Posts by calenel

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • The breakup of the U.S. (WorldnetDaily's Joseph Farah takes Russian prediction seriously)

    12/30/2008 5:22:00 PM PST · 42 of 251
    calenel to SeekAndFind
    "I want to remind you that New Hampshire and Virginia voted FOR Barack Obama and the Democrats."

    My point, exactly. They have already been overrun.

  • Bitter cold moves in to Interior Alaska - 50 below, and that's not wind chill !

    12/30/2008 5:19:46 PM PST · 27 of 110
    calenel to Graybeard58
    "'bitter' is getting very old."

    It's not bitter, just a bit cynical.

  • The breakup of the U.S. (WorldnetDaily's Joseph Farah takes Russian prediction seriously)

    12/30/2008 5:14:06 PM PST · 31 of 251
    calenel to Ghost of Philip Marlowe
    "The other states would go completely socialist and would attract other socialists from the world. Eventually, the borders of the freedom-loving states would be overrun and conquered."

    Already happened. Those freedom-loving states are called 'New Hampshire,' 'Arizona' and 'Virginia,' among others.

  • The breakup of the U.S. (WorldnetDaily's Joseph Farah takes Russian prediction seriously)

    12/30/2008 5:10:43 PM PST · 24 of 251
    calenel to cripplecreek
    "Secession is cowardice."

    BUMP

  • Jews Chill Out - Zbigniew Brzezinski: Rockets Were "Provocative, Harrasing, Annoying But Not Lethal"

    12/30/2008 5:03:06 PM PST · 23 of 73
    calenel to APRPEH
    Hmmm. How about an Order of Magnitude Evaluation (OME)? If you consider that the entire Muslim world, all 1.3 billion of them, hate and want to destroy Israel, and assume that the 5.5 million Jewish Israelis are their target, the Israelis have to kill or wound the bad guys at a rate of about 225 to 1 just to keep pace. Counting only the 540+ dead victims of suicide bombers since 2000, the Israelis would have had to kill over 120,000 Palestinians/Syrians/Lebanese/Iranians/etc. in the same period. If you also consider the 8400 or so wounded and maimed, the Israelis would need to have wounded or maimed 1.89 million 'enemy' (including 1.3 million civilians). I am pretty sure that the Israelis are currently losing from that viewpoint.

    Today's OME brought to you courtesy of calenel.

  • Berg Lawsuit Takes Strange Twist

    12/30/2008 4:40:15 PM PST · 101 of 115
    calenel to thecodont
    I suppose Obama could have personally supervised the ‘recovery’ of his BC, but don't you think the Secret Service guys would have noticed?
  • Berg Lawsuit Takes Strange Twist

    12/30/2008 4:27:29 PM PST · 100 of 115
    calenel to Philo1962
    "could have cost him the election if it had been revealed before November 4"

    This seems the most plausible theory to me, as well, but what is the hold up now? Aside from a Constitutional disqualification, or evidence of some kind of prosecutable criminal act (not likely to be found on the BC), why won't he release it? He can lie in his books all he wants, they are properly viewed as works of fiction already, along with the autobiographies of all ambitious pols. Any such lies mistakes would be whitewashed by the media, anyway.

    "called him 'Uncle Frank.'"

    As in 'Dutch Uncle Frank?' Could be. But no liberal would hold it against him, and most likely no rational conservative would blame Obama for his mother's indiscretions. And it still doesn't disqualify him - in fact, it makes the NBC argument that much weaker. This isn't the whole answer.

  • Berg Lawsuit Takes Strange Twist

    12/30/2008 4:10:49 PM PST · 99 of 115
    calenel to MHGinTN
    "He has admitted on his blogpage that he held British citizenship via his father at birth, which should in itself disqualify him"

    Not if he also held US citizenship at birth. Barring a completely fabricated history of age and residency, he meets two of the three requirements for the Presidency. If he was born in the US then he meets the third. If he was born elsewhere, he does not. You know this and yet you continue to make claims that dual citizenship disqualifies him even though that is not supported by the Constitution or the Law. And you then make even more fantastical (look it up) claims about Obama, such as that you don't "think he was even born in 1961, and his father may not even be Barack Obama senior from Kenya." What do you hope to accomplish by that?

  • Revised Forecast Advances Date of China Becoming the Preeminent Global Manufacturer

    12/29/2008 9:07:04 PM PST · 4 of 12
    calenel to familyop

    Golly, you sure can get a lot done with a billion slaves!

