Many of my fellow conservatives say American redistribution of wealth to Israel is a matter of national security and therefore constitutional. The Pentagon believes that obesity is a matter of national security. http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2009-02-09-obesity_N.htm When Michelle Obama gets the federal government intimately involved with what American children eat, is that a matter of national security and, hence, CONSTITUTIONAL? http://www.letsmove.gov/

Here's what I say, "Replacing military pensions with 401k plans allows military personnel to put in thousands of dollars within a decade's time and reap a harvest of a millions dollars after that decade is up!" You either love the free markets and small government or you do not. Republicans do NOT. Again, Republicans behave like the Nazis in Osweicim, Poland (Auschwitz). The Nazi said it is a shower and it's for your own good. But can you really believe them?

Republicans promise that opting out of Social Security will bring great benefits to the young ones who would then be able to invest their social security money into the stock market? Here's what Republicans said about moving US military personnel from pensions to private 401k plans. "Wall Street is a ponzi scheme." or "US soldiers perform a dangerous task and need to be protected." Why is the stock market a great thing for people opting out of social security but not a great thing to replace the statist/socialistic military pension plans?

The Wongs were ILLEGALS as defined by the Chinese Exclusion Act passed in 1882, prohibiting persons of the Chinese race from coming into the USA or becoming naturalized U.S. citizens. The Supreme Court, in 1898, was fully aware of this fact. Some people say this is 'not yet codified' or might be 're-interpreted at some later date', sometime, unspecified, in the future. Nonsense, just as Brown vs. the Board of Education is settled law, dictating that separate is by definition unequal, and therefore against "the due process" clause of the 14th Amendment, then so is the fact that children, born to anyone, in the United States of America, are its citizens. This is law and law-abiding citizens must follow it. Caso Cerrado.

The 14th Amendment, Section 1, is written "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." The operative phrase is "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was defined in the Supreme Court case of U.S. vs Wong Kim Ark (1898) to mean physical presence. Someone, legal or illegal, mugs you. Do the local police have the jurisdiction to arrest the perp? You betcha, that person IS subject to the jurisdiction thereof. The Supreme Court of the USA agrees too.

The Wongs were ILLEGALS as defined by the Chinese Exclusion Act passed in 1882, prohibiting persons of the Chinese race from coming into the USA or becoming naturalized U.S. citizens. The Supreme Court, in 1898, was fully aware of this fact. Some people say this is 'not yet codified' or might be 're-interpreted at some later date', sometime, unspecified, in the future. Nonsense, just as Brown vs. the Board of Education is settled law, dictating that separate is by definition unequal, and therefore against "the due process" clause of the 14th Amendment, then so is the fact that children, born to anyone, in the United States of America, are its citizens. This is law and law-abiding citizens must follow it. Caso Cerrado.

The Wongs were ILLEGALS as defined by the Chinese Exclusion Act passed in 1882, prohibiting persons of the Chinese race from coming into the USA or becoming naturalized U.S. citizens. The Supreme Court, in 1898, was fully aware of this fact. Some people say this is 'not yet codified' or might be 're-interpreted at some later date', sometime, unspecified, in the future. Nonsense, just as Brown vs. the Board of Education is settled law, dictating that separate is by definition unequal, and therefore against "the due process" clause of the 14th Amendment, then so is the fact that children, born to anyone, in the United States of America, are its citizens. This is law and law-abiding citizens must follow it. Caso Cerrado.

The 14th Amendment, Section 1, is written "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." The operative phrase is "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was defined in the Supreme Court case of U.S. vs Wong Kim Ark (1898) to mean physical presence. Someone, legal or illegal, mugs you. Do the local police have the jurisdiction to arrest the perp? You betcha, that person IS subject to the jurisdiction thereof. The Supreme Court of the USA agrees too.

The Wongs were ILLEGALS as defined by the Chinese Exclusion Act passed in 1882, prohibiting persons of the Chinese race from coming into the USA or becoming naturalized U.S. citizens. The Supreme Court, in 1898, was fully aware of this fact. Some people say this is 'not yet codified' or might be 're-interpreted at some later date', sometime, unspecified, in the future. Nonsense, just as Brown vs. the Board of Education is settled law, dictating that separate is by definition unequal, and therefore against "the due process" clause of the 14th Amendment, then so is the fact that children, born to anyone, in the United States of America, are its citizens. This is law and law-abiding citizens must follow it. Caso Cerrado.

The 14th Amendment, Section 1, is written "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." The operative phrase is "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was defined in the Supreme Court case of U.S. vs Wong Kim Ark (1898) to mean physical presence. Someone, legal or illegal, mugs you. Do the local police have the jurisdiction to arrest the perp? You betcha, that person IS subject to the jurisdiction thereof. The Supreme Court of the USA agrees too.