Archive for bumrejects.myfreeforum.org Open discussion on just about any topic
 


       bumrejects.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> We the People
tsiya

CITIZENSHIP

Article II Super PAC

Constitutional Attorneys and Advocates Respond to Brett Baier’s Unconstitutional Definition of Natural Born Citizen


Hello ,

Following is a snapshot from constitutional voices from across the web who weighed in on Fox News Brett Baier’s unconstitutional definition of “natural born Citizen”. These statements are concise, factual and rooted in constitutional law. After reading them, keep them and use them to help advance Article II Super PAC’s goal to educate a majority of voters before the November elections. The electorate must be informed and we are counting on you to help us educate a majority of the voters with the facts.  

Herb Titus, Esq.
William J. Olson, P.C.

“Bret Baer commits a common error.  He assumes that "natural born citizen" means the same thing as "citizen by birth."  They are not the same.  A citizen by birth is one who by constitutional or statutory provision is made or recognized as a citizen based upon where or to whom he was born.   Under Mr. Baer's view, a natural born citizen, then, is a citizen of a particular nation only by positive law.  If a natural born citizen is defined by statute, as Mr. Baer claims he is, then by statute Congress can take away his natural born citizenship status, subject only to the 14th Amendment's definition of citizenship by birth.  And even that citizenship can be taken away by an amendment to the constitution.  Indeed, according to Mr. Baer, no one could have been eligible to be elected president UNLESS Congress passed a statute designating one's citizenship by birth, or until the 14th amendment definition of citizenship by birth was ratified.”

“A natural born citizen, by contrast, is not dependent upon Congress passing a statute or the constitution being amended.  A natural born citizen is a citizen of a specific nation by the law of nature of citizenship.  The law of nature of national citizenship is written into the very nature of the universe of nation-states, and is universal as to place, uniform as to person, and fixed as to time.  By definition the law governing natural born citizenship exists independent of any human power, legislative or otherwise.  That is why "natural born citizenship" is not defined in the Constitution.  Such citizenship exists whether recognized by positive law or not.  Such citizenship is God-given.  To qualify one must be born to a father and a mother each of whom is a citizen of a particular state in order for the person to be "natural born" citizen of that state.”

###

Van Irion, Esq.
Liberty Legal Foundation

“Many of you have e-mailed about Fox News anchor Brett Baier’s claim that Obama is constitutionally qualified simply because he was born here. It should be clear that Mr. Baier is speaking beyond his knowledge. He is quite wrong. His comments displayed his ignorance about the basic structure of our government.”

“Congress cannot override the Constitution, or re-define any term in the Constitution, without going through the entire Amendment process. Anyone that claims that Congress re-defined “natural born citizen” as anyone born on U.S. soil, simply demonstrates their ignorance of how our government works. Congress simply doesn’t have the authority to re-define Article II “natural born citizen” without Amending the Constitution. Any attempts by Congress to do so are without effect. Congress has authority to make anyone born here a citizen, but they cannot re-define “natural born citizen” without Amending the Constitution.”

“Secondly, the 14th Amendment expanded who could be a citizen, not who could be a natural born citizen. If the framers of the 14th Amendment had wished to redefine "natural born citizen" they would have used that term in the Amendment. They did not. Therefore the 14th Amendment ONLY applies to the larger class of citizens, not the smaller class of "natural born citizens."

###

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
Apuzzo Law Firm

“He fails to understand that “Citizens of the United States” and their “natural born Citizen” children already existed since after July 4, 1776 and before the Constitution was adopted in 1787. The Founding generation knew who those citizens were. That generation abandoned the English feudal and monarchial notion of subjecthood and perpetual allegiance to the King. They replaced the notion of membership in the civil society by calling their members “citizens” and “natural born Citizens” rather than “subjects” and “natural born subjects” and providing that children followed the political condition of their parents who by free will selected that condition for them until their age of majority at which time they were free to accept or change that choice, not that of some King without choice and for life. While the Constitution itself does not define a "natural born Citizen," historical evidence and case law from the U.S. Supreme Court and other courts do so. That evidence shows that a "natural born Citizen" is a child born in the United States to parents who at the time of their birth were both either "natural born Citizens" or "citizens of the United States." See my blog at http://puzo1.blogspot.com  for a discussion of this historical evidence and case law.”

Read the rest of Apuzzo’s statement by clicking – http://puzo1.blogspot.com

###

Jerome Corsi
World Net Daily

“Baier incorrectly interprets that 8 USC Section 1401 was written to define ‘natural born citizen,’ as specified in Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution,” he said. “The purpose of 8 USC Section 1401 is to define ‘nationals’ and ‘citizens’ of the United States ‘at birth.’”

Corsi explained that citizens at birth are not “natural born citizens” under the meaning of Article 2, Section 1.

“Nowhere in 8 USC Section 1401 does Congress make any mention of the term ‘natural born citizen’ or to Article 2, Section 1,” Corsi said.

He went onto say “To novices, the distinction between ‘citizen at birth’ and ‘natural born citizen’ may be trivial. Under law, the distinction is meaningful and important. A mother who takes advantage of ‘birth tourism’ to fly from Turkey or China (or any other foreign country) to have a baby born in the United States might arguably give birth to a ‘citizen at birth,’ under the meaning of the 14th Amendment, extended by 8 USC Section 1401,” Corsi said.”

“But consider that the mother and child return to China and Turkey and raise the child. The child does not learn to speak English and does not learn anything about U.S. history or culture. Yet at age 35, the child returns to the U.S., spends the necessary years here to meet the residency requirements under Article 2, Section 1, and runs for president.”

“He continued, “‘Natural Born Citizen’ is a term of natural law — it specifies that a child must be born in the USA to two parents who were U.S. citizens at birth.”

Read the rest of the Unruh article by clicking
- http://www.wnd.com/2012/05/law-prof-fox-anchor-wrong-on-eligibility/

###

Dan Crosby
The Daily Pen

“Unfortunately, Baier is wrong and misguided.  Those he defines here are not Natural born citizens.  A natural born U.S. citizen is one born in the United States, specifically defined as a geographic location held under the constitutional protection of the U.S., to two U.S. citizen parents, conditions which are well defined by the tenets of natural law and national identity.”