  • Berg Lawsuit Takes Strange Twist

    12/29/2008 9:02:25 PM PST · 7 of 115
    calenel to STARWISE
    20th Amendment, Section 3:

    If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

    I have previously stated that the proper time to test the 'qualifications' of the President-elect is after he becomes the President-elect and before 'the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President.' Obama doesn't become President-elect until the EVs are actually counted, fancy podiums notwithstanding. Up to then he is merely the President-presumptive or some such. Hopefully, this is what the Court has in mind. I don't agree with the specifics of Berg's suit, but if it gets the SC to examine the situation and define a remedy, I won't complain.

  • Crib mosques anger Italian party

    12/24/2008 7:05:47 PM PST · 11 of 24
    calenel to Ancient Drive
    "At Our Lady of Divine Providence in Genoa, Father Prospero Bonanzi put a mosque and a minaret in his crib."

    Islam wasn't even invented until the 7th century. A bit of an anachronism, eh?

  • BREAKING -- Berg v Obama - Scheduled for SCOTUS Conference TWICE on Jan 16

    12/24/2008 2:46:31 AM PST · 304 of 305
    calenel to dennisw
    "The only born British (or foreign) people who qualify to be President are those who were US citizens at the time of the adoption of the US Constitution."

    What about dual citizenship? Do you think that dual citizens are constitutionally excluded? If so, would you say that a person who was claimed as a subject or citizen by another sovereignty would be considered to be ineligible by virtue of potentially having divided loyalties?

  • BREAKING -- Berg v Obama - Scheduled for SCOTUS Conference TWICE on Jan 16

    12/24/2008 2:40:11 AM PST · 301 of 305
    calenel to trumandogz
    "That would give you President Biden."

    Unless Obama were impeached and convicted, Biden would be VP. If Obama never qualified after becoming President-elect then Biden becomes Acting President but not actually President. I don't know if a presumptive President or a President elect can be impeached, but I don't think so. If 'President elect' is considered a 'civil Office' by virtue of being explicitly mentioned in the COTUS then I suppose so, but that is really, really stretching the definition. A gain, as Impeachment is limited to 'The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States' I don't think the President elect can be impeached.

  • BREAKING -- Berg v Obama - Scheduled for SCOTUS Conference TWICE on Jan 16

    12/24/2008 2:26:49 AM PST · 294 of 305
    calenel to trumandogz
    "So, if they were willing to give Constitutional Protections to illegal aliens, they would have no problem with granting EP to Obama."

    But what EP would he be entitled to? Just because they don't catch some criminals does not mean that they cannot prosecute those they do catch. And, further, just because they didn't prosecute drink driving in the past and don't even catch most of the perpetrators, that does not mean that they cannot prosecute some or all to the full extent of the law. Just because Bill Clinton got a wrist slap for perjury and was not even prosecuted for rape, treason or campaign fraud does not mean that no one legitimately can be prosecuted for such. Equal Protection does not apply to suffering the consequences of criminal acts, including fraud. Just because the police do not pull over every car, and not even the ones that are speeding 'just a little bit,' that does not mean that they can't pull over the ones that do not escape any additional scrutiny as a result of what ever circumstances. EP won't save Obama from the consequences of any fraud he might have engaged in. Being a Rat might, but not EP.

  • BREAKING -- Berg v Obama - Scheduled for SCOTUS Conference TWICE on Jan 16

    12/24/2008 2:11:24 AM PST · 284 of 305
    calenel to Daddynoz
    "Boo hoo. I’m starting to enjoy not liking you or your mealy-mouth politics..."

    I'm not here for your approval.

    "you have, for whatever reason, opted to side with expediency"

    Hmmm. Rule of Law = expediency. Didn't know that. Thanks.

    "rather than republican (small case “r” intended) ideals and historical precedent."

    What republican ideals have I violated? What historical precedent are you referring to? Citation, please.

    "I’m all out of cookies, if that’s what you’re looking for. Your contentions are rubbish and lend themselves to a quicker decline of our nation."

    Could you please be a little more specific? As in something that isn't just another personal attack.

    "Get your buddies to congratulate you (with plenty of non-sexual “backrubs”), for I will not. Did I mention you’re a huge RINO *ssclown?"

    Let's see, I count three more ad hominem attacks and zero more facts. And absolutely nothing specific to my political views, which you apparently abhor. So, what's your point?

  • BREAKING -- Berg v Obama - Scheduled for SCOTUS Conference TWICE on Jan 16

    12/24/2008 1:55:02 AM PST · 277 of 305
    calenel to trumandogz
    "If the Berg Case ever goes before the SCOTUS, which it will not, Obama will claim protection under the Equal Protection Clause in that he is being held to a higher scrutiny than previous presidents. He would likely win. "

    Not on that basis. An argument could easily be made that Arthur was subjected to similar scrutiny when his eligibility was questioned. And, again, successful fraud (if there was) would not set any sort of precedent, but rather justify increased scrutiny as an appropriate remedy.

