Posted on 12/21/2015 6:04:59 AM PST by HomerBohn
No person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States. -Article II, Section 1 of the united States Constitution
Before I begin and before you get angry at me for pointing out what I'm about to point out, I want to ask you to hold that thought and ask yourself why you are not more angry at these representatives for their ignorance and willful ignoring of the law! I have been suspicious of Rep. Trey Gowdy for some time now. Though he often says a lot of good things, the reality is that he has been on several congressional committees, including chairing the Benghazi committee and has brought absolutely no resolve to any of those things. However, today, a video was released challenging Gowdy on the Natural Born Citizenship qualifications of presidential candidate Marco Rubio (and we could also apply the same standard to Ted Cruz). Gowdy's answer was simply treasonous.
(Watch Video At Link)
Evan Mulch, who is a constituent of Gowdy's, confronted the congressman concerning and first asked if he had read the 28 pages of the 9/11 report that several congressmen are attempting to have released to the public. Gowdy admitted that he had not read them.
However, it was the follow-up question that generated the ignorance and heat. Mulch asked Gowdy, "When Marco Rubio said that his parents were born in another country, that doesn't make him a natural born citizen, according to the Constitution. What would you say to that?"
"That issue has already been litigated," said Gowdy.
Gowdy then went on to totally distort the idea of what was put to him and asked if John McCain was ineligible, something that has not been a part of being a natural born citizen. In case you miss the dodge there, Rubio's parents were not citizens when he was born in the States. Of course, Rubio is an American citizen, but fails to meet the qualifications that even the founders recognized had to be present to be a natural born citizen.
When Gowdy was asked, "So, we don't need a natural born citizen to be president?"
"It depends on what you mean by that?" he responded.
It depends on what you mean? My goodness, the ignorance is glaring and I will demonstrate just how much shortly, but Gowdy continued to demonstrate his ignorance of the natural born citizen issue.
When Mulch said that we know what the founders meant by it, Gowdy retorted, "No you don't!"
But Mr. Gowdy, we most certainly do know! In fact, we have something called the 1790 Naturalization Act, which clearly defines who a natural born citizen is. And no, it is not just a person born on American soil as the Constitution distinguishes between natural born and "a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution." If all that was required was to be a "citizen," then why the distinction? It was because of what I'm about to show you.
As Publius Huldah has pointed out, the framers were quite familiar with Vattel's Law of Nations. As such, they understood what it meant to be "natural born," though Vattel used the term subject, not citizen. While many have tried to blow off Congress' use of the Law of Nations, Benjamin Franklin wrote a letter to Charles Dumas on December 9, 1775 to thank him for sending three copies of the book and specifically wrote, "… I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author…" (2nd para) [boldface added]
So, Congress most definitely was aware of the volume, had high and just esteem for Vattel and continually had it in their hands. Keep in mind that this was all before the Constitution was written in 1787.
In fact, Publius Huldah points out that in the 1916 edition of the Law of Nations published by the Carnegie Endowment, Albert de Lapradelle wrote an introduction which stated that the fathers of independence, "were in accord with the ideas of Vattel," that the found in Vattel "all their maxims of political liberty" and,
"From 1776 to 1783, the more the United States progressed, the greater became Vattel's influence. In 1780 his Law of Nations was a classic, a text book in the universities."
While our founders were originally subjects of Britain, once they won the war for independence, they became citizens, and Vattel was the one who offered that understanding they came to with regard to natural born citizen. Publius Huldah has previously pointed out what the gist of what Vattel penned in Law of Nations, Book I, Ch. XIX, at §§ 212-217, is this:
§ 212: Natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens – it is necessary that they be born of a father who is a citizen. If a person is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
§ 213: Inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners who are permitted to stay in the country. They are subject to the laws of the country while they reside in it. But they do not participate in all the rights of citizens – they enjoy only the advantages which the law or custom gives them. Their children follow the condition of their fathers – they too are inhabitants.
§ 214: A country may grant to a foreigner the quality of citizen – this is naturalization. In some countries, the sovereign cannot grant to a foreigner all the rights of citizens, such as that of holding public office – this is a regulation of the fundamental law. And in England, merely being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.