“Again, this is another example of a politically-minded individual desperately seeking an extralegal mooring upon which to anchor their opinion about Obama’s eligibility.  Unfortunately for Baier, that mooring is not found there,” says TDP Editor, Pen Johannson.”

Read the rest of Crosby’s response by clicking  - http://thedailypen.blogspot.com/2...ws-baier-typifies-mainstream.html

###

Cindy Simpson
American Thinker

“A recent Human Events article by Michael Zak asserts the same position as Baier's.  No citizen parents are needed, and they can be here illegally.  Even al-Awlaki could have run for president.”

“The Georgia Obama ballot challenge ruling and its likely consequences on citizenship arguments was discussed here, which we now see in action.”

“Baier's assertion places both Obama with his one citizen parent and Rubio with none on the same "natural born" bus -- and that bus ran over not just "birthers" (who actually have been lying under there for quite a while), but also all of the Republicans who have been working for curtailment of the "jackpot" birthright practice as part of effective immigration reform.  Because now it can no longer be denied (which "birthers" have been arguing all along) that birthright citizenship and presidential natural born eligibility are inextricably related.”

Read the rest of Simpson’s article by clicking -  http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/05/rubio_and_birthright_citizenship.html#ixzz1u2bQXWRm

###

Lastly we hear from Commander (Ret) Charles Kerchner challenging Baier in an “Open Letter” to include constitutional attorney’s who are leaders on Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 to have a seat at the table IF Baier assembles such a panel –

Dear Mr. Baier:

I strongly suggest you invite constitutional scholar and attorney Herb Titus and constitutional presidential eligibility attorney Mario Apuzzo on to any debate or discussion panel you put together to debate the true legal and historical meaning of the Natural Law legal term of art “natural born Citizen”. Invite anyone else you wish on to the panel who wishes to argue that the natural law “natural born Citizen” legal term of art is 100% synonymous with the man-made positive law, Congressional Statute Title 8 Section 1401, “Citizen at Birth” legal term, which is what you asserted. Our experts will conclusively prove to you and your listeners in any debate form or forum you choose that those two citizenship legal terms/types are not identically the same.

Read the rest of Kerchner’s Open Letter by clicking - http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/...of-fox-news-from-cdr-kerchner-ret
bieramar

The intentions of the Founders, and their understandings of "natural born" and "citizen" have been the subject of inquiry and argument since BEFORE the current U.S. Constitution was written and ratified.

And Congress and the Courts have made judgments and definitions since.

In this first post, I'm addressing only the early evidence from the Founders.

The phrase first appears in official American Revolutionary and Constitutional documents in the 1774 declaration of inalienable human and civil rights when establishing the first American Congress - I recommend reviewing that portion of U.S. revolutionary and constitutional history at http://bumrejects.myfreeforum.org/about436.html . The entire declaration is the second post on that thread.

"...ancestors, who first settled these colonies, were at the time of their emigration from the mother country, entitled to all the rights, liberties, and immunities of free and natural-born subjects, within the realm of England... [and] by such emigration they by no means forfeited, surrendered, or lost any of those rights, but that they were, and their descendants now are, entitled to the exercise and enjoyment of all such of them."

The key words are "free" (not slaves or endentured servants), "subjects" (sworn allegience to Crown, and in many Colonies sworn allegience to the Church of England), and "natural-born" (not adopted as a device for citizenship, as had been practiced for centuries).

The latter understanding seems to be lacking in the writings of many "birthers," i.e. the centuries-old practice of legally adopting a person in order to provide them citizenship, which in turn allowed them to legally enter into trade and finance, own property, etc. - but whose legal citizenship status didn't automatically pass to his sons and daughters.

The intent in 1774 was to affirm that all the free legitimate descendents of the natural-born British settlers of the Colonies through the years were entitled to the named "rights."

Thirteen years later, when Alexander Hamilton proposed his scheme for amending the previous Constitution in June 1787 at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, he used the words in determining the qualifications of the Presidency "now be a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States."  

He did NOT use the term "natural-born" - and his "Citizen of one of the States" would have allowed anyone who had resided in and sworn allegience (the two essential elements of "citizen" at that time) in any State/Colony in the previous revolutionary decade to be President, regardless of the nation, state, or realm of birth.

On July 25, 1787, John Jay, since his fellow gentleman had not deemed to send him as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, had to bring his ideas for a new government to George Washington via written correspondence. Washington, as President of the Convention could not debate or vote on any proposal, but could bend the ears of the other delegates.

Jay, in his letter, strongly pleaded with Washington to insure that the Commander-in-Chief of the Army be restricted to only native-born citizens in the Constitution being written. Jay's understanding was that in the earlier Declaration.  

Jay's concern was that one of the French (or other European) officers or men who had become citizens while fighting against the British during the Revolutionary War could become President and Commander-in-Chief if the two roles were combined (at the time, the delegates were still arguing which powers would be held by whom).  

Later in August 1787, as the Committee on Detail fine-tuned the wording of the approved Constitutional elements, someone on the Committee (all proceedings were secret) compressed Hamilton's words on the presidential requirement into "a Citizen of the United States."

But mysteriously (sort of like in today's Conferences between House and Senate staffs when earmarks get added) when the final printing came from the final Committee the phrase "native-born" had been added, and the wording - which remains today - was approved in the final draft of the Convention.

However John Jay still wasn't satisfied, and exactly a year after his letter to Washington, on July 25, 1788 when Jay was a delegate to the Poughkeepsie Ratifying Convention he proposed - and convinced that Convention to pass Convention - an amendment to the Constitution, as a condition of ratification:

"That no Persons except natural born Citizens, or such as were Citizens on or before the fourth day of July one thousand seven hundred and seventy six, or such as held Commissions under the United States during the War, and have at any time since the fourth day of July one thousand seven hundred and seventy six become Citizens of one or other of the United States, and who shall be Freeholders, shall be eligible to the Places of President, Vice President, or Members of either House of the Congress of the United States".¹

His amendment was later discarded and the Constitution ratified with his desired "natural born" in it for the requirement for President.