  • BREAKING -- Berg v Obama - Scheduled for SCOTUS Conference TWICE on Jan 16

    12/24/2008 1:50:25 AM PST · 271 of 305
    calenel to Nipfan
    "Yes, apparently there is. That is what Donofredo’s case was all about."

    Without some comment from the SCOTUS we cannot know why they have done anything, or not done anything, with Donofrio's case. They may agree to deal with it in some fashion, or they may be having a good chuckle over coffee. We just don't know.

  • BREAKING -- Berg v Obama - Scheduled for SCOTUS Conference TWICE on Jan 16

    12/24/2008 1:42:30 AM PST · 269 of 305
    calenel to Daddynoz
    "you have made up your mind."

    And you, yours.

    "In my opinion, you have abrogated your reponsibility to defend the Constitition against all enemies, foreign and domestic"

    If I were to act without first establishing as fact that Obama is an enemy, then if he were not, I would be the enemy. But, when it comes down to who will be in the trenches, if and when it comes to that, we'll see who shows up.

  • BREAKING -- Berg v Obama - Scheduled for SCOTUS Conference TWICE on Jan 16

    12/24/2008 1:30:41 AM PST · 265 of 305
    calenel to MHGinTN
    "You may 'feel' his assertions were incorrect but your opinion holds no more wieght than mine."

    If I was relying on feelings that would be true. However, I previously posted evidence of factually incorrect assertions by Madison, such as the citizenship laws from 1790 to 1855 that he(?) claimed did not exist. Several times on various threads, and there are persons in this thread who know it. Feel free to go back through my posts and check. The fact that that particular assertion on Madison's site has been deleted further supports my belief that Madison is a Freeper or at least a lurker, an assertion I have previously made on other threads as well. But, on the whole, the substance of Madison's arguments hasn't changed and there are issues there as well, also previously posted by myself and others. As I am occasionally drawn back to his(?) site by posts such as the one on this thread, I do periodically review the changes in the content there, also previously stated on this and other threads. I admit to being anonymous on this forum, but I am no more anonymous than P.A. Madison, and as I have said, I base my evaluation on the content of the presentation, not on the letters around the presenter's name. To be more concise, I do not know who Madison is, but I do know his assertions and conclusions are, in at least some cases, demonstrably false.

  • BREAKING -- Berg v Obama - Scheduled for SCOTUS Conference TWICE on Jan 16

    12/24/2008 1:11:46 AM PST · 260 of 305
    calenel to Daddynoz
    "I posted this yesterday is response to 'where is case law or statute defining NBC? Where is explained in the Constitution?' The answer was crickets chirping or a feeble equivelant."

    That is an outright lie. You just didn't like the response.

  • BREAKING -- Berg v Obama - Scheduled for SCOTUS Conference TWICE on Jan 16

    12/24/2008 1:07:05 AM PST · 259 of 305
    calenel to little jeremiah
    Since you are apparently keeping an open mind, I will say "Fair enough." But there is no basis for the three types of citizen you describe. If you are a citizen then either you are born a citizen, or you are naturalized to become a citizen, right? No other mechanism exists in the Constitution. And no further subdivision of either of these two types exists in the COTUS unless you try to apply some special undocumented meaning to 'natural born.' All of the rights and privileges of citizenship belong to all citizens regardless of where or how that citizenship was acquired, with the sole exception of the ability to become President which is reserved to 'natural born' citizens. With this one exception, why bother to distinguish between citizens of any type when discussing said rights and privileges? The COTUS, in fact, does not. It uses the term 'Citizens' in every other place where it discusses citizens of any type, excepting only Article II where the qualifications for President are spelled out. This also applies to Amendments, specifically the 14th, where it describes who is a citizen, but does not subdivide 'born' citizens into any subcategories.

    There have been any number of claims as to the intent of the FFs regarding 'natural born' status, but there has been no example cited of any discussion of the meaning of the phrase by FFs where they provided a definition other than the one found in the dictionary, which has been demonstrated to predate the COTUS by some two centuries (Random House Unabridged Dictionary: 1575-1585, Oxford English Dictionary: 1583) at least. So, either there is some other definition than the dictionary definition which the FFs agreed to by consensus without ever debating or discussing it, or they actually meant the dictionary definition. Incidentally, Oxford cites Blackstone as a source for its definition, so I dare say that the definition favored by Blackstone is the same one as found in the Oxford English Dictionary which agrees with the 'citizen at birth' definition cited. Therefore, all Article II says about it is that the President must have been a citizen at birth.

