HOME/ABOUT  Prayer  SCOTUS  ProLife  BangList  Aliens  StatesRights  ConventionOfStates  WOT  HomosexualAgenda  GlobalWarming  Corruption  Taxes  Congress  Fraud  MediaBias  GovtAbuse  Tyranny  Obama  ObamaCare  Elections  Layoffs  NaturalBornCitizen  FastandFurious  OPSEC  Benghazi  Libya  IRS  Scandals  TalkRadio  TeaParty  FreeperBookClub  HTMLSandbox  FReeperEd  FReepathon  CopyrightList  Copyright/DMCA Notice  Donate

Dear FRiends, Your loyal support makes Free Republic possible and your continuing participation makes FR the number one grassroots pro-life conservative forum on the planet! If you have not yet made your donation, please click here and do so now. Thank you very much, Jim Robinson

Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Free Republic 2nd Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $29,808
33%  
Woo hoo!! And the first 33% is in!! Thank you all very much!!

Posts by Hostage

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Government gets extra time to prepare for immigration lawsuita (New Deadline is April 30)

    04/24/2015 9:07:52 PM PDT · 1 of 4
    Hostage
    The title is misleading as this new deadline pertains to initial sanctions that Judge Hanen ordered to compel data and materials to investigate the violation of his order and the fraud upon the court by DOJ lawyers and through them the US Government.

    It was expected that DOJ would delay and it is expected that they will again ask for more time.

    What they are being asked for is evidence that will figuratively put a noose around their necks.

    As they continue to defy Judge Hanen, it will be interesting to see if he moves to incarcerate them and/or orders US Marshals to seize evidence and appoints a court master to receive it.

  • Cruz Address on Lynch Appointment

    04/24/2015 12:04:47 PM PDT · 31 of 40
    Hostage to Regal

    Aside from the odorous conceit of a newbie poster calling itself ‘Regal’, I am reluctant to respond to someone that hasn’t taken a few minutes to do a search on Ted Cruz’ accomplishments. But other readers will gain from a response so this is for them.

    Ted Cruz’ resume of accomplishments ***before*** he came to the District of Corruption is unequaled among all contenders of any party or position. A few minutes of searching the internet reveals his pre-Congress accomplishments to be of such magnitude as to remove all doubt as to his ability to serve as President and Commander-in-Chief.

    Ted Cruz’ accomplishments ***after*** he was elected to US Senator are revealed in the actions he took, the votes he made, the amendments and legislation he wrote and introduced, and the numerous amicus curiae he has written for crucial court cases. All of these things are backed by an enormous amount of work. Only a strong and powerful individual could be so pervasive in work product in such a short time.

    Ted Cruz has also worked tirelessly and successfully in reviving the spirit of true conservatism. That’s an enormous accomplishment in itself. If you don’t think so, try it yourself and see how far you get. I guarantee that by evidence of the vacuity of your remarks, you won’t be able to lift an ounce of the conservative movement that Ted Cruz holds up day after day.

    And lastly this quote:

    “The measure of a conservative in Washington, who went to “make DC listen” as Cruz’s twitter hashtag suggests, cannot be “what have you done for me,” but must be “what have you stopped from being done to me.””

    http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/03/ted_cruz_president.html

    And I predict with fully reasoned confidence that President Cruz will leave behind a legacy of what he stopped from being done against the US Constitution as well as what he did to restore its true spirit and exceptional qualities.

  • Mitch McConnell to Conservatives: Drop Dead

    04/24/2015 9:46:47 AM PDT · 10 of 112
    Hostage to kingattax

    McConnell is said to be worth 28 million. No way could he amass that kind of wealth on a US Senator’s pay.

    He needs to be investigated.

  • The Supreme Court's Mind Made Up on Gay Marriage?

    04/24/2015 9:25:54 AM PDT · 48 of 58
    Hostage to xzins

    THE SOLUTION

    For years I’ve posted that the ultimate goal of the homosexual normalization movement is to subvert the Church and all other moral resistance that stands in the way.

    Now it has become clear to most people for the first time what the true objectives are.

    Now I have also sought solutions, solutions that will endure and remain strong against all challenges. And I have found one. To understand what must be done will require you to think a little deeper and to think of something that as Mark Levin says “is a solution as big as the problem” meaning a solution that gets its hands around the ‘whole problem’.

    First, here are some ‘knee-jerk’ solutions that don’t work or will not work:

    1. DOMA. DOMA was no solution and already has easily been removed as an obstacle.

    2. Amending the US Constitution. This is a step in the right direction but amending for the purpose of defining ‘marriage’ is short-sighted and can fail to gather sufficient momentum just as the BBA of years past (Balanced Budget Amendment). It’s actually pathetic to have to think we must amend our sacred document to guard against perversion and there’s no telling if such an amendment would stand the test of time as it may conflict with rulings of other amendments. Such a solution also attempts to enact morality and common sense which is a futile effort, an intractable problem because there’s always another exception, an offshoot, another ‘problem of the day’ that can’t be solved with legislation.

    Basically, we can legislate neither morality nor common sense ***effectively***. It just cannot be done adequately.

    But before considering other alternatives, we should take note of certain observations:

    1. Americans by and large do not want to normalize homosexuality. Recent press and ‘polls’ are trying to condition Americans into thinking that they do want to normalize homosexuality. This is a lie.

    2. 38 states passed state legislation defining marriage in its tradition sense or they voted against initiatives to legalize homosexual marriage or they passed laws or held referendums or amended their state constitutions to either ban homosexual marriage or define precisely what marriage is, between one man and one woman.

    38 states; think about that.

    12 States passed same-sex marriage legislation or initiatives.

    3. Now note that it takes 3/4’s of states which is presently equal to 38 states to ratify a proposed amendment to the US Constitution thereby making the amendment a part of the US Constitution.

    4. Federal Courts have struck down state bans, definitions and initiatives that seek to uphold traditional marriage.

    5. The US Supreme Court is getting ready to review the definition of marriage and they are sure to rule for homosexuals. Justice Kennedy will be the swing vote just as he was when he ruled against DOMA in Windsor.

    So given the 5 points above it would seem reasonable to amend the US Constitution to define marriage but as previously pointed out this would be solution that falls short.

    To understand better, we need to look at the above five points again and importantly the second point. Read it again. What does it tell us?

    It tells us the States have no power before the federal government.

    It’s as simple as that.

    Let’s repeat it with emphasis:

    THE STATES HAVE NO POWER BEFORE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

    Now some may still think ... “Oh but Congress can amend the Constitution”. Think about this. Will the present makeup of Congress amend anything to express the Will of the People? The answer is absolutely not, they won’t even get it into a committee. They have been sold to the highest bidder. We live in a time when the corruption in Congress is so thick that it would be unbelievable to past generations.

    Think about it some more in terms of the 10th Amendment. Is the 10th Amendment respected, observed, utilized? No, it is not. It has been subordinated by other amendments.

    A Marriage Amendment will be challenged by rulings that elevate the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments over it.

    Now let’s repeat the main reality:

    THE STATES HAVE NO POWER BEFORE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

    Why is this? How did this happen?

    The answer is easily ascertained. This loss of power is a direct result of the 17th Amendment which extinguished the power of state legislatures before Congress. Just a note in passing, the 17th, the 16th and the 18th were all passed in 1913. They were all a stain on the US Constitution and serve as a clear illustration of how ‘knee-jerk’ reactions to problems and conflicts of the day can result in disaster.

