Free Republic 2nd Qtr 2024 Fundraising Target: $81,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $48,703
60%  
Woo hoo!! And we're now over 60%!! Thank you all very much!! God bless.

Posts by rivang

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • ELIGIBILITY OF OBAMA TO BE PRESIDENT

    03/10/2009 1:44:00 PM PDT · 25 of 54
    rivang to HighlyOpinionated

    Emmerich de Vattel was a Swiss jurist who attained world preeminence in international law. This was primarily the result of his great foundational work, which he published in 1758. His monumental work — The Law of Nations — applied a theory of natural law to international relations. His scholarly, foundational, and systematic explanation of the Law of Nations was especially influential in the United States.

    The Law of Nations was so influential in the United States because his principles of liberty and equality coincided with the ideals expressed in the U. S. Declaration of Independence. In particular, his definitions in terms of Law governing nations regarding citizenship, defense of neutrality, and his rules for commerce between neutral and belligerent states were considered authoritative in the United States.

    Many have said that de Vattel’s Law of Nations was THE primary reference and defining book used by the framers of the U. S. Constitution. It is really not possible to overstate the influence of de Vattel’s Law of Nations as the primary reference book in the drafting of the U. S. Constitution. Emmerich de Vattel’s Law of Nations is almost beyond comparison in its value as a defining document regarding U. S. Constitution intent and interpretation. The Law of Nations, or the Principles of Natural Law, published in 1758, is the first, and ONLY, definitive work the Framers of the U. S. Constitution used for the inclusion of the “Natural Born Citizen” phrase. It nails what is meant by the “natural born citizen” phrase of Section 1, Article 2, of the U. S. Constitution.

    It is amazing how perfectly, precisely, and explicitly what Emmerich de Vattel, wrote in paragraph 212, of book 1, chapter 19, of The Law of Nations entitled CITIZENS AND NATIONS, applies to the Obama FRAUD. Quite clearly and explicitly it defines why Obama, can NOT possibly be qualified to be the President of the United States. Obama MUST be disqualified from the office of President of the United States according to the U. S. Constitution Section 1 Article 2.

    “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society can not exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as a matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. THE COUNTRY OF THE FATHERS IS THEREFORE THAT OF THE CHILDREN.”

    The Founders wanted the President to be a Natural Born Citizen to ensure that the ONE person sitting at the top of the Executive branch had UNQUESTIONABLE, UNWAVERING loyalty to the United States, first and foremost.

    At one point, the delegates writing the Constitution in 1787 considered THREE “presidents” in the Executive for “checks and balances.” They considered a “natural born citizen” clause for Senators as well. Debating those issues, they felt that a “natural born citizen” clause for Senators would limit the pool of possible candidates and could cause bad feelings with immigrants needed to “jump start” the newly-formed republic.

    In the end, the Framers compromised that Senators be required to be US residents for 9 years, while striking the “natural born citizen” clause for the office.

    The Framers also compromised on ONE Executive vs. THREE. But to ensure “checks and balances,” the Framers inserted in Art II, Sect. 1, Clause 5: “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President...”

    The natural born citizen clause was NOT an accident, nor was it an inane rule to be restrictive to immigrants, and it certainly isn’t just a “political” issue. Loyalty to the US is the reason the natural born citizen clause was inserted into the Constitution.

    In the official copies of the THIRD U.S. Congress (1795) margin notes state “Former act repealed. 1790. ch. 3.” referencing the FIRST U.S. Congress (1790).

    Document ONE: the actual text of the THIRD CONGRESS in 1795 states, “...children of citizens [plural, i.e. two parents] of the United States...shall be considered citizens of the United States; Provided That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States...” (THIRD CONGRESS Sess. II. Ch.21. 1795, Approved January 29, 1795, pp. 414-415. Document margin note: “How children shall obtain citizenship through their parents” Document margin note: “Former Act repealed 1790 ch.3.”) See Attachment A.

