I know, Right??? Lies, lies, lies!!! Health Care costs have gone through the roof and insurance is unaffordable!
Pretty sad to lose your doctor and your insurance. Oh, and the medicine you are prescribed! Sorry, your insurance will not pay for that prescription, it's too expensive. $1,300/pill. Your doctor will have to write you something else. Oh, I've heard this from many! (I myself do not take prescription drugs at all)
Obama had the majority while he was President and passed the unAffordable Careless Act. I watched them live every day for months. Both sides of the aisle presenting their ideas. There were some very good options presented from across the aisle and they were completely ignored. The late night they passed it, they came out of the back room and stood together smiling for the cameras and announced, Through Bi-partisan effort, we have passed the Affordable Care Act. I thought I was going to There was absolutely Nothing bi-partisan about it!!!
I downloaded the over 3,000 page bill and began to read it. It wasn't really about Health Care. It included 23 new Taxes that would be enacted within the next 3 years, at the time. Many penalties for those who did not comply with Purchasing a Health Care Plan which included large Fines and up to 5 years imprisonment for non-compliance!
It created a Disaster! Those who had very good Insurance at their jobs, were suddenly left uncovered. They were forced to find insurance on their own. If employers were to provide insurance they had to meet every provision in the new law. Cost was outrageous and insurance companies Refused to provide all the coverages the new law required. Who covers males for Pregnancy? Yes, this was a requirement!
They did not read the bill before passing it. Pelosi said, We have to pass it so we can read it later, giggle giggle.
It's hard to get bills passed when one side Refuses to be Bi-partisan on ANY issue. I watch their sessions live and it's a war zone in there. It gets Very Ugly! And we Pay these idiots!!! They act like 2 year olds, throwing temper tantrums!
If Trump had said that, they would have begun impeachment immediately.
They are so Fake. This isn't the first time the real Hillary has slipped out of her mouth. Yes, she's a witch for sure and so is Pelosi and Feinstein and all their little younger witchlets, like that one from Hawaii. A true coven.
Trump is a tricky guy and he's good at it. Congress has failed to take on this issue and it is an issue that belongs to them. Trump stated that his desire is that Congress would take on this issue, but that he believes he does have the power to issue an Executive Order if need be. His belief is based on the wisdom and knowledge of his advisors. His trick is that by saying he can issue the EO, perhaps Congress will finally do something about immigration. It's their job! HL
I will never approve of the influences of Satan and his cohorts! People do not realize they are contributing to the cause of evil in their ignorance. And that's just what the kingdom of darkness wants. Just trying to enlighten with Truth, in hope that lives will be spared.
More children 'disappear' and animals too, to be used as sacrifices in rituals of evil for this night.
Critics say that Trump’s plan is unrealistic, that it would require a constitutional amendment because the 14th Amendment mandates birthright citizenship and that the Supreme Court has upheld this requirement ever since its passage in 1868. The critics are wrong. A correct understanding of the intent of the framers of the 14th Amendment and legislation passed by Congress in the late 19th century and in 1923 extending citizenship to American Indians provide ample proof that Congress has constitutional power to define who is within the “jurisdiction of the United States” and therefore eligible for citizenship. Simple legislation passed by Congress and signed by the president would be constitutional under the 14th Amendment.
Birthright citizenship is the policy whereby the children of illegal aliens born within the geographical limits of the U.S. are entitled to American citizenship — and, as Trump says, it is a great magnet for illegal immigration. Many of Trump’s critics believe that this policy is an explicit command of the Constitution, consistent with the British common-law system. This is simply not true.
Although the Constitution of 1787 mentioned citizens, it did not define citizenship. It was in 1868 that a definition of citizenship entered the Constitution with the ratification of the 14th Amendment. Here is the familiar language: “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.” Thus there are two components to American citizenship: birth or naturalization in the U.S. and being subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Today, we somehow have come to believe that anyone born within the geographical limits of the U.S. is automatically subject to its jurisdiction; but this renders the jurisdiction clause utterly superfluous. If this had been the intention of the framers of the 14th Amendment, presumably they would have said simply that all persons born or naturalized in the U.S. are thereby citizens.
Indeed, during debate over the amendment, Senator Jacob Howard, the author of the citizenship clause, attempted to assure skeptical colleagues that the language was not intended to make Indians citizens of the United States. Indians, Howard conceded, were born within the nation’s geographical limits, but he steadfastly maintained that they were not subject to its jurisdiction because they owed allegiance to their tribes and not to the U.S. Senator Lyman Trumbull, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, supported this view, arguing that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant “not owing allegiance to anybody else and being subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States.”
Jurisdiction understood as allegiance, Senator Howard explained, excludes not only Indians but “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.”* Thus, “subject to the jurisdiction” does not simply mean, as is commonly thought today, subject to American laws or courts. It means owing exclusive political allegiance to the U.S.
Those who defy the laws of the U.S. should not be allowed to confer such an advantage on their children. This would not be visiting the sins of the parents on the children, as is often claimed, since the children of illegal aliens born in the U.S. would not be denied anything to which they otherwise would have a right. Their allegiance should follow that of their parents during their minority. A nation that cannot determine who becomes citizens or believes that it must allow the children of those who defy its laws to become citizens is no longer a sovereign nation.