¹ http://sovereignny.org/?p=2
auntmartymoo

But the deeper question is ...

Who knew there were so many ways to misspell "Bret Baier" ?
scrutney

auntmartymoo wrote:
But the deeper question is ...

Who knew there were so many ways to misspell "Bret Baier" ?


coebul.
coebul

UP yours! or is it Your's?
tsiya

Some folks around here have no creedence at all! Very Happy
bieramar

As noted in my last post, and documented by the various diaries and notes of the delegates who attended the Convention in 1787 who actually wrote the U.S. Constitution, the delegates did NOT vote to include the phrase "natural born citizen" as a qualification for the U.S. President.  Some delegate or clerk in a secret "mark up" session added the "natural born."

However that authorship became moot, first when the delegates approved the final draft, and second when the U.S. Constitution was ratified by a sufficient number of States.

Numerous definitions and qualifications of the requirements to be a "citizen" - born in the U.S., born outside, born of citizen parents or of non-citizen parents - and requirements to be a "naturalized" citizen have been implemented into policy and law through the years -- but none of those matter in regard to the qualifications for President, i.e. "natural born citizen."

The latest legal ruling - from Indiana three years ago when both Obama's and McCain's "natural born" citizenship was challenged in court follows.  They are from the extended footnotes, and refer only to Obama's status. Subsequent Appeals were quashed.

---
Specifically, the crux of the Plaintiffs' argument is that
"[c]ontrary to the thinking of most People on the subject, there's a very clear distinction between a 'citizen of the United States' and a 'natural born Citizen,' and the difference involves having [two] parents of U.S. citizenship, owing no foreign allegiance."

With regard to President Barack Obama, the Plaintiffs posit that because his father was a citizen of the United Kingdom, President Obama is constitutionally ineligible to assume the Office of the President.

Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution governs who is a citizen of the United States. It provides that "[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States...."

U.S. Constitution has a special requirement to assume the Presidency: that the person be a "natural born Citizen."

The United States Supreme Court has read these two provisions in tandem and held that "[t]hus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization." Minor v. Happersett (1874). In Minor, written only six years after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, the Court observed that:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.

At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.

For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. Thus, the Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen.  

Note that the Court in Minor contemplates only scenarios where both parents are either citizens or aliens, rather in the case of President Obama, whose mother was a U.S. citizen and father was a citizen of the United Kingdom.

Then, in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, (1898), the United States Supreme Court confronted the question of "whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who at the time of his birth are subject to the emperor of China... becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the fourteenth amendment..."

We find this case instructive. The Court in Wong Kim Ark reaffirmed Minor in that the meaning of the words "citizen of the United States" and "natural-born citizen of the United States" "must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the constitution."

They noted that "[t]he interpretation of the constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history."

The Wong Kim Ark Court explained: The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance-also called 'ligealty,' 'obedience,' 'faith,' or 'power'-of the king. The principle embraced all persons born within the king's allegiance, and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual, - as expressed in the maxim, 'Protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem,' - and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance; but were predicable of aliens in amity, so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the king's dominions, were not natural-born subjects, because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at  this day, within the jurisdiction, of the king.

This fundamental principle, with these qualifications or explanations of it, was clearly, though quaintly, stated in the leading case known as 'Calvin's Case,' or the 'Case of the Postnati,' decided in 1608, after a hearing in the exchequer chamber before the lord chancellor and all the judges of England, and reported by Lord Coke and by Lord Ellesmere. The English authorities ever since are to the like effect.

Lord Chief Justice Cockburn... said: By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled, or merely temporarily sojourning, in the country, was an English subject, save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent as a source of nationality."

It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.

According to Westlaw, Wong Kim Ark has been cited to in over 1,000 cases.

Also, as quoted in Wong Kim Ark, Justice Joseph Story once declared in Inglis v. Trustees of Sailors' Snug Harbor (1830), that "Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children, even of aliens, born in a country, while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government, and owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth."

The Court also cited Justice Curtis's dissent in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1856): The first section of the second article of the constitution uses the language, 'a natural-born citizen.' It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.

The Court in Wong Kim Ark also cited authority which notes that: All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.

The Court held that Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States "at the time of his birth."

For all but forty-four people in our nation's history (the forty-four Presidents), the dichotomy between who is a natural born citizen and who is a naturalized citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment is irrelevant.

Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are "natural born Citizens" for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.

Just as a person "born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject" at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those "born in the allegiance of the United States natural-born citizens."


The Plaintiffs do not mention the above United States Supreme Court authority in their complaint or brief; they primarily rely instead on an eighteenth century treatise and quotations of Members of Congress made during the nineteenth century. To the extent that these authorities conflict with the United States Supreme Court's interpretation of what it means to be a natural born citizen, we believe that the Plaintiffs' arguments fall under the category of "conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions" that we need not accept as true when reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

We note that President Obama is not the first U.S. President born of parents of differing citizenship. Chester A. Arthur, the twenty-first U.S. President, was born of a mother who was a United States citizen and a father who was an Irish citizen.

During the election of 1880, there arose a rumor "that [Arthur] had been born in Canada, rather than in Vermont as he claimed, and was thus constitutionally ineligible to become the Chief Executive."

Although President Arthur's status as a natural born citizen was challenged in the 1880 Presidential Election on the grounds that he was born in Canada rather than Vermont, the argument was not made that because Arthur's father was an Irish citizen he was constitutionally ineligible to be President.
====

Plain, albeit long, quaint, legalesy, but simple.

Anyone born in Hawaii after it became a state, regardless of the nationality of his/her parents is a "natural born citizen," and meets the constitutional requirement for President.

Challenging Obama's qualifications on that constitutional basis only has failed.

Which leaves the other "birther" claim that Obama was born in Africa.

IF that is ever proven it will be a different ballgame.

