Free Republic

I'm not a lawyer, but I'd imagine the statute of limitations on immigration fraud crime has expired

Yep. Depending on the specific crime, the statute of limitations on immigration fraud is either 5 years or 10 years, and the government starts the clock when you cease committing the crime. Because the fraudulent marriage was ended in 2002, the statute of limitations ran out in 2012.

You are right, it DOES look Celtic.

That's not really anything to be shocked about. There are a number of common traits shared between Roman and proto-Celtic societies. Not only did both cultures exist in close proximity (and trade) for more than 2,000 years, but Rome later conquered much of the Celtic world, absorbing both its people and their cultural heritage into their own. Rome even had several emperors of Celtic birth and heritage.

The connections actually go even further than that though. Both the Romans and the proto-Celts originated from the same PIE/aryan migrations that populated much of Europe. They diverged quite a bit over the millennia, but both languages and cultures originated from the same root and cultural practices.

By the late Byzantine when this floor was made, Celtic influences could be seen everywhere in Roman design and architecture.

Sorry silverleaf, but that scenario just doesn’t work. There is not, and never has been, ANY mechanism under which a parent can renounce the citizenship of their child. Renunciation law is fairly clear, and there are a number of steps that have to occur before it’s legal. One of them is an interview with embassy staff verifying that the person doing the renunciation is a mentally sound adult who understands the implications of the choice and who is making the decision of their own free will. A child cannot renounce his citizenship, and a parent cannot renounce it for the child.

Even in the rare case of an American child adopted by foreign parents, where the birth certificate is updated to reflect the foreign parents, U.S. citizenship is maintained. Legally, citizenship can ONLY be removed by the order of a court with the authority to do so, or by self-renunciation. It can’t be lost through the adoption process.

If Obummer isn’t a citizen, then the fraud surrounds his place of birth, and not the circumstances of his life that came later

"Where do we find such men?"

Twain Harte, in the California Sierra's, one of the states last great bastions of conservatism. He will be sorely missed.

The article fails to mention that this fine young mans wife is currently pregnant with their first child, a little girl whom he will now never get to meet in this life. We should all extend our prayers not only to this fallen hero, but to the mother and daughter who have been left behind.

You can spend ten years mining coal as well, living in dire poverty the entire time. You can lose you health, and sustain permanent physical and emotional damage from breaking your back in a coal mine all day. None of which guarantees him a free paycheck for the rest of his life, and it CERTAINLY doesn't guarantee one for his heirs.

Copyright is a socialistic concept, and while it does have a place, it's place must be limited. An idea is not a thing, and when an idea is shared nobody is deprived of anything. Copyright ensures compensation for the original creator, but it is, at it's core, nothing more than charity from the government and society in general. As with all government charity, it must be limited or it will inevitably lead to corruption (as our current system so clearly has).

And there's good reason for that limitation. Copyrights and patents are inherently unnatural and ungodly creations. To say that you own an idea flies in the face of our core social programming. We hear ideas, we repeat them. We see good ideas, we want to reproduce them. That's the way we work, the way God made us. It's how manking betters itself.

Britain in the 17th century recognized the value in allowing creators the ability to benefit exclusively from their creations. The cost of invention was rising, and it was only fair to allow those creators to benefit from their creations after they'd invested their own time and money into them. This encouraged people to create new things, which benefited society. Still, the inventors of copyright ALSO realized that they were fundamentally harming society by preventing these good and useful inventions from being more widely used. So, we limit patents and copyright. The creator is allowed a period of profit, and then the government gets out of the equation and allows the free market to do its thing. Copyrights and patents are inherently socialistic and anti-market concepts (it's government protection and regulation of business), and SHOULD be limited as much as possible.

The founders of our own country recognized the same thing, which is why our Constitution grants the ability to offer copyright and patent for a limited period.

