Free Republic 4th Quarter Fundraising Target: $85,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $25,245
29%  
Woo hoo!! And the first 29% is in!! Thank you all very much!!

Posts by Crush T Velour

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Why the GOP always gets outmaneuvered

    08/18/2009 5:39:58 AM PDT · 34 of 118
    Crush T Velour to Timeout

    The GOP is not “always” outmaneuvered. Sarah Palin just succeeded in getting the Democrats to back down on the Death Panels.

  • Born in the USA, or: The Obama Birther Story Explained

    08/12/2009 7:38:53 AM PDT · 30 of 34
    Crush T Velour to steve-b

    There is a hidden records issue with Obama, but I think it is very unlikely that he was not born in Hawaii.

    Here’s the reason he doesn’t want to release the long form certificate: Under “Race”, it says “White”.

  • SCOTUS Case Determining "Natural Born" Def.: UNITED STATES V. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U. S. 649 (1898)

    08/04/2009 5:57:58 PM PDT · 104 of 104
    Crush T Velour to Perchant
    The American born child of English citizens wouldn't be a Natural Born Citizen. You keep ignoring the language of the Constitution and the intent of the Framers.
    You mean the supposed language of a clause of the 14th amendment, right? Not the Constitution as a whole. Not the original Framers but those of an amendment 90 years later. But the amendment doesn't say that. Supposedly someone said that during the DEBATE of the amendment. That's not the Constitution. That's just someone talking.
    Your devotion to English common law in regards to anchor babies is especially humorous considering England doesn't recognize a child who is born on English soil as a British citizen if neither parent is a British citizen.
    I don't know whether that is true or not. But I'll warrant it was not the case in 1789. But my devotion is to the ruling in "US v Wong Kim Ark" [1898] which you seem determined to pretend never happened.
    The amendment process exists for the primary purpose of rejecting the mindset of the original Founders.
    Fine, but the text of the amendment does not support that rejection. It doesn't redefine citizenship except placing it beyond the reach of Indians and those with diplomatic immunity.

    "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

    This definitely excludes Indians born on reservations (but not anymore) and children born entirely in the households of foreign ambassadors...that is people born NOT SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE US. There's no way it excludes people with dual citizenship since they are in no way not subject to the juridiction of the US. It doesn't say what you are saying it says. It doesn't matter what was in someone's mind if the text didn't even begin to make it onto to the page. You're taking statements of a senator, waving your hands, and say "The cat is in the bag" really means "Anything with fur and a tail is in the bag."

  • SCOTUS Case Determining "Natural Born" Def.: UNITED STATES V. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U. S. 649 (1898)

    08/04/2009 2:14:20 PM PDT · 102 of 104
    Crush T Velour to Perchant
    Yes, but so is the ambassador. That issue was also settled in the senate debate for the Citizenship Clause. An ambassador can't murder a US citizen and be immune from prosecution.
    So what?? I'm sure the king under English common law would not have tolerated a serial killer under cloak of ambassadorship. Ambassadors (within a tremendous expanse) are "not subject to the jursidiction" of the US, and the concept maps directly to the "natural born" exception that the SC referenced.

    Look it is not possible for "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" to mean "citizen". 1) "Subject..jurisdiction" is a *quality* of citizenship in the clause and 2) if they meant "citizen" why not just say "citizen".

    That's just it, there wouldn't be a child born into citizenship in that household. To me, it would seem impossible to even naturalize the child until the child was old enough to renounce all possible conflicting allegiances.
    Americans are not required to renounce all possible conflicting allegiances. I have a Canadian friend with an American wife who has three sons, all born in the US...natural born citizen, never naturalized...who have citizenship in Canada. You are imagining an America that has never existed. Wong Kim Ark only became an issue because he was Chinese. If his parents had been English citizens, no one would have denied him all the rights of a natural born citizen.

    I repeat: The Constitution only discusses TWO types of citizen 1) naturalized and 2) natural born. If your a citizen and you're not one, then you are the other.

    The 14th amendment was written almost 90 years after the Constitution was ratified. The mindset of (some of) its voters can hardly be considered representative of the original Founders who did not define "natural born" because they knew what it meant from common law. The debates you are hanging so much on did not even directly pertain to the purpose clause itself or the final text. They were a side issue.

