We seem to be a nation divided by ideology. There is the left versus the right or if you choose, Democrats versus Republicans. The important thing is that the two ideologies, call them liberal or conservative or whatever you want, are on two different sides of the ideological fence.
I would propose that all who favor government running their lives for them and coming up with programs that take care of them from cradle to grave, register as Democrats and all who coose to just be left alone by government register as Republicans; but with a slight hitch in the way things are now. In the new system, only Democrats would be able to benefit from government programs. However, only Democrats would be forced to contribute to financing those programs.
Comments (71)
To those who would have big Government take care of them from cradle to grave..... Be careful what you wish for.
This administration, with it's recent "parental" actions regarding the economy and taking over businesses and finances, is trying for the biggest power grab and money grab in the history of the U.S.A..
Obama's appointment of "czars" is mindful of the Romanov regime in 1600's Russia. The czarist regime lasted three centuries and failed all the way. Romanov had 16 czars.... Obama, I believe with the recent appointment of the "pay czar," has 18. The czars operate at the discretion of the POTUS, with little, if any oversight. History has proven it won't work and Obama cannot make it work. With the corruption of the Constitution and the erosion of individual freedoms, the populace will reject it and the regime will fail. Obama's policies are diminishing the individuals drive to succeed and make the citizens more dependent on the Government. We can only hope that more states than the 9 or 10, so far, reject big Government control and emphasize state's rights under the 9th and 10th amendments.
There is no user name on this. Who is posting it?
It can't be the man......
Because the last sentence is "However, only Democrats would be forced to contribute to financing those programs."
But, it sounds like a plan, to me......
It would mean the demise of the Democrat party. Once they found out that they had to pay for the services now paid for by others they would fold!
Sorry about the ommision of the name on the original posting. It definitely ain't Da Man!
Twice I have tried to post a response. My vote is 'Get the heck outta there...smells bad!" God Bless Texas!
You'd actually be suprised that many "liberals," if we're going to be very broad by definition are not very happy with what they see going on in this Administration no matter what lies the polls tell. What you do wishing for division is to put a nail in our coffin. The ultra-left liberals you are frustrated about are actually a fairly small minority. While liberals and conservatives may never agree on abortion, homosexuality, etc., there are plenty that can be won over on the practical issues of the governing. Just as many Conservatives were disenfranchised by Bush, many Liberals are becoming disenfranchised by Obama. As more of them lose their jobs due to his intrusion in the private market, more will turn away.
What the powers who actually run the USA want is for us to be divided. United we stand, divided we fall.
I could give a rat's behind about the idologies at this point. Yeah they are critical, but the debt, both government and person is reason enough to secede now. Everyone is going broke and owes more money than they can handle and is losing their job, their pension, their savings, their cars, their houses... hell yeah we want to secede.
Get on with it already because it is the only way we can reset the debt. Those out of control politicians and bankers aren't going to give you a break, they are too busy stealing your money (and your house)and they are too busy giving the money to corporations (that they run, own or have friends in).
Just get on with it already. Like NIKE says... JUST DO IT!
Well, while I hate to see our country divided. I do fear that secession is where we will ultimately end up.. we have some states (usually blue) that suck the life, money and liberty out of the others (usually red). Rampant progressivism (and Mr. President is a self-described Progressive) in the US is dumbing down our religious and moral values, our work ethic and sense of self responsibility just like they've dumbed down our kids and education... the blue states are trying to bring the whole country down to their idea of "utopia" and it ain't gonna fly much longer. At least not if there are still true, red-blooded Americans standing.
God Bless America. And pray that we can make it through the next four years and still keep what little we have left of our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
tolynette: All I can say to those liberals who are not happy is register as a Republican under my plan and they won't have to pay for the govt. programs.
dude23: Seems like you do give a rats ass since the ideology of the liberals is what you are against. I agree that Bush is responsible for some of the trouble we are in, and that is because he was acting more like a liberal than a conservative.
