Previous 21 - 30 Next
The only reason for ISIS to mount a 9-11 type terrorist attack against the US is to get US infidel boots back on the ground again in the Middle East so both the Sunnis and the Shias will stop fighting each other long to fight the infidels. We were stupid enough to fall for this the first time around. I hope someone is smart enough not to fall for it again. Of course, the US should remain engaged, but let's play it smart this time around. As long as the Sunnis and the Shias are fighting each other, US Middle East policy isn't that far off. ex animo davidfarrar
In response to:

Is ISIS 'An Existential Threat'?

davidfarrar Wrote: Aug 12, 2014 10:07 AM
The only reason for ISIS to mount a 9-11 type terrorist attack against the US is to get us offensively engaged in the Middle East again so both the Sunnis and the Shias will stop fighting themselves and fight the US. We were stupid enough to fall for this the first time around. I hope someone is smart enough not to fall for it again. ex animo davidfarrar
Apparently, Obama was fibbing all along about granting amnesty to 5 million illegals in order to gin up talk of impeachment so he could go out on the campaign trail and blast Republicans for not helping him pass amnesty. It's too bad the young children who died in the hot Mexican desert didn't know Obama was only playing politics. ex animo davidfarrar ex animo davidfarrar
In response to:

A Teachable Moment

davidfarrar Wrote: Jul 19, 2014 2:09 PM
You forgot one more...that a Ukrainian military troop plane was shadowing the Malaysian airplane, using it to run interference across the war zone. ex animo davidfarrar
In response to:

Deporting Oneself Well

davidfarrar Wrote: Jul 06, 2014 11:30 AM
What's next for immigration reform? The film: “Machete” Directed by: Roberto Rodriguez How ugly is "Machete"? “Machete” …. is a call for revolution; Mexicans against Americans – and in the words of the character meant to be our evolving conscience, Jessica Alba’s, Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agent Sartana, it’s about how those who believe in only LEGAL immigration “deserve to be cut down.” This is her rousing fist-in-the-air message to a gathered army of illegal day laborers The enemies are Americans opposed to illegal immigration who indeed are cut down. That’s how its racist director, Mexican national, Roberto Rodriguez began marketing the movie with his special message to Arizona. And that’s how the movie concludes. With the murder of Americans opposed to illegal immigration. Is it any surprise then Obama would attend a fundraising event at Roberto's Austin, Texas home but failed to visit any of the border areas where thousands of south american children are presently being shipped in across our borders, demanding amnesty and who will, in all probability, become the foot solders depicted in "Machete"? ex animo davidfarrar *http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/obama-to-fundraise-wracist-mexican-director-who-promoted-the-murder-of-opponents-of-illegal-immigration/
In response to:

Reforming Immigration Reform

davidfarrar Wrote: Jul 05, 2014 10:06 AM
"So instead of getting bogged down on that while trying to pass “comprehensive” reform, lawmakers should start where there’s wide agreement: close the borders." Sorry, been there, done that; it doesn't work! This is exactly how the 1986 amnesty proposal was eventually adopted. What we now know, or should know by now, is that there IS no way to build a secure border while creating incentives for those who would crossed them illegally. What we know now, or should know by now, is that there IS no way to stop illegal immigration while creating incentives for those who would crossed our borders illegally. We also now know, or should know by now, is that there IS no way to enforce our immigration laws while creating incentives for those who would break those laws. The correct path to immigration reform is to start removing the incentives for those who would cross out borders illegally. Any other approach, will lead to amnesty and increased illegal immigration. ex animo davidfarrar
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
Previous 21 - 30 Next