    Finally, it doesn't matter what some senator thought in 1867. The SCOTUS --dealing directly with what "citizen" meant when the Founders voted on the Constitution-- clarified the issue in 1898. And, by that definition, Obama is a natural born citizen.

    It's clear what the Framers of the clause had in mind.
    It is not clear fromt the text of the constitution. What is clear is that the child would be a natural born citizen based on English common law (on which ALL US non-Federal law was based). All the ways that having a father who was an ambassador would complicate things is hardly made clear even based on what some senator said once whose opinion did not prevail in the debates on the 14th amendment.
  • SCOTUS Case Determining "Natural Born" Def.: UNITED STATES V. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U. S. 649 (1898)

    08/04/2009 7:51:27 AM PDT · 100 of 104
    Crush T Velour to Perchant

    It just occurred to me that you probably have another issue in mind as well.

    Is the child subject to US jurisdiction? Yes...unless the Saudi ambassador married the mother and did whatever paperwork is necessary to have the child added to his household. I don’t know what that would entail. I also don’t know what rules the State Department uses with the families of ambassadors if they get into legal trouble. I imagine this would be a sticky issue if a member of an ambassador’s household was also an American citizen. If I were making the decision, I would insist within the paperwork that the child be removed to KSA during the time that the ambassador was posted to the US. But I don’t know what would actually happen.

  • SCOTUS Case Determining "Natural Born" Def.: UNITED STATES V. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U. S. 649 (1898)

    08/04/2009 7:42:32 AM PDT · 98 of 104
    Crush T Velour to Perchant
    A Saudi Ambassador knocks up an American girl on US soil, what sort of citizenship will the child be born with?
    Where he knocks her up is irrelevant. If the child is born on American soil, then the child will be be a Natural Born citizen based on "US v Wong Kim Ark". Wong Kim Ark was determined to be a natural born citizen (not needing naturalization) even though he had TWO parents who were not citizens.

    This was based on English common law because the Constitution itself does not define the term "natural born citizen". The Framers were well aware of English common law and the US had no separate common law.

    I presume that if the Saudi ambassador chooses to recognize the child as his own, then KSA will recognize him as a citizen. But whether they do or don't, the US government doesn't care. For example, lets say 2 years later the ambassador changes his mind. Let's say he pulls strings in the KSA records department to unrecognize the child and has his/her citizenship revoked. It would still not affect the child's status as a citizen of the US: he/she would still be a natural born American citizen. What KSA does or doesn't think is irrelevant.

  • SCOTUS Case Determining "Natural Born" Def.: UNITED STATES V. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U. S. 649 (1898)

    08/04/2009 2:53:25 AM PDT · 96 of 104
    Crush T Velour to Perchant
    "It excludes more than that. It excludes foreigners, aliens and Indians as well as ambassadors."
    Foreigners and aliens in the country legally are POSITIVELY subject to the jurisdiction of US laws (unless they are in San Francisco). There's a reasonable argument that illegal aliens are a different entity, but they are still within the *jurisdiction* of US laws. So there is still a reasonable claim for the children of illegal aliens being natural born citizens. Which is how they are treated. (I agree a Constitutional amendment is justified although I doubt we'll get it.) Indians are not exactly on US soil, and so, yes, they were not natural born at the time of this amendment UNTIL the US finally naturalized all of them. Now they are. AMBASSADORS are not subject to the jurdiction of US laws.
    "You just admitted that [the US government recognizes the citizenship claims] with the ambassadors."
    No it does not. You are confused, but you wouldn't be if you would bother yourself to read "US v Wong Kim Ark" which I have conveniently posted a link to. The Court addressed this issue. IT IS DERIVED DIRECTLY FROM ENGLISH COMMON LAW. The children of ambassadors are not within the jurisdiction of US laws at birth, so they are not natural born citizens...nor naturalized citizens either. I reiterate: The reason children of ambassadors born in the US are not natural born US citizens has NOTHING to do with the competing claim of citizenship from their parents' country. NOTHING whatsoever. That is not an issue for US citizenship for anybody.
  • SCOTUS Case Determining "Natural Born" Def.: UNITED STATES V. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U. S. 649 (1898)

