Posted on 05/30/2012 6:10:45 AM PDT by circumbendibus
Birtherism -- the belief that Barack Obama was born in Kenya, not in the United States -- pretty much died last year when the White House released a copy of the president's long-form birth certificate showing he was born in Honolulu on Aug. 4, 1961. After that, the number of Americans who doubted Obama's place of birth dropped dramatically.
But not to zero. In recent days, there has been a mini-resurgence of birther talk, from Arizona, where the secretary of state questioned Obama's eligibility to be on the ballot, to Iowa, where some Republicans want to require presidential candidates to prove their eligibility for office.
The talk has gone beyond Obama, with some buzz on the Internet suggesting Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, a leading Republican vice presidential contender, is not a natural-born American citizen.
(Excerpt) Read more at campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com ...
You say, “The framers gave us the meaning of natural born and used the term in the Constitution.”
Bwahahahahaha ... nice try!
That proves your ignorance. If they had given us the meaning we wouldn’t be discussing it here! Go suck the egg you’ll find in your shorts.
Stick with your insults because you don’t have the intelligence for anything else.
Okay for the UK, but the US has citizens, NOT subjects. The US did NOT declare its Independence to model itself after England. I have NO idea why you would even think such would be the case.
Because a citizen who owes allegiance to NO other nation/sovereign is not "made" by virtue of location alone. They are BORN within the country to parents who are its citizens.
http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html
1. Constitutional Convention – “Citizen” v “Natural Born Citizen":
When developing a new U.S. Constitution for the United States of America, Alexander Hamilton submitted a suggested draft on June 18, 1787. In addition, he also submitted to the framers a proposal for the qualification requirements in Article II as to the necessary Citizenship status for the office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military.
Alexander Hamilton’s suggested presidential eligibility clause:
No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States
Many of the founders and framers expressed fear of foreign influence on the person who would in the future serve as President of the United States since this particular office was singularly and uniquely powerful under the proposed new Constitution. This question of foreign influence was elevated when John Jay considered the additional power granted to the Presidency during times of war, that is when he serves as Commander in Chief of the military. Jay felt strongly that whoever served as President and Commander In Chief during times of war must owe their sole allegiance to and only to the United States.
Because this fear of foreign influence on a future President and Commander in Chief was strongly felt, Jay took it upon himself to draft a letter to General George Washington, the presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention, recommending/hinting that the framers should strengthen the Citizenship requirements for the office of the President.
John Jay was an avid reader and proponent of natural law and particularly Vattel’s codification of natural law and the Law of Nations. In his letter to Washington he said that the Citizenship requirement for the office of the commander of our armies should contain a “strong check” against foreign influence and he recommended to Washington that the command of the military be open only to a “natural born Citizen”. Thus Jay did not agree that simply being a “born Citizen” was sufficient enough protection from foreign influence in the singular most powerful office in the new form of government. Rather, Jay wanted to make sure the President and Commander In Chief owed his allegiance solely to the United States of America. He wanted another adjective added to the eligibility clause, i.e., ‘natural’. And that word ‘natural’ goes to the Citizenship status of one’s parents via natural law.
Below is the relevant change to Hamilton’s proposed language detailed in Jay’s letter written to George Washington dated 25 July 1787:
Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.
. . .
Upon receiving Jay’s letter, General Washington passed on the recommendation to the convention where it was adopted in the final draft. Thus Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, the fundamental law of our nation reads:
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of U.S. Constitution as adopted 17 September 1787:
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.
There you have the crux of the issue now before the nation and the answer.
Hamilton’s suggested presidential citizenship eligibility requirement was that a Citizen simply had to be ‘born a Citizen’ of the USA, i.e., a Citizen by Birth. But that citizenship status was overwhelmingly rejected by the framers as insufficient. Instead of allowing any person “born a citizen” to be President and Commander of the military, the framers chose to adopt the more stringent requirement recommended by John Jay, i.e., requiring the Citizen to be a “natural born Citizen“, to block any chance of future Presidents owing allegiance to other foreign nations or claims on their allegiance at birth from becoming President and Commander of the Military.. Therefore, the President of the United States must be a “natural born citizen” with unity of citizenship and sole allegiance to the United States at birth. [SOURCE CREDIT]
. . .
Now, let’s take a look at the Godfather of the 14th amendment:
3. Rep. John Bingham, Principal Framer of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
During a debate (see pg. 2791) regarding a certain Dr. Houard, who had been incarcerated in Spain, the issue was raised on the floor of the House of Representatives as to whether the man was a US citizen. Representative Bingham (of Ohio), stated on the floor:
As to the question of citizenship I am willing to resolve all doubts in favor of a citizen of the United States. That Dr. Houard is a natural-born citizen of the United States there is not room for the shadow of a doubt. He was born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, and by the express words of the Constitution, as amended to-day, he is declared to all the world to be a citizen of the United States by birth. (The term “to-day”, as used by Bingham, means “to date”. Obviously, the Constitution had not been amended on April 25, 1872.)
