LEFT WING LOONS
See other LEFT WING LOONS Articles
Title: The Dirty “little” Secret Of ...The Natural Born Citizen Clause --- Revealed.
Source:
naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com
URL Source: http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress ... -born-citizen-clause-revealed/
Published: Jan 27, 2012
Author: Leo Donofrio
Post Date: 2012-01-27 14:14:32 by BorisY
Keywords: native, naturalized - immigrant, natural - parents
Views: 102499
Comments: 232
Natural Born Citizen Respecting the Constitution The Current INS Officially Recognizes A Delineation Between Natural-Born and Native-Born. The Dirty “little” Secret Of The Natural Born Citizen Clause Revealed. I have emphasized the word “little” because the truth of the law on this issue is very simple, folks. So simple that the mystery is deciphered by application of one of the most clear, concise and undeniable rules of law; the code of statutory construction governs, and therefore, “natural born Citizen” must require something more than being born in the United States. Let me put it to you in appropriately simple language: Clause A = “Only a natural born Citizen may be President.” Clause B = “Anyone born in the United States is a Citizen.” (While these two clauses reflect Article 2, Section 1, and the 14th Amendment, I shall refer to them as “Clause A” and “Clause B” for now.) The code of statutory construction is learned by every student in law school, and every practicing attorney has confronted it. Every judge is required to apply the rule equally to all statutes, and the Constitution. There is no wiggle room at all. The rule states that when a court examines two clauses, unless Congress has made it clear that one clause repeals the other, the court must observe a separate legal effect for each. More specifically, regardless of the chronology of enactment, the general clause can never govern the specific. Clause B is a general rule of citizenship, which states that all persons born in the country are members of the nation. Clause A is a specific clause that says only those members of the nation who are “natural born” may be President. According to the rule of statutory construction, the court must determine that Clause A requires something more than Clause B. It’s truly that simple. This is not some crazy conspiracy theory. It’s not controversial. This is not rocket science. Every single attorney reading this right now knows, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that I have accurately explained the rule of statutory construction to you. Any attorney who denies this rule, is lying. The rule cannot be denied. And its simplicity cannot be ignored. Now let’s see what the United States Supreme Court has to say about the rule: “Where there is no clear intention otherwise, a specific statute will not be controlled or nullified by a general one, regardless of the priority of enactment. See, e. g., Bulova Watch Co. v. United States, 365 U.S. 753, 758 (1961); Rodgers v. United States, 185 U.S. 83, 87 -89 (1902). The courts are not at liberty to pick and choose among congressional enactments, and when two statutes are capable of co-existence, it is the duty of the courts, absent a clearly expressed congressional intention to the contrary, to regard each as effective. “When there are two acts upon the same subject, the rule is to give effect to both if possible . . . The intention of the legislature to repeal `must be clear and manifest.’ ” United States v. Borden Co., 308 U.S. 188, 198 (1939).” Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 550-551 (1974). This is what I mean by no wiggle room – “The courts are not at liberty to pick and choose among congressional enactments…” Any court construing Clause A is not at liberty to assume that Congress intended to put the words “natural born” into Clause B. The general does not govern the specific, and the rule requires the court to “give effect to both if possible”. Is it possible to give separate effect to both Clause A and Clause B? Yes. The Constitution tells us that any Citizen can be a Senator, or Representative, but that to be President one must be a “natural born Citizen”. The Constitution specifically assigns different civic statuses to “Citizens” and “natural born Citizens”. Therefore, not only is it possible to give separate effect to both Clause A and Clause B, it is absolutely required by law, and no court has the ability to circumvent the rule. Had the original framers intended for any “born Citizen” to be eligible to the office of President, they would not have included the word “natural” in the clause. Additionally, had the framers of the 14th Amendment intended to declare that every person born in the country was a “natural born Citizen”, then the 14th Amendment would contain clear and manifest language to that effect. But it doesn’t. Therefore, each clause must be given separate force and effect. Deputy Chief Judge Malihi explained the rule of statutory construction in his denial of candidate Obama’s Motion to Dismiss, wherein his opinion of the Court stated: “Statutory provisions must be read as they are written, and this Court finds that the cases cited by Defendant are not controlling. When the Court construes a constitutional or statutory provision, the ‘first step . . . is to examine the plain statutory language.’ Morrison v. Claborn, 294 Ga. App. 508, 512 (2008). ‘Where the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, judicial construction is not only unnecessary but forbidden. In the absence of words of limitation, words in a statute should be given their ordinary and everyday meaning.’ Six Flags Over Ga. v. Kull, 276 Ga. 210, 211 (2003) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Because there is no other ‘natural and reasonable construction’ of the statutory language, this Court is ‘not authorized either to read into or to read out that which would add to or change its meaning.‘ Blum v. Schrader, 281 Ga. 238, 240 (2006) (quotation marks omitted).” Order On Motion To Dismiss, Deputy Chief Judge Malihi, Jan. 3, 2012, pg. 3. (Emphasis added.) Therefore, the term “natural born” must be considered as requiring something more than simple birth in the country. And Judge Malihi states, quite clearly, in his ruling above, that the Court “is not authorized to read into or to read out that which would add to or change its meaning.” The rule is the same for election statutes in Georgia as it is for the Constitution of the United States. The rule of statutory construction, with regard to the Constitution, was best stated by Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803): “It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it.” Id. 174. (Emphasis added.) If the 14th Amendment was held to declare that all persons born in the country, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, were natural-born citizens, then the “natural born Citizen” clause would be rendered inoperative. It would be superfluous. And its specific provision would, therefore, be governed by the general provision of the 14th Amendment. The United States Supreme Court has determined that it is inadmissible to even make that argument. Any genuine construction of the “natural born Citizen” clause must begin from the starting point that it requires something more than citizenship by virtue of being born on U.S. soil. Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), tells you exactly what that something is; citizen parents. Leo Donofrio, Esq. [For a more detailed analysis of this issue, please see my Amicus Brief entered in the Georgia POTUS eligibility cases.] [See commenting rules here.]
Poster Comment: People who can't figure this out shouldn't be allowed to vote - citizenship !
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-128) not displayed.
.
.
.
#129. To: mininggold, *Arab Spring Jihad* (#128)
No, you're halucinating again.
Obama's watch stopped on 24 May 2008, but he's been too busy smoking crack to notice.
Then you will agree that the normal family unit is pretty much socialistic.
Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET
No, just wondering how you can argue right to life and against right to health care.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. Thomas Jefferson We probably will see widespread civil disorder in the 1980s, as a direct result of our faltering economic system. Ron Paul
Well I see the spin doctor is alive and well today....... So just because I don't hate Jews like you do, you think that I've fallen in love with them..... Interesting assumption.....
Quiz of the Day: Who made the statement "The world would be a better place if only Men were to vote?????? HINT: It was a woman!!!
Why are we letting someone who has shown they lack cognitive thought decide if the child should live or die?????? Only a small percentage of abortions are done because of health problems to the child/mother or because of rape/incest..... So why then does the child have to die just because it's mother is stupid???? Why doesn't it have the right to live???? I don't have a problem with people getting HealthCare as long as they can pay for the services and the bureaucrats stay the hell out of it!!!!
Quiz of the Day: Who made the statement "The world would be a better place if only Men were to vote?????? HINT: It was a woman!!!
So just because I don't hate Jews like you do, you think that I've fallen in love with them..... Interesting assumption..... You must mean yourself since there's nothing false about my statement, or my description of much of your posting history, as was proven by your very post. You need to ask yourself why is Israel so sacred to you, that you overlook in that country the same practices that you claim to dislike in this one? Notice how I happen to not cram all Jews into the Israeli camp.
Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET
So is that why you hate them????? Because they do what you support here????
Quiz of the Day: Who made the statement "The world would be a better place if only Men were to vote?????? HINT: It was a woman!!!
No.... I meant you...... How is letting a child live such a bad thing???? Why don't you explain to me why it is...... I didn't know working for a living was such a bad thing either???? Why don't you explain to me why it is...... Next thing you're going to say is others sharing your air is a bad thing!!!! I thought you guys were all about sharing others possessions???? By the way who said Newt was a Conservative anyway????? (Oh yea that's right those who "THINK" they are and the Leftards)!!!!
Quiz of the Day: Who made the statement "The world would be a better place if only Men were to vote?????? HINT: It was a woman!!!
I don't have a problem with people getting HealthCare as long as they can pay for the services and the bureaucrats stay the hell out of it!!!! However if a unborn child happens to occupy the womb of one of your stupid mothers too poor to afford pre-natal medical care then it's ok for that baby to die of a treatable medical condition, right?
He who knows best knows how little he knows. Thomas Jefferson We probably will see widespread civil disorder in the 1980s, as a direct result of our faltering economic system. Ron Paul
No they didn't. You're reading that wrong. They had to allow 'citizens' to be president in the beginning, because there were no 35 year old natural born citizens. The only 'natural born citizens' were citizens born after the adoption of the Articles of Confederation. The AOC was formally ratified in 1781. In 1787, when the Constitution was ratified, the only natural born citizens around were 6 or younger.
“Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866)) Rep. John A. Bingham, the author behind the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, in comments about Section 1992 of the Revised Statutes. ****************************************************************************** At a Judiciary Committee hearing on April 3, Leahy asked Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, himself a former Federal judge, if he had doubts that McCain was eligible to serve as President. “My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen,” Chertoff replied. “That is mine, too,” said Leahy. www.leahy.senate.gov/pres...d4-440e-b53d-754f5bb58983 Both parents must be citizens of the US in order for their offspring to be natural born citizens.
Uh...no...I'm not. They had to allow 'citizens' to be president in the beginning, because there were no 35 year old natural born citizens. They Framers conferred US citizenship on all people alive and on the soil of the US. After that, anyone born on the soil of the US, those born into servitude and Indians excepted, was a natural born citizen. Anyone who immigrated was subject to Congress' Article I powers regarding immigration and naturalization. There is nothing in the USCON and there is nothing in case or administrative law that creates that mythical third class of citizen. That's N-O-T-H-I-N-G.
I'll believe that a corporation is a person 1 second after Texas executes one...
born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty
Nothing that you posted lends any credence to that being either a logical or legal conclusion. There was no corollary statement "but if one or both parents are not American then the offspring is not natural born". Nor does it state "My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen and if they are not then the offspring are not,” Chertoff replied. IN other words, you're making a leap over a very, very wide chasm of logic. Natural BORN not NATURAL BORN PARENTS.
I'll believe that a corporation is a person 1 second after Texas executes one...
Yea so? Neither England nor Kenya had or has any claim to a baby born to non-diplomats in the US. Nor was Obama, Sr. compelled under any US, British or Kenyan law to abrogate the US citizenship rights of Barack II. The test of natural born citizenship is if the child, at birth, has the full rights, privileges and immunities of any other citizen. I don't know what is worse, the fact that "your" argument is weak or that "you" don't realize how weak it is.
I'll believe that a corporation is a person 1 second after Texas executes one...
Who says I hate them? Who I detest are posters too chickenshit to even dare criticize the hold they have over this country. So... where did you meet Stone, at your local mental hospital? Because you both act like borderlines.
Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET
The very clause that you posted above distinguishes between a citizen and a natural born citizen.... No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States. If their intention was to allow any citizen to be eligible for the office, then the entire first sentence in the clause above wouldn't have been necessary. Read the Federalist Papers. They were intent on keeping foreign influence "out of our councils". The fact that this constitutional issue, along with many, many others has been bastardized over the years doesn't change the original intent.
