Free Republic

When I brought my wife over (legally, lots of paperwork and lots of cash) part of the agreement I signed reqired me to be responsible for all her expenses. Even if we were to get divorced. I would only be off the hook If she left the country. NO welfare would be provided to her.

Why should illegals get “assistance” I ask you? (Retorical question in case you didn’t realize.)

Here's a quote from another source:

Instead, seven men who were American reinforcements in Tripoli, along with Agent Glenn Doherty, commandeered a jet and flew to Benghazi. Ultimately, Doherty and Tyrone Woods would be killed on the roof of the CIA annex.

The special op member told Fox News, "If it wasn’t for that decision, I think we would be talking completely different about this situation. I think you would be looking at 20 plus hostages captured by AQ or you would be looking at a lot of dead Americans in Benghazi."

So it looks like some SpecOps types broke orders, stole a plane, and went to rescue them.

So where are all those people who declared, “this far and no further,” those who flatly stated “one more infringement and the shooting will start,” and those who pound their chests and cry “MOLON LABE.”

Ten and twenty years ago, people were saying the same things. And the tyranny keeps increasing while the same people keep on repeating “not one step more!”

I’ve heard it all so many times and for so long, that I no longer believe anybody who claims they will resist, fight back, start shooting, or what have you. We are all frogs in the pot ready to jump out when it gets too hot. But each time the heat gets turned up, it’s only just a tiny bit warmer. Not enough to get too excited.

And if someone actually does feel the line has been crossed and they do something about it? They will be vilified in the press. Neighbors, Pastors, Police and the local government will all be put on air talking about what a crazy man he was, or how he was such an extremist, or how he was plotting to overthrow the government. And all the other frogs will be saying, “that guy was just a nut job. But if the government goes just one more step into tyranny, we’ll all be out there, shoulder-to-shoulder.”

Wake up, people. Our country was lost a long time ago. Some people just don’t want to admit it yet.

Oh, I forgot. Multivitamin supplements.

We spend $100 to $120 a week, including tissues, paper towels, soaps, etc., for a family of four. It’s the same amount we’ve spent for the last five years or so. But now, my wife spends a lot more time with coupons and looking for deals, and buying mostly from a discount store. We eat good, healthy food, but a little less meat now, and more “store brand” stuff.

Requirements for office are rarely even thought about unless a challenge has been made. Even if someone would have wanted to challenge B.O.’s credentials, remember he has the backing of the Chicago mob. No need to prove credentials, answer to authority, or obey the law.

If it wouldn’t impact the U.S., why do they so desperately need us to sign on? If other countries have weak laws, get them to change their laws. Leave us alone.

I see “China continues rapid growth” stories.

Those stories are true, but inaccurate. Growth is slowing. That's undeniable. You say that their slower growth is still faster than anyone else's. But that's mostly illusion. Manipulation of their currency, building entire cities that then stand empty, and the Chinese media reporting what they're told to report.

All the scholarly or even simply thoughtful analysis says the Chinese economy is heading down, and that will accelerate. The stagnating economies of the western and developing countries will mean less money coming into china via exports, and that will probably be the final nail.

Incidentally, do you own anything currently (based) in China?

No I don't. Is that relevant somehow?

From your post #7:

I don’t see China effected at all.

China is growing.

All their manufacturing is owned by the government, and 51% of everything. Manufacturing owned for 10 years...

What is wrong with this picture? Why is 4/5 of the planet on starvation wages, China is growing and we’re all sitting around on the edges clapping our hands at their amazing advancement?

From your post #10:

My comments continue to be among the only ones on this board, actively considering what happens when China becomes STRONGER AND STRONGER.

Are you?

There is more than today. There is tomorrow, and the years after that.

ALL OF WHICH seem pointed in China’s direction. Every single one.

There are no competitors. No shared victories.

Just loss.

There's your context. Now answer the question.

O believe it’s http://www.facebook.com/friendsof.joe

This just posted by Sherrif Joe on Twitter and Facebook:

“I have been subpoenaed by a Florida attorney in reference to my Obama birth certificate investigation. May have to go there to testify.”

You don’t think anyone’s tried to get those transcripts already?

Columbia and Harvard probably have the same policy as the state of Hawaii-they won’t let anything out unless Obama approves the release

Been tried. See this thread, among others.

Radically off-topic, but do you happen to hang out with a well-dressed crocodile?

INS documents from August 1961 are MISSING from the National Archive’s microfilm!

Or just "Obama's".

Showing the analysis of the LFBC. Stuff we’ve known for quite a while, but the results of an official investigation will be pretty hard for people to ignore, even if most of the media try to ignore it.

The spokesbabe mentioned something about things will be going up on YouTube later. Not sure if it’s the whole thing or not.

Just saw Corsi.

Make sure you’re on the right place. There are two feeds there, one for news, one for breaking. Go to the Breaking feed.

I just saw the Selective Service form up on the screen. Could get REAL interesting!

It looks like ABC15 in Pheonix will be streaming as well. They also have a Mobile streaming app for iPhone, Android phones, and generic web access for mobile devices.

