Free Republic

Addressing The Jungle Book, from 1967, Lauren, who is originally from Dunblane said: 'Remember King Louie the orangutan?

The voice of King Louie was Louis Prima, an Italian American. So who's the racist Lauren?

He shouldn't be asked open ended questions. He should be cross-examined, ie., made to answer yes or no.

For example, rather than ask "When did you first discover that the "Russian" dossier was a false document?", ask this:

Bruce Ohr informed the FBI in July, 2016 and DOJ in August, 2016 that the Steele dossier was connected to the Clinton campaign. Your chief deputy, Andrew Weissmann, was among those briefed. Isn't it true that from the very outset of your investigation you and your staff knew as a fact that this dossier was opposition connected to the Clinton campaign and was likely biased?

What is an Elector? Read Federalist Paper No. 68.

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.

Electors are to deliberate and make their choice for President and Vice President. These laws binding the electors to vote for the winner of the national popular vote render the term Electors a nullity. Article II Section I give the states the authority to determine the "manner" in which Electors are "appoint[ed]". It doesn't give states the authority to direct how Electors are to vote.

Gopher, Everett?

The ship is darkened, meaning there are no lights on except the navigation lights, so those other lights do not confuse other ships as to which lights are your navigation lights. However, spaces visible from the outside, such as the bridge, may use red lights so the watchstanders can see - charts, Captain's night orders, etc. Red light is visible for a shorter distance from the ship. Internal spaces not visible to the outside would have lights on as needed for operating (CIC, engineering spaces, etc.).

You run at darkened ship so other ships see only your navigation lights, which give important information about your aspect (which gives an idea of your course) and what you might be doing (fishing, towing, etc.)

The captain leaves standing night orders for the overnight watch standers. Typically these will, among other things, instruct the officer-of-the-deck to call the captain if the ship gets within x distance (captain's preference) of another ship. Some OOD's are so averse to waking the captain they can wait too long to make the call.

Don't know what happened here, but it sounds like the captain may have been on the bridge wing where the collision occurred.

Jim Stavridis? He was being vetted as a VP candidate by Hillary and is a pal of John Allen (who was campaigning for Hillary) going back to their 16th Company days at USNA.

Have to correct my previous post. Trump’s total was 77,333 LESS than Obama’s 2012 total.

typical low turnout Republican unity win ... Trump underperformed ... Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania

This will prove to be a flatly false narrative as a look at what happened in Pennsylvania will demonstrate.

It may be true that many establishment Republicans did not vote for Trump, but Trump did not underperform Toomey in PA. Trump had 2,912,941 votes compared to 2,893,833 for Toomey.

What's more interesting to me about PA is that Trump's vote total exceeded Obama's 2012 total (2,990,274) by 77,333 and exceeded Romney's 2012 total (2,680,434) by a whopping 232,507, or 8.6%.

What also may be a false narrative is that Clinton failed to turn out the Obama coalition. She actually had more votes in Philadelphia (560,542) than Obama did in 2012 (557,024). She had more more than 10% more votes than Obama's 2012 total (251,063 for Clinton to 227,561 for Obama) in Montogomery County outside of Philadelphia. There Trump underperformed Romney (169,903 for Romney to 160,803). It appears the establishment Republicans of Montgomery County who favored Romney would not vote for Trump. In Allegheny County, which includes Pittsburgh, once again Clinton got more votes than Obama (363017 for Clinton to 348151 for Obama) and Trump underperformed Romney (257488 for Trump to 259,304 to Romney).

So Clinton beat Obama's 2012 vote totals in big Democrat centers, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and Montgomery County, yet statewide she had 145,569, or nearly 5%, votes less than Obama in 2012. For her statewide totals to be less than Obama's while outperforming Obama in the traditionally big Democrat vote centers, Trump had to have converted a significant number of 2012 Obama voters into 2016 Trump voters in the outlying counties. Not only did Trump achieve this, he increased Republican and independent voter turnout for himself. In Lancaster County, a traditionally stalwart Republican County (and where I live), Trump outperformed Romney by 6% (137145 for Trump to 129364 for Romney). I suspect that some of that 6% increase was from the deplorables I stood in line with and who probably did not vote for Romney in 2012.

According to my wife, one of the poll workers at our voting location told her the Amish turnout was triple what they saw in the last election. So the Trump billboards with the buggy pictures seemed to have paid off, as did the calls for drivers to help get the Amish to the polls.

The bottom line is that Trump won Pennsylvania because he increased turnout in the counties outside the big population centers while he also captured the votes of some of the 2012 Obama voters. This most definitely was not a low turnout vote in Pennsylvania.

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

It's strange that the historical record doesn't indicate that the 3rd Congress was fixing an obvious error by the 1st Congress in the 1790 Naturalization Act. Madison, who chaired the select committee that handled the changes, wrote to Jefferson about what they changes were about, and he made no mention of the removal of the "natural born" language.

