JayC

It could work, and here is how...   The Senate bounces the bill back to the House...  The House amends the bill to only include a requirement that all government employees must go on Obamacare (or at least Congress and White House staff) with no employer subsidies.  Then refuses to pass anything less than this new compromise.   You're a Senate democrat, do you shutdown the government over this one line in the law?  Who gets blamed for the shutdown?  Not the republicans at that point.  It's a perfect trap.   "We wanted to shutdown all of Obamacare, but the democrats said no, so we offered a compromise that all of congress and the federal government should have to live under the same law as you...  They refused and shutdown the government to try and prevent themselves from having to live under Obamacare."   Yeah that is not something I'd want to vote against and then go home to my district for an election.  

Well, lets use the wikipedia article against itself then :)   The current 2009 version of Black's Law: "A person born within the jurisdiction of a national government"   Ted Cruz doesn't meet that definition, does he?   But lets look a little farther back before the Obama mess to see what Black's Law said in 1891 before the progressives took over: Natural-born subject - In english law.  One born within the dominions, or rather within the allegiance, of the king of England.   And also from 1891 Black's Law: Naturalized Citizen - One who, being alien by birth, has received citizenship under the laws of the state or nation.   So then we look at the laws of Congress for guidance...  The 1790 Naturalization Act stated: "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"   But then in 1795 they changed the law to remove references to natural born citizens, and only state they are citizens of the US, which is the way the law is worded today.   Lets jump forward to the civil war when people were talking about slavery and citizenship for slaves and former slaves...     Ted Cruz wasn't born within the jurisdiction of the United States and was born to a parent that still held an allegiance to a foreign sovereignty at the time of his birth.  Ted Cruz became a "citizen" through an act of congress, if that law wasn't there then he would not be a citizen of the United States so he is a naturalized citizen, not a natural born citizen.   Using this same line of logic, Obama was born to inside the jurisdiction of the United States, but one of his parents still held a foreign allegiance at the time of his birth, so for that reason alone he is ineligible to be President, although there may very well be other reasons having to do with his step father that would also make him ineligible.   Using this same logic also precludes Rubio from being elected President since while born in the US, he was born to parents that still held allegiance to a foreign sovereignty at the time of his birth.     You can't complain about one and not about the others and stay true to the facts.   I believe that Obama is unfit to hold office because he never was a natural born citizen...  Because of that belief I can't support Cruz for office because he also does not meet the requirements of a natural born citizen.   And I really like what Cruz stands for, I agree with his politics, and I like what he's trying to do in Washington...  I think it's a shame he isn't qualified to be President because I'd vote for him if he was.  

What he said ;)  6.8 is right, I'm happy to talk about natural rights coming from our Creator, but I'm not comfortable quoting scripture and trying to tell somebody what the words in the bible mean.    And thanks 6.8 for jumping in there and tapping the third rail so eloquently.    

I mostly refer to natural rights, sometimes the God given slips out ;)  I'm bold enough to question a mans politics, I'm not bold enough to question his religious beliefs, if that makes me a wimp then so be it ;)   I disagree on the bellyaching...  I think there is a lack of understanding what true freedom and liberty is, that most people were purposely educated in a way to try and prevent them from asking big questions, how our current form of government violates the spirit of freedom and liberty that resulted in our independence from England.   Somebody has to go around planting those seeds if there is any hope when bad stuff happens down the road we have a chance of finding the right path back to individual freedom and liberty.     Not completely on point but this came to mind when reading your reply here:     As long as they don't come for your life, liberty, and property you're fine letting them take everybody elses?  If we don't stand up and make noise every time the government violates natural rights, then we make it easier for them to come and take the next one, and the next one.   What other forms of blood contracts do we have today?  How is it that we define any other form of forced contract to be completely illegal, except the one that removes all of your rights under the threat of force?  I don't expect an answer the questions are there to get people thinking and nothing more.  

Under 1790's Black's Law dictionary he is not a natural born citizen...  He was 'naturalized' by an act of Congress which says that a person born to an American parent is a citizen of this country, it does not say that they are a natural born citizen.   More importantly is the intent of the framers and our founding fathers, the requirement that a person be a natural born citizen was to prevent people with foreign allegiances to become President...  Clearly Cruz who is not only a US citizen, but also a Canadian, and Cuban citizen as well has foreign allegiances...   He is the poster child of what our constitution meant to protect us from...  we must be principled in our beliefs, and that means no matter how good of a man he is, he isn't eligible to be President.    

F-Troop aka BATFE is also under the DOJ, not DHS.    

First video shows you what we should be looking for in police officers...  sadly the second video shows us the results of current hiring practices in most police departments...   Frankly we should be talking that first officer into coming down here to TN and running one of our large departments...  I'm willing to bet he'd clean house in short order.

