This blog is dedicated to the memory of David Weintraub, who took on insidious astroturfers and won.

Sunday, July 4, 2010

Thomas Jefferson Was Scum

Orwell's ending to Animal Farm could have easily been about Thomas Jefferson and not communist Russia. All people are created equal, just some are more equal than others if you catch my drift.

Some dumbass named Leslie Green Bowman, President of the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, posted today Celebrating the Fourth of July with Thomas Jefferson.

Here's the money quote.
Celebrating Independence Day at Monticello can give you a glimpse into the ideas that shaped America's future and helped us become the home of the free and the land of the brave. On that, no voice is clearer than that of Thomas Jefferson. His words resonate as strongly today as they did over two and a quarter centuries ago: "We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Or maybe it was this one.
Since 1963, we have celebrated Independence Day at Monticello by welcoming new Americans who share Thomas Jefferson's vision of America.
Bowman even had the audicity to cite Michelle Obama's idea that Jefferson was the "first foodie," since he was into agriculture. So basically this person has made a reference to a black person in an article kissing Jefferson's racist ass.

Jefferson's vision was of an America without black people in it. He may have seen that slavery needed to eventually come to an end, but his opinion was that slaves should be deported back to Africa.



America's well-known for having immoral holidays. There's Halloween, as in run for the hills, it's the Wiccans. Columbus Day and Thanksgiving are bad news. Those days are for whooping it up and not thinking about genocide against the Native Americans. Now we have this Bowman lady telling us to celebrate Independence Day with Thomas Jefferson. Racism, schmacism is implied through her propaganda.


Here's an interesting read concerning Jefferson's true plans for a post-slavery America. Maybe Jefferson was the inspiration for the Ku Klux Klan. Maybe he inspired the work of film pioneer D.W. Griffith.





Now we hear that Jefferson first wanted to use the word subject instead of citizen for The Declaration of Independence. Some are saying it was a harmless typo or freudian slip he quickly corrected. Thomas Jefferson was a racist, elitist pig period.



Dr. Fenella France, a research chemist at the Library of Congress, shows on a computer screen at the Library of Congress a correction to the rough draft of the Declaration of Independence written by Thomas Jefferson. Recent imaging of the document clearly confirmed that Jefferson originally wrote "subject" then changed it to "citizen."

Susan Walsh/AP

79 comments:

the_last_name_left said...

scum isn't a nice word, is it? and those were different times. Who in America at that time was a much better man? What criminal can you be speaking of?

I don't know much about Jefferson, or America, but these American dudes, venerated as they are, seem to be superlative examples of class beasts (partly because they are so venerated)

They're heroes for the levellers - yet they were as bound to class interest as kings. Radical for their time but not a patch on their admirers, Marx and Engels?

socrates said...

Scum is one of the worst things one can call another here. It's a pejorative sent from one heart and soul to another.

I've heard the historical context argument used a lot. It has some merit but overall I don't buy it. Sure, in a way society can be blamed for every individual action.

Guys like Charles Manson and Adolph Hitler under different circumstances could have turned out harmless.

I think there were much better people back in the day who weren't racist. There are many more of them today than back them, as exemplified by Obama being voted President. Nonetheless, there was a fantastic abolitionist movement which had many of its roots in Massachusetts.

I realise I run the risk of sounding like a raging lefty screaming on the street corner. Yet I sincerely believe Thomas Jefferson was a scumbag. So I went with the yellow journalism title.

What I found most interesting, that which prompted the post in the first place, was that Jefferson first wanted to use the word subjects instead of citizens. A lot of folks are ignoring that or spinning it as a harmless mistake. I think it's solid proof that Jefferson was a fraud.

You'd have to live here or study the history of race relations in America to fully comprehend the depth of bigotry and prejudice that has gone on and in a way still does to quite an extent. E.G. Check out the prison rates or standards of livings broken down by race.

You wouldn't believe how unfair the American educational system is.

Granted, I do think eventually race becomes less a factor than outright class division. There are a tremendous amount of poor whites and other ethnicities. Growing up I was under the impression that America was kicking global ass in regards to economics. That's because I had a relatively easy upbringing in middle class suburbia. In many ways, America is one of the toughest countries to live in. Too much money is put into the military and not enough into society. Plus you have a strong Republican and moderate Democratic base who pretty much avoid class issues altogether.

bob said...

"Jefferson's vision was of an America without black people in it. He may have seen that slavery needed to eventually come to an end, but his opinion was that slaves should be deported back to Africa".

I never knew this. I knew he was a slave owner, but this was news to me. The article on Jefferson you linked to was also very informative, thank you.

A worshipful attitude toward any "great woman"/ "great man"/ celebrity can't ever be supported when the full reality of their mortal fallibities is known, surely? Too bad about Jefferson holding racist views, however, there are some things about him that I did think were admirable.

the_last_name_left said...

L: the final message of the Constitution is that WE THE PEOPLE are supposed to be the true ones in power of this country---NOT the federal government!
--------

Sucker. You think slaveholders and the white male american aristocracy had any intention of letting "the people" be the "ones in power"? I think you're sorely mistaken. There's a lot of room inbetween colonial monarchism and democracy.

You've previously written you don't even support democracy - that America isn't a democracy....it's a republic. HA.

socrates said...

I had deleted a Larry post. He was rude. He called us shitheads. I'm not going to put up with anyone trolling any of us on our own turf. Here's his post with the anti-social words bleeped out. I'm reposting this, only because otherwise TLNL's last post seems out of place. Larry's a conspiracy theory freak who does a lot of pimping for the right wing, "Patriot" Network. You know what I'm talking about. Rense. Neo-Nazis. Websites hysterical about the alleged illuminati. So here we see Mr. anti-New World Order sticking up for Jefferson. No way was Thomas J. an elitist. That's the ticket according to Real Troll Online.



Real Truth Online: Yeah, he was a real racist, wasnt he? Is THAT why he had a sexual relationship with his slave Sally Hemings who was of mixed race?

Abraham Lincoln was the true unamerican scumbag who hated the Constitution and was virtually a dictator.

Hey TLNL, thanks for FINALLY ADMITTING you dont know anything about America---"I don't know much about Jefferson, or America"---we all already knew that by your writings. *******.

So what if Jefferson used the word "subjects" in the rough draft?? The important thing is: the FINAL word was CITIZENS. How can you criticize what he was GOING to use when the final message of the Constitution is that WE THE PEOPLE are supposed to be the true ones in power of this country---NOT the federal government!

"Jefferson's vision was of an America without black people in it. He may have seen that slavery needed to eventually come to an end, but his opinion was that slaves should be deported back to Africa".

HUH??? I think you have Lincoln and Jefferson confused! It was LINCOLN who hated black people and wanted all blacks sent to Africa! He even created a department in his administration that was for the sole purpose emmigrating all blacks out of the country. Lincoln LOVED slavery and he said in many speeches that whites are superior to blacks and NEVER wanted a black person to hold office or vote.

Would you like me to provide actual Lincoln quotes that display his blatant racist views? I can easily.

Lincoln was by far the worst President that ever lived. Dont tell me you **** ***** are a part of the "Lincoln saved the Union/Lincoln freed slaves" cult?

socrates said...

Larry obviously didn't read the link on Jefferson from The Atlantic. This story had nothing to do with Abraham Lincoln. Larry wastes too much time reading Jeff Rense, Alex Jones, and other wingnuts. He's lost the capacity to think freely. He is a proverbial crazy believer.

National Wingnut Appreciation Day

the_last_name_left said...

The best way to let Larry discredit himself is by giving him the floor. But that very quickly gets very tedious.

On Jefferson as an elitist - he was, wasn't he? Not in the same way supporters of colonialist monarchy but nevertheless in a bourgeois sense. He was no socialist - no opponent of class, really. But neither was Lincoln. Similar to the french revolution, and the english one even earlier, the US revolution was the seizure of kingly power by commercial/industrial/financial interests of capitalism? I take moral considerations and justifications with a big pinch of salt.....akin to the conscious mind's explanation of subconscious' will.

Obviously I see all this through the eyes of a socialist european and I happily concede my ignorance on the details, spared as I have been from american national indoctrination. ;)

The view from socialism is surely that both lincoln and jefferson are so far away they merge into the same thing? From my perspective, that's so.

Michael Parenti's telling of the US constitution and all that jazz makes most sense to me - not that I know much about any of it, I'll grant you. But his is a class rendition and he makes a lot of sense to me.