Madison letter to Jefferson

The Annals of Congress are also silent on the issue. You can read for yourself the discussion about the bill at pages 1004-1007, 1021-23, 1026-27, 1028-30, 1030-32, 1033-40, 1041-58, 1060, 1061, 1064-66:

Proceedings and Debates of the 3rd Congress

There is a comment that the select committee kept "whatever was necessary from the Old Law"

Select Committee Reports Bill

If the 3rd Congress was fixing a mistake by the 1st Congress, they apparently felt no need for discussion about it, and Jefferson didn't even give it a thought in his letter to Jefferson. On the other hand, they may simply have felt that there was no need to discuss who was considered natural born in a law about the naturalization process.

Have you read the Annals of Congress with respect to those 2 acts? I suspect not. There is no discussion as to why the 3rd Congress removed the "natural born" language from the 1795 Act.

Mr. Madison, from the select committee, reported a new bill of Naturalization, containing the amendments recommitted, and also whatever was necessary from the Old Law, so that the latter should be entirely superseded.

So it would seem that the committee felt the "natural born" language in the 1790 Act was not necessary. Of course that is my supposition since the record is devoid of any discussion about the "natural born" language. There are page after page of discussion, but none of it mentions the "natural born" language.

It would seem that Madison was the one who initiated the 1795 Act:

Mr. Madison gave notice that to-morrow, he should move for leave to bring in a bill, to amend an act for establishing a uniform system of naturalization in the United States. He did not wish to discourage foreigners who desired to incorporate themselves with the body political of America. At the same time, he thought the present law did not fully answer the purpose for which it was designed.

http://founders.archives.gov/?q=naturalization%20act&s=1611311121&r=1, citing Philadelphia Gazette, 9 Dec. 1794 (reprinted in Aurora General Advertiser, 16 Dec. 1794, Dunlap and Claypoole’s Am. Daily Advertiser, 17 Dec. 1794, and Independent Gazetteer, 17 Dec. 1794).

If Madison's intent was to correct a mistaken inclusion of "natural born" in the 1790 Act, he certainly didn't reveal it to Jefferson in his letter of January 11, 1795:

The last subject before the H. of Reps. was a Bill revising the Naturalization law, which from its defects and the progress of things in Europe was exposing us to very serious inconveniences. The Bill requires 1. A probationary residence of 5 instead of 2 years, with a formal declaration on oath of the intention 3 years at least prior to the admission. 2. an oath of abjuration, as well as of allegiance. 3. proof of good character, attachment to the principles of our Government, and of being well disposed to the good order and happiness of the U.S. 4. Where the candidate has borne any title or been of any order of Nobility, he is to renounce both on record. This last raised some dust.

http://founders.archives.gov/?q=new%20bill%20of%20naturalization&s=1211311121&r=23

No mention of removing the "natural born" language. It wasn't significant enough for Madison to include it in his rationale for introducing the bill or in his list of the bill's provisions. The historical record seems to be silent and your conclusions are mere supposition.

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 ....

The problem with this argument is that the Constitution doesn't use the term "native-born citizen", it is "natural born citizen".

The Naturalization Act of 1790 has this to say about the subject:

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.

So it was the understanding of Congress in 1790, that the children born outside the country of U.S. citizens are considered to be natural born citizens so long as the father had been a resident of the United States at some point. Since many of the members of that Congress had been delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 and/or signers of the Constitution and/or members of state conventions that ratified the Constitution, that strikes me as a pretty authoritative interpretation of what the Constitution means by the phrase "natural born citizen."

Why would anybody give any credence to what Stuart Rothenberg predicts this far out from the election. He wrote this in early 2009:

But there are no signs of a dramatic rebound for the party, and the chance of Republicans winning control of either chamber in the 2010 midterm elections is zero. Not “close to zero.” Not “slight” or “small.” Zero.

Boehner should read the House's own website

... the House “was more immediately the representatives of the people, and it was a maxim that the people ought to hold the purse-strings.”

"This end would . . . be best attained, if money affairs were to be confined to the immediate representatives of the people.”

"The framers were unanimous that Congress, as the representatives of the people, should be in control of public funds—not the President or executive branch agencies."

Boehner ceded the House's authority over budgetary matters to the President. He utterly failed in his Constitutional obligations and breached his oath of office.

I second the mirror recommendation. I ride a lot on country roads with relatively limited traffic. I would not go out without a mirror.

Correction on Mr. Z. He was sold this week to Calumet Farms. Trainer Wayne Lukas wanted him to run in the Preakness, but owner Zayat was adamant that he wouldn’t be entered. Whether Lukas brokered a deal with Calumet or otherwise, Zayat sold the horse to Calumet and Lukas remains the trainer.

Gil Smart isn't. I say this not based on this single article, but on his body of work in the Lancaster Sunday News. He's a principal reason I don't subscribe to the Lancaster newspaper anymore. This is a typical column, short on facts and long on shallow "analysis". Smart's a legend in his own mind.

I can't wait to see the level of hysteria when Cruz starts to accumulate delegates on his march to win the nomination.

As long as we’re doing Bible verses for public policy, how about this one:

For even when we were with you, this we commanded you: that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

2 Thessalonians 3:10