Critics say that Trump’s plan is unrealistic, that it would require a constitutional amendment because the 14th Amendment mandates birthright citizenship and that the Supreme Court has upheld this requirement ever since its passage in 1868. The critics are wrong. A correct understanding of the intent of the framers of the 14th Amendment and legislation passed by Congress in the late 19th century and in 1923 extending citizenship to American Indians provide ample proof that Congress has constitutional power to define who is within the “jurisdiction of the United States” and therefore eligible for citizenship. Simple legislation passed by Congress and signed by the president would be constitutional under the 14th Amendment.
Birthright citizenship is the policy whereby the children of illegal aliens born within the geographical limits of the U.S. are entitled to American citizenship — and, as Trump says, it is a great magnet for illegal immigration. Many of Trump’s critics believe that this policy is an explicit command of the Constitution, consistent with the British common-law system. This is simply not true.
Although the Constitution of 1787 mentioned citizens, it did not define citizenship. It was in 1868 that a definition of citizenship entered the Constitution with the ratification of the 14th Amendment. Here is the familiar language: “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.” Thus there are two components to American citizenship: birth or naturalization in the U.S. and being subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Today, we somehow have come to believe that anyone born within the geographical limits of the U.S. is automatically subject to its jurisdiction; but this renders the jurisdiction clause utterly superfluous. If this had been the intention of the framers of the 14th Amendment, presumably they would have said simply that all persons born or naturalized in the U.S. are thereby citizens.
Indeed, during debate over the amendment, Senator Jacob Howard, the author of the citizenship clause, attempted to assure skeptical colleagues that the language was not intended to make Indians citizens of the United States. Indians, Howard conceded, were born within the nation’s geographical limits, but he steadfastly maintained that they were not subject to its jurisdiction because they owed allegiance to their tribes and not to the U.S. Senator Lyman Trumbull, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, supported this view, arguing that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant “not owing allegiance to anybody else and being subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States.”
Jurisdiction understood as allegiance, Senator Howard explained, excludes not only Indians but “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.”* Thus, “subject to the jurisdiction” does not simply mean, as is commonly thought today, subject to American laws or courts. It means owing exclusive political allegiance to the U.S.
I only want to point out the above points in the article to bring Clarification to the intent of the 14th Amendment. Please read the entire article here:
"Those who defy the laws of the U.S. should not be allowed to confer such an advantage on their children. This would not be visiting the sins of the parents on the children, as is often claimed, since the children of illegal aliens born in the U.S. would not be denied anything to which they otherwise would have a right. Their allegiance should follow that of their parents during their minority. A nation that cannot determine who becomes citizens or believes that it must allow the children of those who
My inbox gets so many emails from Scammers. If the emal is generic, "Hello my pretty. I love all of your photos. I just can't stop thinking about your photos. You have a nice profile. Write me and let's see if we can get along. I will not be on the site very long. Here is my email@yahoo.com or text me at my phone#0000."
In the trash it goes! My profile says, "Scammers and Perverts are annoying!!! If you email me, you need to include something in it that shows you have read my profile. Don't call me pretty or tell me how much you like all of my photos. That's so generic and SCAMMERS write that!!! I will not Answer!"
If you are flirting with me and you are 20 years younger, in the trash you go. I have lots of reasons for not responding. If you post in the forums and send an email, I will usually will respond as it's usually regarding something going on in the forums.
A monkey is sitting in a tree, smoking a joint, when a lizard walks past. The lizard looks up and says, "Hey, what are you doing"? The monkey says, "Smoking a joint, come up and join me".
So the lizard climbs up and sits next to the monkey and they have another joint. After awhile the lizard says his mouth is 'dry' and that he's going to go get a drink from the river.
At the river bank, the lizard is so stoned, he leans over too far and falls in. A crocodile sees this, swims over to the stoned lizard, helping him to the side.
He then asks the lizard, "What's the matter with you?!" The lizard explains to the crocodile that he was sitting in a tree, smoking a joint with the monkey, and his mouth got dry, and he was so wasted that when he went to get a drink from the river, he fell in!
The inquisitive crocodile says he has to check this out. He walks into the jungle and finds the tree where the monkey is sitting, finishing a joint. He looks up and says, "Hey MONKEY"!
The monkey looks down and says, " DAAAAANG DUUUDE, HOW MUCH WATER DID YOU DRINK?!"
Sir, many of the Democratic leaders and those running for office on the Democratic platform are openly stating that they Are Socialist. Today's Democratic Party is not the same party it used to be. They have a new agenda. They are not hiding it anymore.
You are intelligent and a good researcher. Look it up. Sorry but I am teaching classes all day and managing an office and don't have the time.
I am aware that many pagan holidays were converted by the early church to be celebrated as christian holidays under different names. They did this as many pagans were being converted to christianity and wanted to continue their feast days, so they were incorporated. Christmas was one of these pagan holidays that was changed also. It was changed to celebrate the birth of Christ, which is not his birth date at all. Probably in September. Yes, God was born in a human flesh but I celebrate His Resurrection which gave us Power to overcome and the ability for Him to live In us by His Holy Spirit!
I believe All Saints Day, the Day of the Dead to be evil because as a christian, we are not to celebrate the dead or contact the dead. We are to do all things to the glory of God.
HealthyLiving Forum Posts (4,775)
RE: Stopping birth right citizenship