Anyway, Larry's just so rhetorically aggressive and rude. He has the right to be intellectually and morally assertive - he loathes what he imagines socialism to be, he's a confused but committed capitalist etc. It's good Larry believes in something - but his conspiracist anti-ideological ideology crosses into a religion for him, and it's eschatological too. There's a WAR on for your mind, etc. Hence his personal rudeness, his aggression, his obsession...perhaps. Could just be deep character flaws though, I suppose..... ;)

socrates said...

There's definitely a character flaw there. It can't be stated any better than you just did. We all have our moments, or at least most of us, where we lose our cool. This dude is out of control more often than not.

He did make a good point or two, but he had to go ruin it with those instances of being nasty.

Bringing Abe Lincoln into the discussion was a bit odd. I think Larry's posting pattern is a prime example of Cass Sunstein's idea of societal tendencies towards group polarisation. If Lincoln had been brought in as a tangent, that would've been fine, but the way Larry did so was more about a lame attempt to create an us versus them atmosphere on this thread. I actually wouldn't mind knowing more about Lincoln's true policies and ideas on race relations. Though I'd want to be provided good sources, which unfortunately is one of Larry's blind spots.

I admit calling Jefferson scum was a bit overboard. But it's an endearing feature of us Yanks to let it rip with our opinions. Sure we can be boorish, but other times our lack of shyness can lead to interesting developments with interaction.

Larry acts as if I called himself scum. I didn't. He had no right to call us that.


That Jefferson originally used the word subject instead of citizen shows he was a founding fake not father. I agree with your take, TLNL. The powers that be have a tendency to create facades that they actually care about regular guys and gals, while their main goal is rather to line their own pockets. Perhaps there hasn't been a finer American example of that than Huey Long.


It's also quite ridiculous of Larry to say since Jefferson had sexual relations with Sally Hemings, he wasn't racist. So he noticed that black women can be hot too. Whoop-da-de-doo.


This thread kind of crystalises what I was trying to say with this "Thomas Jefferson Was Scum" blog post.

badnegro: I never read it. My point is how many people attempt to disconnect the past from the present. How many times have we heard that something was in the past, specifically this type of racism and thought. There is no question that this country has come a long way, but there are still those that harbor similar feelings to Jefferson to one degree or another. And, often those who seem to be friendly are also harboring those feelings.

The other interesting thing is that none of this seems to affect the view of the founding fathers. They are virtually never criticized for this flaw in their judgements.



It wasn't just racism either that gets glossed over concerning the founding fathers. They were the ones who set down the framework for economic inequality. That transcends race relations in that there are many poor whites in America, and unfortunately they are susceptible to divide and conquer tactics. Thus you end up with say people supporting Ronald Reagan, who was the last person they should have supported.


Here's a link to Jefferson's Notes on the State of Virginia. The above thread kind of doesn't have much to it. Going to the source would make more sense for anyone interested.

Larry said...

Quite funny. Im a "nut" but yet ONCE AGAIN, my post is met with not ONE refutation of what I said, just ad hominem attacks and labeling and namecalling. Where's the refutations???

Im called a neo-Nazi despite the fact that I expose Nazi's AND neo-nazis on my blog and Im a big fan of Jim Marrs, who writes about the fact that there's still Nazis and their decendants still in this country from project Paperclip after WWII.

Im called an Alex Jones zombie despite the fact that I have criticized him over and over on my blog and even sacrificed being an unofficial writer for them after I exposed their hypocrisy over free speech. i mentioned Lincoln because the other guy said Jefferson did the EXACT same things Lincoln did!! duhhhh

socrates said...

Larry said: i mentioned Lincoln because the other guy said Jefferson did the EXACT same things Lincoln did!! duhhhh

Who is this other guy you're speaking of, and what was the context? If you can't make sense, why should anyone care what you're talking about. Some other guy said Jefferson did the exact same thing as Lincoln? Wtf are you talking about? Are you talking about something written in the article I linked to in The Atlantic? I'm not a mind reader. No one likes to read unclear prose, Better yet, please go away. I don't read or care about your blog. Strange that you keep coming back here.

the_last_name_left said...

L:I expose Nazi's AND neo-nazis on my blog
-------

Oh yeah.....like "exposing" Willis Carto......by linking to him!

What other examples are there? Let's see them?

socrates said...

Larry also links to Mike Rivero, and through Mikey, one can find a whole lot of neonazis. Geez, Rivero got busted by Mysterious S. Boyle years ago pimping for the Special Forces Underground and Carto.



On a side tangent, TLNL, it looks like Debate Both Sides has been deleted for good. I looked into it. The moderator there invited 9/11 debunkers in to duke it out with the "truthers." Then it looks like both sides called each other porn producers and pedophiles. People complained to the owners who run a consulting firm. Heck, I had complaints pouring into DBS for the same kind of cyberstalking or smearing going on with my good name.

So hundreds of my posts there are gone, but I don't mind. I mean, I don't like it when things get deleted, but DBS was one of the biggest garbage pits of all time with the fish rotting from the moderator's head down. I shouldn't have had to go directly to the owners to get shit removed. I even got some help from a non-profit specialising in stopping cyber harassment.

It wasn't just the chemtrail crap piling up there. The whole thing was stinking up the net. I can't remember the last time I posted there. I stopped at those soapbloxes too. Donkeytale is back at those. Man, you'd think people would have some dignity and know when to totally quit disgusting blogs.

I haven't even done your kind of thing in a long time, where you go to a place for a little bit to duke it out, like you did with the Hawaiian paper. I think the last time I did that was when we were at the Washington something or other. I forget the name of it. I like how some of these dummies like Giordano show up here. It's a lot easier to fight these dudes on one's own turf away from corrupt blogs. I'm not saying all blogs are corrupt, but a good sized chunk of them seem to be.

socrates said...

I could use a nap. I didn't sleep much last night. The heat wave finally broke though, so things might be getting better here, even on a personal level. It's tough to get anything done when it's as hot as it's been. We've still got high unemployment going on. America ain't what it used to be. A lot less were struggling to find work when Clinton was President. Obama and assorted Governors might want to get some job creation going or they're gonna be booted out of office. I'm not going hungry. The term used is underemployed. There's also some garbage way of calculating unemployment rates where the authorities in charge of such a thing don't count people who they consider have given up. Now how do they calculate that?

Larry said...

Yes, it was BOB who said this:

"Jefferson's vision was of an America without black people in it. He may have seen that slavery needed to eventually come to an end, but his opinion was that slaves should be deported back to Africa".

He didnt SAY "Jefferson did the same thing Lincoln did"--I said that. But what he's describing in his quote is what LINCOLN actualy did, NOT Jefferson!

TLNL, you once said that "no one really knows what Alex Jones believes" yet you are 100% POSITIVE that his views are EXACTLY the same as Carto's??? Ive said this a few times before and like EVERYTHING ELSE I say in which I make an EXCELLENT point or irrefutable statement, it got IGNORED, every single time. It will be ignored this time too, I'm quite sure.

Nothing in my last post was refuted. In fact, I have never EVER been refuted on my blog. It's very RARE that TLNL or anyone even attempts to stick to the subject of my post, and even more rare that it is evident that TLNL even READS my posts----but yet he claims he refutes them??? Name ONE time you have refuted ANYTHING Ive ever said on my blog [backed up with verifiable links and sources]---your unverified OPINIONS do not count.

name ONE time....ONE.

You cant--therefore you WONT. Your OWN words have shot you down just as much as mine have. Ive caught you on contradiction after contradiction and Ive refuted you on just about every issue [ESPECIALLY 9-11] and yet you still come back for more like some brain dead boxer who keeps getting his ass kicked and has CLEARLY lost, but keeps coming back to take more devastating blows.

You RARELY even ADDRESS what I say---it's MORE rare [because it's never happened] that you refute me. Was McCormick Center a UNIVERSAL COLLAPSE as you claimed?? NO, it wasnt. You couldnt even provide a PICTURE of it, let alone could you provide PICTURES of any other building that has collapsed [universally/straight down...NOT crumbling] solely due to fire....[because no others HAVE].

Then when I ask to see PROOF and the pictures....you tell ME to "look it up"! Quite funny. Obvious signs of major and unequivocal PANIC--and it's very amusing.

Larry said...

I didnt even post that twice, but somehow it still did----weird.

socrates said...

Blogger can be glitchy at times. I deleted the double post.


That quote was mine. It's in the main body of the original essay right above the screenshot of Mount Rushmore.

You should really try to be less sloppy with things like that. It's tough enough the way you tend to go on one of your anti-social tirades. It's even worse when you obviously just skim things and then blurt out your thoughts.

