Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Lol oh so it was not weapons of mass destruction ? And that was the first desert storm...the US went on later to occupy the oil rich country with false claims...even your master orange recognizes that.Dont forget that the US doesnt give without taking. We have our hands on natural resources, markets, advantages because of our military might...we also fucked up lot of countries and that's why their citizens ome here. Dont act holly.
No, we have our hands on resources through negotiations with private companies, not the government. The only countries we fuck up are those who present some sort of thereat to us or our allies, and we don't owe anybody a thing because of it.
Iraq was no threat to us. Syria was no threat to us. Yemen was no threat to us. Libya was no threat to us. Vietnam was no threat to us. North Korea was not threat to us.
We lost in all of them at that.
Not directly a threat to US.
By that logic, Nazi Germany wasn't a direct threat to US. Should we have let them go at it?
The argument was that we only attack countries that were a threat to us. As you note, none were.
Iraq was a threat to the world's oil supply. Remember this?
Here from the master of Iraq invasion himself http://www-local.bakerinstitute.org/publications/study_15.pdfHummmDont forget that the US doesnt give without taking. We have our hands on natural resources, markets, advantages because of our military might...we also fucked up lot of countries and that's why their citizens ome here. Dont act holly.IMO, we are doing, and have done way too much. There is a point at which generosity becomes foolish and self destructive, and we passed that point long ago.
It's the "what have you done for me lately" stance that is so irritating. The problem is our generosity has spoiled the rest of the world, particularly south of us.
I listen to the Salem Broadcasting station a lot because they have pretty good hosts. They are constantly holding fund raisers for people in other countries to make their lives a little better. Salem is just one, there are hundreds if not thousands for private charities in this country that reach out to foreigners in need.
Does anybody really appreciate what we do for them? Hell no. It's usually people saying we aren't doing enough and we need to do much more.
No, we have our hands on resources through negotiations with private companies, not the government. The only countries we fuck up are those who present some sort of thereat to us or our allies, and we don't owe anybody a thing because of it.
Iraq invasion?....
It is called modern day imperialism, we have bases all over the world for a reason.
Show me one example of US paying less than market value for any oil, or admit that you don't have a clue what you are talking about.
I hate the racist part of America and love most of america... sorry if you are not loved....change your actions.Blame everything on communism...the US ruined so many countries and it isnt a shame to re organize the shame when one tries and change what happened.Iraq was no threat to us. Syria was no threat to us. Yemen was no threat to us. Libya was no threat to us. Vietnam was no threat to us. North Korea was not threat to us.
We lost in all of them at that.
Not directly a threat to US.
By that logic, Nazi Germany wasn't a direct threat to US. Should we have let them go at it?
The argument was that we only attack countries that were a threat to us. As you note, none were.
If that's your stance, then I suggest you reread post number 115 where I said "some kind of threat" not a direct threat which is what started this particular debate.
The spread of Communism was not a "direct" threat to the US years ago. But let me ask: if we allowed it to expand, and 4/5 of the world ended up under some sort of Communist or dictatorship governments, what would we do if they united and did become a direct threat?
First they came for the Jews, but I was not Jewish, so I did not speak out..............
He was not blaming everything on communism. He was putting some of our actions in the context of the Cold War.
You seem to hate America. Are you a Marxist?
American heritage? Is a blend of many cultures...unless if you talking about native American heritage.White nationalists trying to slow down the demographics change lol....keep on living in fear and paranoia.It's the next step in making America great again. Birthright Citizenship refers to Citizen parents, not Illegals. The 14th Amendment was only created for slaves after the civil war. It was not created for foreigners. Let's hear from the man who wrote the Citizenship clause himself, Senator John Jacob Howard:
"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."
This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated:
"[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word..."
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.
President Trump Says He Is Still "Looking Seriously" at Ending Birthright Citizenship
You mean Americans who love America? Lefties need to get out a little into the real US, not these pits in large cities that are made up of hundreds of different demographic neighborhoods each practicing their own culture. There is some assimilation, but much seperation. That is not the future the heatland of America wants, and no it is not because of racism, it is to retain our American heritage.
Not directly a threat to US.
By that logic, Nazi Germany wasn't a direct threat to US. Should we have let them go at it?
The argument was that we only attack countries that were a threat to us. As you note, none were.
Iraq was a threat to the world's oil supply. Remember this?