IN other words, you're making a leap over a very, very wide chasm of logic. If a person says "the sky is blue" does that mean that the sky is not blue because the statement didn't include the phrase "and the sky is not red"? It is specifically stated in the clause that you posted. There is a difference between a citizen and a natural born citizen. If there is no difference, why use both terms in the same sentence? You may want to read... again, the Law of Nations, posted here at Constitution.org.
I would be happy if the Israelis would simply stop bullying, beating and imprisoning Palestinian Arab kids to get back at their older siblings or as a vehicle to torture these families on the whole enough to make them flee their homeland like the Nazis did to Jewish people before the Shoah.
And I know that you're going to bring up British common law, but does it make sense that the Framers of the US Constitution would rely on the common law of the King whom they rebelled against, or 'natural law' which they refer to many times?
Only in so far as the USCON confers citizenship on all those present on the soil at the time of the adoption to make them eligible for POTUS versus all those who shall be subsequently born on the soil AFTER the adoption. It makes no other distinction or qualification, e.g. immmigrants who arrived AFTER the adoption and had children. Hilarious that you would believe that the Framers tolerated non-natural born citizens being POTUS at the onset of this nation but then wouldn't tolerate Obama, who was born in Hawaii, as being eligible...
I'll believe that a corporation is a person 1 second after Texas executes one...
The USCON specifically denies citizenship to Indians and Slaves. England's citizenship rules were detailed by Blackstone and stand in stark contrast to Vattel. English citizenship rules - at the time - made all of those who were born within the realm subjects, i.e. citizens, with all rights, privileges and immunities, of the Crown of England.
I'll believe that a corporation is a person 1 second after Texas executes one...
English Common law was the law in effect in the colonies. Look at the early cases that went to the Supreme Court. Almost all of them dealt with a Common Law rather than Constitutional issue. A notable exception being Calder v. Bull Also, if you read the entirity of the D/I, Jefferson accuses the King of IGNORING established (common) law by asserting the King's own will on the colonies over the established Rule of Law. There is nothing in any of the writings of any of the Framers that had the affect of negating English Common law. IN fact, Blackstone is very often cited by Jay, Chase, Marshal, Story - all very important justices. So, again, simply surmising that because the English colonists, who considered themselves Englishmen and thus due all rights and privileges of being so, rebelled against the Crown of England, that they somehow negated an entire body of law, with roots going back more than 500 years is a premise unsupported by even anecdotal evidence.
I'll believe that a corporation is a person 1 second after Texas executes one...
Every person born in the country is, at the moment of birth, prima facie a citizen; and he who would deny it must take upon himself the burden of proving some great disfranchisement strong enough to override the ‘natural born’ right as recognized by the Constitution in terms the most simple and comprehensive, and without any reference to race or color, or any other accidental circumstance.” Bates himself saw only one (familiar) exception to the rule: “the small and admitted class of the natural born composed of the children of foreign ministers and the like... Edward Bates, USAAG, 1862 A "natural born citizen" is not one made by law or otherwise, but born.
I'll believe that a corporation is a person 1 second after Texas executes one...
Natural born liberal ! Ever watch 48 hours - homocide ! Typical gangbanger - dead teenager with 2 - 3 children ! The mtv graduate is - pregnant teenagers with tattoos - piercing on drugs not married ! Warjr - street bastards need govt father - mothers !
If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !
My question is why is she pregnant to start with when she knows she can't afford it????? Why is it we spend so much taxpayer money on "TRYING" to fix the stupid things stupid people do?????? Instead of spending the money wisely and educating them.. Ohhhh that's right that means they would be too smart to vote for those "STUPID" politicians!!!! Free Prenatal Care, Low or No Cost Prenatal Care By Robin Elise Weiss, LCCE, About.com Guide Prenatal care is important for a healthy pregnancy. Sometimes pregnancy occurs and you are not ready. This can often mean the lack of quality prenatal care. This lack of prenatal care can be dangerous because you do not have anyone to help you figure out the ins and outs of pregnancy or to pick up on the rare serious complication. In essence, without prenatal care, you have no life guard. Here are some places that you can look for locally to help you get prenatal care: • Local Health Department Your local health department will be able to tell you where a prenatal care clinic is run. They may have one that they run or can help you find free or reduced prices on prenatal care depending on your income level. You can call 1- 800-311-BABY (1-800-311-2229) to connect you to your local health care department. This information is also available in Spanish by calling 1-800-504- 7081. • Local Medical School If you live in an area with a medical school or even have a bigger medical school in your state, even if it is not in your town, call their clinics. They often run clinics for prenatal care both at the medical school and in local towns within a certain distance. These are staffed by trained and qualified doctors and midwives who are training residents (doctors who have graduated from medical school but are learning the specialty of obstetrics), midwives and sometimes student doctors and nurses. Costs will vary depending on income. • Planned Parenthood There are many cities that are serviced by Planned Parenthood. They do provide sliding scale prenatal care. This means it will be based on your ability to pay. • Medicaid This is a sponsored program for women who do not have the money to pay for prenatal care. After the application process, you will be given a list of providers of care. This should include doctors and midwives in your area who have already agreed to take Medicaid. They will provide you with the exact same medical care as private pay or insurance based patients. Check in the blue pages of your phone book. • Other Resources You may have local resources that are helpful for finding prenatal care. It may be that your religious family has a prenatal care provider who will work with you. Or perhaps you can make payment arrangements with a local midwife or doctor. Be up front about your situation. Be truthful about what you can and can't afford.
Quiz of the Day: Who made the statement "The world would be a better place if only Men were to vote?????? HINT: It was a woman!!!
So what are they doing besides spying on us, "TRYING" to influence our foreign policies, trying to influence union policies, trying to influence the ACLU, trying to influence the ADL, hunting down terrorists, hunting down old Nazis and kicking the Palestinians ass!!!!
Quiz of the Day: Who made the statement "The world would be a better place if only Men were to vote?????? HINT: It was a woman!!!
She's stupid, remember. Would your death panel deny her and her unborn baby medical care because she's stupid? Instead of spending the money wisely and educating them.. Ohhhh that's right that means they would be too smart to vote for those "STUPID" politicians!!!! I'm all for education. It seems to work pretty well to reduce unwanted pregnancy and abortion rates in socialist, old Europe. Here are some places that you can look for locally to help you get prenatal care: Aren't conservatives working hard to eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood? Medcaid, there's another on the conservative hit list. Medical schools - how many get by with no government (taxpayer) money? Local health department - we know where their money comes from.
Post-Conflict Regime Type: Probability of Being a Democracy Five Years After the Conflict Has Ended; Violent Campaigns - 4%, Nonviolent Campaigns - 46%. Erica Chenoweth, Ph.D., Stanford University,
It depends on what "PART" of Europe you're talking about..... Some are lower than the US, some are on par with the US and some are 2-3 times higher that the US!!!!
Quiz of the Day: Who made the statement "The world would be a better place if only Men were to vote?????? HINT: It was a woman!!!
Well I guess it depends on how much money they bring in from doing business with the public, tuition from students, grants/donations from the drug companies, other miscellaneous business corporations and private individuals!!!!
Quiz of the Day: Who made the statement "The world would be a better place if only Men were to vote?????? HINT: It was a woman!!!
If they thought they were getting their monies worth I don't think they would squawk, but I would say they don't think abortion is worth funding!!!!
Quiz of the Day: Who made the statement "The world would be a better place if only Men were to vote?????? HINT: It was a woman!!!
