There is heartbreaking video showing three sisters, ages seven, five,
and three, being rescued by Mexican authorities on the southern
banks of the Rio Grande River. The girls are crying—no adults in sight.

Thousands of unaccompanied minors have been caught up in
President Biden's insane, lax border policy. Migrants are attracted
to the border because they believe they can easily enter the USA
and have absolutely no control over their destinies. Some make
it here; some die in the attempt. The Mexican cartels do whatever
they want to these defenseless people.

President Biden and the Democratic Party look away, failing to
even address this enormous human rights danger they, themselves,
have caused. Millions of people are at risk, not to mention Americans
who are getting hurt by uncontrolled immigration.

Yet Biden does nothing. He fiddles while abandoned children cry in
the bush. This is horrific and should spell the end of Biden's credibility
and the progressive movement which demands open borders.
But it won't because the corrupt press remains invested in the President
and his far-left masters. The corporations that control what we see on television also have no interest in saving children by exposing Biden's massive incompetence.

It is almost impossible to digest all this.

But it's happening, and as long as Biden is President, it will continue to happen. By: Bill O'ReillyJanuary 18, 2023

Irish Mike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Then DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

And there's only one thing you can do about it.

Mike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, January 18, 2023 at 1:12:28 PM UTC-5, Irish Mike wrote:

There is heartbreaking video showing three sisters, ages seven, five,
and three, being rescued by Mexican authorities on the southern
banks of the Rio Grande River. The girls are crying—no adults in sight.

Thousands of unaccompanied minors have been caught up in
President Biden's insane, lax border policy. Migrants are attracted
to the border because they believe they can easily enter the USA
and have absolutely no control over their destinies. Some make
it here; some die in the attempt. The Mexican cartels do whatever
they want to these defenseless people.

President Biden and the Democratic Party look away, failing to
even address this enormous human rights danger they, themselves,
have caused.

And assuming you (or O'Reilly) actually cares about these children, the solution is what? To make them stay in their war-torn "shithole" countries?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, January 19, 2023 at 1:13:57 PM UTC-5, JGibson wrote:

On Wednesday, January 18, 2023 at 1:12:28 PM UTC-5, Irish Mike wrote:

There is heartbreaking video showing three sisters, ages seven, five,
and three, being rescued by Mexican authorities on the southern
banks of the Rio Grande River. The girls are crying—no adults in sight.

Thousands of unaccompanied minors have been caught up in
President Biden's insane, lax border policy. Migrants are attracted
to the border because they believe they can easily enter the USA
and have absolutely no control over their destinies. Some make
it here; some die in the attempt. The Mexican cartels do whatever
they want to these defenseless people.

President Biden and the Democratic Party look away, failing to
even address this enormous human rights danger they, themselves,
have caused.

And assuming you (or O'Reilly) actually cares about these children, the solution is what? To make them stay in their war-torn "shithole" countries?

How about (and I know this radical) they apply for legal citizenship?

Irish Mike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 1/19/2023 4:25 PM, Irish Mike wrote:

On Thursday, January 19, 2023 at 1:13:57 PM UTC-5, JGibson wrote:

On Wednesday, January 18, 2023 at 1:12:28 PM UTC-5, Irish Mike wrote:

There is heartbreaking video showing three sisters, ages seven, five,
and three, being rescued by Mexican authorities on the southern
banks of the Rio Grande River. The girls are crying—no adults in sight. >>>
Thousands of unaccompanied minors have been caught up in
President Biden's insane, lax border policy. Migrants are attracted
to the border because they believe they can easily enter the USA
and have absolutely no control over their destinies. Some make
it here; some die in the attempt. The Mexican cartels do whatever
they want to these defenseless people.

President Biden and the Democratic Party look away, failing to
even address this enormous human rights danger they, themselves,
have caused.

And assuming you (or O'Reilly) actually cares about these children, the solution is what? To make them stay in their war-torn "shithole" countries?

How about (and I know this radical) they apply for legal citizenship?

Irish Mike

Or even just legal residency. They need to be vetted along with
anything they bring with them. There are too many baddies to just open
the gates.
--
ÄLSKAR - Fänga Dagen

Слава Україні та НАТО

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, January 19, 2023 at 12:13:57 PM UTC-6, JGibson wrote:

On Wednesday, January 18, 2023 at 1:12:28 PM UTC-5, Irish Mike wrote:

There is heartbreaking video showing three sisters, ages seven, five,
and three, being rescued by Mexican authorities on the southern
banks of the Rio Grande River. The girls are crying—no adults in sight.

