Latest Comments

Dee

In response to: Trump Administration Preps to Strip Federal Funding from Sanctuary Cities Harboring Illegal Aliens Against US Immigration Law

Dee [Visitor]

Ya well i hooe so but I don't believe one word that comes from the media These days!!They make crap up or add to just to sell their paper or magazines! II don't believe for a minute that the President would tell the media anything! Must have an inside man I guess! But it would B A wonderful things!!

 Permalink 11/20/16 @ 03:20
Mike

In response to: Trump's Promise to Quickly Deport 3 Million Illegals Has Mexico Scrambling to Protect Its Citizens Rights in US

Mike [Visitor]

They came here illegally and need to go back, including the Children

 Permalink 11/17/16 @ 00:57
David

In response to: Trump's Promise to Quickly Deport 3 Million Illegals Has Mexico Scrambling to Protect Its Citizens Rights in US

David [Visitor]

Well, either they are subject to your jurisdiction or ours... which is it? If yours then you are accountable for all the illegal activity and costs that The United States has incurred since they broke into our nation AND all manipulations of the 14th Amendment to give the children of illegal entrants into our country citizenship are hereby null and void .
If they are subject to our jurisdiction when they knowingly cross our border illegally, then We determine the punishment and return Times and fines... of which we will determine your complicity in the commission of the crimes in question and enact embargos unril duty is fulfilled .

See , you don't get to TAHMOORESSI our citizens and then tell us what to do when your people break our laws.

 Permalink 11/16/16 @ 21:58
street wiecz

In response to: Trump's Promise to Quickly Deport 3 Million Illegals Has Mexico Scrambling to Protect Its Citizens Rights in US

street wiecz [Visitor]

You are being ask to leave... Next time knock before entering. This is our home , and you are welcome. Please come in the proper maner.

 Permalink 11/16/16 @ 14:52
maurie Hartman

In response to: Afterbirther Nation Revisited: A Civil Disagreement Meets Obama's Born Identity

maurie Hartman [Visitor]

This us all fine exceot it fiesn’t prive eho the father is/was.
Obamas fatger wadcFranj Mardhall Dabis.
Do the reseach and youveill find it out!
BTW, tgat majes obxma NBC!

 Permalink 09/17/16 @ 14:51

In response to: Trump's RNC Speech: Trump Knocks it To The Moon and Unifies Both the Party and a Nation (Youtube)

Dale [Visitor]

A man who loves the People of America and putting himself out there giving up a lifestyle that the other candidates are fighting for to live a life they could never have if they don’t become president!! Donald Trump is giving up more than any other candidate to run for the Presidency and when he is President he will have forever changed his lifestyle for the sake of Making America Great Again! It does take courage and sacrifice to REALLY run the race. He is going to not take a Salary as President and he is just like the Signers of the Declaration of Independence and The Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They gave it all for our Freedom! Today we’re as close to losing it all as we have ever been since Ben Franklin when leaving Independence Hall and the Constitutional Convention in 1787 told the lady who asked him what kind of a government did you give us a Republic or a Monarchy he replied “Madam, we gave you A Republic, if you can keep it!”

There are many many other stories like this and the American people need to know about “The Man Called Trump” because he is a tender giver and has been all his life. The Bible says by their fruit you shall know them look at Luke 6:38 and I would say The Lord has blessed Mr. Donald J Trump and has given the American people a chance to have a Servant Leader as President…..Don’t Blow it and America will be Great Again!!

 Permalink 07/22/16 @ 11:30

In response to: Beware: National Day of Rage Called For In These Large Cities Across America On Friday (Youtube)

Michelle [Visitor]

Anonymous…..why anonymous? Afraid to be seen? But being heard is ok? Coward.