Let me know when that occurs, as the so-called evidence presented so far is underwhelming.
tsiya

We still have the question of why false documents were submitted and other documents hidden.
bieramar

tsiya wrote:
We still have the question of why false documents were submitted and other documents hidden.


That's true, but that is an entirely different legal issue than being a "natural born citizen."

EVEN IF there are false documents in evidence, Obama still enjoys what in law is called a "positive defense" -- which means the "burden of proof" is on the accuser.

And EVEN IF it was proved that the birth certificate and/or draft card and/or passport and/or whatever? were fake, that still would not establish that Obama was not a "natural born citizen."  

Maybe be grounds for impeachment, maybe not - depending upon the provable culpability, and how many Representatives and Senators wanted to impeach - but would not impact his qualification for President.

The ONLY way that ineligibility could be established is by proof - ruled upon by SCOTUS - that Obama was born in Africa, or some other area outside of the 50 states.
tsiya

Actually, Obama may not be a citizen at all,  there doesn't seem to be any verifiable evidence, just hearsay. Very Happy
bieramar

tsiya wrote:
Actually, Obama may not be a citizen at all,  there doesn't seem to be any verifiable evidence, just hearsay. Very Happy


That's all anyone has - no one remembers their own birth - only what they've heard from others.

The evidence of where one was born is all hearsay or testimony of others - who may or may not be lying.

My birth (born at home with my 5-year-old sister the only "midwife") wasn't recorded for months, after the snow melted and mom got to the courthouse - God only knows where, and what really transpired.
bieramar

Illegal alien attorneys?

Three cases currently being heard by the Florida Supreme Court:

1. Jose Godinez-Samperio is an undocumented immigrant from Mexico -- and now he's fighting to be admitted to the Florida bar. The Florida Board of Bar Examiners adopted a policy in 2008 that requires all applicants to offer valid citizenship or immigration papers. Now 25, Godinez-Samperio received a waiver from the state Board of Bar Examiners to take the bar exam and passed. But after several months of consideration, the board declined to admit him -- instead referring the case to the state Supreme Court. [NPR]

2. Attorneys for three immigrants urged the Florida Supreme Court on Tuesday to throw out their guilty pleas to felony charges because defense lawyers failed to warn them the result would be almost certain deportation. They cited a 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision in a Kentucky case that says failing to give immigrants such advice violates their constitutional right to effective counsel. [AP]

3. A Honduran couple's case argued yesterday before the Florida Supreme Court could have major implications for an non-residents, including undocumented immigrants, trying to live the American dream. The court could determine if the couple and other non-resident homeowners, whether they are from foreign countries or other states, can obtain homestead property tax exemptions. [Fox Latino News]
---
Source: http://www.floridatrend.com/a56887_wednesdays-daily-pulse
===

"Citizenship" in the 21st century isn't as cut and dried as some may think.  

The legal tradition of "Common Law" (scroll back 5 posts to the long Indiana Obama citizenship post on page 1) and human rights vs. civil rights are being challenged by the disintegration of nation-states as the essential political bodies of allegience.
coebul

Re: Illegal alien attorneys?

bieramar wrote:


"Citizenship" in the 21st century isn't as cut and dried as some may think.  

The legal tradition of "Common Law" (scroll back 5 posts to the long Indiana Obama citizenship post on page 1) and human rights vs. civil rights are being challenged by the disintegration of nation-states as the essential political bodies of allegience.
It should be that cut and dry!  All three cases sited above never should have made it to the state supreme court.  

When illegals are apprehended they should be deported.  There is no reason to give these people the benefits of citizenship.
tsiya

The Empowered Man

http://youtu.be/SUfh-2n5cWI
bieramar

tsiya wrote:
The Empowered Man

http://youtu.be/SUfh-2n5cWI


"Freedom's just another word for 'nothing left to lose.'"

I truly feel sorry of people like McNaughton who are so trapped by self-generated imaginary bindings in their own minds -- mental masturbation without any release at the end.

My freedoms have not been impinged upon by the unknowable intentions in the mind of any president or politician when they took the oath of office.

My freedoms are not affected at all when I look around me and don't know, nor care, how much, how little, or if any, taxes were paid by any individual. I'm just as free as if I knew every dollar or cent paid.

No government - federal, state or local - regulates every aspect of my life - or for that matter any aspect of my life that impinges on my freedoms.

My freedom is not dependent upon the Federal Reserve bankers and their decisions - that they are not accountable to me means dip shit to me.

The amount of federal debt has never affected the flavor of my meals or the enjoyment of my drinks.

I don't really care if the U.S. Forest Ranger is really working feverishly and earning her salary each minute of 35 hours each week, and that my taxes are paying her. I can still hike in the forest, commune with nature, and enjoy the wilderness and its inhabitants.

And I've sure as hell not sold any of my unalienable human rights for a mess of pottage.
tsiya

I suppose it depends on what you consider freedom, Bier. You are obviously willing to accept a lot more government intrusion than I am.
coebul

bieramar wrote:


I don't really care if the U.S. Forest Ranger is really working feverishly and earning her salary each minute of 35 hours each week, and that my taxes are paying her. I can still hike in the forest, commune with nature, and enjoy the wilderness and its inhabitants.

And I've sure as hell not sold any of my unalienable human rights for a mess of pottage.
"I don't really care if the U.S. Forest Ranger is really working feverishly and earning her salary each minute of 35 hours each week,................."Whats I wants ta know is............ What DNR employee works that hard at all?  One thing these people are good at is slowly and steadily shutting down access to "OUR" forests.  

Cut half the office staff and hire more rangers.  Mount Adam's Ranger district has like 5 rangers to cover 50% (estimate) of the Gifford Pinchot National Forest.  In the 10 years I have hunted these woods I have seen Rangers checking licenses and gun and such twice.  But during that same time period they have spent millions on shutting down access to hunters in the name of some creek and it's inhabitants.   By the way that creek empties into a lake behind a dam which is behind another lake behind a dam, behind another lake behind a dam...  So unless they are planning on taking out three dams and a brand new power house (2008 at a cost of $40 million (+/-). It is an absurd program.  Another federal agency needing reorganization....
bieramar

tsiya wrote:
I suppose it depends on what you consider freedom, Bier. You are obviously willing to accept a lot more government intrusion than I am.