You said:     My point is who gave them the authority to impair my rights?  Because they're my rights, and somebody else's or some collective's to give away.  They belong solely to me as an individual.     Just because 50%+1 of the population voted for them doesn't give the collective the authority to violate my rights, anymore than the thug who tries to take away my life, liberty or property at gunpoint.  If anything that fact that it's a group trying to mask their behavior behind the cloak of 'government' makes their actions much more immoral than the thug who at least comes out and says what he's doing is a crime.   I've never said that I want to rebel, or that I think it's time to rebel, or that I think it's a good or bad idea to rebel.  Only that it's perfectly moral for somebody to do so if they're natural rights are being violated.  And that I wouldn't be able to put my uniform back on and hunt those people down because I feel that would violate both my oath and would be an immoral action.   I do like to tilt at windmills and hope that by making these posts and trying to educate others that we were once a free people, and could be again...  that when our empire does fall, and I honestly believe it will someday...  that in my own small way I help give the tree of liberty a fighting chance to once again grow...  and to encourage those who are stronger willed than I...  that it's perfectly moral to use reasonable force to defend your natural rights.   BTW, I refuse to get into a religious debate on this forum, that is the third rail of internet forums and not even I am willing to touch it...  I can truly say I sleep easy at night in the belief that my convictions match my religious beliefs completely.      

I agree the real problem is half the population has figured out a good armed robber scheme on the other half that is "legal"...  That those in government are just using the popular vote to enrich themselves, but they can only get away with it because they're paying off half the population with the hard work of the other half.   I also agree that the likelihood is that any revolution would likely result in somebody much more tyrannical than our current form of government, there are a lot more Stalin's and Hitler's running around than there are Washington's, Adam's, and Jefferson's.   I disagree that we couldn't possibly do better, we have seen the failings of our current system, and I think liberty minded individuals could improve upon the system if given the chance.  The truth is if you can't manage your own life well enough that you need a handout from the government to live, then you should lose your ability to direct where the government goes via voting.   By placing far greater restrictions on the ability of the government to grow...  by remembering that representatives should be represent a small enough number of people to be directly answerable to those people...  50k to 100k instead of 750k each.   But the truth is most of that is a pipe dream, a revolution is coming...  the only question is how bloodless will it be...  Our economy will crash when we're no longer the reserve currency of the world in such a way as to make the great depression look like a girl scout cookout.  That will place pressures on the 'give me' groups in such a way as to start a revolution in some form or fashion...     And the real question you have to ask yourself is who is better to come out on top when that starts to happen?  Somebody who believes more government is the answer, or somebody who thinks government is the problem?     At the end of the day we're all slaves who are just content to allow the chains of bondage to sit lightly on our shoulders hoping our 'master' doesn't select us for unreasonable punishments...  None of us know what real freedom tastes like, and the hope of getting back to liberty is at best a pipe dream...  but I don't have a problem if one of the slaves decided they've had enough and stands up...  I sure as hell won't put a uniform back on and try to track them down and bring them back to the plantation.    

Can you show me where I signed away MY rights to those being voted into power?  I don't seem to remember signing that document.    

They had elections in Tunisia under a dictator, was it illegal and immoral for those people to violently overthrow their government?   I'm not saying that the lack of a good outcome is always or even in most cases a good enough reason to start a armed revolution...  only that the ability to vote, or the perceived legality of the situation has little to do with whether the action was moral or immoral.   At what point of being a slave is enough to overthrow the government that is enslaving you?  10%, 30%, 50%, 75%, 90%, 100%?  I contend it's a lot closer to 10% than it is to 100% but that is a personal choice.   At the end of the day, you are morally right to use reasonable force to protect any of your natural rights, no matter if the violation comes from 1% of the population or 99% of the population.  The rights are yours an any attempt to steal them is a reasonable threat to your liberty, and if you using reasonable force to protect your rights results in a escalation of force, that morally is the fault of the person or group of people willing to violate your God given rights.   I know you don't agree, but at the end of the day if you believe your creator gave you natural rights, and they belong to you alone, then no matter what the majority says they have no moral right to take from you a natural right given to you by God, than they do to kill you or steal from you at gunpoint.      

TMF, there are times when condoning violence over voting is the right thing to do.  A sheep is not obligated to give up it's life just because two wolves and the sheep voted what was for dinner and the sheep lost.   Natural rights are endowed on the individual not on the collective, and therefore belong to the individual, not the collective.  When the collective abuses it's majority (or even super majority) to immorally steal a person's rights (or a group of people) then the use of force to free yourself from that bondage is perfectly moral through any means necessary.     Were armed slave revolts in the south before the civil war moral or immoral?  Was the uprisings in the Polish ghetto's moral or immoral?  Because in both cases they were 'illegal' actions that weren't supported by the majority in government.   Are we at that point yet?  I don't know, if not there we're pretty close.  The argument that you make about still having a voice seems to make logical sense until you understand that when they cross the line it will be fast and come with such force that liberty may very well not survive.     You've been in the military you know basic tactics of war...  do you sit and watch the enemy line up their troops and wait until they get into perfect position before you mount a counter assault, or do you attempt to disrupt their attack when it is most advantageous to your force?   I'm not advocating a revolution, just pointing out flaws I see in your stance...     If you believe a person's natural rights including their liberty and freedom are being violated...  but you would turn around put your uniform back on and defend those immoral actions...  how do you feel that would be upholding both your oath and your moral code?     At exactly what point in your mind does a victim have the right to respond with deadly force towards a tyrannical government that still gives them the illusion of a vote in what is happening?  

