same time. They inflicted over 60,000 casualties on the Wermacht during the initial invasion and NEVER surrendered (there was no “Vichy” Poland). The Polish pilots who escaped to England formed the highest scoring squadrons of the RAF during the Battle of Britain. They comprised 10% of the RAF fighter force and scored 40% of the kills. The Polish Home Army continued active resistance throughout the war and provided the Allies in Enigma code machine to the allies and notified the world of the Nazi program of extermination against the Jews. Expat Poles in the Middle East formed the Carpathian Brigade and helped the British turn back Rommel’s advance on Egypt in the first Battle of Tobruk. The Carpathian Brigade joined with @ 40,000 starving Poles freed from Stalin’s Gulag and went on to form the Polish II Corps and take the mountain top at Monte Cassino. The list goes on and on.

    The tragedy of Poland is the world keeps forgetting how incredibly brave and faithful they are. They are America’s most loyal ally dating back to our war of Independence, yet most American’s know little more about Poland than those old stale Polish jokes.

  • Ted Cruz Masterfully Deals With Trump Birther Protester In Peoria

    03/16/2016 10:43:20 AM PDT · 135 of 136
    Bill Russell to WhiskeyX

    Ref:” You are trying to use a law of naturalization to confer natural born citizenship upon a child born abroad, which is total legal nonsense. Natural born citizenship is determined by natural law, and natural law is the antithesis of statutory law and the antithesis of legislative acts of naturalization. Furthermore, the Congress is a legislative body, ....”

    WhiskeyX your analysis could not be more convoluted and less in keeping with the facts of the law and the facts of Cruz’s Natural Born Citizenship. The information I posted above, while long, is crystal clear. Cruz is a Natural Born Citizen.

  • Women in High-threat Security Exist

    03/15/2016 4:51:42 PM PDT · 8 of 10
    Bill Russell to DMZFrank

    DMZFrank, thanks for the interesting history of some very significant battles and the Herculean strength of those manning some very heavy weapon systems.

    I am aware of some very brave women who did fight well in some some close fights....While I agree with the need to keep the combat arms branches all male, I have to disagree with you on excluding women from military service all together. They are doing a lot of great and necessary work. — Women do make excellent pilots and in many cases their natural abilities (eye hand coordination and ability to withstand G forces) are superior to mens....

  • About That Anti Trump "War on Women" Ad, The People Behind it.

    03/15/2016 11:08:31 AM PDT · 5 of 48
    Bill Russell to Rational Thought

    Here’s a really good one on Trump. It is just a prelude of things to come in the general election should he win the nomination: http://therightscoop.com/new-ad-featuring-donald-trumps-own-words-about-women-is-brutal/

