msgbartop
A rare breed, a true Native Floridian, whose family has lived out in more rural parts of the state for many generations and continues to do so. Known to be very self-sufficient by growing or hunting their own food and building their own homes. Not at all like what most people nowadays picture as a Floridian. A Florida Cracker is a true Southerner.
msgbarbottom

06 Apr 14 Conundrums of Socialism in America

The definition of Conundrum is something that is puzzling or confusing; a riddle. 


Here are six Conundrums of socialism in the United States of America:

1. America is capitalist and greedy – yet half of the population is subsidized.

2. Half of the population is subsidized – yet they think they are victims.

3. They think they are victims – yet their representatives run the government.

4. Their representatives run the government – yet the poor keep getting poorer.

5. The poor keep getting poorer – yet they have things that people in other countries only dream about.

6. They have things that people in other countries only dream about – yet they want America to be more like those other countries.
Think about it! And that, my friends, pretty much sums up the USA in the early 21st Century.

26 Sep 13 France honors the Germans for D-Day

This really makes me sick.  My family paid DEARLY to save Europe from the Germans.

http://www.thisiscolossal.com/2013/09/the-fallen-9000/

Hey FRANCE… next time we promise NO DEAD INVADERS… You can just contiune to ENJOY them…

 

25 Sep 13 UNCOVERED: Gov Conspiracy to get the modern day witch

Just saying….. I can’t wait to see what the conspiracy people come up with on this one.. Too me, when I see these new Federally Mandated Chair

Yesterday…

Dunking Chair -- before

Dunking Chair — before

Today…

 

Witch Dunking Chair -- Today

Witch Dunking Chair — Today

01 Dec 12 Washington State his the pot head wall?

I am going to have to wait and see, but knowing how “the gov” operates.. I suspect the pot heads that voted in legalized Pot in Washington state will find the following..

Before today: An ounce of pot costs you a misdemeanor

After today: An ounce of pot costs you two years in Jail for “tax evasion”

I already hear the reports.. Legalizing POT will MAKE the state of Washington X millions a year.  Can’t wait to see them “experience” the liberal gov that they probably wanted in all other aspects of their lives.  Can’t wait for them to learn.

17 Nov 12 Why the GOP won’t challenge vote fraud | Fellowship of the Minds

Why the GOP won’t challenge vote fraud | Fellowship of the Minds.

The following is what the RNC and RSC, in the Consent Decree, agreed they would do:

[I]n the future, in all states and territories of the United States:

(a) comply with all applicable state and federal laws protecting the rights of duly qualified citizens to vote for the candidate(s) of their choice;

(b) in the event that they produce or place any signs which are part of ballot security activities, cause said signs to disclose that they are authorized or sponsored by the party committees and any other committees participating with the party committees;

READ MORE AT THE LINK

16 Nov 12 Ben Franklin and General BetrayUs (Petraeus)

Dear General Petraeus,

“They don’t swell, they don’t tell, and they’re grateful as        hell.”

–a friend’s Synopsis of Ben      Franklin’s Advice on choosing a post-menopausal female Lover

Ben Franklin wrote the Letter appended below in 1745. A Man ahead      of his Times–though perhaps some Things never change. I am not      condoning Ben’s Approach, but you and your Colleagues would have      done well to heed his Advice and not compound poor Choices with      additional abysmal Choices.

Your affectionate Friend,

mxk214

June 25, 1745

My dear Friend,

I know of no Medicine fit to diminish the violent natural      Inclinations you mention; and if I did, I think I should not      communicate it to you. Marriage is the proper Remedy. It is the      most natural State of Man, and therefore the State in which you      are most likely to find solid Happiness. Your Reasons against      entering into it at present, appear to me not well-founded. The      circumstantial Advantages you have in View by postponing it, are      not only uncertain, but they are small in comparison with that of      the Thing itself, the being married and settled. It is the Man and      Woman united that make the compleat human Being. Separate, she      wants his Force of Body and Strength of Reason; he, her Softness,      Sensibility and acute Discernment. Together they are more likely      to succeed in the World. A single Man has not nearly the Value he      would have in that State of Union. He is an incomplete Animal. He      resembles the odd Half of a Pair of Scissars. If you get a prudent      healthy Wife, your Industry in your Profession, with her good      Economy, will be a Fortune sufficient.