§§ 215, 216 & 217: Children born of citizens in a foreign country, at sea, or while overseas in the service of their country, are "citizens".
So, the founders knew what it meant and we know they knew what it meant. Gowdy is just out to lunch here or is being dishonest. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, but there is no excuse for a man in his position to not know this.
Furthermore, the 1790 Naturalization Act, which was written within two years of the Constitution, so there is no doubt that these men had the same definition of those who penned the Constitution, reads:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.
Notice that even in this Act, there is a distinction between "citizens," those who are "naturalized" and "natural born citizens." Notice they also understood that men like John McCain (though he is a traitor to his country) would be a natural born citizen, even if he were born outside US soil in Panama. Why? Because his parents were both citizens! There is no doubt that we can know exactly what the Framers had in mind when they wrote "natural born citizen."
Finally, you'll notice Trey Gowdy said, "You're either going to follow the law of the land or you're not."
Exactly right, Mr. Gowdy, but it seems you are so ignorant of what the Constitution means by Natural Born Citizen that you are unable to follow the law, or you are simply willfully not following it, but propping up nothing but anchor babies from all over. After all, if all that is required to be president is for one to be a citizen, every anchor baby ever born should fit Gowdy's sentiments, right?
Rubio's parents were born in Cuba and were not naturalized till after he was born in the States, making him a citizen, but not a natural born citizen (remember the language distinguishing between those two in the Constitution. Cruz's father was born in Cuba and his mother was a US citizen. Remember, that one must be born of parents (plural) who are citizens, but more specifically the father must be a citizen. Cruz held dual citizenship in Canada and the united States until he wanted to throw his hat in the ring for a presidential run.
But notice the other problem here. We are told we are a nation of immigrants. No, we are not. I'm not. My family decades ago may have been, but my parents were citizens, their parents were citizens and I'm a citizen. Furthermore we are natural born citizens. Also, one woman turns and ignorantly claims, "You realize we're all not natural born citizens." Talk about why we are in the place we are at!
My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children. Hosea 4:6
Indeed, America is being destroyed due to the lack of knowledge of the people. As a final thought, keep in mind that the Bible even teaches that a foreigner should not rule over the people, emphasizing the natural born status.
Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother. Deuteronomy 17:15
The article is foolish because it’s ignorant of the law. It’s foolish to this an article such as this is worth consideration.
Really? When did Alaska become a state? When were the railroads to the west completed? When was Oklahoma populated?
The Fourteenth Amendment and a "natural born citizen"A common misunderstanding of "natural born" citizenship comes from the Fourteenth Amendment, but a strict reading of the fourteenth amendment is quite clear that this only conveys an at birth naturalized citizenship. Those born in the United States at the time of adoption and afterwards were only citizens. Those who wrote the amendment knew exactly what they were doing. Because of the distinctive use of "natural born citizen" and "citizen," in Article II, Section 1 the simple fact that being born in the United States does not make one a "natural born citizen," it only makes one "a citizen."
The Fourteenth amendment states in Section 1,
Section 1 - "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Obviously missing is the conveyance of "natural born" status to these citizens. In fact what is obviously included in the text is the term "naturalized." This section has several clauses, the first deals with citizenship.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.
The second deals with prohibiting the states from passing laws denying the protection of citizenship from any citizen, "natural born" or naturalized.
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
The fifth section details something very important, it reads
Section 5 "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
Article 1, Section 8 enumerated the powers Congress has. The only power Congress has over citizenship is found here. It reads,
"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;"
To make the freed slaves citizens, naturalization was the only power the 14th Amendment granted Congress to use. Look it up in the Constitution. Congress had no intention and no authority to making everyone born under the 14th Amendment "a natural born citizen." This is born out by Congressional records regarding the debate of the Fourteenth Amendment. By the chief architect of Section 1 of this amendment.
"I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen; but, sir, I may be allowed to say further, that I deny that the Congress of the United States ever had the power or color of power to say that any man born within the jurisdiction of the United States, and not owing a foreign allegiance, is not and shall not be a citizen of the United States." John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, Architect of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866), Cf. U.S. Const. XIVth Amend.
