Previous 21 - 30 Next
Sorry Derek, NO CAN DO! What Chamber Republicans did in the Miss. race to Chris McDaniel is way, way beyond the pale. While I refuse to stoop to their level and actually vote for the Democratic challenger, as many of my Tea Party friends are now suggesting we do, if Mr. McDaniel's legal challenge isn't upheld, I will urge Tea Party supporters in Miss. to simply write in Mr. McDaniel's name on the ballot for that US Senate, or simply not voted in that race. It's time for Chamber Republicans to hold their noses and vote for a while. ex animo davidfarrar
Offer amnesty and within three moths; they will be filled with people; trust me. ex animo davidfarrar
I say instead of creating a third party, let's create a half party. In six of the most important 2016 election states, lets create CCEs in those states, in more states if we can afford to do so. The purpose of these political parties isn't to remove Tea Party support from the Republican Party, but to have a place where a Chris McDaniel can still have access to the general election should Chamber Republican misbehave again. ex animo davidfarrar
Well, here's my take: The child born would be a member of the Iroquois tribe because its father was a Iroquois. I think you will find, as de Vattel did, this is generally true in every nation. This is why, even today when women marry, they usually adopt the husband's surname, as do his offspring. But the point here is to understand there are only two ways to become a citizen, as I think our discussion as demonstrated. One is by natural law, i.e., being a natural born citizen, and the other is by "privileged" law, citizenship acquired by statute, naturalization. In other words, any person who requires privileged law to acquire citizenship cannot be said to be a "natural" born citizen. ex animo davidfarrar
I am not sure we are on the same page yet. Please bear with me. Let me take a moment to explain how natural law applies to "membership". by giving you an example. Let's go back before 1776 (or we can go forward 200 years to the Lue peoples of Kenya. Obama's people, in fact), the time period doesn't matter is my point. It's the summer of 1776, let's take two North American Indiana tribes: the Iroquois and Sioux. Now let's say an Iroquois man and his wife, who is of the Cherokee tribe, and pregnant, are traveling across Sioux territory and they stop and camp on Sioux territory for the night. But during the night, the Cherokee mother gives birth to a child on Sioux territory. Does that make the child Sioux, Cherokee, or Iroquois? The fact that the child was born on Sioux territory gives the Sioux the "privilege" to decide if they want to adopt the child and make him/er Sioux or not. They might instead even kill the entire Iroquois family for trespassing, as is their "privilege". The option is theirs. It is the same with every nation, including the U.S. This is why de Vattel says that the soil is just the place of birth and not the country that one is from, which goes by the father because it is determined as a function of natural law. ex animo davidfarrar
Provisionally or not, it is the father's society his offspring has the natural right to inherit membership, not any others. ex animo davidfarrar
Are you sure? Isn't there a natural right to inherit membership in the society of one's father? ex animo davidfarrar
And what about natural US citizenship at birth, as specifically called for in Art. II §1 cl. 4; does Art. II §8 cl. 4, or the 14th Amendment, give the government the right to grant natural citizenship at birth? ex animo davidfarrar
In response to:

Mississippi Is Not Burning.

davidfarrar Wrote: Jun 05, 2014 7:30 PM
Actually, I meant to say Karl Rove's American Crossroads Pac that has pulled out of this race. Although, the CoC may have as well. ex animo davidfarrar
In response to:

Mississippi Is Not Burning.

davidfarrar Wrote: Jun 05, 2014 7:11 PM
The Chamber of Commerce has pulled out of this race, and will refuse to back support McDaniel in the general against his Democratic opponent, Alison Grimes. If she should win, the CoC will blame the Tea Party for the loss. ex animo davidfarrar
In response to:

Bungling Bergdahl

davidfarrar Wrote: Jun 05, 2014 6:43 PM
Your explanation leaves out a very important point: If those were the cards dealt to him, why purposely cut Congress out of the deliberations? To suggest Obama couldn't trust their Intel Committees from keeping the deal secret, certainly wasn't the case with the Osama bin Laden operation. Besides, why would the Taliban care who knew about the negotiations. They saw them as a huge victory for their side, which, indeed, it was. So why deliberately break the law? ex animo davidfarrar
Previous 21 - 30 Next