    Now, 102 years later, we have perversion threatening our freedom of conscience and the very fiber of our beings.

    SO, if we are to consider amending our US Constitution, we must be very careful, very thorough, and we must understand the core of the problem. In all likelihood we only get one shot at this in our lifetime.

    The root of the problem is the 17th Amendment. We can propose to repeal it but that can be a very hard sale, perhaps more difficult than privatizing Social Security. The 17th Amendment gave the power to vote to the people. In effect, to repeal it will launch a debate and war in society that will end up following so many directions that it will smother the entire reason of why we needed to do it in the first place; the reason for repeal will get lost in the noise and be forgotten.

    But let’s look at the problem from a slightly different angle. If we can’t get at the root of the problem, can we get at the core of the problem?

    The answer is yes. And it involves amending the US Constitution through the States asserting Article V.

    Now I will repeat an illustration that shows us how the power of Article V can be unlocked by the States to restore federalism thereby restoring our liberty and saving our Republic. Note that this illustration condenses several of Mark Levin’s suggested Liberty Amendments and also has incorporated valuable input from concerned Freepers.

    ************************************************
    AMENDMENT XXVIII

    To redress the balance of powers between the federal government and the States and to restore effective suffrage of State Legislatures to Congress, the following amendment is proposed:

    ************************************************
    Section 1.
    A Senator in Congress shall be subject to recall by their respective state legislature or by voter referendum in their respective state.

    Section 2.
    Term limits for Senators in Congress shall be set by vote in their respective state legislatures but in no case shall be set less than twelve years nor more than eighteen years.

    Section 3.
    Upon a majority vote in three-fifths of state legislatures, specific federal statutes, federal court decisions and executive directives of any form shall be repealed and made void.
    ************************************************

    Section 3 of the above illustration puts an end to the social tyranny of the federal government. Now I will point out that such an amendment does not get us out of the woods completely. US Supreme Court Justices can still base bizarre rulings from the 14th Amendment and other amendments to overrule a 28th Amendment like the one above. But then States can void such rulings and this sets the stage for a grand conflict that can be resolved by a President and a Congress that will reign in the US Supreme Court by packing it, cutting its budget and pruning its jurisdictions. The 28th Amendment can survive as a preeminent amendment of the US Constitution when voters and state legislatures unite to fight together.

    WHAT WE CAN WE DO TODAY?

    We should strongly recommend the following must-see video of Mark Levin be watched, consumed and studied:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdZuV8JnvvA

    And we should strongly recommend everyone to urge their respective state senators and state representatives, and the people that work for them, to view it also.

    Most people today don’t even know who their state legislators are. Is this surprising in light of the 17th Amendment?

    Start with a simple task today. Put it on your to-do list to find out who is your State Representative and who is your State Senator. Get their names, addresses and phone numbers. You will be astonished at how accessible and neighborly they can be.

    And lastly, sign up here as soon as possible:

    http://www.conventionofstates.com/

  • Poll: Gay-marriage support now at record high

    04/24/2015 9:18:09 AM PDT · 45 of 45
    Hostage to Ransomed; SeekAndFind

    Very Good. You’ve done some homework.

    But your homework is incomplete.

    Therefore you get an ‘F’.

    But I will help you complete your assignment.

    You listed 12 states,

    The other 38 states either amended their state constitutions, voted state laws to define marriage as between one man and one woman, voted down initiatives to recognize same-sex marriage or refused to recognize same-sex marriage licenses of other states.

    38 States!

    THat’s enough right there to pass an Amendment to the US Constitution.

  • You Can’t — and Shouldn’t — Abolish the IRS [A critique of Ted Cruz's proposal]

    04/24/2015 7:58:05 AM PDT · 66 of 86
    Hostage to Taxman; Man50D; Principled; EternalVigilance; phil_will1; kevkrom; Bigun; PeteB570; FBD; ...

    > “He needs to drop whatever income tax “scheme” he currently fancies and go all in for the FairTax! The FairTax is about FReedom, and if Senator Cruz is about FReedom, he cannot support ANY other tax scheme!”

    I think Ted Cruz is planning to go with the FairTax but is including Flat Tax issues for campaign purposes only. He has said he wants to abolish the IRS and he wants the FairTax.

    I think I am going to support Ted Cruz in this but not because of the reason you may think.

    I don’t like the Flat Tax, not because it still requires IRS-like enforcement, but because it leaves the 16th Amendment in place. Without the 16th, practically any income tax is unfeasible.

    The FairTax forces the 16th to be repealed.

    Without the 16th, the income tax will never come back.

    With the 16th, the income tax always comes back and grows like a cancer. A FLAT TAX NEVER STAYS FLAT!

    The United States has had 5 Flat Taxes in its history starting with the first income tax in 1861. In each case it grew and became graduated. Early versions of a flat income tax were shot down in court as unconstitutional as they were. This is the reason the 16th was passed.

    The 16th was passed in 1913 along with the 17th and the 18th. Americans rebelled against the 18th giving rise to black markets and underworld elements until it was repealed in 1933 by the 21st Amendment,

    Both the 16th and 17th came about while the public was asleep. How so?

    The 16th was accompanied by a tax act legislation of code comprising only 14 pages with only 2 tax brackets of 7% on the ultra wealthy and 1% for everyone else that showed a net profit after expenses. In other words, more than 98% of Americans were subject to only 1% tax rate and most did not even need to pay that or even file if they claimed there was nothing remaining after expenses.

    So the original 1913 income tax was a flat tax of only 1% for practically everyone. The 16th was passed so that the income flat tax of only 1% would survive court challenges and the public was sold that the income tax was a measly 1% while soaking it to the (less than 2%) rich at 7%.

    Only 1% get it?

    In the recent years past in Washington State which has no income tax, Bill Gate’s father tried by referendum passing a ‘1%’ income tax. He lost.

    See how sneaky the income tax advocates can be? Just one percent and ‘trust me’ is their angle.

    And then of course later the 1% metastasizes.

    The Income Tax is an act of DECEPTION.

    The Flat Tax is the embryo of the DECEPTION.

    The Flat Tax is an Act of Political Con Artists.

    What kind of person would support this deception? The type of person that thinks government is the solution to everything and who think they are uniquely suited to using the power of government over their fellows.

    So to outfox these con artists, Ted Cruz is offering a Flat Tax. What? Stay with me.

    Do you understand that people with names and faces sit in the CBO and on the JCT (Joint Committee on Taxation) and they salivate at a Flat Tax? These people know each other, their kids play with each other, I have met many of them.

    Why would these people who oversee the monstrous tax complexity that presently exists be so excited about a Flat Tax?

    Let me make it clear by analogy to everyone reading so far.

    Say there is a nice town surrounded by beautiful nature and the Town Council has passed a moratorium on development to control the town’s sprawl so as to preserve the pristine nature that surrounds it.

    Now consider the effect on the town’s general contractors. They suddenly are out of work. They may need to move or retrain. They’re not happy.

    Suddenly a fire breaks out in the town and several buildings burn to the ground. Parts of the town are ‘flattened’.

    How do construction contractors react to the fire?

    Hallelujah!!!