  • BREAKING -- Berg v Obama - Scheduled for SCOTUS Conference TWICE on Jan 16

    12/24/2008 12:35:28 AM PST · 258 of 305
    calenel to trumandogz
    "Can you show me where the previous 42 men that have been President have submitted conclusive proof that they were in fact natural born citizens?

    Is there a place in the National Archives that holds the original 42 birth certificates?"

    You know better. Only Arthur was seriously challenged and he was either legit or successfully pulled of his fraudulent usurpation. [I hold no opinion as to which case might be the true one] Obama hasn't proven his eligibility, nor has his fraudulent usurpation been thus far successful. Different principles, different technology, different era. The fact that it isn't fair doesn't mean we have to roll over for one fraud because another had a lower threshold to cross. You cannot create a precedent through fraud (at least not if they catch you).

  • BREAKING -- Berg v Obama - Scheduled for SCOTUS Conference TWICE on Jan 16

    12/24/2008 12:23:42 AM PST · 256 of 305
    calenel to Daddynoz
    "Y’know it’s funny...the detractors of the NBC argument rely on a case that intermingles native and natural language but clearly admits one does not define the other, they rely on Hamilton’s objection to denying eligibility to Americans who had proved themselves during the Revolution (the other framers told him to sit in the corner and speak when spoken to), they rely on case law and statute that addresses citizenship but not NBC per se, they rely on some pinko liberal university scholar who abhores the exclusion of anyone (regardless of dual allegiances, patriotism, or belief in the Constitution as the guiding document), they rely on dictionary entries (and children’s books, CNN, poop smear editorials, whatever) if it remotely equates NBC to native or citizen, they rely on our lack of resolve to maintain reason and precedence is more important than wishful thinking and “will of the people”."

    Perhaps you should address the issues and not resort to indirect ad hominem attacks, which still count as abuse if you weren't aware of that, and address the issues rather than the messengers. You previously attempted to somehow discredit me in the past by calling me a RINO, among other things, and calling attention to my political views which you disparaged and attempted to get others to disparage. I, at least, have the courage to put them up on my FR home page for the world to see, and I invited you to bring up any points on there or not on there that you felt were not addressed to your satisfaction. I reissue the invitation, to you or anyone else who wishes to engage in reasoned debate regarding anything I have written there. If you think I'm wrong, then challenge my opinions and logic, if you have the courage. All you demonstrate with posts like the one above is your abject intellectual poverty. As I said to you the last time you pulled this crap, "Well, come on, noobie. Take your best shot. Or are you going to run away, again?

  • BREAKING -- Berg v Obama - Scheduled for SCOTUS Conference TWICE on Jan 16

    12/24/2008 12:05:49 AM PST · 253 of 305
    calenel to MHGinTN

    Source?

  • BREAKING -- Berg v Obama - Scheduled for SCOTUS Conference TWICE on Jan 16

    12/24/2008 12:03:58 AM PST · 252 of 305
    calenel to MHGinTN
    "Additionally, Charles Pinckney in 1800 said the presidential eligibility clause was designed “to insure … attachment to the country.” What better way to insure attachment to the country then to require the President to have inherited his American citizenship through his American father and not through a foreign father. Any child can be born anywhere in the country and removed by their father to be raised in his native country. The risks would be for the child to return in later life to reside in this country bringing with him foreign influences and intrigues."

    Too bad nobody brought that up to John Bingham while he was doing such a poor job of framing the 14th. Or to any of the ratifying legislatures, state and federal. Suppose that the citizenships of Dunham and Obama Sr. had been reversed. Would what Charles Pinkney said have been applicable? Because then, substituting 'parent' for 'father' (which is how the SCOTUS would read it) that would be exactly what happened. Stanley Ann Dunham was no friend of the US, and Obama Sr. was not a major influence on Obama Jr. But Dunham was a citizen and it is only by the happy factor of Obama's possible birth outside of the US that he might not be eligible.

    We have the Rule of Law in this country. That is one of the factors that makes the US the best nation, the best form of government, that God ever gave Man. But while we might be getting skewered by that very same Rule of Law, we also might be getting saved by it. That is why we must force the production of the BC. Either way. Obama, regardless of his eligibility, must not be allowed to skate, but at the same time we cannot abandon the principles that do, in fact, make us the greatest nation the world has ever seen.

  • BREAKING -- Berg v Obama - Scheduled for SCOTUS Conference TWICE on Jan 16

    12/23/2008 11:42:55 PM PST · 250 of 305
    calenel to John Valentine
    "But what we are talking about are the “parents” of a single individual."

