LumberJocks

Of interest to Military and Veterans

  • Advertise with us

« back to Coffee Lounge forum

Forum topic by yank posted 03-03-2012 08:03 PM 2342 views 0 times favorited 55 replies Add to Favorites Watch
View yank's profile

yank

57 posts in 3598 days


03-03-2012 08:03 PM

I have sent this to my Congressional Reps. in Washington, D.C. It may be of interest to all Americans.

Message Subject: My tricare and Terrorist soccer field
Message Text:
I am a retired Military Veteran, and I am outraged by what that imposter in the WH is trying to do. Something has to be done to not allow the following to happen.
” Obama’s plan is to cut $1.8 billion from Tricare, the military’s health insurance and medical system, in the fiscal 2013 budget, and a whopping $12.9 billion by 2017. Administration officials told Congress that the goal of the increased fees is to force military retirees out of military health coverage and instead onto the rolls of the ObamaCare system, including all that goes with it – Death Panels, Independent Payment Advisory Boards, the works.”

If you have the influence to gather the force together, PLEASE try to get this stopped. Terrorists do not and should not have priority over our Military and our retirees. Wayne Gauthier

-- My Father was my mentor for my woodworking hobby and knowledge. Luv ya Dad.


55 replies so far

View waho6o9's profile

waho6o9

7176 posts in 2043 days


#1 posted 03-03-2012 09:21 PM

You mean Obama’s cutting health care for veterans and putting that money to a terrorist soccer field?

View Jimbo4's profile

Jimbo4

1432 posts in 2229 days


#2 posted 03-03-2012 11:48 PM

I don’t know about everyone else – but – I am getting real tired of hearing all the whining from the bigots, racists, right wing wing nuts, birther nuts, holier than thou attitudes of the religeous fanatics, and anti-everything crowd of proclaimed self righteous hate mongers.

-- BOVILEXIA: The urge to moo at cows from a moving vehicle.

View bigkev's profile

bigkev

198 posts in 2094 days


#3 posted 03-03-2012 11:56 PM

Rosebud, you forgot the whiny-ass bleeding heart liberals who want everything given to them and theirs with my hard earned tax dollars.

-- Kevin, South Carolina

View HorizontalMike's profile

HorizontalMike

7154 posts in 2380 days


#4 posted 03-04-2012 12:46 AM

rosebudjim = +10

bigkev = Neg. points, aka sphincter spasm

-- HorizontalMike -- "Woodpeckers understand..."

View yank's profile

yank

57 posts in 3598 days


#5 posted 03-04-2012 01:16 AM

Hey rosebud, if you are an obumma lover, suck it up, the Dummo’s have done their damndest to dumb up us bigots, racists, right wing wing nuts, birther nuts etc.,as you call us, but, it hasn’t worked. Can you prove beyond reasonable doubt that he IS a legal US citizen? He was not vetted, McCain was vetted even tho he has been a Senator and born and raised in the US. You Dummos are so transparent .

-- My Father was my mentor for my woodworking hobby and knowledge. Luv ya Dad.

View yank's profile

yank

57 posts in 3598 days


#6 posted 03-04-2012 01:18 AM

Waho609, that is what I read from that quote. This came from “Conservative Contacts Alerts. @
http://emailactivity.ecn5.com/engines/publicPreview.aspx?blastID=512382&emailID=145621998

OBAMA SLASHES MILITARY HEALTHCARE YET BUILDS
$750,000 SOCCER FIELD FOR GUANTANAMO TERRORISTS

ppacsoldierssalutingThe Obama administration is set to jack up military health insurance premiums by 345% and slash $12.9 billion worth of active duty and retiree Tricare coverage. Yet the very same day, plans were revealed to build a state of the art $750,000 soccer field for the terrorists being held at Guantanamo Bay.

OUR SOLDIERS, SAILORS, AIRMEN AND MARINES NEED OUR HELP RIGHT NOW! – FAX CONGRESS HERE!

Obama’s plan is to cut $1.8 billion from Tricare, the military’s health insurance and medical system, in the fiscal 2013 budget, and a whopping $12.9 billion by 2017. Administration officials told Congress that the goal of the increased fees is to force military retirees out of military health coverage and instead onto the rolls of the ObamaCare system, including all that goes with it – Death Panels, Independent Payment Advisory Boards, the works.

ppacguantnamobayMeanwhile, Fox News discovered that the administration is currently in the process of building a state of the art $750,000 soccer field for the terrorists held at Guantanamo. The detainees will now have a choice of three recreation centers while they “suffer” through their detainment.

Since when does America put the comfort of terrorists above the needs of the men

Read from that what you will.

-- My Father was my mentor for my woodworking hobby and knowledge. Luv ya Dad.