    Now there’s all kinds of new work and oh boy are we gonna charge top dollar!

    Get the picture?

    So Ted Cruz comes along and strings these bastards along with the bait of a Flat Tax and they are all salivating and grinning from ear to ear.

    And then, and as I wish, he does the bait and switch.

    Because to get rid of the 2 million folks that work in some tentacle of the IRS octopus, we are gonna need a reason to move them elsewhere, The Flat Tax serves one purpose only. It serves as a staging ground for the destruction of the IRS.

    I acknowledge it’s a risk. But then most conservatives do not know the enemy’s troop strength, tech power, supply lines and armaments (political, press and police).

    THE IRS IS THE US GOVERNMENT. The Beltway and their puppet masters in NYC, London and Zurich are joined at the hip to the IRS.

    We can’t just stand out here in the boonies jumping up and down like screaming ninjas. We have to outfox them. We need a present day General George Washington.

    /soapbox

  • Senate confirms Loretta Lynch as next U.S. Attorney General

    04/23/2015 12:22:02 PM PDT · 210 of 309
    Hostage to conservativejoy

    I expected that. His spokesperson commented to the press that he had already voted NO in committee and voted NO on Cloture, and that once Cloture was passed, it was a done deal. Therefore, no need to waste time when campaign obligations are needing his presence.

    But out comes the Walkerites and longtime trolls to stir up dust over a non-issue.

  • Senate confirms Loretta Lynch as next U.S. Attorney General

    04/23/2015 12:10:51 PM PDT · 196 of 309
    Hostage to Tolerance Sucks Rocks; nickcarraway; SeekAndFind; 3D-JOY; abner; Abundy; AGreatPer; Albion Wilde; ..

    Give it up already!

    Cruz had a perfectly good reason to miss the vote. He had already announced he would not vote in favor of Lynch and he knew She had the votes.

  • Obama Lawyer Dodges Alien ‘Voting Rights’ Hypothetical – Multiple Times (More Detail)

    04/23/2015 11:25:41 AM PDT · 19 of 19
    Hostage to zeugma

    Thanks.

  • Poll: Gay-marriage support now at record high

    04/23/2015 9:58:11 AM PDT · 2 of 45
    Hostage to SeekAndFind

    So says the Washington Post....well then, it must be true eh?

  • Congressman Massie’s 500-Yard Run That is Driving Congress Crazy (Boner's Sleazy Voice-Votes)

    04/23/2015 9:57:05 AM PDT · 6 of 15
    Hostage to E. Pluribus Unum

    Congressman Massie is a republican from Kentucky.

    I’d wish he would primary McConnell in 2020 or replace him when President Cruz gives McConnell the option to either change party or step down.

  • Obama Lawyer Dodges Alien ‘Voting Rights’ Hypothetical – Multiple Times (More Detail)

    04/23/2015 9:36:55 AM PDT · 15 of 19
    Hostage to zeugma

    There are reasonably priced online transcription services. They cost less if they do not need to certify as registered court transcriptionists.

    Can you send a link for the MP3?

  • Ted Cruz SLAMS Republican majority in the Senate for allowing Lynch nomination

    04/23/2015 9:34:47 AM PDT · 35 of 65
    Hostage to sheikdetailfeather

    When Ted is elected President, I would wish he give McConnell two choices:

    Option One:
    Defect to the democrat party where he belongs

    Option Two:
    Step Down

    I wouldn’t worry about the consequences of Option One. KY voters should have a field day if McConnell were to switch.

  • Obama Lawyer Dodges Alien ‘Voting Rights’ Hypothetical – Multiple Times (More Detail)

    04/23/2015 9:30:00 AM PDT · 13 of 19
    Hostage to zeugma

    I am sure they are recorded. Whether they are transcribed by the court and released is a question. Probably audio discs are available and interested parties can pay to have the audio transcribed.

  • Dear Gay Community: Your Kids Are Hurting

    04/23/2015 8:46:22 AM PDT · 2 of 7
    Hostage to SeekAndFind

    Great article!

    A mother and a father are both needed.

  • Obama Lawyer Dodges Alien ‘Voting Rights’ Hypothetical – Multiple Times (More Detail)

    04/23/2015 7:43:46 AM PDT · 2 of 19
    Hostage to Hostage

    (The rest of the article)

    Every seat in the courtroom was taken, and the court fed an audio of the arguments into two additional courtrooms, while pro-administration supporters protested outside the federal courthouse in New Orleans. Oral arguments before the 5th Circuit normally take 40 minutes, but the arguments on Friday lasted for two-and-a-half hours.

    The Obama Administration’s Strange Logic

    As I listened to Mizer responding to questions from the judges, I was shaking my head at some of his answers. One of his justifications for the president’s actions towards the beginning of the argument was so strange, I wasn’t sure I heard it correctly.

    Judge Jerry Smith asked Mizer if the president’s plan wasn’t distinct from the “exercise of prosecutorial discretion” because it “confers benefits.” The plan, for example, provides not only deferred action to illegal aliens, but provides them with “Employment Authorization Documents” or work permits.

    Mizer said there were “good reasons to grant” such permits because it would allow an individual with a work permit “to work on the books rather than off the books.” Since it is a “third-party crime” for an employer to employ an illegal alien, providing the work permits “is actually reducing crime by reducing the third-party crime.”

    In other words, rather than enforcing federal immigration law that prohibits employers from employing any noncitizen who doesn’t have a work permit, it is better for the government (without authority) to issue work permits to illegal aliens so employers won’t break the law the administration doesn’t want to enforce. The government has to break the law so employers won’t have to.

    That is an example of the twisted logic being used by the Justice Department to defend this case.

    Case Won By EPA Helps States Opposing Obama’s Immigration Actions

    Another issue brought up by Judge Smith was quite ironic, given the administration’s push on global climate change. While Mizer was arguing that the states have no standing to challenge the president’s immigration plan and his nonenforcement of federal immigration laws, Judge Smith pointed out that this case seems similar to Massachusetts v. EPA (2007).

    In that case, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the states had standing to challenge the EPA’s then-nonregulation of so-called greenhouse gases. Based on that decision, the states would seem to have standing in this case according to Smith.

    Obama Lawyer Stumped By Question About Precedent for Preserving Status Quo

    Mizer also did not have a good answer to the argument made by Texas Solicitor General Scott Keller, who said that the injunction simply maintains the status quo on immigration law that has existed for decades.

    Judge Jennifer Elrod said the court was “big about [preserving] the status quo” as was the Supreme Court “in the middle of cases.” She asked Mizer if it would not be a “logistical mess” if the 5th Circuit lifted the stay and the government proceeded with issuing work permits and tax benefits, but then the states ultimately won the lawsuit. Illegal aliens who are legalized by the president’s program “could end up with a big check and you’d need to knock on their door and ask for it back.”

    Mizer’s only answer to that was that the government would be faced with “additional logistical steps” and illegal immigrants probably would not be able to collect tax credits during the time the courts were deciding this case because there are “a lot of hoops that an individual had to jump through.”

    The Justice Department has also argued that even if the injunction is not lifted in its entirety, it should at least be geographically narrowed to only apply to Texas or the other states in the lawsuit. But when Judge Stephen Higginson asked Mizer if he had any prior court decisions that found a preliminary injunction was not narrowly tailored because it applied too broadly geographically, Mizer could not name a single case directly on point. Higginson said he had not been able to find a single case supporting that proposition either.