No they weren't and the excuse Bush used was Nuclear (remember how he could not pronounce that). Well, they were a threat to sell their oil to countries we didn't want them to.
I just posted a picture of them burning as much of the world's oil supply that they could, and you are denying they were a threat to the world's oil supply?
LOL!!!!!
The pic is from Kuwait. That "war" which we still do not know the truth over was over with.
Lol oh so it was not weapons of mass destruction ? And that was the first desert storm...the US went on later to occupy the oil rich country with false claims...even your master orange recognizes that.No, we have our hands on resources through negotiations with private companies, not the government. The only countries we fuck up are those who present some sort of thereat to us or our allies, and we don't owe anybody a thing because of it.
Iraq was no threat to us. Syria was no threat to us. Yemen was no threat to us. Libya was no threat to us. Vietnam was no threat to us. North Korea was not threat to us.
We lost in all of them at that.
Not directly a threat to US.
By that logic, Nazi Germany wasn't a direct threat to US. Should we have let them go at it?
The argument was that we only attack countries that were a threat to us. As you note, none were.
Iraq was a threat to the world's oil supply. Remember this?
Here from the master of Iraq invasion himself http://www-local.bakerinstitute.org/publications/study_15.pdfHummmDont forget that the US doesnt give without taking. We have our hands on natural resources, markets, advantages because of our military might...we also fucked up lot of countries and that's why their citizens ome here. Dont act holly.It's the "what have you done for me lately" stance that is so irritating. The problem is our generosity has spoiled the rest of the world, particularly south of us.
I listen to the Salem Broadcasting station a lot because they have pretty good hosts. They are constantly holding fund raisers for people in other countries to make their lives a little better. Salem is just one, there are hundreds if not thousands for private charities in this country that reach out to foreigners in need.
Does anybody really appreciate what we do for them? Hell no. It's usually people saying we aren't doing enough and we need to do much more.
No, we have our hands on resources through negotiations with private companies, not the government. The only countries we fuck up are those who present some sort of thereat to us or our allies, and we don't owe anybody a thing because of it.
Iraq invasion?....
It is called modern day imperialism, we have bases all over the world for a reason.
Show me one example of US paying less than market value for any oil, or admit that you don't have a clue what you are talking about.
The real goal - as Greg Muttitt documented in his book Fuel on the Fireciting declassified Foreign Office files from 2003 onwards - was stabilising global energy supplies as a whole by ensuring the free flow of Iraqi oil to world markets - benefits to US and UK companies constituted an important but secondary goal:
"The most important strategic interest lay in expanding global energy supplies, through foreign investment, in some of the world's largest oil reserves – in particular Iraq. This meshed neatly with the secondary aim of securing contracts for their companies. Note that the strategy documents released here tend to refer to 'British and global energy supplies.' British energy security is to be obtained by there being ample global supplies – it is not about the specific flow."
Oh and your orange master suggest to steal Iraqi oil. So if fauxnews brainwashed that America went out there to spread d2mocrqcy please dont wmbrass yourself and come out here with that fallacy.
I hate the racist part of America and love most of america... sorry if you are not loved....change your actions.Blame everything on communism...the US ruined so many countries and it isnt a shame to re organize the shame when one tries and change what happened.Not directly a threat to US.
By that logic, Nazi Germany wasn't a direct threat to US. Should we have let them go at it?
The argument was that we only attack countries that were a threat to us. As you note, none were.
If that's your stance, then I suggest you reread post number 115 where I said "some kind of threat" not a direct threat which is what started this particular debate.
The spread of Communism was not a "direct" threat to the US years ago. But let me ask: if we allowed it to expand, and 4/5 of the world ended up under some sort of Communist or dictatorship governments, what would we do if they united and did become a direct threat?
First they came for the Jews, but I was not Jewish, so I did not speak out..............
He was not blaming everything on communism. He was putting some of our actions in the context of the Cold War.
You seem to hate America. Are you a Marxist?
It is too bad the Soviets lost the Cold War. The USA would be way more civilized if it had become Soviet too.I hate the racist part of America and love most of america... sorry if you are not loved....change your actions.Blame everything on communism...the US ruined so many countries and it isnt a shame to re organize the shame when one tries and change what happened.The argument was that we only attack countries that were a threat to us. As you note, none were.
If that's your stance, then I suggest you reread post number 115 where I said "some kind of threat" not a direct threat which is what started this particular debate.
