William Vallicella: If Obama Could Have Been Trayvon Martin . . . "then most of us could be the next George Zimmerman."
Exactly. And that's rather the point of Zimmerman being Zimmerman, isn't it?
"Besides, if you could have been Trayvon 35 years ago, what does that say about you? Did you go around thuggishly attacking people, breaking their noses, pinning them on the ground, pounding and grounding, slamming heads into pavements, threatening 'crackers' with death?"
That was my first thought on hearing the Alien's foolish assertion.
==========
K T Cat: Why Race Is The Go-To Excuse "It's because the alternative would be to blame behavior and no one wants to be judgmental."
Of course, another, and perhaps deeper reason, is that there is an on-going class-warfare amongst whites.
'Amongst' may not be the best word to us, as this class-war is being waged by the self-selected elites against the rest of us ... who really have no interest in having a class-war.
In any event, indiscriminate accusations of racism is just a tool these self-selected elites, these "liberals", use in their war against you and me; they don't actually give a damn about blacks, and everyone knows it.
Monday, July 22, 2013
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Ilion,
First time I've ever gone over to the Dark Side and checked your blog out. I notice you referred to President Obama as the "Alien".
Question for you: Are you a "Birther"?
bloody-minded leftist: "Ilion,
First time I've ever gone over to the Dark Side and checked your blog out. I notice you referred to President Obama as the "Alien".
Question for you: Are you a "Birther"?"
No, I'm not a "birther" -- I'm an American citizen who understands that Obama is not (and thus, never can be) a natural born US citizen. I'm a US citizen who knows that this exact issue was already thrashed out over a century ago -- and after ratification of the 14th Amendment, which neither then nor now has any bearing -- with the main differences being:
1) the parties of the persons whose citizenship status is/was unclear were reversed;
2) the purported non-natural-born citizen and his partisans (who *wrote* and ratified the 14th, yet didn't try to argue that it nullified the Constitutional requirement) -- rather than hand-waving the question away as being beneath his dignity and an issue only an idiot would care about -- provided evidence that purported to prove that he was actually a natural born US citizen;
"Birther" is the term that the fools who don't want to abide by the provisions of the US Constitution -- and these fools are in both parties -- use to lump together, and thus dismiss, those who do understand the issue with those who ignorantly think (*) that Obama's Constitutional disqualification to occupy the office is a function of where he was or was not born.
(*) and who were initially Democrats. But, what else is new?
As for calling him an 'Alien', there are two aspect to that --
1) While it's clear that he is not a natural born US citizen, it's not clear that he even *is* a US citizen, at all;
2) Regardless of whether he is a US citizen, he's not an American; he doesn't "get" America nor Americans (**), he's an alien. Of course, he also doesn't like Americans, and hates America. Even you, with your immoral love imposing leftist slavery on others, "get" America.
I'm trying hard here, but I don't follow your argument at all. If he was born in the state of Hawaii, that alone makes him a natural born US citizen. Since you don't appear to be disputing where he was born, how is he not?
Also, what is the nature of the "constitutional disqualification" you speak of? (Article and Section, please)
As to your last paragraph, you seem to be implying that only those with a particular political philosophy can be called "Americans". I couldn't disagree more. The nutcases who belong to the Aryan Nations are still Americans, as are card carrying members of the American Communist Party, as are Republicans, Democrats, Greens, Libertarians, and followers of Lyndon LaRouche. Even you, who espouse and defend Hell's own governing constitution, are probably an American. (I say "probably" because, knowing you only from the internet, for all I know you are posting from a location down the street from the Mad Dingo over on Victor's site.)
First, I do apologize for calling you "bloody-minded leftist" in this context -- even though it is true. I had composed that response from the email notification of your post -- I thought I was responding to one of your typical posts on VR's blog.
Now I am insulted. None of my postings are "typical"!!! (no matter where they may be found)
"I'm trying hard here, but I don't follow your argument at all. If he was born in the state of Hawaii, that alone makes him a natural born US citizen. Since you don't appear to be disputing where he was born, how is he not?"
If Obama, Jr had been born in Kenya -- as both he and his wife have claimed, when it was to his advantage to do so (*) -- would that fact, of itself, make him a natural born citizen of Kenya? Would that fact, of itself, disable him holding the office of the presidency?
The RINO, John McCain was born in Panama; no one disputes this. Does that fact, of itself, make him a natural born citizen of Panama? Would that fact, of itself, disable him holding the office of the presidency?
In both cases, and to both questions: No. Where one is born does not, of itself, make one a natural born citizen of that country. Where one is born does not, of itself, make one ineligible of holding the office of the presidency of the US.
Let us take it as given that Obama, Jr was born in Hawaii, as he sometimes claims, when it suits him ... even though there is no evidence that the claim is true. Under the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment (you know, the one that gives us "anchor babies"), that fact would make him a US citizen, and assuming that he (or, as a minor, his guardian) had not at some time given up or renounced his US citizenship (**). But, it does not, of itself, make him a natural born US citizen.
(*) I've seen videos of at least two separate instances of Michelle referring to Kenya as his homeland; I have a post on this very blog that will play one of them. And, of course, *he* is the source of his old publicist's claim that he is Kenya-born.
Moreover, the fact that *we* do not really know where he was born -- nor, for than matter, do we even know that he is in fact a US citizen, at all (**) -- ought to concern everyone.
(**) There are credible questions of whether he, or his guardian, did, at some time, give up or renounce his US citizenship.
