Posted on 03/08/2016 9:05:18 AM PST by Don Corleone
Raccoon Exterminator!
I have been drawn between candidates and have not made up my mind. I just need some particulars before I follow the Pied Piper. Trump does bring some new ideas to the table.
When was the last time you could vote for the ideal candidate? I’m old, and I've always voted. I can’t remember ever thinking any were ideal. We always have two choices, usually Tweedledee and Tweedledum. If you didn’t vote for Tweedledee you got Tweedledum. That’s the way it is folks.
Now consider this… An interesting analogy.
You've been on vacation for two weeks, you come home, and your basement is infested with raccoons. Hundreds of rabid, messy, mean, raccoons have overtaken your basement. You want them gone immediately, so you hire a guy. A pro. You don't care if the guy smells, you need those raccoons gone pronto and he's the guy to do it! You don't care if the guy swears, you don't care if he's an alcoholic, you don't care how many times he's been married, you don't care if he has plumber's crack... you simply want those raccoons gone! You want your problem fixed! He's the guy. He's the best. Period.
That's why Trump! Yes, he's a bit of an ass. Yes, he's an egomaniac, but you don't care. The country is a mess because politicians suck and we are all sick and tired of Tweedledee and Tweedledum choices. The Democrats are killing us, the Republican Party is two-faced and gutless, liberals don’t have a clue, and illegals are everywhere. You want it all fixed!
You don't care that Trump is crude, you don't care that he insults people, you don't care that he had been friendly with Hillary, you don't care that he's been married 3 times, you don't care that he fights with Megyn Kelly and Rosie O'Donnell, you don't care that he doesn't know the name of some Muslin terrorist. This country is weak, bankrupt, our enemies are making fun of us, we are being invaded by illegal's, we are becoming a nation of victims where every Tom, Ricardo and Hamid is a special group with special rights to a point where we don’t even recognize the country we were born and raised in; AND WE JUST WANT IT FIXED! Trump is the only guy who seems to understand what the people want. You're sick of politicians, sick of the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, and sick of illegals. You just want this thing fixed. Trump may not be a saint, but no person or company he has ever done business with has come forward and called him corrupt, or hard to do business with. He doesn’t have lobbyist money holding him, and he doesn’t have political correctness restraining him. All you know is that he has been well educated at the university of Pennsylvania business school, seems to have boundless energy, has been very successful, a good negotiator, he has built a lot of things, and he's not a cowardly, deceitful, professional, politician. And he says he'll fix it.
You don't care if the guy has bad hair.
You just want those raccoons gone!!!
Out of your house
I have raised and released dozens of orphaned baby raccoons, and every single one had an amazing and unique personality, sense of humor, and need for affection and touchy-feely interaction.
And I love your mom!
OK, swap out the raccoons for a nest of skunks.
People will be BEGGING for the raccoons to return, but they probably won’t by then.
Anybody else know about the (I’m sure illegal) use of “fly bait” to kill raccoons, possums, just about everything?
Couldn't help but wonder if it originated with the Neo-Nazis that pop up on occasion to keep Idaho in the news.
Let’s take your analogy one step further: As part of the contract for having this guy clear out the raccoons, you must also sign a provision that allows him to upgrade your foundation. He might use an innovative and experimental new foundation enhancement material that can cause unexpected and violent shifts in the elevation of random sections of the foundation, but it will be great, trust me! You sure you want this guy?
Cruz is NOT eligible.
It is illegal in most states to feed wild animals because the forget how to feed themselves. I wish it was illegal to feed lazy humans.
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has reversed his position on Ted Cruz’s eligibility to run for president, now saying his Canadian birthplace shouldn’t disqualify him.
“I hear it was checked out by every attorney and every which way and I understand Ted is in fine shape,” Trump told ABC News just before speaking at a Capitol Hill rally blasting the Iran nuclear deal.
And then you find out that Trump and some of his fellow travelers were the ones that put the raccoons in your basement to begin with.
Then what?
These ones feed themselves just fine, making the rounds
of the neighborhood buffets every night. For years.
Big handsome critters, too.
It’s one of those golf-course senior citizen developments.
They aren’t going to need to live like wild ‘coons
anytime in the foreseeable future.
They’ve got it good, I’ll tell you what.
My problem with Trump is populism. His followers, and that’s what they are, are like Obama’s. Blinded by populism. While he may be great, I don’t know how he will govern, there is something about populist politicians that history has shown to be rather dangerous. I don’t want a president that will have the power to ‘get things done’ or carries a pen and phone. We have that already. I want a president that will do the minimum required and stop the massive growth of government intrusion. I like Cruz. I judge Cruz by how hated he is in the Senate and HOR. He has all the right enemies.
But if Trump is the nominee, I will vote for him.
Cute as can be unless you want a 25% chance of getting the horrible disease from RACCOON ROUNDWORM.
If you are lucky, Raccoon roundworm will just straight out kill you. If you are unlucky, it will blind you and/or turn you into a vegetable. It is a possible biological weapon since the only thing that can kill the eggs is heat >190 degrees F.
Is there an oral rabies vaccine yet? Lace the little visitors’ snacks with it, and enjoy their antics.