The spread of Communism was not a "direct" threat to the US years ago. But let me ask: if we allowed it to expand, and 4/5 of the world ended up under some sort of Communist or dictatorship governments, what would we do if they united and did become a direct threat?
First they came for the Jews, but I was not Jewish, so I did not speak out..............
He was not blaming everything on communism. He was putting some of our actions in the context of the Cold War.
You seem to hate America. Are you a Marxist?
That is a load of shit. It was not only part of America that fought the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and you slammed all of America for those actions.
The tyranny and the mass murder and genocide that took place in the soviet controlled portion of the world, shows that our fighting against them, was completely justified.
Only a blood thirsty monster could have supported the Soviet Bloc during the Cold War, especially now with hindsight.
For someone like that to pretend to give a fuck about "Racism" is an insult to the intelligence of everyone who reads this page.
What is wrong with communism? America would be more educated, and civilized as a communist country. Communism helped turn Russia from a peasantry antisemite country of drunken illiterates into a superpower. America is filled with antisemitic Nazis. Russia doesn't kill Jews at their synagogues today, Nazi Americans still do.Real Americans aren't Nazis who shoot up synagogues.
Real Americans aren't commies who go to a baseball practice and try to kill all the Republican congress people either.
If that's your stance, then I suggest you reread post number 115 where I said "some kind of threat" not a direct threat which is what started this particular debate.
Sorry, fair enough, yes there was an imaginary threat.
Imaginary threat, huh? Then let me ask: we knew Bin Laden was running terrorist training camps in Afghanistan. We did nothing because it was not a direct threat to the US. Our government virtually laughed at the guy. Do you think we did the right thing?
We cannot wait until these "imaginary threats" become a direct threat because by then it's too late. On that note, you will not find one chess master that ever became a champion by only concentrating on the next move only. That's what amateur chess players do.
You are arguing to invade the entire world.
We armed OBL because of the idea you support. We funded the caves he hid in because of the ideas you support. He did what he did because of the ideas you support.
At the time, America was war exhausted. What our leaders did afterwards was get our enemies to kill our more hated enemies. Remember Saddam was once our buddy too.
We have no idea who is who. It's why we armed those who ended up using those arms against us.
The argument was that we only attack countries that were a threat to us. As you note, none were.
Iraq was a threat to the world's oil supply. Remember this?
No they weren't and the excuse Bush used was Nuclear (remember how he could not pronounce that). Well, they were a threat to sell their oil to countries we didn't want them to.
I just posted a picture of them burning as much of the world's oil supply that they could, and you are denying they were a threat to the world's oil supply?
LOL!!!!!
The pic is from Kuwait. That "war" which we still do not know the truth over was over with.
Are you saying the "war was over with" to imply that it was not the Iraqis that set the oil wells on fire?
Sorry, fair enough, yes there was an imaginary threat.
Imaginary threat, huh? Then let me ask: we knew Bin Laden was running terrorist training camps in Afghanistan. We did nothing because it was not a direct threat to the US. Our government virtually laughed at the guy. Do you think we did the right thing?
We cannot wait until these "imaginary threats" become a direct threat because by then it's too late. On that note, you will not find one chess master that ever became a champion by only concentrating on the next move only. That's what amateur chess players do.
You are arguing to invade the entire world.
We armed OBL because of the idea you support. We funded the caves he hid in because of the ideas you support. He did what he did because of the ideas you support.
At the time, America was war exhausted. What our leaders did afterwards was get our enemies to kill our more hated enemies. Remember Saddam was once our buddy too.
We have no idea who is who. It's why we armed those who ended up using those arms against us.
Yes, they did, but at the same time, they also went to war with our enemies instead of us using our solders. I don't know how old you are, but you have to understand the fear of going to war post Vietnam. The public would not have supported it in any way virtually no matter who it was.
It boils down to jurisdiction and what country the parents are loyal to.
Their loyalty is to the country they were born in. Not the country they entered illegally.
Its about damned time this was addressed.
There actually is no such thing as Birthright Citizenship. The 14th was written to stop The Southern Democrats from Depriving Their Former Slaves and Children of their Civil Rights, and mandated that the Children of Former Slaves become automatically Citizens.It's the next step in making America great again. Birthright Citizenship refers to Citizen parents, not Illegals. The 14th Amendment was only created for slaves after the civil war. It was not created for foreigners. Let's hear from the man who wrote the Citizenship clause himself, Senator John Jacob Howard:
"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."
This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated:
"[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word..."
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.
