It seems Apparently THE PEOPLE are wising up to the BullS*** chain yanking by the “main stream media”, the “political elite” and the “ignorant talking heads”.

I wonder how long it will take for these groups to realize they played their cards TO FAST?
Apparently they are so use to the public simply going along with whatever they are told (without checking for the facts) it has yet to occur they are NO LONGER a true driving force in the outcome of ANYTHING.

OPPS PITY FOR THEM!

Good for our side.

Take a look at Herman Cain.

Those who laughed and though he did not have a snowflakes chance in hell are BEGINNING to see the dawn.

The criticism of NO well organized staff, a campaign to sell books and now “sexual harassment” ALLEGATIONS.
NONE OF THAT APPEARS TO BE WORKING.

Is any of this a shock?
Not to anyone who understands the behavior of the mass.
You can only lead the SHEEPLE over the cliff so long … before those behind begin to wake up and wise up.

Little by little the average voter on the street is viewing Cain as being an authentic straight-talking candidate. Someone they can relate to in their own world.

He is engaging, he has a bold 9 – 9 – 9 tax plan which seems to outweigh what appears to be a lack of experience in foreign policy matters.

The most dumb among us at least understands where you are WEAK … YOU GET HELP FROM EXPERTS.
Clearly a MUST HAVE UNDERSTANDING if you are a successful business owner.
THAT FOR SURE is something Cain is … A SUCCESSFUL BUSINESS OWNER AND MANAGER.

THAT ONE SIMPLE FACT sets him apart from most of these in Congress today who are lucky to have the ability to tie their own shoe laces on any given day.

How 2/3rds of these people got elected only shows how ASLEEP AT THE SWITCH much of the American Public actually is when they hit the voting booth.

So how far will Cain go?
Only time will tell. Only the very foolish will count him out at this point in the game.

As we head into another Presidential election cycle racism is once again becoming front and center in the focus of American political discourse. Unfortunately racism, and the hypocrisy that goes with it, is indeed alive and well in our nation today, 146 years after the Civil War ended and 46 years after the Civil Rights Act was passed. It saddens me to see that some in this country have not progressed any further along the road to acceptance of race as a non-factor in life.

If you don’t believe racism is real just look at the media treatment of Herman Cain. Like him or not, agree with his policies or not, Herman Cain is an authentic American who happens to be black. He is not a hyphenated American; he is an American, period. When I say he is an authentic American I mean that he believes in the Constitution and the values that have made this country great. When I say authentically black I mean both of his parents are black.

The same media knotheads, who call me a racist because I oppose the policies of Barak Obama, publicly call Herman Cain names like “token negro”, “Oreo cookie”, “bad apple”, “Uncle Tom”, “a black man who knows his place”, and accuse him of “smoking a symbolic crack pipe”, “currying white favor”, and the like, things that I would never dream of saying. Some of these self-absorbed pretentious “journalists” and commentators are white and some are black but none of them have a clue what main stream America is about.

Where were these kinds of references in 2007 and 2008? Barak Obama received an awful lot of the white vote. Why were these kinds of comments not made when he was receiving so much support from the white community? You didn’t hear conservatives uttering such tripe and these same “journalists” and commentators fawned over Obama like he was a god. Conservatives talked about Marxism and socialism running for the White House, not the “house negro”.

Why is Obama, whose mother was white, blacker than Cain, whose parents are both black? Could it be because Cain is a conservative, the worst thing in life a “person of color” can be? I have heard black people and white people, all of them liberals by the way, call Cain vile names that I would never call him, or any other person, regardless of the color of their skin. Obama is of mixed race, Cain is of pure race, yet Cain is the one who is “not black enough”. That is an interesting concept, not a sensible one but an interesting one none the less.

Karen Finney, a Democrat “strategist” appearing with Martin Bashir on msnbc said that Herman Cain is “a black man who knows his place” and therefore is acceptable to the TEA Party and makes them “feel like they are not racist because they like this guy”. Bashir’s response is “thank you for spelling that out”. http://conservativedailynews.com/2011/11/for-the-left-cain-is-black-man-who-doesnt-know-his-place/

Does anyone else find this as vile and ridiculous as I find it? Has anyone ever heard a TEA Party person make such an asinine statement? No, I didn’t think so. Lloyd Marcus seems to be accepted at TEA Party events, as are any other “people of color”, who believe in liberty, justice, and the American Way.