Thanks for that. I was correct that you bringing Lincoln into this was off-topic. I don't mind that to an extent, but when it's not made clear what the connection is, it's annoying. There's a reason we take English classes of all varieties. Perhaps that wasn't your best topic.

Neither Jefferson nor Lincoln from what I know sent slaves back to the African continent. I do know that two countries formed there for that purpose, Sierra Leone and Liberia.

It's quite hypocritical of you to say no one sticks to responding to the content of your posts. Now you are going to bring in 9/11? This blog does not revolve around you.

TLNL can respond for himself if he wants to, but here's the thing about Alex Jones and his close ties to Willis Carto along with your ties to them and others like Rense and Dees.

It's been proven that you have been prominently linking to Rense and Michael Rivero. I'm betting you still do. Rivero is a frequent guest on Alex Jones' show.

If you are what you eat, you're also what you promote through links. When I was first starting out blogging, I used to mess up a bit. I once linked to Rense concerning some people thinking the atmosphere's being tampered with. That was many years ago. But eventually the smell that has been coming out of your "Patriot" Network was too much to miss. I'm much more careful now about who I link to.

Has Mike Rivero ever condemned Curtis Maynard for what he wrote? Has Rivero ever apologised for having promoted Carto? I don't think so. And there you are at your blog with a big banner linking to What Really Happened. Ridiculous.

the_last_name_left said...

L: TLNL, you once said that "no one really knows what Alex Jones believes" yet you are 100% POSITIVE that his views are EXACTLY the same as Carto's???
---------

No - I wouldn't ever claim someone's views were "exactly" the same as someone else's. It's impossible.

My position is that Carto and Jones share a helluva lot (of ideological garbage) - they're both fascists. They are also both conspiracists - Carto in an openly anti-semitic fashion.

Carto is more obviously fascist - he isn't ashamed of it, nor does he much try to hide it.

Jones' position requires that he rhetorically distances himself from fascism - else people like you (his fans) would be more inclined to doubt his legitimacy. There's lots of nazi sites - many saying much the same thing as Jones. But they don't get the visitors or the influence Jones does.

Think about it? What is Jones' claimed expertise, if any? Propaganda.

the_last_name_left said...

Larry, simply read something?

=======
The core mobilizing myth of fascism which conditions its ideology, propaganda, style of politics, and actions is the vision of the nation’s imminent rebirth from decadence.
=======

There's a lot more to it, but it's impossible to escape seeing Alex Jones in that "core myth" of fascism.

He qualifies on much else besides. I think that's an objective fact.

We can argue about a definition of fascism.....everyone does. But accepting regular definition, Jones objectively qualifies imo.

Regardless, it is an undoubted fact that Alex Jones heavily promotes the far-right - specifically the Willis Carto element.

On the other stuff - we disagree over just about everything, Larry. Including the character of our interactions.

Larry said...

"My position is that Carto and Jones share a helluva lot (of ideological garbage) - they're both fascists. They are also both conspiracists - Carto in an openly anti-semitic fashion."

You have never PROVEN it!!!!!

Just SAYING it doesnt make it TRUE.

Socrates, how do you get that bringing Lincoln into it was OFF topic if you are completely WRONG about Jefferson wanting all black people sent back to Africa but it was TRUE that LINCOLN wanted that?? He even created a department in his adminstration for the SOLE PURPOSE of sending all blacks back to Africa. WHO cant read???

TLNL, LOVED how you came through ONCE AGAIN and IGNORED every word of my post----the one that predicted you'd IGNORE it. You never disappoint!

Funny how you 2 can repeatedly mention Carto, Jones and Rense ad nauseum when the topic of the post has NOTHING to do with them, but when I mention LINCOLN even AFTER I explain what the connection is between him and your post, you claim "off topic"---amazing. What does your post have to do with Carto, Jones and Rivero? ZIPPO! Yet did you ask TLNL to stay on topic? NOPE!

Larry said...

By the way socrates, the issue with Obama's birthplace is NOT why I dont believe hes not an american citizen. He could have been born on the White House lawn, it still wouldnt change the fact that Obama's father was a BRITISH citizen [since he was a Kenyan national and Kenya was under British rule in 1961]. The Constitution clearly states you have to be a NATURAL BORN citizen to be eligible for Prez----having a father who is a BRITISH CITIZEN makes Obama NOT a NATURAL BORN citizen, because a NATURAL BORN citizen means you have to have TWO American citizens as your parents. The parents dont both have to be NATURAL BORN, but they DO have to be AMERICAN citizens. Obama's father was NOT an AMERICAN citizen. Obama's real name is Barry Soetoro.

Gonna attempt to refute that, or more labelling and namecalling?

socrates said...

From The Atlantic article by Conor Cruise O'Brien.

In theory Jefferson's "solution" to slavery consisted in "colonization": the deportation of all the freed blacks from the United States, preferably back to Africa. Cohen:

"The entire body of Jefferson's writings shows that he never seriously considered the possibility of any form of racial coexistence on the basis of equality and that, from at least 1778 until his death, he saw colonization as the only alternative to slavery."


Above that one can see that Jefferson was also against miscegenation. That's my retort to your wild claim that Jefferson having sex (rape?) with Sally Hemings, that proves he wasn't racist. Sure none of us were there, but I think it's ludicrous to think there was anything consensual between them in the true sense of the word. I doubt there was any love between them, not between a racist and a slave.

Hemings, Jefferson: No free will, no love


Finally, wtf are you doing bringing birther crap into this thread? Where did I say anything about Obama and his birthplace? I only said Obama needs to start creating jobs, or he might not win a second term. How can you post such things?

TLNL, you've been proven correct that giving this guy the floor results in him losing any debate on arrival. Is this the best and brightest coming out of the Alex Jones zeitgeist? I doubt it.

Larry said...

Socrates, I don't give a rats ass what The Atlantic says, it was LINCOLN who believed in colonization was the answer to slavery and who wanted black people out of the country. He wanted them gone so it would create more jobs for white laborers. Lincoln appointed James Mitchell as his Commissioner of Emigration to remove all blacks from Washington DC and the country altogether. Lincoln was ALL for colonization. My guess is, the Atlantic writer took the facts from Lincoln and attributed them to Jefferson because he hates the Constitution. You might want to do some reading on Lincoln but stay away from the "Lincoln freed slaves/Lincoln saved the Union" cultists.

Larry said...

By the way socrates, good refute job of Obama's father being a British citizen and Barry Soetoro not being eligible for Prez!! I knew you'd IGNORE it!

Larry said...

Oh and socrates, when have I ever lost ONE debate with TLNL? Name ONE occasion.....ONE.

Ill be waiting for your post in which you IGNORE the question.

socrates said...

You don't give a rat' ass about The Atlantic but do for quite a number of crazy, conspiracy theory websites. Larry, it's not in my interest to give you the time of day. You are an embarrassment, just like Alex Jones and Carto.

You're of no use to anyone educated. None og this is personal. It's the way it is. You say things like "what the other guy said, Lincoln, blah, blah, blah," and it turned out to be something I wrote in the main entry having nothing to do with Lincoln. Your brain isn't working properly. Do you do drugs or take medication? Or do you drink a lot? Beyond all your blatherings, there appears to be something seriosly off-kilter about you. I just hope you are able to get medical treatment rather than prison, if you end up freaking out like it often sounds.

Now you are really starting to pile on the spam. You say, "having a father who is a BRITISH CITIZEN makes Obama NOT a NATURAL BORN citizen, because a NATURAL BORN citizen means you have to have TWO American citizens as your parents."

Care to prove this?

Please go away. You stink. You're like a fourth grader. You never prove anything. You scream a lot and curse. Seriously, go away. You don't realise it, but you're not worth the time to read. To figure out where you come up with your thoughts might be mildly interesting but not enough to stop my fingers from heading towards the delete button. You're a spammer. Sifference between you an me is I don't need anyone commenting. My stuff stands on its own. If the place builds up, fine. If not, that's the way the cake crumbles. You mean nothing to this blog or to whoever reads it. You're not wanted here. You're kind of creepy.

Anyone can go to the National Wingnut Appreciation Day thread and see what you're all about. GO AWAY!

socrates said...

Darn typos. The word crikey comes to mind.

Larry said...

Once again, no refutations to ANY of my posts---just more "Larry, youre a nut, a kook" blah blah blah, without ONE question of mine answered and without ONE thing I said refuted. Typical.

