Yes that would do it but you have to wonder what else they would want to change??
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Finally, the ultimate 'red meat' mandate the GOP can sink teeth into this midterm brawl... Da Wall!
- Thread starter Sahba
- Start date
Yes that would do it but you have to wonder what else they would want to change??
We need a Constitutional Convention to change the Anchor baby law.Well most Americans want illegals out of the country.
I for one don't care how much that wall costs, they need to build it to keep illegals out of America. That will save 2 billion a year.
No more illegals. No more anchor babies with mom and all her relatives we support.
Build the damned wall.
Actually, a Supreme Court decision would do it.
1. In 1894, Wong Kim Ark, born and raised in the United States, visited China. His parents who had worked in San Francisco, had returned to China to live, and when Wong Kim Ark returned to California, he was“denied permission to enter the country "...because the said Wong Kim Ark, although born in the city and county of San Francisco, state of California, United States of America, is not, under the laws of the state of California and of the United States, a citizen thereof, the mother and father of the said Wong Kim Ark being Chinese persons, and subjects of the emperor of China, and the said Wong Kim Ark being also a Chinese person and a subject of the Emperor of China."
United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia
2. BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP—the policy whereby the children of illegal aliens born within the geographical limits of the United States are entitled to American citizenship—is a great magnet for illegal immigration. Many believe that this policy is an explicit command of the Constitution, consistent with the British common law system. But this is simply not true.
3. There is no Supreme Court decision squarely holding that children of illegal aliens are automatically citizens of the U.S. An 1898 decision, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, held by a vote of 5-4 that a child of legal resident aliens is entitled to birthright citizenship. Decided under the premise that the Fourteenth Amendment was based on the common law concept of birthright citizenship, Justice Gray, writing the majority decision, merely stipulated that “citizen” and “subject” were convertible terms—as if there were no difference between feudal monarchy and republicanism. Indeed, Chief Justice Fuller wrote a powerful dissent in the case arguing that the idea of birthright subjectship had been repealed by the American Revolution and the principles of the Declaration.
4. The "jurisdiction" phrase in the 14th is not referring to temporary geographic jurisdiction, but total jurisdiction.
Your replys are far too thought out and contain way too many words for a poster such as Timmy or the other drive by liberal trolls.Think of it more like a rental situation be it a house, truck etc. It's bought up front with an outlay of cash on the lenders part and is recouped over the subsequent years. Though obviously in this case it is used to discourage the lendee from making or sending their children on rape trains and through the perilous deserts with Cartel 'yotes' (known to be usurers, thieves and rapists).
Perhaps someone can come up with a much better corollary example to help 'Timmy' understand the economic concept of spending tens of billions of dollars on a wall and saving hundreds of billions on all the expenditures of not having to process, sustain and regulate the millions that would have come in illegally. This doesn't even touch on the mechanisms of economic growth that 'shockedcanadian' briefed us on above.
2 sentences tops.
Preferably 6th grade level or less.
- Thread starter
- #26
I'm not sure who you're talking about... Do you mean this scourge upon our Nation, or the other one?Well if that fails to get traction, he can always gin up the "Lock Her Up" chants.
I doubt if "the Wall" is the top issue on anyone's mind these days. Republicans are celebrating the economy and Judge Kavanaugh's victory and democrats are threatening anarchy. It's business as usual.
Well if that fails to get traction, he can always gin up the "Lock Her Up" chants.
"...the "Lock Her Up" chants."
Don't you agree that doing just that is in the interest of justice?
Let's check:
At issue is the clearly illegal behaviors that FBI Director Comey pretended didn’t happen…..
1.Even Hillary’s traditional allies at the Washington Post couldn’t swallow this:
““Everything I did was permitted. There was no law. There was no regulation. There was nothing that did not give me the full authority to decide how I was going to communicate. Previous secretaries of state have said they did the same thing…. Everything I did was permitted by law and regulation. I had one device. When I mailed anybody in the government, it would go into the government system.”
— Former secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton, interview with CNN, July 7, 2015
Three Pinocchio’s from their fact-checker.