"Also, what is the nature of the "constitutional disqualification" you speak of? (Article and Section, please)"
A Representative or Senator ... or even a supreme court Justice ... can be merely a US citizen; thus, even someone formerly the citizen or subject of some other state/prince may hold those offices. But the US Constitution requires a tighter class of citizenship for the President and Vice-President than *simply* being a US citizen, it explicitly states that only a natural born citizen may hold the office of President (and thus, of Vice-President, as only someone eligible to be President may be Vice-President).
The US Constitution isn't that long, and it is organized and written in a very rational or logical manner -- you could easily have looked it up yourself. Article II; Section I -- "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
The US Constitution requires that *only* those persons who are natural born citizens of the United Startes may be President (or Vice-President).
The US Constitution allows those persons who were citizens of the United States at the time of adoption to the accounted as though they were natural born citizens of the US. For, in point of fact, none of the founding generation were actually natural born citizens of the US: not Alexander Hamilton, not George Washington, not the millions of lesser known and unknown Americans.
"I'm trying hard here, but I don't follow your argument at all. ... how is he not [a natural born US citizen]?"
For the same reason that Arthur Chester's constitutional eligibility to be Vice-President, and later President, was disputed.
In Chester's case -- and in contrast to Obama's case -- there was no question that he was born in the US. No one at all disputed that he was born on US soil, in the State of New York. Further, no one at all disputed that he was born of a long-established family of Americans and US citizens ... on his mother's side.
The issue was not whether Arthur Chester was a US citizen -- no one at all disputed that. The issue and dispute was whether Arthur Chester was a natural born US citizen.
The question hinged upon whether his father had still been a subject of the British Crown at the time of his birth. Arthur Chester's political opponents, Democrats and presumably some Republicans, claimed that Chester père had not become a naturalized US citizen until years *after* Chester fils had been born. Thus, as his father was not a US citizen, it was logically impossible that he was a natural born US citizen, however much that he was indisputably a US citizen.
Chester and his Republican partisans didn't argue that the 14th Amendment nullified the constitutional requirement that the President be a natural born US citizen, nor that due to the 14th the mere fact of birth on US soil automatically made one a natural born US citizen -- and recall, it was the Republicans, many of whom were still alive, who had written and ratified the amendment. That is, Chester and his partisans did not dispute the logic of the argument his political foes had raised to challenge his constitutional eligibility to be Vice-President.
Rather, they claimed, and convinced the electorate, that the facts of the matter meant that the argument didn't apply in his case. They claimed, and provided some sort of evidence, that his father had been naturalized before his birth, and that therefore he was, indeed, a natural born US citizen.
I don't know that Chester and his partisans were presenting the truth, that seems to be questioned to this day. But, whether or not Chester was lying about the fact(s) of the matter, it remains the case that the logic of the matter, applied to the true fact(s) of the matter, is what determines whether or not Chester ... and Obama ... can be a natural born US citizen.
So, here are the facts we know:
1) Obama sometimes claims to have been born in Kenya;
2) Obama sometimes claims to have been born in Hawaii;
3a) we do not know where, he has provided not evidence, and certainly no solid evidence, that he was born in the US;
3b) it is irrelevant where he was born ... but it is not irrelevant that we do not know where;
4) at the time of his birth, his mother was a natural born US citizen, though apparently a minor, of a long-time family of US citizens;
5) at the time of his birth, his father was a subject of the British Crown;
6) there are indications that at some time he, or his guardian, gave up or renounced his US citizenship.
As I said above, the situation is almost identical to Arthur Chester's case. The most impostant differences being:
1) there is no question that Obama, Jr, is not, and cannot be, a natural born US citizen, for there is no question that his father never was a US citizen;
2) his partisans, rather than taking the Constitution seriously, hand-waved the issue away, part of which involved creating a smoke-screen of conflating "native born" with "natural born".
"As to your last paragraph, you seem to be implying that only those with a particular political philosophy can be called "Americans"."
That's not at all what I said, which had nothing at all to do with politics; it's *your* duty to read and comprehend what I wrote, not my duty (or even ability) to understand it for you.
"Even you, who espouse and defend Hell's own governing constitution, are probably an American."
God -- the Second Person -- wrote "Hell's Constitution", for he created it, as surely as he created the Heaven to which you claim to asipre ... which claim is in contrast to your advocacy of leftist slavery of "the masses" and ultimately the mass-murder of those same "masses".
"(I say "probably" because, knowing you only from the internet, for all I know you are posting from a location down the street from the Mad Dingo over on Victor's site.)"
See how influential I am on VR's blog! "Mad Dingo" is my pet-name for that pathetic personage.
It's time for me to make my weekly migration to North Canton ... where I have internet access for personal use only during lunch, or unless I want to sit ad McDonald's after work (which I don't enjoy, and which leads to consuming more "junk food" than I need).
" "Mad Dingo" is my pet-name for that pathetic personage."
That's precisely why I used it in this context.
By the way, I'm waiting for his response over on DI to my giving him an example of an amputee being miraculously cured. He quite specifically asked for "just one". Now that he has one, watch him ask for two! Moving the goalposts, anyone?
"That's precisely why I used it in this context."
I figured. But, it's not as though I *always* refer to him that way (it has been weeks, if not months since I have). Or, for that matter, that I refer ro him that often at all.
"By the way, I'm waiting for his response over on DI to my giving him an example of an amputee being miraculously cured. He quite specifically asked for "just one". Now that he has one, watch him ask for two! Moving the goalposts, anyone?"
I'm not sure what you expect ... from me. Sympathy? From Me? (as per the Rolling Stones, one might hold sympathy for the devil ... but surely one shouldn't expect it back)
Also, I expect what he had in mind is the total regeneration of a missing limb.
Post a Comment