You want proof Obama's father was a BRITISH citizen??? That's EASY! Go to ANY website and you'll see that he was a Kenyn national---that's not even a THEORY, and its NOT refuted. In 1961, Kenya was under British rule, that makes him a BRITISH citizen. According to the British Nationality Law of 1948 Barack Obama was born a citizen of the UNITED KINGDOM by DESCENT because his father was a citizen of the UK.

This means CLEARLY that Obama is NOT qualified to be POTUS, because it is CLEARLY stated in the Constitution that you must be a NATURAL BORN citizen of the US, meaning you have to be born to TWO parents who are AMERICAN CITIZENS----what dont you get???? Do you need flash cards?

So, you see, Obama's birthplace doesnt matter at all, because his father was a BRITISH CITIZEN---making Obama AUTOMATICALLY ineligible to be POTUS. This is like 2+2 to me, but to people like you that need everything done for you, it apparently is not.

Do you NOT know the difference between a US citizen and a NATURAL BORN citizen, or would you like that explained?

Even on Obama's father's wikipedia page it says, under his nationality "Kenyan, British"---here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama,_Sr.

Geesh! What else do you need???? Since Obama's father was a BRITISH citizen, then it's automatic-----poof----Obama: NOT ELIBIBLE for President! It's not up for debate. It's clear---crystal clear, he's NOT eligible---period!

You are a liar, a fraud and an agent of disinfo, the very thing you claim Mike Rivero of being. And the amazing thing is, you do it with your OWN words. You said in a post on this thread:

"I admit calling Jefferson scum was a bit overboard."

Yet, did you change the title of your post? NOPE. You ADMIT calling him that name was out of line, yet you STILL keep the same title for your post, even AFTER I schooled you on the fact that it was LINCOLN, NOT Jefferson who believed that colonization of blacks was the solution to slavery and that he wanted all the blacks sent to Africa. LINCOLN wanted that, NOT Jefferson.

No comment about James Mitchell huh? I didnt think so. Who did JEFFERSON appoint in his cabinet to get rid of all the blacks? Hmmmm? Im listening.

the_last_name_left said...

L: In 1961, Kenya was under British rule, that makes him a BRITISH citizen.
-----

Wrong. Nobody was "a citizen of Britain" then - the British people were "subjects" of the Crown.

Until 1948 British colonies had British subjects too, not citizens of Britain or anywhere else. 1948 set up independent citizenship for the colonies - so a Canadian became Canadian, a Kenyan became a Kenyan citizen.

If subjects did not adopt or acquire such citizenship they became 'British subjects *without* citizenship'.

L: According to the British Nationality Law of 1948 Barack Obama was born a citizen of the UNITED KINGDOM by DESCENT because his father was a citizen of the UK.
-------

First off - what was Obama's Kenyan father's status when he was born? Was he a Kenyan citizen, or a British citizen by descent (CUKC), or a British subject without citizenship? You haven't offered this information - you simply asserted a plainly wrong fact and proceeded from there. You left out the crucial information.

You mentioned CUKC from 1948 - but "Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (CUKC), consisted of all those British subjects who had a close relationship (either through birth or descent) with the United Kingdom and its remaining colonies."

That doesn't include everyone, no matter what you think. The UK most certainly did not wish to grant every member of the colonies British citizenship and nationality. No way.

And what about the Immigration and Naturalisation laws that were passed subsequent to 1948 but before Obama's birth?

L: Since Obama's father was a BRITISH citizen, then it's automatic-----poof----Obama: NOT ELIBIBLE for President!
-------

You've done absolutely nothing to prove Obama's father was a British citizen, at Obama's birth or any other time.

Why would a Kenyan be "a British citizen"? WHY?

Furthermore, according to WIKI the U.S. Supreme Court has never specifically determined the meaning of "natural born citizen".

SO the supreme court hasn't specifically defined it - Larry has.

Strong case you got there, Larry. lol

You make the mistake of accepting your own opinion to be the facts of any matter.

socrates said...

No, I want proof that if his father wasn't a US citizen, then Obama wasn't ever elgible to run for the office. I don't have a clue about Obama's parents. I don't need to either, unless you can prove Obama never should have been allowed on the slate to beigin with. Get a fricken clue on how to prove any points you're trying to make.

Prove that, or you look like the biggest idiot of all time. Of course someone wanting to be President has to be a born American, just as they have to be at least 35 years old. What you're saying hasn't been backed up with proof.


Ok, I agree that in your own mind you schooled me. I don't know what Lincoln's policies were concerning if he wanted freed slaves to move back to Africa. It's not like you provided any proof of that anyway, whether it's true or not. You simply showed up to defend the racist Jefferson, who I provided proof he wanted potentially freed slaves to return to the African continent. Damn it, you are such a waste of time.

I haven't said one thing or another about Abe Lincoln's race relations policies. You look beyond foolish. Cough up your proof that someone born in America who has a parent from another country is ineligible to run for President. Also get in any other points you want to make soon, because at some point I am definitely going to delete you on sight regardless of whether you act uncivilised or not.

socrates said...

Thanks TLNL for understanding what I was asking him to prove. To use his own words, "I don't give a rat's ass" where Obama's parents were born, as long as Obama was born an American, which I'm sure he was. No one running for office is allowed any skeletons to remain hidden. Unless of course Larry's nwo conspiracy chatter is for real, which I highly doubt. I'm sure there are some conspiracy theorists worthy of respect and capable of partaking in decent conversations. However, Larry and his crowd are not them.

socrates said...

Wow Larry, you're the biggest jackass on the internet. You messed up big time. You've been peddling some 2008 email hoax, a fricken urban legend.

Email Claims Barack Obama Isn't a Natural-Born Citizen

It's just like I thought. Except for rare exceptions, people born in America are naturalised citizens. The exceptions are children of foreign heads of state or foreign diplomats.

So Larry, are you going to apologise for wasting our time? I doubt it.

socrates said...

And don't be saying I am nothing but insults and putdowns that should be deleted or I am running double standards as a mod. The things you post wouldn't be allowed spoken in a high school classroom. I'm sure the word jackass wouldn't get anyone in trouble except for the possible timing of it. Fool.

Larry said...

"First off - what was Obama's Kenyan father's status when he was born?"

It doesnt MATTER!! It ONLY matters where his CITIZENSHIP lay at the time of Barry Soetoro's birth! JACKASS.

To you Socrates, I guess I will have to REPEAT the difference between an AMERICAN CITIZEN and a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN since your 2nd grade level knowledge of the Constitution stands out like a turd in a punch bowl.

You said:

"No, I want proof that if his father wasn't a US citizen, then Obama wasn't ever elgible to run for the office. I don't have a clue about Obama's parents. I don't need to either"

The proof is the Constitution, which states that one has to be a N-A-T-U-R-A-L BORN CITIZEN. DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT THAT IS? Apparently you do NOT since you made this comment:

"To use his own words, "I don't give a rat's ass" where Obama's parents were born, as long as Obama was born an American, which I'm sure he was."

I dont care where they were born either----as long as they were either American BORN or naturalized American citizens, and Ive made it VERY CLEAR his Dad was NOT-----which means that you SHOULD CARE a great deal about that!

A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN is someone who MUST [did you see that word?]....MUST be born to TWO [not ONE] AMERICAN CITIZENS AND ALSO HAS TO BE BORN WITHIN THE UNITED STATES......PERIOD. They have to meet BOTH. Being ONLY an American citizen is NOT enough---you must be a NATURAL BORN citizen. There are several ways to be an American citizen-----but only ONE way to be NATURAL BORN---get it now?? The way you speak Socrates, you make it seem as if you ONLY have to be an American citizen------PLEASE show me in the Constitution where being ONLY an American citizen is enough---show me---show me. I will be IGNORED on that....as usual.

You foolishly said:

"Cough up your proof that someone born in America who has a parent from another country is ineligible to run for President."

Again, my proof is the CONSTITUTION which says one must be a NATURAL BORN citizen-----not JUST an American citizen as you claim. In your view, Arnold Swarzenegger can run for President. But according to the Constitution, he cannot. Case closed. This all boils down to you not knowing the difference between being an American citizen and a NATURAL BORN citizen. That makes you a colossal dunce.

You said:

"It's just like I thought. Except for rare exceptions, people born in America are naturalised citizens. The exceptions are children of foreign heads of state or foreign diplomats."

I am not talking about NATURALIZED citizens----I NEVER used the word "naturalized" in previous posts----I CLEARLY said you have to be a NATURAL BORN citizen---meaning : BORN TO TWO AMERICAN CITIZENS.