There is no doubt that anyone born under the 14th Amendment who is not subject is a "naturalized citizen," or just "a citizen," as the Amendment states. They are not natural born citizens.
To further understand why this is so, is to look at the first clause carefully.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.
The words "born or naturalized" are joined with the conjunction "or," and logically an or implies either of the two are equal. What they are equal in is being a citizen. Not "a natural born citizen." This expressly negates the idea that simple birth of a person who is "subject to the jurisdiction" confers the coveted "natural born" status. If the term "citizen" did in fact convey a "natural born" status, then who were naturalized would be considered "natural born."
Obviously, this is not the case, as it would mean that people like Kissinger, Albright and Schwarzenegger could run for office. Clearly, the Fourteenth Amendment is not conferring "natural born" status on anyone, it only confers simple citizenship and the universal rights given to all citizens, "native born" and naturalized. In fact, several Supreme Court Cases since the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment restrict citizenship claims based on being born geographically within the United States, and bestows the coveted "natural born citizen" title to the children of citizens, while affirming simple citizenship to the children born to aliens.
1. The Slaughterhouse Cases 83 U.S. 36 (1873) The Fourteenth Amendment excludes the children of aliens. "The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States."
2. Minor v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162 (1874) The Fourteenth Amendment draws a distinction between the children of aliens and children of citizens. "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."
3. Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884) The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" requires "direct and immediate allegiance" to the United States, not just physical presence. "This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired."
4. Wong Kim Ark Case, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) Affirms that "natural born citizen," is the child of an existing citizen. "The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle."
5. Perkins v. Elg, 307 U. S. 325 (1939) In citing a long series of cases, involving minors removed from their US domicile by their foreign born parents, the Supreme Court distinguishes the difference of "a native born person" of two naturalized citizens can become President. This distinction of citizenship is not made to the others, only that their Jus soli citizenship is intact if at the age of majority they reclaim it.
As you can see from the intent of the Founding Fathers to the Supreme Court decision that "a natural born" is the child of citizens. A natural born citizen is not the child of an alien. In this there is no doubt. The question now that we seek answered is that Barack Hussein Obama, II is both the child of an alien who never had any intention on becoming a naturalized citizen and the child of a citizen minor. If Barack Hussein Obama, II was in fact born in Hawaii, he is a citizen under Jus soli and afforded all rights any citizen has. But he is not a citizen under Jus sanguinis, because we have laws that dictate how Jus sanguinis citizenship can be transferred. If Barack Hussein Obama, II cannot claim citizenship under Jus sanguinis then he is not a natural born citizen.
While many patriots will argue with clear conviction "natural born" should be narrowly interpreted as to mean both parents must be citizens, giving birth to that child under the jurisdiction of the United States of America, they do accept that Jus sanguinis citizenship can be passed from one parent in accordance to the law of the land at the time of birth. So what was the law of the land at the time for giving a person Jus sanguinis citizenship?
There three ways for a person claim citizenship, what most of us think of first is called Jus soli, "the right of the soil," which is the physical location your place of birth. The second is what is called Jus sanguinis, "the right of blood," which you inherit from your parents. The third is a combination of Jus soli and Jus sanguinis, and it is this combination that determines if one is a natural born citizen. Since any citizenship under Jus solis is codified by the Fourteenth Amendment, we only find laws for passing citizenship via Jus sanguinis on August 4th, 1961 in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter Act). This act states that in order for Obama's right of blood citizenship to be passed to him, that since he only had one parent who was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least ten years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 14. Barack Hussein Obama, II fails the test for the right to claim "natural born citizen" status.
Common sense tells us that both Jus soli and Jus sanguinis are what the Founding Fathers intended when they penned the phrase "a natural born citizen." For imagine foreigners owing allegiance to a foreign power, arriving in America, giving birth to a child and immediately returning home to their country with their child. This child is reared for 21 years in a culture that hates America and that wants to see America destroyed. On the child's 21st birthday this child returns to the United States of America, claiming their citizenship based Jus soli. For fourteen years they live in the United States, supported covertly by these foreign powers, growing in wealth and stature until they reach the age of 35 years. This scenario cumulates with this child of the soil, not having one drop of American blood in their veins, becoming President and destroying this country. Considering that countries are a creation of mankind, and non-existent in nature, natural loyalties are too blood.
