How long before it's us?

[GraphicGr8s]

Yeah it's true.

[ghonk]

If you truly respected the office, you'd have respect enough not to call him by the name 'Hussein', which you know is not a flattering term...

But it is his name. I do not call him names like the libs did/do to W. W got torn apart by the libs.

I can't stand my middle name yet some still insist.

Dennis, I will respectfully disagree on Slick. At least he somewhat loves this country. Hussein does not.

I call him Hussein because  thats his name ,oh please.
You call him Hussein becasue many Muslims share it,and you are trying to associate them.A  code  for all the bigoted Muslim haters.

If his middle name  was Jesus you sure as hell wouldn't be calling him that,you probably couldn't force yourself to type it. 

   

[Mugwump]

You seem to have all these 'sound bites' memorized, and bookmarked all the appropriate tea party links bashing everything....you aren't very open minded are you?...

So far I haven't seen one good thing that you've said about our President, sad. Myself, I'm not going to continue to trade barbs on 'he says, she says'....we could trade pundit quotes from both sides of any issue til the cows come home. You obviously have built up a scorn regarding everything that our President has accomplished while in office. It's your opinion and you're entitled to it....but be sure and respect others for their opinions too.

[GraphicGr8s]

You seem to have all these 'sound bites' memorized, and bookmarked all the appropriate tea party links bashing everything....you aren't very open minded are you?...

So far I haven't seen one good thing that you've said about our President, sad. Myself, I'm not going to continue to trade barbs on 'he says, she says'....we could trade pundit quotes from both sides of any issue til the cows come home. You obviously have built up a scorn regarding everything that our President has accomplished while in office. It's your opinion and you're entitled to it....but be sure and respect others for their opinions too.

Jon, the site for W trying to stop the fall is a .gov. Doubt that is Tea Party. Others are from various sources some liberal at that. No they are not bookmarked. It took a while to research what I posted.

What I have posted are not my opinion. They are in fact fact. I avoided the rhetoric wherever possible and presented researched facts.

What has he really accomplished?

One good thing about out President? Sure. Come Jan 2017 he will be gone. That's good.

[BillT]

What I have posted are not my opinion. They are in fact fact. I avoided the rhetoric wherever possible and presented researched facts.

Most of your recent posts look like they were puked back up from some crypto-racist websites that you are too embarrassed to link to.
I would guess half of them are right wing lies they have posted that you have bought into them hook, line, and sinker.
I felt like I was wasting my time looking at that crap!

If you did your "research" than it is easy to include a link!

[GraphicGr8s]

Here's the link to the timeline if the collapse.

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/10/20081009-10.html

To the USA Today article on Cruz. USA Today ranks in bias as about the same as Google, CBS, Bloomberg and ABC. So definitley not right wing.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2015/04/01/ted-cruz-obamacare/70765296/

I provided the links vis a vis CLinton surplus in the post itself.

How about links/information supporting your side? And not from left wing sound bites?

[Mugwump]

Oh joy.....'link wars'....just peachie....

[BillT]

USA Today ranks in bias as about the same as Google, CBS, Bloomberg and ABC. So definitley not right wing.

Guess your an expert on bias.

[BillT]

If by any stretch of the imagination that the 14th gives citizenship status to "anchor babies' then riddle me this.

In one sentence:
Anchor baby is a crypto-racist code word.
For one who often likes to cite the constitution as rational for policies, this reveals either your complete hypocrisy, or your complete stupidity.
14th amendment --> anyone born in the country is a citizen.

[GraphicGr8s]

If by any stretch of the imagination that the 14th gives citizenship status to "anchor babies' then riddle me this.

In one sentence:
Anchor baby is a crypto-racist code word.
For one who often likes to cite the constitution as rational for policies, this reveals either your complete hypocrisy, or your complete stupidity.
14th amendment --> anyone born in the country is a citizen.

Except that where you have a period the Amendment itself has a comma. After the comma it specifies the requirement for it to apply.
While the child of an illegal alien may be born here technically they are subject to the jurisdiction of their motherland not the US.