Hillary Clinton’s claim that ‘everything I did [on e-mails] was permitted’
2. But the WaPo couldn’t indict her…..the FBI could….if it followed the law without that pro-Hillary bias.
Comey outright lied in inserting some imaginary ‘intent’ in the law….He said:
“Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.”
WHAT??????
3. “…nowhere in 18 U.S.C. 793 (f) of the Espionage Act which governs the ‘grossly negligent ‘ handling of classified information does it state that a defendant must have intended to break the law in order to be charged of found guilty.”
Jarrett, “The Russia Hoax,” p.28
4. “Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody” has committed a felony. 18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
Do you find the word ‘willingly’ or ‘intentionally’?
Outside of a biased or corrupt intent….why is Hillary not charged?????
Soooo…..let Hillary skate?
You must be a Liberal, huh?
I'm not sure who you're talking about... Do you mean this scourge upon our Nation, or the other one?Well if that fails to get traction, he can always gin up the "Lock Her Up" chants.
I'm talking about the leader of the Trumpublican party. Yes that scourge upon our nation, the one leading the chants.
Most illegals were here on visas and did not cross the vast wilderness of the Mexican boarder, but through normal means of transportation, that a wall, beautiful or not, will simply not stop.
Mitch McConnell: 'We Are Committed to Helping the President Get Wall Funding'
Probably the most singularly pivotal issue that landed Trump in 'the Oval', was his campaign promise to bolster our National sovereignty with a big, beautiful border wall. Well I don't know what sort of 'back bone' infusion Mitch McConnell got recently (Lyndsey Ghaham as well) but it looks like this is a winning midterm issue for Conservatives to rally behind in these next 3 weeks! McConnell might as well be a rock star playing with Metallica, lol; He da Man!!!
This is for you my progressive / liberal Democratic X-Compatriots...
As usual that is untrue. What landed him in the White House was that he was not Hillary Clinton. Clinton would have won had it been voters who were vting on the basis of I support my candidate. 25% of the electorate were voting against the other candidate. In addition, it looks like there was a unenthusiastic turnout among blacks. A majority who voted did not support a wall and voters still do not support a wall. It the elections become a referendum on immigration, Republicans lose.
blastoff
Undocumented Reg. User
Guess that’s why it worked so well, huh?the wall as a GOP campaign platform ...
an issue thats not in favor with a majority of the country.
BRILLIANT !!!!!
DUMB SHIT RW'S.
blastoff
Undocumented Reg. User
Wow, that’s some groundswell.By the time Texas lets the wall builders out of court they will be so old they will have forgot about a damn wall.
Trump and his drones might as well file eminent domain on the front row of a court room and take a tight seat.
Siete
Platinum Member
- May 19, 2014
- 34,325
- 3,988
- 1,130
Wow, that’s some groundswell.By the time Texas lets the wall builders out of court they will be so old they will have forgot about a damn wall.
Trump and his drones might as well file eminent domain on the front row of a court room and take a tight seat.
Trump tried to get an old ladys house to make room for parking beside one of his casinos. She kept him tied up in court for two decades before she died and her daughter sold it to another investor.
try building a wall on that ladys dirt if she refuses to let you from the start --
goundswell will be in your ass.
Siete
Platinum Member
- May 19, 2014
- 34,325
- 3,988
- 1,130
Guess that’s why it worked so well, huh?the wall as a GOP campaign platform ...
an issue thats not in favor with a majority of the country.
BRILLIANT !!!!!
DUMB SHIT RW'S.
yup, walls and killing obamacare was a UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE success.
SUCKERS
Well if that fails to get traction, he can always gin up the "Lock Her Up" chants.
"...the "Lock Her Up" chants."
Don't you agree that doing just that is in the interest of justice?
Let's check:
At issue is the clearly illegal behaviors that FBI Director Comey pretended didn’t happen…..
1.Even Hillary’s traditional allies at the Washington Post couldn’t swallow this:
““Everything I did was permitted. There was no law. There was no regulation. There was nothing that did not give me the full authority to decide how I was going to communicate. Previous secretaries of state have said they did the same thing…. Everything I did was permitted by law and regulation. I had one device. When I mailed anybody in the government, it would go into the government system.”