But if you will not take this Counsel, and persist in thinking a      Commerce with the Sex inevitable, then I repeat my former Advice,      that in all your Amours you should prefer old Women to young ones.      You call this a Paradox, and demand my Reasons. They are these:

1. Because as they have more Knowledge of the World and their      Minds are better stor’d with Observations, their Conversation is      more improving and more lastingly agreable.

2. Because when Women cease to be handsome, they study to be      good. To maintain their Influence over Men, they supply the      Diminution of Beauty by an Augmentation of Utility. They learn to      do a 1000 Services small and great, and are the most tender and      useful of all Friends when you are sick. Thus they continue      amiable. And hence there is hardly such a thing to be found as an      old Woman who is not a good Woman.

3. Because there is no hazard of Children, which irregularly      produc’d may be attended with much Inconvenience.

4. Because thro’ more Experience, they are more prudent and      discreet in conducting an Intrigue to prevent Suspicion. The      Commerce with them is therefore safer with regard to your      Reputation. And with regard to theirs, if the Affair should happen      to be known, considerate People might be rather inclin’d to excuse      an old Woman who would kindly take care of a young Man, form his      Manners by her good Counsels, and prevent his ruining his Health      and Fortune among mercenary Prostitutes.

5. Because in every Animal that walks upright, the Deficiency of      the Fluids that fill the Muscles appears first in the highest      Part: The Face first grows lank and wrinkled; then the Neck; then      the Breast and Arms; the lower Parts continuing to the last as      plump as ever: So that covering all above with a Basket, and      regarding2 only what is below the Girdle, it is impossible of two      Women to know an old from a young one. And as in the dark all Cats      are grey, the Pleasure of corporal Enjoyment with an old Woman is      at least equal, and frequently superior, every Knack being by      Practice capable of Improvement.

6. Because the Sin is less. The debauching a Virgin may be her      Ruin, and make her for Life unhappy.

7. Because the Compunction is less. The having made a young Girl      miserable may give you frequent bitter Reflections; none of which      can attend the making an old Woman happy.

8thly and Lastly They are so grateful!!

Thus much for my Paradox. But still I advise you to marry        directly; being sincerely Your affectionate Friend. Thus        much for my Paradox. But still I advise you to marry directly;        being sincerely Your affectionate Friend.

16 Nov 12 Communism

What exactly entitles the entitled? At least if they were communist they would work for their “redistribution”

01 Jul 12 Qualified!! Natural born or OTHERWISE

You, who worry about Democrats versus Republicans — relax, here is our real problem.  In a Purdue University classroom, they were discussing the qualifications to be President of the United States.   It was pretty simple.  The candidate must be a natural born citizen of at least 35 years of age.  However, one girl in the class immediately started in on how unfair was the requirement to be a natural born citizen.  In short, her opinion was that this requirement prevented many capable individuals from becoming president.  The class was taking it in, and let her rant on & on.  Then MANY jaws hit the floor when she wrapped up her argument by stating, “What makes a natural born citizen any more qualified to lead this country than one born by C-section?”

Yep, these are the same kinds of 18-year-olds that are now voting in our elections! They breed, they “know it all” and they walk among US!!!!!!

22 Jun 12 Democrat Icecream!

THE COW AND THE ICE CREAM
ONE OF THE BEST THEORIES OF WHY OBAMA WON THE ELECTION

From a teacher in the Nashville area

“We are worried about ‘the cow’ when it is all about the ‘Ice Cream. ‘The most eye-opening civics lesson I ever had was while teaching 3rd grade. The last Presidential election was heating up and some of the children showed an interest. I decided we would have an election for a class president. We would choose our nominees. They would make a campaign speech and the class would vote. To simplify the process, candidates were nominated by other class members. We discussed what kinds of characteristics these students should have. We got many nominations and from those, Jamie and Olivia were picked to run for the top spot.
The class had done a great job in their selections. Both candidates were good kids.

I thought Jamie might have an advantage because he got lots of parental support.

I had never seen Olivia’s mother.

The day arrived when they were to make their speeches.

Jamie went first.

He had specific ideas about how to make our class a better place.
He ended by promising to do his very best.