Then how come the American Indian was not considered a citizen until 1924?
The 14th was so that the former slave would be considered a citizen. They were under the jurisdiction of the US government.

The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads in part:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside."

Babies born to illegal alien mothers within U.S. borders are called anchor babies because under the 1965 immigration Act, they act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and eventually a host of other relatives into permanent U.S. residency. (Jackpot babies is another term).

Post-Civil War reforms focused on injustices to African Americans. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. It was written in a manner so as to prevent state governments from ever denying citizenship to blacks born in the United States. But in 1868, the United States had no formal immigration policy, and the authors therefore saw no need to address immigration explicitly in the amendment.

In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by writing:
Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."

The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.

http://www.cairco.org/issues/anchor-babies

[GraphicGr8s]

Bill, I'll save you from looking who Senator Jacob Howard is. He sponsored the 14th.

The original intent of the 14th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. law and obtaining citizenship for their offspring, nor obtaining benefits at taxpayer expense. Current estimates indicate there may be over 300,000 anchor babies born each year in the U.S., thus causing illegal alien mothers to add more to the U.S. population each year than immigration from all sources in an average year before 1965.

Australia rescinded birthright citizenship in 2007, as did New Zealand in 2006, Ireland in 2005, France in 1993, and the United Kingdom in 1983. This leaves the United States and Canada as the only remaining industrialized nations to grant automatic citizenship to every person born within the borders of the country, irrespective of their parents' nationality or immigration status.

[Mugwump]

If by any stretch of the imagination that the 14th gives citizenship status to "anchor babies' then riddle me this.

In one sentence:
Anchor baby is a crypto-racist code word.
For one who often likes to cite the constitution as rational for policies, this reveals either your complete hypocrisy, or your complete stupidity.
14th amendment --> anyone born in the country is a citizen.

Except that where you have a period the Amendment itself has a comma. After the comma it specifies the requirement for it to apply.
While the child of an illegal alien may be born here technically they are subject to the jurisdiction of their motherland not the US.

Then how come the American Indian was not considered a citizen until 1924?
The 14th was so that the former slave would be considered a citizen. They were under the jurisdiction of the US government.

The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads in part:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside."

Babies born to illegal alien mothers within U.S. borders are called anchor babies because under the 1965 immigration Act, they act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and eventually a host of other relatives into permanent U.S. residency. (Jackpot babies is another term).

Post-Civil War reforms focused on injustices to African Americans. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. It was written in a manner so as to prevent state governments from ever denying citizenship to blacks born in the United States. But in 1868, the United States had no formal immigration policy, and the authors therefore saw no need to address immigration explicitly in the amendment.

In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by writing:
Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."

The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.

http://www.cairco.org/issues/anchor-babies

and you conveniently left out the rest of your highlighted sentence...?.......""who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.....

It seems you wonder from issue to issue here depending on the 'cut & paste' that you have handy.....LOL   

[GraphicGr8s]

Jon, you are not parsing the sentence correctly.

This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States

who are foreigners, (that is one description) aliens (second description) who belong to the families... (the third description of a person born here).

Broken out the sentence yields in reality three sentences.

This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners.

This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are aliens.

This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who belong to the families of ambassadors?


If it was meant to include all born here than how come the American Indian was not considered a US citizen until 1924 if the 14th was ratified in 1868? A full 56 years later? The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.

[Mugwump]

Jon, you are not parsing the sentence correctly.

This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States

who are foreigners, (that is one description) aliens (second description) who belong to the families... (the third description of a person born here).

Broken out the sentence yields in reality three sentences.

This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners.

This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are aliens.

This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who belong to the families of ambassadors?

Oh joy.....semantics on the wording of the Constitution......gee, I wonder why 'they' never thought of that...

I'm thinking that next to the Bible, Our Constitution has to be the most mis-quoted document(s) out there.....out of context snippets are used to suit about anyone's agenda.....sweeeeeeet...LOL

[GraphicGr8s]

It's not semantics Jon. It is correct parsing of a sentence.

But alas I guess the Senator was wrong when he said this:

It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States.