Note: As far as I can tell, the WND stream is the master and the others are backup feeds.

World Net Daily
Article II Super PAC
Western Center for Journalism
Stream Casting
VattleVision

Those are the ones I know of at the moment.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Please cite any authority that can make a convincing argument that congress has any authority over citizenship other than Naturalization (contradicting the plain language of the Constitution) and I'll reconsider my position.

US Constitution, Article I (The Legislative Branch), Section VIII (Powers of Contress), Paragraph 4:

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

Note that it doesn't specify the broader category of "Citizenship", only "Naturalization". Congress only has the authority to pass legislation on Naturalization.

There, fixed it for ya, FJ:

Oops, forgot to ping the mod! :-/

Unfortunately, it looks like only that one thread got cleaned up.

Hey Mod! Could you clean up the others too, please?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2832350/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2832343/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2832100/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2832298/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2832163/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2832051/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2832041/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2831975/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2831830/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2831606/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2831511/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2831427/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2831245/posts

Thank you!

Ah, ya beat me to it, Smokey!

Why are all these Tebow threads showing up under birthcertificate, certifigate, and naturalborncitizen keywords?

However, Congress can decide that certain categories of statutory citizenship are indeed "natural born" - such as children of military serving overseas, etc.

Oh, I see. So congress can pass a law saying all naturalized citizens are "natural born", and Arnold can run for President?

<snicker> Fail!

Stop SOPA and PIPA NOW!

No, no, no! Don't touch Pipa!!!!

Eh, figures I'd get the image tag wrong...

The question he’s considering is the “eligibility to the office of the presidency of a child born of American parents at sea or in a foreign territory”. He concluded that they are natural born citizens, not that the native born are not, certainly not post 14’th Amendment.

Irrelevant. Here's what he wrote:

Let me repeat the important part for you: Now, if it was intended that anybody who was a citizen by birth should be eligible, it would only have been necessary to say, "no person except a native-born citizen," but the framers thought it wise, in view of the probable influx of European immigration, to provide that the President should at least be the child of citizens owing allegiance to the United States at the time of his birth."

You wanted a post-WKA reference to two-citizen-parents. You have it. Now are you going to admit you were wrong? I seriously doubt it.

WildSnail wrote: “I’ve told you before that I worried that my now six-year-old son (i.e. pre-Obama) would not be eligible for the presidency since his mother was just a permanent resident. You blew off that comment, and those of several others here, claiming we made it all up post-2008 to support our idea.”

Your recollection of a worry? And why didn’t you just look it up in /Black’s Law Dictionary/, the one the U.S. Supreme Court most frequently cites, as West Publishing wants us all to know? Was it so important to you that your son not be eligible that you played constitutional scholar and searched for justification to disqualify him?

Why on God's green earth would I look it up in Black's? Why would I search for justification to disqualify him? Here, let me type real slow so you can understand it: M.y. .p.e.r.m.a.n.e.n.t. .r.e.s.i.d.e.n.t. .w.i.f.e. .w.a.s. .p.r.e.g.n.a.n.t. .a.n.d. .i.t. .o.c.c.u.r.r.e.d. .t.o. .m.e. .t.h.a.t. .m.y. .s.o.n. .w.o.u.l.d. .b.e. .u.n.q.u.a.l.i.f.i.e.d. .f.o.r. .p.r.e.s.i.d.e.n.t. .b.e.c.a.u.s.e. .I. .w.a.s. .a.w.a.r.e. .o.f. .t.h.e. .t.w.o.-.c.i.t.i.z.e.n.-.p.a.r.e.n.t.s. .r.e.q.u.i.r.e.m.e.n.t. l.o.n.g. .b.e.f.o.r.e. .I. .e.v.e.r. .h.e.a.r.d. .o.f. .B.H.O!

Do you get it now? Do you understand you are calling me a liar? Without any proof whatsoever, but just because to want to believe that nobody believed the two-citizen-requirement prior to 2008? Please go the f!@# away you imbecilic perfidious poltroon.

I’ve issued that challenge over and over and birthers *never* have the goods. Their sources are either so old that they were considering the situation before the 14’th Amendment and its interpretation in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), or so new that they came up with it specifically to deny Obama the presidency.

Seeing you crow about that, I just had to take a moment. My moments are quite rare as I work a 70 hour week, have a house and yard to take care of, a driveway to shovel, a wife and two small children. Even so, I ran a quick search and came upon this from The Washington Law Reporter, 1903. The writer specifically states that native-born (born in country to non-citizen parents) are not natural-born. He says natural-born is entirely and solely dependent on the citizenship of the parents.

So, there's your post-1898 source that you claimed nobody could find.

I've told you before that I worried that my now six-year-old son (i.e. pre-Obama) would not be eligible for the presidency since his mother was just a permanent resident. You blew off that comment, and those of several others here, claiming we made it all up post-2008 to support our idea. Well I most strenuously object to you calling me and other Freepers in good standing liars to our faces.