    Not really. The phrase in question is 'children of parents' Multiple children of a single set of parents doesn't make any more sense, and arguably less in the context of citizenship of the mother acquired by marriage, than multiple children of multiple fathers. Also, any case where the number of objects involved is one or more, or simply unknown, the plural is used. For example, consider the question of 'How many people are in that car?' Well, if it is one then they might be excluded from the carpool lane, but we don't know unless we examine the specific case. 'How many miles is distance [x]?' It might be one, but the plural is used for any amount, be it fewer than, greater than, or exactly one, or even a fractional value, until we explicitly evaluate the case. So, if they meant either one or two parents they would have used the plural, and if they meant only the fathers of multiple unrelated children they would also have used the plural.

    "There really isn’t much of an issue here except for those who want Obama to have inherited his citizenship through his mother, something that I can’t really find any Constitutional basis for since the Equal Rights Amendment was never ratified."

    Equal Rights Amendment considerations aside, she was not eligible by statute, but a reasonable Common Law argument could be made for Obama to have gained citizenship through his mother if there weren't an existing body of law that precluded it. As far as gender issues go, the 14th is gender neutral and all gender specific language had disappeared by the 1934 statute.

  • BREAKING -- Berg v Obama - Scheduled for SCOTUS Conference TWICE on Jan 16

    12/23/2008 11:14:11 PM PST · 240 of 305
    calenel to Daddynoz
    "Have you checked out this site?"

    Yes. Permit me to draw your attention to the particular comment:

    "Unlikely because we know one can be native born and yet not a native born citizen of this country prior to the year 1866. "

    What does that mean? Further, the site used to say that there were no laws addressing the subject of citizenship prior to 1866 (quotations available in some earlier posts on several threads), but that has been modified. I think the author is a Freeper due to the timing of changes made in the article(s) coinciding with discussion here on FR, but that isn't certain. The author's original assertions were demonstrated to be incorrect, and that hasn't really changed. They still rely on the same unsupported and circular arguments. Same goes for the 'jurisdiction' piece by this same P.A. Madison. While I generally evaluate the merits of claims made based on what I know rather than the letters attached to a person's name, the information on that site is both incorrect and anonymous, a fatal combination. Or, at least, the several times I have checked the site for changes and credentials, there were plenty of the former and none of the latter. I give the author credit for adaptability, but not for accuracy.

  • BREAKING -- Berg v Obama - Scheduled for SCOTUS Conference TWICE on Jan 16

    12/23/2008 10:57:46 PM PST · 238 of 305
    calenel to El Gato
    "If they didn't discuss it, that means that it was understood"

    I would agree with that.

    "and for that understanding you must look to English Common law."

    Perhaps, but I have yet to see a clear citation of common law that differs from the dictionary definition. Oxford even cites Blackstone when it provides the definition.

    "Under that law, a person born of two citizen parents, or a citizen father, outside the country was considered natural born. But a person born in the country was natural born regardless of the citizenship of the parents, although there exceptions such as the children of foreign diplomats, or of an occupying army."

    With you so far.

    "But any statute law changes to this definition only apply to citizenship at birth, not to natural born citizenship as that term is used in the Constitution. Congress cannot define terms in the Constitution, except by passing an amendment."

    I don't think you can retroactively redefine a word by statute, so if that is the correct interpretation of your comment, I agree. The Legislature cannot redefine 'natural born' ala Resolution 511, but a Constitutional Amendment could alter the wording (but not really the definition of the original terms) of the requirements to be President. So Resolution 511, aside from being nonbinding, is also irrelevant.

    "But 'natural born' only matters in eligibility to the office of President and Vice President. For all other purposes, citizen at birth, naturalized citizen and natural born citizen all have the same rights and obligations, and all are eligible for any other office, unless state law or Constitutions provide otherwise for state or local offices,although I'm not aware that any do. "

    I agree. It seems that we agree on this matter. So, since every single person seems to have a slightly different view on this, the question is where do we not agree?

  • BREAKING -- Berg v Obama - Scheduled for SCOTUS Conference TWICE on Jan 16

    12/23/2008 10:31:56 PM PST · 227 of 305
    calenel to trumandogz
    "Okay, so if he was born in Hawaii, he would be a natural born citizen?"

    Yes.

  • BREAKING -- Berg v Obama - Scheduled for SCOTUS Conference TWICE on Jan 16

    12/23/2008 10:29:59 PM PST · 224 of 305
    calenel to Gemsbok

    It simply means that you can be a Senator or Representative after having been naturalized (and we have had some and currently do have some), but you have to be born a citizen to be President. That’s it. That’s all. Crystal clear.