Does anyone remember the Clarence Thomas Supreme Court hearings? Thomas referred to the attacks on him as a high-tech lynching. It wasn’t conservative Republicans who trashed Clarence Thomas, it was liberals, Democrats, both black and white, but all of them liberals who are supposedly consumed with “racial equality”. Thomas was ridiculed because his wife is white, not by conservatives, but by liberals. And who could ever doubt the “Reverend” Al Sharpton when he tells us that Cain is not an “authentic black man” because he doesn’t espouse the “oh woe is me” attitude that only government can provide for success in the black community. Cain isn’t being reviled by conservatives but by liberals. We “conservative TEA Party racist types” accept Herman Cain but liberals don’t. Hmmm, curious this race question.

When a liberal calls me a racist because of my stand for freedom and against the Obama, Reid, Pelosi brand of Marxism I count it as a compliment. I know I am not a racist and so do they. The key is that they know they have nothing else to stand on so they try the age-old intimidation tactic of name calling. Well, it just doesn’t work any longer. We, the supposed racists, have wised up and now ignore this tactic. We are no longer intimidated by name calling.

The true racists in the country are those telling American citizens ”of color” that they cannot accomplish anything on their own, that the only way for them to have anything is to hold their hand out to liberal white folks who know what is in their best interests. Or they can hold their hand out to “Reverend” Al Sharpton or “Reverend” Jesse Jackson, who will go to their white liberal overseers and ask for “alms for their poor black folks”. Just as a side note, I consider myself a “person of color” also. As far as I know white is still a color, and actually, except for my beard, I am more beige than white.

Have you noticed that the pundits and mouthpieces for racism, black or white, seem to be doing just fine, financially, in the pundit world? And how do the “Justice Brothers”, Al and Jesse, make their money? Do they actually have churches they pastor or do they make their money pandering to white liberal guilt, the government, and telling black Americans that they are less than whites? I surmise that the “Justice Brothers” make their money extorting money from anyone they can find to extort money from. If one doesn’t give them money it must be because one is racist. It can’t possibly be because one believes they are “race hustling poverty pimps”.

And before anyone labels me a racist on that last statement, it is a quote from J. C. Watts, a former Oklahoma Republican Congressman and quarterback at the University of Oklahoma. He made that statement on the floor of the House of Representatives in speaking of “Reverend” Jackson. He must also be a racist in the books of “Reverends” Al and Jesse, and apparently another “house negro telling whites what they want to hear”.
I never tell anyone they can’t make it on their own. I never tell anyone of any color that the answer to their problems is a government hand out, that they are too stupid to succeed, or they are incapable of making a success of themselves. Is the key to success in our nation really a government handout or is it hard work, honesty, integrity, and dedication?

Racism is alive and well in the liberal sections of society. Conservatism says hard work and dedication will bring success, without ever bringing skin color into the mix. Herman Cain worked his way through college. His parents worked at least 2 jobs each when he was young so they could help their children get the education they would need to become successful in life. They didn’t sit back and wait for Al and Jesse to bring them a handout to keep them in line and in poverty. Cain’s parents had a vision of what it takes to succeed in life and they instilled that in their children.

Herman Cain has been successful because he understands how to be successful. He has worked his way to where he is today through education, dedication to values, and the willingness to apply himself to accomplish the tasks assigned by those above him in authority. He wasn’t content to sit on his butt and wait for Al and Jesse to hand him the pittance they normally hand their dependents. I believe the key to his success as much as anything else is his treatment of others. He is as considerate and respectful of the doorman at a hotel as he is to a CEO of any corporation.

To say in 2011 that Herman Cain has succeeded because he is the “house negro” of the TEA Party and conservative Americans is insulting to all Americans of all colors. It shows where racism dwells and it isn’t in conservative circles. This treatment of Cain shows once again that “people of color” who don’t tow the liberal line will be subjected to attacks of all kinds to keep them in line. For anyone to say that any “person of color” cannot succeed by their own initiative in today’s America is as racist as one can get.