    08/03/2009 5:05:52 PM PDT · 91 of 104
    Crush T Velour to Perchant; All
    "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject ( citizen ) to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
    No. No. No. "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" excludes children of foreign ambassadors born in the US. It does not mean "citizen". And the clause has nothing to do with being a citizen of the US, so it is a really bad source to try to redefine citizenship for the rest of the Constitution, even if you HAD properly understood it. And it doesn't matter anyway after "US v Wong Kim Ark"
    When the Senate was debating this matter, they made it perfectly clear that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" meant subject only to the jurisdiction thereof.
    They didn't put it in the Constitution, whatever you think they presupposed. And what you think they presupposed is suspect based on your reading of the text of the clause.

    The US government does not recognize the claims of citizenship by other countries. It grants citizenship and revokes it on its own terms. If another country happens to consider you a citizen, it doesn't matter to the US government. Iraq has so far recognized ALL Iraqi diaspora everywhere in the world as it's citizens having the right to vote in national elections. Are you saying that suddenly made an American born to two naturalized Iraqis unqualified for President? You still have not resolved this paradox however many times I've offered it.

  • SCOTUS Case Determining "Natural Born" Def.: UNITED STATES V. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U. S. 649 (1898)

    08/03/2009 4:19:43 PM PDT · 88 of 104
    Crush T Velour to Lmo56; Eagle Eye; All
    The 14th Amendment ONLY declares that anyone born in the United States is a CITIZEN - it makes NO DEFINITE clarification of “natural-born” citizenship ...
    See my reply to Red Steel:
  • SCOTUS Case Determining "Natural Born" Def.: UNITED STATES V. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U. S. 649 (1898)

    08/03/2009 4:12:08 PM PDT · 87 of 104
    Crush T Velour to Extremely Extreme Extremist
    We can all trace our heritage to communist African thugs?
    Some of us. Others trace their heritage back subjects of European/Asian/etc thugs.
    Obama's Daddy was born in Kenya, was a British citizen, which automatically transferred to young Zero.
    So if Ahmedinejad recognized everyone in the US as a citizen of Iran, he could prevent us from having a US President?
  • SCOTUS Case Determining "Natural Born" Def.: UNITED STATES V. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U. S. 649 (1898)

    08/03/2009 4:06:40 PM PDT · 85 of 104
    Crush T Velour to Extremely Extreme Extremist
    His communist, alcoholic, skirt-chasing old man was born in Kenya, you effing doorknob! He was a British citizen and per the 1948 British Nationality Act his citizenship automatically transferred to Zero.
    Wong Kim Ark was born of TWO chinese non-citizen parents. The SCOTUS declared him a natural born citizen.

    Who cares if Britain recognized Obama as a citizen? Who cares if China did? What the Iranian parliament declared that it recognized everyone in the state of Michigan to be a citizen of Iran? Would that invalidate their American citizenship?

  • SCOTUS Case Determining "Natural Born" Def.: UNITED STATES V. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U. S. 649 (1898)

    08/03/2009 4:00:48 PM PDT · 81 of 104
    Crush T Velour to Red Steel
    Wrong as usual. The holding or judgment in the case, the majority opinion, did not call Ark a Natural born citizen.
    Read the ruling (or at least my summary) or do not respond. The Court's ruling in the case states:

    1) The Constitution does not define "natural born citizen".

    2) Therefore, English common law should hold for the definition of this term (since the United States never had a common law).

    3) [According to English Common Law,] "Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects."

    4) Therefore, Wong Kim Ark was a citizen.

    To argue that the SCOTUS was not declaring Wong Kim Ark to be a natural born citizen, is being deliberately dense.

  • SCOTUS Case Determining "Natural Born" Def.: UNITED STATES V. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U. S. 649 (1898)

    08/03/2009 3:51:04 PM PDT · 78 of 104
    Crush T Velour to Perchant
    Don't the designs of the Framers trump your English common law?
    The SC justices relied on English common law because the Framers did not deign to define "natural born citizen" or even "citizen" in the Constitution.

    Now, if you can show that the Framers (not Justice Marshall or some senator 86 years later) universally presumed some other definition of "natural born citizen" than English Common Law, we might have something to debate about.