    Document TWO: the actual text of the FIRST CONGRESS in 1790 states,
    “...children of citizens (NB: plural, i.e. two parents) of the United States...shall be considered as natural born citizens of the United States; Provided That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States...” (FIRST CONGRESS Sess. II Ch.4 1790, Approved March 26, 1790, pp. 103-104. Document margin note: “Their children residing here, deemed citizens.” Document margin note: “Also, children of citizens born beyond sea, & c. Exceptions.”) See Attachment B.

    Document THREE: the actual text of the Constitution from the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention, 1774-1789, and subsequent official printings, of the Constitution of the United States of American: Article II Section 1 Clause 5 states,
    “No person, except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President…” See Attachment C.

    Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms that understanding and the construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:

    ” ... I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents (plural, meaning two) not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen...”

    Bingham is also quoted saying in the Spring of 1868 some serious warnings:

    “May God forbid that the future historian shall record of this day’s proceedings, that by reason of the failure of the legislative power of the people to triumph over the usurpations of an apostate President, the fabric of American empire fell and perished from the earth!...I ask you to consider that we stand this day pleading for the violated majesty of the law, by the graves of half a million of martyred hero-patriots who made death beautiful by the sacrifice of themselves for their country, the Constitution and the laws, and who, by their sublime example, have taught us all to obey the law; that none are above the law...”

    U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark’s (1898) importance is that it is the first case decided by the Supreme Court that attempts to explain the meaning of “natural born citizen” under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution. Natural born citizen is similar to the meaning of what a natural born subject is under Common Law in England. That is one of the reasons why the framers specifically included a grandfather clause (natural born Citizen OR a Citizen of the United States, at the time of adoption of this Constitution). The founding fathers knew that in order to be president, they had to grandfather themselves in because they were British subjects. If they didn’t, they could not be President of the U.S. The holding in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark states that Wong Kim Ark is a native born citizen. If you look at the fact of Wong Kim Ark being born in San Francisco, CA, of Chinese parents, that holding is correct.

    In U. S. v Wong Kim Ark, the court thoroughly discussed “natural born citizen,” and in doing so, Justice Gray quoted directly from the holding in a prior Supreme Court case, Minor v. Happersett. The following passage is a quote from Minor as quoted by Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark:

    “’At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents [plural] who were its citizens [plural], became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.’ Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168.”

    Perkins v. Elg’s (1939) importance is that it actually gives examples of what a “natural born citizen” of the U.S. is; what a “citizen” of the U.S. is; and what a “native born citizen” of the U. S.

    In this case, the U. S. Supreme Court found that a “natural born citizen” is a person who is born of two U.S. citizen parents AND born in the mainland of U.S.

    Citizen:

    On cross appeals, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decree, 69 App.D.C. 175, 99 F.2d 408. Certiorari was granted, December 5, 1938, 305 U.S. 591, 59 S.Ct. 245, 83 L.Ed. —. First.— On her birth in New York, the plaintiff became a citizen of the United States. Civil Rights Act of 1866:

    Ms. Elg was found to be a “citizen” because she was born in the mainland USA (New York)

    Native Born citizen:

    This principle was clearly stated by Attorney General Edwards Pierrepont in his letter of advice to the Secretary of State Hamilton Fish, in Steinkauler’s Case, 1875, 15 Op.Atty.Gen. 15. The facts were these: One Steinkauler, a Prussian subject by birth, emigrated to the United States in 1848, was naturalized in 1854, and in the following year had a son who was born in St. Louis. Four years later Steinkauler returned to Germany taking this child and became domiciled at Weisbaden where they continuously resided. When the son reached the age of twenty years the German Government called upon him to report for military duty and his father then invoked the intervention of the American Legation on the ground that his son was a native citizen of the United States. To an inquiry by our Minister, the father declined to give an assurance that the son would return to this country within a reasonable time. On reviewing the pertinent points in the case, including the Naturalization Treaty of 1868 with North Germany, 15 Stat. 615, the Attorney General reached the following conclusion: ‘Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen.