I'd rather be a Libertarian if I had to choose a party. But... our President is appointed, not elected. Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama. The problem is deeper than this, if you really want change.
cloudscape:
I don't think I understand your post. Get out of where? What smells bad? and yes God bless Texas and any other state that would assert its independence!
tolynette;
I don't care what you call the party that wants less or no government interference in our lives. The important thing is to make the socialists see that if they had to pay for the services they demand that it would soon crumble like a house of cards.
mrslbturner:
Secession is the lesser of the two alternatives, three actually. Revolution is the only other one that could renew our country, and frankly, I believe that tehre are just too damn many who would not accept a victory by the conservative side, and I wouldn't condone killing them just to get our way. The third way is to just lie down and let socialism take over the country. I'm not for the last option!
Meaning that I am w/seceding. This government smells bad. You have my vote.
I have worked all my life.Why would I want to happily and with a fuzzy feeling want to hand it over to welfare-sponges? I am not rich by any means, but have worked hard to provide myself a comfortable living. Again....the states wanting to break away were about higher taxes before the Civil war broke out. I guess things are repeating itself.
Socialism (statism, whatever you want to call it) is indeed right at our back door.... the uneducated voter has welcomed, maybe unknowingly and naively, and invited it.
A revolution though would concern me, given that in historical terms this would probably mean bloodshed. I'd much rather see a clean break than pit neighbor against neighbor.
tollynette, Most of us conservatives understand there are moderate liberals who are not happy with the direction the extreme liberals and der fuer are taking our country. Yet when you stop and think about it, it is the moderate left, voting for the same candidates as the extreme left, which has empowered the ogawd and the Pisslosi congress. If all the unhappy libs had voted against the ogawd the country would be a few degrees better off.
That being said, I am not happy with the Republican party. The left wing media loved McCain in the primaries and slimed him in the general election. I never did like him as a candidate. He should have been running as a moderate democrat. Evenso, I voted for him because I knew 0'hussein would not preserve The Constitution.
I propose that C Session stop playing by the false dichotomy of black-and-white.
God save the USA from people like him and ideas like this.
To a great extent this is an urban versus rural conflict. It was predicted long ago, and is the reason for the electoral college system. Now that urban voters outnumber rural voters the stage is set for constant conflict.
"When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe".
Thomas Jefferson
Nobody in the history of this country was more successful at passing what conservatives will tell you are their key issues. He was not a failure by any stretch of the imagination if you are judging by how much of his party's agenda was achieved.
What did he do to deserve this title?
Biggest tax cuts in history
Biggest cuts in "social" programs
Biggest rollbacks of environmental protections
Most defense spending ever
Biggest rollbacks in business and development regulations
Biggest giveaways of public land for mountaintop mining and timber
Biggest crackdown on civil liberties
Biggest cuts in higher education budgets
Privatization of Military, law enforcement and prison infrastructure
Biggest cuts in Veteran's benefits
Two new ultra right Supreme Court picks
And on and on...
There is nothing this man did that was a failure...if you are judging by whether one advances his party's interests. He was able to accomplish things that conservatives have been whimpering that the dirty "Libtard" congresses of Nixon, Bush I, and Reagan blocked them from doing for 40 years.
Well, the stars lined up for them. They got everything they said would "free capitalism" from the bonds of "big government" to work it's magic.
What did we get?
Worst job creation record since Hoover
Actually LOST jobs over his entire first term
300,000 jobs for his second term
(Jimmy Carter created 10 million jobs in "worst economy in history”)
Millions more people without health insurance
Millions more collecting unemployment from the government
Millions of people’s retirement saving WIPED OUT
Homes worth half what people paid for them
Major decline of respect for US in the world
Continued terrorist attacks on US soil (Anthrax? Snipers?)