View HorizontalMike's profile

HorizontalMike

7154 posts in 2380 days


#7 posted 03-04-2012 01:45 AM

@yank SAID: ”...McCain was vetted even tho he has been a Senator and born and raised in the US. You Dummos are so transparent .”

RepubliKons can’t even get their facts straight! DOAH!

http://www.snopes.com/politics/mccain/citizen.asp

SNOPES.COM

Claim: John McCain does not qualify as a natural-born citizen of the U.S. because he was born in Panama.

Status: Undetermined.

Example: [Collected via e-mail, July 2008]

I am hearing talk that Senator John McCain is not eligible to be President of the United States because he is not a natural-born citizen.

Origins: Among the few qualifications specified in Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution regarding eligibility for the office of President of the United States is that the office-holder must be a “natural born citizen of the United States.” This qualification has not previously been an issue in U.S. politics since no one so far elected to the office of president (or who otherwise served as president) was born outside of the United States. But it has been a (minor) issue so far in 2008, as the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Senator John McCain of Arizona, was born not in the U.S. proper but in the Panama Canal Zone. (McCain’s parents were themselves U.S. citizens, and at the time of his birth they lived on a military installation in the Panama Canal Zone, where his father was stationed as a U.S. Navy
officer.) If Senator McCain were deemed not to be a natural-born citizen of the United States, his name could be kept off of ballots in the 2008 presidential election, and he could be ineligible to serve as president even if won the election.

As much we’d like to dismiss this one as just another frivolous election season rumor, it’s impossible to make any definitive statement about Senator McCain’s presidential eligibility because the issue is a matter of law rather than a matter of fact, and the law is ambiguous. There is no disputing that, under the U.S. statutes and laws applicable to the offspring of Americans living abroad and to the Canal Zone, John McCain is a citizen of the United States. However, the difference between “citizen” and “natural-born citizen” is an important one in this case, and some of the legal distinctions between the two are still murky. (The particular sticking points in Senator McCain’s case are whether the Panama Canal Zone was covered by existing citizenship laws at the time of his birth, and whether someone who was born outside the U.S. and holds U.S. citizenship status by virtue of a law passed after his birth and applied retroactively qualifies as a natural-born citizen.)

The framers of the Constitution didn’t elaborate on the term “natural born citizen,” there has never been a court case defining exactly what a “natural-born citizen” is, and neither Congress nor the Supreme Court has definitively resolved the issue. It is therefore not completely inconceivable that someone could mount a legal challenge to Senator McCain’s presidential eligibility, and that the issue would have to be decided in court:
“There are powerful arguments that Senator McCain or anyone else in this position is constitutionally qualified, but there is certainly no precedent,” said Sarah H. Duggin, an associate professor of law at Catholic University who has studied the issue extensively. “It is not a slam-dunk situation.”

In a paper written 20 years ago for the Yale Law Journal on the natural-born enigma, Jill Pryor, now a lawyer in Atlanta, said that any legal challenge to a presidential candidate born outside national boundaries would be “unpredictable and unsatisfactory … it is certainly not a frivolous issue.”
The issue is even more complicated because the process of challenging a presidential candidate’s eligibility is itself a murky issue, as the New York Times noted:
Lawyers who have examined the topic say there is not just confusion about the provision [regarding natural-born citizenship status] itself, but uncertainty about who would have the legal standing to challenge a candidate on such grounds, what form a challenge could take and whether it would have to wait until after the election or could be made at any time.
A lawsuit challenging Senator McCain’s eligibility is pending in Federal District Court in Concord, New Hampshire, but whether that lawsuit will be allowed to proceed is questionable:
In the motion to dismiss the New Hampshire suit, Mr. McCain’s lawyers said an individual citizen like the plaintiff, a Nashua man named Fred Hollander, lacks proof of direct injury and cannot sue.

Daniel P. Tokaji, an election law expert at Ohio State University, agreed. “It is awfully unlikely that a federal court would say that an individual voter has standing,” he said. “It is questionable whether anyone would have standing to raise that claim.”
In April 2008 the Senate approved a non-binding resolution declaring John McCain eligible to be president, one which stated that “There is no evidence of the intention of the framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country’s president.” However, that resolution has no legal effect.

Two constitutional lawyers (Laurence Tribe and Theodore Olson) who have studied the issue at the request of Senator McCain found in his favor, but another law scholar recently declared he had determined just the opposite:
In the most detailed examination yet of Senator John McCain’s eligibility to be president, a law professor at the University of Arizona has concluded that neither Mr. McCain’s birth in 1936 in the Panama Canal Zone nor the fact that his parents were American citizens is enough to satisfy the constitutional requirement that the president must be a “natural-born citizen.”