Ann Coulter. Oh, and the exact quote was "It would be a much better country if women did not vote." Coulter is as much a crazed neocon as Newt, but I have to give her credit: she certainly gives the liberal morons fits. :) Some other choice quotes: That was the theme of the Million Mom March: I don't need a brain — I've got a womb. God said so: Go forth, be fruitful, multiply, and rape the planet — it's yours. I think [women] should be armed but should not vote ... women have no capacity to understand how money is earned. They have a lot of ideas on how to spend it ... it's always more money on education, more money on child care, more money on day care. Liberals don't read books – they don't read anything … That's why they're liberals. They watch TV, absorb the propaganda, and vote on the basis of urges. Liberals don't read books – they don't read anything … That's why they're liberals. They watch TV, absorb the propaganda, and vote on the basis of urges. Democrats cannot conceive of "hate speech" towards Christians because, in their eyes, Christians always deserve it. Being a Christian means that I am called upon to do battle against lies, injustice, cruelty, hypocrisy — you know, all the virtues in the church of liberalism. The tolerant liberal suddenly becomes very intolerant when their official religion is challenged. If someone enters the teaching profession for the big bucks, aren't they too stupid to be teaching our kids? Liberals have managed to eliminate the idea of manly honor. Instead, all they have is womanly indignation. Democrats want to turn the entire citizenry into welfare recipients. Liberals are hopping mad because Rush Limbaugh referred to phony soldiers as "phony soldiers." … True, all Democrats in the military are not phony soldiers, but all phony soldiers seem to be Democrats. The reason [Liberals] sob about the dark night of fascism under McCarthy is to prevent Americans from ever noticing that liberals consistently attack their own country. "If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!” -- Samuel Adams --
The University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, for instance, got more than half of its funding from NIH in 2004. Between 2-16% of medical school funding comes from drug companies nation wide.
Post-Conflict Regime Type: Probability of Being a Democracy Five Years After the Conflict Has Ended; Violent Campaigns - 4%, Nonviolent Campaigns - 46%. Erica Chenoweth, Ph.D., Stanford University,
Abortions are only a small part of what they do, 3%.
Post-Conflict Regime Type: Probability of Being a Democracy Five Years After the Conflict Has Ended; Violent Campaigns - 4%, Nonviolent Campaigns - 46%. Erica Chenoweth, Ph.D., Stanford University,
ROTFLMAO!!!!!!
Quiz of the Day: Who made the statement "The world would be a better place if only Men were to vote?????? HINT: It was a woman!!!
And accounts for right about 40% of their income!!!! For every 340 abortions they perform they do 1 adoption referral..... And they perform 47 abortions for every 1 prenatal care client..... Not very good numbers are they..... Can't say as I blame the Conservatives for wanting more for their money!!!!
Quiz of the Day: Who made the statement "The world would be a better place if only Men were to vote?????? HINT: It was a woman!!!
I'm glad to bring a little humor into your day. They wouldn't tolerate Romney either.
For every 340 abortions they perform they do 1 adoption referral..... And they perform 47 abortions for every 1 prenatal care client..... Not very good numbers are they..... No they aren't, where did you get them? Obviously these numbers are not from your source: Planned Parenthood calculates the numbers by services provided, rather than dollars spent. In a fact sheet last updated in March 2011, the group lists the following breakdown of its services: Contraception (including reversible contraception, emergency contraception, vasectomies and tubal sterilizations): 4,009,549 services Sexually transmitted infections testing and treatment: 3,955,916 services Cancer screening and prevention: 1,830,811 services Other women’s health services (including pregnancy tests and prenatal care): 1,178,369 services Abortions: 332,278 procedures Miscellaneous (including primary care and adoption referrals): 76,977 Total services: 11,383,900 By this tally, abortions accounted for just under 3 percent of the procedures Planned Parenthood provided in 2009, which is the most recent year for which the group is reporting statistics. www.politifact.com/truth-...ices-are-well-over-90-pe/ Planned Parenthood gets $363 million a year from the federal government. None of that money can be used for abortions.