Stagnant wages in the midst of inflation in the prices of fuel, food, education and health care resulting in a NET LOSS in the standard of living of the vast majority in this country
Largest gap between rich and poor in this country since the beginning of the Great Depression
It is not George W. Bush's fault and it is not his failure. The fault for the state of this country rests firmly on the POLICIES not the PERSONALITY of GEORGE W BUSH! It is conservative, trickle down, “let business regulate itself” policies that got us where we are.
If we don't acknowledge that then we will repeat this experiment again in the next election. It is important for people to know what they are going to get when they vote for conservatives.
If you make 250,000 a year or more and you want to shut the door to prosperity behind you so you don't need to share your loot then you should vote republican.
But if you are trying to get there, and want policies that help that happen, like a good education and healthcare alternatives so you don't get trapped in a job you hate…even though you have a great idea for a business...then you need to vote for New Deal Liberalism.
New Deal Liberalism is social spending to help you succeed and government regulation to keep powerful corporate interests from rolling right over you and crushing your hopes to line their own pockets the way they did to millions of others in the last 8 years.
GDP growth
Who’s better for the economy? Democrats or Republicans? If you take the GDP Growth of all the presidents since FDR they rank like this.
#1) Kennedy
#2) Truman
#3) Clinton
#4) Reagan
#5) Carter
#6) Eisenhower
#7) Nixon
#8) Bush 1
#9) Bush 2
kenyan
luvwith,
Now you're spamming the site with off-the-wall, and largely incomprehensible, rants.
And, when did this become a political forum? This topic isn't any more relevant to this site than the birther topics.
It's a sad statement on both the state of the American education system, and the lack of respect for others in our society.
"New Deal Liberalism is social spending to help you succeed and government regulation to keep powerful corporate interests from rolling right over you and crushing your hopes to line their own pockets the way they did to millions of others in the last 8 years".
Fine, if you can do it without stomping on my inalienable rights.
luvwith,
Where's LBJ? And Ford?
imeditado:
"I propose that C Session stop playing by the false dichotomy of black-and-white."
What the hell does that mean? I don't think I mentioned anything about black and white or male and female or youing or old or any other reference to anything but ideologies.
Could you clear up what you meant in your post?
blackmonrikker
"Doing research on Obama and calling for his ouster based upon the flimsy evidence mounted by the birfers are two different things."
Once again, we agree.... However, doing research on Obama has turned into a gigantic task. You can do research without opposition on any former President. Why not this one? The American public knows nothing about the man's past, prior to his Senatorial record and ACORN activities, except for his admitted pot smoking and occasional "blow," when he could afford it.
Personally, I'd like a little more "meat" in the resume before I'm convinced. In the personnel business, when presenting the candidate for a job, like a steak, you sell the "sizzle," and that's exactly what was done.... unfortunately, there comes a day when you have to check out the quality of the substance and right now, it appears to be rotting....
Meanwhile, I'll ask "where's the birth certificate," and you will continue to ask "where's the smoking gun?"
C Session, don't you understand? If you criticize Obama, YOU MUST BE A BIGOT! Their ability to reason only takes them that far!
tsiya:
Sure, I understand. I was just trying to get an honest answer from a liberal. When they don't agree with what you say they tend to call you a bigot, racist, homophobe, or any number of other things that have nothing to do with the subject matter.
I think it's a shame that we can't have a dialogue with each other without one side resorting to name calling or inuendos. The fact is that some minds are like concrete, once set, hard to change.
There is no peaceful solution to the two Americas living together. I honestly feel that the only solution is peaceful secession by states that have already expresed their desire to enforce the tenth amendment.
I realized long ago that I have less in common with people from some areas than I have with a duck. I could live with it, but evidently they can't.
The realities of life in large urban centers are artificial, and valid only in those urban centers. Expecting the entire nation to accomodate them is unrealistic. It is creating two discrete groups, who not only disagree, they are becoming increasingly hostile to each other.
C Session,
I thought imeditado was quite clear, and the fact that you can't see it only demonstrates how right he is. You see everything in black and white, with no gray areas. Liberal vs. conservative, Democrat vs. Republican. Most of the country doesn't really give a sh*t about your extremist views. Both you, and your largely imaginary enemies on the extreme left, are irrelevant minorities.