Notice that Bingham declares Houard to be a “natural-born citizen” by citing two factors – born of citizen parents in the US.
John Bingham, aka “father of the 14th Amendment”, was an abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln’s assassins. Ten years earlier, he stated on the House floor:
All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians. - (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862))
Then in 1866, Bingham also stated on the House floor:
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.... - (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))
According to Justice Black, Bingham’s words uttered on the floor of the House are the most reliable source. Bingham made three statements, none of them challenged on the Floor, which indicate that a natural born citizen is a person born on US soil to parents who were US citizens. [SOURCE CREDIT]
And of course we’ve all heard the Supreme Court has never ruled on or defined what a “natural born citizen” is, but that is a folly –
4. Supreme Court cases that cite “natural born Citizen” as one born on U.S. soil to citizen parents:
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
etcetera ...
“We also know that not everyone born in the US was automatically a citizen at birth. That gives us further insight into the meaning of Constitutional natural born Citizen. Merely being born in the US wasn’t enough; there was more to it.”
True. You would not be a NBC if your father was an ambassador, or a part of an invading army. Slaves were considered property, and Indians were part of foreign nations embedded within our borders.
“It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established....
...That all children born within the dominion of the United States of foreign parents holding no diplomatic office became citizens at the time of their birth does not appear to have been contested or doubted until more than fifty years after the adoption of the Constitution, when the matter was elaborately argued in the Court of Chancery of New York and decided upon full consideration by Vice Chancellor Sandford in favor of their citizenship. Lynch v. Clark, (1844) 1 Sandf.Ch. 583...
...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 [p675] 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...”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
The original draft allowed naturalized citizens to be President. That was changed, but the wording used was the commonly used wording of citizenship by birth.
“Very prudent and COMPLETELY logical for the Framers to restrict the office of POTUS to only those with NO other allegiances. “
Had they wanted to limit the President to someone born of citizen parents, they could have said “born of citizen parents” instead of “natural born citizen”. The ratifying legislatures used natural born citizen interchangeably with natural born subject, a legal phrase with a well known definition - one that did NOT require two citizen parents.
Yes, native-born. NOT natural born. Note the specifically chosen DIFFERENT terminology.
“Thus Jay did not agree that simply being a “born Citizen” was sufficient enough protection from foreign influence in the singular most powerful office in the new form of government. Rather, Jay wanted to make sure the President and Commander In Chief owed his allegiance solely to the United States of America. He wanted another adjective added to the eligibility clause, i.e., ‘natural’. And that word ‘natural’ goes to the Citizenship status of one’s parents via natural law.”
Actually:
In February, 1785, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING NICHOLAS ROUSSELET AND GEORGE SMITH.” in which it was declared that Nicholas Rousselet and George Smith “shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.”
In July, 1785, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING MICHAEL WALSH.” in which it was declared that Michael Walsh “shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be a citizen of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of a natural born citizen.”
In July, 1786, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JONATHAN CURSON AND WILLIAM OLIVER” in which it was declared that Jonathan Curson and William Oliver “shall be deemed adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born citizens.”
In March, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING WILLIAM MARTIN AND OTHERS.” in which it was declared that William Martin and Others,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”
In March, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING EDWARD WYER AND OTHERS THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that William Martin and Others,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken, to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”
In October, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING BARTHOLOMY DE GREGOIRE, AND MARIA THERESA, HIS WIFE, AND THEIR CHILDREN.” in which it was declared that Bartholomy de Gregoire, and Maria Theresa, his wife, their children,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.”
In November, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING ALEXANDER MOORE, AND OTHERS, HEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Alexander Moore and others,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, & entitled to all the privileges, liberties, and immunities of natural born subjects.”
In June, 1788, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING WILLIAM MENZIES, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that William Menzies and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and intitled to all the liberties, privileges & immunities of natural born subjects.”
In November, 1788, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING ELISHA BOURN, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Elisha Bourn and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, & entitled to all the liberties, privileges & immunities of natural born Citizens.”
In February, 1789, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JAMES HUYMAN, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that James Huyman and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the Liberties, Privileges and Immunities of natural born subjects.”
In June, 1789, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING NATHANIEL SKINNER, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Nathaniel Skinner and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”
In March, 1790, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JOHN JARVIS, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED” in which it was declared that John Jarvis and others, “shall be deemed adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”
Also in March, 1791, the Massachusetts legislature passed“AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JOHN WHITE & OTHERS” in which it was declared that John White and others, “shall be deemed adjudged and taken, to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and intitled to all the liberties, privileges, and immunities of natural born subjects.”