I hate those trash panda chicken murderers...
live trap + .22 -> dead trash panda
Note the reference to Natural Law in the first sentence of our Declaration of Independence.
It is crystal clear that the Founding Fathers used the Natural Law definition of 'natural born Citizen' when they wrote Article II. By invoking "The Laws of Nature and Nature's God" the 56 signers of the Declaration incorporated a legal standard of freedom into the forms of government that would follow.
President John Quincy Adams, writing in 1839, looked back at the founding period and recognized the true meaning of the Declaration's reliance on the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." He observed that the American people's "charter was the Declaration of Independence. Their rights, the natural rights of mankind. Their government, such as should be instituted by the people, under the solemn mutual pledges of perpetual union, founded on the self-evident truth's proclaimed in the Declaration."
The Constitution, Vattel, and “Natural Born Citizen”: What Our Framers Knew
The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law
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”.
Neither the 14th Amendment nor Wong Kim Ark make one a Natural Born Citizen
The Harvard Law Review Article Taken Apart Piece by Piece and Utterly Destroyed
Citizenship Terms Used in the U.S. Constitution - The 5 Terms Defined & Some Legal Reference to Same
"The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776."....David Ramsay, 1789.
A Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring Character & Privileges of Citizen of U.S.-by David Ramsay-1789
The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)
The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law
The Biggest Cover-up in American History
Supreme Court cases that cite “natural born Citizen” as one born on U.S. soil to citizen parents:
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
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.
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
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.
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
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 society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.' Again: 'I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
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. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
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.
Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939),
Was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child's natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents' origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship "and to return to the United States to assume its duties." Not only did the court rule that she did not lose her native born Citizenship but it upheld the lower courts decision that she is a "natural born Citizen of the United States" because she was born in the USA to two naturalized U.S. Citizens.
But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg 'solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.' The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship."
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”.
Citizenship Terms Used in the U.S. Constitution - The 5 Terms Defined & Some Legal Reference to Same
"The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776."....David Ramsay, 1789.
A Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring Character & Privileges of Citizen of U.S.-by David Ramsay-1789
The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)
The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law
The Biggest Cover-up in American History
Mark Levin Attacks Birthers: Admits He Hasn't Studied Issue; Declares Canadian-Born Cruz Eligible
Not much information exists on why the Third Congress (under the lead of James Madison and the approval of George Washington) deleted "natural born" from the Naturalization Act of 1790 when it passed the Naturalization Act of 1795. There is virtually no information on the subject because they probably realized that the First Congress committed errors when it passed the Naturalization Act of 1790 and did not want to create a record of the errors.
It can be reasonably argued that Congress realized that under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress is given the power to make uniform laws on naturalization and that this power did not include the power to decide who is included or excluded from being a presidential Article II "natural born Citizen." While Congress has passed throughout United States history many statutes declaring who shall be considered nationals and citizens of the United States at birth and thereby exempting such persons from having to be naturalized under naturalization laws, at no time except by way of the short-lived "natural born" phrase in Naturalization Act of 1790 did it ever declare these persons to be "natural born Citizens."
The uniform definition of "natural born Citizen" was already provided by the law of nations and was already settled. The Framers therefore saw no need nor did they give Congress the power to tinker with that definition. Believing that Congress was highly vulnerable to foreign influence and intrigue, the Framers, who wanted to keep such influence out of the presidency, did not trust Congress when it came to who would be President, and would not have given Congress the power to decide who shall be President by allowing it to define what an Article II "natural born Citizen " is.
Additionally, the 1790 act was a naturalization act. How could a naturalization act make anyone an Article II "natural born Citizen?" After all, a "natural born Citizen" was made by nature at the time of birth and could not be so made by any law of man.
Natural Born Citizen Through the Eyes of Early Congresses
Harvard Law Review Article FAILS to Establish Ted Cruz as Natural Born Citizen
Watch: Mark Levin declares Ted Cruz a "Naturalized Citizen"
Mark Levin Attacks Birthers: Admits He Hasn't Studied Issue; Declares Canadian-Born Cruz Eligible
The settled law of the land is that the US President must be a natural born citizen, and that to be a natural born citizen, you must have been born in the United States to parents both of whom were US citizens when you were born.
You may disagree with the goal of the Constitutional Convention, and/or with the means they chose to achieve it. But it's not a technicality, not an anachronism no longer relevant in modern times, nor is it racist. Especially in modern times, it enables persons of any race or ethnic heritage to become President. And it's what the Constitution requires.
You may also disagree with binding precedent regarding the meaning of "natural born citizen" as established in Minor. But in our system, the Constitution, and the Supreme Court's interpretation of it, are the "supreme law of the land." And if one faction gets to disregard the Constitution and/or the Supreme Court because they disagree, then that sets a precedent where all other factions can do the same.
Handled hundreds and raised several dozen over the years (in my sixties now), and never had so much as a scratch (at least that wasn't given in fun!. Theories are fine, as are media-fed fears, but they don't replace facts.
My point precisely. Very well sourced and logically unimpeachable.
Once they break into your chicken coup they stop beimg cute.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.