The analysis, by Prof. Gabriel J. Chin, focused on a 1937 law that has been largely overlooked in the debate over Mr. McCain’s eligibility to be president. The law conferred citizenship on children of American parents born in the Canal Zone after 1904, and it made John McCain a citizen just before his first birthday. But the law came too late, Professor Chin argued, to make Mr. McCain a natural-born citizen.

“It’s preposterous that a technicality like this can make a difference in an advanced democracy,” Professor Chin said. “But this is the constitutional text that we have.”
If a consensus on the matter can be said to exist, it is that if John McCain is not a natural-born citizen under the law, it’s only because of an exceptional and narrow gap in the law that was subsequently corrected and was never intended to exclude someone in his circumstances from natural-born citizenship status, so it would be unfair to declare him ineligible for the presidency on that basis:
“No court will get close to it, and everyone else is on board, so there’s a constitutional consensus, the merits of arguments such as [Professor Chin’s] aside,” said Peter J. Spiro, an authority on the law of citizenship at Temple University.

“You’d have to think a federal court would look for every possible way to avoid deciding the issue,” [said election law expert Daniel P. Tokaji].

Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina and one of Mr. McCain’s closest allies, said it would be incomprehensible to him if the son of a military member born in a military station could not run for president.

“He was posted there on orders from the United States government,” Mr. Graham said of Mr. McCain’s father. “If that becomes a problem, we need to tell every military family that your kid can’t be president if they take an overseas assignment.”
Last updated: 23 July 2008

Urban Legends Reference Pages © 1995-2012 by Barbara and David P. Mikkelson.
This material may not be reproduced without permission.
snopes and the snopes.com logo are registered service marks of snopes.com. Sources Sources:

Hulse, Carl. “Senate Says McCain Is Qualified.” The New York Times. 1 May 2008.

Hulse, Carl. “McCain’s Canal Zone Birth Prompts Queries About Whether That Rules Him Out.” The New York Times. 28 February 2008.

Liptak, Adam. “A Hint of New Life to a McCain Birth Issue.” The New York Times. 11 July 2008.

Associated Press. “McCain: My Citizenship Not an Issue.” USA Today. 29 February 2008.

Associated Press. “McCain Says Citizenship Issue Settled 44 Years Ago.” USA Today. 29 February 2008 (p. A6).

The Denver Post. “McCain Says His Birthplace Isn’t an Issue.” USA Today. 29 February 2008 (p. A6).

-- HorizontalMike -- "Woodpeckers understand..."

View jordanusmc's profile

jordanusmc

42 posts in 1879 days


#8 posted 03-04-2012 03:24 AM

HorizontalMike: this John McCain thing kind of goes both way according to factcheck.org he is a U.S. citizen adn 100% capable of being President (well maybe I should say legally allowed to be President not “capable”)
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/john-mccains-presidential-eligibility/

Q: How can Panamanian-born McCain be elected president?

A: Though born abroad, he is considered a natural-born U.S. citizen.

FULL QUESTION:

I understand John McCain was born in Panama. Doesn’t that make him ineligible to be president? I thought the Constitution said you had to have been born in a state.

FULL ANSWER:

John McCain’s father was an admiral in the U.S. Navy who was stationed in Panama in 1936, when McCain was born. This has led to speculation as to whether McCain is a U.S. citizen and whether he can be elected president, a question that was raised during McCain’s run for the Republican nomination in 2000 as well.

Section 1, Article II of the U.S. Constitution states:

Article II: “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.”

But McCain is a natural-born citizen, even though he was not born within this country’s borders, since his parents were citizens at the time of his birth. As a congressional act stated in 1790:

Congress: “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.”

Another congressional act in 1795 issued a similar assurance, though it changed the language from “natural born citizen” to “citizen.”

But the State Department clarifies the issue, saying that the 1790 language is honored under section 301© of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

This is not the first time the question has been broached in a presidential election. Fellow Arizonian Barry Goldwater was born in the Arizona territory before it was a state. And Mitt Romney’s father, George, ran for president in 1968, though he was born in Mexico. Like McCain, both were born to U.S. citizens and, therefore, considered to be American citizens.

However, both of those candidates were unsuccessful in their bids – and so a smidgen of uncertainty remains. If McCain wins the presidency, the constitutionality of these congressional statutes could be challenged in the courts. Members of Congress have expressed this fear and proposed a more explicit law, or even a Constitutional amendment. Neither has been adopted.

-Justin Bank

Update, June 16: This article originally didn’t note the distinction in language between the 1790 and 1795 congressional acts.

Sources
Rudin, Ken. “Citizen McCain’s Panama Problem.” Washington Post, 9 July 1998.

“An Act to Establish a Uniform Rule of Naturalization.” 1st U.S. Congress, 2nd Session, 26 Mar. 1790.