"To disregard such a deliberate choice of words and their natural meaning would be a departure from the first principle of constitutional interpretation. 'In expounding the Constitution of the United States, every word must have its due force, and appropriate meaning; for it is evident from the whole instrument, that no word was unnecessarily used, or needlessly added. The many discussions which have taken place upon the construction of the constitution, have proved the correctness of this proposition; and shown the high talent, the caution, and the foresight of the illustrious men who framed it. Every word appears to have been weighed with the utmost deliberation, and its force and effect to have been fully understood." Chief Justice Roger B. Taney
The Constitution directly specified 3 types of citizens, at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment as those who are "citizens," those who were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and natural born citizens. The architects of the Fourteenth Amendment had two to choose from in granting citizenship under this amendment, they choose just a citizen, and rejected "a natural born citizen."
There is no anchor baby law per se. There have been interpretations of law which many say are flawed. At issue is not whether Rubio is a citizen. As the law is interpreted he most certainly is.
There is a grey area about whether he is eligible to serve as President. If indeed there is a third class of citizens: natural born, citizens and naturalized citizens he is not. To the best of my understanding there would have been no reason for the framers to have created a third class identical with citizenship. The reasoning and historical letters/writings from the time suggest that they were intent on protecting the country from a leader with foreign loyalty and that was the reason a distinct class of citizens was defined for President & Vice President.
Sadly they failed to make their intent clear enough that it could not be muddied subsequently. At this time we have several candidates who have some entanglements with foreign allegiance but no clear standard to establish whether they are natural born citizens within the criterion set forward by the constution. Precedence from Obama’s assumption of the office is that the distinction is not being enforced which I believe leaves the country at risk for precisely the issue the founders sought to address.
I hope that later administrations and Supreme courts will clarify this murky situation since it is vitally important. There are substantial benefits conferred with citizenship with the cost borne by the current American people. Birthright citizenship is not in the interest of the people or of America. Citizenship should be awarded to people who have chose to come here, are here legally and who pledge to be loyal American, who will obey our laws and cherish our freedoms. Our President should be free of foreign entanglements and loyalties.
No it doesn't and no matter how many B$ lawyers say it, it doesn't make it so.
Have I mentioned lately that lawyers are the scum of the earth and are willing to twist easily understood plain English into any meaning they are paid for?
I used rebuild because that is the word Obama used. The intent of what he’s doing is certainly what you said.
I think that Obama is what the Framers were trying to avoid with their birth laws. I’m not saying there is a fake birth certificate.
I’m saying that his loyalties are divided by the nature of his tenuous connection to our country. First, he is the child of a foreigner from an Islamic background. His mother was very young, and then remarried another Islamic foreigner who raised Obama a considerable period of time in Indonesia, an Islamic country.
His loyalties are at best mixed. I think they’re in opposition to America.
In the case of Rubio his parents really had no place else to go and knew it. The case of his mother is different than his father who held out longer. Perhaps he was hoping to return to Cuba. I don’t know.
In any case, Rubio was born in America and connected to America.
In the case of Ted Cruz, his mother is clearly an American citizen with a lifelong connection to our country. His Cuban father might have been similar to Rubio’s, hoping perhaps for a return to Cuba, but he overcame that in receiving Canadian citizenship. Cruz received Canadian citizenship by virtue of birth there, but his mother had no binding emotional connection to that country. Nor did his father, really.
They left and returned to the US when Cruz was about 3, iirc. Cruz’s connection has never been anyplace but to this country. Humans have little in the way of memory prior to 3 years old.
For sure. What hyphenated brand do you prefer?
I prefer Cruz but clearly I don’t believe he is NBC. I also realize that he likely will not be the nominee that leaves Trump and the crook from the other party whomever that is.
I agree completely with your analysis. I am concerned only that we protect the country from being ruled with someone who doesn’t have American loyalties.