As for minds like concrete, look in a mirror.
I'm not an extremist, I'm right in the middle, where the Constitution is.
Do you know what has happened in California? They are bankrupt, liberals spent all the money out there. Watch what will happen next, other states will follow, and the "blue" states will go first. You're going to see a mess like something out of a nightmare, thanks to your liberal politics. Your taxes are going to go through the roof, not just rich peoples taxes, your taxes.
Right there, your assumption that anyone who doesn't agree with you must be a "liberal", identifies you as an extremist.
What are you then?
Twitchy:
"I thought imeditado was quite clear, and the fact that you can't see it only demonstrates how right he is. You see everything in black and white, with no gray areas. Liberal vs. conservative, Democrat vs. Republican"
It wasn't immediately clear to me or others on this thread either. If you are correct, you sound just like Colin Powell allowing that we should be more one party, open up the tent for all ideologies and polute the Republican party so that there is no difference between the two parties. I agree that neither party is all that good, but that isn't the point. Call them party A and party B for all I care. What I was trying to point out is that there are two definite factions in this country. One wants cradle to grave government care and the other wants freedom from government control. Sure there are some in the middle who don't care one way or the other, but they are not the movers and shakers who are doing something on either side. Some are willing to take whatever the government hands out and not complain about what government is doing.
Obviously from the posts on this thread, you and one or two others have proved my point.
One side says leave me the hell alone and the other side says I want you to pay for my well being. I side with the former.
What made us a great nation among nations was the Constitution that our Founders ratified. We're far a field of it now and to our demise, I fear. People in France, England, and Canad are complaining online and/or protesting. Our news doesn't cover it and you have to purposely seek news outside the country to find out. So most do not really want communism/collectivism, and socialism really hasn't worked. America used to work, but the crooks learned how to game the system. We need to throw them all out of office and demand our Constitutional foundation be restored.
Judging by recent gun and ammo sales there are a lot of people who intend to be left to hell alone!
tsiya:
I get your double meaning. I think I'll run to the gun store tomorrow.
C Session,
Rather than me proving your point, you're proving mine. Most people are in the middle, and just wish the extremists on both sides would go away and stop trying to impose their fantasies on the rest of us.
But you only see the extremes, and the middle is inconsequential.
tsiya,
I am a rationalist. Rather than looking for someone else to do my thinking for me, or taking a party line, which amounts to the same thing, I look at each issue, what each side says about it, and pick what I think both makes sense and is workable. Often that means I take some from each side, and ignore some of each side, and add in stuff that both sides have missed.
In reality, things come in package deals. It is obvious that some current "progressive" ideas are tempting, but the associated dangers far outweigh any benefits. A slave with a benevolent master doesn't need to worry about hunger, but he is still a slave.
Twitchy, I don't think most are in the middle. Just judging by the postings here, it seems that at least those posting have a definite bent toward one side or the other. Except for you, the rest seem to be siding to the extreme as you put it.
I don't see that perpetuating the best system ever created by man as extreme. You ignore natural law only at great cost.
tsiya,
So, who is your master? Who puts together these 'package deals' that you believe in? Why do you allow yourself to be manipulated into only believing one 'side'?
Do you actually think about your positions, or just blindly accept them?
C Session,
I don't suppose you've ever heard pf the term "Silent Majority". Most people don't have much interest in such things. Because of WND, this site has been invaded, so to speak, by one particular set of extremists.
Me, I'm here because I'm a bit OCD about logic, reason and truth. And I sometimes learn something, though here that's mostly been to reinforce how many irrational, illogical and untruthful people there are.
Then I guess you might as well seek out other threads, since you have found us out.
It seems a very odd thing to me that this site wasn't better advertised to the public if a large cross-section of people was desired. Why WND seems to be the only one advertising this site seems strange. Perhaps Mr. Obama is really a closet conservative?