    Was Obama’s Immigration Plan Really Not Subject to This Law?

    Throughout his argument, Mizer kept saying that the president’s plan was unreviewable and was not subject to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which requires that all new regulatory policies by federal agencies be promulgated with advance notice and the opportunity for comment by the public and interested parties. This was a key finding in Judge Hanen’s injunction order.

    Judge Elrod then asked Mizer a question related to this claim that almost had Mizer dancing a jig to avoid answering it. She asked Mizer whether the states could challenge the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents program if it gave “voting rights” to aliens: “would that be reviewable and would that be unconstitutional?”

    Mizer clearly did not want to answer that question, saying that was not the situation before the court. “I’m asking you a hypothetical” insisted Judge Elrod. “Would that be subject to APA [Administrative Procedure Act] notice and comment if it gave voting rights or just substantively unconstitutional and illegal?” Judge Elrod asked Mizer again.

    She had to ask Mizer the question four times before he finally said that it was “possible” that a challenge could be brought by the states under such circumstances, but that this situation was completely different. The fact that Mizer did not want to directly answer that question about voting and that Judge Elrod had to keep after him to try to get an answer was odd to say the least.

    If the three-judge panel denies the government’s request for a stay, the Justice Department can file an emergency appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court. If the 5th Circuit (or the Supreme Court) grants the request, then there is no doubt that the administration will move as quickly as possible to implement the president’s amnesty plan while the case is pending in the 5th Circuit.

    That would ensure that if the states were to ultimately prevail, trying to reverse what the Department of Homeland Security would do in the interim would be a “logistical mess.”

  • Obama Lawyer Dodges Alien ‘Voting Rights’ Hypothetical – Multiple Times (More Detail)

    04/23/2015 7:42:44 AM PDT · 1 of 19
    Hostage
    This is a well-written summary of last week's hearing in the Appeals Court on the subject of lifting Judge Hanen's Preliminary Injunction against Obama's Executive Amnesty and it fills in a lot more detail about the questioning and responses.

    As previously reported in several outlets, this hearing bodes well for upholding the Preliminary Injunction against Obama's Executive Amnesty but even if the Appeals Court rules as expected, there is another moment of dread that awaits.

    I was particularly drawn to the Author's note that if this Appeals Court denies Obama's motion to lift the injunction that Obama can file an emergency motion before the US Supreme Court.

    I had thought previously that it was possible that an emergency motion could be taken to the US Supreme Court but to see it written by a columnist of a news service with substantial circulation gave me pause.

    I do not trust the US Supreme Court to do the right thing which in this case would be to deny a hearing until the lower courts have done their work.

    This case represents a large part of the end game for Obama's "Fundamental Transformation of America" and Americans are responding to this end game by playing a tactic to run out the clock on Obama.

    If the US Supreme Court denies to hear an emergency motion from Obama to lift the lower court's injunctive order, then it could take until the end of Obama's term to see a ruling on the merits. Executive Amnesty could then be left on the ash heap of Obama's reign.

    If the US Supreme Court were to hear such an emergency motion, then Americans will be sitting on the edge of their seat in the next few months.

    For those tuning in, this case is about stopping Obama from importing a large alien voting bloc to win elections for the next decades. If Obama succeeds, the result will be America's certain demise.

  • Chris Rock rants about the lack of African-Americans in baseball

    04/23/2015 12:24:11 AM PDT · 41 of 84
    Hostage to fieldmarshaldj

    They couldn’t top Sandy Koufax so they gave up trying.

  • Ted Cruz On "Senator vs Governor"

    04/22/2015 1:43:19 PM PDT · 10 of 13
    Hostage to Hennible Cobb

    Abraham Lincoln was merely a lowly one-term US Congressman, obviously not fit for any higher office /snark

  • Judges Sue Over Same Sex ‘Marriage’

    04/22/2015 11:49:22 AM PDT · 49 of 61
    Hostage to xzins; wagglebee; Publius; Jacquerie; cotton1706

    For years I’ve posted that the ultimate goal of the homosexual normalization movement is to subvert the Church and all other moral resistance that stands in the way.

    Now it has become clear to most people for the first time what the true objectives are.

    Now I have also sought solutions, solutions that will endure and remain strong against all challenges. And I have found one. To understand what must be done will require you to think a little deeper and to think of something that as Mark Levin says “is a solution as big as the problem” meaning a solution that gets its hands around the ‘whole problem’.

    First, here are some ‘knee-jerk’ solutions that don’t work or will not work:

    1. DOMA. DOMA was no solution and already has easily been removed as an obstacle.

    2. Amending the US Constitution. This is a step in the right direction but amending for the purpose of defining ‘marriage’ is short-sighted and can fail to gather sufficient momentum just as the BBA of years past (Balanced Budget Amendment). It’s actually pathetic to have to think we must amend our sacred document to guard against perversion and there’s no telling if such an amendment would stand the test of time as it may conflict with rulings of other amendments. Such a solution also attempts to enact morality and common sense which is a futile effort, an intractable problem because there’s always another exception, an offshoot, another ‘problem of the day’ that can’t be solved with legislation.

    Basically, we can legislate neither morality nor common sense ***effectively***. It just cannot be done adequately.

    But before considering other alternatives, we should take note of certain observations:

    1. Americans by and large do not want to normalize homosexuality. Recent press and ‘polls’ are trying to condition Americans into thinking that they do want to normalize homosexuality. This is a lie.

    2. 38 states passed state legislation defining marriage in its tradition sense or they voted against initiatives to legalize homosexual marriage or they passed laws or held referendums or amended their state constitutions to either ban homosexual marriage or define precisely what marriage is, between one man and one woman.

    38 states; think about that.

    12 States passed same-sex marriage legislation or initiatives.

    3. Now note that it takes 3/4’s of states which is presently equal to 38 states to ratify a proposed amendment to the US Constitution thereby making the amendment a part of the US Constitution.

    4. Federal Courts have struck down state bans, definitions and initiatives that seek to uphold traditional marriage.

    5. The US Supreme Court is getting ready to review the definition of marriage and they are sure to rule for homosexuals. Justice Kennedy will be the swing vote just as he was when he ruled against DOMA in Windsor.

    So given the 5 points above it would seem reasonable to amend the US Constitution to define marriage but as previously pointed out this would be solution that falls short.

    To understand better, we need to look at the above five points again and importantly the second point. Read it again. What does it tell us?

    It tells us the States have no power before the federal government.

    It’s as simple as that.

    Let’s repeat it with emphasis:

    THE STATES HAVE NO POWER BEFORE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

    Now some may still think ... “Oh but Congress can amend the Constitution”. Think about this. Will the present makeup of Congress amend anything to express the Will of the People? The answer is absolutely not, they won’t even get it into a committee. They have been sold to the highest bidder. We live in a time when the corruption in Congress is so thick that it would be unbelievable to past generations.

    Think about it some more in terms of the 10th Amendment. Is the 10th Amendment respected, observed, utilized? No, it is not. It has been subordinated by other amendments.

    A Marriage Amendment will be challenged by rulings that elevate the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments over it.

    Now let’s repeat the main reality:

    THE STATES HAVE NO POWER BEFORE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

    Why is this? How did this happen?