Everyone applauded and he sat down.

Now is was Olivia’s turn to speak.

Her speech was concise. She said, “If you will vote for me, I will give you ice cream.” She sat down.

The class went wild. “Yes! Yes! We want ice cream.”

She surely would say more. She did not have to.

A discussion followed. How did she plan to pay for the ice cream? She wasn’t sure. But no one pursued that question. They took her at her word.

Would her parents buy it or would the class pay for it…She didn’t know.

The class really didn’t care. All they were thinking about was ice cream…

Jamie was forgotten. Olivia won by a landslide.

Every time Barack Obama opened his mouth he offered ice cream and 51.4 % of the people reacted like nine year olds.

They want ice cream.

The other 48.6% percent know they’re going to have to feed the cow and clean up the mess.”
This is the ice cream Obama promised us!


Remember, the government cannot give anything to anyone that they have not first taken away from someone else.
Did you vote for the ice cream?
THAT, MY FRIEND, IS HOW OBAMA GOT ELECTED, BY THOSE WHO WANT EVERYTHING FOR FREE!

10 Jun 12 Obama not Naturally Born

 

From: http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/10/18/4-supreme-court-cases-define-natural-born-citizen/

4 SUPREME COURT CASES DEFINE A ‘NATURAL BORN CITIZEN’ (Updated May 25, 2012)

IRREFUTABLE AUTHORITY HAS SPOKEN

(Oct. 18, 2009) — The Post & Email has in several articles mentioned that the Supreme Court of the United States has given the definition of what a “natural born citizen” is.  Since being a natural born citizen is an objective qualification and requirement of office for the U.S. President, it is important for all U.S. Citizens to undertsand what this term means.

Let’s cut through all the opinion and speculation, all the “he says”, “she says”, fluff, and go right to the irrefutable, constitutional authority on all terms and phrases mentioned in the U.S. Constitution:  the Supreme Court of the United States.

First, let me note that there are 4 such cases which speak of the notion of “natural born citizenship”.

Each of these cases will cite or apply the definition of this term, as given in a book entitled, The Law of Nations, written by Emmerich de Vattel, a Swiss-German philosopher of law. In that book, the following definition of a “natural born citizen” appears, in Book I, Chapter 19, § 212, of the English translation of 1797 (p. 110):

§ 212. Citizens and natives.

The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. . . .

The French original of 1757, on that same passage read thus:

Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays de parents citoyens, . . .

The terms “natives” and “natural born citizens” are obviously English terms; used to render the idea convyed by the French phrase “les naturels, ou indigenes”: but both refered to the same category of citizen:  one born in the country, of parents who were citizens of that country.

In the political philosophy of Vattel, the term “naturels” refers to citizens who are such by the Law of Nature, that is by the natural cirumstances of their birth — which they did not choose; the term “indigenes” is from the Latin, indigenes, which like the English, “indigenous”, means “begotten from within” (inde-genes), as in the phrase “the indigenous natives are the peoples who have been born and lived there for generations.”  Hence the meaning the the term, “natural born citizen”, or “naturels ou indigenes” is the same: born in the country of two parents who are citizens of that country.

Vattel did not invent the notion “natural born citizen”; he was merely applying the Law of Nature to questions of citizenship.  In fact the term first appears in a letter of the future Supreme Court Justice, John Jay, to George Washington during the Constitutional Convention, where the Framers were consulting 3 copies Vattel’s book to complete their work (according to the testimony of Benjamin Franklin).

Let take a brief look, now, at each case.  For each case I include the link to the full text of the ruling.

The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)

The first was decided in A.D. 1814, at the beginning of the republic, by men who were intimately associated with the American Revolution. In that year the following men sat on the Supreme Court:

Bushrod Washington, (b. June 5, 1762 — d. Nov. 26, 1829), served Feb. 4, 1799 til Nov. 26, 1829.

John Marshall (b. Sept. 24, 1755 — d. July 6, 1835), served Feb. 4, 1891 til July 6, 1835.

William Johnson (b. Dec. 27, 1771 — d. Aug. 4, 1834), served May 7, 1804, til Aug. 4, 1834.