The idea that ‘natural’ was added so we would follow Vattel - who never wrote NBC, and who was not translated with NBC until 10 years AFTER the US Constitution - is ridiculous.
Native born and natural born are used interchangeably.
““As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States…. Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States.”
James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW (1826)
“That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted) is a happy means of security against foreign influence,…A very respectable political writer makes the following pertinent remarks upon this subject. “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it.”
St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES (1803)
“The country where one is born, how accidental soever his birth in that place may have been, and although his parents belong to another country, is that to which he owes allegiance. Hence the expression natural born subject or citizen, & all the relations thereout growing. To this there are but few exceptions, and they are mostly introduced by statutes and treaty regulations, such as the children of seamen and ambassadors born abroad, and the like.”
Leake v. Gilchrist, 13 N.C. 73 (N.C. 1829)
“By the terms of the Constitution he must have been a citizen of the United States for nine years before he could take a seat here, and seven years before he could take a seat in the other House ; and, in order to be President of the United States, a person must be a native-born citizen. It is the common law of this country, and of all countries, and it was unnecessary to incorporate it in the Constitution, that a person is a citizen of the country in which he is born….I read from Paschal’s Annotated Consitutution, note 274: “All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country as well as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are, in theory, born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons.”
Sen. Trumbull (author or the Civil Rights Act of 1866), April 11, 1871, Cong. Globe. 1st Session, 42nd Congress, pt. 1, pg. 575 (1872)
“”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.””
Luria v. U.S., 231 U.S. 9 (U.S. 1913)
“Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of twenty-one, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States; .... “
Elg
“”We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity, and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1.”
Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964)
“In Lynch v. Clarke, (1 Sand. Ch. R. 583,) the question was precisely as here, whether a child born in the city of New York of alien parents, during their temporary sojourn there, was a native born citizen or an alien; and the conclusion was, that being born within the dominion and allegiance of the United States, he was a native born citizen, whatever was the situation of the parents at the time of the birth.”
Munro vs. Merchant (N.Y. 1858)
“If this be a true principle, and I do not doubt it, it follows that every person born in the country is, at the moment of birth, prima facie a citizen; and he who would deny it must take upon himself the burden of proving some great disfranchisement strong enough to override the ‘’ natural born’’ right as recognized by the Constitution in terms the most simple and comprehensive, and without any reference to race or color, or any other accidental circumstance.
That nativity furnishes the rule, both of duty and of right, as between the individual and the government, is a historical and political truth so old and so universally accepted that it is needless to prove it by authority.”
Attorney General Edward Bates, Opinion on Citizenship (Non-Whites) (1862)
“I am quite clear in the opinion that children born in the United States of alien parents, who have never been naturalized, are native-born citizens of the United States, and, of course, do not require the formality of naturalization to entitle them to the rights and privileges of such citizenship. I might sustain this opinion by a reference to the well settled principle of the common law of England on this subject; to the writings of many of the earlier and later commentators on our Constitution and laws; to the familiar practice and usage of the country in the exercise of the ordinary rights and duties of citizenship; to the liberal policy of our Government in extending and recognizing [329] these rights, and enforcing these duties; and, lastly, to the dicta and decisions of many of our national and State judicial tribunals. But all this has been well done by Assistant Vice Chancellor Sandford, in the case of Lynch vs. Clarke, (1 Sand. Ch. Rep., 583,) and I forbear. I refer to his opinion for a full and clear statement of the principle, and of the reasons and authorities in its support.
Of course you will understand that I do not affirm the rule in such exceptional cases as the birth of the children of foreign ambassadors and the like.”
Remember, Lynch used the term NBC.
Attorney General Edward , Opinion on Citizenship of Children Born in the United States of Alien Parents (1862)
“”Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt but that, by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominion and allegiance of the United States, whatever were tlie situation of his parents, is a natural-born citizen. It is surprising that there has been no judicial decision upon this question. None was found by the counsel who argued this cause, and, so far as I have been able to ascertain, it never has been expressly decided in any of the courts of the respective states or of the United States. This circumstance itself, in regard to a point which must have occurred so often in the administration of justice, furnishes a strong inference that there has never been any doubt but that the common-law rule was the law of the land. This inference is confirmed and the position made morally certain by such legislative, judicial, and legal expositions as bear upon the question. Before referring to those I am bound to say that the general understanding of the legal profession, and the universal impression of the public mind, so far as I have had the opportunity of knowing it, is that birth in this country does of itself constitute citizenship. Thus, when, at an election, the inquiry is made whether a person offering to vote is a citizen or an alien, if he answers that he is a native of this country, it is received as conclusive that he is a citizen. No one inquires further. No one asks whether his parents were citizens or were foreigners. It is enough that he was born here, whatever was the status of his parents. I know that common consent is sometimes only a common error, and that public opinion is not any authority on a point of law; but this is a question which is more important and more deeply felt in reference to political rights than to rights of property. The universality of the public sentiment in this instance is a part of the historical evidence of the state and progress of the law on the subject, indicates the strength and depth of the common-law principle, and confirms the position that the adoption of the federal constitution wrought no change in that principle.”