  • Ted Cruz Masterfully Deals With Trump Birther Protester In Peoria

    03/15/2016 10:57:24 AM PDT · 124 of 136
    Bill Russell to Catsrus
    Ref: "JimRob is entitled to his opinion, and those of us who don’t believe he is a natural born citizen, are entitled to ours. It isn’t a settled matter in the courts, so it’s still up in the air. I will never believe he is a NBC - NEVER!" Thanks to Yosemitest, here is the Constitutional and Legal proof that Cruz is an NBC. You do not have to believe it, but here it is in black and white with full references: As far as the United States Constitution, pay particular attention to U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8.
      The Congress shall have Power ... To make ALL Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and ALL other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
    Also, pay particular attention to U.S. Constitution - Article I, section 5
      Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, ...
    As I have commented on before and supported with links, in the article Akhil Reed Amar, author of CNN’s Why Ted Cruz is eligible to be president wrote:
      “ ... The Constitution’s 12th Amendment clearly says
        that Congress counts the electoral votes at a special session; and thus Congress is constitutionally authorized to refuse to count any electoral votes that Congress considers invalid.
      Elsewhere, Article I, section 5 of the Constitution makes clear
        that each house of Congress may “judge” whether a would-be member of that house
          meets the constitutional eligibility rules for that house.
      Suppose Mr. Smith wants to go to Washington as a senator. He wins election in his home state. But the Constitution says a senator must be 30 years old. If a dispute arises about Smith’s age, about whether there a proper birth certificate and what it says, the Constitution clearly says the Senate is ”the judge” of Smith’s birth certificate dispute. Similarly, for presidential elections the Constitution’s structure makes Congress the judge of any birth certificate dispute
        or any other issue of presidential eligibility.
      Congress cannot fabricate new presidential eligibility rules
        but it is the judge of the eligibility rules prescribed in the Constitution.
      Thus, ordinary courts should butt out, now and forever. They have no proper role here, because the Constitution itself makes Congress the special judge. In legal jargon, the issue is a nonjusticiable political question.”
    NOTE: nonjusticiable political question
      Legal questions are deemed to be justiciable, while political questions are nonjusticiable. [Huhn, Wilson R. American Constitutional Law Volume 1. 2016.] One scholar explained:
        The political question doctrine holds
          that some questions, in their nature, are fundamentally political, and not legal, and if a question is fundamentally political ... then the court will refuse to hear that case. It will claim that it doesn’t have jurisdiction. And it will leave that question to some other aspect of the political process to settle out.
            - - John E. Finn, professor of government, 2006 [2]
        A ruling of nonjusticiability will ultimately prohibit the issue that is bringing the case before the court from being able to be heard in a court of law. In the typical case where there is a finding of nonjusticiability due to the political question doctrine,
          the issue presented before the court is usually so specific that the Constitution gives ALL power to one of the coordinate political branches, or at the opposite end of the spectrum, the issue presented is so vague
            that the United States Constitution does not even consider it.
        A court can only decide issues based on law. The Constitution dictates the different legal responsibilities of each respective branch of government. If there is an issue where the court does not have the Constitution as a guide, there are no legal criteria to use. When there are no specific constitutional duties involved, the issue is to be decided through the democratic process. The court will not engage in political disputes. A constitutional dispute that requires knowledge
          of a non-legal character or the use of techniques not suitable for a court or explicitly assigned by the Constitution to the U.S. Congress, or the President of the United States,
        is a political question, which judges customarily refuse to address.
    Now, let’s take a close look at the word “NATURALIZATION”, its history, and FROM WHERE it was derived . What is the root word of ”Naturalization” ?
      ”Naturalize” !
        “admit (an alien) to rights of a citizen,” 1550s (implied in naturalized),
          from natural (adj.) in its etymological sense of “by birth” + -ize;
            in some instances from Middle French naturaliser, from natural.
        Of things, from 1620s; of plants or animals, from 1796.
          Related: Naturalizing.
    Not only could the Founding Father define “natural born citizen”, BUT ... THE FOUNDING FATHERS DID DEFINE IT ! The Naturalization Act of 1790, let’s read it !
      Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled,
        That any Alien being a free white person,
          who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years,
        may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States
          wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least,
        and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that
          he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law
            to support the Constitution of the United States,
          which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States.
        And the children of such person so naturalized,
          dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization,
        shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States,
          shall be considered as natural born Citizens:
          Provided, that
            the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:
          Provided also, that
            no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid,
              except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.
    Take a look at the original one WRITTEN BY our FOUNDING FATHERS, and VERIFY IT FOR YOURSELF in the list of NAMES of the members of our FIRST CONGRESS !
    1st United States Congress, 21-26 Senators and 59-65 Representatives
    Finally, read the latest from links provided by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the government agency that oversees lawful immigration to the United States. READ IT VERY CLOSELY.
      Constitutional Topic: Citizenship
      ... Citizenship is mentioned in If you’re going to be involved in government in the United States, citizenship is a must. To be a Senator or Representative, you must be a citizen of the United States. To be President, not only must you be a citizen, but you must also be natural-born. Aside from participation in government, citizenship is an honor bestowed upon people by the citizenry of the United States when a non-citizen passes the required tests and submits to an oath. Natural-born citizen Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday? The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way:
        ”All persons born or naturalized in the United States,
          and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,
        are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
      But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps. The Constitution authorizes the Congress to create clarifying legislation inalso allows the Congress to create law regarding naturalization, Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are ”citizens of the United States at birth:”
      • Anyone born inside the United States *
          * There is an exception in the law - - the person must be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.
      • Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person’s status as a citizen of the tribe
      • Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
      • Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
      • Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
      • Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
      • Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
      • A final, historical condition:
          a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
      Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.
      Separate sections handle territories that the United States has acquired over time, such asEach of these sections confer citizenship on persons living in these territories as of a certain date, and usually confer natural-born status on persons born in those territories after that date.
        For example, for Puerto Rico, all persons born in Puerto Rico between April 11, 1899, and January 12, 1941, are automatically conferred citizenship as of the date the law was signed by the President (June 27, 1952). Additionally, all persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, are natural-born citizens of the United States.
          Note that because of when the law was passed, for some, the natural-born status was retroactive.
      The law contains one other section of historical note, concerning the Panama Canal Zone and the nation of Panama. In 8 USC 1403, the law states that
        anyone born in the Canal Zone or in Panama itself, on or after February 26, 1904, to a mother and/or father who is a United States citizen, was “declared” to be a United States citizen.
          Note that the terms “natural-born” or “citizen at birth” are missing from this section.
      In 2008, when Arizona Senator John McCain ran for president on the Republican ticket, some theorized that
        because McCain was born in the Canal Zone, he was not actually qualified to be president.
      However, it should be noted that section 1403 was written to apply to a small group of people to whom section 1401 did not apply. McCain is a natural-born citizen under 8 USC 1401(c):
        ”a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person.”
      Not everyone agrees that this section includes McCain - - but absent a court ruling either way, we must presume citizenship. U.S. Nationals A ”national” is a person who is considered under the legal protection of a country, while not necessarily a citizen. National status is generally conferred on persons who lived in places acquired by the U.S. before the date of acquisition. A person can be a national-at-birth under a similar set of rules for a natural-born citizen. U.S. nationals must go through the same processes as an immigrant to become a full citizen. U.S. nationals who become citizens are not considered natural-born. (Continued)
  • Women in High-threat Security Exist