I run a technology consulting firm with 29 employees (about half of which are full-time and permanent). And there's nothing shortsighted about it. At the end of the day, it's a business. The only thing that really matters are the numbers on the ledger.

Sick and pregnant employees reduce productivity. Reduced productivity means reduced profit. Reduced profit, in a margin tight field like mine, is to be avoided at all costs.

Financially, it makes sense to keep my employees healthy and NOT pregnant. Both of those things cost me money. Since you can't legally fire people for getting sick or pregnant, preventing it is the next best thing.

Rising healthcare costs have made the argument a bit more tenuous, but it still stands. Being in tech, my aggregate overtime costs can approach $100 per hour per employee, and temp consultants usually cost me between $100 and $120 an hour. If someone is out sick or on maternity leave, I HAVE to pay someone else to cover their work. The cost of insuring all of my employees for a year is LESS than the cost of me bringing in consultants for 6 weeks to cover ONE employee being out on maternity leave.

So yeah, we offer contraceptive coverage. And encourage its use.

Still, nobody should be forced to offer it if they don't want. It makes sense for me, and in my experience makes sense for most businesses. I'd never expect a religiously based organization to offer it, and they should never be required to. NOBODY should be required to.

Agreed. I personally believe than an employer would be rather dumb not to offer it, but it should always be the employers choice.

As an employer, I really don't want my female employees getting pregnant. I have to make special accommodations for them, put up with employees chit chatting about pregnancy, and hire more expensive temps and pay other employees overtime to cover for them while they're sick, at doctors appointments, or out on maternity leave. And that's before we even get to the hit that I'm going to take when my health care costs go up due to increased utilization.

Economically, the best workforce is one that never gets sick or pregnant. I provide health care and contraception to my employees to try and make that happen...but no employer should ever be FORCED to provide anything but a paycheck.

"WTF??? Why the HELL NOT?????? "

Because it was a consulate, and not an embassy. An embassy is the territorial property of the represented nation. A consulate is just a secondary location hosted in smaller buildings, usually to support American civilians or activities in that area. It has no special legal rights, and is no more "ours" than any other building belongs to its tenants. Our embassy in Libya is in Tripoli.

The same thing happens in the U.S. and other countries. China has an embassy in Washington D.C. that is guarded by Chinese soldiers and is considered Chinese soil. China also has consulates in New York, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. These consulates are in regular office buildings and are considered to be American soil. We'd all be pretty pissed if the Chinese brought a bunch of soldiers onto our soil.

It's important to remember that our soldiers have no legal rights in other countries, unless those countries are under the control of the American military. Libya isn't one of those countries. We don't occupy or control them. Legally, our soldiers have the same rights there as tourists and other visitors. There are very few nations that allow heavily armed tourists to walk around their cities. Even fewer will allow foreign soldiers to occupy locations outside of their embassies.

Wow, I just watched the video. That's not a song, it's an 8 minute long violence and expletive laced rant set to a handful of repetitive guitar chords. And yes, it's clearly a threat.

http://www.knoxnews.com/videos/detail/army-sgt-dale-jeffries-video-that-threatened-a-kno/

Can’t agree. Bush blew an irreplaceable opportunity in his failed response to 9/11. The Taliban didn’t provide financial support, but merely allowed them to operate in some relatively isolated areas. Following 9/11 the entire leadership and the vast majority of the alQ fighters were located within those camps.

Our response should have been simple and succinct: “You have 12 hours to turn them over, or we go get them”.

When the 12 hours expired, our actions should have been quick and deliberate. The public wouldn’t have tolerated a nuclear strike, but our buffs could have carpetbombed those remote camps into dust. We didn’t need to invade, we just needed to exterminate. We didn’t need to deal with all of Afghanistan, but just incinerate the relatively small areas containing the group that actually attacked us. A few bombing runs over Kabul would have reminded the Taliban that you don’t f*** with the United States, but the Tali’s shouldn’t have ever been anything more than secondary targets. This “nation building” and “driving out the opressors to bring liberty” crap just sacrificed the lives of thousands of our best and brightest. And for what? So a bunch of dirty goatherders can continue to stone women and spread Sharia?