Henry Brockholst Livingston (b. Nov. 25, 1757 — d. Mar. 18, 1823), served Jan. 20, 1807 til March 18, 1823

Thomas Todd (b. Jan. 23, 1765 — d. Feb. 7, 1826), served May  4, 1807 til Feb. 7, 1826.

Gabriel Duvall (b. Dec. 6, 1752 — d. Mar. 6, 1844), served Nov. 23, 1811 til Jany 14, 1835.

Joseph Story (b. Sept. 18, 1779 — d. Sept. 10, 1845), served Feb. 3, 1812 til Sept. 10, 1845

Nearly all these men either participated in the American Revolution, or their fathers did. Joseph Story’s father took part in the original Boston Tea Party.  Thomas Todd served 6 months in the army against the British; and participated in 5 Constitutional Conventions from 1784-1792.  During the Revolutionary War, Henry Brockholst Livingston was a Lieutenant Colonel in the New York Line and an aide-de-camp to General Benedict Arnold, before the latter’s defection to the British. William Johnson’s father, mother, and elder brother were revolutionaries, who served as statesman, rebel, or nurse/assistant to the line troops, respectively. John Marshall was First Lieutenant of the Culpeper Minutement of Virginia, and then Lieutenant in the Eleventh Virginian Continental Regiment, and a personal friend of General George Washington; and debated for ratification of the U.S. Constitution by the Virginian General Assembly.Bushrod Washington was George Washington’s nephew and heir.

Being witnesses and heirs of the Revolution, they understood what the Framers of the Constitution had intended.

The Venus case regarded the question whether the cargo of a merchantman, named the Venus, belonging to an American citizen, and being shipped from British territory to America during the War of 1812, could be seized and taken as a prize by an American privateer.  But what the case said about citizenship, is what matters here.

WHAT THE VENUS CASE SAYS ON CITIZENSHIP

In the Venus Case, Justice Livingston, who wrote the unanimous decision, quoted the entire §212nd paragraph from the French edition, using his own English, on p. 12 of the ruling:

Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says:

“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

“The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it…

Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)

In 16 years later the Supreme Court heard the case regarding the dispute over the inheritance received by two daughters of an American colonist, from South Carolina; one of whom went to England and remained a British subject, the other of whom remained in South Carolina and became an American citizen.  At the beginning of the case, Justice Story, who gave the ruling, does not cite Vattel per se, but cites the principle of citizenship enshrined in his definition of a “natural born citizen”:

Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.

Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

This case concerned Mrs. Happersett, an original suffragette, who in virtue of the 14th Amendment attempted to register to vote in the State of Missouri, and was refused because she was not a man.  The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in that year, wrote the majority opinion, in which he stated:

The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.

UPDATE:  May 25, 2012

In your above article, which is very good, there is one error that you may wish to correct. In the Minor v. Happersett case, you refer to Mrs.Happersett as though she was the plaintiff. This is incorrect. The plaintiff was Virginia Minor. Happersett was the Registrar of Voters. I would appreciate your acknowledgment of my email. Thank you. Bruce O. Mann Attorney at Law 26875 Calle Hermosa, Ste. 1Capistrano Beach, CA 92624

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

In this case, Wong Kim Ark, the son of 2 resident Chinese aliens, claimed U.S. Citizenship and was vindicated by the court on the basis of the 14th Amendment.  In this case the Justice Gray gave the opinion of the court.  On p. 168-9 of the record, He cites approvingly the decision in Minor vs. Happersett:

At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

On the basis of the 14th Amendment, however, the majority opinion coined a new definition for “native citizen”, as anyone who was born in the U.S.A., under the jurisdiction of the United States.  The Court gave a novel interpretation to jurisdiction, and thus extended citizenship to all born in the country (excepting those born of ambassadors and foreign armies etc.); but it did not extend the meaning of the term “natural born citizen.”

CONCLUSION

Finally it should be noted, that to define a term is to indicate the category or class of things which it signifies.  In this sense, the Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.

Hence every U.S. Citizen must accept this definition or categorical designation, and fulfil his constitutional duties accordingly.  No member of Congress, no judge of the Federal Judiciary, no elected or appointed official in Federal or State government has the right to use any other definition; and if he does, he is acting unlawfully, because unconstitutionally.

 

http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/10/18/4-supreme-court-cases-define-natural-born-citizen/