    03/15/2016 10:42:34 AM PDT · 3 of 10
    Bill Russell to w1n1

    There are some very brave women who take on these roles. But to argue that being a body guard is the same a being a special operator or an infantry solider is nonsense.

    Here are a few excerpts from a previous post of mine on the female Ranger School graduates(http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3331276/posts):

    “But there are realities of warfare that remain the same as they have throughout history, and there are certain types of units that should and must remain all male. While there are some very physically fit women who can outperform the average man at endurance and strength tests, they are the rare exceptions to the rule. When it comes to the pure applications of “brute force and ignorance” that goes along with closing with and killing other men who are actively trying to kill you, under conditions which require physical exertions that exceed those of any professional sport, men are simply more suited to the occasion. The reality is far different from what Hollywood portrays in the movies.....

    This truth of physical strength in martial endeavors applies when carrying 70 to 100 lbs of gear up the side of a mountain at 10,000 feet above sea level to root Al Qaeda members out of caves, when repairing the 3 ton track of an M1 tank in the snow, and to all the tasks related to the movement and operation of a field artillery piece or other heavy armored vehicles.”

  • WHEN CANDIDATES ACT LIKE STALKERS

    03/15/2016 10:12:10 AM PDT · 53 of 55
    Bill Russell to huldah1776

    Thanks for the response on this “old” thread. I am constantly amazed at how many sociopaths I did not recognize before I became sensitized to the symptoms/ signs I learned in dealing with my stalker. Like most people who try to live honestly, I tended to attribute honesty (and still do) to most of the people I deal with. This is a key area that sociopaths exploit. Then you look back and recognize how many lies they actually told you....

  • How low is Glenn Beck

    03/14/2016 5:33:38 PM PDT · 53 of 58
    Bill Russell to Neidermeyer

    Ref: “The post refers to him being a rock DJ ,, that puts this back in the 90’s or earlier when he was a drug abuser.”

    Thanks for posting. This was my thought. This probably happened 20+ years ago when he was drinking heavy and abusing pharmaceuticals....he has often said he went through some very ugly times and hurt a lot of people before he hit rock bottom and got sober....He just celebrated 20 years of sobriety in the last couple of weeks...Yes, he can get really kooky at times, but he is a good-hearted kook.

  • How low is Glenn Beck

    03/14/2016 3:58:43 PM PDT · 48 of 58
    Bill Russell to crz

    Ya Know, when you make this level of a charge against someone’s honor, you should have definitive proof, not a “transcript” that anyone can make up. You should have the integrity to provide an audio cut.

    V/R

    Bill

  • How low is Glenn Beck

    03/14/2016 2:40:57 PM PDT · 14 of 58
    Bill Russell to crz

    This is from an article published in 2009. GB is a bit kooky and I disagree with him very often. But I cannot imagine him knowingly making such a low play, unless it occurred when he was still drinking over 20 years ago..... I am sure the left would have had this all over the media by now if it were true. Can you post the actual audio from his show?

