Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Barron Trump gets a standing ovation at his father’s Florida rally: ‘First time he’s ever done this’
New York Post ^ | July 10, 2024 | Victor Nava

Posted on 07/09/2024 9:35:55 PM PDT by nickcarraway

Donald Trump’s youngest son, Barron Trump, received a standing ovation Tuesday at his father’s Florida rally in what the former president suggested was the teenager’s debut on the campaign trail.

Barron, 18, turned and waved to the crowd of Trump supporters at his father’s Doral golf course as the former president praised him for his smarts, demeanor and rising popularity.

“This is a young man. He just turned 18 – Oh, look at this,” the 78-year-old former president said, stopping as the crowd’s cheers intensified.

(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Florida
KEYWORDS: barrontrump; florida; maga2024; trump; trump2024; trumprally
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-124 next last
To: Freee-dame
Why hasn’t the …..two US citizen parent meaning of natural born citizen …. ship sailed after having Obama as president?

source

Because of the McCain candidacy for President

81 posted on 07/10/2024 9:36:08 AM PDT by RideForever (Damn, another dangling par .....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Im not sure that there is much better among the youth.

It seems that because he has some brilliant guests “he knows everything”.

Rogan is so full of himself I wouldnt discount him thinking he could pull off a run himself.

Fear Factor? UFC? The cool factor alone beats whatever qualifications you can come up with for your candidate.

Dont be too surprised if Idiocracy comes true in ‘32 or ‘38.


82 posted on 07/10/2024 10:13:05 AM PDT by gnarledmaw (Hivemind liberals worship leaders, sovereign conservatives select servants.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Bookshelf

Hes having a tantrum. Ignore him.

Many didnt want Catholics precisely because of this way of thinking potentially making the US a puppet of the pope and all the politics that it would involve.


83 posted on 07/10/2024 10:23:30 AM PDT by gnarledmaw (Hivemind liberals worship leaders, sovereign conservatives select servants.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

These guys said Barron was smart and totally engaging. I doubt he could get any approvl from you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=183Gb9MLFQc


84 posted on 07/10/2024 10:36:57 AM PDT by dforest ( )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: one guy in new jersey

Wrong


85 posted on 07/10/2024 10:45:04 AM PDT by Fledermaus (We Are Now In A Civil War!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: RoosterRedux

If Christ is King, which of course he is, who but the Bishop of Rome is Christ’s earthbound Vicar?


86 posted on 07/10/2024 11:09:23 AM PDT by one guy in new jersey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: RoosterRedux

Good question.

From:

https://akacatholic.com/traditional-catholic-colleges/

(New college being

“Tell me about Collegium sanctorum angelorum and what is motivating your efforts.

“Other than St. Mary’s College, a two-year college operated by the Society of St. Pius X, there isn’t a single college in the United States that is truly devoted to traditional Catholicism. Some accommodate it to varying degrees, but no college is dedicated to living, learning, and praying according to traditional Catholic teaching and practice. We are.”

The Collegium is a faithful, affordable, and classical liberal arts college located in Hagerstown, Maryland.

© 2019 | Collegium sanctorum angelorum.

Facebook
Call: 240-591-0013

36 S. Potomac St. Hagerstown MD 21740


87 posted on 07/10/2024 11:19:35 AM PDT by one guy in new jersey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: FLT-bird

gaslight


88 posted on 07/10/2024 11:20:18 AM PDT by one guy in new jersey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

gaslight


89 posted on 07/10/2024 11:20:39 AM PDT by one guy in new jersey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Bookshelf

Hillsdale hasn’t properly concluded as to what the fatal flaw was that attended our founding.

Christ is King!


90 posted on 07/10/2024 11:22:15 AM PDT by one guy in new jersey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: TiGuy22

Gotta hang in there as an authentic Catholic until death.


91 posted on 07/10/2024 11:24:29 AM PDT by one guy in new jersey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Fledermaus

tell us how you really feel


92 posted on 07/10/2024 11:24:58 AM PDT by one guy in new jersey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Forward the Light Brigade
Give Barron time. I see in my crystal Ball Barron going to college, becoming a lawyer, Working as a DA in New York in a decade.

Barron has a bright future at something of his choice. Neither Donald Sr. or Jr., nor Eric, are lawyers. I think it more likely that Barron would pursue a degree in business from Wharton, like Don Sr. and Jr., and take his place in the family business.