Thousands of unaccompanied minors have been caught up in
President Biden's insane, lax border policy. Migrants are attracted
to the border because they believe they can easily enter the USA
and have absolutely no control over their destinies. Some make
it here; some die in the attempt. The Mexican cartels do whatever
they want to these defenseless people.

President Biden and the Democratic Party look away, failing to
even address this enormous human rights danger they, themselves,
have caused.

And assuming you (or O'Reilly) actually cares about these children, the solution is what? To make them stay in their war-torn "shithole" countries?

you can't look at it that way though.....you have to look at it like we can't solve all the worlds problem and we just need to focus on us as a country and American kids and families. If you go down that other rabbit hole, well......there is no end in
sight and it's just useless and hopeless.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, January 19, 2023 at 4:25:13 PM UTC-5, Irish Mike wrote:

On Thursday, January 19, 2023 at 1:13:57 PM UTC-5, JGibson wrote:

On Wednesday, January 18, 2023 at 1:12:28 PM UTC-5, Irish Mike wrote:

There is heartbreaking video showing three sisters, ages seven, five, and three, being rescued by Mexican authorities on the southern
banks of the Rio Grande River. The girls are crying—no adults in sight.

Thousands of unaccompanied minors have been caught up in
President Biden's insane, lax border policy. Migrants are attracted
to the border because they believe they can easily enter the USA
and have absolutely no control over their destinies. Some make
it here; some die in the attempt. The Mexican cartels do whatever
they want to these defenseless people.

President Biden and the Democratic Party look away, failing to
even address this enormous human rights danger they, themselves,
have caused.

And assuming you (or O'Reilly) actually cares about these children, the solution is what? To make them stay in their war-torn "shithole" countries?

How about (and I know this radical) they apply for legal citizenship?

They can adopt all the kids whose parents have died of fentanyl over-doses.

The circle of life.

-TE

Irish Mike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, January 19, 2023 at 8:24:52 PM UTC-5, miande...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, January 19, 2023 at 12:13:57 PM UTC-6, JGibson wrote:

On Wednesday, January 18, 2023 at 1:12:28 PM UTC-5, Irish Mike wrote:

There is heartbreaking video showing three sisters, ages seven, five, and three, being rescued by Mexican authorities on the southern
banks of the Rio Grande River. The girls are crying—no adults in sight.

Thousands of unaccompanied minors have been caught up in
President Biden's insane, lax border policy. Migrants are attracted
to the border because they believe they can easily enter the USA
and have absolutely no control over their destinies. Some make
it here; some die in the attempt. The Mexican cartels do whatever
they want to these defenseless people.

President Biden and the Democratic Party look away, failing to
even address this enormous human rights danger they, themselves,
have caused.

And assuming you (or O'Reilly) actually cares about these children, the solution is what? To make them stay in their war-torn "shithole" countries?

you can't look at it that way though.....you have to look at it like we can't solve all the worlds problem and we just need to focus on us as a country and American kids and families. If you go down that other rabbit hole, well......there is no end in

sight and it's just useless and hopeless.

That's fine, but that's not the argument Irish Mike / O'Reilly put forward.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, January 19, 2023 at 1:25:13 PM UTC-8, Irish Mike wrote:

How about (and I know this radical) they apply for legal citizenship?

How about you enforce that with hot lead?

Because that's the only way you're getting it done -- same with what Ken Olson said.

There have been a lot of Republicans bantering about forming a militia force, armed, at the Southern border, and turning it red with foreign blood.

We're still waiting for you to stop talking and start doing.

Mike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

How about (and I know this radical) they apply for legal citizenship?

How about you enforce that with hot lead?

Because that's the only way you're getting it done -- same with what Ken Olson said.

There have been a lot of Republicans bantering about forming a militia force, armed, at the Southern border, and turning it red with foreign blood.

Bantering, perhaps, but this country knows how to handle armed militias - some of us remember Waco. Yes, I remember Oklahoma City as well.

As for just handing out green cards to anyone who comes here legally, isn't there some sort of limit per country, which is part of the problem - apparently, most, if not all, of the ones trying to get in legally have to claim some sort of asylum?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 10:02:59 AM UTC-8, The NOTBCS Guy wrote:

How about (and I know this radical) they apply for legal citizenship?

How about you enforce that with hot lead?