— Former secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton, interview with CNN, July 7, 2015
Three Pinocchio’s from their fact-checker.
Hillary Clinton’s claim that ‘everything I did [on e-mails] was permitted’
2. But the WaPo couldn’t indict her…..the FBI could….if it followed the law without that pro-Hillary bias.
Comey outright lied in inserting some imaginary ‘intent’ in the law….He said:
“Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.”
WHAT??????
3. “…nowhere in 18 U.S.C. 793 (f) of the Espionage Act which governs the ‘grossly negligent ‘ handling of classified information does it state that a defendant must have intended to break the law in order to be charged of found guilty.”
Jarrett, “The Russia Hoax,” p.28
4. “Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody” has committed a felony. 18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
Do you find the word ‘willingly’ or ‘intentionally’?
Outside of a biased or corrupt intent….why is Hillary not charged?????
Soooo…..let Hillary skate?
You must be a Liberal, huh?
Don't be silly. Comey's untimely statement was not one of support. Nor was it illegal to have a personal server to handle her email.
Well if that fails to get traction, he can always gin up the "Lock Her Up" chants.
"...the "Lock Her Up" chants."
Don't you agree that doing just that is in the interest of justice?
Let's check:
At issue is the clearly illegal behaviors that FBI Director Comey pretended didn’t happen…..
1.Even Hillary’s traditional allies at the Washington Post couldn’t swallow this:
““Everything I did was permitted. There was no law. There was no regulation. There was nothing that did not give me the full authority to decide how I was going to communicate. Previous secretaries of state have said they did the same thing…. Everything I did was permitted by law and regulation. I had one device. When I mailed anybody in the government, it would go into the government system.”
— Former secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton, interview with CNN, July 7, 2015
Three Pinocchio’s from their fact-checker.
Hillary Clinton’s claim that ‘everything I did [on e-mails] was permitted’
2. But the WaPo couldn’t indict her…..the FBI could….if it followed the law without that pro-Hillary bias.
Comey outright lied in inserting some imaginary ‘intent’ in the law….He said:
“Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.”
WHAT??????
3. “…nowhere in 18 U.S.C. 793 (f) of the Espionage Act which governs the ‘grossly negligent ‘ handling of classified information does it state that a defendant must have intended to break the law in order to be charged of found guilty.”
Jarrett, “The Russia Hoax,” p.28
4. “Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody” has committed a felony. 18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
Do you find the word ‘willingly’ or ‘intentionally’?
Outside of a biased or corrupt intent….why is Hillary not charged?????
Soooo…..let Hillary skate?
You must be a Liberal, huh?
Don't be silly. Comey's untimely statement was not one of support. Nor was it illegal to have a personal server to handle her email.
You're lying.
It was absolutely illegal....and deadly.
1. “…Clinton was instructed on her first day on the job that all such materials must be maintained n a government-approved and secure location. Her home was not.
Clinton didn’t just keep classified documents in an unauthorized place but she willingly gave them to people she knew did not have the security clearance to receive them, in violation of the law.” Jarrett, Op. Cit.
2. Bear in mind that none of the individuals Hillary used in setting up the illegal server was cleared to see classified or sensitive unclassified material. That would be Justin Cooper and Bryan Pagliano who were responsible for installation, operation, and maintenance.
3. “State Dept. posts Huma Abedin emails found on Anthony Weiner's laptop”
State Dept. posts Huma Abedin emails found on Anthony Weiner's laptop - CNNPolitics
Gee.....I wonder how the terrorists of Benghazi found out that the compound with the Americans was under defended.....????
Could they have seen the back and forth emails from Christopher Stevens to Hillary asking for more support.....
Ya' think?
4. “Last week we learned that a "foreign entity" may have been secretly receiving Hillary Clinton's emails while she was Secretary of State, including many that contained classified information. And that the FBI apparently ignored this information during its "investigation."
The reaction by the press, and the clueless, to this bombshell? Crickets.
FBI investigators were told that Clinton's emailshad been surreptitiously forwarded to a "foreign entity." And the FBI investigators who were allegedly conducting a thorough, unbiased, professional probe into Clinton's mishandling of classified materials ignored it.” Clinton's Emails: Did The FBI Ignore Evidence That They Ended Up In the Hands Of A 'Foreign Entity'?