Incase you still do not comprehend this 2nd grade level information, here it is laid out:

Born in the United States: NATIVE BORN citizen

Born outside the US to 2 US citizens: American citizen

Born outside the US to non-American citizens but moves to the US and becomes a citizen: American citizen

Born INSIDE the US to ONE American parent: American citizen

Born INSIDE the US to TWO American citizens: NATURAL BORN CITIZEN

These are FACTS. Learn them

Larry said...

Socrates, in the link you posted under the "Analysis" section at the bottom, they completely LIE when they say:

"Any confusion on this point is the result of misunderstanding the legal concepts of jus sanguinis (right of blood) and jus soli (right of birthplace) as they apply to citizenship in the United States. Here's how the website of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service explained the matter in 2008:

The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees citizenship at birth to almost all individuals born in the United States or in U.S. jurisdictions, according to the principle of jus soli. Certain individuals born in the United States, such as children of foreign heads of state or children of foreign diplomats, do not obtain U.S. citizenship under jus soli.
Certain individuals born outside of the United States are born citizens because of their parents, according to the principle of jus sanguinis (which holds that the country of citizenship of a child is the same as that of his / her parents)."

The above paragraphs are ONLY referring to US CITIZENSHIP---they do not refer AT ALL to NATURAL BORN citizenship---they completely OMIT any reference to NATURAL BORN citizenship. LIES. LIES. LIES. I find that interesting since the ENTIRE point of that link was to "refute" that he wasnt Natural Born---but their "proof" completely OMITS mention of NATURAL BORN citizenship. Amazing!

And you two buffoons accepted it hook line and sinker or just ignored it!

Im sure when you respond, you will completely ignore the substance of my post and only focus on the fact that I used the word "buffoons" to dodge and deflect from my point.

the_last_name_left said...

ME: "First off - what was Obama's Kenyan father's status when he was born?"

L: It doesnt MATTER!! It ONLY matters where his CITIZENSHIP lay at the time of Barry Soetoro's birth!
----------

I meant "when Obama was born".

What was his father's citizenship when Obama was born?

YOU DON'T KNOW.

So stop claiming he was a British citizen? Or find some proof for it?

On the "citizen" vs "natural born" I already said the Supreme court has NEVER given a definition.

What obscure UNOFFICIAL opinion are you using to define "natural born", Larry?

Where is your definition coming from? Let's see it?

socrates said...

Whatever. I wrote the wrong word. People born in America are eligible to run for President, unless their parents are visiting diplomats. GET OFF THIS BLOG. I'll put it this way, if you can't leave voluntarily, or I'll do my best to ensure nothing you post ever remains on this website remains. TLNL, I'd rather you take this to his blog, if you wish to discuss anything with it further. I don't want him here. I find him nauseating. I don't like him. He and others like him will ruin this blog if not checked. The big capital letters. The illogical, time wasting posts. The gutter language. He's a very ugly person, and I've had enough of this.

Larry said...

So in other words Socrates, you cant REFUTE anything I said huh? Shocker. So youd rather see me GONE, because that's much easier than you researching and refuting what I say.

God youre pathetic.

TLNL, on Obama Sr's wikipedia page, NOWHERE does it say he wasan American citizen, NOWHERE. In fact, on the right side of the page under his picture where it lists his nationality [British, Kenyan] click that small [4] beside where it says "British" and it takes you to the the number 4 reference where it states "At least until 11 December 1963"----meaning he was BRITISH up until 1963.

Do you have an evidence he was an American citizen????? HMmmmmmmmm????

Larry said...

"Whatever. I wrote the wrong word. People born in America are eligible to run for President, unless their parents are visiting diplomats."

You write MANY wrong words.

It is NOT ENOUGH to JUST be born in America to run for President. This is EXACTLY why the term NATURAL BORN is used. If the founders just meant you had to be BORN here, there would have no reason to use the term NATURAL BORN.

socrates said...

That's it. Those will be your last two posts on this blog. You're a waste of time and not even a nice person.

the_last_name_left said...

L: If the founders just meant you had to be BORN here, there would have no reason to use the term NATURAL BORN.

----

That's Larry's entire argument. His belief what the founders "meant". The fact is, they don't define it. The Supreme Court hasn't either.

Whether Obama's father was Kenyan or British is irrelevant. People resort to such argument when they've nothing much else to say.

Even if Obama was ineligible to stand he was still elected. Not Ron Paul. That's the political reality that drives Larry and others into such frenzy of irrelevance. Never any recognition that the VAST majority of America rejected Ron Paul and all the rest of it that Troofers and Patriots represent. REJECTED. Ever see that acknowledged? lol

socrates said...

Thanks TLNL for telling it like it is. Larry's presenting his warped opinion as fact. He can't stand to admit this whole thing was started by one of those urban legend emails. I hate to censor, but this goes beyond the time wasting nature of his posts. The guy is toxic. I guess I could let him remain on this one thread and just ignore him, and if by chance he shows up elsewhere, I can zap his posts. It'll be like a quarrantine. Ok, that's how I'll deal with this.

Larry said...

"That's it. Those will be your last two posts on this blog. You're a waste of time and not even a nice person."

BRILLIANT reply!!! Nowhere CLOSE to a refutation. Ron Paul wasnt elected because he didnt have billions of dollars to get his message out like the other pre-selected corporate-financed elitists that are well paid for by the people who REALLY run things, the bankers. Come on guys, even YOU two should know that elections dont mean a thing!

Geesh!

So socrates, I take it you will now censor your blog like a true Nazi...the very people you claim to hate? LOL

socrates said...

The wingnut, one who is in bed with neonazis such as Jeff Rense, is allowed to continue. It must have missed my last post.

Once I figured out his "Obama not eligible to run for President" spiel originated from an email chain letter, this ballgame was officially over as far as my continuing to feed the troll.

If it desies to continue with its wanking off in public via DFQ2, such gibberish will be quarantined to this specific thread.

Larry said...

"Once I figured out his "Obama not eligible to run for President" spiel originated from an email chain letter, this ballgame was officially over as far as my continuing to feed the troll."

I have already explained to you dweebs that the "hoax" youre referring to [of which you sent the link] ONLY made references to refuting whether Obama was an AMERICAN CITIZEN------it completely OMITS any refutation of him NOT being a NATURAL BORN citizen IN WHICH YOU MUST BE to be eligible for Prez.

Also, the scores and scores of media reports on this about the "birthers" was ONLY addressing Obama's BIRTHPLACE-----NOT whether his father was or was not an American citizen, because once it is discovered or acknowledged that Obama Sr was NOT am American citizen----then it is AUTOMATIC: Barack Hussein Obama is NOT eligible to be President. It wouldnt matter if Obama was born next to the fucking Statue of Liberty or Liberty Bell.....if his Dad was not an American citizen [which he wasnt] he is NOT eligible to be Prez. Period. Case closed.

TLNL--why did you ignore this?:

"TLNL, on Obama Sr's wikipedia page, NOWHERE does it say he wasan American citizen, NOWHERE. In fact, on the right side of the page under his picture where it lists his nationality [British, Kenyan] click that small [4] beside where it says "British" and it takes you to the the number 4 reference where it states "At least until 11 December 1963"----meaning he was BRITISH up until 1963."

Actually, we both KNOW why you ignored it. LOL

the_last_name_left said...

your source - [4] on Obama Snr's wiki is uncredited. It's just a claim. By who? We don't know.

You don't know.

If you want to say Obama's dad was "a citizen of UK and colonies" fine -- that seems the most likely position. We still don't have any actual definite evidence for it. Just a wiki claim.

[And, CUKC is not the same as a citizen of UK - which you claimed]

Further - this point is secondary to your main one about what "natural-born" means.

You have ignored my request for your definition, and its source.

What is your definition? Based upon what exactly?

the_last_name_left said...

This is from fightthesmears.com

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”
================

http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate


--------

All that remains is for Larry to show where he gets his definition of "natural-born".

Funny, he's so certain of the definition and what the constitution means by "natural-born" yet he refuses to give the foundation for his claim.

Larry is his own source - he believes that's what the constitution meant. The fact is, the constitution does not say.

the_last_name_left said...

On "natural born", we have this British history of the term:

British nationality law has its origins in medieval England. There has always been a distinction in English law between the subjects of the monarch and aliens: the monarch's subjects owed him (her) allegiance, and included those born in his (her) dominions (natural-born subjects) and those who later gave him (her) their allegiance (naturalised subjects or denizens).