    The answer is easily ascertained. This loss of power is a direct result of the 17th Amendment which extinguished the power of state legislatures before Congress. Just a note in passing, the 17th, the 16th and the 18th were all passed in 1913. They were all a stain on the US Constitution and serve as a clear illustration of how ‘knee-jerk’ reactions to problems and conflicts of the day can result in disaster.

    Now, 102 years later, we have perversion threatening our freedom of conscience and the very fiber of our beings.

    SO, if we are to consider amending our US Constitution, we must be very careful, very thorough, and we must understand the core of the problem. In all likelihood we only get one shot at this in our lifetime.

    The root of the problem is the 17th Amendment. We can propose to repeal it but that can be a very hard sale, perhaps more difficult than privatizing Social Security. The 17th Amendment gave the power to vote to the people. In effect, to repeal it will launch a debate and war in society that will end up following so many directions that it will smother the entire reason of why we needed to do it in the first place; the reason for repeal will get lost in the noise and be forgotten.

    But let’s look at the problem from a slightly different angle. If we can’t get at the root of the problem, can we get at the core of the problem?

    The answer is yes. And it involves amending the US Constitution through the States asserting Article V.

    Now I will repeat an illustration that shows us how the power of Article V can be unlocked by the States to restore federalism thereby restoring our liberty and saving our Republic. Note that this illustration condenses several of Mark Levin’s suggested Liberty Amendments and also has incorporated valuable input from concerned Freepers.

    ************************************************
    AMENDMENT XXVIII

    To redress the balance of powers between the federal government and the States and to restore effective suffrage of State Legislatures to Congress, the following amendment is proposed:

    ************************************************
    Section 1.
    A Senator in Congress shall be subject to recall by their respective state legislature or by voter referendum in their respective state.

    Section 2.
    Term limits for Senators in Congress shall be set by vote in their respective state legislatures but in no case shall be set less than twelve years nor more than eighteen years.

    Section 3.
    Upon a majority vote in three-fifths of state legislatures, specific federal statutes, federal court decisions and executive directives of any form shall be repealed and made void.
    ************************************************

    Section 3 of the above illustration puts an end to the social tyranny of the federal government. Now I will point out that such an amendment does not get us out of the woods completely. US Supreme Court Justices can still base bizarre rulings from the 14th Amendment and other amendments to overrule a 28th Amendment like the one above. But then States can void such rulings and this sets the stage for a grand conflict that can be resolved by a President and a Congress that will reign in the US Supreme Court by packing it, cutting its budget and pruning its jurisdictions. The 28th Amendment can survive as a preeminent amendment of the US Constitution when voters and state legislatures unite to fight together.

    WHAT WE CAN WE DO TODAY?

    We should strongly recommend the following must-see video of Mark Levin be watched, consumed and studied:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdZuV8JnvvA

    And we should strongly recommend everyone to urge their respective state senators and state representatives, and the people that work for them, to view it also.

    Most people today don’t even know who their state legislators are. Is this surprising in light of the 17th Amendment?

    Start with a simple task today. Put it on your to-do list to find out who is your State Representative and who is your State Senator. Get their names, addresses and phone numbers. You will be astonished at how accessible and neighborly they can be.

  • “Complicit”: FDR’s Refusal to Save the Jews on the MS St. Louis

    04/20/2015 2:49:13 PM PDT · 68 of 86
    Hostage to LS

    Uh huh.

    So you think the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans don’t matter ostensibly because their deaths happened later.

    Of the 407,000 American men that died in combat in WWII in the European Theatre, where were these men in 1939 when the MS St. Louis tried to unload its cargo of aliens?

    Where do you suppose they were in 1939? What do you think they were doing in 1939?

  • “Complicit”: FDR’s Refusal to Save the Jews on the MS St. Louis

    04/20/2015 2:07:55 PM PDT · 65 of 86
    Hostage to LS

    > “It has nothing at all to do with “hundreds of thousands of American lives.”

    Thank you. No further questions your Honor.

    Your Honor, in light of the plaintiff’s admission, the Defense now rests.

  • “Complicit”: FDR’s Refusal to Save the Jews on the MS St. Louis

    04/20/2015 11:56:41 AM PDT · 60 of 86
    Hostage to Olog-hai

    > “Wrong context.”

    You would be wrong.

    Netanyahu has also weighed in on the “Ship of Fools” and the failure of American military to liberate the death camps sooner.

    But he did not do it to disparage FDR. He did it to warn Jews everywhere that by the time a Holocaust is upon you, it’s too late to rely on your allies.

    It’s very similar to telling Americans to not rely on getting help from a 9-1-1 call because you may be dead before the police arrive. It is better to have a gun in your hands to assure survival.

    I have a very dear friend who is quite well-known and I won’t mention his name. But he an older Jew living in Manhattan. He is very wealthy. One of his assets is a high rise covering an entire square block of Manhattan. And his stock holdings are so vast I’ve lost track of his updates to me.

    He’s one of the nicest persons anyone could know. He’s also one of the meanest. If a tenant is one day late on the rent, the tenant and their belongings are out on the street the next day. No mercy.

    I like most everything about him. He’s ultra-intelligent, detailed and precise.

    But when it comes to Israeli Jews, he goes bipolar. He flips and becomes a raging animal. If his finger was on the button, rest assured the missile would be launched.

    But his take on the “Ship of Fools” was “let them land anywhere but America”. Go figure.

  • “Complicit”: FDR’s Refusal to Save the Jews on the MS St. Louis

    04/20/2015 11:36:57 AM PDT · 58 of 86
    Hostage to BroJoeK

    That’s a good reference. And I have done extensive reading of similar sources. FDR was very accomodating. He truly cared about America. I don’t think he was as intelligent as Reagan or Cruz, but he had no plan to bring this country down. He was at worst disillusioned.

    The problem is that the real history, the motivations and sentiments of the people at the time are constantly being attacked by the Left. It is never-ending and historians and commentators have a responsibility to rebut these American hating leftists.

    I’ve even heard and read from several leftists that FDR was a ‘Holocaust Denier’. There’s just no end to their insanity.

  • “Complicit”: FDR’s Refusal to Save the Jews on the MS St. Louis

    04/20/2015 11:29:17 AM PDT · 54 of 86
    Hostage to Olog-hai

    This progressive piece that you posted here would never have been viewed by even a fraction of a fraction of conservatives had it not been posted on FR. It’s not worth even a minute to view it outside FR.

    But because it’s posted on FR, it gets a read. And the read quickly falls into the category of similar tripe previously posted coming from the same regional and political origins.

    This piece is nothing new. But it is new to Freeper newbies on this subject. Now they have the correct view thanks to your truly.

  • “Complicit”: FDR’s Refusal to Save the Jews on the MS St. Louis

    04/20/2015 11:23:19 AM PDT · 53 of 86
    Hostage to BroJoeK

    That quote of Hitler about being protective of the Jews was indeed written in magazines of the time. There were other quotes as well by Hitler that were menacing and clearly meant as warnings for Jews to leave or face consequences.

    But in certain instances when Hitler was interviewed and asked about the purpose of the camps, he commented they were for their protection.

  • “Complicit”: FDR’s Refusal to Save the Jews on the MS St. Louis

    04/20/2015 11:11:27 AM PDT · 48 of 86
    Hostage to Olog-hai

    > “Chesler may be both progressive and feminist, but absolutely not in the sphere of antisemitism and Islam.”