  • BREAKING -- Berg v Obama - Scheduled for SCOTUS Conference TWICE on Jan 16

    12/23/2008 10:25:41 PM PST · 223 of 305
    calenel to little jeremiah

    What is your position on children of military born overseas?

  • BREAKING -- Berg v Obama - Scheduled for SCOTUS Conference TWICE on Jan 16

    12/23/2008 10:22:39 PM PST · 222 of 305
    calenel to trumandogz
    "it would appear that BHO was born in Hawaii"

    That is the specific point where I disagree with you - there is plenty of anecdotal evidence to the contrary, along with the credible analysis of the COLB done by Polarik. We are talking about the single most important job in the entire world, for which, perhaps, 2% of the people on the planet are qualified. As far as I'm concerned, as the actions of the POTUS affect everyone on the planet, at least potentially, thus giving 'standing' to the most ignorant and isolated Whopper Virgin on Earth. Anyone who wants to should have the opportunity to be credibly informed as to the unquestioned eligibility of the person assuming that office. It is bad enough that we have Obama where he is. We are entitled to know the truth so that we can take future action toward any appropriate remedy, even if he demonstrates irrefutable evidence of eligibility.

  • BREAKING -- Berg v Obama - Scheduled for SCOTUS Conference TWICE on Jan 16

    12/23/2008 10:06:52 PM PST · 215 of 305
    calenel to trumandogz
    "Sorry, I have no forgiveness or trust for those who want to prosecute George W. Bush and Dick Cheney for the Terrorist Attacks of 9/11 and the murder of 3000 Americans. "

    While I disagree with your position on Obama's citizenship status, this particular statement is quite agreeable. Those so-called '911 truthers' are, IMO, pretty wacky.

  • BREAKING -- Berg v Obama - Scheduled for SCOTUS Conference TWICE on Jan 16

    12/23/2008 10:03:20 PM PST · 213 of 305
    calenel to editor-surveyor
    "It is based on allegiance, and freedom from foreign ties."

    Citation?

  • BREAKING -- Berg v Obama - Scheduled for SCOTUS Conference TWICE on Jan 16

    12/23/2008 10:01:57 PM PST · 212 of 305
    calenel to John Valentine
    "Any grammarians out there who think the word 'parents' actually means 'parent'?"

    Can 'parents' not also refer to multiple persons who do not share offspring? Such as 'his father' and 'her father' and 'my mother' and 'your mother' and any collection of persons that have, but do not share, offspring? The 'two parents argument' is fallacious in any case, as women acquired the citizenship of the husband at marriage and referencing the citizenship of the mother would be pointlessly redundant. The mother's citizenship, which would virtually never have differed from the father's, would not be relevant to the discussion when patriarchal heredity of citizenship was the mechanism involved. Women acquired naturalization through their husbands (or, prior to marriage, by their fathers) as well or at the same time anyway. More or less, the only way to get citizenship through the mother, at that time, was if the child were illegitimate and unrecognized by his father. References to the citizenship of women in that time were pretty much incidental.

  • BREAKING -- Berg v Obama - Scheduled for SCOTUS Conference TWICE on Jan 16

    12/23/2008 9:41:54 PM PST · 203 of 305
    calenel to John Valentine; Red Steel
    "At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also."

    A logical extreme is a perfectly valid mechanism for establishing a point. That is what this is. All members of set [x] are also members of set [y] does not mean the same thing as Only members of set [x] are members of set [y] or To be a member of set [y] you must be a member of set [x].

    "These were natives or natural-born citizens"

    Once again we see that the terms are used by the Court interchangeably. Persons who are born to US citizen parents on US soils are natives or natural born citizens. It isn't difficult to parse.

    "Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first."

    As to this class there have been doubts. Hmmm. Yes. Doubts. That's a solid legal basis to support your assertion.

    "For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts."

    I suppose that means that they agree with you. Or not.

    "It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens."

    Not disputed. All children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.

    Red Steel: I want to point out to you that the terms 'native' and 'natural born' are used interchangeably in this case (Minor v. Happerset).

    "This represents the Constitutional definition of both a 'natural-born' and a 'native-born' citizen."

    Not the way you mean it. It provides a definition of the two terms to mean the same thing.

    " An irrational and legally unsupported view has grown up in the United States that the Constitution grants citizenship to anyone and everyone born on the territory of the United States. This view is unsupported, wrong, not in accord with legitimate precedent, and dangerous."

    While I would support an Amendment that eliminated the 14th Amendment loophole, that isn't what we are discussing. And anything short of that Constitutional Amendment will not survive a challenge as the 14th Amendment would invalidate it. The dangerous thing is the creation of new classes of citizen. What happens when we have other new classes of citizen, some that may vote and some that may not, for example? What happens when they decide that you can't vote?