C Session,
No need to actually seek out other threads. This is actually one of the more sensible ones. I'd bet that 2 out of 3 are anti-Obama rants.
Why do people thank that mindlessly repeating the same misinformation makes it any more true?
you mean like slogans such as 'Change'?
Twitchy, I need no "master". I support whoever is the least threatening to my freedom. I've been told that I shouldn't "vote against my own best interests". I suppose that means I should allow government to fit a collar on my neck, but that won't happen!
Twitchy:
"I don't suppose you've ever heard pf the term 'Silent Majority'. Most people don't have much interest in such things. Because of WND, this site has been invaded, so to speak, by one particular set of extremists."
Twitchy, you have a good point. I too find it very interesting (and rather encouraging) that the most posts on this site are from concerned Americans (call them extremists if you will) who are educated and are unhappy with the direction of this government. What, you expected an Obama love fest?
The left could link to this site if they wanted to, and I'm sure there are plenty of links out there. So why aren't more lefties here? The problem with the left is that they cannot provide a logical, reasonable response to oppose the truth that's standing right in front of them. The silent majority will no longer stand for what is happening to our lives, our freedoms and our pursuits of happiness... our elected leaders are bankrupting the country to satisfy their political aspirations and the hope of their version of utopia.
At initial glance of the popular posts in this forum, the only the thing that the left is concerned about is legalization of marijuana... well that shows their priorities. Not a big surprise, bunch o' Losers. The rest of us will work on focusing on the stuff that actually matters and try our best to keep America the "land of the free" rather than the "land of the special interests, entitled, whatever I don't have to work for".
tsiya,
And who tells you who is the least threatening to your freedom? Who told you that there was the slightest controversy about BO's BC?
If you did any thinking on your own, and actually researched the issue, rather than getting you info from partisan hacks like WND, you'd know that there is no controversy. It all a product of the tin-foil helmet brigade.
The fact that you're a birther means that you subscribe to the right's version of group think. You're part of a lynch mob. Facts are irrelevant.
mrslbturner,
"concerned Americans" is a hoot. Most of the posts on this site are in support of the Obama birth certificate issue, which only demonstrates how much the American educational system has failed to produce citizens with the capacity for critical thinking that is a prerequisite for our form of government to survive.
And you, too, seem blinded by black and white thinking. Apparently you believe that there is only the evil left and the righteous right. That type of thinking is part of what is destroying this country.
Lynch mobs don't make for good government.
Oh that's so cute. You don't think people can be concerned and think for themselves or that the Constitution upon which this country is founded actually means something, you're so funny.
You wanna talk about "black and white thinking"? I ran across a post recently on the DemocraticUnderground website where there was a specific post from a "progressive" that stated something along the lines that they asked "Why do they hate us?" So, I replied to that post in a civil and respectful manner and explained that I don't hate them, I just disagree with them. Guess what happened? My posts were deleted and I was banned from the group... for using free speech to offer an opinion that differed from theirs. Do you actually think that a group of like-minded people can come to a conclusion about why they think others hate them if they're not willing to engage with those people that they think hate them? You want to put labels on people that disagree with you ... perhaps if you dig a little deeper you might find that those folks have more in common with you than you think.
I'm not righteous. But I do have my own beliefs. I don't expect my freedom of speech to be trampled upon just because it doesn't suit someone else's political agenda, but it happens. If the folks don't come together and actually try to listen to one another and "tolerate" the opinions of the other, then there will be great peril in this country.
I've been tombstoned by democrat underground several times, under different names. questioning is not allowed, let alone the slightest dissent. The place is run like North Korea. Hell, maybe it is run by North Korea!
It is ironic to hear liberal democrats calling anyone else a Lynch mob!
One very reliable indicator of regard for freedom is the 2nd amendment stance taken by groups or indidviduals. Attempts to muzzle dissenting voices on the radio channels are another.
mrslbturner,
Sure, people can be concerned and think for themselves. But those people are not birthers.