 Permalink 07/15/16 @ 17:43
Kevin Sullivan

In response to: Globalist George Soros Warns EU Will Fail Unless Islamic Refugees Accepted: Urges Massive EU Deficit Spending

Kevin Sullivan [Visitor]

Ted Cruz repeatedly tells those all around him: How wrong it is that. “Trump says whatever on his mind how trump go’s on askTed Cruz repeatedly tells those all around him: How wrong it is that. “Trump says whatever on his mind how trump go’s on asking voters to educate themelves,.to call the candidates and ask them questions to learn the truth on where they stand most important to you issues that affect you and your familys future” They will do anything except speak the simple truth: .(Ted Cruz says He has got better speechwriters to get the nomination,and contribute to his flawless presidential launch to wear everyone out by Playing The Social Media Secret Game with The God and Movie Stars Card referring to the whole magazine thing on how they know of how making it sound even worse than reality. As he has done since the beginning of his early professional political career'’ Re post and Share to say Wake up America it’s time for truth and someone who will stand and speak out against un-American, but also unethical Politics and Corruption as usual … Vote Trump 2016ing voters to educate themelves,.to call the candidates and ask them questions to learn the truth on where they stand most important to you issues that affect you and your familys future” They will do anything except speak the simple truth: .(Ted Cruz says He has got better speechwriters to get the nomination,and contribute to his flawless presidential launch to wear everyone out by Playing The Social Media Secret Game with The God and Movie Stars Card referring to the whole magazine thing on how they know of how making it sound even worse than reality. As he has done since the beginning of his early professional political career'’ Re post and Share to say Wake up America it’s time for truth and someone who will stand and speak out against un-American, but also unethical Politics and Corruption as usual … Vote Trump 2016

 Permalink 04/14/16 @ 07:24

In response to: Killing America: A Shadow War Between Establishment Globalists & Citizen Insurgents Has Begun

MacWell [Visitor]

Kim?
Please remove the brown background from this comment box… thanks

Now, to your article: While I agree with your premise, there are evil people who have plans to take over the world, they can never succeed. Human nature, being what it is, will never allow itself to be enslaved for long, by any force. We hear a lot of talk these days about Martial Law. Now, I’m near 70 years old, and have seen a lot, talked to a lot of different people, from all walks of life. Did my time in the Military, I joined at 17 in 64. My faith stands in two places, first and foremost, in G_D, but also my faith in the American spirit is unshakeable. We Americans have done extraordinary things in a very short time. We twice saved the world from the evils of soulless men, intent on enslaving their fellow man. I cannot see many of our boys turning their backs on fellow Americans, especially patriots. Besides, Americans make up the largest standing army in the world, by far. 70+ million firearms and 7 trillion rounds. How many spec-oops, Green Berets, Navy SEAL/s, Army Rangers, not to even mention the Marines, how many of these guys would follow that illegal order?

I’m more worried about the enemy within, the establishment.

 Permalink 03/25/16 @ 05:57
Dolores

In response to: Broken Border: Alarmed Ranchers Gather Warn "We Got Problems They Don't Want People to Know"

Dolores [Visitor]

Texas voted for Cruz but Cruz is the one that is for legalization . Should have voted for Trump.

 Permalink 03/12/16 @ 18:12
george russell

In response to: US Border Chief Urges Border Agents Critical of Obama's 'Catch & Release' Program to Quit

george russell [Visitor]

Let's make a rule if the illegal is under 6' we just throw him back like fishing

 Permalink 03/02/16 @ 09:07
David F. Hammack

In response to: US Border Chief Urges Border Agents Critical of Obama's 'Catch & Release' Program to Quit

David F. Hammack [Visitor]

Dear Border Patrol Agents:

I urge, do NOT follow the advice of you Chief and quit if you disagree with administrative orders to NOT do your job. You took an oath of office, to uphold the laws and Constitution of this Republic when you joined your force. That oath is your solemn duty. Administrative orders to forego your oath are illegal orders and must not be obeyed. The reality is, you will probably be fired. How different is that to quitting? Just this: if you are fired for upholding the oath you swore, you have a cause for action to sue The Border Patrol, and any superior administrators to get your job back, with back pay. Please, don't quit. Remain true to your oath, and when you, and others are fired, join in a class action suit to vindicate your honor. Your oath of office is a binding contract. You will find justice in the courts. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your service.