    "You will also note that the holding in Minor would bring into question not only the 'natural born' citizenship of a person like Obama, but his very citizenship itself."

    What holding? The holding that says they don't have to make a decision on an opinion that 'some' hold?

    "The Congress may grant citizenship through its powers of naturalization, and we may safely say that it has done so in the cases of individuals who are born in the United States of ONE citizen parent and one non-citizen parent, or to children of US citizen parents born outside the territory of the United States, but Congress absolutely lacks the power to amend the Constitution by means of enacting statute law."

    The Constitution defines only two classes of citizen: born a citizen or naturalized. Rights do not accrue differently to any of the classes of citizen (the three or more that you claim exist, or the two that really exist) with the sole exception of the ability to become President. The FFs did not document a definition of 'natural born' that was distinct from the 'dictionary definition' as it existed at the time, that definition being the same one in use throughout the entire time from 200 years prior to the COTUS to now, over 200 years later. They did not discuss or debate another definition and they most certainly did not have some alternative consensus definition that differed from the 'dictionary definition.' Had there been any debate or discussion then your argument might have merit. There wasn't. It doesn't. Had there existed at any time a definition substantially different from the 'dictionary definition' it would actually appear in the dictionary. It doesn't. There wasn't. Attempting to redefine 'natural born' in order to strip people of rights granted them by the COTUS is exactly like attempting to redefine 'well regulated' in order to strip people of rights granted them in the COTUS. If you want to do that go get an Amendment passed.

    "A very dear family member, by son, belongs to that class of citizen. He is a US citizen by birth, and has had no other citizenship than this, ever in his life. Yet, he is NOT a “natural-born” citizen, and can never be, because he was not born in the United States. His US citizenship does not derive from the Constitution, but from statue law."

    Your son was a citizen at birth, is therefore eligible upon achieving the other two required qualifications, and would undoubtedly make a better President than the one we appear about to have shoved down our throats simply due to your influence as a principled and patriotic person. However, you are mistaken in your belief that there are more than the two types, 'natural born' and 'naturalized,' of citizens.

  • BREAKING -- Berg v Obama - Scheduled for SCOTUS Conference TWICE on Jan 16

    12/23/2008 8:37:45 PM PST · 179 of 305
    calenel to Red Steel
    "If the Supreme Court now punts on this for whatever reason, the question will still exist until a time when the Supreme Court takes it up."

    Nice CYA. Truly.

    "The issue has never been adjudicated in the U.S. courts."

    Except where the Court has used the terms interchangeably, as in Perkins v. Elg when they discuss Steinkauler's case. I have pointed this out to you before. Take careful note of the use of 'native born' and the explicit statement that Steinkauler can become President if the people so elect. The Court also notes that Steinkauler possesses dual citizenship, which refutes the 'sole jurisdiction' argument. As I also told you before.

  • BREAKING -- Berg v Obama - Scheduled for SCOTUS Conference TWICE on Jan 16

    12/23/2008 8:14:26 PM PST · 171 of 305
    calenel to Uncle Chip
    "How about 150 years of Presidential precedent during which every President was a living breathing definition of a Natural Born Citizen [except one who hid his past and burned his papers because he knew he wasn't one]. Will that suffice???"

    What is this 'living breathing' definition? Is it the one where you must be born of two US citizen parents on US soil? Or just born a citizen? Or did your citizen parents have to be native born, or what? Because I have seen so many different assertions about what exactly that means that there isn't any longer a clear 'living breathing' definition that can be referenced - now you need to quote the definition so people will know which one you mean. But let's start with the strictest one that has been seriously suggested: born on US soil to two US citizen parents and being subject to no other sovereignty. Is that the one you mean? [full disclosure: I do not support that definition, in case there is anybody at all remaining on FR who didn't know that.]

  • BREAKING -- Berg v Obama - Scheduled for SCOTUS Conference TWICE on Jan 16

    12/23/2008 7:27:23 PM PST · 156 of 305
    calenel to trumandogz
    "And if he were born in Kenya, yes he is a liar but he would still be a natural born citizen in that at the moment of his birth he became an American."

    Factually incorrect conclusion. If Obama was born in Kenya (or anyplace else not in the US) he can not be a citizen at birth. The law in effect at the time of Obama's birth was:

    1952 The Immigration and Nationality Act of June 27, 1952, 66 Stat. 163, 235, 8 U.S. Code Section 1401 (b). (Section 301 of the Act).

    "Section 301. (a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

    "(1) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

    "(7) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States, who prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years."