    “The Enemy of my Enemy is not my Friend”,
    -— Benjamin Netanyahu, 2015 before the Congress of the United States of America

  • “Complicit”: FDR’s Refusal to Save the Jews on the MS St. Louis

    04/20/2015 11:08:06 AM PDT · 47 of 86
    Hostage to Bubba Ho-Tep

    American Jews are not a homogeneous lot. The NY contingent are especially odious in their political views.

    But the liberal NY Jews have a real problem today. Israeli Jews love Ted Cruz and vice versa. The NY liberal Jews hate Israeli Jews and Ted Cruz.

    I’ve already placed my bets on whose going to win this beauty contest.

  • Cruz’s Struggle: This Man Loves to Argue

    04/20/2015 11:01:09 AM PDT · 19 of 84
    Hostage to MrB

    Exactly!

  • Cruz’s Struggle: This Man Loves to Argue

    04/20/2015 11:00:03 AM PDT · 13 of 84
    Hostage to Steely Tom

    Look how Ted Cruz mops the floor with Candy Crowley:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxPnjgU1Q68

    I shudder to watch what Ted Cruz does to any leftist media pundit, like Godzilla stepping on a cockroach.

  • Cruz’s Struggle: This Man Loves to Argue

    04/20/2015 10:56:55 AM PDT · 10 of 84
    Hostage to VinL

    > “That has made him a favorite on the right and ***a punching bag*** to liberals and many in the national media.”

    Liberals would never dare go up against Cruz unless they are in front of a ‘punching bag’ while fantasizing they are punching Ted Cruz.

  • “Complicit”: FDR’s Refusal to Save the Jews on the MS St. Louis

    04/20/2015 10:49:26 AM PDT · 41 of 86
    Hostage to SVTCobra03

    Read the posts. Your comments and references are off and in error.

  • “Complicit”: FDR’s Refusal to Save the Jews on the MS St. Louis

    04/20/2015 10:46:23 AM PDT · 40 of 86
    Hostage to Olog-hai

    FDR was not my hero, never has been, not even close.

    Reagan was my hero and Cruz is my hero now.

    But I know the character of good democrats of the Roosevelt era. They were not progressives. They were blue-collar patriots that no longer exist except in the Perot demographic or in the communities of Reagan democrats.

    The Reagan democrats and their parents were in the time of Roosevelt the largest demographic of the democrat party. They were conservative.

    The left, the progressives have since taken over the democrat party and kicked their conservatives to the curb.

    Roosevelt had been a republican who changed to democrat to offer a ‘New Deal’. Americans were suffering a Great Depression and their suffering was very real. Roosevelt offered them a ‘vision’ or better an ‘illusion’. He did not do this to deceive, he did it because he was weak and incapable of inspiring Americans to embrace their heritage of hard work while at the same time prodding American capitalists to restart the economic engines.

    Roosevelt was having troubles securing a second term and was no longer popular into his second term. He swung hard right on immigration in the middle of his second term to reflect the mood of the electorate. The pending war helped him secure a third term.

    If I had lived while Roosevelt was President, I would not have liked him. I would have thought he was a weak ineffectual leader, holding his finger in the air to see which way the wind blows.

    But I would never have challenged the patriotism of the American blue collar worker that voted for him by the millions. I would have questioned their judgement but never their patriotism.

    In 2008, I had some friends that voted for Obama. I tried, in a friend like way, to make them reconsider. One of them was a retired union electrical foreman. He loved America and his 80-year old mother was more patriotic than any American you will ever meet. These were democrats in the towns outside Chicago. Bush had so badly allowed the GOP brand to be damaged that these patriotic Americans thought they were doing their duty to support Obama.

    Being patriotic does not always translate to being intelligent. Being unpatriotic does not always translate to being unintelligent.

    But being patriotic does translate to being an American that appreciates the heritage.

    As for democrat voters these days, yes I question both their common sense and their patriotism. I think a great many of them are lost. I expect Ted Cruz will leave a permanent impression on them as to why America is great. I hope they are ready to learn because they sorely need a good example to follow.

  • “Complicit”: FDR’s Refusal to Save the Jews on the MS St. Louis

    04/20/2015 10:13:58 AM PDT · 36 of 86
    Hostage to Olog-hai

    What are you talking about me carrying “water for Obama”?

    The author of the subject of your thread, Phyllis Chesler is a ‘progressive’ typical NY Jewish feminist, steeped in anti-capitalist bullshit and self-aggrandizing so much as to make reasonable decent people sick to their stomachs.

    She is not representative of the American Jew who loves America.

    You want to promote her inane brand of bile, have at it. Just don’t expect Americans such as yours truly to let it go unnoticed.

  • “Complicit”: FDR’s Refusal to Save the Jews on the MS St. Louis

    04/20/2015 9:48:11 AM PDT · 33 of 86
    Hostage to LS

    BS. Those historians you speak of were not in the front lines but rather comfortably ensconced in their academic easy chairs while smoking leftist Utopian weed.

    These discussions have been aired out ad nauseum and your love affair with these historian wimps will not change the truth. And the truth is that without the sacrifice of hundreds and hundreds of thousands of American lives far more Jewish lives would have been lost.

  • “Complicit”: FDR’s Refusal to Save the Jews on the MS St. Louis

    04/20/2015 9:40:55 AM PDT · 32 of 86
    Hostage to Olog-hai

    What kind of question is that?

    The subject of your thread is not new. These American hating Jews are always coming back trying to revise history.

    Now they’re making a movie.

    My prediction is they are digging their own hole further.

    Jewish filmmakers like Speilberg get a lot more traction and respect by presenting the story of a real mensch like Schindler. That endears Americans to Jews.

    This crao about FDR turning away Jews only angers Americans against these American-hating Jews because it’s history embellished by lies.

    Was their anti-semitism in America during the Roosevelt era? Uh..yeah...duh.

    Was ‘America’ anti-semitic? Not on your life.

    It’s one thing for me to say there are some weeds in my garden. It’s another thing for someone to day my garden is a weed patch.

  • “Complicit”: FDR’s Refusal to Save the Jews on the MS St. Louis

    04/20/2015 9:30:10 AM PDT · 28 of 86
    Hostage to BroJoeK

    There were many camps where deaths were taking place from horrible conditions and forced labor.

    Yes, you are right that the Nazi organized their killing machine later, or perfected what was already trending. But the camps that existed before 1941 were not like the ‘show camps’ that were opened for viewing.

    Hitler explained the camps were necessary to protect Jews and others from anti-semitic pogroms in the East and also from angry Germans who felt betrayed by Jewish bankers in WW I. He allowed them to emigrate but immigration was then, as it is now, a political hot potato as the advanced economic nations had all they could take especially in the backdrop of a worldwide depression.

    And there’s nothing wrong with turning off the immigration spigots when economic calamity is the order of the day.

    Americans were a tough breed back then and not at all prone to falling for every hard luck story that came along. So when a group of immigrants arrived unannounced with unconfirmed reports of slave camps or death camps, Americans responded “Oh yeah? Well here’s the world’s smallest violin playing my heart bleeds for you”. And that came from Americans who were losing their homes, their farms and were out begging for the first time in their lives, standing in soup lines.

    Americans are ordinary people with a gift of liberty. Their generosity or stinginess correlates with good times and bad times. That’s not surprising, it’s simply human nature.

  • “Complicit”: FDR’s Refusal to Save the Jews on the MS St. Louis

    04/20/2015 8:53:23 AM PDT · 20 of 86
    Hostage to Olog-hai

    > “He therefore decided that he had to convince American voters that he was strongly “isolationist and anti-immigration.” “

    And rightly so. The death camps were an unconfirmed rumor. Although witnesses appeared before FDR to attest to the camps, they were Jewish and therefore not legally a third-party confirmation. Furthermore, Hitler had allowed international inspections of selected ‘show camps’ where conditions were quite good. Although these were all lies, hindsight is 20-20.

    > “He was enabled in this undertaking by his anti-Semitic advisors, including diplomats such as Joseph Kennedy, FDR’s Ambassador to the UK, who hobnobbed with his Nazi German counterpart and conveyed that many Americans shared Germany’s anti-Semitism.”

    FDR was not anti-semitic. His administration had more Jewish cabinet members and advisors than any previous presidential administration in the nation’s history.

    I am setting the record straight. FDR’s policies were severely flawed and against the principles of the nation’s founding. But he was a patriot with a love of his country. There were democrats in that time who put the country before themselves, but not now.

    My father was a democrat. Let me clarify, he was a ***conservative democrat***, a species of democrat that no longer exists. He gave his life for his country and loved America. This was the sort of democrat that predominated during Roosevelt’s time.

    And remember Ronald Reagan was at one time a democrat, a conservative democrat, also from the Roosevelt era.

    Some Jews today are out to rewrite history of the Roosevelt era as one of American Anti-Semitism.

    Won’t work.

    They try and rewrite that Americans knew about the Nazi death camps and did nothing to stop it. They write that American military forces could have liberated the camps sooner.

    Bullshit.

    The camps were behind enemy lines. There were no escape routes. The genocide was rumored but unconfirmed. To liberate the camps meant first bringing the German war machine to its knees.

    The American Army was in a death match with Hitler. The strategy was to bring down the German war machine. Hundreds of thousands of American men gave their lives to that effort and without their sacrifice untold numbers of more Jews and others would have been exterminated.

    This attempt to rewrite history will not stand.

    It’s time for these American-hating Jews to face reality and that reality is America is not going to sacrifice ALL of its blood and treasure for every injustice that exists. America is first going to survive so that it can preserve liberty for future generations of Americans. And right now Americans have their work cut out for them starting in 2016 to reclaim the principles of the original American idea. It’s not going to be easy, it never is.

  • Tennessee Senate Joins Convention of States Movement

    04/19/2015 4:34:25 PM PDT · 10 of 12
    Hostage to Jacquerie

    State Legislators can get a sense of the will of the People in their state like no other. If people want a recall without having to organize a referendum vote, it can be easier and faster to have the state legislature get it done.

    There have been many attempted recalls of US Senators by voters using whatever means at their disposal. But voters are prohibited from recalling a US Senator.

    One example was democrat Senator Franck Church who faced a very viable recall campaign in 1967 but escaped because federal courts ruled that political recalls did not apply to US Senators and that the recall against Senator Church violated the US Constitution.

    Therefore, an amendment to recall US Senators is in order.

    The way it plays out is like this:

    * A State Legislature opens a channel of communication with a US Senator from their state.

    * Demands are made on the US Senator to support or propose legislation that benefits the state and the people of the state.

    * AS OF NOW the US Senator cares not a wit about what state legislators demand. They care only about the image that their campaign marketing managers are able to set in the minds of the voter, about pointing out the negatives of political competitors and about buying off power players in the state they represent. Basically if they contract all the big hitters, they win the ball game.

    * AS OF NOW recalls of US Senators are not allowed by federal courts.

    * AS OF NOW voters unhappy with a US Senator will first call the office of the US Senator and if there is no sincere response, where do they go? How would they know how many other voters are of the same mind? Will the local press inform them? The answers are mostly in the negative. They do not contact their state legislators because there is nothing the state legislature can do.

    * WHEN an amendment is ratified allowing recalls of US Senators, THEN everything changes. Voters can EITHER organize a recall referendum OR call their state legislatures and demand a recall be put in motion. Getting state legislatures involved in recall efforts unites the people of their state with their state legislators. That is a good thing.

  • Tennessee Senate Joins Convention of States Movement

    04/19/2015 12:20:27 PM PDT · 6 of 12
    Hostage to Jacquerie; cotton1706; All

    Repeating here an illustrative example of how the power of Article V can be unlocked by the States to restore federalism:

    ************************************************
    AMENDMENT XXVIII

    To redress the balance of powers between the federal government and the States and to restore effective suffrage of State Legislatures to Congress, the following amendment is proposed:

    ************************************************
    Section 1.
    A Senator in Congress shall be subject to recall by their respective state legislature or by voter referendum in their respective state.

    Section 2.
    Term limits for Senators in Congress shall be set by vote in their respective state legislatures but in no case shall be set less than twelve years nor more than eighteen years.

    Section 3.
    Upon a majority vote in three-fifths of state legislatures, specific federal statutes, federal court decisions and executive directives of any form shall be repealed and made void.
    ************************************************

    If Section 1 above can be replaced with a repeal of the 17th, then that’s even better but it may be a hard sale. Section 1 above gets the job done by making US Senators pay attention to their State Legislators and at the same time requiring both to interact with the state voters.

    I would strongly recommend the following must-see video of Mark Levin be watched, consumed and studied:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdZuV8JnvvA

    And I would strongly recommend all to urge respective state senators and state representatives, and the people that work for them, to view it.

  • U.S. appeals court judges skeptical over lifting hold on Obama immigration order

    04/17/2015 5:28:47 PM PDT · 28 of 51
    Hostage to Amendment10; Jane Long

    They had to ask a lot of questions, many many many questions so that they can write a ruling that will hold up at the Supreme Court because that is where this is going.

    The least they (the two we hope will rule against the motion to stay=’lift’ the injunction) must do is ***not*** write something that SCOTUS can shoot down. So they need to be careful and precise where needed. What that means is:

    1. SCOTUS finds nothing in the lower court ruling that they can use to reverse the decision.

    2. In order to reverse the decision SCOTUS must come up with something themselves that none of the lower courts mentioned. This makes it much more difficult on SCOTUS.

    The delay may be a good thing. Let the appellate court take a month or two or three to write their decision.

    I am wishfully thinking that the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals did the right thing in granting fast track status to the Administration. If they had denied a fast track review, Obama’s people could have immediately taken their emergency motion to the US Supreme Court. By granting the fast track motion, they keep Obama bottled up in lower courts, they keep control of the clock.

    The more I read about the developments of this case, the more I am impressed with Judge Hanen, the Texas Governor, Texas Attorney General and Txas Solicitor General. We are blessed to have these people at this time with their ability to anticipate Obama’s moves and respond in a way that frustrates Obama.

    I am so looking forward to April 21 this coming Tuesday when the Obama Administration is due back in Judge Hanen’s court with all the data on the 108,000 + DACA extensions that violated Judge Hanen’s order.