93 posted on 07/10/2024 11:50:05 AM PDT by woodpusher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: one guy in new jersey

Reality.


94 posted on 07/10/2024 12:06:14 PM PDT by FLT-bird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: one guy in new jersey
Melania became a U.S. citizen.

As relates to Barron Trump, though, she did not do so until a few months after Barron was born.

Hence the circumstances of his birth destroy Natural Born Citizen status.

That’s why he’s not eligible to run for or hold the office of POTUS, Charlie Brown!

You know better.

The qualifications for Vice-President and President are identical.

Chester Arthur (R) (1881) became Vice-President with an alien father.

Chester Arthur (R) (1881) became President with an alien father.

Kamala Harris (D) (2021) became Vice-President with two alien parents.

Barack Obama (D) (2009) became President with an alien father.

George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe and Andrew Jackson served as president with no citizen parent.

Parental citizenship has never been a consideration. Fifteen terms have been served with a non-citizen parent.

https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R42097.html

or

https://www.scribd.com/doc/295658863/Qualifications-for-President-and-the-Natural-Born-Citizenship-Eligibility-Requirement-Congressional-Research-Service-R42097-2016#scribd

Qualifications for President and the “Natural Born” Citizenship Eligibility Requirement

Jack Maskell
Congressional Research Service Report RL-42097
January 11, 2016

[Excerpt pp 43-50]

Citizenship of Parents

Concerning specifically the reading into the Constitution of a two-citizen-parent requirement for “natural born” citizenship status, it should be noted that there is, significantly, no historical nor controlling legal holding in American jurisprudence to support the argument that parental citizenship governs and controls the eligibility of a native born United States citizen to be President. As indicated in the discussion of the history of the constitutional provision, there is also no justification for this unique theory, which would exclude an entire class of native born U.S. citizens from eligibility for the Presidency, in any of the statements or writings of the framers of the Constitution, or in the entire record of the ratification debates of the United States Constitution.2

In 1825, in a significant and widely recognized work on the Constitution, William Rawle specifically noted that the term “natural born citizen” as used in the Constitution would include “every person born within the United States ... whether the parents are citizens or aliens....”201 Similarly, in his treatise on Citizenship of the United States, Frederick Van Dyne, Assistant Solicitor of the Department of State, explained in 1904 that the rule governing citizenship is not one derived from “international law” or the so-called “law of nations,” but is rather municipal law which “[e]very nation determines for itself’ and, in the United States, derives from the common law principle of jus soli, dependent “on the place of birth,” as modified by statute incorporating the principles of jus sanguinis to include the children of citizens “born out of the jurisdiction of the United States.”202 In reviewing Supreme Court decisional material, the author in this treatise noted that the Fourteenth Amendment and the 1866 civil rights act “reaffirm the fundamental principle of citizenship by birth” which “was generally held to be regulated by the common law, by which all persons born within the limits and allegiance of the United States were deemed to be natural born citizens thereof.”203

Although the Supreme Court has never had to address the issue of “natural born” citizenship directly in the context of a challenge to the eligibility of one to be President, the federal courts have discussed the concept on numerous occasions for more than 200 years and have, other than in the Dred Scott decision, consistently relied upon the place of birth, without regard or reference to the status of one’s parents, as the determining factor of natural born citizenship. A celebrated and frequently relied-upon state court ruling in 1844 provided a detailed explanation of the legal history of the citizenship laws and statutes in the United States, and provided the following conclusion with respect to natural born citizenship:

Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever were the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen.204

That the place of birth was principally the rule governing “natural born” citizenship under American jurisprudence, regardless of the status of one’s parents (except for children of official diplomats or hostile armies), even before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, was explained by the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, in 1898, which noted that the Fourteenth Amendment “affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children born here of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory ....”205 The Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark cited with approval those previous judicial rulings which held that every child born on the soil of the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are “natural born” citizens of this country, without regard to the nationality or citizenship status of their parents.206 The Supreme Court, this time using the term “native born citizen” again explained in that case:

Passing by questions once earnestly controverted, but finally put at rest by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, it is beyond doubt that, before the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 or the adoption of the Constitutional Amendment, all white persons, at least, born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign government, were native-born citizens of the United States . 207