    Obama's mother was not old enough to pass on citizenship as she could have been physically present in the US no more than 4 years 8 months and 6 days after she turned 14 even if you ignore all the travel outside of the US during that period.

  • BREAKING -- Berg v Obama - Scheduled for SCOTUS Conference TWICE on Jan 16

    12/23/2008 7:17:24 PM PST · 152 of 305
    calenel to John Valentine
    "To be "natural born" one must be born within the United States to TWO US citizen (but not necessarily natural born) parents."

    This is still not true. There still isn't a 'born a citizen but not a natural born citizen' class (a 3rd class) of citizen. This definition of 'natural born' that you keep touting does not exist. How could the FFs have meant this alternate definition when there was no discussion or documentation to support it? The COTUS uses the term 'natural born' and it means exactly what the dictionary says it means: 'having a quality or status from birth.' There is no record of any debate regarding an alternative meaning for the expression and no rational reason to believe that some kind of consensus in accord with your statements was ever achieved. Particularly in light of the absence of any documentation by the FFs supporting your position.

  • Hawaiian officials admit withholding Obama's original BC

    12/23/2008 4:40:23 AM PST · 140 of 141
    calenel to mware
    Yes. Any time someone makes the old grey vampire look foolish is “good times.” Violated their own policy on such letters, too. I wonder who they really want to have that seat. They would have suppressed that letter if they liked Princess Caroline.
  • Hawaiian officials admit withholding Obama's original BC

    12/23/2008 3:27:10 AM PST · 137 of 141
    calenel to Citizen Blade
    "We have friends here in DC- he is a French diplomat and she is an American citizen (they met in college, before he took the embassy job). They have a couple of kids- I assume that they qualify as natural-born citizens, since I don’t think they get diplomatic immunity. Interesting question- I’m going to ask them if they know the kids’ status next time we see them."

    Did you ever get a chance to ask your friends about their kids' citizenship status?

  • Letter to Senator regarding Obama eligibility.

    12/22/2008 11:52:06 PM PST · 45 of 45
    calenel to calenel; All

    Still some time to get letters out to your Representatives and Senators.

  • Governor (Blago) waxes poetic, but Combine rolls on (John Kass)

    12/22/2008 8:55:32 AM PST · 4 of 26
    calenel to STARWISE

    Let’s hope he takes a lot of the bad guys down with him.

  • 'Dear American Voter' – George Soros Says The World Should Pick Our President

    12/22/2008 8:28:17 AM PST · 4 of 42
    calenel to OL Hickory

    They can vote in our elections after they apply for Statehood and are admitted to the Union.

  • Who says Barack Obama 'member of Nudist Party'?

    12/17/2008 6:59:15 PM PST · 2 of 13
    calenel to RobinMasters
    WHAT?!?!?!?! Not everything on Wikipedia is true? I'm stuned!
  • Dissing Palin

    12/16/2008 9:42:02 PM PST · 4 of 14
    calenel to WackySam

    Greener than Zero? She’ll have four more years of Governor experience. With the perspective of being a potential candidate. Something I’m pretty sure she didn’t have this time around, as she was probably as surprised as most at being tapped. JMO.

  • Germans fear language is being ruined by English

    12/16/2008 9:37:23 PM PST · 9 of 74
    calenel to bruinbirdman
    The French have had such a policy for ages.

    We should have one ourselves. English as the official language. Maybe we should start calling it American.

  • S.F. judge strikes down residency rule for low-income mothers

    12/16/2008 9:31:50 PM PST · 4 of 6
    calenel to SmithL
    Watching California circling the drain.

    Hey, where are all those 'punish the GOP' conservatives? They should be getting a real laugh at this one! This will surely have California prepped for a conservative counter strike in 2010! Assuming they don't go full-on socialist before then. After all, there is still plenty of wealth in California for the socialists to pillage. Enough to set an example for the socialists everywhere else. Just like in 1917.

  • Date Set For Broe v. Reed ( En Banc Court; Obama BC Suit Jan 8, 2009)

    12/16/2008 6:01:08 PM PST · 90 of 91
    calenel to RegulatorCountry
    You asked me where I got the origin information for ‘natural born.’ I answered. I even got a second opinion. I have been asking for a counter argument that is comprised of more than hope and wishes. I am still waiting. Show me where another definition of the term exists. Show me where the FFs articulated such, and further, where they adopted such. Show me how a consensus was achieved such that not only did the FFs not debate which meaning was to be construed, they also did not feel it necessary to document which definition they intended be used. The definition of ‘natural born’ does not change just because it is used to modify ‘citizen.’ If it did, then that specific definition would have been in the dictionaries as well, as is the case with other expressions.