5. The Americans killed at Benghazi had repeatedly emailed Hillary Clinton explaining the need for increased security.
“…it has now come to light that Hillary Clinton attempted to destroy about 30 emails related to the 2012 Benghazi massacre. “ Multiple Outrages in Clinton-Obama Benghazi Obstruction | National Review
Now.....why do you suppose she wanted those email exchanges hidden????
I know why.....bet you do to.
blastoff
Undocumented Reg. User
Welcome to the JoeyB Dolezal club.Well if that fails to get traction, he can always gin up the "Lock Her Up" chants.
"...the "Lock Her Up" chants."
Don't you agree that doing just that is in the interest of justice?
Let's check:
At issue is the clearly illegal behaviors that FBI Director Comey pretended didn’t happen…..
1.Even Hillary’s traditional allies at the Washington Post couldn’t swallow this:
““Everything I did was permitted. There was no law. There was no regulation. There was nothing that did not give me the full authority to decide how I was going to communicate. Previous secretaries of state have said they did the same thing…. Everything I did was permitted by law and regulation. I had one device. When I mailed anybody in the government, it would go into the government system.”
— Former secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton, interview with CNN, July 7, 2015
Three Pinocchio’s from their fact-checker.
Hillary Clinton’s claim that ‘everything I did [on e-mails] was permitted’
2. But the WaPo couldn’t indict her…..the FBI could….if it followed the law without that pro-Hillary bias.
Comey outright lied in inserting some imaginary ‘intent’ in the law….He said:
“Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.”
WHAT??????
3. “…nowhere in 18 U.S.C. 793 (f) of the Espionage Act which governs the ‘grossly negligent ‘ handling of classified information does it state that a defendant must have intended to break the law in order to be charged of found guilty.”
Jarrett, “The Russia Hoax,” p.28
4. “Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody” has committed a felony. 18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
Do you find the word ‘willingly’ or ‘intentionally’?
Outside of a biased or corrupt intent….why is Hillary not charged?????
Soooo…..let Hillary skate?
You must be a Liberal, huh?
Don't be silly. Comey's untimely statement was not one of support. Nor was it illegal to have a personal server to handle her email.
He renegotiated NAFTA, and there are some very serious and even subtle components in there which I am aware of as I have read through it (and it is extensively covered in Canada) that even Trump hasn't boasted about, but which are MAJOR wins for America.
Now the second component, as you stated; is his wall. If he puts that up in a referendum, he is going to increase votes substantially. I think it would be a very wise play for him to make it a referendum, specifically about the wall, but also more broadly about the tax decrease going away, the fight against China (FAR more popular than people realize, it really sets him apart from all Presidents since Nixon), getting rid of ICE, economic growth and other major issues.
He has to personalize it "YOUR taxes will go up, YOUR taxes will go to paying for more illegally immigrants, THOSE LEGAL immigrants in the country will continue to take a back seat, through no fault of their own as they went about it the right way, YOUR jobs are at risk with economic offshoring to China and other socialist shyteholes.
If he plays this correctly and directly in such a manner, he will expand and drive people to the polls.
You have a huge problem with that. It relies on the ignorance of Americans. It may work with the hillbilly vote in Arkansas but it does not work with suburban and well educated workers.
,Making a referendum on the wall or immigration is a loser for Republicans. Voters do not support building a wall. Also voters are less than sanguine about the tax cuts. The Republican tax cut plan was a boon for the rich. They got a cut in the tax rate and a number of tax breaks to lower their income further. When Reagan reformed the tax code, he got rid of tax shelters for the rich. The fact is voters especially suburban and well educated supporters support DACA and amnesty. The fact is that jobs are far more complicated than they are simply going to China. Workers have become more productive which means it requires fewer workers to produce a product. Many companies have been re-shoring and the trend started under Obama. Also automation has lead to less need for workers.
Trump's policies have made the US a less friendly place to do business. Steel and aluminum tariffs have made it more expensive to do work in the US. Many companies have started to move their production for overseas markets out of the US.
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 132
- Views
- 996
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8294
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 477
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-