    Some Freepers have expressed that Judge Hanen should be a US Supreme Court Justice. With President Cruz in the White House, I would think that’s almost a given. And he should replace Roberts as Chief Justice.

  • Ted Cruz: I Have Never Been To A Gay Wedding

    04/17/2015 8:47:29 AM PDT · 72 of 75
    Hostage to ConservingFreedom

    DOMA is and was not necessary.

    Windsor was not decided on grounds of the FFC Clause. It was ruled based on due process provisions of the 14A. As a result parts of DOMA were struck down.

    Windsor did not redefine ‘marriage’ nor did it mandate one state’s definition on any other state. Windsor imposed upon states that contract provisions of ‘homosexual marriage’, specifically that estate, inheritance arrangements and benefits be recognized by the federal government. That falls under the Commerce Clause and the 14th A, not FFC.

    If DOMA had not existed, Windsor would have been the same in that it forced the federal government to recognize contract arrangements similar to spousal arrangements. Therefore, DOMA was not necessary.

    The FFC Clause was not crafted to establish uniformity in definitions but to promote consistency primarily in how debtors, creditors and insolvency were handled if debtors would flee from one state to another to escape creditors. The essence of the clause is not in mandating state definitions but in harmonizing contract arrangements and judicial acts.

    Definitions of many objects vary from state to state. Example: Definition of Assault Weapon.

    States can enter bizarre definitions of any sort. The state of Oregon say, may recognize that a man can record a contract of marriage to his goat. The definition of marriage is therefore extended to goats and humans in that state. The FFC clause does not require this bizarre definition to be recognized in every state nor does it necessitate that Congress pass a ‘Denial of Goat Matrimony Act’ (DOGMA) to see that it is prohibited. But it may support the inheritance of the man’s land to the goat and its offspring for establishing a protected reserve for free range goats.

  • Ted Cruz: I Have Never Been To A Gay Wedding

    04/16/2015 8:41:22 PM PDT · 66 of 75
    Hostage to Balding_Eagle

    No, Jesus would not evade it. Jesus never evaded anything and He does not evade anything now.

    But that doesn’t mean He would answer directly.

    Example: “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”.

    Jesus put the situation into its larger and proper context.

    Ted Cruz did not evade the question. He recast the situation into its proper context. Like Jesus, he put the question into its proper context and in so doing he addressed the larger issue.

  • Gov. Sarah Palin • Debunking the Myths of a ‘Convention Of States’

    04/16/2015 8:33:41 PM PDT · 7 of 66
    Hostage to Publius

    I’ll bet Ted Cruz is not far behind!

  • Reid: Women ‘More Patient,’ Less Inclined to War Than Men

    04/16/2015 7:47:32 PM PDT · 16 of 58
    Hostage to E. Pluribus Unum

    Hillary as Co-President was responsible for ordering the homosexual general Wesley Clark to bomb Kosovo.

    She was ‘on tour’ with a lavish entourage in Morocco when her feminist stooge Madeleine Albright as Secretary of State phoned her and told her ‘this man’ Milosevich refused to bow down to her. Hillary’s response was “Bomb Them!”.

    Reid is such a liar. He is rotten from top to bottom and disgusting to his core.

  • Ted Cruz: I Have Never Been To A Gay Wedding

    04/16/2015 7:03:53 PM PDT · 46 of 75
    Hostage to jocon307

    DOMA was struck down by Justice Kennedy who ignored laws and traditions to inject his own personal view in the question of marriage. He was wrong and his ruling will be voided in time.

    DOMA was not needed although its sponsors thought otherwise. If marriage definition was left to states, it does not require federal resolution to rectify inconsistencies or clear distinctions in the various state definitions. Federal government is only brought in to regulate interstate commerce and marriage is not commerce.

    However, contracts between people are under the jurisdiction of federal courts as such contracts may be construed as commerce. Real and personal property, debts are carried forward in marriage to divorce and probate.

    But these matters although carried forward by marriage need not be adjudicated as carried forward by marriage; they can be treated as civil contracts. For those choosing perverted lifestyles recognized in one state as civil union or domestic partnership or in the bizarre sense as marriage, such states that do not recognize same-sex marriage can and must recognize the domestic partnership in the same manner as marriages.

    And this was the case that was ignored by Justice Kennedy who should be admonished and sanctioned. And that is possible to do within federal government or an Article V Convention of States. Kennedy is an unelected tyrant.

    The notion of ‘marriage’ between homosexuals makes a mockery to rational sensibilities, encroaches on religious liberties and opens Pandora’s box to all forms of perversion.

    Should one or more states bizarrely define marriage as between consenting adults or among consenting adults, and possibly later between a minor and an adult and so on, then other states that define marriage to be between one man and one woman can treat the bizarre marriage certificate from another state in the manner of a civil union and dispense with contract matters under laws of domestic partnership.

    There is no conflict with states defining marriage as they wish as long as they handle bizarre migrations according to contract law. This was argued before the court and it was a solid argument showing with certainty that homosexuals were not damaged by differing definitions. But Justice Kennedy decided to inject his personality into the mix rather than resolve the confusion as a jurist should do. He has created more confusion, coercion that has led to violations of fundamental rights. His Windor decision is no less than Roe v. Wade in impact. Such decisions have resulted in anger, frustration and confusion on many levels. The social angst and buildup of pressure will find an outlet. Justice Kennedy should hope he’s in retirement before it blows but I think it will happen sooner. It will not be violent. It will be legislative. But he will feel the blow back for sure.

  • Ted Cruz: I Have Never Been To A Gay Wedding

    04/16/2015 5:51:23 PM PDT · 19 of 75
    Hostage to VinL

    Yes he saw the trap. To attend a same-sex marriage (I don’t use the word ‘gay’) is to celebrate it and in so doing to defacto recognize it.

    Would Jesus, God in the flesh, attend a marriage of a man with a man or a woman with a woman? And if He were to attend such, would He celebrate it?

    To attend a such a marriage for Christians is to celebrate sin, to celebrate perversion, to celebrate an abomination to the Lord.

    And once one sin is celebrated, it is no longer considered sin to the confused. As confusion ascends then all other sins wait for their normalization. The Church falls and is no more.

  • Graham Knocks Cruz On Guns And Tyranny: 'We Tried That Once... I'm Not Looking For An Insurrection'

    04/16/2015 2:29:33 PM PDT · 94 of 130
    Hostage to Maceman

    Lol!

  • TED CRUZ - A Giant among Men (With photos of Campaign HQ grand opening)

    04/15/2015 2:55:09 AM PDT · 16 of 109
    Hostage to sten

    I can see it’s clear you don’t understand the history, purpose or meaning of the Natural Born requirement.

    You can start correcting your thinking here:

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3275080/posts?page=34#34

    and here:

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3275080/posts?page=35#35

    And pay particular attention to the legal distinction between the terms ‘residence’ and ‘domicile’.

  • Putin And The Russian Government Ban Internet Pornography

    04/14/2015 8:48:03 PM PDT · 15 of 37
    Hostage to NKP_Vet

    I don’t care for Putin and some elements of Russian culture and character.

    But drawing a line on homosexuality and pornography is appropriate and necessary. The 1st and 14th Amendments have been abused, distorted and made a mockery to allow these depravities.

    We need a structural amendment in our constitution that allows 3/5’s of states to repeal and void decisions and rulings from all branches of federal government.