    But it would still not affect Obama unless the SC decides to override "US v Wong Kim Ark" or the Congress/States amend the Constitution to otherwise define "natural born citizen". Even then, it would not affect Obama, since he was elected before the law went into effect.

  • SCOTUS Case Determining "Natural Born" Def.: UNITED STATES V. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U. S. 649 (1898)

    08/03/2009 2:45:18 PM PDT · 75 of 104
    Crush T Velour to Perchant
    "Why are children of ambassadors and diplomats not natural-born citizens if they are born on US soil? It's not the child's fault who his parents are."
    It's not an issue of fairness. It's an issue of English common law. Ambassadors are under the leigeship of a foreign government. Their bodies and households are foreign soil. For that reason, foreign consulates are considered foreign territory. So a child of an ambassador is born in the land of its parent wherever that birth takes place. Beyond that, the status of the parents make no difference.*

    * A possible exception might be if BOTH the parents were in the US illegally. But the issue has never come up in an elected POTUS, so who knows? As it is, the congress treats children born in the US to illegals as (at the very least) NATURALIZED citizens, and the Constitution gives them the right to determine the qualifications of naturalization.

    I don't think you need to look beyond the Framers’ intent in regards to the Citizen Clause of the 14th Amendment.
    That debate was not participated in by the Founders. Nor does a debate hold the force of law. "US v Wong Kim Ark" does have the force of law.
  • SCOTUS Case Determining "Natural Born" Def.: UNITED STATES V. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U. S. 649 (1898)

    08/03/2009 2:28:33 PM PDT · 73 of 104
    Crush T Velour to usmcobra
    Illegal aliens, don't pay income taxes, cannot be drafted and will never be citizens, and the same applies to anyone here on a visa, a visa means they are not subject to those laws that are applied to our citizens, because they do not place themselves under our jurisdiction, meaning that they do not want to become US citizens, and that they want to remain under their own country's jurisdiction.
    I agree. However, I don't think it has been tested in the courts yet. I bet the SCOTUS will never review such a case unless a lower court agrees with you and me. Also, the Constitution gives Congress the right to define naturalization rules, so if they treat anchor-babies as immediately naturalized citizens (right or wrong), they are not beyond their legal rights to do so. If such an anchor baby ever runs for POTUS, there will potentially be a Constitutional crisis unless Congress and the SCOTUS ignore the issue.

    As for Obama, he had at least one parent in the country legally. So, by US v Wong Kim Ark, he is a natural born citizen.

  • SCOTUS Case Determining "Natural Born" Def.: UNITED STATES V. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U. S. 649 (1898)

    08/03/2009 1:56:59 PM PDT · 70 of 104
    Crush T Velour to allmendream

    heh heh heh...

    Very perceptive!

    It’s an old nickname I used as the starship captain in some quasi-Star Trek computer game I played when I was a teen.

  • SCOTUS Case Determining "Natural Born" Def.: UNITED STATES V. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U. S. 649 (1898)

    08/03/2009 1:39:51 PM PDT · 68 of 104
    Crush T Velour to DBrow
    So here is Saul Alinsky being read by conservatives, and golly listen to the left complain!
    I can appreciate feeling pleasure at Obama's unhappiness. But I'm not willing for us to become fools for Obama's sake.

    I suspect the reason Obama doesn't want his long form birth certificate to become public is that under "Race" it says "White".

  • SCOTUS Case Determining "Natural Born" Def.: UNITED STATES V. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U. S. 649 (1898)

    08/03/2009 1:32:43 PM PDT · 65 of 104
    Crush T Velour to Lmo56; allmendream; All

    My mistake. allmendreams DOES understand the ruling.

  • SCOTUS Case Determining "Natural Born" Def.: UNITED STATES V. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U. S. 649 (1898)

    08/03/2009 1:08:17 PM PDT · 64 of 104
    Crush T Velour to Lmo56; allmendream; All

    You two cannot understand the ruling. I’m sorry for that, but tried to help: I broke it down for you in the original post.

    Let’s try one more time.

    1) Wong Kim Ark was ruled to be a natural born citizen even though he had TWO parents who were not citizens.