President Trump Says He Is Still "Looking Seriously" at Ending Birthright Citizenship
Former Slaves were under The Jurisdiction of The United States.
Illegal Aliens are not, and are under The Jurisdiction of the country where they hold citizenship. Honestly President Trump does not have to do anything to stop Birthright Citizenship, because there is no such thing. He can simply over turn policy, and if challenged win in SCOTUS. Pretty much a slam dunk case.
It shouldn’t, there is no law declaring birth right citizenship. It’s yet another myth enabled by radicals in courts.I'm in! It may take a constitutional amendment to to do.
Your conflating naturalized Citizens and natural born Citizens. They are not the same thing.It boils down to jurisdiction and what country the parents are loyal to.
Their loyalty is to the country they were born in. Not the country they entered illegally.
Its about damned time this was addressed.
The legal consensus in this country has always been that location of birth makes one a naturalized American. How can a baby have a allegiance to another country when he or she has never been outside of the US.
James Madison: It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.
Secretary of State William Learned Marcy: In reply to the inquiry which is made by you…whether “the children of foreign parents born in the United States, but brought to the country of which the father is a subject, and continuing to reside within the jurisdiction of their father’s country, are entitled to protection as citizens of the United States,” I have to observe that it is presumed that, according to the common law, any person born in the United States, unless he be born in one of the foreign legations therein, may be considered a citizen thereof until he formally renounces his citizenship. There is not, however any United States statute containing a provision upon this subject, nor, so far as I am aware, has there been any judicial decision in regard to it.
President Lincoln’s Attorney General Edward Bates. In a letter to Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase, he said:
"And our constitution, in speaking of natural born citizens, uses no affirmative language to make them such, but only recognizes and reaffirms the universal principle, common to all nations, and as old as political society, that the people born in a country do constitute the nation, and, as individuals, are natural members of the body politic.
If this be a true principle, and I do not doubt it, it follows that every person born in the country is, at the moment of birth, prima facie a citizen; and he who would deny it must take upon himself the burden of proving some great disfranchisement strong enough to override the ” natural born” right as recognized by the Constitution in terms the most simple and comprehensive, and without any reference to race or color, or any other accidental circumstance."
In a later letter he wrote,: I" am quite clear in the opinion that children born in the United States of alien parents, who have never been naturalized, are native-born citizens of the United States, and, of course, do not require the formality of naturalization to entitle them to the rights and privileges of such citizenship. I might sustain this opinion by a reference to the well-settled principle of the common law of England on this subject; to the writings of many of the earlier and later commentators on our Constitution and laws; to the familiar practice and usage of the country in the exercise of the ordinary rights and duties of citizenship; to the liberal policy of our government in extending and recognizing these rights, and enforcing these duties; and lastly to the dicta and decisions of many of our national and state tribunals. But all this has been well done by Assistant Vice Chancellor Sandford, in the case of Lynch vs. Clarke, and I forbear. I refer to his opinion for a full and clear statement of the principle, and of the reasons and authorities for its support."
Representative John Bingham said this before passage of the 14th Amendment: The Constitution leaves no room for doubt upon this subject. The words ‘natural born citizen of the United states’ appear in it, and the other provision appears in it that, “Congress shall have power to pass a uniform system of naturalization.” To naturalize a person is to admit him to citizenship. Who are natural born citizens but those born within the Republic? Those born within the Republic, whether black or white, are citizens by birth–natural born citizens.
During the debate on the 14th Amendment, it was clear that children born in the US would be citizens of the US.
Senator George Williams of Oregon:In one sense, all persons born within the geographical limits of the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in every sense. Take the child of the ambassador. In one sense, that child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, because if that child commits the crime of murder, or commits any other crime against the laws of the country, to a certain extent he is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but not in every respect; and so with these Indians. All persons living within a judicial district may be said, in one sense, to be subject to the jurisdiction of the court in that district, but they are not in every sense subject to the jurisdiction of that court until they are brought, by proper process, within the reach of the power of the court. I understand the words here, “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,” to mean fully and completely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. if there was any doubt to the meaning of those words, I think that doubt is entirely removed and explained by the words in the subsequent section; and believing that, in any court or by any intelligent person, these two sections would be construed not to include Indians not taxed…
Mr. James Conness of California: The proposition before us…relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. We have declared that by law; now it is proposed to incorporate the same provision into the fundamental instrument of the nation. I am in favor of doing so. I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States.