  • Cordoba Rejects Catholic Church's Claim to Own Mosque-Cathedral

    03/14/2016 11:15:02 AM PDT · 15 of 17
    Bill Russell to elcid1970

    It could be said the communists won when you look at the long term effects on the level of faith practice and Church attendance in Spain today along with its socialist policies. I believe Franco made a critical mistake in not including the Carlists (A devout Catholic movement that embraced a greater separation between Church and State and called for Church social and charitable involvement). Franco was more of a Falangist (a Catholic movement that advocated Church involvement in the government with many government social programs.) and I believe that ultimately undermined the religious faith of the people of Spain and transitioned into a more secular form of socialism.

  • It Takes an Algorithm

    03/14/2016 11:00:18 AM PDT · 3 of 4
    Bill Russell to Sean_Anthony

    But Al Gore has no rhythm!

  • Cordoba Rejects Catholic Church's Claim to Own Mosque-Cathedral

    03/13/2016 2:36:11 PM PDT · 8 of 17
    Bill Russell to marshmallow

    This is not just Islamic influences. There is also at least a century of Communist antipathy for the Church in Spain. It was most prevalent in during the Spanish Civil War when the communist Republican government declared war on the Church and murdered over 6000 priests and nuns (including 16 of 18 Bishops). Their war included the seizure of many church properties.

    Of course in the years since, the Communist have posed as the good guys and falsely painted Francisco Franco and Spanish Catholic patriots as Fascists.

    William Carroll’s The Last Crusade is an excellent read for anyone who wants a good synopsis of the character of the Spanish Civil War.

  • How a $300 tax deduction proves Donald Trump makes less than half a million dollars

    03/08/2016 4:05:10 PM PST · 90 of 95
    Bill Russell to Solson

    Ref:”If Trump’s annual income is less than $500k then kudos to him! It means he must have a crap-ton of income shelters set up to protect himself against taxes.....”

    I am a strong supporter of Ted Cruz and Trump is at the bottom of my list of Republican candidates. But I agree with you on this issue. While I think Trump is a terrible choice for President, I am sure he shelters as much of his wealth as possible in his corporations where he can expense many luxuries and is taxed at a lower level. Therefore, his “personal” wealth and income would be much lower than his actual net worth (even though it is all his money). This is about the only aspect of Trump I can say I like.

  • Today is National Pancake day!

    03/08/2016 1:54:15 PM PST · 16 of 42
    Bill Russell to BulletBobCo

    My wife is making Polish Nalesniki with ligonberry jam. Whooohooo!

  • Judge dismisses attempt to kick Ted Cruz off New York ballot

    03/08/2016 7:21:39 AM PST · 43 of 65
    Bill Russell to Just mythoughts

    Ref: “Below you can find Ted Cruz’s own words about what constitutes a ‘natural born’ US citizen. Cruz knows he is not eligible under original intent of the Constitution... and so does Hillry!!!”

    Sorry, but I have to question the authenticity of the “redacted” source for this interview claiming to use Ted Cruz’s words. But even if Ted Cruz actually gave such an opinion, it would not change the Constitutional and legal standards which make him a Natural Born Citizen.

    It would be a political gaffe, but not a deadly one.

  • Judge dismisses attempt to kick Ted Cruz off New York ballot

    03/07/2016 8:16:51 PM PST · 28 of 65
    Bill Russell to erkelly

    Ref:”So Article II of the constitution does not mean anything? Whenever, I read these convoluted arguments about how first Obama, and now Cruz, are natural born, the constitution itself is always conveniently ignored. ...”

    The arguments provided by Yosemitest are not convoluted, they are Constitutionally rock solid. It addresses the Constitutional and legal definitions and the intent of many of the writers of the Constitution. — (Which is why I keep reposting it on all of these threads.) — Article II only requires that the President be a Natural Born Citizen, which Cruz clearly is by all Constitutional and legal definitions.

  • Judge dismisses attempt to kick Ted Cruz off New York ballot

    03/07/2016 8:09:05 PM PST · 27 of 65
    Bill Russell to mac_truck

    Ref:”Would Cruz be eligible if he were born in 1789 when the Constitution was created?... Then he is not a natural born citizen as originally intended.”

    Apparently you did not read the sections from the Naturalization act of 1790 which were included by Yosemitest in the post. The act was supported and signed by many members of the Constitutional Convention. Cruz falls squarely into their definition of Natural Born Citizens.