As discussed previously, the Supreme Court has used the term “native born” citizens (as expressly used in Wong Kim Ark to mean those born in the United States “whether children of citizens or foreigners”) as synonymous with, or at least included within the term “natural born,” in subsequent references to eligibility to the Presidency. In United States v. Schwimmer, for example, the Court stated: “Except for eligibility to the Presidency, naturalized citizens stand on the same footing as do native born citizens ”208 Similarly, in Luria v. United States the Supreme Court stated: “Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency,”209 and noted in 1931 that other than the one instance in the Constitution which provides a difference, that is, the eligibility to the Presidency, “[t]he alien, when he becomes a naturalized citizen, acquires, with one exception, every right possessed under the Constitution by those citizens who are native born.”210

With regard to the citizenship of children born in the United States to recent immigrants, it is significant to note that in this country in the late 1800’s, the public’s economic fears and hostility to foreigners led Congress to—in the words of one historian—“legitimize[ ] racism as national policy”211 by adopting legislation to prevent immigration of Chinese laborers to the United States, and to prohibit anyone of Chinese nationality to obtain U.S. citizenship through naturalization.212 Despite this law and its extensions, commonly known as the Chinese Exclusion Act, the federal courts consistently held that children born “in” the United States of Chinese parents were “natural born” citizens of the United States, even if the parents may not have been United States citizens themselves and could not have “naturalized” under the Chinese Exclusion Act. In 1919, for example, the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled that the appellee, Low Hong, based solely on the fact that he was born in San Francisco, without any reference to the nationality of his parents, “is a natural-born citizen of the United States.”213

Similarly, in a case in 1920 concerning the identity of a petitioner, the Supreme Court of the United States explained that “[i]t is not disputed that if petitioner [Kwock Jan Fat] is the son” of two Chinese persons who were physically in the United States when petitioner was born, then the Court would accept the characterization of him as “a natural born American citizen ....”214 The Supreme Court recognized that it had been alleged in earlier immigration proceedings that the father of Kwock Jan Fat had been born in the United States and, as averred by one witness, had voted in some election. The Supreme Court, however, made no finding, did not rely upon, nor did the Court even make a passing reference to the citizenship of the father of Kwock Jan Fat.215 Furthermore, it is significant that there was no evidence, no argument, nor even any discussion in the decision of the Supreme Court, or in the reported lower court decision,216 concerning the citizenship of the mother of Kwock Jan Fat. Neither the briefs for the petitioner, nor the brief for the respondent made any assertions or allegations concerning the citizenship of, or provided any argument or evidence concerning any naturalization of the mother of Kwock Jan Fat, but rather merely noted that she had been born in China and came to the United States as a child.217 It is, of course, well known to those familiar with U.S. immigration laws that during the time of the Chinese Exclusion Act a woman who was a Chinese national, and not a citizen of the United States at birth, could not have been naturalized as a United States citizen even if she married someone who was a United States citizen.218 However, the Supreme Court never discussed, referenced, or made any finding or conclusion concerning the citizenship of either the father, or the citizenship or naturalization of the mother of Kwock Jan Fat because the citizenship of one’s parents is not and was not relevant to the determination of “natural born” citizenship of one born in the United States. The relevant factor cited and determined by the Supreme Court of the United States was not the citizenship of both the father and mother, but rather—citing to the Wong Kim Ark precedent—was the physical presence of the parents in the United States (that is, that the parents were “domiciled” here) at the time of Kwock’s birth in this country. Concerning the issue of balancing the considerations of fairness and justice in such identity cases of one born to Chinese parents in the United States, the Supreme Court, in an oft-quoted statement, expressly said:

It is better that many Chinese immigrants should be improperly admitted than that one natural born citizen of the United States should be permanently excluded from his country.219

In a case that preceded the Supreme Court’s Wong Kim Ark decision, the United States Court of Appeals agreed with the petitioner’s claim to be “a natural-born citizen of the United States” because of his place of birth, that is, within the United States, even though his parents were both “aliens” of Chinese nationality who were in the United States privately and “not here in any diplomatic or other official capacity under the emperor of China.”220 That federal court in 1884, relying on precedents including Assistant Vice-Chancellor Lewis Sandford’s opinion in Lynch v. Clarke, explained the concept in American jurisprudence that one is a “natural born” citizen when born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,221 and that such was the state of American law even before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment (for other than those brought into the United States under slavery):