A summary of early English common law is provided by Sir William Blackstone, who wrote about the law in 1765-69.1. Natural-born subjects were born within the dominion of the crown.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_British_nationality_law
-----------------------

the US constitution is 1787.

How can one argue the anglo-American framers of constitution completely redefined "natural-born" when they never explicitly did so? British history says the term meant "born in the dominion" - at the time the US Constitution was penned. The Constitution omits any definition - if they had wanted it to be understood completely differently to how it was accepted, they'd have made it clear. They didn't. QED

the_last_name_left said...

Moreover, US law still holds that anyone born in dominion of USA is American.

End of argument.

socrates said...

Larry's a conspiracy theory freak. Not only is he rarely correct about anything, he is a very nasty individual. TLNL, here's US law describing the requirements for one to be considered a natural born citizen and hence eligible to run for President. On a side note, I hope local law enforcement is keeping an eye on this person and making sure he doesn't become the next famous, internet crazy.

Real Truth Online said...

"Moreover, US law still holds that anyone born in dominion of USA is American.

End of argument."

How many times now have I specifically addressed the fact that being an AMERICAN CITIZEN ALONE is not ENOUGH to be eligible for POTUS?????? A dozen? Yet, you keep REPEATING your bullshit about JUST being an American citizen!

Are you retarded??

Real Truth Online said...

"I hope local law enforcement is keeping an eye on this person and making sure he doesn't become the next famous, internet crazy."

An "internet crazy" that you have YET to debunk!

LOL

the_last_name_left said...

L: How many times now have I specifically addressed the fact that being an AMERICAN CITIZEN ALONE is not ENOUGH to be eligible for POTUS??????
---

not once.

all you do is repeat the same claim.

How many times have you refused to give your source for this claim?

You want to avoid giving your source because there isn't any source for such a claim.

You can't just make things up, L. Well, at least you can't expect others to just believe it. Silly boy.

Now come on? Let's have you substantiate this claim, or admit you can't?

socrates said...

This may sound crazy, but what if Larry isn't who he claims to be? Maybe this is all some act, not as crazy as Hal Turner, but right up there. Larry's gone turned himself into a caricature of a closed-minded nutjob.

He says he hasn't been debunked, yet in plain English is the US Law explaining how Obama is a natural born American by definition. It says nothing about parents of other countries.

In fact, Larry's argument is so ludicrous, that I have trouble now believing he is acting sincere. For otherwise he must be completely insane or be autistic. There must be an explanation. Or maybe he gets paid to inflame people on the internet.

I think he's insane, though he might be a Hal Turner like internet presence. Can anyone be this stupid?

Larry said...

"How many times have you refused to give your source for this claim?"

I gve the source many times----the CONSTITUTION.

How many times have you refused to PROVE that Obama Sr was an AMERICAN citizen?? Not once.

Socrates, if ad hominem attacks were refutations, then I would have been debunked LONG ago. Why not actually ADDRESSING and DEBUNKING something I say rather than to say OVER and OVER "nut", "kook"--blah blah blah? You two dont even DEBUNK Rivero or others you claim to despise. You just call them nutballs and your done---with NO refutations.

socrates said...

US Code 1401: The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof; ...



Where's Larry's copy and paste of his so-called proof from the Constitution that Obama isn't legally President?

Larry won't even explain how he originally came up with this new schtick. Was he reading the Constitution while taking a dump and went hmmm, "According to this, Obama wasn't even eligible to run." I doubt it.

Larry probably got the chain email, or he read about it while surfing through his favourite "Illuminati" and neonazi websites. Larry = Waste of Time

the_last_name_left said...

Indeed - Larry won't reference his reference because there isn't any. (Other than some kook's opinion that "it is so!")

And he's clearly too embarassed to give even that.

Seems he knows it ain't worth shit.

:D

socrates said...

Obama's not even the first President who had at least one parent from another country. There were six others.

link

Andrew Jackson had Scottish-Irish parents who came from Northern Ireland. He became President in 1829. You'd think if there was any truth to what Larry is saying, Jackson never would have been allowed to enter office.


I agree with you TLNL that Larry doesn't even believe what he's saying. He messed up, and instead of owning up to it, he's acting like we don't have a clue. Ha, Larry's been peddling some email chain letter nonsense as truth, and unfortunately for him, he's been exposed as an epic fail of a human being.

Larry said...

"US Code 1401: The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof; ..."

Theres not ONE reference in that blurb about the qualifications of President. ONCE AGAIN, it just refers to what makes someone an AMERICAN citizen-----being ONLY an AMERICAN citizen isnt enough---how many fucking times do I have to say that?

"Obama's not even the first President who had at least one parent from another country. There were six others."

I have already said in earlier posts that it doesnt NOT matter where a Presidents parents were BORN, it only matters if they are American citizens---but for some strange fucking reason, you two keep REPEATING and REPEATING the lie that ONLY being an American citizen is good enough for Prez. The six Presidents you refered to Socrates all had parents who were AMERICAN CITIZENS.

I NEVER ONCE SAID that the PARENTS of the candidate running for Prez had to be NATURAL BORN citizens. The parents only have to be AMERICAN citizens-----the candidate RUNNING has to have TWO AMERICAN citizen parents AND born INSIDE the US.

Did you forget this post already or is this the first time reading it?:

"Incase you still do not comprehend this 2nd grade level information, here it is laid out:

Born in the United States: NATIVE BORN citizen

Born outside the US to 2 US citizens: American citizen

Born outside the US to non-American citizens but moves to the US and becomes a citizen: American citizen

Born INSIDE the US to ONE American parent: American citizen

Born INSIDE the US to TWO American citizens: NATURAL BORN CITIZEN"

I will REPEAT one final time:

The Presidential candidate running for Prez has to have TWO AMERICAN citizen parents----[it DOESNT MATTER where their PARENTS were born, but ONLY if they are American citizens!] The candidate running has to have TWO American citizen parents AND born INSIDE the US]

Get it now???

Larry said...

By the way Socrates----the one comment left under the story in the link you posted is interesting. The poster says:

"Jefferson and Jackson were grandfathered in as natural born citizens because they were alive when it was adopted. Of the remaining 4, how many of these foreign born parents didn't stay here in the US or become US citizens, I wonder?"

The commentor is correct. The founders who were alive when the Constitution was adopted were grandfathered in---so Jefferson and Jackson are exempt from the NATURAL BORN qualification. The commentor says "Of the remaining 4, how many of these foreign born parents didn't stay here in the US or become US citizens, I wonder?"

The answer: NONE

They all became citizens.

God it feels so good DESTROYING you with facts!!

Larry said...

Only ONE President has NOT had TWO American citizen parents....

Barack Hussein Obama

Larry said...

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 “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.”

Here are the FACTS concerning the 6 Presidents you “claim” are not Natural Born Citizens. TWO of them were NOT [but did not HAVE TO BE, they were grandfathered in since they were alive at the adoption of the Constitution----as it says above in 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

1. Thomas Jefferson----alive at the adoption of Constitution-----grandfathered in

2. Andrew Jackson----alive at the adoption of Constitution----grandfathered in

3. James Buchanan ---father became American citizen upon marriage to Buchanan’s mother, Elizabeth Speer. The reason why Obama’s father cannot claim American citizenship status upon marriage to Ann Dunham is because he was a Kenyan national [therefore a British citizen] and the British Nationality Law of 1948 does NOT allow dual citizenship. He could not have enjoyed American citizenship after marriage to Ann Dunham while at the same time stayed a Kenyan national. [see Obama info below].

4. Chester Arthur (1881-1885) Born: October 5, 1829 in Fairfield, Vermont. Father- William Arthur, when eighteen years of age, emigrated from Co. Antrim, Ireland. Father did not become a naturalized citizen until 14 years after Chester Arthur’s birth. Mother- Malvina Stone born April 29, 1802 in Berkshire, Franklin, Vermont. Chester Arthur born with dual citizenship of the United Kingdom and the United States. Chester Arthur lied numerous times about his past to obfuscate his ineligibility to hold Vice-Presidential and Presidential office. Burned all personal records upon his death.

5. Woodrow Wilson’s mother Jessie Janet Woodrow automatically became a US citizen upon her marriage to his US citizen father, Reverend Dr. Joseph Ruggles Wilson.

6. Herbert Hoover’s mother, Hulda Randall Minthorn, automatically gained US citizenship upon her marriage to Hoover’s father, Jesse Hoover in 1870.