    Mr. Steinkauler was found to be a “native born citizen” because he was born in the mainland USA (St. Louis)

    Natural Born Citizen:

    U. S. Supreme Court’s Relevant Facts: Miss Elg was born in Brooklyn, New York, on October 2, 1907. Her parents, who were natives of Sweden, emigrated to the United States sometime prior to 1906 and her father was naturalized here in that year. In 1911, her mother took her to Sweden where she continued to reside until September 7, 1929. Her father went to Sweden in 1922 and has not since returned to the United States. In November, 1934, he made a statement before an American consul in Sweden that he had voluntarily expatriated himself for the reason that he did not desire to retain the status of an American citizen and wished to preserve his allegiance to Sweden. [Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 327 (1939).]

    U. S. Supreme Court’s Holding: The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227, 57 S.Ct. 461, 81 L.Ed. 617, 108 A.L.R. 1000) declared Miss Elg ‘to be a natural born citizen of the United States’ (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. [Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 350 (1939).]

    Rationale of the logic is as follows: The U. S. Supreme Court in 1939 held that Elg was a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN because she was born in Brooklyn, New York on October 2, 1907, her father was naturalized as a U.S. citizen in 1906 under the Naturalization Act of 1906, and her mother derived her US citizenship in 1907 under the Expatriation Act of 1907. The Expatriation Act of 1907 extended the logic linking a woman’s citizenship to her marital status and the status of her spouse.

    Ms. Elg was found to be a “natural born citizen” because she was born in the mainland USA (New York) of TWO US citizen parents.

    As the above chart clearly shows:

    You can be a “citizen” under the following circumstances:

    1. You were born of one citizen parent (Obama), or
    2. You were born in the US mainland (anchor babies — DEL), or
    3. You were naturalized (Schwarzenegger).

    To be a “natural born citizen” you must be born in the US mainland of two US parents.

    After the Naturalization Act of 1906 created the Naturalization Standards for U.S. Citizenship, Congress passed the Expatriation Act of 1907 to allow SPOUSES of naturalized U.S. citizens to be considered naturalized U.S. citizens as well.

    Perkins v. Elg doesn’t explain that but that was THE LAW ENACTED at the time when Elg was born in New York. The Court’s job is to apply the relevant facts to the law. The law as discussed in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898 was that in order to be a “natural born citizen,” you had to be born in the U.S. Mainland AND born to U.S. Citizens PARENTS (PLURAL NOT SINGULAR). The key here is BOTH PARENTS WERE U.S. CITIZENS at the time of Elg’s birth. The U.S. Supreme Court, in 1939, ruled that Elg was a “natural born citizen” using DEDUCTIVE REASONING to clarify why. The law is corroborated.

    All you have to do is read the Expatriation Act of 1907 (federal statute) as proof. Remember, Elg was born prior to enactment of the U. S. Constitution’s Nineteenth Amendment, ratified on August 18, 1920, and a woman’s status was tied to that of her husband.

  • Back to the Republic

    02/19/2009 9:56:15 AM PST · 1 of 2
    rivang
  • Obama makes Americans of us all

    02/19/2009 7:37:21 AM PST · 36 of 57
    rivang to Astronaut

    Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it. — Patrick Henry, 1775

    Barack Hussein Obama... the pied piper of change and illusions/delusions of hope.

    Who are those who are apt to shut their eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts?

    All the sheeple who are worshiping the ground that Obama walks upon.

    It is amazing how timeless that quote is today, 232 years later. When those words were penned by Patrick Henry back in 1775, he was attempting to encourage his countrymen to take a stand against a common external enemy. Today we are dealing with an enemy from within.

    Where are the Patrick Henry’s of today, who will encourage their countrymen to stand up and stop Obama from destroying the Nation that our founders gave us, through their blood and sacrifice?

