Calling all Birthers

[BS-87]

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States"

 

Thank you for pointing out the Amendment which added the distinction of "native born" to the existing "natural born" and "naturalized"

 

Without this Amendment, slaves weren't citizens. That's why it was passed.

[vol_scouter]

Scoutfish,

 

In reading the amendment rather quickly, it describes who are citizens who may vote for candidates for office and in the case of the president and vice president, electors. It does not address the requirements for natural born. For that, you muss go back to English common law where in this forum two contradictory interpretations have been presented. That is precisely why I believe that it should be clarified.

[Scoutfish]

"Thank you for pointing out the Amendment which added the distinction of "native born" to the existing "natural born" and "naturalized" "

 

Actually, I didn't.

 

The amendment DOES NOT say "Natural Born" or "Native Born" ! YOU put those words/ phrases in there.

 

It says: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

 

" BORN OR NATURALIZED"

 

Now, there could have been a reference at the time.....somewhere about what that process or requirement meant.....or you could say you somehow just knew what they were thinking ( which I seriously doubt) ,

 

BUT.... The Constitution of the United States itself does not reference, distinguish, or list a requirement of "Natural Born", "Native Born" or the requirements or references to/of definitions of " born or naturalized in the United States"

 

All you have done is speculated on your own, the distinction of Natural vs Native .

 

But the Constitution did not and does not back up your point of personal distintion.

 

For all we know, all you had to do was own property, or have one parent who owned property, or a sponsor who owned property in the US at the time to become naturalized as a citizen since at that time, immigants by far outnumbered the few who were born in America.

 

More specifically, the writers of the Constituition would be declaring themselves to be non citizens by your standards and would make their own acceptance and ratification and the legality of the Constitution null and void.

 

So ..." born or naturalized" it is.

 

But as to what "Naturalized" means....well, congress could and has the power to change that to mean you could take a test to simply name all the characters from the Bugs Bunny/ Road Runner show.

 

 

[BS-87]

You are right that it doesn't say "native born" but the Amendment is only functional as an addendum to the classifications of citizenship.

 

To that point in time, there were only two types of citizens mentioned in the Constitution. There were natural born citizens and those who were citizens by virtue of the grandfather clause.

 

The 14th Amendment felt it necessary to clarify that if you're born here to immigrants (or slaves) or if you immigrate with the intention of staying, you should also be recognized as a citizen. The 14th Amendment ADDS these distinctions, and does not replace preceding distinctions.

 

Otherwise the law of the land was that if one is born outside his father's nation, it will only be the place of his birth and not his nation.

 

[Beavah]

This is just fascinatin'.

 

I've never quite seen folks throw around legal terms in quite this way.

 

BTW, BS-87, for da purpose of being a U.S. citizen, embassies don't count as U.S. soil. Yeh see, most of our foreign embassies are staffed by local nationals. In smaller nations, yeh might find nobody but the ambassador and the marine guard are U.S. citizens. So the law has long been that embassies don't count. Saves on locals tryin' to climb the fence to give birth, too.

 

And da 14th amendment didn't start da notion of naturalization. Far from it. It just federalized the notion. Prior to that, each state could set its own rules for how yeh became a citizen of that state, and when yeh became a citizen of that state you became a citizen of da U.S. All of the states had naturalization rules for immigrants. Dred Scott overturned this longstanding custom by ruling that no black man could become a citizen of the United States even if he was a citizen of an individual state. The 14th reversed.

 

 

Even funnier, though, was this:

 

Then let's look at the issues.

 

Obama's a hypocrite on the debt ceiling.

 

Huh? So is every politician. When it comes down to it, da Republicans are goin' to vote to raise the debt ceiling no matter what they've said to their constituency. So are the Dems. Because the alternative is a U.S. sovereign default, which is financial armageddon. World wide Great Depression II.

 

 

Obama's for indebting our unborn generations.

 

Are yeh daft? The debt has been buildin' ever since Reagan. The George W. Bush years were da worst borrow-and-spend years in the history of the Republic. This has not a thing to do with any individual president. Congress has the power of the purse. It's an issue with da Congress, Democrat and Republican alike, who have discovered they can buy favors and re-election on da backs of other people's grandkids.