Barack Hussein Obama II (2009-) Born: August 4, 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii. Father- Barack Obama, Sr. was born in Kanyadhiang village, Rachuonyo District, Lake Victoria, Kendu Bay, Kenya (at the time a colony of the British Empire) in 1936. Mother- Stanley Ann Dunham, later know as Ann Dunham Soetoro after divorce from Obama II’s father, was born at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas on November 29, 1942. Father was not a naturalized citizen at the time of his birth. Barack Obama II was born with dual citizenship of the United Kingdom and the United States. Possible adoption by Indonesian father coupled with continuance of Indonesian citizenship as an adult (travel to Pakistan, possible US college enrollment as a foreign student) could negate US citizenship or at least imply another dual citizenship. Circumstantial evidence exists Obama II born in Kenya and his parents later registered the birth in Hawaii. If born in Kenya, Obama II is not a US citizen at all due to 1952 statute not allowing mother to convey citizenship due to her age and time residing in United States past the age of 14.

Anything else for me to debunk??

the_last_name_left said...

Larry, where are you getting this definition of natural-born from? Your definition doesn't appear in the Constitution - nor in any Supreme Court ruling. So where does it come from?

At the time natural-born was understood to mean "born within the dominions of the state". The framers of the constitution used the phrase, but never defined it. Seems they took the phrase to be well understood - as meaning "born in the dominions of the state".

So where are you getting this additional qualification that the parents of natural-born citizens must be citizens of the USA too? It doesn't say that in the Constitution....so where are you getting it from?

I've asked this repeatedly - and you refuse to answer. Simply repeating your claim is not an answer to where you get your definition.

it seems clear you don't have a source for your definition.

Show us where the Constitution says the President's parents must be citizens? QUOTE IT?

Clearly, you can't.

--------

Funny, you claim to be such a constitutionalist and yet you're inventing things and insisting they are constitutional when they don't appear in the Constitution.

You are what you claim to hate.

socrates said...

Larry's correct that my recent link was stupid, but that's what's going to happen. Stupid can be contagious.


Only a moron would think Obama wasn't a natural born citizen, seeing how he was born in Hawaii.

Why won't Larry post his proof? It's because it doesn't exist. Normal people admit when they are wrong, like I just did. Larry doesn't, as if he's autistic. Something's wrong with Larry's brain chemistry.

Unless of course he's simply being a troll. He should be able to show what he's talkign about from the Constitution. Or he should be able to link to something which gave him the idiotic idea Obama isn't legally President, because his father was Kenyan. Larr's got some very troubling psychological problems. I don't think the internet is where he should be spending so much time. He's a likely candidate to go off the deep end. He's got Alex Jonesitis or Hal Turneritis. He's got no capacity to recognise fact from fiction from what may or may not be possibly true. Maybe he had an extreme head injury. Something ain't right about Larry.

Larry said...

"Larry's correct that my recent link was stupid"-----not as stupid as these two contradictory sentences from you:

"Larry's correct that my recent link was stupid, but that's what's going to happen. Stupid can be contagious.

Only a moron would think Obama wasn't a natural born citizen, seeing how he was born in Hawaii."

The first sentence you say your link was stupid because they listed 6 Presidents that they heavily imply were NOT qualified to be President because of their foreign born parents---after I debunked ALL 6 you come back and say "My link was stupid"-----

THEN in your very next sentence you say "Only a moron would think Obama wasn't a natural born citizen, seeing how he was born in Hawaii"---which completely contradicts your first sentence because if you ADMIT the link was stupid because of the fact that the link tries to debunk people who claim that it MATTERS where a Presidents PARENTS were born [which I debunked by specifically PROVING that it is not just the Presidents' BIRTHPLACE that matters but also WHERE the Presidents parents were BORN] then saying "...seeing how he [Obama] was born in Hawaii" make NO sense whatsoever since the Presidents BIRTHPLACE is not the ONLY thing that makes a person NATURAL BORN.

Are you REALLY that stupid?

Why did you COMPLETELY IGNORE the big paragraph I posted about Obama underneath the 6 Presidents I listed and why they were qualified to run??? Care to address that?

Posting that link proves just ONE thing Socrates: Just like 9-11 and every other thing you spew out ad hominem attacks at me for----you only spend about 15 seconds of research on the things you attempt to debunk me on. I bet all you did was type in "Natural born Presidents" into a google search bar and sent the link to the first story you saw---and you didnt do more than 15 seconds of research.

That's why Im killing you two with FACTS. I spend TIME researching this stuff----and you two continually claim that it's a left/right issue----as if Im some far right nut who loves and protects Republicans---despite the fct that I CONTINUALLY condemn Republicans on my blog and that I think Lincoln and Bush were the worst 2 Presidents this country ever had and Kennedy was one of the BEST we ever had [and he was a Democrat].

You two are PATHETIC.

TLNL, Im sick and tired of your same old tiresome "show me proof" bullshit. The Constitution is all I need because IN the section I posted:

“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 founders SPECIFICALLY say "NO PERSON EXCEPT a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN..." is eligible for President. If they meant just ANYONE who was an AMERICAN citizen, they would NOT have said in the very next sentence "or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution".

They made it VERY CLEAR in that sentence that the ONLY people that are qualified to be President as American citizens ONLY are the ones who were STILL ALIVE at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. That EXCLUDES EVERYONE born AFTER 1789 as being able to be eligible by ONLY being an American citizen. Everyone born AFTER 1789 had to be born here AND have TWO American citizen parents!!

Do you get this now??????????

Larry said...

In other words---there would have been NO NEED for a grandfather clause in the Constitution [where those born BEFORE 1798 were exempt from having to be born here or having two American citizen parents] if just ANYONE who is JUST an American citizen ONLY could be eligible.

If you two retards think that being an American citizen is ALL YOU NEED-----then what's the purpose of the grandfather clause in the Constitution???

Hmmmmmmm???????

Larry said...

Obviously i meant 1789 in my last post.

socrates said...

I didn't say the link was stupid. I said my point was. Unlike you, I have the ability to admit when I'm wrong.

Your stupidity can be contagious. You are a waste of time.


GIVE THE PROOF THAT NATURAL BORN CITIZENSHIP IS BASED NOT JUST ON ONE BEING BORN IN AMERICA AND HAS TO DO ALSO WITH A PERSON'S PARENT'S CITIZENRY OR YOU WILL BE DELETED ON SIGHT. I THINK YOU ARE A PIECE OF SHIT WHO SHOULD GET THE HELL OFF THIS BLOG. YOU'RE SCUM.

SHOW THE PROOF THAT A PERSON'S PARENTS MATTER IN REGARDS TO THEIR BEING CONSIDERED A NATURAL BORN AMERICAN.

YOU CAN'T DO THAT. ALL YOU CAN DO IS SPAM A BLOG WHICH YOU CONSIDER PATHETIC. YOU ARE BEYOND PATHETIC, AND BASED ON YOUR INTERNET HISTORY, LAW ENFORCEMENT SHOULD KEEP AN EYE ON YOU. YOU ARE OBVIOUSLY INSANE AND COULD VERY WELL BE THE NEXT NUTJOB WHO COMMITS VIOLENCE BASED ON WHAT THEY'VE READ ON THE INTERNET.

EVRYONE KNOWS SOMEONE MUST BE A NATURAl BORN AMERICAN TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT. YOU SUPPLY YOUR PROOF THAT THE STATUS OF PARENTS MATTER, OR ADMIT YOU HAVE NO SUCH PROOF, OR YOU WILL BE PERMANENTLY BANNED FOREVER WITH NONE OF YOUR WASTE OF TIME POSTS ALLOWED ON THIS BLOG.

the_last_name_left said...

From wiki on grandfather clauses:

When the United States Constitution was written in 1787 and ratified in 1788, a clause was placed in Article Two allowing those that want to run for President of the United States to have been born in another country at the time the Constitution was ratified, while those that were born after the Constitution was ratified had to be born in the United States. While this does predate the term grandfather clause, it does act as one since it allowed foreign-born citizens to run for President. Since everyone that was alive at the time the Constitution was ratified are now dead, all current Presidential candidates must be born in the United States.
-----------

A completely different interpretation than Larry's. It makes sense too, especially considering the constitution seems to take "natural born" as it was then widely understood ie born in the dominions of the USA (apart from when the Constitution was framed - in which case candidates did not need to have been "natural-born", they were allowed to be born outside of USA.)

I mean, seriously......as if Obama's opponents would allow such obvious requirements for office to be broken.

the_last_name_left said...