I like Allen West but because scandal that resulted in his retirement from the military, he can't be elected President.  I don't disagree with what he did or why he did it, but the left would chew him up and spit him out over the mock execution of a POW.   I completely agree that under the constitution Cruz is less eligible than Obama...  Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Jason Chaffetz and Justin Amash are all on my 'hope they run list' right now. 

Well with the new parking lot bill, it allows carry in your car (as long as it's not handled and out of view) for all reasons now.  Not just dropping off or picking up passengers.   So a teacher can now store a firearm in their car during work without breaking the law.    

A drivers license can be valid without access to the raw data...  We can provide a method to verify the license is valid and not suspended and even give other states access to verify the picture matches the person in front of them without giving the other states access to our database, and what access we give them can have strict limits placed on the use of that access.   Technology works both ways...  I can produce a license that can be verified without giving you access to anything in my database other than the ability to verify the license is valid.    

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket   Have you read his book?  He was one of the most respected General's of his day.  

The issue in this case isn't the technology...  It's about restricting the government's ability to store data and access data they would otherwise not have a constitutional reason to access.   The federal government shouldn't have access to drivers license data, we should have a state law that prevents that from being shared without a court order with any other government entity outside of TDOS.  DHS should not be able to buy from a private company data that could not collect without a warrant or court order....   The technology shouldn't concern you...  it's the unconstitutional ways the government is collecting and storing data that should.  Take away the database that has 200 million americans in it...  take away the ability of the government to keep data from this Hockey game for more than 24 or 48 hours....  and the technology won't be a problem.

You think the pro gun lobby is strong in TN...  Try messing with the home school lobby...  They show up in mass ready for a fight, and don't go home until after they've defeated the bad legislation and gotten a pound of of flesh on top of it ;)   We all sit here and whine about bad gun laws...  you'll see *maybe* 10-12 people that head up to the capitol building to annoy legislators about our gun laws during session...  I've seen 50-60 homeschooling parents show up day after day when they have a law being considered.    

Schools are licensed by the department of education in TN, except in some very rare cases of certain types of religious schools.  A Day Care is not licensed as a school and therefore doesn't meet the requirements of a school under the carry laws.   You should be fine to carry there unless posted under 39-17-1359, or some other form of posting....  The no carry law in schools has ever specific posting requirements, you would have noticed the signs already because they have to be a certain size, not little gun buster door stickers.    

'Free Speech Zones' on public college campuses are unconstitutional, and in most states illegal.  FIRE has yet to loose a case involving these zones, they are always held as unconstitutional.  

Passing legislation to confiscate or outlaw firearm ownership would be a rubicon that we could never back away from, and would result in terrible consequences that we haven't seen in a 150 years.   Best case it would result in a low level insurgency that the federal government would spend decades trying to stamp out, more likely it would result in a full out civil war that may very well lead to the dissolution of the union.   Our military can't win against 10,000 illiterate goat herders in Iraq, a country the size of Texas, and we had nearly 200,000 troops in country along with 100,000 more PMC's.  What are they going to go when their supply lines are exposed and the war making infrastructure is open to attack and sabotage?  The question isn't how many members of the military and police forces are willing to open fire on their own countrymen, but how many are willing to show up to a job and leave their families completely unprotected.    Nobody in this country alive today has ever saw real war in their cities, town, and neighborhoods...  We live in a safe society where the threat of car bombs, and political assassinations are unfathomable, all of that changes the day they pass a law that outlaws firearm ownership.   Just remember we have lost every counter insurgency operation we've been involved in for the last 50+ years.

But it's not private property...  it's a public college.   EDIT: Sorry 6.8 beat me too it :)  

It's also wise to hide your religion from people, not speak out about injustices committed by your own government, and say nothing negative about a possible war you feel is wrong....  Wait, maybe I have that wrong :)   If that manager saw 20 or 30 customers a day carrying openly, he'd get sick and tired of asking them if they had an HCP....  it would become obvious after a couple of weeks that only law abiding citizens wear holsters and carry their firearms in plain view and he'd think nothing of it.     There are possible downsides that have to be accounted for when open carrying (weapons retention for example), but worrying about irrational fears of sheeple shouldn't be one of them.

I've been here a few cycles, this is the first time I've seen comments from the admins and mods about 'anti-government' statements including in this heads up...  and in years past the rule has been to stay away from attacking police officers as a whole for the bad deeds of a few...  not being able to comment specifically on those few bad actors.   Bryan has clarified the issue for me, and I'm glad he did.    

Thank you for the clarification.