Because that's the only way you're getting it done -- same with what Ken Olson said.

There have been a lot of Republicans bantering about forming a militia force, armed, at the Southern border, and turning it red with foreign blood.

Bantering, perhaps, but this country knows how to handle armed militias - some of us remember Waco. Yes, I remember Oklahoma City as well.

Do you have the right to be a militia under the Second Amendment or not?

(I know that answer, it's part of the reason I take this position. #RepealThe2nd.)

If you have the right to be a militia under the Second Amendment, there are many very "interesting" immediate next steps -- that being one of them.

Mike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

There have been a lot of Republicans bantering about forming a militia force, armed, at the Southern border, and turning it red with foreign blood.

Bantering, perhaps, but this country knows how to handle armed militias - some of us remember Waco. Yes, I remember Oklahoma City as well.

Do you have the right to be a militia under the Second Amendment or not?

(I know that answer, it's part of the reason I take this position. #RepealThe2nd.)

I've seen how you interpret the Constitution - and yes, this is coming from somebody who insists that nothing prevents former Presidents Obama, Bush "the younger," or Clinton from becoming Vice-President (and then possibly President, should the office be
vacated).

As for your question:
You have the right to "keep and bear arms." Nothing in the Second Amendment about the "right to form a militia," except possibly a "well-regulated one," and something tells me the ones you are thinking of are not.
That also does not mean that a militia has the right to take the law into its own hands in violation of the laws of this country and the state it happens to be in.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 12:06:28 PM UTC-8, The NOTBCS Guy wrote:

I've seen how you interpret the Constitution - and yes, this is coming from somebody who insists that nothing prevents former Presidents Obama, Bush "the younger," or Clinton from becoming Vice-President (and then possibly President, should the office

be vacated).

That is an incorrect statement.

The 12th Amendment states otherwise. No person ineligible for the office of President can be Vice-President.

Now, if you wanted to play that game, start thinking of Speaker of the House or something to that effect -- but the 12th Amendment prevents that scenario.

As for your question:
You have the right to "keep and bear arms." Nothing in the Second Amendment about the "right to form a militia," except possibly a "well-regulated one," and something tells me the ones you are thinking of are not.

That's where the courts go south -- they DO believe the populace is a militia in and of it's own merit.

That also does not mean that a militia has the right to take the law into its own hands in violation of the laws of this country and the state it happens to be in.

And that gets into the argument of "One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter."

One man's terrorist attack is another's revolution.

Mike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

I've seen how you interpret the Constitution - and yes, this is coming from somebody who insists that nothing prevents former Presidents Obama, Bush "the younger," or Clinton from becoming Vice-President (and then possibly President, should the

office be vacated).

That is an incorrect statement.

The 12th Amendment states otherwise. No person ineligible for the office of President can be Vice-President.

Correct - but none of them are "ineligible for the office of President." If you're about to mention the 22nd Amendment, nothing in it says that they cannot become President again - only that they cannot be ELECTED President. NOTHING about not being
allowed to become President by being Vice-President first. (Fixing this loophole is on my list of "things they need to consider if somebody ever gets around to calling for a Constitutional Convention

You have the right to "keep and bear arms." Nothing in the Second Amendment about the "right to form a militia," except possibly a "well-regulated one," and something tells me the ones you are thinking of are not.

That's where the courts go south -- they DO believe the populace is a militia in and of it's own merit.

You may be thinking of "The Militia of the United States" (Title 10, Section 246, United States Code), which consists pretty much of all men between the ages of 17 and 44, plus all women in the National Guard. I assume this is what gives the President
and Congress authority to call a military draft.

That also does not mean that a militia has the right to take the law into its own hands in violation of the laws of this country and the state it happens to be in.

And that gets into the argument of "One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter."

One man's terrorist attack is another's revolution.

I never said that they couldn't form private militias - just that I doubted that the Second Amendment gave anyone a "right" to do so.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, January 22, 2023 at 6:59:52 AM UTC-8, The NOTBCS Guy wrote:

Correct - but none of them are "ineligible for the office of President." If you're about to mention the 22nd Amendment, nothing in it says that they cannot become President again - only that they cannot be ELECTED President. NOTHING about not being

allowed to become President by being Vice-President first. (Fixing this loophole is on my list of "things they need to consider if somebody ever gets around to calling for a Constitutional Convention

They cannot be Vice-President. I think you're laying that you believe they would be Gerald Ford-ed into the offices at that point. I don't see that as possible under the 12th.