What freedoms have you lost because of government intrusion during your lifetime?  

Please be specific - what freedom, what government (local, state, federal)?
tsiya

I count freedoms threatened as well, Bier. I should never have had to fight to preserve RKBA for almost 60 years, it should never have been questioned. It should not be questioned now, but it is. My use of my land is restricted, the fact that I haven't wanted to do some things with it has nothing to do with the right to do what I want. The list could go on, but there is no point in playing your game.

I suspect you really want some form of despotism, a government able to be all and do all, you may see it as a soft and gentle despotism, but it's despotism just the same.

It is the nature of any government to grow, to take on ever more power, it's a function of human nature. The founders gave us a system to control this, and even warned us to be on guard.

You are a threat to freedom Bier. You offer government permission to gratify hedonistic impulses as a substitute for actual liberty. Everything you offer remains the property of government, and what government gives government can take away.
tsiya

John Whitehead Interviews Brandon Raub

http://youtu.be/N5dA1N3S9Es
tsiya

THE NUMBER OF OBAMA SUPPORTERS WHO HAVE NEVER HEARD OF THE 9/11 BENGHAZI ATTACK WILL TERRIFY YOU

Americans everywhere are wondering how the Obama administration will be able to recover from such a significant and deadly intelligence error in Benghazi, Libya. The White House reportedly ignored multiple calls for additional security at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, even after the U.S. and international intelligence community warned of increased terrorist activity in Libya.

Ultimately, U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans lost their lives in a fiery terrorist attack on the 9/11 anniversary.

To make matters worse, the Obama administration repeatedly blamed an anti-Muslim YouTube video for the attack for nearly two weeks, citing a make-believe demonstration outside the U.S. compound in Libya. Of course, it was later revealed that radical Islamic terrorists were behind the attack and the video had nothing to do with it.

However, as it turns out, some of Obama’s supporters don’t even know the Benghazi attack occurred in the first place — and as they say, what you don’t know can’t hurt you.

Revealing Politics went to an Obama event at Ohio University on Oct. 17 and asked a number of the president’s supporters about the Benghazi attack. The conservative site says “most of the event attendees” had never heard of the terrorist act.

“So, what do you guys think about the situation in Benghazi?” an interviewer with Revealing Politics asks two girls.

“I have no idea,” one of them replies, giggling her head off.

One man said he thinks “the Republicans” were responsible for the attack while an alarming number of others could not identify Ambassador Stevens or recall a terrorist attack occurring in Benghazi.


http://www.theblaze.com/stories/t.../comment-page-15/#comment-4298189


THIS IS WHY PURE DEMOCRACY CAN'T WORK!
Phred

Nice dig at the dermocratic party, but, I'll virtually guarantee y'all that there are a lot of rep0ublicans in that same boat.

Heck, I've been preaching on here for years about voters.  They're not even slightly interested in politics and don't even watch the local news.  We on forums lkike this one are truly the elite when it comes to political knowledge.

Unfortunately the voters I'm referring to can easily swing an election.  Not good.
bieramar

Phred wrote:
We on forums like this one are truly the elite when it comes to political knowledge.

Unfortunately the voters I'm referring to can easily swing an election.  Not good.


Unfortunately?  

Hmmmmmmmmm, let's see who on this forum might swing the election?

Auntmartymoo, tsiya, coebul, scrutney, you and me!
tsiya

A free phone is damned sure not a reason to base your vote on, and I defy you to come to a Tea Party event and find anyone this ignorant.  The Ohio event wasn't unique, it is business as usual for the democrat party. How long can this Nation last if a majority of voters is so ignorant?
Socialism will always slide toward tyranny Phred, it's a natural law. The more socialism you have the more coercion from the top required to keep the game going. Given time you will always end up in North Korea. America is at a tipping point, enough is enough!
Everyone is entitled to 12 or so years of free education. We should be able to expect some results for that expense.
Phred

Quote:
Unfortunately?  

Hmmmmmmmmm, let's see who on this forum might swing the election?

Auntmartymoo, tsiya, coebul, scrutney, you and me!


Not sure I'm reading your response correctly Mr B.

By "unfortunately" I meant the politically challenged groups of voters ... heck, call them "politically ignorant" if you prefer ... THEY can swing an election.
Phred

Quote:
A free phone is damned sure not a reason to base your vote on


Apparently it is for some.

Quote:
How long can this Nation last if a majority of voters is so ignorant?


Don't know Bob, but it's been happening for the 65 years I've been on this planet.

Quote:
Everyone is entitled to 12 or so years of free education. We should be able to expect some results for that expense.


One would think so, wouldn't one, but, it ain't happening ... at least in the political voting world.

Bob, you and I aren't that far apart on this issue, but, your OP/ED piece at least implied that all voting democrats are ignorant on political issues and all republicans are up to speed on every issue ... not true.

When I use the term "politically ignorant" it has nothing to do with IQ, career path or individual standing in the community.  It does have to do with an interest in political issues ... or more importantly, the lack of it.
tsiya

Lacking informed voters a democracy is nothing but a big crapshoot.
bieramar

Phred wrote:
Quote:
Unfortunately?  

Hmmmmmmmmm, let's see who on this forum might swing the election?

Auntmartymoo, tsiya, coebul, scrutney, you and me!


Not sure I'm reading your response correctly Mr B.

By "unfortunately" I meant the politically challenged groups of voters ... heck, call them "politically ignorant" if you prefer ... THEY can swing an election.


I was trying to humourously illustrate that some "politically elite" voters make their decisions on premises and beliefs that other "politically elite" voters deem to be utter hogwash, prejudicial (pre-judging by generalization of categories and classes), and flat out contrary to verifiable facts.

Just as some "politically ignorant" voters make their decisions, which others deem to be utter hogwash, etc.

Human nature hasn't changed since the Framers argued the several Constitutions for the United Colonies of America, and ultimately the United States of America (as the linked speeches and articles on this 'We the People' Forum clearly illustrate). Which is why the great compromise of democratically elected republican representatives was finally agreed upon. Then, as now, the majority of eligible voters were as "politically ignorant" as they are today.

tsiya wrote:
A free phone is damned sure not a reason to base your vote on....


Of course it is a reason -- as is a free tax writeoff, as is a free pass from being conscripted into the military, as is every other real or promised gift offered by a political candidate.

Self interest is the main motivation for determining who - and what - one votes for; except for those very few totally altruistic people.
bieramar

tsiya wrote:
Lacking informed voters a democracy is nothing but a big crapshoot.


Which is why there has never been a "pure" democratic government in the history of the world - and the U.S. constitutional government isn't even close to being one.

"Govern" - which is the foundation of "government" - by definition is antithetical to mob rule, which would be pure democracy.

I've proposed many times that voter eligibility be the same for native born citizens as it is for foreign born (naturalized) citizens, i.e. before being registered to vote each registeree must pass the citizen tests (which includes ability to use/understand English).
That would at least establish a minimum baseline, on which a voter could build with further information about specific candidates and issues.

The phrase "informed voters" is often nothing more than a judgment that an "informed voter" is one who shares the beliefs and opinions of the person using the phrase.

And an "informed voter" can as easily accept a free phone - and then vote anyway (s)he wishes - as can an "ignorant voter."
scrutney

tsiya wrote:
Lacking informed voters a democracy is nothing but a big crapshoot.


but the democrats don't have a lock on ignorant voters.
there are plenty of them in both parties.

so when the electorate in our infinite ignorance, elects a democrat, it's the idiocracy running wild....but if we elect a republican, we've magically been endowed with the wisdom to make a responsible choice?

there was an old barney miller episode where one of the characters was bitching that he spent months, studying the issues so that he could wisely cast his vote, only to have his wife vote the other way, simply to negate it.

so who was the dummy in that scenario?
her for doing it, or him for telling her how he was going to vote?

as i said, there's stupidity on both sides of the aisle, and it is shown (every 4 years) by those voters who are too goddamn dumb to vote the way that i do.
coebul

bieramar wrote:


Hmmmmmmmmm, let's see who on this forum might swing the election?

Auntmartymoo, tsiya, coebul, scrutney, you and me!
Yep I am a swing voter!  I was undecided until the last two debates.  I am still leaning but haven't fully made a decision...
coebul

scrutney wrote:
tsiya wrote:
Lacking informed voters a democracy is nothing but a big crapshoot.


but the democrats don't have a lock on ignorant voters.
there are plenty of them in both parties.



Absolutely!  Cruising face book and the literally thousands of sites having popped up over the last year will give you a good example of how uniformed the electorate is and how much these sites are catering to those decided/undecided ignorant voter...
bieramar

coebul wrote:
I was undecided until the last two debates.  I am still leaning but haven't fully made a decision...


I bit the bullet and voted almost two weeks ago (Oct. 9th) - not for Obama the man, or against Romney the man, but for an Elector who is committed to the Democratic Platform of 2012 and who will cast her vote for Obama.

I support 80% to 90% of the Democratic Platform and oppose about 70% of the GOP Platform, and that determined my vote. Plus I agree with the majority of the Obama administration's executive actions since 2009.

I don't give a crap about performances in the so-called "debates," nor do I believe any of the promises, propaganda or "lies" of any candidate, so there was no need for me to postpone my decision for any "October surprise."

I do "fact checking" and post results to hopefully give pause to readers (any who DO unquestioningly believe political posturing, or their favorite pundits) a basis and chance to consider and question.
scrutney

bieramar wrote:

I bit the bullet and voted almost two weeks ago (Oct. 9th) - not for Obama the man, or against Romney the man, but for an Elector who is committed to the Democratic Platform of 2012 and who will cast her vote for Obama.


i'm waiting until the last minute, in the vain hope that one of the candidates will say something intelligent.
tsiya

News Quiz: Benghazi vs. Honey Boo Boo

http://mrctv.org/videos/news-quiz-benghazi-vs-honey-boo-boo
tsiya

"I agree with the majority of the Obama administration's executive actions since 2009".

In other words you don't much give a shit about the Constitution.
bieramar

tsiya wrote:
"I agree with the majority of the Obama administration's executive actions since 2009".

In other words you don't much give a shit about the Constitution.


Wrong.

I've committed my life, including risking it, to not only defend the Constitution and to work to implement its stated guarantees of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all - not for only a privileged elite - but also to continuing studying to understand what it meant in the minds of the Framers and citizens who ratified it -- as opposed to what I wanted or believed it to mean, e.g., to affirm my own prejudices and previously uninformed and illinformed judgments, and/or as opposed to picking and choosing a specific element of the Constitution to promote while ignoring the remainder.

And, as is easily proved by using the "Search" function on this Forum, every time you've alleged or accused that Obama had executed an unconstitutional act I've provided rationales, links/cites of others, and past judicial judgments to illustrate that none of those actions are in fact unconstitutional.

I'm still waiting for you to provide any facts to show where those rationales and/or cited/linked data posted by me were wrong in any of the instances.

I don't know - nor care - whether your lack of providing facts and rational argument is because you are unwilling to do so or because you are unable to do so; it seems, from your lack of response, that you are content simply to accuse, malign and opine - but that is just a logical inference drawn from your posts, not necessarily your intent, which only you may know, albeit how unwilling or unable to explain.
tsiya

Obama has made a career out of planning end runs around the original intent of the Constitution.
The Constitution not only sets boundaries for federal government it sets boundaries for democracy, and you obviously recognize none. You are supporting the bankruptcy of this nation and eventual serfdom for it's people.
coebul

Executive Orders. Specifically ordering DHS not to follow the laws of this country, Circuvent the US Constitution.  As do the use of Czars in his administration.
tsiya

All that crap starts getting reversed in 2 weeks!
coebul

I wouldn't bet on that Bob!
tsiya

Could you pass a US citizenship test?