  • Judge dismisses attempt to kick Ted Cruz off New York ballot

    03/07/2016 6:53:37 PM PST · 20 of 65
    Bill Russell to Citizen Zed
    Thanks to Yosemitest for the original post on this; Cruz is a Natural Born Citizen and the law and the Constitution are clearly on his side on this issue: As far as the United States Constitution, pay particular attention to U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8.
      The Congress shall have Power ... To make ALL Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and ALL other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
    Also, pay particular attention to U.S. Constitution - Article I, section 5
      Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, ...
    As I have commented on before and supported with links, in the article Akhil Reed Amar, author of CNN’s Why Ted Cruz is eligible to be president wrote:
      “ ... The Constitution’s 12th Amendment clearly says
        that Congress counts the electoral votes at a special session; and thus Congress is constitutionally authorized to refuse to count any electoral votes that Congress considers invalid.
      Elsewhere, Article I, section 5 of the Constitution makes clear
        that each house of Congress may “judge” whether a would-be member of that house
          meets the constitutional eligibility rules for that house.
      Suppose Mr. Smith wants to go to Washington as a senator. He wins election in his home state. But the Constitution says a senator must be 30 years old. If a dispute arises about Smith’s age, about whether there a proper birth certificate and what it says, the Constitution clearly says the Senate is ”the judge” of Smith’s birth certificate dispute. Similarly, for presidential elections the Constitution’s structure makes Congress the judge of any birth certificate dispute
        or any other issue of presidential eligibility.
      Congress cannot fabricate new presidential eligibility rules
        but it is the judge of the eligibility rules prescribed in the Constitution.
      Thus, ordinary courts should butt out, now and forever. They have no proper role here, because the Constitution itself makes Congress the special judge. In legal jargon, the issue is a nonjusticiable political question.”
    NOTE: nonjusticiable political question
      Legal questions are deemed to be justiciable, while political questions are nonjusticiable. [Huhn, Wilson R. American Constitutional Law Volume 1. 2016.] One scholar explained:
        The political question doctrine holds
          that some questions, in their nature, are fundamentally political, and not legal, and if a question is fundamentally political ... then the court will refuse to hear that case. It will claim that it doesn’t have jurisdiction. And it will leave that question to some other aspect of the political process to settle out.
            - - John E. Finn, professor of government, 2006 [2]
        A ruling of nonjusticiability will ultimately prohibit the issue that is bringing the case before the court from being able to be heard in a court of law. In the typical case where there is a finding of nonjusticiability due to the political question doctrine,
          the issue presented before the court is usually so specific that the Constitution gives ALL power to one of the coordinate political branches, or at the opposite end of the spectrum, the issue presented is so vague
            that the United States Constitution does not even consider it.
        A court can only decide issues based on law. The Constitution dictates the different legal responsibilities of each respective branch of government. If there is an issue where the court does not have the Constitution as a guide, there are no legal criteria to use. When there are no specific constitutional duties involved, the issue is to be decided through the democratic process. The court will not engage in political disputes. A constitutional dispute that requires knowledge
          of a non-legal character or the use of techniques not suitable for a court or explicitly assigned by the Constitution to the U.S. Congress, or the President of the United States,
        is a political question, which judges customarily refuse to address.
    Now, let’s take a close look at the word “NATURALIZATION”, its history, and FROM WHERE it was derived . What is the root word of ”Naturalization” ?
      ”Naturalize” !
        “admit (an alien) to rights of a citizen,” 1550s (implied in naturalized),
          from natural (adj.) in its etymological sense of “by birth” + -ize;
            in some instances from Middle French naturaliser, from natural.
        Of things, from 1620s; of plants or animals, from 1796.
          Related: Naturalizing.
    Not only could the Founding Father define “natural born citizen”, BUT ... THE FOUNDING FATHERS DID DEFINE IT ! The Naturalization Act of 1790, let’s read it !
      Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled,
        That any Alien being a free white person,
          who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years,
        may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States
          wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least,
        and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that
          he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law
            to support the Constitution of the United States,
          which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States.
        And the children of such person so naturalized,
          dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization,
        shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States,
          shall be considered as natural born Citizens:
          Provided, that
            the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:
          Provided also, that
            no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid,
              except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.
    Take a look at the original one WRITTEN BY our FOUNDING FATHERS, and VERIFY IT FOR YOURSELF in the list of NAMES of the members of our FIRST CONGRESS !
    1st United States Congress, 21-26 Senators and 59-65 Representatives
    Finally, read the latest from links provided by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the government agency that oversees lawful immigration to the United States. READ IT VERY CLOSELY.
      Constitutional Topic: Citizenship
      ... Citizenship is mentioned in If you’re going to be involved in government in the United States, citizenship is a must. To be a Senator or Representative, you must be a citizen of the United States. To be President, not only must you be a citizen, but you must also be natural-born. Aside from participation in government, citizenship is an honor bestowed upon people by the citizenry of the United States when a non-citizen passes the required tests and submits to an oath. Natural-born citizen Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday? The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way:
        ”All persons born or naturalized in the United States,
          and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,
        are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
      But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps. The Constitution authorizes the Congress to create clarifying legislation inalso allows the Congress to create law regarding naturalization, Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are ”citizens of the United States at birth:”
      • Anyone born inside the United States *
          * There is an exception in the law - - the person must be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.
      • Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person’s status as a citizen of the tribe
      • Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
      • Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
      • Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
      • Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
      • Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
      • A final, historical condition:
          a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
      Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.
      Separate sections handle territories that the United States has acquired over time, such asEach of these sections confer citizenship on persons living in these territories as of a certain date, and usually confer natural-born status on persons born in those territories after that date.
        For example, for Puerto Rico, all persons born in Puerto Rico between April 11, 1899, and January 12, 1941, are automatically conferred citizenship as of the date the law was signed by the President (June 27, 1952). Additionally, all persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, are natural-born citizens of the United States.
          Note that because of when the law was passed, for some, the natural-born status was retroactive.
      The law contains one other section of historical note, concerning the Panama Canal Zone and the nation of Panama. In 8 USC 1403, the law states that
        anyone born in the Canal Zone or in Panama itself, on or after February 26, 1904, to a mother and/or father who is a United States citizen, was “declared” to be a United States citizen.
          Note that the terms “natural-born” or “citizen at birth” are missing from this section.
      In 2008, when Arizona Senator John McCain ran for president on the Republican ticket, some theorized that
        because McCain was born in the Canal Zone, he was not actually qualified to be president.
      However, it should be noted that section 1403 was written to apply to a small group of people to whom section 1401 did not apply. McCain is a natural-born citizen under 8 USC 1401(c):
        ”a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person.”
      Not everyone agrees that this section includes McCain - - but absent a court ruling either way, we must presume citizenship. U.S. Nationals A ”national” is a person who is considered under the legal protection of a country, while not necessarily a citizen. National status is generally conferred on persons who lived in places acquired by the U.S. before the date of acquisition. A person can be a national-at-birth under a similar set of rules for a natural-born citizen. U.S. nationals must go through the same processes as an immigrant to become a full citizen. U.S. nationals who become citizens are not considered natural-born. (Continued)
  • Cruz won 64 Delegates Saturday March 5, 2016, and Trump won 49 Delegates (Vanity)