Lynch v. Clarke
That is known to be false. Very sloppy work. Clearly lacks any substantive historical research.
Just one example... Virginia law, 1779: "...all infants wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was, a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner as herein after expressed"
A child's father (or mother if the father is deceased) must be a citizen in order for the child to be considered a citizen at birth.
Number 129, here: http://vagenweb.org/hening/vol10-06.htm
NO idea why you would even think such would be the case.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Maybe I think that because Minor v Happersett SAID it! You nitpick what you want from that case but skip the stuff that doesn’t fit your agenda. Do you really have a clue or are you so busy cutting and pasting other people’s work you don’t pay attention? Sounds to me like that is the case.
Most people actually go through a thought process as they write - you should try it some day.
Nice cut and paste job bozzo.
That's not what Trumbull said - did you bother to read his whole speech? Or still cherry picking away? The US courts agree with Trumbull, see WKA
Thus congress, when dealing with the question of citizenship in that aspect, treated aliens residing in this country as 'under the jurisdiction of the United States,' and American parents residing abroad as 'out of the jurisdiction of the United States.'Further, the US Citizenship and Immigration aservice posts on their website
To become a citizen at birth, you must: Have been born in the United States or certain territories or outlying possessions of the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; OR...See? No exception for dual citizens.
You keep trying to polite and we may think you have an agenda! If you could read at a sixth grade level, you would notice the hyperlink to the source for the data I gave ... and as usual, you have not read the excerpted material because it doesn’t fit the agenda you slime over to FR from God only knows where in liberalville. You now have a fellow agenda clone working the thread, so you can drop the alinskyesque tactics for a bit. Try to be adult, obamanoid.
No you haven't. You've shown that picking out one sentence and ignoring everything else Trumbull said in the same and following paragraphs allows you the illusion you desire. I've posted where you can find the whole thing, why don't you go and read it?
Ummm...please note this clause:
“wheresoever born”
That means ‘born anywhere’, not just born in Virginia. That part was covered earlier. Those born in Virginia were citizens regardless of parentage.
Who is sloppy now?
That’s pretty much a stretch, Junkie. I wonder why the super majority of people don’t see it that way. If writing was such an art back then why didn’t the framers (mostly English trained lawyers) use the language of Vattel instead of the common usage? I’ve heard a lot of crap, some say they used John Jay’s letter now you say the Preamble. Are you insinuating that the newborn sons of immigrants are less worthy than the sons of citizens? That’s not what this country is about. Shame!
PEOPLE!!!! The Constitution was written for the PEOPLE to understand. Did John Jay’s letter get read to everyone alive in the colonies? Was it preached in the pulpits? Did the PEOPLE read Vattel’s book? Were the PEOPLE familiar with that ONE little paragraph in the entire 400 or 500 page book requiring parents to be considered natural born? This is insanity.
The PEOPLE understood English common law. How do I know that? Because the birther’s sanctified Minor decision says as much. Alien seed produces natural born citizens with few exceptions. That is a fact cited by judges and knowledgeable lawyers. That is what every congressman believes.
Once again, instead of all the crap you people dish out, show me the LAW that says citizen parents are required to be considered natural born. Show it now or admit you can’t. Show me the law and I’ll obey it. People must obey the law. Right now the law says citizen parents are not required to be eligible for president. I seem to recall watching Chief Justice Roberts swear in obama not just once but twice. Do you think Roberts should go to jail too?
When it comes to eligibility to be president, that's exactly what I'm saying. And in the Constitution, that's the only place where the distinction is made.
-PJ
It is very hard to be polite to a person who slings out insults. You call me an obamaturd again and I’ll tell your mama.
Hey genius, the links you provide go to birther websites that feed you the crap you are cutting out - BUT the first thing I see when I go there is the large DONATION button to press.
Next time you cut something out, read it first, don’t just assume it means what you think it means because when God made you and asked you if you wanted brains, you though he said trains and said, “no, I’ll wait for the next one.” That’s why you’re having such a rough time.
You poor thing, bless your little heart. I didn’t just cut and paste the material, I took the time to html code it so you could try and follow the reasoning. I’m so sorry that was beyond you. Have a nice evening, bless your heart.
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.