    2) One must be a natural born citizen to eligible to be POTUS. So Wong Kim Ark could have been a POTUS.

    2) The court ruled that children born in the US to Ambassadors and the like of other countries were NOT natural born citizens.

    3) If one required two citizens, who were naturally born by your definition, in order to be a Natural Born Citizen then YOU would not be a natural born citizen if you had even ONE great-great grandparent who was not in the US in 1789.

    4) If having dual citizenship precluded Americans from being President, then Yemen could prevent every member of the GOP from being President by recognizing them as citizens.

  • SCOTUS Case Determining "Natural Born" Def.: UNITED STATES V. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U. S. 649 (1898)

    08/03/2009 10:04:07 AM PDT · 29 of 104
    Crush T Velour to TheBigIf
    The case had nothing to do with the eligibility clause of the Constitution. You want to apply it there to suit your wishes but it does not. 14th Amendment style citizenship (anchor-baby) has no bearing on the Constitutional requirement for president. Show me one place in this ruling that it says it was redefining the eligibility clause. You can’t because it does not exist.
    The case determined that an anchor-baby is a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. The Constitution says only NATURAL BORN CITIZENS can be President. Ergo...anchor babies can be President of the United States.

    It's not complicated.

  • SCOTUS Case Determining "Natural Born" Def.: UNITED STATES V. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U. S. 649 (1898)

    08/03/2009 10:01:21 AM PDT · 25 of 104
    Crush T Velour to Extremely Extreme Extremist
    Supporting the law equates being a lunatic like Rosie? If that's what you think of FReepers, then why are you here?
    The law is not on your side. I'm a FReeper too. Not all FReepers agree with you on this. In fact, I'll warrant that most of us don't.
    Obama could have been born in the WH. It still doesn't make him a nautral-born citizen eligible to be President...Two natural-born U.S. citizens.
    Read the damn 110 year old ruling. You don't know what you are talking about. It's embarrassing. THe Constitution NOWHERE says you have to have two natural born citizen parents to be a natural born citizen. If it were so, it would mean that you have to be the direct decendant ON MOTHER'S AND FATHER'S SIDE of a couple in the US in 1789. Because if you come from immigrants since then NONE OF THEIR DECENDENTS could ever be a "natural born" citizen. It's ludicrous.
  • SCOTUS Case Determining "Natural Born" Def.: UNITED STATES V. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U. S. 649 (1898)

    08/03/2009 9:32:41 AM PDT · 1 of 104
    Crush T Velour
    Read the case and abandon further Rosey O'Donnellism.

    You want to say he wasn't born in Hawaii? Fine. Prove it (I don't think you can). But stop claiming that "natural born" means you have to have two citizen parents. It doesn't. It is settled law for the last 110 years.

    The Constitution describes "natural born citizens" and "naturalized citizens" There are no other types. There is no method for a baby born in the US to be naturalized by having a citizen parent. So such children are NATURAL BORN citizens.

  • National Review Online Reopens Birth Certificate Debate After Trashing "Birthers" On Tuesday

    08/03/2009 8:14:57 AM PDT · 37 of 38
    Crush T Velour to Spaulding

    What about UNITED STATES V. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U. S. 649 (1898)
    http://supreme.justia.com/us/169/649/case.html

    THe court determined that “natural-born citizen” is defined by English common law, and so the child of two chinese parents in the US legally is a US citizen.

  • National Review Online Reopens Birth Certificate Debate After Trashing "Birthers" On Tuesday

    08/02/2009 11:00:55 PM PDT · 32 of 38
    Crush T Velour to savedbygrace

    The law discusses naturalized citizens and natural born citizens. What is the term for the type of citizen Obama is?

  • National Review Online Reopens Birth Certificate Debate After Trashing "Birthers" On Tuesday

    08/02/2009 10:57:17 PM PDT · 31 of 38
    Crush T Velour to Spaulding
    Chief Justice John Marshall tells the world that the most concise definition of citizens and natural born citizens comes from Vattel’s Law of Nations and quotes it.
    If you like Marshall's argument that's fine (I'll it as given that everything you say is so.). But Marshall was not a signitor to the Constitution. He's a judge coming in afterward, and he is not infallible.