Post-Conflict Regime Type: Probability of Being a Democracy Five Years After the Conflict Has Ended; Violent Campaigns - 4%, Nonviolent Campaigns - 46%. Erica Chenoweth, Ph.D., Stanford University,
They wouldn't tolerate Romney either. They tolerated the Quakers, the Papists and, in Jefferson's and Madison's case, the Calvinists. Regardless, the Berfer arguments, from any angle - Article II, BC, COB, Vattel etc - do not withstand even minimal scrutiny.
I'll believe that a corporation is a person 1 second after Texas executes one...
For every 340 abortions they perform they do 1 adoption referral..... And they perform 47 abortions for every 1 prenatal care client..... Not very good numbers are they..... No they aren't, where did you get them? Obviously these numbers are not from your source: The 40% is from "CLINIC" income not total income..... they receive probably close to 6 or 700 million from the government, corporate donors and private donors..... Straight from the PPFA: STI/STD Testing and Treatment — 38.0 percent of services in 2010 STI Tests, Women and Men 3,552,955 Genital Warts (HPV) Treatments 51,197 HIV Tests, Women and Men 574,901 Total 4,179,053 Contraception — 33.5 percent of services in 2010 Reversible Contraception Clients, Women** 2,219,726 Emergency Contraception Kits 1,461,816 Female sterilization procedures 605 Vasectomy Clients 3,290 Total-3,685,437 Cancer Screening and Prevention — 14.5 percent of services in 2010 Pap Tests 769,769 HPV Vaccinations 34,130 Breast Exams/ Breast Care 747,607 Colposcopy Procedures*** 41,549 LOOP/LEEP Procedures*** 2,432 Cryotherapy Procedures*** 1,254 Total-1,596,741 Other Women’s Health Services — 10.4 percent of services in 2010 Pregnancy Tests 1,113,460 Prenatal Services 31,098 Total-1,144,558 Abortion Services — 3.0 percent of services in 2010 Abortion Procedures 329,445 Other Services — 0.6 percent of services in 2010 Family Practice Services, Women and Men 35,062 Adoption Referrals to Other Agencies 841 Other Procedures, Women and Men**** 32,229 Total-68,132 Total Services 11,003,366 *Patient Care Provided by Planned Parenthood Affiliate Health Centers in 2010 So...... Abortion-329,445, Prenatal-31,089 Adoption-841.... Which equals out to........ 1.5 abortions for every prenatal service and 391 abortions to every adoption service.... (looks like his/her calculator was broken because this is the information he/she used from the PPFAs website)..... The numbers still aren't pretty no matter which calculator you use.......
Quiz of the Day: Who made the statement "The world would be a better place if only Men were to vote?????? HINT: It was a woman!!!
Comments (169 - 232) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latestweren't you the one who insinuated all kids need to work for their room and board?
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#130. To: hondo68 (#129)
No, you're halucinating again.
#131. To: CZ82 (#124)
You "ASSUME" that "SOME" Conservatives don't care about a babies welfare just because they oppose abortion!!!!
#132. To: mininggold (#125)
Maybe having young children working as janitors is the conservative idea of how to 'care' for children. Is that a standard practice in your adopted country of Israel?
#133. To: lucysmom (#131)
No, just wondering how you can argue right to life and against right to health care.
#134. To: CZ82 (#132)
(Edited)
Well I see the spin doctor is alive and well today.......
#135. To: mininggold (#134)
You need to ask yourself why is Israel so sacred to you, that you overlook in that country the same practices that you claim to dislike in this one?
#136. To: mininggold (#134)
(Edited)
You must mean yourself since there's nothing false about my statement, or my description of much of your posting history, as was proven by your very post.
#137. To: CZ82 (#133)
So why then does the child have to die just because it's mother is stupid???? Why doesn't it have the right to live????