Article 2 of the Constitution :

No person except a natural born Citizen

<-----meaning someone born within the dominions of the USA----->

...or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,

<------meaning, people born outside of the United States were eligible for President only by being citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. Once everyone whom was alive at the time of the adoption of the Constitution were dead, this would no longer hold.----->

....shall be eligible to the Office of President.....

Clear enough? ;)

the_last_name_left said...

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;
------------

That also (again) reinforces the idea that "natural born" means "born within dominions of USA".

It says any natural born citizen, OR someone whom was born elsewhere, but was a citizen at the time of the asoption of the constitution could be President.

It says OR. Natural born, OR born outside of USA.

The meaning of "natural born" is clear - and it *is* 'born within the dominions of USA'.

Why is this so hard to grasp? lol

the_last_name_left said...

There's also this, from constitution.net:

Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"

* Anyone born inside the United States *
* Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
* Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
* Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
* Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
* Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
* Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
* A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

* There is an exception in the law — the person must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.

Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html

the_last_name_left said...

from the same link - something I never heard anyone complain about:

In 2008, when Arizona Senator John McCain ran for president on the Republican ticket, some theorized that because McCain was born in the Canal Zone, he was not actually qualified to be president. However, it should be noted that section 1403 was written to apply to a small group of people to whom section 1401 did not apply. McCain is a natural-born citizen under 8 USC 1401(c): "a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person." Not everyone agrees that this section includes McCain — but absent a court ruling either way, we must presume citizenship.
----------

LOL - silence over this one?

Larry said...

Your EXACT words: "Larry's correct that my last link was stupid...".
Didn't say it was stupid huh? Jesus, now you even deny your OWN words!!!

Larry said...

TLNL, you a complete moron. Every single one of your definitions of what makes someone a US citizen does NOT apply to Obama Sr. You even re-posted the sections of the Constitution that I typed myself as if I didn't know the meaning---which proves you don't read my posts. You failed to answer my question. If the founders meant ANY american born citizen was eligible to run for President, what was their reason for differentiating between those grandfathered in before the adoption of the Constitution and those born AFTER it was adopted?? Why didn't they just say "ANY american born citizen is eligible?" They didn't say that, and for a reason: Because NATURAL born means: born in the US AND having american citizen parents!! One more thing: I was NOT silent about McCains citizenship. I wrote about that on my blog. He's not natural born either because the Panama Canal Zone was NOT US territory when he was born. MORON

socrates said...

I'm done with this shithead. Ok, I said the link was stupid. I meant my point was, but I was stupid in what I wrote. Larry's stupidity is contagious. That's what trolls are all about. That's their objective. Now since Larry cannot provide a link showing how Obama is not a natural born American due to his father having been born Kenyan, nothing he posts from now on will be allowed. TLNL, if you want to interact with Larry, please do so somewhere else. I think Larry is scum, and I wish to live in a world where his presence is not felt. Since I am not violent, the only option I have is to delete him any time he now shows up. You're done here Larry. That's it. You were given every opportunity. Now you no longer exist in regards to this humble blog. Loser.

the_last_name_left said...

L:You failed to answer my question. If the founders meant ANY american born citizen was eligible to run for President, what was their reason for differentiating between those grandfathered in before the adoption of the Constitution and those born AFTER it was adopted??
---------------

But that is exactly what I did answer. Duh!!!

I explained the grandfather clause - and how it in fact strangthens the notion that "natural born" means "born in the dominions of the USA". The constitution is written how it is, so as to allow those born outside of the USA (non natural born) to be President ONLY IF THEY WERE ALIVE AND ALREADY A CITIZEN WHEN THE CONSTITUTION WAS ADOPTED. Once such people were all dead, that clause would have no relevance ever again. It's a special clause because the law was new.....it would expire once those alive at the time had all died.....that's the grandfather aspect.....

Moreover, it makes the distinction between Natural-born OR citizens born abroad. That clause would expire along with those alive at the time of adoption, leaving only "natural born" citizens as eligible. Hence, the meaning of natural-born is perfectly clear, except to you.

You claim you haven't been refuted, but of course you have. You don't have an argument Larry - it has gone - it has been thoroughly refuted - over and over.

Your inability to recognise it is characteristic - of you, and conspiracists generally. Clueless. You can't recognise a simple fact - you can't understand a simple sentence. It's *you* whom fails to read, Larry.

@s: at your request, I shan't respond to him anymore. ;)

socrates said...

Thanks TLNL. I can't cope with that guy's presence. I tried my best. I engaged with the topic.

It's clear that Larry is peddling some email chain letter hoax.

When we pushed him for the details, he kept screamong about the Constitution. All he's had is the concept of natural born citizenry. It doesn't matter where one's parents were born, if they were born in America. The exceptions are only for various diplomats and politicians on visit working out of their embassies.

There's some debate to be had whether it's a good law. It's never bothered me. Though I wouldn't be troubled if it was abolished. I do think the 35 year old age requirement is foolish.



There's something wrong with Larry's brain. It shouldn't have been too difficult for him to give an opriginal link to his email hoax. Or he shouldn't have pushed this as if he had proof. I too what is referred to as troll bait. I even got involved to the point, where I wasn't helping make things more clear. Then I lost my temper.

This is a small blog, very small indeed. If it were bigger, as in more people to shoot this clown down, it probably could have worked itself out a different way. But based on his neonazi ties, and how like you say, this is how his brain works, I feel it's for the best that his nasty disposition is shown the door.

the_last_name_left said...

Anyway, on Lincoln, seems surprising to me that Larry is so appalled by Lincoln's supposed racism. Obama is a fan of Lincoln? Larry more concerned with racism than Obama? Seems stikingly odd. Especially amongst the company Larry keeps.

I mean, Larry refuses to recognise the deep veins of racism running through conspiracism, the "truth movement" and the "patriot movement".

Rivero's promotion of Curt Maynard - fine!

Alex Jones' promotion of people associated with David Duke - fine!

Alex Jones' promotion of Nazis like Willis Carto - fine!

Alex Jones working with Carto's employees - Jim Tucker - fine!

Rand Paul's protection of racism under the auspices of "liberty" - fine!

The targetting of latinos in Arizona for suspicion of being illegals - fine!

The minutemen - fine!

Jones' promotion of Reverend Pike - fine!

support for holocaust denying anti-semites - fine!

support for anti-semitic illuminati and masons bullshit -- fine!

etc

Sits oddly against Larry's venom towards Lincoln whom lived in quite different times with different social mores and standards - a time when slavery was real and had to be considered - when pro-slavery constituency was sizeable and not without power and influence.

I wonder what Larry's beef with Lincoln's "racism" is exactly? Why does it offend Larry, when his allies today persistently exhibit their own racism?

socrates said...

Larry's the king of projecting. His latent homosexuality was my first inkling that something was not adding up with his online patterns.

There's something kind of autistic about his posts. People with asperger's syndrome have some sort of loose wire with their brains. They tend to not be able to experience things we take for granted, such as facial recognition.

Here on this one thread is evidence that he doesn't have a normally functioning brain. How can he think we don't know that a US President must be a natural born American? How can he not know we wanted some proof no matter how tenuous that a person's parents are in the equation?

With Larry it is us versus them all the time. You and I versus Rivero, who he promotes. Or Dees, Jones, and others. Even with his 9/11 conspiracy theory, he doesn't seem able to just stick to the topic without venturing into an us versus them mode.

This is why I have spoken of closed-minded debunkers versus crazy believers. It's not that I think every 'debunker' or 'believer' of any topic can be necessarily pigeon-holed. It's that I think this trend of there being cut-and-dried opposition 24/7 is widespread on the internet. Another catch phrase or question I came up with a while back is where is the nuance and subtlety on the net? Why does every conversation have to lead to some dramatic production?


You have the patience of Solomon compared to myself. I get very frustrated when things seem to go overboard into illogic.

I'm also no fan of right wingers. That was another strike against my letting Larry continue. I know I'm probably contradicting myself, because I have often vented against censorship on the internet.

I recall Larry deleted a Carto link, once he was shown the blatant anti-semitism that comes from The Barnes Review. Other than that, I don't think I've seen any other attempts from himself to debate fairly. It makes me think something is off-kilter with his brain.

I'm not trying to hurt his feelings or suppress his ability to get "the truth" out. This is a very small blog, and I know of no other way to get him to play fairly. How can he not understand what we've been asking of him in regards to the legal definition of natural born Americans? Yet according to him, we are morons who he has easily debunked. I hate to sound elitist, but he sounds like he went to a rotten community college. He may have some writing skills, but he lacks the capacity for critical thought and being his own devil's advocate, prerequisites for good writing that go beyond grammar and spelling.