Now go away. And don't you dare to ever claim again that nobody has ever quoted sources published after ratification of the 14th and before 2008.

There have been a number of soldiers in recent memory who wound up on the wrong side of court martials for trying to make the president prove something. Lakin. Michael New. Yolanda Huet-Vaughn. Ehren Watada. It doesn't work very well or, apparently, very often.

New, Huet-Vaughn and Watada just decided to disobey orders. Lakin went through channels, talked to superiors, filled out required forms, made appeals, and talked to a congressman. There's a big difference between "I'm not going! Nyah!" and "I spent a year trying to get answers through appropriate channels, was told by my superiors that something isn't right but they can't do anything about it or give me any answers. My only remaining options are to ignore my conscience and duty to the constitution, or disobey deployment orders."

Even spelled out, you most likely won't see the difference. Most people who like to dump on Lakin can't or won't.

Title 18 Section 1401 gives legal meaning to the Constitution’s words. It clarifies what the Congress considers natural born.

People given citizenship by statute are naturalized. The children mentioned in Title 8 Section 1401 are naturalized at birth. The law makes no mention of "natural born" anything. If a law could make someone a natural born Citizen, then congress could pass a law declaring the Governator to be a nbC, and our next Pres could be Arnie.

I believe Zero was not born here, and if he was, his mother had spent too much time overseas and not enough time here to qualify to give birth to a US citizen. I am foggy on this law but I believe she had been out of the country for 5 years, and as a 19 year old, needed to be here at least 1 full year before any offspring could be given a US birth certificate.

At the time he was born, SAD had spent very little, if any, time outside the U.S. The law you are referring to said something like the parent must have spent so many years in the U.S., five of which must have been after the fourteenth birthday (i.e. at least 19 years old). SAD was allegedly 18 at the time. However, that law only applied to a birth on foreign soil. So if he was born in Hawai'i, then he would be a citizen. But if he was born in Canada, Kenya, or Antarctica, he would not have been a citizen at all.

@#$%. First multi-post and it’s a triple!

It already passed in the house. It’s funding bill so it originated in the house as H.R. 1540, passed 322-96 on 5/26/2011. Paul voted no. Bachman voted aye.

It already passed in the house. It’s funding bill so it originated in the house as H.R. 1540, passed 322-96 on 5/26/2011. Paul voted no. Bachman voted aye.

It already passed in the house. It’s funding bill so it originated in the house as H.R. 1540, passed 322-96 on 5/26/2011. Paul voted no. Bachman voted aye.

What’s more, in our time there were no advocates for the theory that a native-born citizen’s eligibility depends upon the citizenship of his parents. Of course that changed in 2008, when a certain faction wanted reasons to argue that Barack Obama cannot be president.

I take you back to the year 2005, long before I ever heard of him. My wife was pregnant with our son. As my wife was a permanent resident at the time, I distinctly remember myself thinking that our son would never be able to be POTUS. Immediately followed by the thought that I would never want him to be POTUS, anyway.

For as long as I can remember, my understanding of nbC was always "born in the country to two citizen parents." And there have been plenty of other posts on these threads from other people who also have believed the same for many years. So please stop pretending that it's a new idea. It's not.

Now go away.

What part of the 14th are you talking about? I don’t see anything like that.

Member of the trial bar?      Yes [ ]  No [ ]

Hmm, looks like he was voting "Present" even then...

A janitor working at the white house goes through a back ground check but the POTUS does not!

Janitors at my kids school are vetted more thoroughly than the Imposter-in-Cheif.

They have open the folding wall to an adjoining room, obviously not anticipating the crowd.

Maybe that will make them think a little before dismissing it out-of-hand.

Or, maybe not...

I just couldn't ignore something here as it flew past me. In Robinson v. Bowen, the court said:

In 1937, to remove any doubt as to persons in Senator McCain’s circumstances in the Canal Zone, Congress enacted 8 U.S.C. 1403(a), which declared that persons in Senator McCain’s circumstances are citizens by virtue of their birth, thereby retroactively rendering Senator McCain a natural born citizen, if he was not one already. (Emphasis mine)

Oy, am I ever relieved! I thought there was no chance at all for Arnold to ever be President. But according to this, congress just needs to pass a law that retroactively makes the Governator a NBC, and he's all set! Ahll be bahkk!

Lmo56 contends that Wong Kim Ark, who was a citizen by the 14th Amendment BUT was never a natural born citizen, was indeed NBC because of the 14th Amendment.

Calm down, SD. Lmo IS on the same page here. The end of his original post that started the uproar in fact states:

THEREFORE, those AGAINST Obama consider him to be a citizen under the 14th Amendment - but CANNOT be a natural-born citizen.

Nowhere in that post did lmo make any claim that BHO is NBC because of the 14th.

Please be careful before jumping on allies.

I predicted it about 15 years ago. Up until the last year or two, everyone I mentioned it to all said I was completely, hopelessly crazy.

I hate being vindicated.

I also found this: http://web.archive.org/web/20051001052651/http://www.cloakanddagger.de/home_copy%281%29.asp for whatever it’s worth.