Posted on 07/18/2006 10:58:12 AM PDT by BigFinn
Really? Do you have a reason for that, or are you just pro-Jihad?
If they are supporting these terrorists, then they should stay put. Anyone - Americans included - who supports terrorism is our enemy.
Sheets? Mr. Byrd? I didn't know you were on this forum!
You might find this forum more suitable to your ignorance, racism, and bigotry.
None whatsoever.
The truth owes nobody an apology.
Just why would 25,000 Americans choose to live in Lebanon? I can't imagine that even a large minority of them really support America.
And for your information, I don't have one racist bone in my body.
Why would a "loyal American" choose to live (or spend a large amount of time in Lebanon)? I could imagine enough legitimate reasons to account for a few, but 25,000 is a large number, and it's almost unimaginable that the majority are loyal to America.
I don't have one racist bone in my body.
Attacking Arabs (rather than mohammedans) is explicitly and specifically a racist comment. I'm glad you chose to quickly revise and extend your remarks ... I'd suggest that thismight be an appropriate time for a bit of introspection on your part.
and it's almost unimaginable that the majority are loyal to America.
I think the problem here might be the limits on your imagination.
Sheets? Mr. Byrd? I didn't know you were on this forum!
You might find this forum more suitable to your ignorance, racism, and bigotry.
Anyone who considers themselves to be a hyphenated American, whether Arab, Jewish, African, Italian, German, or Other, is not really an American. Real Americans are not something else first!
Irrelevant.
Dawn, and FReepers, here's the state of dual citizenship law: once it was banned. You were an American, period, or you were something else.
Now if you are entitled to US citizenship and entitled also to foreign citizenship by birthright, you may claim that citizenship. This came about because of Jews who want to have both Israeli and US citizenship, and have a strong voice in Congress. They wanted the change because anti-Semites in the USA could make it hard for someone who served in a foreign military or political office, for instance, under the old Neutrality Act.
Put the irony is, this law that was meant to accommodate these Jews who pose no imaginable threat to the USA, of course applies equally to all. Mexico recently permitted its diaspora to claim citizenship. Irish can do it as long as the Irish ancestor is within three generations. And many third-worldian hellholes let their citizens take US citizenship while retaining loyalties to the home turf -- Lebanon, for instance.
Schulssel is certainly wrong to imply that all the dual citizens are Hezbollah fans, or that all the Americans stranded are dual citizens. But the time is long past to end the dual citizenship charade. You're an American, or you ain't. When I hear "dusl citizen" I immediately process it as "disloyal" -- Shia, Christian, Jewish, Lebanese, Mexican, Israeli, it doesn't matter, pick up another passport and your loyalty to the US is compromised.
If you guys think this NEO is a nightmare, imagine what Tel Aviv would be like, if the Israelis lose. How many dual citizens in Israel? A million?
And they'd all come here and immmediately start voting for left-wing Democrats. Therefore it is strongly in the US national interest that Israel win its wars.
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
In September 2004, there was a huge gathering of anti-American, anti-Israeli organizations in Beirut to attend a conference entitled “Where Next For The Global Anti-War And Anti-Globalization Movements? An International Strategy Meeting.” The resulting manifesto, simultaneously turgid and strident, has as its primary goal attacking the U.S. war in Iraq. It’s secondary goal is to challenge Israel’s “occupation” of Palestinian lands. It’s a nasty document, with a decidedly anti-American tone. What makes it interesting today is the identity of one of the organizations playing host to all these anti-American Leftist organizations: Hezbollah (identified on the last page as one of the Local Welcoming Committees).
Aside from the little refresher about American and Israeli friends and enemies, the document has a couple more interesting participants. First, George Galloway was one of the attendees.
One of the participants from the United States was a group called United for Peace and Justice. Women for Peace also attended this little American and Israel hatefest. What distinguishes United for Peace and Justice is that Teresa Kerry funds it.
*Leslie Cagan, United for Peace and Justice national coordinator, a long-time communist revolutionary, also runs International ANSWER, dominated by the Communist Workers World Party. The Communist Party USA is also one of the affiliated groups under the United for Peace and Justice coalition. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39502
So, in 2004, a couple of months before Americans decided whether to put John Kerry in the White House, his wife’s money was being used to fund one of the participants in a virulently anti-American meeting held in Beirut and hosted by Hezbollah. Once again, we have reason to be grateful that American voters put their money on George Bush.
Thank you very much my fellow freeper.
Or the lack of limits to your credulity.
Since your imagination stretches so much further than mine, how about you list some legitimate (non-Jihad supporting) reasons for Americans to spend a lot of time in Lebanon. Remember these reasons need to be able to account for a good portion of 25,000 people.
Let's see, I'll get you started. Some could be there for legitimate (non-Jihad supporting) work. That should account for a few dozen. Others might be there for a short vacation, and just got there at the wrong time. That should be a few dozen more.
Well, that still leaves almost 25,000 to go. How do you account for them?
Only to those who are not really Americans.
I don't know. At times like this, all these numbers have to be suspect, but 25,000 is the one thrown out for Americans in Lebanon. I have to assume many of them live there permanently.
Beyond that ... I'm not the one accusing folks of malfeasance. You are; you bear the burden of proof. Thus far, the burden has crushed you.
The pertanent cases regarding dual citizenship.
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)
Perkins v. Elg (1939)
Kawakita v. U.S. (1952)
Mandoli v. Acheson (1952)
Perez v. Brownell (1958)
Trop v. Dulles (1958)
Schneider v. Rusk (1964)
Afroyim v. Rusk (1967)
Rogers v. Bellei (1971)
Vance v. Terrazas (1980)
Miller v. Albright (1998)
Nguyen v. INS (2001)
U.S. Federal Appeals Courts
Richards v. Secretary of State et al. (9th Cir. 1985)
Action and Deltamar v. Rich (2nd Cir. 1991)
U.S. v. Ahumada Aguilar (9th Cir. 1999)
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.