“An Act to Establish a Uniform Rule of Naturalization; and to repeal the act heretofore passed on that subject.” 3rd U.S. Congress, 2nd Session, 29 June 1795.

Olson, Elizabeth. “U.S. Congress moves to clarify the rules : Just how ‘American’ must a president be?” International Herald Tribune, 2 June 2004.

But back to the OP I do think that it is kind of crazy that we spend 750,00 on a soccer field in Gitmo hell I think it would be crazy for the US gov to spend that on a soccer field in America!!!

View HorizontalMike's profile

HorizontalMike

7154 posts in 2380 days


#9 posted 03-04-2012 04:00 AM

And you wanna be a Birther about Obama being born in Hawaii but McCain born in Panama is OK…’shore…

-- HorizontalMike -- "Woodpeckers understand..."

View Ken Fitzpatrick's profile

Ken Fitzpatrick

376 posts in 3489 days


#10 posted 03-04-2012 04:43 AM

Yank,

I am in the same boat (Navy Vet). I would not however believe one thing that came from that web address. I belong to several very politically active veteran organizations. When they come out and tell us who to blame, I will lead the charge against those messing with veteran benefits.

-- • "I have noticed that nothing I have never said ever did me any harm."....... Calvin Coolidge

View BobM001's profile

BobM001

388 posts in 1796 days


#11 posted 03-04-2012 05:37 AM

But BOTH of John McCain’s parents were NATURAL born US citzens. Can the “Usurper in Chief” say the same? NO HELL NO! Like the Clintons, BHO HATES the military. He and his Marxist cronies have nothing but CONTEMPT for the military and veterans. They want to take the money away from the retired and active duty military families but feel we have to pay for contraception for Georgetown law school coeds and all the other college coeds that are “going broke” trying to maintain their sex lives. Obama Favors Students Getting Paid to Screw While Screwing Over Troops By Lucy Emerson, a military wife. I wonder what the out cry would be like if funding/services for public employees health care was cut the same?

-- OK, who's the wise guy that shrunk the plywood?

View derosa's profile

derosa

1568 posts in 2301 days


#12 posted 03-04-2012 07:17 AM

How is it the political spin machine can keep painting this as paying students to have sex? You do know that some people need birth control for actual medical reasons? My wife went on birth control when she was 14 for medical reasons and was in a lot of pain for several months in a row while trying to get pregnant and her condition isn’t rare. So we shouldn’t require insurance companies to pay for this? So plenty of girls will use it to have birth control so they can sleep around, beats paying for abortions or dropping one more unwanted kid into the system. Birth control pills aren’t that expensive, I had to pay for my wife’s for 3 years while we didn’t have insurance, the companies are already over charging so they can give their CEOs far more then they are worth. Let them pony up some cash and pay for the pills, they can cut back on the bonuses this year before hiking the rates again next year.

How is Obama an “usurper in chief” any more then Bush who effectively stole two elections? He ran, he won, he had the birth certificate so get over it; on the plus side you’ll probably have 4 more years to work on your insults for the president since the Republicans can’t seem to produce anyone worth voting for that will make it to the actual election. Nothing like rounding up the biggest bunch of losers out there to hand Obama the reelction on a silver platter.

-- --Rev. Russ in NY-- A posse ad esse

View HorizontalMike's profile

HorizontalMike

7154 posts in 2380 days


#13 posted 03-04-2012 01:13 PM

Pretty much dead on Russ. The only thing I might add (you heard it here first America) is that the Republicans will NOT put one of the current GOP candidates in the election and will throw in someone else who has not run at all. Someone like Jeb Bushwhacked from the inept banksters/CEO Clan or Chris ChrispieCream the crony capitalist. And then they will all act like a messiah has arrived and… and… well you know what I mean.

-- HorizontalMike -- "Woodpeckers understand..."

View Howie's profile

Howie

2656 posts in 2389 days


#14 posted 03-04-2012 01:24 PM

H. Mike…Christie sucks up to the muslims too much. Anyone that would vote for him might as well vote for a mullah.

-- Life is good.

View ShipWreck's profile

ShipWreck

557 posts in 3218 days


#15 posted 03-04-2012 01:47 PM

I am fed up with all the broken promises that the goverment has dished out to military people over the years. The politicians treat the military in the same terms as welfare recipients for the most part.

I want to see the draft reinstated. I want to see a politicians face when thier son or daughter comes home missing limbs. I want to see a politician cope with a son or daughter with PTSD.

showing 1 through 15 of 55 replies

Have your say...

You must be signed in to reply.

DISCLAIMER: Any posts on LJ are posted by individuals acting in their own right and do not necessarily reflect the views of LJ. LJ will not be held liable for the actions of any user.

Latest Projects | Latest Blog Entries | Latest Forum Topics

HomeRefurbers.com