Independently of the constitutional provision, it has always been the doctrine of this country, except as applied to Africans brought here and sold as slaves, and their descendants, that birth within the dominions and jurisdiction of the United States of itself creates citizenship. This subject was elaborately considered by Assistant Vice-chancellor SANDFORD in Lynch v. Clarke, found in the first volume of his reports. [1 Sandf. 583.] In that case one Julia Lynch, born in New York in 1819, of alien parents, during their temporary sojourn in that city, returned with them the same year to their native country and always resided their afterwards. It was held that she was a citizen of the United States. After an exhaustive examination of the law the vice-chancellor said that he entertained no doubt that every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, was a natural-born citizen, and added that this was the general understanding of the legal profession, and the universal impression of the public mind.222

More recent federal cases expressly recognize the principle explained in the nineteenth century and early twentieth century cases that one born in the United States and under its jurisdiction, even when one or both parents were “aliens,” is considered a citizen of the United States by birth, and thus a “natural born” citizen of the United States. The court in Dos Reis ex rel. Camara v. Nicolls, for example, accepted the findings of fact that “The relator was born in the City of Fall River, Massachusetts, on December 31, 1921. His father was a native and citizen of Portugal, and his mother was a native of Brazil,” and that, as found by the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization, affirming the decision of the Board of Special Inquiry, “that the relator was a natural-born citizen....”223 In Loo Goon Hop v. Dulles, the court found that a person “having been born in this country,” without any reference to, finding, or identification of the citizenship of that person’s parents, is a “natural born citizen of the United States.”224 In Yamauchi v. Rogers, the federal court in reciting “findings of fact and conclusions of law,” found that the plaintiff, born in California of a “Japanese national” who had married another “Japanese national,” “is a natural born citizen of the United States....”225 A federal court in 1974 similarly explained and held: “The plaintiff was a native of Biafra, now a part of the Republic of Nigeria. His wife and two older children are also natives of that country, but his third child, a daughter, is a natural-born citizen of the United States.”226 In Diaz-Salazar v. INS, the court there noted that children born in the United States, even to an “illegal” (or undocumented) alien father, “are natural-born citizens of the United States.”227 Similarly, in Mustata v. U.S. Department of Justice, the United States Court of Appeals, in reciting the facts of the case, noted: “Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States.”228

Recent Eligibility and “Ballot Access” Cases

Despite the existing questions of jurisdiction, as well as the issue of the applicability of a particular state protest or challenge statute to a presidential election (where only “electors” are actually voted for), numerous courts or administrative bodies in several states have rendered decisions relating to or at least addressing the merits of the arguments concerning the eligibility of a presidential candidate in challenges to ballot access in the state.

In 2008, a U.S. district court discussed the concept of “natural born” citizenship specifically with respect to the eligibility to be President as applying—since the founding of the Nation—to all who were born in and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States:

Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. 890 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency, see, e.g., Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163, 165, 84 S.Ct. 1187, 12 L.Ed.2d 218 (1964)(dicta).229

Similarly, in dismissing an eligibility case concerning President Obama’s birth in Hawaii, a state appellate court in Indiana, after a thorough review of federal case law, concluded that anyone born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction, regardless of the citizenship of that person’s parents, was a “natural born” citizen eligible to be President:

Based on the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural born-born subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [ ] natural-born citizens.”230

Almost all of the cases in the 2012 election cycle had challenged the eligibility to office of the incumbent President, Barack Obama. To date, every court or administrative body dealing with ballot access issues has ruled against the challenges to the eligibility of President Obama. 231

Numerous court decisions or administrative rulings have expressly addressed the merits of the issues before them and found that since Hawaii has certified and verified that President Obama was born there, he is a “natural born” citizen of the United States eligible to be President. The Arizona Superior Court found, for example, that: “[P]recedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President.”232 An administrative law judge in Georgia, in an opinion adopted by the Secretary of State and in which the appeals were dismissed (on jurisdictional grounds), ruled that President Obama, born in the United States, “... became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen.”233 In Illinois, after a formal hearing, the elections board ruled that President Obama’s birth certificate “clearly establishes” his eligibility for office as a “Natural Born Citizen.”234 Citing to the 1898 Supreme Court case of Wong Kim Ark,235 in which the Supreme Court found over 100 years ago that those born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction are “natural born” citizens, a circuit court in Maryland noted that “the issue of the definition of ‘natural born citizen’ is thus firmly resolved by the United States Supreme Court in a prior opinion,” and held that President Obama is eligible to run for President in Maryland.236 A federal court in Virginia, similarly citing to Wong Kim Ark, found: “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens. ... Moreover, ‘those born ‘in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ ... have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding ... and thus eligible for the presidency.’”237