The situation needs to be clarified even though no matter what laws you write you can’t avoid a possibility of that happening, nor can you avoid the possibility that true patriots such as Cruz will have to serve the country in another capacity than President depending on the definition of natural born. That last point is the silver lining in the cloud of our present mess, Cruz can run and hopefully in the near future the criterion can be clarified for the future. In an imperfect world we need to take our wins as we find them.
Yes, T. Gowdy is one of THEM. And M. Rubio is not a natural born citizen. He has done nothing to convince me that he is capable of handling the highest office in the land.
If the Court revisits this issue it will have very little to do with what the Constitution says and a lot to do with what 5 dumb@ss lawyers want it to say.
Nothing is clear enough that a lawyer or two can't call even common sense into question.
Obama’s presidency is instructive. His loyalties were not here.
Anwar al Awlaki’s anchor baby US citizen children are eligible for the presidency if I understand correctly, even though they are not being raised loyal to this country or culture.
The appearance of divided loyalties is hard to write into law.
I think I’d require 3rd generation birth citizenship and their formative years up to age 21 living in this country OR with military/consular type parents, if I could write a new law now. That is not to say that I don’t think Cruz is eligible. I do.
After Obama, I’d rewrite the Constitution and the law.
He certainly has made his mark on America. I hope we can recover and we need to protect our county’s interests at home and abroad by avoiding allowing people who are not patriots the keys to the store from this point forward.
Allowing all these anchor babies is a recipe for disaster. Even if their parents are just getting citizenship for their children as insurance it opens America to attack from within by the fifth column.
At this point I have no doubt. Maybe with a couple of new justices it could be correctly defined.
I’m an American. Not a specialized subset of Americans.
No, common sense tells us Jus soli is a naturalized, or adopted citizenship. Only the inherited Allegiance of Jus sanguinis is a Natural born one.
While I don't fully understand what you might mean, it looks like you're in large company. With our new UN approved, fundamentally redefined definitions, borders and identity, we are the world. Everyone is American.
We have been unraveled as we've rewritten our world in our own image one definition at a time and I'm watching it unfold like I'm watching a movie while trying to figure out the plot.
The only way I can get my head around it is from a biblical point of view.
For our great society to fundamentally transform, we first had to totally remove the Father, in all aspects, Top down.
Though our Founding Fathers paid homage to our heavenly Father, and some say they made a covenant with the Father in creating this nation, currently all references to God, the Father, have been officially disallowed in our GuvCo schools, buildings and facilities, military, you name it.
Once the Father was removed and no longer honored as His Commandments mandate, all other fathers, whether parent or Founding Father, and his attributes were also removed and no longer honored nor wanted.
Through various means and methods, the family, the bedrock of society, was broken apart and the father was both removed by and replaced by GuvCo.
The father is now commonly absent from his children's day to day childhood and thus, in absentia, unknown and no longer honored. Another Commandment broken.
With the Father of Heaven and the father of the home now both absent and unwelcome, rewriting the fundamental, natural law based definitions of gender, homosexuality and marriage were as easy as can be. In our zeal, they almost rewrote themselves.
Protestant countries, by their nature, were most vulnerable to fundamental transformation and their churches have reluctantly to readily embraced change.
Many Catholics have also broken from Scriptural definitions of marriage and homosexuality and followed the world in opposition to both Scripture and natural law based common sense, the same as many Protestants have.
We, as a nation, have also done our best to remove our Founding Fathers and their beliefs whenever and wherever possible. We know best. Way better than a bunch of old, dead, rich white guys with slaves, doncha know.
The UN approved, we are the world definition of natural born citizen is just another example and a part of our natural progression down the unnatural slippery slope.
And, boy howdy, do we like the slide! Scripture speaks of this mentality, never in a good way, and of the times when it rules over our most sacred place within.
To which we quote Breitbart's "So?" We are the world and we believe the meaning of "is" is like, whatever you want it to be, man.
As a former player turned observer, I think it's getting hard to read the signs of the times as we fly pass them. There are so many and they go by so fast these days!
Whatever your beliefs and emotions tell you you are, I'm still a natural born American, but that doesn't mean what it used to...then again, what does?
Nothing. Not even the meaning of is. Danger! Danger, Will Robinson!
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.