    My POINT was is that Obama not being a "natural born" citizen is not *clearly* stated in "right there in the Constitution" available to anyone who "can read".

    The supreme court has never veered from the Vattel definition. The legislature once touched natural born citizenship mistakenly in the 1790 Naturalization Act, but acknowledged the mistake and removed it in 1795.
    So in other words, the SCOTUS has never USED the Vattel definition or any other.

    Look, I concede that it's possible that Obama's non-citizen father *might* involve a Constitutional issue under certain interpretions of the Constitution. So why has no Originalist lawyer take the case to the Supreme Court? I submit that legitimate attorneys don't think that case is as cut-and-dried as you seem to think it is.

    On the other hand, Obama lies up a storm about a lot of things in the two autobiographies he supposedly wrote before the age of 45. Maybe his birth certificate reveals yet more lies. Don't undermine the arguments for Obama to come clean with kooky conspiracies and allegations.

  • National Review Online Reopens Birth Certificate Debate After Trashing "Birthers" On Tuesday

    08/02/2009 10:57:15 PM PDT · 30 of 38
    Crush T Velour to Spaulding
    Chief Justice John Marshall tells the world that the most concise definition of citizens and natural born citizens comes from Vattel’s Law of Nations and quotes it.
    If you like Marshall's argument that's fine (I'll it as given that everything you say is so.). But Marshall was not a signitor to the Constitution. He's a judge coming in afterward, and he is not infallible.

    My POINT was is that Obama not being a "natural born" citizen is not *clearly* stated in "right there in the Constitution" available to anyone who "can read".

    The supreme court has never veered from the Vattel definition. The legislature once touched natural born citizenship mistakenly in the 1790 Naturalization Act, but acknowledged the mistake and removed it in 1795.
    So in other words, the SCOTUS has never USED the Vattel definition or any other.

    Look, I concede that it's possible that Obama's non-citizen father *might* involve a Constitutional issue under certain interpretions of the Constitution. So why has no Originalist lawyer take the case to the Supreme Court? I submit that legitimate attorneys don't think that case is as cut-and-dried as you seem to think it is.

    On the other hand, Obama lies up a storm about a lot of things in the two autobiographies he supposedly wrote before the age of 45. Maybe his birth certificate reveals yet more lies. Don't undermine the arguments for Obama to come clean with kooky conspiracies and allegations.

  • National Review Online Reopens Birth Certificate Debate After Trashing "Birthers" On Tuesday

    08/02/2009 8:12:54 PM PDT · 23 of 38
    Crush T Velour to Leisler
    Well, what do you expect from trust fund, frat house Romney supporters, sharp thinking? They don’t like birthers for the same reason they don’t like Palin.
    I'm not a Romney supporter. I don't hate him. I'm just not crazy for him. I like Palin alot. But one day someone is going to get a look at that long form, and, whatever it is that the Obama Religion doesn't want us to see in it, it WILL NOT be that he wasn't born in Hawaii. I guarantee it.
  • National Review Online Reopens Birth Certificate Debate After Trashing "Birthers" On Tuesday

    08/02/2009 8:03:50 PM PDT · 22 of 38
    Crush T Velour to Don Corleone
    In theory? There is no "In Theory" about it. Read the friggin' Constitution, that is if you know how to read.
    I've read the constitution. Can you read? It doesn't define "natural born" as having two citizen parents.
  • (Obama) Born in the U.S.A. (says National Review)

    07/28/2009 6:50:44 AM PDT · 186 of 444
    Crush T Velour to panthermom
    His Dad was not even a resident alien nor a naturalized citizen. He was here on a student visa. That makes things very murky as far as Natural Born is concerned.
    "Natural Born Citizen" means citizen by birth in the US, not citizen granted afterwards. It has NOTHING to do with his parents. It even currently includes children born here to TWO people here ILLEGALLY. This is not tricky. Isn't it enough that his political ally was America's domestic Osama bin Laden, Bill Ayers (also a natural born citizen).
  • (Obama) Born in the U.S.A. (says National Review)