Courts have also specifically considered and found to be “without merit” and devoid of “any legal authority” the argument that “natural born” citizenship in the United States requires that one must at the time of birth have parents who are both United States citizens themselves. In New Jersey, for example, in a decision upheld on appeal, the court explained: “... [T]he status of ‘natural born Citizen’ for Mr. Obama has not been denied by any court or administrative agency that has addressed the merits of the issue. ... The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.”238 A court in Florida also held that: “... [P]ersons born within the borders of the United States are ‘natural born citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”239 In New York, a court explained that “anyone born in the United States is a natural-born citizen, irrespective of parentage.”240 Similarly, the Vermont Superior Court, citing to Supreme Court and state court precedents, held: “The common law of England, the American colonies, and later the United States, all support one interpretation only: ‘that persons born within the borders of the United States are ‘natural born Citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.’”241

Conclusion

The constitutional history, the nearly unanimous consensus of legal and constitutional scholars, and the consistent, relevant case law thus indicate that every child born in and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States (that is, those who are not children of diplomatic personnel representing a foreign nation or military troops in hostile occupation), is a “natural born Citizen” eligible to be President under the qualifications clause of the Constitution, regardless of the nationality or citizenship of one’s parents. The legal issues regarding “natural born” citizenship and birth within the United States without regard to lineage or ancestral bloodline have been well settled in judicial decisions in this country for more than a century, and such concepts date back to, and even pre-date, the founding of the nation.

The weight of more recent federal cases, as well as the majority of scholarship on the subject, also indicate that the term “natural born citizen” would most likely include, as well as those native born citizens born in the U.S., those born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents, at least one of whom had previously resided in the United States, or those born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent who, prior to the birth, had met the requirements of federal law for physical presence in the country.242

The technical constitutional meaning (influenced by the corpus of British law, both common law and long-standing statutory law), as well as the meaning of the term in both the general legal lexicon and its common usage, appear to have converged on a seeming consensus that “natural born” means having a particular attribute or nature “at birth,” as opposed to subsequently obtaining such attribute.


95 posted on 07/10/2024 12:12:23 PM PDT by woodpusher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: lilypad

Now there’s a sobering thought. Hard to imagine he would turn against his father, but he is heading off to college this year.


96 posted on 07/10/2024 12:39:07 PM PDT by Tired of Taxes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: George J. Jetso; Forward the Light Brigade; one guy in new jersey
"... the novels by Ingersoll Lockwood written in the 1890’s about Baron Trump. The novels were so accurate that I was convinced that Ingersoll Lockwood was a time traveler."

Wow. Never heard of those novels.

This is incredible:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baron_Trump_novels

97 posted on 07/10/2024 1:13:51 PM PDT by Tired of Taxes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: woodpusher

One parent is enough.


98 posted on 07/10/2024 1:18:37 PM PDT by Fledermaus (We Are Now In A Civil War!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: RoosterRedux

Maybe they think you can’t worship Jesus unless you worship “God the Mother” also.

He doesn’t like the founding fathers because Catholics made up about 2% of the population then, and most of the Protestants in America held Catholics with great suspicion.

But now they are the largest Christian denomination in America. Evangelicals collectively are bigger but we don’t get any representation in government.

The Catholics get plenty, including Biden and Pelosi.

That, and Catholics could not give up their Catholicism for the Reformation, but they gave it up willingly for abortion and LGBT, as Biden, Pelosi, the current “Pope” and the majority of Catholics today prove.

(Of course, the Protestants aren’t doing much better in this regard... maybe worse.)


99 posted on 07/10/2024 1:36:32 PM PDT by unlearner (I, Robot: I think I finally understand why Dr. Lanning created me... ;-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: woodpusher

You know better. Gaslight ER.

It wasn’t until November 2008 that the fact of Chet Arthur’s father’s fatally (for Arthur’s claim to be an NBC) delayed citizenship oath became publicly known or even suspected.


100 posted on 07/10/2024 2:08:09 PM PDT by one guy in new jersey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-124 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson