Adrian Nash, of the h2ooflife Blog, and frequent commenter here, has written a new post, and here are a few excerpts:
Martians, Koreans, Kangaroos, and Natural Citizens
No animal or human that ever lived was born as a member of its parents’ group and species because of where it was born. It’s nature and membership are, and always have been, organic and automatic by the immutable laws of life.
An example is the Kangaroo. Is an infant kangaroo a member of the kangaroo family because it was born in Australia? But all kangaroos are born in Australia so that fact must be central in determining its species, right? That couldn’t be more absurd. Where kangaroos are born is merely incidental to the concurrent fact that they are the product of kangaroo parents. Two facts: one is determinative and the other is irrelevant. But some argue that the law of natural membership doesn’t exist, or doesn’t apply in a sociological & political relationship fashion as it does with humans in regard to their family membership.
If the Mars crew was composed of Americans, and some of the women were impregnated by Martian men, what would be the nature of their off-spring if born in the United States after returning to Earth? Would they be natural born Earthlings? Would they be natural born humans? Would they be natural born Americans? Or something else…-something different?
Barack Obama is just such an alien-like child. His father was not a North American. He was not an American citizen. He was not an America immigrant. He was a non-immigrant alien, and as such, even if one considers his off-spring to be blessed with U.S. citizenship thanks to the 14th Amendment, one cannot defend nor logically propose the idea that such a person could father a wholly natural member of American society, and a wholly natural born citizen of the United States anymore than Earthlings could give birth to natural Martians or Martians could give birth to natural humans.
If a Martian couple, with the female pregnant, were to come to Earth with the crew, and she gave birth in America, would her child be a natural born American citizen, or something else? According to our insane national policy it would an American citizen, but that would not make it a natural citizen because that is something that law can’t produce.
Only nature can do that via parents who are members of the country and nation when their child is born. Only the Law of natural membership can produce natural members, -not human law. All it can do is produce legal members, and that is all that Obama is.
What Mr. Nash argues for is a more logical basis for citizenship than place of birth. That isn’t necessarily a bad argument, but it is simply not the current state of American law. Almost two years ago I wrote a post which directly addressed this point and which cited an 1898 American Law Review article written shortly after the Wong Kim Ark case was decided. To make it easier to copy and paste, I have transcribed most of page 8 into text:
But the error the dissent apparently falls into is that it does not recognize that the United States, as a sovereign power, has the right to adopt any rule of citizenship it may see fit, and that the rule of international law does not furnish, ex proprie vigore [of its own force], the sole and exclusive test of citizenship of the United States, however superior it may be deemed to the rule of the common law. It further does not give sufficient weight, in interpreting the 14th Amendment, to the doctrine which was prevalent in the country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution and of the amendment in question, which was undoubtedly that of the common law, and not of international law.
With respect to the superiority of the international law doctrine over that of the common law, it may be conceded that while the rule of international law, that the political status of children follows that of the father, and of the mother, when the child is illegitimate, may be more logical and satisfactory than that of the common law, which makes the mere accidental place of birth the test, still if the Fourteenth Amendment is declaratory of the common law doctrine, it is difficult to see what valid objection can be raised thereto, nor how the subject of citizenship of the United States can be deemed to be governed by the rule of international law in the absence of an express adoption of that rule, any more than it could be governed by the law of France, or of China.
It was only an eight page article, and it is reproduced in image form here:
The author of that article, Marshall B. Woodworth, actually agreed with Mr. Nash that using parentage was preferable to using place of birth. However, unlike Mr. Nash and all the other two citizen parent Birthers, Woodworth also recognized the actual state of the law. And, in these lines from above,
the doctrine which was prevalent in the country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution and of the amendment in question, which was undoubtedly that of the common law, and not of international law.
Woodworth also recognized that common law controlled the question, not something like Vattel’s The Law of Nations. And what was that common law??? From Wong Kim Ark:
It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.
Nothing there about any two-citizen parents requirement. Which all leads back to questions I once posed to Mario Apuzzo, Esq. Why don’t you just admit that Obama was and is legally eligible for the office? Why don’t you just admit that there currently is no two-citizen parent requirement? Then, why don’t you work to change the law?
I submit the same questions to Mr. Nash.
Note 1. The Image. This is the cast of Captain Kangaroo, about which Wiki says:
Captain Kangaroo was an American children’s television series which aired weekday mornings on the American television network CBS for nearly 30 years, from October 3, 1955 until December 8, 1984, making it the longest-running nationally broadcast children’s television program of its day. In 1986, the American Program Service (now American Public Television, Boston) integrated some newly produced segments into reruns of past episodes, distributing the newer version of the series until 1993.
The show was conceived and the title character played by Bob Keeshan, who based the show on “the warm relationship between grandparents and children.” Keeshan had portrayed the original Clarabell the Clown on The Howdy Doody Show when it aired on NBC. Captain Kangaroo had a loose structure, built around life in the “Treasure House” where the Captain (the name “kangaroo” came from the big pockets in his coat) would tell stories, meet guests, and indulge in silly stunts with regular characters, both humans and puppets.
This show was before my time, but I think I must have had some videotapes, because the Dancing Bear really seems familiar. And for all the Birthers, I present:
Note 2. The Image Easter Egg. For ESLs, Mr. Green Jeans was a regular character on the show, and Martians are often presented as Little Green Men, sooo it was just a silly word play about the alleged Martian children in the Image.
August 19th, 2013 at 8:28 pm
If you’re low on Nazi imagery or just want to enjoy the nostalgic racism, you should stop on by Adrien’s blog.
August 19th, 2013 at 8:55 pm
Are you still mad about the Trayvonazi Song??? Because if you are, that means that somewhere deep inside yourself you realize that I was making a very good point about all the carrying on and racializing that was going on over a simple act of self defense.
Plus, I was reading about Glenn Greenwald and you will just never guess what he thinks, from Wiki:
He is critical of what he calls the distorted version of Godwin´s law to prima facie reject any comparison to Nazism. He believes there are instances where such comparisons are warranted.
Which I think mine was.
August 19th, 2013 at 10:41 pm
I was never mad, Squeeky. I was just very disappointed.
I invoked Godwin’s Law correctly; you and Glenn Greenwald just don’t understand what Godwin’s Law is, as Greenwald’s incorrect summary so clearly points out. Greenwald does seem like the sort of self-possessed asshole who would regularly justify his own bad behavior by comparing others to Hitler.
Inexperienced young people such as yourself only make your naivete more painfully obvious when you decide that you’re hip enough to play the Nazi card (here’s a clue – you’re not). Glenn Greenwald thinks that it’s all right to compromise America’s security as long as it advances his career – I wouldn’t use him as a role model. Like you, he’s not really a journalist.
Nothing simple about it, and certainly not an act of self-defense – you don’t stalk someone and then defend yourself against them. But you know that, Squeeky – you just don’t like to admit you’re a racist.
Adrien, of course, is totally deranged. I’m sure you know that, Squeeky, but those of your readers who are not convinced should stop by his repugnant little blog and see for themselves.
August 19th, 2013 at 10:49 pm
Well, I don’t agree with you. I read a few things at Adrian’s place and it is at least readable, and he tries to make his stuff understandable by use of analogies. That beats the heck out of the other Birthers who just cut and paste the same old dribble all over the place. If a person is trying to be understandable, then there is a chance one day they will flip to right side of an issue.
Which, I kind of wrote a poem about that somewhere else yesterday. I have to let it sit for a while, then edit it some, but this one is deeper than it looks:
by Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter
by Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter
Once, there was a foolish man
Who had a jelly roll.
He did not have respect for it,
And gobbled it down whole.
But then he got a stomach ache,
The jelly roll’s revenge.
And so he promised to himself,
Next time he would not binge.
He did not know it at the time,
He’d stumbled on the way,
The old man in the river learned,
And all from a beignet!
August 20th, 2013 at 6:19 am
I really like that poem!
August 19th, 2013 at 10:45 pm
At least I make the effort to reply to your new articles. Who knew that Wet Mario part 1 would get 10,000 responses?
August 19th, 2013 at 10:52 pm
And for that, I thank you. I never dreamed that one would get so much discussion, either. But when Mario is involved, you know it is going to be wordy. A lot of people are spreading his stuff all over the net.
And any day now, I will be able to release something else that will involve his theories. I hope.
August 19th, 2013 at 10:52 pm
I think that before invoking Hitler and Nazi metaphors there should be actual human exterminations involved. Short of that it is like spitting on the graves of those who suffered the unspeakable atrocities.
August 19th, 2013 at 10:57 pm
But, if you wait for that, then you lose all the information about how it happened. Because it wasn’t just KERBLAMM! one day there were no concentration camps, and then the next day there were piles of dead people.
It had to build to that point, and that is what maybe the real lessons of Nazi stuff is. How did a very sophisticated and literate group of people turn into murderers, and enablers of murderers that quickly.
The dead people are the symptoms of a sickness, not the sickness itself. Sooo, how did the Germans get dehumanized and intimidated to that point? Because you can have the sickness without the dead bodies. For a while.
August 19th, 2013 at 11:18 pm
But that is not a rational argument. The conditions that led to the rise of fascism in the 1920’s and 1930’s will never be repeated again. Despite the well worn homily history never really repeats itself.
Invoking the Nazi metaphor is a sign of intellectual laziness. Without getting into the details of the Travon Martin death it is obvious that different groups would tend to look at the incident through their own glasses colored by their world view.
Have you gone after the people who are trying promote George Zimmerman to sainthood with the same verve that you have attacked the “Travonites”?
There are many legitimate points of discussion that could be addressed from ZImmerman’s tragic killing of Martin. The morality of the “stand your ground” laws. The role if any that race played. Zimmerman’s motives. Invoking the Nazi meme pretty much is a discussion killer as far as am concerned.
August 19th, 2013 at 11:43 pm
Yes, but scape-goating is a very human tendency and takes place in every group of humans. People event scape-goat their parents. When that is carried to a racial level, then bad things can happen.
Do you remember somebody called Willie Horton? I was reading about him today and somebody named Lee Atwater. It looks like that made a lot of people mad, and it wasn’t even overtly racist. But with GZ, it is even worse because that has been made overtly racist.
The Democrats are doing way too much of this stuff, and the race card stuff, and all to get votes and stay in power. That is shameful, to use people like that, and really, no different than the slaveholders. And even worse, because Black people at least knew where they stood with them.
August 20th, 2013 at 12:14 am
Are you saying the Willie Horton ads were not an overt appeal to racism? I hope you are not that naive. Those ads were carefully crafted to make white people be afraid of a scary black man that the liberal Mike Dukakis released on a weekend furlough program.
Do you know who was really behind the Horton ads? Floyd Brown. Brown is president of the Western Center for Journalism that Joe Farrah confounded This is the same bunch of disgusting racists that have helped fund the Birthers. They are not new. They are the same assholes who tried to get Clinton impeached. Where do you think Paul Jensen came from? You know the guy who advised Terry Lakin early on?
Yep, Jensen was a homophobe with ties to the WCJ and Floyd Brown.
When you invoke racism you should really know history and which side has blood on their hands. it isn’t the folks who mourn Trayvon Martin. It just might be the forebearers of some of those who support George Zimmerman however.
August 20th, 2013 at 12:49 am
RC: What was overt? It was about prisoners being released too early. Which, rightly or wrongly, some people thought had a HIDDEN racist “scary black man” element to it. I will keep my opinion to myself on that point, because that was before my time. But, for purposes of this argument, assume that the HIDDEN appeal was truly the point of the Willie Horton stuff.
Now, if that was bad, then how much worse is it for the Trayvonites to OPENLY cast that case as racism? How much worse for the Trayvonites to OPENLY cast SYG laws as racist, even though they disproportionately benefit blacks, who live in much more violent neighborhoods than whites.
The anger you feel at Floyd Brown, and Jensen and the others is the same anger I feel at the Trayvonites. It was wrong for Floyd Brown to do it, and it is wrong for the Trayvonites to do it.
The problem is that the Trayvonites just don’t see themselves as doing the same thing as Floyd Brown. They think because they are on the opposite side of the fence from Brown, they could never BE Brown. But they are.
That requires some real reflection and introspection. And a good look at the actual facts.
August 21st, 2013 at 12:25 am
You’re a liar. It wasn’t an appeal to racism. That was something concocted in the racially obsessed minds of you and your ilk. Also, it wasn’t the only ad run, there were others showing white people. But hey, why let an opportunity go to waste if you can make something racist out of it [shades of Zimmerman], right?
What you coverup by playing the race-card is that Horton was a murderer who stabbed a clerk 17 times after he robbed him. Then allow to go on a prison furlough at which time he raped a woman twice after knifing her boyfriend. The guy was a friggin animal and had no business being out of prison. Race has nothing to do with it.
All the blood is on your hands and people that think like you.
August 21st, 2013 at 1:03 am
You should remember the James Byrd dragging murder at Jasper, Texas. That was 3 white racists who committed a hate crime. So far one has been executed, one is on death row, and the other got a life semtence. I believe all 3 should of been executed.
The DemoRATs thru the NAACP used it to run a sleezy ad with Byrd’s daughter during the 2000 presidential campaign connecting Bush to it.
August 21st, 2013 at 3:05 am
Wrong again, Rambette. There were no “white variations” of the Willie Horton ad, even though Governot Dukasis’ program released far more white offendors than minorities. You describe Hortons heinous crimes, but that wasn’t the focus of the ad; rather, it was scary mugshot of Horton. Likewise, the revolving door ad was focused on mean-looking minority actors walking through a revolving prison door at a time when Massachusetts had the 5th least disparate prison populaton in the country.
Jive-ass racist bullshit, pure and simple.
August 21st, 2013 at 3:39 am
Not only are you a flamin racially obsessed lowlife, you are also a 1st class liar & hypocrite.
Lets do a count the whitey contest. You get to go 1st. Play the video:
August 21st, 2013 at 8:41 am
Sure, let’s play, Rambette. When the ad is focused on the faces of the prisoners exiting the “revolving door”, there is a total of 0 (yes, that’s zero) white prisoners shown, in a sequence of latino, black, latino, black, black (the shot is pulling away as that last prisoner steps through the door}. That shot consumes 11 of the 29 seconds of the ad.
The next shot might have some white prisoners, but it’s a crane shot – the focus is on the line moving through the door. That shot is 3 seconds long.
Pop quiz – was this ad really about Governor Dukakis’ penitentiary policies?
August 22nd, 2013 at 8:22 am
People should take pity when they see someone such as yourself in such a disturbed mental state. The medical profession has noted many times it’s the sufferer who is usually the last one to realize it, and in some cases the suffering is so severe that they never figure it out. Lets hope for your sake you catch on.
I understand you don’t realize how you’ve twisted up what I said. I told RC that the Horton ad wasn’t the only ad run, there were others showing white people. I never said there were variations of the Horton ad as you claim. Whether you’re capable of admitting it or not there are many whites in the Revolving Door ad. The 19 second mark has the most prisoners [or actors] in it. They might not be lined up the way you think they should be, nevertheless the whites are there. End of story, dude.
Do you understand what political attack ads are for? You can bet your bippy it’s not to paint your opponent in a good light. Should the republicans used a picture of Peewee Herman or Urkel instead. How about they shave Horton and dress him in a suit with a bow tie? Unless there was someone else that could have been used Horton was the posterboy for exposing Dukakis’s furlough program that allowed convicted 1st degree murderers with life sentences to roam free in the community and commit more savage crimes. This was about getting Dukakis
August 22nd, 2013 at 7:25 pm
Well, now you got two more little Trayvons that just beat a guy to death, an 89 year old man this time:
SPOKANE, Wash. –
WWII veteran Delbert Belton survived being wounded in action during the Battle of Okinawa only to be beaten and left for dead by two teens at the Eagles Lodge in Spokane on Wednesday evening.
Witnesses say the Belton was in the parking lot of the Eagles Lodge at 6410 N. Lidgerwood, adjacent to the Eagles Ice-A-Rena, around 8 p.m. Wednesday when the two male suspects attacked him.
Spokane police are looking for two male suspects in the attack. They said the suspects are African Americans between 16 and 19 years old.
One suspect was described as heavy set and wearing all black clothing. The other was described as being about 6 feet tall and 150 pounds. There was no description of what clothing the second suspect was wearing other than a silk do-rag.
He has died. If it hadn’t been for all the Trayvon race-baiting hoopla, this story would probably have never made Drudge. That is what race-baiting gets you, and this story and ones to follow will just make things worse between the races.
August 23rd, 2013 at 9:51 am
Drudge never misses a chance to race-bait on his site. When he posted a picture of one of the Oklahoma teens, he naturally chose the one with the darkest skin.
August 23rd, 2013 at 2:23 pm
This is awful. How could the Drudge Report been so insensitive by using a picture of the triggerman. We all know it should of been the white kid driving, eh?
Apparently Matt is not “down with the cause”. Lets get our experts on racism, RC & Lawler, to file a complaint with the FCC.
August 24th, 2013 at 12:45 pm
Why not run all three pictures ? Because one of the teens were white ?
August 25th, 2013 at 4:36 pm
Re: Drudge has been a race-baiter long before Trayvon Martin.
How do you know that? How many years have you seen what you’re claiming? Have you any examples?
Re: …he naturally chose the one with the darkest skin.
What is significant about having a darker skin?
Re: Why not run all three pictures ? Because one of the teens were white ?
Would you be complaining if he only pictured the white teen?
From my own experience posting in the same forum for over 8 years that consisted of liberals & conservatives I came to realization after a while that I could make negative comments about whites without anyone accusing me of racism, but if it were about a black person then accusations or inferences would almost always follow in responses.
August 26th, 2013 at 6:50 pm
Rambo, on a blog that is primarily about conservative politics, Drudge spends a good amount of space about muggings, Chicago shootings, and other black on white crime. If we could review every page going back a couple of years, you would see that I am right
August 26th, 2013 at 8:16 pm
So in other words “you can’t walk your talk”. Don’t feel like the Lone Ranger. I’ve become accustom to dealing with Obots doing the same as you.
As you can see I walked my talk and produced more than Ed Darrell asked for after Lawler told him I couldn’t.
August 23rd, 2013 at 1:05 pm
I don’t think Drudge would have run this as the main headline if it wasn’t for all the unnecessarily racializing of the Trayvon case. That’s my point. Once people start race-baiting like in the Trayvon case, things go from bad to worse.
The Trayvon race-baiting was so bad, unjustified, and uncalled for, that it pissed off a whole lot of white people who want to return the favor and give the Trayvonazis a dose of their own medicine.
It isn’t right, but it is a human tendency.
August 24th, 2013 at 12:43 pm
Drudge has been a race-baiter long before Trayvon Martin.
August 25th, 2013 at 7:46 pm
The OKC and Washington state murders would not have made the national news AT ALL if the victims weren’t white. Duh.
August 25th, 2013 at 7:53 pm
That is the single most asinine thing you’ve ever said, Squeeky. Wow.
September 8th, 2013 at 12:40 pm
Rambette wants proof that Drudge is a race baiter, so here goes….
August 25th, 2013 at 7:51 pm
“Two little Trayvons”, Squeeky? Trayvon Martin had no criminal record, and certainly was never alleged by anyone (well, at least anyone who wasn’t both a racist AND a liar) of murder. These two perps may or may not be black – we won’t know until they’re captured, tried and convicted.
What’s it like being consumed by hate? I always wondered.
August 25th, 2013 at 5:23 pm
Does RC ever tell the truth?
If invoking the Nazi metaphor is a sign of intellectual laziness then the DemoRATs and their minions were the personification of laziness during the 8 years of the Bush presidency. They spent all 8 years portraying Bush as Hitler & the Republicans as the Nazi Party.
The DemoRAT minions had marches & rallies with signs showing Bush as Hitler, other Republicans as Nazis, along with various signs promoting his assassination including of him being hung by a rope.
The vast majority of the marches & rallies were controlled and/or organized by communists groups under the cover of being anti-war & pro-Amnesty. All of them had their portable book stands where they’d hawk their comminist literature. The usual staples: Das Kapital, Communist Manifesto, writings of Mao, and others that fit their totalitarian ideology. I’ve engaged a number of Obots that argue for that same ideology.
August 25th, 2013 at 6:44 pm
There must be thousands of examples. Can you show me a dozen?
August 25th, 2013 at 7:55 pm
Rambette won’t be able to do that, Ed. However, if you want to see lots of portrayals of President Obama as a Nazi, head on over to Adrien’s ripe little site. Squeeky recommends it!
August 25th, 2013 at 9:44 pm
Lots of the people you see marching with the communist flags, socialist & anti-capitalist banners, hammer & sickle t-shirts are today’s hate-America Obots.
I have more
August 26th, 2013 at 11:59 am
Heckuva collection, Ramboike. Now multiply that by 60 other cities, and mutliply each city by a demonstration/per year, and you’ve got the Tea Party and anti-Obama stuff.
On the left, it’s a few fringe-dwellers who made offensive stuff against Bush; on the right, it’s the middle of the movement, with commercially-printed signs repeated constantly for years on end.
August 27th, 2013 at 11:03 am
It’s a constant source of humor reading Obot spin: Create the fallacy, exaggerate it, and them embellish the exaggeration.
Your comparison fell flat. The Tea Party is based on founding principles, rule of law, limited government, and individual rights & freedom. Now compare that to the flags, signs, banners, shirt logos, and the literature being hawked, at those anti-war and pro-amnesty rallies & marches you seen in the links I provided.
Both movements have a central theme, but 1 is foreign to America.
August 19th, 2013 at 11:02 pm
Mario has now dubbed me “super obot”. Take that Squeeky! I think I like being “super obot” as opposed to “artsy fartsy”. Is “artsy fartsy” like colorful flatulence?
However, I think either of them is preferable to being Apuzzo, aka “pathetic loser”.
August 19th, 2013 at 11:12 pm
I don’t think Mario Apuzzo, Esq. is a poetry lover. Because it is hard to respond to poetry, with writing poetry back to it. Which requires some degree of thinking. More than cutting and pasting Vattel all over the place.
August 19th, 2013 at 11:19 pm
You really do it so well. It pisses him off too.
August 20th, 2013 at 1:02 pm
Squeeky said: “…[Adrien] tries to make his stuff understandable by use of analogies.”
As I pointed out in the other thread, his analogies are pretty much nonsensical (not that anything else he writes is much better).
What do you think are the odds of getting him to post on this thread (where anything he has to say is on topic)? I’d say slim to none—I don’t think he really reads anyone else’s writing, he just looks for platforms to spew his delusional fantasies…
August 20th, 2013 at 1:55 pm
That could be used to describe several Birthers.
August 20th, 2013 at 2:10 pm
Well, birthers are a pretty homogeneous group.
August 20th, 2013 at 2:36 pm
Well, it is kind of like the deadbeat said to the bill collector who was giving him heck:
“If it wasn’t for people like me, you wouldn’t have a job!”
August 21st, 2013 at 1:51 am
Have you come up with an answer to my question about the analogous nature of George Armstrong Custer’s son (born on Sioux land) and his relationship to the Sioux Nation and its position of Chief, and jus soli U.S. citizenship and the Presidency? If you were to hold your breath until you could explain its irrationality in a way that supports your delusion, you’d be dead in about 5 minutes.
And that would be because it is perfectly rational, and it points out clearly that there is absolutely nothing rational about your assumed basis of citizenship in the United States. That should make any sane person question their basic assumption about the sanity of either the consensus opinion or the sanity of our founding fathers. Both can’t be sane. I know which group was grounded in rationality and which is not. You are in the wrong group but you’re not alone. Everyone is in it with you. Like a sea of lemmings.
August 21st, 2013 at 2:06 am
I believe (along with all other rational people) that laws of a nation are the set of rules that the people of that nation choose (or are coerced) to obey. Since I don’t subscribe to your nonsense about some overarching “natural law” that supersedes everything else even though no one seems to have written about it or even heard of it, I can just point out that your scenario is dumb since it is clearly invalid as the Sioux nation did not follow the principle of jus soli. The United States, on the other hand, does—at least according to James Madison who said that if we know a person was born here then we don’t need to investigate any further to determine whether or not they are a citizen. I’m not arguing that jus soli is divinely inspired, the best of all possible rules, or sacred in any way—it’s just the basic citizenship law in the US unless and until a Constitutional Amendment changes it.
August 21st, 2013 at 2:16 pm
Adrien is kind of an onion-head, isn’t he? Although I think that “dickhead” works just as well in this case.
August 25th, 2013 at 12:56 am
And yet in all reality, your viewpoint is based on nothing but vapor and presumption. You and your ilk love to get on your soapboxes and preach about how jus soli is the Law and so everyone should just accept that fact, when in fact it is not the Law and no one on earth can point to any law ever written in the United States that ever made it such other than a few of the original colony/States that allowed it for the children of their many immigrants.
So if Donald Trump were to offer you 5 million dollars to show the United States Law that declares that by the principle of place of birth alone, newborns become citizens of the United States, there would be nothing that you could point to in order to claim the 5 mil.
WKA declares no such thing, and neither does the 14th Amendment, and neither did anything that preceded them. Show the law of the land, the actual law of the United States federal government, passed by Congress, that declares that jus soli is the federal law that supersedes natural citizenship by birth and replaces it with legal citizenship by federal statute, (based on any system whatsoever).
No such law was ever passed or contemplated because citizenship was the province of the States and not the federal government. Any clown who made remarks about a national policy was a quack and a pompous ass. But they wouldn’t feel embarrassed being such because they would be in good company, with everyone else also being a pompous ass. And equally wrong.
The naturalization acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855 did not address the native-born children of immigrants, -only the foreign-born children of immigrants, leaving the door open to speculation on both sides about the unsettled (legally speaking) citizenship of the native-born sons of foreigners. But the side with the only explanation for natural citizenship is that which follows natural law and not common law as an inherited policy from the dictate of royal despots.
Only natural citizenship pre-dates the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th Amdmt. and explains what a born natural citizen is. A born son-of-the-soil citizen is a legal citizen, not a natural citizen because jus soli citizenship is forever citizenship by mandate and not by natural connection. No citizen by legal mandate can serve as President, -even it that mandate is the 14th Amendment. Only natural citizens are constitutionally qualified to serve as Commander-in-Chief.
August 25th, 2013 at 7:58 pm
Blah blah blah Adrien blah blah Obama’s a Nazi blah blah I’m the only one who understands the law blah blah listen to me someone please blah blah blah.
An ignoramus, a birther AND a dickhead – that’s our Adrien!
August 26th, 2013 at 7:33 pm
Adrian, Hawaii says President Obama was born in Hawaii when it was a state. The U.S. Constitution gives Full Faith & Credit to each state. Case closed. Why are you wasting your time ?
August 21st, 2013 at 1:13 am
Yes, I agree that all three of the people who did that should be executed, unless the one that isn’t being was just too chicken to get out of the truck and stop it. Plus, those three Little Trayvons who killed the Australian guy should all get the chair, too, except the SCOTUS says they are too young. Even the white one.
Ann Coulter has a good article up about all the race-baiting stuff:
August 21st, 2013 at 2:43 am
“(T)hose three Little Trayvons who killed the Australian guy” – really, Squeeky? Racist much? Trayvon Martin was a murder VICTIM – to restate this without your unfortunate and apparently deep-seated racial animosity, one would say “those three little Georges who killed the Australian guy”, because like George Zimmerman they are murderers who pursued and killed (“hunted” would be a better way to put it) an innocent victim.
Anne Coulter? What in the hell is your major malfunction, Squeeky?
August 21st, 2013 at 5:29 am
I saw some websites that had some of that gangsta wannabe crap on it for the shooter. Except he isn’t a wannabe any more. He has done made the Big Time. It was supposedly his facebook, etc. I am curious whether it holds up or not.
And yeah, Trayvon was a mugger. He attacked somebody. That is why he got shot. What really sucks is that none of these SOBs had any real reason to be playing gangsta. They chose that personna. Now, one of them is dead, and the other three are headed for a long time in prison.
But, by all means go ahead and make some excuses for them. Funny, but I haven’t heard any white folks making excuses for the white “child” who was driving the car, except his parents. I bet most white folks would be all in favor of hanging the sorry little bastard right along with the other two.
August 21st, 2013 at 2:06 pm
“He has done made the Big Time” – is that your native Texan dialect slipping through, Squeeky?
Being a “gangsta wannabe” is nothing new, Squeeky. Read up on the Depression, and you’ll see that it has long been endemic to rural American culture. More specifically, to rural white American culture. Pop quiz number one – is gangsta rap music marketed exclusively to young African-americans? Participation in popular culture doesn’t make you a criminal, or even indicate criminal tendencies – ask Fabia about that.
Although you often lie when it comes to the discussion of race, that “Trayvon was a mugger” thing is a whopper even by your standards. I could just as fairly say “Squeeky is a prostitute”, or “Squeeky has AIDS”. Sure, there’s no real evidence to support either statement, but what the hell, right?
Trayvon Martin was the VICTIM of a crime, Squeeky. The three young men in OKC are the alleged PERPETRATORs of a crime. Those are two antithetical things, so when you make comparisons between them your premise is fallacious (that means she’s wrong, Adrien and Ike).
Here’s another riddle – would that killing in OKC have made the national news if the victim hadn’t been a) a foreign visitor and b) white? Think carefully – it’s not a trick question.
August 21st, 2013 at 3:14 pm
The only reason why Trayvon is the “victim” is because he died, and the Trayvonazis raised a big stink over it. If Trayvon had lived, he would probably have been arrested for Assault and Battery.
As far as Trayvon being a “mugger”, Zimmerman would not have been found “Not Guilty” otherwise. Because if Trayvon hadn’t attacked him first, then there would have been little reason for GZ to shoot him. GZ would have had the burden of trying to prove he was scared for his life, and there would not have been a broken nose, a banged up head, and a witness telling about how poor little Trayvon was on top of him raining down blows.
So yeah, I don’t have a bit of problem characterizing Trayvon as a “mugger.” As far as his “gangsta-ism”, yeah gangsters have always had an appeal for people, particularly when they feel screwed over by life. The “gangster” is the poor folks revenge against the system.
But these “gangstas” aren’t so revered. Their targets are pretty much the poor people around them. Which is why they have to live behind barred windows and nailed up plywood over some doors. To keep the “gangstas” out.
As far as what would have happened if the Aussie was black. Yep, it wouldn’t be a big story. Because frankly, most people would have assumed it was just another inter-gang murder and not at all unique or different. But, you see the same thing as the Aussie when some little 5 year old black kid gets capped in a drive by. Because that isn’t typical.
Plus, white folks are pissed off about the whole Trayvon nonsense in the first place. It was obviously self defense, and there is a pretty common opinion that the only reason why there was a trial was to satisfy the race-baiters like Sharpton and MSNBC.
Sooo, there is some backlash and reaction going on. Which, is why race-baiting is such a bad thing. It intensifies and magnifies everything that happens. It gets people to squabbling about stuff they might not normally get mad about.
August 21st, 2013 at 4:27 pm
Since no one except GZ who knows how the altercation started is still alive, how do we know that Trayvon wasn’t just “standing his ground” ? Unfortunately he brought his fists to a gunfight.
August 21st, 2013 at 4:43 pm
On your comment, did you mean to say:
how do we know that Trayvon WASN’T just “standing his ground”
If so, I will change it for you. Because I don’t think Trayvon was standing his ground.
August 21st, 2013 at 5:44 pm
You are correct, it should be “wasn’t”.
But we will never know for sure what happened as a 17 year old is dead because of walking thru a neighborhood he belonged in, and wielding a bag of Skittles. How do you know that Trayvon mugged GZ ? Maybe GZ confronted him, and turned out to be just a pussy who couldn’t handle a skinny 17 year old, until be brought out his gun.
August 21st, 2013 at 6:48 pm
I changed it for you. Plus all the evidence backed up Zimmerman’s story. This is from wiki:
Police reports state Zimmerman “appeared to have a broken and a bloody nose and swelling of his face.” Zimmerman was offered three chances to be taken to the hospital, but Zimmerman declined each time, according to police reports released by the prosecution. ABC News reported that a medical report compiled by the family physician of George Zimmerman showed that, following the altercation with Martin, Zimmerman was diagnosed with a closed fracture of his nose, two black eyes, lacerations to the back of his head, a minor back injury, and bruising in his upper lip and cheek.
In the course of Zimmerman’s recorded interviews, Detective Chris Serino questioned aspects of Zimmerman’s account, such as Zimmerman’s statement that he didn’t know the name of a street in the Twin Lakes community where he had lived for three years. Zimmerman said in response that he had a bad memory and takes medication for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Investigators also questioned the extent of his injuries and why he didn’t identify himself to Martin as a Neighborhood Watch coordinator. Zimmerman said he didn’t want to confront Martin.
On June 26, 2012, the prosecution released the results of a voice stress test performed on George Zimmerman the day after the shooting. Zimmerman was asked, “Did you confront the guy you shot?”, to which Zimmerman answered, “No.” Zimmerman was asked, “Were you in fear for your life, when you shot the guy?”, to which Zimmerman answered, “Yes.” The examiner concluded that Zimmerman “told substantially the complete truth” in the examination, and Zimmerman was classified as “No Deception Indicated (NDI)” according to the report.
And, there was a witness who saw Trayvon giving a beat down to Zimmerman. So, I don’t have any doubt. The jury said “not guilty”, too. All the evidence points to GZ telling the truth, being a decent human being, and Trayvon just being a little gangsta thug wannabe, druggie, and thief.
August 21st, 2013 at 7:53 pm
George Zimmerman was charged with murder, and he had lots of money to pay for a defense, thanks to the fact that many people of your ilk were willing to donate the kids’ college fund to support SYG. Like most innocent people, he decided not to testify at his trial – oh, wait, that’s not really what innocent people do. His legal team was able to convince the jury to accept a SYG defense that they pointedly chose NOT TO PRESENT; good for them. As Oscar Acosta said, even a goddamn werewolf is entitled to a vigorous defense. That doesn’t mean that Trayvon Martin was anything but a victim.
All the evidence does not point to George Zimmerman’s innocence of this crime, Squeeky. Two sworn police officers present the night of the shooting stated under oath that George Zimmerman’s injuries were inconsistent with the confrontation he described. I’ve actually had my nose broken by a fist several times, and my head pounded on a concrete sidewalk by an assailant. The former looks very different from the pictures of Zimmerman the night of the attack; the latter will put you in the hospital.
More to the point, however, was Zimmerman’s own repeated statements that he followed Trayvon Martin WHEN HE DID NOT HAVE TO. Stand your ground v. duty to safe retreat notwithstanding, no one can honestly say that they followed someone for no reason, confronted that person while in possession of a loaded firearm, and then were surprised by the fact that violence ensued. George Zimmerman should have stayed in his truck and waited for real police to arrive, the way any reasonable person would have. He did not, and as a result he killed a 17 year old boy. He was wrong; no matter what this and any other jury might say, he was wrong.
However, the way you carefully selected what you presented from the Wiki article, and in general the way you are singularly willing to accept any factoid, whether or not it meets even the basic “reasonable person” test for credibility, that works in favor of your pre-conceived notion that any black teenager in a hoodie who listens to rap music and experiments with drugs is a dangerous criminal who deserves to be hunted and killed, is indeed evidence that you are a racist. Deal with it.
August 21st, 2013 at 2:14 pm
And another thing – exactly where did I “make excuses” for anything or anyone? The correct answer is “nowhere – Squeeky just pulled that out of her ass”.
I have been mugged twice in my life, and I have been licensed to carry a concealed firearm for personal protection longer than Squeeky purports to have lived. I am as opposed to crime and criminal behavior as any other good American. I do, however, insist that the eyes of Justice be blindfolded.
August 27th, 2013 at 9:54 pm
Squeeky’s just wayy off base on this subject. Calling the spree murderers “little Trayvons” is the most sickening thing I’ve read in a long time. Repulsive. Nauseating.
She should be ashamed but won’t be, and for the life of me I don’t get why.
While my admiration for Squeeky has fallen, I still can’t think her maladjustment is due to racism. For some reason she just believes Z’s version of events. She even called T a mugger, although he had no history of mugging anyone in his life. She rejects the idea that T was standing HIS ground, that he felt threatened by Z.
Why she can’t see that T in no way resembled the vile scumbags who killed the Aussie is beyond me. A good friend is a parole officer, and he’ s always said you never see a black criminal who got good grades in school. They are 100% dropouts, flunkouts, or were sent to Juvie before 10th grade.
August 21st, 2013 at 3:01 am
It’s the lead story on Drudge. The shooter should be executed no matter what his age is. The other 2 a lengthy sentence depending on how much each were involved.
At this point it doesn’t look like the victim was singled out due to race. There’s a black father claiming his son was their next target.
August 21st, 2013 at 2:36 pm
Yes, let’s execute them all now – why do we even bother with these damn “trials”, anyway?
Oh, right – because we’re Americans, and we have the most well-established and fair system of criminal justice in the world. Another way to put it would be, “because it’s the American way”.
Why do you hate America, Rambette?
August 25th, 2013 at 5:41 pm
What has happened to you? You haven’t left any comments for a few days. Just when you and me were getting tight. Hope you didn’t take Akon’s suggestion. Give me time and I’ll put you on the road to recovery. You’ll be on your knees in front of Old Glory giving thanks to GOD for them white dudes that gave us them Freedom Charters.
August 25th, 2013 at 8:03 pm
No worries, Rambette – I was away on business for a few days, but I’m back now. There certainly were some horrible crimes in the past few days. Thank goodness no one would be so cynical as to use them for political gain.
August 28th, 2013 at 5:27 pm
After a year of your racist liberal leaders using Travon to lynch white America, isn”t it about time the media started reporting all the Black on White crime?
August 28th, 2013 at 8:45 pm
Rambo, just head over to Drudge who usually devotes the entire left side of his page to black crime stories.
August 21st, 2013 at 12:35 pm
I find it interesting that people who argue against the current Supreme Court and make wild claims about the evils of bringing international law into U.S. law, then run against their own claims when they think they’ve found an argument that could hurt Obama, who they hate so much they can’t even articulate reasons.
Surprised to find this blog still so lively. I’ll have to browse around and see what you’re saying about poor old Ted Cruz, The Canadian Candidate, these days.
August 21st, 2013 at 1:31 pm
Hi Ed Darrell!!!
Well, I hope you get a good laugh out of some of this stuff. There are several Ted Cruz articles here, but this is the main one. I analyze a Birther case from the year 2020, Apuzzo v. Cruz. There is like a 9 page “Order” which covers how I see this developing and then resolved:.
I have another major one in the queue waiting for something that is supposed to happen in the next few days:
August 21st, 2013 at 2:22 pm
Back to birferism! What’s the supposed impediment to Cruz’s eligibility? As far as I can tell, his mother was an American citizen who satisfied the residency requirements, so he was born a citizen of the United States. This in turn satisfies the Constitutional eligibility requirement.
Anyone have recognized case law (“recognized” being the operative word, Adrien) that suggests otherwise?
August 25th, 2013 at 3:56 pm
I was just reading Mario’s latest comments to Leo saying “the Obots no longer know what is up or what is down.” That is so true. We know what has happened to them, but it doesn’t explain how they got themselves in such a pickle that they can’t tell the difference between up & down.
Over the last 5 years the mind-controlling Overlords [Inner Party] of the Anti-Birther Establishment have perpetrated on the minds of their rank & file sheeples [proles] the Herr Goebbels Big Lie Theory along with the Orwellian BlackWhite Think. It’s sad to see so many of these unfortunate obot sheeples going around in a zombie-like state, locked in Bellyfeel, and parroting the propaganda they’ve blindly swallowed from their Overlords.
When I see it it reminds me of a well known line in the book Witness by Whittaker Chambers: “While communists make full use of liberals and their solicitudes, and sometimes flatter them to their faces, in private they treat them with that sneering contempt that the strong and predatory almost invariably feel for victims who volunteer to help in their own victimization.”
Squeeky got a rude awakening. Principles, morals, and one’s own opinion becomes crimes of thought if you dare to wander from the established party dogma. She still doesn’t understand what is going on and neither does Adrien. There has been several clues if you know what to look for.
August 25th, 2013 at 8:04 pm
What the hell are you jabbering about, Rambette? I already told you, son – stay off the drugs!
August 30th, 2013 at 1:56 pm
The Tea Party is built on ignorance (and bad spelling), ignoring the founders (Washington thought it was a privilege to pay taxes), mocking the rule of law (I was asked to sign the petition to stop the census by a Tea Party guy who explained that they stood for “Constitution first.” I pointed out the census is required by the Constitution, and he called a lying socialist.), keeping government from doing what government should do (see the Preamble), and rights for white males over working people, anyone of color, and especially women.
My pointing out the facts to you may have indeed fallen flat with you. I find most Tea Party philosophy so dense that light bends around it; I don’t expect light to get through to you, past your own little event horizon. Sadly.
A collection of Tea Party signs; I apologize for those that are racist, and for those that are just stupid: http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/bl-tea-party-signs.htm
This one’s difficult to read, but it’s a Tea Party classic: “Keep the government out of my Medicare.” You couldn’t make up this kind of stupid for a Jim Kerrey movie: http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/funnypictures/ig/Teabagging-Pictures/Government-Out-of-My-Medicare.htm