#138. To: war (#10)
They used "natural born" to distinguish from those born prior to the USCON's adoption.
#139. To: war (#138)
#140. To: We The People (#138)
No they didn't. You're reading that wrong.
#141. To: war (#140)
#142. To: We The People (#139)
Both parents must be citizens of the US in order for their offspring to be natural born citizens.
#143. To: A K A Stone (#141)
(Edited)
born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty
#144. To: CZ82 (#135)
(Edited)
So is that why you hate them????? Because they do what you support here????
#145. To: war (#140)
There is nothing in the USCON and there is nothing in case or administrative law that creates that mythical third class of citizen.
#146. To: war (#142)
(Edited)
Nothing that you posted lends any credence to that being either a logical or legal conclusion. There was no corollary statement "but if one or both parents are not American then the offspring is not natural born". Nor does it state "My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen and if they are not then the offspring are not,” Chertoff replied.
#147. To: mininggold (#128)
"I'm sorry.... weren't you the one who insinuated all kids need to work for their room and board? And that anything less is dratted socialism."
#148. To: war (#146)
#149. To: We The People (#146)
(Edited)
There is a difference between a citizen and a natural born citizen.
#150. To: We The People (#146)
(Edited)
If a person says "the sky is blue" does that mean that the sky is not blue because the statement didn't include the phrase "and the sky is not red"?
#151. To: We The People (#148)
(Edited)
And I know that you're going to bring up British common law, but does it make sense that the Framers of the US Constitution would rely on the common law of the King whom they rebelled against, or 'natural law' which they refer to many times?
#152. To: We The People (#145)
(Edited)
#153. To: war (#152)
(Edited)
#154. To: lucysmom (#137)
However if a unborn child happens to occupy the womb of one of your stupid mothers too poor to afford pre-natal medical care then it's ok for that baby to die of a treatable medical condition, right?
#155. To: mininggold (#144)
Who I detest are posters too chickenshit to even dare criticize the hold they have over this country.
#156. To: CZ82 (#154)
My question is why is she pregnant to start with when she knows she can't afford it?????
#157. To: lucysmom (#156)
I'm all for education. It seems to work pretty well to reduce unwanted pregnancy and abortion rates in socialist, old Europe.
#158. To: lucysmom (#156)
Medical schools - how many get by with no government (taxpayer) money?
#159. To: lucysmom (#156)
Aren't conservatives working hard to eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood?
#160. To: CZ82 (#159)
Quiz of the Day: Who made the statement "The world would be a better place if only Men were to vote?????? HINT: It was a woman!!!
I have to say I'm all for public flogging. One type of criminal that a public humiliation might work particularly well with are the juvenile delinquents, a lot of whom consider it a badge of honor to be sent to juvenile detention. And it might not be such a cool thing in the 'hood' to be flogged publicly.
#161. To: CZ82 (#158)
Well I guess it depends on how much money they bring in from doing business with the public, tuition from students, grants/donations from the drug companies, other miscellaneous business corporations and private individuals!!!!
#162. To: CZ82 (#159)
If they thought they were getting their monies worth I don't think they would squawk, but I would say they don't think abortion is worth funding!!!!
#163. To: Capitalist Eric (#160)
Liberals don't read books – they don't read anything … That's why they're liberals. They watch TV, absorb the propaganda, and vote on the basis of urges.
#164. To: lucysmom (#162)
Abortions are only a small part of what they do, 3%.
#165. To: war (#149)
Hilarious that you would believe that the Framers tolerated non-natural born citizens being POTUS at the onset of this nation but then wouldn't tolerate Obama, who was born in Hawaii, as being eligible...
#166. To: CZ82 (#164)
And accounts for right about 40% of their income!!!!
#167. To: We The People (#165)
(Edited)
I'm glad to bring a little humor into your day.
#168. To: lucysmom (#166)
And accounts for right about 40% of their income!!!!
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]