There is still a loophole you need to fix, and it comes from succession below the VP.

You have the right to "keep and bear arms." Nothing in the Second Amendment about the "right to form a militia," except possibly a "well-regulated one," and something tells me the ones you are thinking of are not.

That's where the courts go south -- they DO believe the populace is a militia in and of it's own merit.

You may be thinking of "The Militia of the United States" (Title 10, Section 246, United States Code), which consists pretty much of all men between the ages of 17 and 44, plus all women in the National Guard. I assume this is what gives the President

and Congress authority to call a military draft.

The courts also make the same distinction.

It's one of the reasons I am actually shocked you aren't seeing some of the bigots and the like take up the legality of murdering "certain people" as a function of an action of a militia under 2A.

That also does not mean that a militia has the right to take the law into its own hands in violation of the laws of this country and the state it happens to be in.

And that gets into the argument of "One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter."

One man's terrorist attack is another's revolution.

I never said that they couldn't form private militias - just that I doubted that the Second Amendment gave anyone a "right" to do so.

And that's where I think the courts have gone south on the subject.

Mike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Correct - but none of them are "ineligible for the office of President." If you're about to mention the 22nd Amendment, nothing in it says that they cannot become President again - only that they cannot be ELECTED President. NOTHING about not being

allowed to become President by being Vice-President first. (Fixing this loophole is on my list of "things they need to consider if somebody ever gets around to calling for a Constitutional Convention

They cannot be Vice-President. I think you're laying that you believe they would be Gerald Ford-ed into the offices at that point. I don't see that as possible under the 12th.

No - the way I read the Constitution, they can be elected Vice-President the way, say, Kamala Harris was elected Vice-President in 2020 (or on January 6, 2021, if you want to look at it that way.) They could also be "Gerald Ford-ed" into the office, as
you put it. You yourself say that there is a loophole that would allow them to be President presumably directly from being, say, Speaker of the House, so they aren't "constitutionally ineligble to the office of President," which is what the 12th
Amendment requires to prevent someone from being Vice-President.
Pretty much the only way you can't "become" President is by Congress somehow "withdrawing its consent" to the electoral college vote after it has been held.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, January 22, 2023 at 5:34:10 PM UTC-8, The NOTBCS Guy wrote:

Correct - but none of them are "ineligible for the office of President." If you're about to mention the 22nd Amendment, nothing in it says that they cannot become President again - only that they cannot be ELECTED President. NOTHING about not being

allowed to become President by being Vice-President first. (Fixing this loophole is on my list of "things they need to consider if somebody ever gets around to calling for a Constitutional Convention

They cannot be Vice-President. I think you're laying that you believe they would be Gerald Ford-ed into the offices at that point. I don't see that as possible under the 12th.

No - the way I read the Constitution, they can be elected Vice-President the way, say, Kamala Harris was elected Vice-President in 2020 (or on January 6, 2021, if you want to look at it that way.) They could also be "Gerald Ford-ed" into the office, as

you put it. You yourself say that there is a loophole that would allow them to be President presumably directly from being, say, Speaker of the House, so they aren't "constitutionally ineligble to the office of President," which is what the 12th
Amendment requires to prevent someone from being Vice-President.

The 12th actually prevents the scenario you are giving.

Pretty much the only way you can't "become" President is by Congress somehow "withdrawing its consent" to the electoral college vote after it has been held.

Which a scenario as you present would actually give legal cause to, except for the fact they'd have had to realize that long beforehand.

Mike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

They cannot be Vice-President. I think you're laying that you believe they would be Gerald Ford-ed into the offices at that point. I don't see that as possible under the 12th.

No - the way I read the Constitution, they can be elected Vice-President the way, say, Kamala Harris was elected Vice-President in 2020 (or on January 6, 2021, if you want to look at it that way.) They could also be "Gerald Ford-ed" into the office,

as you put it. You yourself say that there is a loophole that would allow them to be President presumably directly from being, say, Speaker of the House, so they aren't "constitutionally ineligble to the office of President," which is what the 12th
Amendment requires to prevent someone from being Vice-President.

The 12th actually prevents the scenario you are giving.