    03/06/2016 4:35:30 AM PST · 21 of 123
    Bill Russell to Enlightened1

    Trump has primarily been winning in the states with Open primaries where Democrats can cross over and vote for the candidate they would rather run against. Cruz has either decisively won or been a very close second in the states where Republicans vote to choose the candidate. If you take out the votes bled off by Rubio and Kasich, those states where Trump wins would be decisive wins for Cruz.

  • Hereís Why Itís All But Impossible To Fire A Fed

    03/03/2016 10:49:39 AM PST · 17 of 17
    Bill Russell to rktman

    I knew a guy in Germany, who “built the book” to fire a Federal Employee (Army Reserve Technician position working for the USAR as a civilian but requiring USAR enlistment and assignment to the unit) working for the US Army for failure to perform — The man had abandoned his job/ did not show up for work for over six weeks. When he was present before this episode, he accomplished little other than filling out his time card.

    My fellow officer had the guy dead to rights as far as the firing, but he was still not fired. My colleague finally got rid of the guy by having him relieved on the Army Reserve side of the house and booted from the Army for the same issue, which terminated his civilian position.

  • Marco Rubioís Attack On Trump Backfires With Corinthian Colleges Story

    03/01/2016 2:39:28 PM PST · 66 of 66
    Bill Russell to Robert DeLong

    Ref: “.. your grandfather. Truly a self made man who was lucky enough to live during a time in this country where self determination had a better chance of achieving success.”

    You have a very good point about being in a time when self determination had a better chance of success. My grandfather made his fortune making lacquer finishes used by the North Carolina furniture industry in its heyday. I can’t imagine the excessive amount of government and EPA regulations which would prevent him from doing this today.