    07/28/2009 6:42:30 AM PDT · 178 of 444
    Crush T Velour to cycle of discernment
    Not suggesting anything. Just reporting to you what is now known...and verifiable. Obama and family never lived at the published addressed in the announcement—what that means, who the heck knows?
    I'm sorry but you have to be implying something. This "fact" is either true, untrue, or irrelevant. If a fact leads to you a bizarre conclusion then you should reexamine the fact. This is the what I've been telling the Trig Birthers.
  • Reparations By Way Of Health Care Reform

    07/28/2009 6:25:38 AM PDT · 1 of 10
    Crush T Velour
    I've heard a lot about how obamacare will have to ration care based on age to control costs BY POLICY. I had not realized until now that they had included racial rationing BY STATUTE as well.
  • 'Generation O' ("Obama Baby Boom")

    07/27/2009 8:25:24 AM PDT · 8 of 26
    Crush T Velour to lakeprincess
    "This means that we were heavily dependent upon our health care coverage, and thankfully, it was good. However, if Mia was born a year later, it might be a much different story," Mr. Vernon says. "After finishing graduate school, I will be facing the possibility that I will not be able to find a job or that I will have a job that doesn't provide quality health care."
    That's because Obama's economic policies are turning a small downturn into a catastrophe.
  • McCain And Palin Personally Approved Internal Email Hunt For Leakers, Campaign Manager Says

    07/02/2009 1:22:07 PM PDT · 12 of 23
    Crush T Velour to Onerom99
    Bill Kristol is a well known Palin basher. Would not be surprised if his finger prints are all over this with that Randy guy.

    You don't know what you are talking about. Kristol was and (as far as I know) remains an early Palin backer. He was early on saying to the McCain campaign "Let Palin be Palin".

  • Sarah was right: Obama did close GM dealership

    05/27/2009 3:56:28 PM PDT · 6 of 18
    Crush T Velour to vpintheak

    Yeah but they are going to get worse as 2012 approaches. Palin should pin their ears back every time they have to admit to dishonestly spinning a story to zing her. It’s the only way to neuter the credibility of the reporters who will serve as interviewees to the national press orgs when the Presidential campaign gets geared up.

  • Localities Want U.S. To Support Muni Bonds

    05/25/2009 7:16:35 PM PDT · 14 of 25
    Crush T Velour to reaganaut1

    Hmm...So some cities want the federal government to buy their debt. That sounds like GM.

    Then the debt would be artificially easy to get until the cities couldn’t pay. Then the whole thing collapses. That sounds like who the mortgage debacle occurred.

    I’m betting the federal government does it. One should always bet the historical pattern.

  • How do you get a Republican to buy a hybrid?

    05/09/2009 2:35:21 AM PDT · 13 of 81
    Crush T Velour to smokingfrog

    Also, Penn and McCain are fools. They are part of the reason we have the President we do now. If the US doesn’t buy the foreign oil, someone else will. Hybrids won’t cause less gasoline to be used. They will only enable people to drive more in bigger cars.

    You want to reduce foreign oil consumption here in the US? Enable and encourage companies to drill in our own fields. But the purpose of that has nothing to do with conservation. The reason to do that is J-O-B-S.

  • How do you get a Republican to buy a hybrid?

    05/09/2009 2:28:53 AM PDT · 11 of 81
    Crush T Velour to smokingfrog

    When the money saved in fuel economy even approaches the cost of buying and maintaining a hybrid versus a comparably sized vehicle, Republicans might find them appealing.

    We don’t buy them now because we aren’t stupid.

  • Rush Says Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney 'Despise' Sarah Palin

    05/05/2009 11:20:02 AM PDT · 9 of 106
    Crush T Velour to Choose Ye This Day

    That’s true. In order to despise someone, you have to have something to despise. If she were liberal or even a squishy moderate (heck! if she would only get her “mind right” about abortion) they would loooove her.

    They fear her.

  • Greek Neo-Nazi Acquitted of Holocaust Denial

    03/29/2009 2:07:15 PM PDT · 13 of 22
    Crush T Velour to nickcarraway

    I don’t know whether to cheer or weep. The jury might be rejecting the premise of the anti-HD laws in a stand for free speech. Or they might be rejecting the premise of the anti-HD laws because they think it has some credence.

    I’d have to know more in order to know how to react.

  • Enough of the Palin-bashing!

    03/29/2009 1:59:08 PM PDT · 5 of 157
    Crush T Velour to Big Steve

    I doubt I’d like her half so much if she didn’t drive the Leftists mad.

    Honestly, I suspect that as president she would be an accomodater like GWB. But after the scars she’s picked up over the last 9 months, maybe not.

  • Science Prevails (uh, OK)

    03/10/2009 5:09:38 PM PDT · 12 of 18
    Crush T Velour to St. Louis Conservative
    These people are idiots. Just because there wasn’t federal funding doesn’t mean there wasn’t ESCR going on

    More than that, there WAS federal funding. It just wasn't AS extensive as it is now. This person is a moron. Probably thinks on Obama's inauguration day the seas began to recede and Al-Qaeda began to turn in their weapons.

  • Muscular Dystrophy: [Adult] Stem Cell Breakthrough Against Muscle-wasting Diseases

    03/06/2009 12:07:41 AM PST · 1 of 3
    Crush T Velour
    Another miracle of modern medicine NOT brought to you by embryonic stem cells.
  • Early Signs of the Apostasy LDS (OPEN)

    02/24/2009 9:03:01 AM PST · 5 of 216
    Crush T Velour to greyfoxx39

    So if the scriptures were changed by the apostates 230 years before the canon was established, then how can you use the scriptures to prove your points?

  • Resources for job seekers during the recession (vanity)

    01/25/2009 12:58:00 PM PST · 17 of 43
    Crush T Velour to Bon mots

    ping

  • In Colombia, they call him Captain Nemo

    12/15/2008 7:47:48 PM PST · 3 of 15
    Crush T Velour to MAD-AS-HELL

    Unfortunately, drugs and alcohol have been at the root of all of America’s social problems since the beginning (see Alexis De Toqueville’s “Democracy In America”). If we legalize illicit drugs, ceasing to stigmatize them, we will have a nation of aenesthetized population who will demand that the government bail them out of their dysfunctional lives. That will mean the end of any hope for a liberty-based government.

    The idea looks good on paper but falls apart in practical use...like communism.

  • What should be McCain's RECURRING message?

    10/09/2008 8:37:29 PM PDT · 11 of 66
    Crush T Velour to ceoinva

    Oil = Jobs
    Coal = Jobs
    Refineries = Jobs

    You don’t try to have auto manufacturing plants in American towns to get cars cheaper or so Saudi Arabia can’t cut off our supply of cars. You do for jobs. Stop shipping those high-paying energy jobs overseas.

    As long as anyone in China is using a petroleum product we should be the ones selling it to them.

  • Scientists unite for science curriculum

    09/30/2008 8:14:22 PM PDT · 29 of 89
    Crush T Velour to Soliton
    The problem is that non-scientists keep pointing to weaknesses that do not exist simply because it contradicts their understanding of their religion.

    Ooo! That does sound bad. Let's find out what they have to say. Oh. Nevermind. Let's just pretend that the theory of Evolution has no open questions.

    You are aware that there are frustrating problems with the theory of Evolution as there is with almost every theory, right? Are we teaching kids Science or some secular catechism?

  • Scientists unite for science curriculum

    09/30/2008 7:59:32 PM PDT · 24 of 89
    Crush T Velour to Soliton

    Certain people don’t like other people saying their particular scientific theory has “weaknesses”.

    That sort of defensiveness is not objective science. It comes from all too human, all too subject, emotions.

  • Favorite Good Mood Song,tell us your favorite song to get in a good mood~Freeper Canteen~9-17-08

    09/17/2008 9:01:10 PM PDT · 94 of 459
    Crush T Velour to AZamericonnie

    Bob Dylan’s “Thunder on the Mountain”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5uKHa9Gmks

    The Right Brothers’s “Bush Was Right”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MN8_3yXLY9c

  • McCain is using Sarah Palin a racist tactic against Senator Obama (Barf Alert)

    09/06/2008 11:22:07 PM PDT · 48 of 57
    Crush T Velour to 2ndDivisionVet

    Wow! Obama has some craaaaaazy supporters. I’ve gotten to the point that I don’t care about Obama or McCain. I just want to see these evil wackos disappointed in November.

    (Remember when they started attempting suicide after Kerry lost?)