The lead actor them was Michael Moriarty as you said, that could have been the reason for the more "conservative" showings. As possible proof here is a link to a recent posting by M Moriarty on "News With Views!" Enjoy! http://www.newswithviews.com/Moriarty/michael125.... You will also find out where and what he is up to now!

Missy8s, the first few words and I knew you were quoting Bastiat! Here is a link to his complete works, works that have been translated into English. I agree with your comments, and would just add that for your comment above, many in the conservative sphere are guilty of this.... sort of like just a little government this time attitude. We have to recognize that man does not need "government" to prosper, it is possible to bring individuals together at any point in time as private citizens and solve the problems.; then either let them disband or be ready to act again if the situation calls for it. Government is not the answer. http://bastiat.org/en/

Is there a limit to the number he can give? If not boy is this another Constitutional issue for review. No one pardoned should be part of government. There is no deterrance to lawlessness if you know you can get out of jail free at the end of 4 or 8 years! Hell the trials could take that long!

Hey legal scholar. You are all wet, and you do not even have any points right no less, as the lawyers would indicate as a strong case, having been on "All Fours!" Go here and read a real Constitutional Attorneys research. http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/

You are the one needing help. The issue of "Natural Born Citizen" is the only issue which the Supreme Court has already ruled on In the "Minor" case. Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875), "since Minor, no Amendment has been adopted which changes that definition, and no other Supreme Court case has directly construed Article 2 Section 1." http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?... This is an issue which either is or isn't when it comes to who of his parents was not a US Citizen at the time of his birth! That individual who wasn't is his father, Barack H. Obama Sr.. See the Immigration documents for him here: "http://www.scribd.com/doc/54015762/Barack-Hussein-Obama-Sr-Immigration-File" So unless BHO Sr. is not his father, and that individual who is his father was a legal citizen, then and only then fight the weaker case. But if the other individual is also not a US citizen at the time of his birth, then you get back again to the stronger case of not being born to both parents who are citizens! BTW Fran is right on all counts in her speculation. You sir added nothing. Thanks for that!

Before the ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868, and before the SCOTUS decided that it made the states as well as the Federal government accountable to follow the same restrictions on the enumerated powers only relegated to the Fed, each state had a state supported religion. If not formally then informally. The chosen religion was supported by taxes and the last remnent of tax support, was I believe, the support provided to the church in the state of Massachusetts. That was stopped by the SCOTUS in I think 1898, through the application of that 14th Amendment. It was the freedom of each individual to move to a state which best reflected those core beliefs. So technically the description you reject was in fact at the time operative. It would not be operative under the current interpretation of the amended constitution.