 

Obama's for refusing to fix entitlement programs, leading to their eventual implosion when the children of today are retiring.

 

And congress is responsible for writing laws, includin' those that govern entitlement programs. Bush didn't fix 'em, he made 'em worse with an Rx drug benefit. Clinton didn't fix 'em. Bush I didn't fix 'em. Reagan rescued Social Security from its first near-default as a result of LBJ's borrow-and-spend games, but not enough for long-term stability, and he didn't fix Medicare.

 

Obama's for entangling our nation in foreign conflicts with oil as the motive.

 

WHAT? Iraq I & II weren't about oil? Yah, France has an interest in Libyan Oil. France has a longstanding interest in North Africa, even those nations without oil. That doesn't mean protecting democratic revolutionaries from out and out slaughter by a madman isn't just. We certainly won't get a drop of oil from Libya.

 

Obama's for expanding welfare programs, perpetuating and making incentives for the welfare state, and making it harder for people on welfare programs to escape their current and dire situation.

 

No welfare programs have been expanded under the Obama administration, unless you are talking about the emergency extensions of jobless benefits for the unemployed.

 

Obama's for raising taxes on EVERYBODY by increasing taxes on the rich and corporations, as these job, service, and product makers can easily pass on their increase in taxes through their prices in services and products.

 

No taxes have been raised under the Obama administration. None. Zero.

 

Obama's for subverting America's national sovereignty and passing its decision making onto world organizations.

 

Name one example. This is complete poppycock.

 

Now, there are some things afoot, eh? Some of da bigger U.S. corporations have discovered that they can get around Congress by lobbying with other nations on treaty terms. Da worst offenders so far have been media companies tryin' to use treaties to enforce ever more preposterous copyright/trademark rules. It's a tactic of U.S. companies that are no longer competitive or have dying business models to try to use government - any government - to grant 'em subsidies or monopoly protection. Always has been. Compete in lobbying or in da courtroom when yeh can't compete in da marketplace. Only difference is that they've gotten slightly better at buying politicians of late. But that has nuthin' to do with this president, or any president. In fact, da Republicans have by and large been da most receptive to corporate "influence" from outside their own states/districts.

 

I'm not a huge Obama fan, and I'm currently a fellow without a party since da neo-cons and nutjobs hijacked the Republican party from da conservatives. But despite never having been a Democrat, I don't feel it necessary to oppose 'em by making up fiction.

 

I figure da truth is sufficient for any argument, eh? Also has the advantage of not makin' yeh look foolish

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[BS-87]

Beavah -

 

Every point I made on my Obama tirade is true. And just so you know, I'm going to spend A LOT of time providing you quotes and articles to prove each one of those points. I should have in the first place because I know better than to make accusations without showing the work in fact-checking, but I assure you there will be evidence forthcoming.

[Beavah]

I look forward to it, BS-87. At least it will be entertainin'.

 

Might I make a suggestion, though? Yeh should not start, end, or draw from any neo-con or similar blog, website, or commentator. Begin with reputable outlets that have a stake in maintaining a reputation for accuracy, and then work back to original sources. Then triangulate by referencing democratic party statements. If yeh don't really understand da underlying legal or economic issues, take some extra time to read up on those or have someone who knows them well step yeh through it. Having limited knowledge of a topic means that yeh can be duped by people with an agenda who can play on your background and fears. Those are da ways to improve the quality of your argument.

 

Beavah

 

[CalicoPenn]

BS-87.

 

I can't wait to see the "proof" that we engaged in Libya because of oil.

 

Libya isn't even in the top 25 of countries that export to the US. Heck, we get more oil from Belgium than we do from Libya.

 

No one with a lick of common sense would believe that we engaged in Libya because of oil.

 

Heck, I don't even believe that GWB engaged in Iraq because of oil (I think he engaged because he wanted to prove that had more testicular fortitude than his daddy, who he believes embarrassed the family by not marching into Baghdad - and had to learn the hard way that Father Knows Best).

 

But of course, being Scouts, you should have the opportunity to make your case. Good luck with that.

[The Blancmange]

 

I look forward to it, BS-87. At least it will be entertainin'.