  • The Declaration of Independence

    02/13/2009 9:07:45 AM PST · 21 of 36
    rivang to AbeLincoln

    It is also available on this site...

    http://ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm

  • Ideals of our Founding Fathers

    01/22/2009 2:52:54 PM PST · 12 of 24
    rivang to Congressman Billybob

    When and where did this interview occur? Is their audio copy? Can you recaption the article showing Obama’s comments versus the interviewers?

  • Bush Says He Doubts Bible Literally True

    12/09/2008 9:04:31 PM PST · 258 of 369
    rivang to SkyPilot

    What would you say if someone decided Shakespeare’s plays, Charles Dicken’s novels, or the music of Beethoven could be rewritten & improved?

    I’ll be right back. . .

    Writing in the journal “The Alternative”, Richard Hanser, author of The Law & the Prophets and Jesus: What Manner of Man Is This?, has called attention to something that is more than a little mind boggling. It is my understanding that the Bible (both the Old & New Testaments) has been the best selling book in the entire history of printing.

    Now another attempt has been made to improve it. I say another because there have been several fairly recent efforts to quote “make the Bible more readable & understandable” unquote. But as Mr. Hanser so eloquently says, “For more than 3 1/2 centuries, its language and its images, have penetrated more deeply into the general culture of the English speaking world, and been more dearly treasured, than anything else ever put on paper.” He then quotes the irreverent H. L. Mencken, who spoke of it as purely a literary work and said it was, “probably the most beautiful piece of writing in any language.”

    They were, of course, speaking of The Authorized Version, the one that came into being when the England of King James was scoured for translators & scholars. It was a time when the English language had reached it’s peak of richness & beauty.

    Now we are to have The Good News Bible which will be in, “the natural English of everyday adult conversation.” I’m sure the scholars and clergymen supervised by the American Bible Society were sincerely imbued with the thought that they were taking religion to the people with their Good News Bible, but I can’t help feeling we should instead be taking the people to religion and lifting them with the beauty of language that has outlived the centuries.

    Mr. Hanser has quoted from both the St. James Version & the Good News Bible some well known passages for us to compare. A few thousand years ago Job said “How forcible are right words!” [Job 6:25] The new translators have him saying “Honest words are convincing.” That’s only for openers. There is the passage [Eccl. 1:18], “For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow”. Is it really an improvement to say instead, “The wiser you are, the more worries you have; the more you know the more it hurts.”

    In the New Testament, in Mathew, we read “The voice of the one crying in the wilderness. Prepare ye the way.” [Matthew 3:3] The Good News version translates that, “Someone is shouting in the desert. Get the road ready.” It sounds like a straw boss announcing lunch hour is over.

    The hauntingly beautiful 23rd Psalm is the same in both versions, for a few words, “The Lord is my shepherd” but instead of continuing “I shall not want” we are supposed to say “I have everything I need.”

    The Christmas story has undergone some modernizing but one can hardly call it improved. The wondrous words “Fear not: for; behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy” has become, “Don’t be afraid! I am here with good news for you.”

    The sponsors of the Good News version boast that their Bible is as readable as the daily paper – and so it is. But do readers of the daily news find themselves moved to wonder, “at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth”? Mr. Hanser suggests that sadly the “tinkering & general horsing around with the sacred texts will no doubt continue” as pious drudges try to get it right. “It will not dawn on them that it has already been gotten right.”

    This is Ronald Reagan. Thanks for listening.

    — aired September 6, 1977

  • Rahm Emanuel- Obama's chief of staff-The Plan, Yes We Can Draft Your [snip]

    11/07/2008 10:48:28 AM PST · 133 of 293
    rivang to bert

    Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death

    March 23, 1775
    By Patrick Henry

    No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the house. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The question before the house is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at the truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

    Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the numbers of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth, to know the worst, and to provide for it.

    I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received?

    Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlement assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation.