Many Americans, including this writer, oppose Barak Obama because of his Marxist policies and his promise to “fundamentally transform America”. We are called racists and bigots because no one can really oppose his “enlightenment”; it absolutely has to be racism. I am not in Cain’s camp but I do respect and like the man based on his accomplishments and his vision for America.

Neither Cain nor Obama have any standing with me, for better or worse, due to the color of their skin. My opinions of both are based entirely on their policies and their vision of the future of the nation I cherish. I find it rather odd that the people who support Obama are not racists but those who oppose him are racists. And those who support Herman Cain are racists but those who oppose him are not racists. I am like the duck in the AFLAC commercial shaking my head and going, HUH?????????????????????????????

I submit this in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, in faith, with the responsibility given to me by Almighty God to honor His work and not let it die from neglect.

Bob Russell Claremore, Oklahoma November 4, 2011

Most of us know by now Politico writers JONATHAN MARTIN & MAGGIE HABERMAN & ANNA PALMER & KENNETH P. VOGEL wrote what they hope will be the downfall of Herman Cain.

One thing is clear the Cain opposition is terrified of his rapid advancement in the polls.

Will this bit of ANONYMOUS dirt reporting work?
Probably not.
Why?
Because the public is so tired of this kind of hypocrisy … it’s in one ear and out the other.
Bill Clinton raised the bar for this kind of behavior.

I have perused a number of sites reporting this information and even watched Cain defend himself on Greta. Read hundreds of comments on the blogs from supporters and those who hope to see Cain bite the dust over this situation.

A comment from Beyond Partisan … “Shame on you, @politico, for publishing a smear story against Cain based on anonymous sources, while you never dig into Obama’s past.”

Let me further add. There is plenty of dirt to dig up on Obama without a peep from Politico.
Get your lazy butts in gear JONATHAN MARTIN, MAGGIE HABERMAN, ANNA PALMER or KENNETH P. VOGEL … lets hear some real reporting from you for a change. None of that has to be SLIGHT OF HAND its right out in the open for EVERYONE TO SEE AND REPORT.

If I can dig it up so can you.
How about a little digging on the Obama/DNC lawsuit by Larry Sinclair who alleges Obama is a closet bisexual with whom he had sexual and drug-related encounters in November 1999? How about the unsolved murder of Donald Young the 47-year-old choir master at former Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ and the Barack Obama connection to him?

Those are simply 2 of the tons buried or ignored by the main stream media today. Here is 56 minutes of pretty good stuff (already documented for you) to sink your teeth into Politico.

So what is the POLITICO REALITY?
Yellow journalism AT BEST?
DUPLICITOUS HYPOCRISY AT WORST!

Whatever the case … certainly a waste of time for those of you looking for the truth.

By DICK MORRIS

Published on TheHill.com on October 25, 2011

Liberals often fail to understand the fault lines that run through the Republican Party. But when those fault lines mirror their own, you would think they’d get it.

Even as President Obama rakes in $35,000 per couple at lavish fundraisers after relying on Goldman Sachs to be his largest single donor in 2008, the left sits in a park in Manhattan decrying Wall Street excesses. The Dodd-Frank bill, sold as a measure to crack down on Wall Street, is killing community and small banks throughout the nation, hastening the day when Wall Street will be the only source of corporate or personal lending.

Meanwhile, on the Republican side, voters have clearly opted for a candidate who came from the private sector rather than one who lived his life in politics, as the continuing collapse of Rick Perry and the ongoing ascendancy of Mitt Romney and Herman Cain attest. But which private sector? Wall street and big business, or small business? Between Romney and Cain, a new chasm is emerging. As Cain put it: “Mitt generated jobs on Wall Street. I did it on Main Street.”

The same discontent that is brewing over in Lower Manhattan among the extreme left is also raging on the right as small businessmen rally to Cain, emphatically making it clear that the needs of big business are not only not their needs, but often are a direct contradiction.

In a sense, the fault lines the Romney/Cain contest is exposing are very similar to those that first made their appearance when Arizona’s Barry Goldwater defeated New York’s Nelson Rockefeller for the Republican nomination for president in 1964. The split in the GOP has only grown wider. The evangelical, small-business, economic-freedom, anti-tax and anti-regulation Tea Party vote is lining up behind Cain. The economic-growth conservatives, corporate executives, free-market economists and GOP establishment are backing Romney.

The emerging contest will not be so much the right versus the center as it will be big versus small, the establishment versus insurgents, libertarian Republicans against social conservatives and, yes, Wall Street versus Main Street.

We are going to be treated to a presidential campaign in which both parties’ candidates will have to cope with increasing animosity toward the greed and self-serving refusal to be accountable that have characterized Wall Street and the financial industry.

But it is particularly intriguing to compare the impetus for the Cain candidacy with that of the Occupy Wall Street group. Both decry the tendency toward bigness and each disapproves of massive corporate bailouts that choose winners and losers. Both are opposed to crony capitalism and do not want the federal government to be a servant of the financial industry.

And both find themselves in opposition to the mainstream of their political parties. The world is indeed round, with apologies to Thomas Friedman. The far left and the far right unite in their opposition to big business and to the centrist establishments of both parties that maintain cozy and symbiotic relationships with Wall Street.

Can Obama continue to run on Wall Street money while backed by Occupy Wall Street foot soldiers? It seems unlikely. Can Cain tap into the resentment against Wall Street that rises from the demonstrators in Lower Manhattan? Perhaps he can.

The real criticism of Obama is not that he is a socialist — advocating government ownership and control of business. It is that he is a corporatist — advocating government control while keeping ownership in private hands. He wants a few big companies and a handful of major banks, the big labor unions and the federal government to work together to divide the pie and deal the cards. He wants to establish here a corporatism reminiscent of de Gaulle’s France and modern-day Germany. Soon the left will realize what the right is already coming to know — that the mainstream of each party is hopelessly in bed with Wall Street.

In this video commentary put out by Dick Morris, he defends Herman Cain’s 999 Plan. The attacks on Cain’s 999 Plan scored in the last GOP debate and Cain did not do a good job of answering the attacks. Morris lays out what is actually going on with the proposed tax. It appears he and Newt Gingrich are the only 2 who were on the scene to understand what was going on with this proposal.

I don’t know I am getting a little tired of the bickering between Perry and Romney and what appears to be ignorance of fact from Michelle Bachmann.

You can view a video of what Morris had to say here:
http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/defending-999-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/

UPDATE on Mitt Romney “natural born citizen” state.
Please read this latest research update on this issue.

This is a re-post of an article I wrote (based on the research and comments submitted by Adrianne) back in mid June. I am grateful for her research finds.

It is CRITICAL that the public understand this problem … leap on the bandwagon and FORCE EVERYONE RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT TODAY to address this issue.

For whatever reason the DC powers that be CONTINUE TO IGNORE the most important issue that faces the United States.

YES EVEN MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE ECONOMY.

Without a fix for this constitutional problem the imminent economic collapse is small change in comparison.
WE CAN AND WILL RECOVER from a collapsed economy.
WE CAN NOT RECOVER FROM THE COLLAPSE FROM WITHIN WITHOUT THE CONSTITUTION.

People YOUR FREEDOM IS AT STAKE … WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?

THE CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT THAT THE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES BE NATURAL BORN IS IMPORTANT.

No matter how ANYONE slices, dices or ginsu it BARACK OBAMA for certain does not meet the requirement … neither does Mitt Romney according to records of old.

If these contenders are not WILLING to face and DO SOMETHING about this problem then WE AS CITIZENS MUST FACE THE FACTS … that contender is either ignorant (no matter what they claim) of what the constitution says/means or is to cowardly to stand up and follow it.

Those contenders do NOT DESERVE THE VOTE OF THE PUBLIC PERIOD.

Do we need ANOTHER IGNORANT COWARD in the white-house after the 2012 election?
DO WE ACCEPT WASHINGTON BUSINESS AS USUAL?

Is Mitt Romney a “natural born citizen”?

Was George Romney (father of Mitt Romney) a natutal born citizen?
Not according to the historical records I could dig up.

If George Romney was not a “US citizen”, “natural born citizen” or became naturalized BEFORE Mitt was born then neither can Mitt Romeny (his son) be natural born.

THE CASE:

Had Romney been successful in 08, we’d still have socialized medicine, only the name would be Romneycare, not Obamacare.

In regards to the missionaries, I point that out to show that the expatriate Mormons HAD to become Mexican citizens since missionary work by foreigners was prohibited by Mexican law at the time.

Geometry, “if this and this, therefore that.” If Mexico only allowed citizens to conduct missions/missionary work. The Mormons operated missions in Mexico, therefore, the Mormons were Mexican citizens.

Since George W. Romney was born in Mexico, son of the head elder, there for about 3 decades before his birth, said elder must have been a Mexican citizen, therefore, could not bestow American citizenship, let alone “natural born” to George W. Romney. Since George W. Romney was therefore NOT AN American citizen, he could not bestow natural born to his son Mitt Romney. It does not matter what state Mitt Romney was born in.

The operative immigration law of nations at the time, each government had a tacit agreement about such expatriates as a matter of being put into delicate situations of having to defend Americans on foreign soil. This procedure was operative when the Mormons fled Utah, the standard being that if an American stayed (at the time the accepted time frame was) 5 or so years, each country would consider they had rejected their native country’s citizenship.

Since the family was in Mexico, depending on the story, 1870′s or 80′s, the USA would have considered them Mexican and Mexico would have too, on that account.

Since Mexican law severely restricted foreign ownership of territory and since Romney’s own family genealogy reports they bought land w/Mexico’s approval, then if this, then that of it concludes that they were Mexican citizens, free to own land and also, do their missionary work.

The Mormons left to escape the US government threats, then passage of two severe laws against polygamy (links below). They were losing or had lost their citizens’ rights to vote, sit on juries, etc. The final legislation banning polygamy and assessing severe sanctions in the 1880s made committed polygamy a crime and while the legislation OFFERED THE EXPATRIATES IN MEXICO a legal way back, all those who were married prior to 1864, (and George W. Romney’s father was), he could have chosen to repatriate with all benefits of American citizenship.

He declined and died in Mexico in 1906 or 1907, never returning, never giving up Mexican citizenship.

Clearly American citizenship was not a concern then, Romney et al have a dog in that fight but not the Mexican Mormons, the Romney family tree is clear, committed and leaders of that movement.

Notes to CI from Adrianne:

CI … I went to your site and as I forewarned, said that the “official” accounts are revisionist history.

From your link:
“… While Romney was born in Mexico, he was still considered to be a viable and legal candidate to run for president. His Mormon grandfather and his three wives fled to Mexico in 1886, but none of them ever relinquished their citizenship.”

Actual Chronological History:

Mitt Romney’s paternal great grandfather Miles Park Romney was one of the many families that left the United States in March of 1885 to conlonize Mexico. (why and their citizenship fate explained below)

Mitt’s paternal grandfather Gaskell Romney stayed in Mexico until the Mexican Revolution forced his family to move back to the United States.

Mitt’s father George W. Romeny was also born in Colonia Dublán, Galeana, in the Mexican state of Chihuahua – one of the Mormon colonies in Mexico – on July 8, 1907.

Mitt Romney’s great-grandfather, George W. Romney’s maternal grandfather, Helamen Pratt:
Pratt was one of the first missionaries to Mexico, and in 1876 at Hermosillo, Sonora, Pratt and Meliton Trejo performed the first baptisms recorded by the LDS Church in that country. Pratt latter served as president of the Mexican Mission based in Mexico City for part of the 1880s. After his release he moved to Colonia Dublan in Galeana, state of Chihuahua, Mexico, where he died.

He married in Salt Lake City, Utah, 20 April 1874 German Anna Johanna Dorothy (“Dora”) Wilcken (Dahme, Zarpin, Rheinfeld, Ostholstein, Schleswig-Holstein, 25 July 1854 – Colonia Dublán, Galeana, Chihuahua, Mexico, 22 June 1929), daughter of Carl Heinrich Wilcken (Eckhorst, Holstein, Schleswig-Holstein, 5 October 1831 – Salt Lake City, Utah, 9 April 1914) and the first of at least four wives (m. Neustadt in Holstein, Ostholstein, Schleswig-Holstein, 10 August 1853) Eliza Christina Carolina Reiche (Neustadt in Holstein, Ostholstein, Schleswig-Holstein, 1 May 1830 – Salt Lake City, Utah, 13 August 1906), both of whom also became LDS Church members. He was also a polygamist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helaman_Pratt

His maternal great grandfather, Helaman Pratt’s Obituary:
Helaman Pratt, a Frontiersman From Birth, Closes Long Missionary Life at 63

In the death of Helaman Pratt, the Juares stake has suffered an irretrievable loss. He died of apoplexy, Nov. 26, 1909, at his house in Colonia Dublan, Chihuahua, Mexico. Few have done more for the spreading of the gospel among the natives of Mexico than he. None have taken a more general interest in the work both temporal and spiritual. ….”

Would you agree then, that despite the claim on the official page, the link I give from the FAMILY genealogy page would show that Romney’s great grandfather and his descendants all considered him a missionary?

Mexican law, until the 1940′s prohibited foreign missionaries.
I know this because my cousin was a Franciscan missionary and was imprisoned and tossed from Mexico, the third time with a warning he’d be shot.

Interesting old article, some name dropping, too:
Mormons Carry On In Mexico Farm Area

May 03, 1986|By William Stockton, The New York Times
NUEVO CASAS GRANDES, MEXICO — A hundred years ago, a group of Mormons loaded their possessions and families onto wagons and moved to Mexico to seek a place to practice polygamy free from interference and to establish a beachhead from which to convert Mexico to Mormonism.

Polygamy died out not long after the turn of the century, and most of the Mormon colonies disappeared, too. But two survived and prospered in northern Chihuahua, and the descendants carry on their ancestors` religious traditions and work as farmers and ranchers.

Residents have names such as Romney, Taylor, Wagner and Hatch, and some live in two-story Victorian-style brick houses reminiscent of Salt Lake City. But a century of living here has produced a life of dual identities.

On one hand, the Mormons are Mexican citizens, some proudly, ardently Mexican. They speak Spanish, are subject to Mexican laws and economic woes, and must meet the Mexican military service requirement.

But their outlook on life is decidedly American. Their children attend Brigham Young University in Utah, and they receive Bride`s magazine when a daughter`s wedding is imminent. The side of the refrigerator in one Mormon home has a very American set of household rules posted for the children.
Whole Story …

In order to stay and own property, they had to become Mexican Citizens.

HELAMAN PRATT — Mission to Mexico City

” ….Helaman’s duties with the exploration commission did not release him from his duties as Mission President. It was not until after the trouble with the Governor of Chihuahua that he was released and set apart by President Taylor to help in the colonization of the Saints in Mexico. In this new calling he worked hard to help the Saints get land, secure land titles, water rights, spearhead the building of canals, and ditches and all that was necessary to make their new home a happy and prosperous one. At the time he set Helaman apart, President Taylor told him that he was called until death released him, and that he was to become a Mexican citizen and take part in the government. Helaman accepted the call and all its ramifications. ….

Helaman Pratt’s Mexican naturalization paper.

State side persecution from the government only increased as the Mormon Church continued to grow. In 1882, the Edmunds Act, which outlawed cohabitation with more than one woman, was passed. To enforce this, U.S. President Chester A. Arthur sent the Utah Commission. All Mormons who practiced polygamy were disenfranchised, stripped of the right to vote or hold public office. Many of them were also jailed. Although this clearly violated U.S. constitutional law forbidding ex post facto laws, over 1,300 men were jailed. In Idaho, a loyalty oath was instituted in 1885, which required all residents to swear they opposed polygamy or any organization that taught it in order to vote. This effectively disenfranchised all Mormons. Mormons appealed these laws all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States, but things only got worse. In 1887, the U.S. Congress passed the Edmunds-Tucker Act, which dis-incorporated the Mormon Church and seized virtually all of its property. It required loyalty oaths from local officials, which kept even Mormons not practicing polygamy from holding office, and allowed the federal government to appoint state officers and even control what textbooks could be allowed in classrooms.

In July of 1862 the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act was signed into law by Abraham Lincoln. Then in March of 1882 the Edmunds Anti-Polygamy Act of 1882 was signed into law.

The Edmunds Act not only reinforced the 1862 Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act but also revoked polygamists’ right to vote, made them ineligible for jury service, and prohibited them from holding political office.

Their citizenship was unceremoniously stripped.
According to the anti-polygamists the Mormons were charged with “political treason” by establishing a separatist theocracy in Utah. Second, they saw a social treason (Race Treason) against the nation of White citizens when Mormons adopted a supposedly barbaric marital form (polygamy).

By the time George W. Romney was born, it was quite safe for the Romneys to come back to the United States. They chose not until the revolution in 1912 forced the issue.

The polygamists expatriated.
They went to Mexico planning to convert Mexico and stay in Mexico.

And the bottom line is that immigration law then, put a time limit for natural citizens to live in a foreign country. Especially with no indication they’d come back. The Mormons bought and owned property. Not to mention that Mexican law at the time severely restricted foreign ownership, they COLONIZED the place, all their literature freely admits that.

Go to the American colonists. How many of them came with the intent of going back? They came to stay. As did the Mormons who because citizens.

Now, here is the link and the pertinent points of law that show that law and protocol at the time considered the Mormons expatriates.

“…….Congress finally got into the act in 1907, passing a new law that essentially codified most of these administrative rules governing expatriation. Loss of citizenship depended on the act—naturalizing elsewhere or assuming lengthy foreign residence, for example—not the conscious choice of the individual to give up US nationality as a result…”

Dual citizenship was rare and frowned upon at the time, if it existed in real terms at all.
But the idea is moot since dual is not natural born.

If you are not yet familiar with what the constitution says about “natural born citizen”?
I suggest you bone up on it by visiting the links below.
Also keep in mind that all the naydsaying rhetoric from those who believe “the constitution” is a living growing document? THEIR OPINION of what is TODAY CONSTITUTIONAL LAW matters not and is about as valuable as confederate money.

4 Supreme Court Cases define “natural born citizen”

Having the Status of Birthright Citizenship Is Not Sufficient to Make One an Article II “Natural Born”

Are the “Birthers” barking up the wrong tree?

More Citizenship Information Backed Up By Congressional Records

In April 1994, Bill Clinton was stumping for his health-care bill, when Herman Cain debated the president’s claim that restaurateurs would bear only a marginal new cost. Herman said that the bill would force Godfather’s to fire part of its workforce. Clinton disagreed and said that Cain would only have to raise pizza prices by 2 percent. Insisting that Clinton was incorrect, Cain wouldn’t give in. He told Clinton, “I’d had my financial people run the numbers”. Clinton then asked Herman to send the numbers to him and he would have his advisers go over them.

The next day Herman Cain did send the numbers to the White House and he also submitted an oped piece to the Wall Street Journal. The Journal published them, and after Clinton’s plan collapsed, Newsweek identified Cain as one of its “saboteurs”—a badge of honor, especially among conservatives today. Later Hilary Clinton would say the Clinton administration could not be held responsible for every under-capitalized small business in America.

As time goes on Herman Cain sounds more and more logical amid the political rhetoric foisted our way by those in the running for President.

Here is a video presented by Dick Morris who so far endorses no one but is interviewing them all.

HERMAN CAIN ON THE ECONOMY

HERMAN CAIN INTERVIEW ON NEW IDEAS TO TAME IRAN

HERMAN CAIN INTERVIEW ON FAIR TAX

HERMAN CAIN ON CLASS WARFARE

The USA has since its inception been a MELTING POT.

For those ignorant of the term it use to mean those who flocked to our country in order to have a better life melted into AMERICAN society. They were happy to become citizens, learn the language, survive and thrive.

No longer so.
Many of those who flock to this country want to degrade our society to the levels that they did what they could to escape.

I have a simple suggestion for those in power.
If you are not now a citizen or in the process of becoming a citizen?
1. You pay the taxes every citizen is required to pay.
2. YOU GET NO taxpayer benefits of ANY KIND without citizenship papers.
3. You get no vote without showing you are a citizen.
4. You learn the language of this country.

If you are NOT A CITIZEN and chose not to abide by these rules/laws … YOU ARE FREE TO GO BACK TO YOUR PLACE OF ORIGIN.