He'll come up with them. They will be quotes from Farrah, Corsi, and the rest of the World Net Daily crowd. That's where most of the earlier stuff comes from.

[skeptic]

BS-87; you are beginning to sound like Trump. Lots of noise with NO reality.

 

Any bets as to how long this idiotic thread will continue? Will it end up beating the infamous Eagle thread from a while back?

[packsaddle]

Shucks, I'm not going to spoil Beavah's entertainment. Mine too. So as long as we keep playing nice, no problem.

Besides, I'm always hoping someone like Brent or BS-87, someone, will bring a perspective I haven't thought of so I can think about it too. You just never know for sure....

[vol_scouter]

Beavah said: "Yeh should not start, end, or draw from any neo-con or similar blog, website, or commentator. Begin with reputable outlets that have a stake in maintaining a reputation for accuracy, and then work back to original sources.

 

To assist BS-87, you should please enlighten us just who these 'reputable' news outlets are. In areas that I am a subject matter expert, I have found that all news outlets are wrong. It goes from horribly wrong to dismal. So I can only imagine how poor the reporting is on other things. So please enlighten us as to where we can find fair, balanced, and reliable information.

[BS-87]

1. Obama is a hypocrite when it comes to the debt ceiling

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/256199/obama-not-always-fan-upping-debt-ceiling-katrina-trinko

 

If raising the debt ceiling now would be "catastrophic" and default us on our obligations, it would have done the same in 2006.

 

It would not cause us to default then, and it will not now.

 

http://www.heritage.org/research/factsheets/2011/01/the-debt-ceiling-time-options-and-action

 

 

2. Obama is indebting our unborn and future generations by not taking spending cuts more seriously.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/national-debt-budget-deficit-scary-forecast-taxpayers-obama/story?id=9854459&page=2

 

That was why the debt's important, and that Obama realizes that.

 

http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/13/news/economy/debt_commission_obama/index.htm

 

That is what the debt commission has suggested.

 

From a recent fundraiser of Obama's: "I do think Mr. Ryan is sincere. I think hes a patriot. I think he wants to solve a real problem, which is our long-term deficit. But I think that what he and the other Republicans in the House of Representatives also want to do is change our social compact in a pretty fundamental way."

 

Ok... I get it... We have to change things without really changing things? If you filled out pledge cards to charities for a sum equal to your income, would you pay all of them an just not eat, or would you just admit you can't make good on some of those pledges?

 

 

3. Obama refuses to fix entitlement programs which will ultimately bankrupt themselves

 

Above in the cnn article the debt commission made recommendations to how entitlement programs need to be reformed or risk becoming insolvent.

 

I can't find anything from Obama on entitlement reform other than him criticizing Paul Ryan for suggesting it.

 

 

4. Obama is for entangling our nation in foreign conflicts motivated by oil.

 

Iraq was about oil. Libya is about oil and to prevent refugees from flooding Italy. US may not get oil from Libya, but it's not like barrels are earmarked. They all go to the collective market and if Libya's is off the market it affects supply everywhere.

 

http://www.paulmurphymep.eu/libya-border-guard-of-the-european-union/

 

 

5. Obama is for enslaving America through welfare.

 

Ok. I'll admit I'm a little bit biased on this one. If it was possible to prove this, he wouldn't be president. However, please let yourself play a game of thought and play with this idea.

 

http://conservativedailynews.com/2011/04/liberalism-perpetuating-a-society-of-the-poor/

 

 

6. Obama is for raising taxes on the corporations and rich. This will in turn raise prices, effectively taxing everyone more.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

 

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Obama-reissues-call-to-end-apf-3308205307.html?x=0&.v=1

 

 

7. Obama is for the subversion of American sovereignty.

 

http://www.rense.com/general84/bill.htm

 

http://something-you-might-like.blogspot.com/2010/07/president-obamas-immigration-policy.html

 

http://www.augustreview.com/news_commentary/treaties/law_of_the_sea_redux_20100804158/

 

There's also John Bolton's book on the subject.

 

And also Ron Paul's criticisms of Obama in regards to bypassing Congress and putting US troops in the command of NATO

 

 

 

 

 

I really doubt anyone will bother to read it all, but it'd be nice to at least have someone acknowledge that I'm entitled to my informed opinions.