And I am very supportive of our Constitution. That's another reason to be against birthers, who are trying to pervert it.
I have never been to the DemocraticUnderground site, and probably never will. As you found out, they have a rep for being very intolerant. They're liberal extremists, just like birthers are extremists. Black and white thinking isn't limited to any one group.
I'm not calling people birthers because they don't agree with me. I'm calling them birthers because they are fixated on an issue, and totally ignore the verifiable facts. They'd rather live in a fantasy world than face reality.
tsiya,
What makes you think that I, or anyone else here, except maybe luvwith (7;-]), is a liberal Democrat. All I did was point out that birthers show strong signs of operating under the same psychology as a lynch mob, except that a lynch mob is usually over in a couple of hours.
They are driven by unsubstantiated accusations. They don't care about facts or evidence or the law. They are led like mindless sheep.
But I'm sure you'll be happy to know that I'm a life member of the NRA. And I believe that dissent is fine, as long as it's not based on lies.
I haven't seen any unimpeachable evidence. What I have seen is evidence of a near total lack of ethics, and a desire to change my homeland into a larger version of Cook County.
Twitchy,
your question as to what makes others thins that your are liberal.
Here is your record:
Twitchy
Member since : Jun-03-2009 (Verified)
0 Ideas, 218 Comments, 90 Votes
No origionalIdeas and 218 comments that, as far as I could stand to read, berate others. Need I say more?
I am what you would be calling a "Birther", but I am a Constitutionalist. I would like to have the court review o's documentation, the fact that his father could convey different nationality and the SCoUS previous ruling of "in Doubt" of Natural Born Status in this situation and clear up this issue in a transparent manor.
And don't think about trying to berate me on not being knowlegeable of the Constitution, Bill of Rights and Federalist Papers, you will end up looking worse than you do now.
Back to the original question, if I may. Is it time to secede? I know Twitchy doesn't think so, but what about the rest of you?
The populace is too dissimilar and polarized to get along, and I can't see that either side is going to compromise any further, unless compelled by force,the "soviet" solution. At this point all Hell will break loose, and each one of us will have to make some hard choices.
Draw your own conclusions, I can only speak for myself.
How does a state secede peacefully? What's the legislative process to do so? Anyone know?
tsiya,
Lack of unimpeachable facts and total lack of ethics? You are, of course, talking about the birthers, whose entire case is based on lies and fraud.
As for Cook County, what does that have to do with BO's eligibility? Answer: Nothing, but you'll keep pushing that he's ineligible because you don't like his policies. That shows your level of integrity.
we_spencer,
I'll berate you for not bothering to read and understand the rules of this site, and not caring in the least what the purpose of this site is.
we_spencer
Member since : Jun-01-2009 (Verified)
6 Ideas, 118 Comments, 1164 Votes
6 ideas, 2 of which have some remote relevance to this site, and the other 4 are completely off-topic. And you're supporting a non-issue that has generated lots (I'm not going to waste my time counting) of highly duplicative and off-topic 'ideas'. Basically, you're part of a conspiracy to disrupt this site, and steal it for your own partisan purposes. Though conspiracy may denote too high a level of thought. Perhaps sheep who have been sent here by their masters at WND.
Why should the court review BO's documentation? To satisfy a bunch of loonies? That would set a wonderful precedent, wouldn't it.
If the birthers want people to take them seriously, they first have to stop lying about the issue. But, of course, then they wouldn't have an issue.
Total lack of ethics? How so?
I laid it out for you, and you refuse to see. The entire birther movement is based on lies and fraud and hate. They have no real facts to support them, just wild accusations that are easily refuted by the facts. But you present them with facts, and all they do is repeat the same wild accusations, or invent new ones. Ethical and rational people wouldn't do that.
Their only real driving force is their hatred for BO.