 Permalink 03/02/16 @ 02:34
Colin

In response to: Muslim Group CAIR Issues Islamic Violence Warning against Trump's Pig's Blood-dipped Bullets Story

Colin [Visitor]

Yet when the Muslims bombed all those innocent people in Bali in 2002 they mixed excrement with the explosive as a sign of contempt and to cause blood poisoning in anyone not killed outright. When the boot is on the other foot they kick.

 Permalink 02/23/16 @ 05:29
Jody HorkeyHg

In response to: US Government Wrongfully Gave Nearly $ 1 Billion in Obamacare Subsidies to Over 500,000 Illegals

Jody HorkeyHg [Visitor]

There went my social security and Medicare that I worked for , and what did they do to deserve it ?

 Permalink 02/10/16 @ 03:01

In response to: Outraged World Citizens Suffering from Islamic Refugee Attacks Accused of Being Nazis By Media

P.Kaye [Visitor]

The people will rise and defend what they hold dear. I just read today that President Putin has put an arrest warrant to several globalist elites George Soros is on the warrant.

 Permalink 01/19/16 @ 02:44

In response to: Islamic Refugee Watch: Map of Syrian Refugee Resettlement Locations Displays Affected Communities

Uncle Buck [Visitor]

Biological Jihad

We all know the explosive violence of Islamic Jihad, and have seen countless images on the news
for the past 3 decades now. But violent Jihad is not the only weapon the Muslims have in their
quest to “take over the world", they also have “biological” Jihad.

Biological Jihad is the Muslim practice of emigrating to every major country around the world, and
having as many children as possible. The average number of people in a European Muslim family is 8,
with many families having as many as 10 to 14. By increasing the number of Muslim living in any one
particular country, they eventually will become the dominant force in that country as their people
go in to public life, are elected to prominent positions, and then change the laws of that country
to suit the Muslim ideology. Libyan Leader Mu’ammar Al-Qaddafi says it like this:

“We have 50 million Muslims in Europe. There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe - without swords, without guns, without conquests. The fifty million Muslims of Europe will turn it
into a Muslim continent within a few decades.” from the Middle East Media Research Institute.

 Permalink 12/17/15 @ 09:44
brit Manhattan

In response to: Afterbirther Nation Revisited: A Civil Disagreement Meets Obama's Born Identity

brit Manhattan [Visitor]

Your blog has definitely inspired me to totally change the way I write. I have to tell you I appreciate your great work.

 Permalink 12/08/11 @ 20:34
Natural Free Man

In response to: Afterbirther Nation Revisited: A Civil Disagreement Meets Obama's Born Identity

Natural Free Man [Visitor]

Dear Montana,

You are simply an enemy of freedom and a liar.

 Permalink 05/09/11 @ 20:05
Natural Free Man

In response to: Afterbirther Nation Revisited: A Civil Disagreement Meets Obama's Born Identity

Natural Free Man [Visitor]

Sorry, I meant to say that “any argument that original intent was NOT to expressly prevent a subject of the crown from being president after we had just fought a revolution in order to gain our independence from the crown is patently insincere or simply ignorant

 Permalink 05/09/11 @ 19:53
Natural Free Man

In response to: Afterbirther Nation Revisited: A Civil Disagreement Meets Obama's Born Identity

Natural Free Man [Visitor]

Dear Troy,

Current US law does not amend the constitution. It is either in conflict with it or in harmony with it. If it is in conflict, the Constitution trumps the legislated law. Secondly, any argument that original intent was to expressly prevent a subject of the crown from being president after we had just fought a revolution in order to gain our independence from the crown is patently insincere or simply ignorant. In your case, I’m sorry to say that I suspect the former. Finally, original intent trumps all. If you and I make a contract, I don’t get to simply reinterpret the terms after you’ve paid me. Similarly, you don’t get to undermine my personal sovereignty by subjecting me to the illegal rule of a subject of the crown based on a dishonest, incorrect interpretation of the supreme law of the land. Your position makes you an enemy of free men, an enemy of the constitution and a bad American.

 Permalink 05/09/11 @ 19:49
GHOST OF XMAS FUTURE

In response to: Afterbirther Nation Revisited: A Civil Disagreement Meets Obama's Born Identity

GHOST OF XMAS FUTURE [Visitor]

Obama’s birth certificate is a fraud.

Zero did NOT produce a BC.. he produced an electronic facsimile of a copy of an alleged BC

With no borders,

no seal,

missing language at the bottom from HI that certifies information is from the original record,

no note of amendment on line 23 he was adopted as Indonesian,

no note of 2006 amendment HI Dept of Health indirectly confirmed,

an impossible b.c. number/dated filed in comparison to other b.c.’s the following day at Kapaolani Hospital,

a document that opens up in layers in which the text has NO chromatic distortion – separate scans were therefore pieced together to create a document forgery.

Oh, and on Monday, May 2nd Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals oral argument hearing on Zero’s Natural Born Citizenship eligibility (100 around country now), the DOJ lawyer provided by WE THE TAXPAYERS to defend the office of the Presidency didn’t show what Zero and lamestream propaganda media called “proof".

Why is that?

(crickets)

 Permalink 05/09/11 @ 18:34
Rick

In response to: Afterbirther Nation Revisited: A Civil Disagreement Meets Obama's Born Identity

Rick [Visitor]

After reading your article, I wondered if you or someone else has made sure that Donald Trump has been told about Section 212 of that French legal treatise. It’s pretty compelling and I’m hoping that it will form the centerpiece of the GOP nominee’s 2012 campaign. It’ll change everything, that’s for sure.

 Permalink 05/09/11 @ 17:51
Troy

In response to: Afterbirther Nation Revisited: A Civil Disagreement Meets Obama's Born Identity

Troy [Visitor]

Well, you’re partly correct: it is opinion mixed with facts. However, the facts are critical points which you’ve either failed to take into account or just chosen to outright ignore. You’re exactly correct, original intent can come into play, but greater weight is likely to be given to present U.S. law. You’ve come out and declared that Obama is not a natural-born citizen because The Law of Nations says it is so. However, just because the founders may have appreciated the definitions in that text does not mean that the United States itself has adopted them. The United States has NEVER indicated that it will be bound by descriptions given in French treatises that were published two decades prior to our inception. Your assertion that Obama is not a natural-born citizen based solely on The Law of Nations is flat out wrong.

As you know, the Constitution and its Amendments do not comprise the sole law of this nation. Rather, they merely provide the framework, which is then filled in by statutes and the common law, both of which have taken a view completely contrary to that of The Law of Nations and, apparently, to the founders. One thing you’ll find about the U.S. legal system is that, where possible, it tends to favor consistency. Considering the sole argument in favor of jus sanguinis citizenship NOT being considered “natural-born citizenship” is your contention that “it’s not what the founders would have wanted,” American courts are not likely to find the argument compelling. Courts are likely to find that defining natural-born citizens to not include jus sanguinis citizens deprives those Americans of rights that they should be granted (i.e. eligibility for the Presidency).

Moreover, what I have consistently found most disturbing from both liberals and conservatives is when attempts are made to establish what the founders’ intent was. The intent of the founders was this: to create a document that could change with the times. Our system of laws was established in order to accommodate inevitable social changes. The Constitution is a brilliant document drafted by far smarter men than you or I. They were well aware that the world in which they lived would continue to evolve, and that our legal structure, too, would need to evolve in order to meet the demands of our changing society. Especially considering the dramatic spread of American business interests all over the world and the ease of global travel, does it seem likely that the founders would want us to slam the door shut to children who should rightfully be considered natural-born citizens? What so many people fail to grasp (or choose not to grasp) is that if they could go back in time and ask the founders what we should do, they would undoubtedly tell us to look around us and decide what works best for today.

Now, short of denying Obama’s eligibility to the Presidency were he found to not be born in Hawaii, and outside of the “what the founders would have wanted” bit, what compelling arguments can you make that the child of a pregnant woman who flies overseas for an important business-related reason, but for one reason or another is forced to deliver her baby early, should not be deemed a natural-born American citizen? In law school, we deal heavily with hypotheticals. I’m just curious to know what your arguments against that situation would be.

You’re right, the bulk of my argument is opinion mixed with facts. But so is yours. In fact, most legal discussions are opinions mixed with facts. Unfortunately, Barry, the sole fact in your favor comes from a 1758 French book on political philosophy that carries precisely zero authoritative value in American jurisprudence.

 Permalink 05/08/11 @ 16:47

In response to: Afterbirther Nation Revisited: A Civil Disagreement Meets Obama's Born Identity

barrysecrest [Member]

Your entire argument, Troy, is simply that. Grounded in opinion mixed with facts. When or if the issue comes before the Supreme Court, it will be decided then. But as you are entirely familiar with the law in your studies, you cannot deny that original intent will come into play. Original intent from the founders writings established that two citizens of the US were a requirement for a child to be natural born and this was their intent for the purpose of disallowing exactly the type of agenda we are currently seeing played out right now. There is also a clear distinction between citizen and natural born citizen, which, I believe, was your original argument.

 Permalink 05/07/11 @ 19:11
Troy

In response to: Afterbirther Nation Revisited: A Civil Disagreement Meets Obama's Born Identity

Troy [Visitor]

The problem with your argument, however, is that the text you’ve chosen to cite is that it directly conflicts with present U.S. law. As such, it has no effect on anything whatsoever. The Founders may very well have intended “natural-born citizens” to follow a definition given in a book written twenty years prior to the adoption of the Constitution, but in the two hundred years since then, on a myriad of issues, we as a nation and as a government have indicated that we are not and cannot be bound by the Founders’ concepts of every single detail. I needn’t remind you that the Founders also agreed that most blacks should count only as three-fifths of a human being. In any event, it is impossible for The Law of Nations to “flesh out” the meaning of U.S. law when U.S. law has indicated a clear shift away from 18th Century theories on citizenship and naturalization. Simply put, Barry, your argument that citizenship derives from the father is completely wrong. Both U.S. statutory law and the common law have said so. 1758 French texts have absolutely no mandatory impact on present day interpretations of U.S. law. For instance, a person born abroad to an American mother and alien father would be granted jus sanguinis U.S. citizenship at birth, as opposed to the jus soli citizenship provided by the Fourteenth Amendment. Does jus sanguinis citizenship deem people to be natural-born citizens of the United States? Our Courts have not yet had to address this issue. However, the direction of U.S. law seems to indicate that they would not be inclined to follow The Law of Nations‘ interpretation of a natural-born citizen. Before saying that centuries-old treatises “flesh out” current U.S. law, it may be best to check the law and subsequent court interpretations. I thought you might have already discerned this much, but I, too, often assume too much.

 Permalink 05/07/11 @ 17:59

In response to: Afterbirther Nation Revisited: A Civil Disagreement Meets Obama's Born Identity

barrysecrest [Member]

Because, Troy, the term “natural born” should be viewed within the original terms that the founders had intended. “The law of Nations” dealt specifically with the prevailing view, at the time, of the Founders with regard to original intent. It further describes in summarizing detail, the reasoning behind the Founders original intent. It fleshes out the meanings leading up to 8 U.S.C. 1401 or the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. I thought you might have already discerned this, but I often assume too much.

 Permalink 05/07/11 @ 16:32
Troy

In response to: Afterbirther Nation Revisited: A Civil Disagreement Meets Obama's Born Identity

Troy [Visitor]

Barry, why are you and I Took the Red Pill quoting Section 212 of “The Law of Nations"? It has about as much authority in determining who qualifies as a natural-born citizen of the United States as does “Green Eggs & Ham.” Shouldn’t you instead focus your efforts on showing how Obama does not fit within the terms of 8 U.S.C. 1401 or the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution? Just a thought…

 Permalink 05/07/11 @ 15:26
Montana

In response to: Afterbirther Nation Revisited: A Civil Disagreement Meets Obama's Born Identity

Montana [Visitor]

The few Birthers that are left will never win any court case, but will continue to try to spread their “little brain” lies, win a case or everyone in the world will continue to see you as dumb, stupid or racist, maybe all three. Can you blame them. I love you guys, its fun playing with you.

 Permalink 05/07/11 @ 15:17
Kevin

In response to: Afterbirther Nation Revisited: A Civil Disagreement Meets Obama's Born Identity

Kevin [Visitor]

1 = US President
0 = Birthers/ Bin Laden/ Trump/ Huckabee

Deal with the truth!

 Permalink 05/06/11 @ 17:14

In response to: Afterbirther Nation Revisited: A Civil Disagreement Meets Obama's Born Identity

barrysecrest [Member]

Thank you Mr. Footbar!

 Permalink 05/04/11 @ 14:59
IGnatius T Foobar

In response to: Afterbirther Nation Revisited: A Civil Disagreement Meets Obama's Born Identity

IGnatius T Foobar [Visitor]

This is an *excellent* summary of the current situation. Well done. Perhaps the reason the birthplace issue persists is specifically because Mr. Obama is so blatantly and unapologetically anti-American. After all, Clinton tried to socialize our health care system too, but no one ever suspected Bubba of being a foreigner.

Thanks for some excellent writing. I’ll be subscribing to the feed for your blog.

 Permalink 05/04/11 @ 10:06
Gregory Glass

In response to: Afterbirther Nation Revisited: A Civil Disagreement Meets Obama's Born Identity

Gregory Glass [Visitor]

“I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother’s race.” Barack Obama What else needs to be said.

 Permalink 05/03/11 @ 23:26
tonya

In response to: Afterbirther Nation Revisited: A Civil Disagreement Meets Obama's Born Identity

tonya [Visitor]

Rebirther here. Thx for this article. I have been so beside myself at ann coulter, Orielly and others mentioned here who, as smart as they are, seem to agree with the main stream that a fake bc and a newspaper anouncment is sufficient proof of obama’s eligibility. There has got to be something else going on here. I call my reps every morning now and tell them obama is not a natural born citizen and needs to be removed. Sometimes I have to explain to the message taker what natural born citizen means. I will continue to tell everyone about this issue and explain to them what it means. Thanks again. I enjoyed this article so much.

 Permalink 05/03/11 @ 23:21

In response to: Afterbirther Nation Revisited: A Civil Disagreement Meets Obama's Born Identity

barrysecrest [Member]

Indeed Cheryl, the kool-aid drinkers such as Montana will proliferate until,perhaps, it is too late. Montana, it has been proven, was birthed with a cellular defect that makes him both liberal and stupid. But this is the world that we live in, where political differences are now reduced to cries of racism and “cross-burning” for heaven’s sake. Paul Johnson, a black writer,conservative and special ops warrior writes for this website on a regular basis and I have nothing but admiration for him. I suppose my racism line is limited to ideology. There will be much weeping and gnashing of teeth by those such as Montana when the kool-aid makes its final and painful exit. Unless, of course, folks like you and I manage to persevere and triumph through this season of collectivistic chauvinism.

 Permalink 05/03/11 @ 23:11
Cheryl Spriggs

In response to: Afterbirther Nation Revisited: A Civil Disagreement Meets Obama's Born Identity

Cheryl Spriggs [Visitor]

The comment from Montana is exactly the rant this article speaks about. I despair.

 Permalink 05/03/11 @ 22:20
Montana

In response to: Afterbirther Nation Revisited: A Civil Disagreement Meets Obama's Born Identity

Montana [Visitor]

Our president had already showed his US passport to;

1. Get a Passport;
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2008/03/20/obamas_passport_files_hacked/

2. Become a US Senator;

I feel sorry for all the little Birthers, It’s not their fault; it’s your families’ fault that taught you that you were better than other people based on race, creed ethnicity, color, nationality or sex, in short they engrained in you their hate (what a legacy).

But you know at some point you need to grow up and act like an adult and think for yourself and distinguish what is true and what is BS.

But there is where the little Birthers find yourself because we all know it was never about a birth certificate or grades, because we all know you want to go around wearing white sheets, burn crosses and hang people who are not like you, we know that your growth is stunted in your hate, and hate is what this is all about, you will never win anymore, and I feel sorry for all of you. I can only imagine when our President is re-elected what you phonies will lie about next. Oh, and just know, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and sounds like a duck, it’s a duck, the little Birthers are a bunch of racists!

 Permalink 05/02/11 @ 22:34

©2017 by Kim Stallings • Contact
Credits: Web Site Engine