    There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free—if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending—if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained—we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us! They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength but irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable—and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

    It is in vain, sir, to extentuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace—but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

  • Rahm Emanuel- Obama's chief of staff-The Plan, Yes We Can Draft Your [snip]

    11/07/2008 10:06:37 AM PST · 81 of 293
    rivang to OCC

    Incredible! New George S Patton speech: Iraq & modern world
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyUX6wV1lBQ

  • Post election America at Crossroads.. Post Scriptures or Quotes.

    11/06/2008 3:12:50 PM PST · 6 of 39
    rivang to Califreak

    Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.
    Ronald Reagan

  • Palin returns to Alaska, urged to mend fences (Media continues to bash her)

    11/06/2008 1:57:58 PM PST · 15 of 63
    rivang to housedeep

    How can we strike back at the MSM, hit them where it hurts?

  • Unity? No, Thank You

    11/06/2008 12:47:39 PM PST · 16 of 38
    rivang to Rocco DiPippo

    Don’t you just love irony?

    In reality, Obama = Hitler!!!

  • Obama will not be my President

    11/04/2008 7:43:57 PM PST · 80 of 218
    rivang to DRey

    Just call him Abomination...

  • Ray of Hope - Democrat rolls are swelled because of Operation Chaos

    10/24/2008 1:47:16 PM PDT · 22 of 36
    rivang to diverteach

    All republicans should go independent so candidates would be more interested in our votes.

    All you hear lately is candidates speaking to independents or the folks who can’t make a decision, even if their lives depended on it. Don’t you just love people who sit on the fence, never taking a side. Polls would be meaningless at that point even more than they already are.

  • Israeli researchers tout time machine model

    08/06/2007 11:53:16 AM PDT · 14 of 88
    rivang to KarlInOhio

    Can you imagine taking a carrier group from today and parking them just a little north of Hawaii where they could catch the Japs off guard on their way into Pearl Harbor. Wipe out all of their aircraft and their entire task force... Hooah...

  • TAX CUTS FOR KIDS [Fred Thompson Report]

    06/22/2007 2:04:45 PM PDT · 16 of 39
    rivang to jwpjr

    Bless their hearts, they just can’t seem to latch on to a subject and, like a bulldog, not let go.

    I am not too sure about that... they have latched on to Shamnesty and won’t let that dog die.

  • Graham Statement on Reviving Immigration Floor Debate

    06/18/2007 2:18:43 PM PDT · 31 of 81
    rivang to 3AngelaD

    Duh... why can’t they just put the borders on lock down, stop the incoming flow. Once they get that done start a search within the USA for any illegals that they can find, then start deporting them. Cut social services to anyone who is not an American Citizen.

    Why can’t they just try that first? Let us see how effective that would be first.

  • Group says John Paul II to return as anti-Christ

    01/31/2007 3:27:06 PM PST · 7 of 25
    rivang to WestVirginiaRebel

    Some fellow made up some God and called him the Flying Spaghetti Monster... FSM

  • French UN troops prepare guns against Israeli jets in Lebanon

    11/17/2006 2:16:52 PM PST · 12 of 53
    rivang to Conservative

    Unleash Israel and let them take care of business.

    Anyone recall that song from the 70's that was to tune of the Beach Boys "Barbara Ann"?

    Oh yes, wasn't that "Bomb Iran"?

  • Pelosi: I Hope the Departure of Mr. Rumsfeld Will Mark A Fresh Start Toward a New Policy in Iraq

    11/08/2006 2:01:35 PM PST · 14 of 57
    rivang to Sub-Driver

    Secretary Rumsfeld has lost the confidence of his most crucial constituency: the men and women of our armed forces who rely on the civilian leadership of the Pentagon to provide them with the support needed to do their dangerous jobs as effectively and safely as possible.


    I think we need to hear this from our troops, not some stuffed suit demorat.

  • LIVE THREAD: ELECTIONS 2006

    11/07/2006 6:09:29 PM PST · 1,003 of 7,777
    rivang to Yardstick

    Only 1% of precincts reporting on Santorum