Either they are eligible to be President (and they are, at least the way I read it - just not eligible to be elected President), in which case, they can be Vice-President since the 12th Amendment restriction is on anyone "constitutionally ineligible to
the office of President" (quoted directly from the last line of the amendment), or they are not, in which case, they cannot become President in any other way, including being Speaker of the House when the Presidency and Vice-Presidency are both vacant,
so that loophole you claim exists isn't there. Which is it?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, January 23, 2023 at 10:41:27 AM UTC-8, The NOTBCS Guy wrote:

Either they are eligible to be President (and they are, at least the way I read it - just not eligible to be elected President), in which case, they can be Vice-President since the 12th Amendment restriction is on anyone "constitutionally ineligible to

the office of President" (quoted directly from the last line of the amendment), or they are not, in which case, they cannot become President in any other way, including being Speaker of the House when the Presidency and Vice-Presidency are both vacant,
so that loophole you claim exists isn't there. Which is it?

Are you assuming the Speaker promotes to Vice President if the VP is vacant?

That's not the case, but many do believe that.

The loophole is you could get a double-vacancy, like many Americans believe should happen now.

Mike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, January 23, 2023 at 1:39:59 PM UTC-8, Michael Falkner wrote:

On Monday, January 23, 2023 at 10:41:27 AM UTC-8, The NOTBCS Guy wrote:

Either they are eligible to be President (and they are, at least the way I read it - just not eligible to be elected President), in which case, they can be Vice-President since the 12th Amendment restriction is on anyone "constitutionally ineligible

to the office of President" (quoted directly from the last line of the amendment), or they are not, in which case, they cannot become President in any other way, including being Speaker of the House when the Presidency and Vice-Presidency are both vacant,
so that loophole you claim exists isn't there. Which is it?

Are you assuming the Speaker promotes to Vice President if the VP is vacant?

No.

The loophole is you could get a double-vacancy, like many Americans believe should happen now.

Then re-read my question. I will rephrase it.

1. Is President Obama (or, for that matter, Clinton, or GW Bush) "constitutionally ineligible to the office of President"? Yes, or no?

2. If he is, then how could he become President if he was Speaker of the House and both the President and Vice-President are vacant? He's ineligible to be President - period. There is no loophole.

3. If he is not, then what part of the 12th Amendment prevents him from being Vice-President? The only restriction is that he cannot be "constitutionally ineligible," but this question applies only if he is not "constitutionally ineligible" (if he is,
then go back and answer part 2).

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

1. Is President Obama (or, for that matter, Clinton, or GW Bush) "constitutionally ineligible to the office of President"? Yes, or no?

Yes.

2. If he is, then how could he become President if he was Speaker of the House and both the President and Vice-President are vacant? He's ineligible to be President - period. There is no loophole.

The idea is that he would be skipped, but I can't think of a scenario like him being Speaker which would not be with that in mind.

Then there is no loophole. End of the argument. If one of them was Speaker and both the offices of President and Vice-President were vacant, then the President Pro Tempore of the Senate becomes President. Never mind what anybody "has in mind."

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, January 23, 2023 at 2:06:06 PM UTC-8, The NOTBCS Guy wrote:

On Monday, January 23, 2023 at 1:39:59 PM UTC-8, Michael Falkner wrote:

On Monday, January 23, 2023 at 10:41:27 AM UTC-8, The NOTBCS Guy wrote:

Either they are eligible to be President (and they are, at least the way I read it - just not eligible to be elected President), in which case, they can be Vice-President since the 12th Amendment restriction is on anyone "constitutionally

ineligible to the office of President" (quoted directly from the last line of the amendment), or they are not, in which case, they cannot become President in any other way, including being Speaker of the House when the Presidency and Vice-Presidency are
both vacant, so that loophole you claim exists isn't there. Which is it?

Are you assuming the Speaker promotes to Vice President if the VP is vacant?

No.

The loophole is you could get a double-vacancy, like many Americans believe should happen now.

Then re-read my question. I will rephrase it.

1. Is President Obama (or, for that matter, Clinton, or GW Bush) "constitutionally ineligible to the office of President"? Yes, or no?

Yes.

2. If he is, then how could he become President if he was Speaker of the House and both the President and Vice-President are vacant? He's ineligible to be President - period. There is no loophole.

The idea is that he would be skipped, but I can't think of a scenario like him being Speaker which would not be with that in mind.

3. If he is not, then what part of the 12th Amendment prevents him from being Vice-President? The only restriction is that he cannot be "constitutionally ineligible," but this question applies only if he is not "constitutionally ineligible" (if he is,

then go back and answer part 2).

The black-letter statement that no person ineligible for the office of President can be VP.

Mike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)