James Ho who succeeded Ted Cruz as Texas Solicitor General focuses on the word allegiance.
"I would submit that the plain meaning of “subject to jurisdiction” is rather straightforward. It simply means that one must have a duty to obey U.S. law. When a person is “subject to the jurisdiction” of a court of law, that person is required to obey the orders of that court. When a company is “subject to the jurisdiction” of a government agency, that company is required to obey the regulations promulgated by that agency. The meaning of the phrase is simple: One is “subject to the jurisdiction” of another whenever one is obliged to obey the laws of another. Simply put, the test is obedience, not allegiance.
It is also worth observing that, if the drafters had intended to require allegiance, rather than obedience, they could have said so. How easy it would have been for them to state explicitly that only children born to citizens are guaranteed birthright citizenship—with a simple proviso to address the descendants of slaves. But instead, they chose the language of jurisdiction, not citizenship. And that decision deserves respect.
Of course, the phrase “subject to jurisdiction” must mean something. Otherwise, it would serve no purpose. Under the interpretation I put forth, it does serve a purpose. The “jurisdiction” requirement excludes only those individuals who are not required to obey U.S. law. This concept—like much of early U.S. law—derives from English common law. Under the common law, neither foreign diplomats nor enemy soldiers are legally required to obey our law. They enjoy diplomatic immunity or combatant immunity from our laws. As a result, their U.S.-born offspring are not entitled to birthright citizenship.
This understanding is also confirmed by the congressional debates surrounding the Fourteenth Amendment. Members of the 39th Congress debated the wisdom of guaranteeing birthright citizenship—but no one disputed the amendment’s meaning. In fact, opponents of the amendment conceded—indeed, they warned—that the language of the Citizenship Clause would guarantee citizenship to the children of those who “owe [the United States] no allegiance.” And supporters of the amendment agreed that only members of Indian tribes, ambassadors, foreign ministers and others who are not “subject to [our laws]” would fall outside the guarantee of birthright citizenship.
The bottom line is that location of birth has been a major factor in deciding the citizenship of a person born in the US regardless of parentage. It was a major factor BEFORE the 14th Amendment.
On this "Natural Born Citizen" Issue, Part II: From William Learned Marcy to Wong Kim Ark
I can see granting US citizenship only to children who have one parent living here LEGALLY. That is easy enough to prove. However, using a term as fuzzy as "foreigners" is never going to cut it. By law, immigrants who WANT to become citizens must live in the US FIVE YEARS before applying for naturalization. They are foreigners who plan to become citizens and of course want their children to be, as well, since they will be raised here.It's the next step in making America great again. Birthright Citizenship refers to Citizen parents, not Illegals. The 14th Amendment was only created for slaves after the civil war. It was not created for foreigners. Let's hear from the man who wrote the Citizenship clause himself, Senator John Jacob Howard:
"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."
This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated:
"[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word..."
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.
President Trump Says He Is Still "Looking Seriously" at Ending Birthright Citizenship
I agree that Chinese women who travel here on a tourist visa to have a baby and then fly back to China with a US citizen child is BULLSHIT. So is granting citizenship to the children of two illegals living in the US. The illegal shit has got to stop. I agree with that.
Trump has to be careful how that is done, though, in order to be fair. And I don't believe Trump can change that himself; it is written in law and needs to be changed by Congress, doesn't it?
The problem is less Congress than it was previous rulings on citizenship. That's what we need to do first; have it so the Supreme Court rules that anchor babies are not constitutionally protected.
From an imperialistic way ? Of course....war Iraq invasion was an imperialistic unilateral move by the US....not even crazy little orange baby agreed with it although he flip flopped on that like always.Lol oh so it was not weapons of mass destruction ? And that was the first desert storm...the US went on later to occupy the oil rich country with false claims...even your master orange recognizes that.Iraq was no threat to us. Syria was no threat to us. Yemen was no threat to us. Libya was no threat to us. Vietnam was no threat to us. North Korea was not threat to us.
We lost in all of them at that.
Not directly a threat to US.
By that logic, Nazi Germany wasn't a direct threat to US. Should we have let them go at it?
The argument was that we only attack countries that were a threat to us. As you note, none were.
Iraq was a threat to the world's oil supply. Remember this?
You can shove your weird master shit back up your ass were you pulled it from.
My point stands. ONly a fucktard would deny that Iraq was a threat to the world's oil supply with a picture of the world's oil burning in front of him.