Twitchy, "...our Constitution was based upon the encyclopedic "Law of Nations," a treatise written by Swiss lawyer and diplomat Emerich de Vattel in 1758, this work was read not only by the Founding Fathers, but was also well-known throughout the colonies among the populace. (so "natural born" did not have to be defined in the Constitution - it was a common term, perhaps like the term “first down” in football or “home run” in baseball – it was a clearly understood term.)
...in Book I, Chapter XIX, part 212, it says: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” Here is the definition the Founding Fathers did not deem necessary to supply since it was already understood. And since Obama’s father was a Kenyan citizen, Obama is therefore not a natural born citizen and is thus ineligible to be President." (Basically, forget the birth certificate!!! This is ALL you need to follow the law and to understand the term from “those days”.)
Here's the link www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01.htm
Here is the more complete quote: "section 212, Citizens and natives.
"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."
During the framing of the 14th Amendment the same definition was reached during arguments. Note the 14th Amendment does not confer natural born citizenship.
Twitchy, if you doubt the Founding Father's use of Vattel's "Law of Nations" take note of Article I, Sec. 8, of The Constitution:
Article I - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power.......To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
Twitchy, you can spew all the hatred you want but you cannot alter truth to suit your whim. The accepted definition of the term Natural Born Citizen at the time The Constitution was penned must be the definition used to qualify a President. That was the protection our Founders gave us. You cannot alter the definition unless you amend The Constitution; and there is a Constitutional restriction on amendments which says amendments must be consistent with The Constitution.
I have read a great deal about Arthur's campaign. You are correct most of his detractors challenged his actual birthplace. There is some evidence (enough to cause some speculation), that he actually paid his most ardent detractor to write stories attacking his birthplace. Misdirection! This kept the public from focusing on his parents lack of citizenship. Sound familiar? This is why, although I am not convinced of lil barry's birthplace, I don't make his birthplace my issue. HIS father's citizenship disqualified the usurper.
Arthur's Presidency is not a precedent. It was a grievous breech of The Constitution. You cannot justify a murder with a previous murder just because the previous murderer was never caught during his lifetime. What kind of circular thinker are you? Arthur got away with a crime, so you think 0'hussein should get away with the same crime??????????
For the record, I use the term 0'hussein (0 is the zero not the "oh") to illustrate his clearly foreign origins and because he now uses his middle name speaking to muslimes in the middle-east but forbid the media from using his middle-name during the campaign.
Twitchy, I have provided the source of the Constitutional definition of Natural Born Citizen as understood by the Founders; and I have provided the Founder's actual reference to Vattel's Law of Nations where They inserted it into The Constitution. Don't be too upset if your koolaid tastes a bit sour in the future. ---------------Paladin
mrslbturner,
There is no legislative process to secede peacefully. Ever hear of the Civil War?
The only way to secede is to kill a few million people.
That is expensive, to both sides.
nemesispaladin,
I don't know if I've said this before, to you, but you're really a loon, trying to "alter truth to suit your whim".
The Constitution does not reference Vattel's "Law of Nations". The reference is to international law, not a book. If the reference was to a well-known and encyclopedic book, why give Congress the power to define offences against it? OTOH, international law, especially at that time, can be rather imprecise, often consisting of generally followed conventions, rather than actual laws or treaties.
The thing about Arthur is, there apparently wasn't any attempt to hide the date of his father's naturalization from anyone. It was a matter of public record, there for anyone to see. Nobody thought it was relevant.
And Arthur's eligibility as a natural-born citizen was never in question, until this hate campaign against Obama started and people pointed out the fact that Arthur set a precedent for the actual meaning of natural-born citizen. The rule in the US has always been more jus soli than jus sanguinis, though we may be unique in the way we have historically combined the two (and, hopefully, we'll soon modify that again to tighten up the 14th Amendment).
Can you provide a single reputable Constitutional scholar who will support your interpretation? Volokh, Kopel, Kates, Tribe??? A conspiracy website just doesn't quite do it.