No, it wasn’t worth it.

Yes, we did fly the flag at half staff after the Fort Hood shootings. We also lowered them after the shootings in Aurora, Colorado.

FWIW, you can subscribe to halfstaff.org to get notifications of all current and recurring half staff events for both the national flag and your state flag. I check it every morning before I run my flags up the pole.

Tragic, ‘cuz it’s so easy to make a real one.

Hardly. I know someone who tried. He put a rifle sans stock onto an Xheli quadcopter and fired one round through it. If he'd thought about the physics a bit more, he might have predicted that it would spin in the air like a top and crash to the ground out of control. Which is exactly what it did. Quadcopters work because they're light and have little mass. When you discharge a weapon from an unanchored lightweight flying platform, the whole "equal and opposite reaction" thing kicks in, and your copter goes flying in the opposite direction. If your firarm isn't discharging in perfect alignment with your aircraft center of mass and direction of thrust, the off center discharge will cause the aircraft to spin on its centerline.

He didn't try it again.

$36 may be a lot for someone living in Milwaukee, but as a person who travels a lot for business, I can attest to the fact that there are plenty of cities in this country where $36 barely gets you a decent dinner. In fact, when I visit New York, I almost always have to chip in money of my own because my company's $40 PD doesn't cover it. Cheaper chain restaraunts do exist, but they're almost never within walking distance in large cities, and the cab fare MORE than wipes out any cost savings a "savvy traveler" might be hoping for.

This is actually one of the reasons I love visiting L.A. on business. Some of the best food in the country, served out of the back of a truck on paper plates and tinfoil, for only $5. My company doesn't let me pocket excess PD, but they're always floored at how little I spend on food there.

Sounds like a fairly routine contract dispute. When the NBA merged with the ABA, team owners from some of the dissolved ABA teams were promised compensation to offset their huge financial losses. That compensation would be awarded as a percentage of the television revenue generated by the ABA teams that the NBA did decide to keep around.

The NBA claims that the compensation should only be calculated from revenue generated from local broadcasts. The former ABA owners state that it should include ALL television broadcasts, including international broadcasts.

Because the contract doesn’t address the point and the two sides couldn’t come to an agreement, they want to take it back to court and let a judge decide.

Sounds like a fairly routine contract dispute. When the NBA merged with the ABA, team owners from some of the dissolved ABA teams were promised compensation to offset their huge financial losses. That compensation would be awarded as a percentage of the television revenue generated by the ABA teams that the NBA did decide to keep around.

The NBA claims that the compensation should only be calculated from revenue generated from local broadcasts. The former ABA owners state that it should include ALL television broadcasts, including international broadcasts.

Because the contract doesn’t address the point and the two sides couldn’t come to an agreement, they want to take it back to court and let a judge decide.

Mathematically, it’s hard to imagine a scenario where two Democrats could win the most votes in the primary, and lose the general to a Republican. If both of the top primary candidates are liberals, that district is a lost cause and a waste of conservative campaign money.

She’s 20 now, and according to the discussion I just heard on the radio this morning, just turned that. She was apparently 19, and he was 16, when they did the dirty deed. If true, that puts them within the three year window.

She’s 20 now, and according to the discussion I just heard on the radio this morning, just turned that. She was apparently 19, and he was 16, when they did the dirty deed. If true, that puts them within the three year window.

California’s age of consent is 18, but the state also has a ‘3 year rule’. If the sex is consensual and they are within three years of age, the Statutory Rape charge is a misdemeanor. Under normal sentencing guidelines, she’d get a few hundred dollars in fines, a six months of informal (no reporting) probation, and would NOT have to register as a sex offender. It’s a fairly “slap on the wrist” punishment as sex crimes go.