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011.../Who-signs-bills?cmpid=prc:ctzn:d
scrutney

tsiya wrote:
Could you pass a US citizenship test?

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011.../Who-signs-bills?cmpid=prc:ctzn:d


Mr. Green 100%

just a wild guess but something tells me tsiya got a 100% as well.
tsiya

A similar test should be required for voter registration.

During college I worked part time at a center for adult mentally challenged. I was amazed to find that the clients, although in the 6 to 8 year age range mentally, were all registered to vote, as democrats!

They were nice people, certainly deserving of care and compassion, but voting is taking it way too far. They fundamentally become vote clones for whoever drives them to the polls, it is exploitation of the helpless, not compassion.
scrutney

sorry...i was editing while you were posting.
tsiya

Yep, I always do my homework!! Very Happy

I had a super high school history teacher, Miss Mildred Funk. You can ask anyone who ever attended Ketterlinus High School, you just didn't mess with Mildred!

That lady knew her stuff.
scrutney

my high school government class was a joke. and being (at the time) a stoner, i took full advantage of doing nothing.

we had to take a test on the communist manifesto and i aced it...mrs. rossi, my teacher called me into a conference and asked me: "you haven't said one intelligent thing in class all year, why do you know so much about the communist manifesto?"

"i...umm...read it."

fast forward to the end of the year...on the last day of class we were playing jeopardy (with a u.s. government theme) and i ran the board...the first question that was asked was: he's the speaker of the house of representatives:

no one in my senior year government class knew who the freaking speaker of the house was...what was truly tragic about this was the fact that we all lived less than five miles away from the u.s. capitol.

"jesus christ people, it's carl albert."

as i said, i petty much ran the board.

my teacher smiled the whole time...i didn't have the heart to tell her that i learned it all from watching the evening newscasts.
tsiya

Yep, you were a reader, as I was. I never said I was a compliant student, just that I didn't miss much. Very Happy
I wanted  them to  give me books at the first of the school year and leave me to hell alone so I could read them in peace, with substantial breaks so I could bog around in the swamp. I could come back for a week at the end of the school year, take my exams, and have 3 whole months to run the river.
I got a lot of resistance to that plan! Very Happy
tsiya

Horowitz: Democrats Groom the Mentally Disabled to Vote
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/...012/11/23/id/465148#ixzz2DAQFyxUc
scrutney

tsiya wrote:
Yep, you were a reader, as I was. I never said I was a compliant student, just that I didn't miss much. Very Happy
I wanted  them to  give me books at the first of the school year and leave me to hell alone so I could read them in peace, with substantial breaks so I could bog around in the swamp. I could come back for a week at the end of the school year, take my exams, and have 3 whole months to run the river.
I got a lot of resistance to that plan! Very Happy


our hometown newspaper was the washington post...the paper that for all intents and purposes took down the nixon presidency.(of course they had some help from tricky dick)...and while i'm not going to lie to you and tell you that i didn't read the funnies first, as i remember, jack anderson and art buchwald's 'capitol punishment' were both stuffed into the comics section.

from there it was a quick trip to the front page to see what kind of trouble nixon had gotten himself into the day before...i was rarely disappointed.

god, i miss good old fashioned, axe grinding, investigative journalism.

i'm working from memory here, but there were two rounds of watergate hearings and i watched large parts of both.

sitting on my bookshelf is a g.p.o. bluebound copy of the watergate tape transcripts that my mother purchased on the day of it's release....with all those famous expletive deleted(s) and inaudible(s)...coebul has a copy too.



i miss the old washington post...published daily in glorious black and white and available for the princely sum 10 cents.
coebul

scrutney wrote:
tsiya wrote:
Could you pass a US citizenship test?

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011.../Who-signs-bills?cmpid=prc:ctzn:d


Mr. Green 100%

just a wild guess but something tells me tsiya got a 100% as well.
I got them all wrong... At least according to the CS Monitor.  Fooooking Script blocker preventing it recording my answers...  

But I got them right it just didn't add them up...'
bieramar

Here's the "study guide" portal, which asks randomly selected questions 4 at a time, and includes an option to see correct official answer and explanations, as well as the option to move to the next 4: http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/...bfe12f210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD

In the actual process of naturalization 10 questions are randomly selected and asked orally, and if/when the 6th one is correctly answered the questioning stopped.

Then you must pass an oral and written English language test, usually one or two of the same sentences.

Then you swear or affirm in writing that you aren't a Communist or a terrorist or a member of any totalitarian group; that you didn't help the Nazis or work in any concentration camp; that you're not an habitual drunkard, a polygmist, a drug-smuggler, a tax-evader or a felon.

Finally, when you return later for the swearing in ceremony, you must swear and affirm that you haven't engaged in prostitution since taking the afore-mentioned tests, and signing the affidavits.

As a sometimes pedantic I like the immigration attorneys' motto "The official answer is the correct answer," as there are questionable questions and answers in the test, including #s 1, 12, 36, 96.  Hence the study guide site is essential.
tsiya

" A Communist or a terrorist or a member of any totalitarian group"?

Hell, that eliminates democrats right there!!!
tsiya

The GOP Dream Act is a Nightmare

Charles Martel
We now know what a Republican amnesty sell-out would look like: The Daily Caller reported on some details of a GOP amnesty proposal being discussed behind closed doors. The proposed path to citizenship would begin in college, which is where young people go to stop thinking.
This Republican proposal, like the horrible Dream Act, offers a path to citizenship for those who get a college degree or serve in the military. This is thought of as the most appealing part of these amnesty plans, but it's actually the most catastrophic. There are about 1.5 million members of the armed forces, and 19 million enrolled in colleges, so those seeking amnesty will almost all go to college.
As if the higher education bubble isn't large enough; as if we didn't have enough unemployable humanists and leftists; and as if we didn't have enough good kids with decent degrees who can't find work, the pandering Republicans are suggesting that we flood American universities with immigrants seeking a path to citizenship. Thus, more students will be using Monopoly money (student loans), and learning that debt doesn't really mean anything until at least four years have passed. Getting a college degree can be easy, unless one chooses a strenuous major. There is naturally no such requirement in the Republican amnesty proposal.
Republicans won't ask that students take majors that this nation actually needs, such as science, technology, and engineering. Instead, immigrant students will be given six whole years in which to complete their degree in whatever "left-wing victimization claptrap" they gravitate towards given their ethnic and ideological preferences.
If the majors often chosen by black students are any indication, then the amnesty scholars will be lining up to be indoctrinated into the most odious left-wing fields of "study" imaginable. It is irrational for Republicans to think that sending impoverished immigrants into American universities is going to turn out well, considering that universities purposefully engender bitterness and historic grievances on the part of minorities towards the majority in this nation. Yet, college is the starting point of the Republican path to citizenship.
The pro-amnesty Republicans evidently weren't paying close attention to the election returns. Conservatives don't do well among college students, or among minorities. So the open borders Republicans' answer is to incentivize the creation of a larger pool of minority college students through an amnesty pipeline. This approach is shockingly mindless.
When college is the path to citizenship, you guarantee that insincere students will sign up for classes and go through the motions for the sake of a diploma. A cynic might ask, how is that any different than what people do right now? The difference is that right now, the unemployed college graduates are only putting a moderate strain on their families and on our economy. If we glut the market with unemployable, nominally-educated recent immigrants, we will be adding to our economic troubles.
Some of the other laughable aspects of the Republican proposal include the following "requirements" for applicants:
-Must have good moral character
Any criteria of moral character developed by the two political parties is sure to be worthless. Besides, no meaningful standard of moral character can be agreed upon in the environment of multiculturalism and moral relativism that we find ourselves in. Any decent standard of moral character would be too controversial, or would be uncontroversial but overturned by judges. For instance, if no women who bore a child out of wedlock could gain citizenship, that would be a partially effective measure, but it will never come about.
Republicans claiming that immigrants must have good moral character to get amnesty are like Democrats claiming that people must be destitute to get on welfare. These are fictional standards that no one takes seriously, meant to obscure the rotten reality of the status quo.
-Must have knowledge of the English language, U.S. history, "and of principles of U.S. government"
This is knowledge that native-born Americans are supposed to possess, but typically don't. It is an utter fantasy to think that immigrants would actually internalize U.S. history or principles of government. Our culture and educational system are generally not producing those outcomes. Immigration officials are not going to require genuine commitment to our civic fundamentals. Instead, these lofty-sounding, fake requirements will be dumbed down into standardized tests that immigrants will laugh off.
Make no mistake about it, any requirement that immigrants have knowledge of U.S. history and principles of government will be met by a standardized test. Assimilation will remain purely optional. Just because someone fills out bubbles on a sheet correctly does not mean they will assimilate. Pew Research Center polling shows that 51 percent of Americans of Hispanic origin most often identify themselves as Mexican, Puerto Rican, etc., while 24% describe themselves as "Hispanic" or "Latino" most often, and only 21 percent describe themselves as "American" most often. These people are telling us where their loyalties are. But pro-amnesty politicians are so craven and so dishonest that they would actually claim credit for requiring immigrants to have civic knowledge of the U.S., on the basis that they included a silly standardized test in the amnesty process.
There are other fatal flaws in the Republicans' proposal: the path to citizenship is not supposed to allow all immigrants to vote instantly, but few states have voter ID laws so there is nothing stopping illegals from voting the second they hop on the pro-amnesty path. We're promised that the immigrants won't be eligible for welfare, but that's a farce because the moment they have a child born on U.S. soil, they're eligible for extensive welfare benefits.
Amnesty is not the solution. Instead, we should enforce existing law and strongly enhance border security. We don't enforce our current law, and that's why no one respects it. Because no one respects the law, it's easier to believe that amnesty makes sense. Amnesty only makes sense is a topsy-turvy world where the law is a charade. If we become more serious about national sovereignty and territorial integrity, then we will see amnesty in a new light.
We must not weaken enforcement, or relax standards for citizenship. The existing paths to citizenship should remain the only paths to citizenship. We can tinker with visa numbers to allow more educated or professional immigrants, as long as they have verified job offers, but nothing more. We need to assertively enforce our current immigration laws, grant Congressional authority to local governments to cooperate on immigration enforcement, complete the fence, and develop an immigration moratorium for the long-term.


http://www.americanthinker.com/20...is_a_nightmare.html#ixzz2DIx946Az
tsiya

Penn Jillette: Mistrust of Government Is a Beautiful Thing

http://youtu.be/WvaZwPPd7m0
tsiya

Dr. Benjamin Carson Epic Full Speech at National Prayer Breakfast Attacks Obama's Policies!

http://youtu.be/vyyHegP255g
tsiya

Vets marching past White House carrying baracades from the monuments


http://youtu.be/XHdNtEvDfu4   Very Happy  Very Happy
bieramar

Actually this specific Ron Paul-organized part of the march was not any anti-government or anti-congress or anti-Obama aspect of the overall anti-shutdown events day; the chant was "End the Fed" - a Libertarian initiative with which I agree 1,000%.

The "carrying baracades [sic]" headline can be construed as misleading as the veterans were greeted with handshakes from the uniformed NPS police at every memorial.
tsiya

bieramar wrote:
Actually this specific Ron Paul-organized part of the march was not any anti-government or anti-congress or anti-Obama aspect of the overall anti-shutdown events day; the chant was "End the Fed" - a Libertarian initiative with which I agree 1,000%.

The "carrying baracades [sic]" headline can be construed as misleading as the veterans were greeted with handshakes from the uniformed NPS police at every memorial.


Did you watch the video? They really did carry off the "baracades".
bieramar

Yes, I watched the videos (2), read the shirts/signs, and listened to the chants, hence my earlier comments. About 30 people, out of many thousands marching past the White House, were carrying the crowd control gate-type barricades.
tsiya

There weren't enough barricades for everyone to have one.

       bumrejects.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> We the People
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum