Free Republic

I don’t think so. Putin didn’t engineer this. He was taken by surprise. It’s important to keep in mind that the cessationists are not necessarily pro-Putin. Some are, I am sure, but not the majority, by far. This movement is not about politics; it is about cultural and linguistic self-determination.

Svoboda Party and the Right Block are very Neo-Nazi.

Ukraine didn’t have concentration camps, as far as I know. It was too far east. People got killed with guns. Jewish relatives on my mother’s side were killed (as Jews) in Uman and Kiev by the German army and local Ukrainian policemen.

I have nothing against Ukrainian people whatsoever. There are good and bad people among all people. My point is simply that the author of the article is correct. There are some very unpleasant characters mixed in the nationalist movement. They are much more openly fascistic and intolerant than people currently in the Russian government even if they are unsavory for other reasons. I am sure they have plenty of Russian fascists, as well. But they are not in the government. That’s the difference.

Hmm... I’ve been here for a while. I read threads but often don’t have much to add. In this case, I happen to have first hand experience, and I was eager to confirm the writer’s point of view. I know exactly what he is talking about. I have experienced a lot of antisemitism in Ukraine. Do you think that the author is a man of Putin, too? What is your knowledge about antisemitism in Ukraine? And do you think that if one is skeptical about the Ukrainian nationalist parties opne must automatically be Putin’s mouthpiece?

“I have no doubt that both in the Ukraine and Russia, a substantial proportion of the population continues to hate and fear Jews.”

Yes, this is true. To qualify this statement, I would say, however, that percentage-wise, there are more antisemites in Ukraine, compared to Russia. The Ukrainian population is, relatively speaking, more antisemitic that the Russian population.

“We are under no misapprehensions. Neither Russia nor Ukraine are democracies. But on a relative scale, the corruption and xenophobia currently dominating Ukraine is more extreme than in Russia”

True. I agree with the author.

It’s not so much about trusting Putin, in my opinion, it’s about who do you choose as a more immediate danger to Jews, the Russian government, represented by Putin, or the new Ukrainian government. In this situation, my money is on Putin.

I am a Jew from the Ukraine. I don’t live there anymore, but I can’t imagine things would have changed that much. Ukrainian nationalists tend to be very antisemitic. Not all of them, of course. I am sure, there are many decent people. And I have absolutely nothing against ethnic Ukrainians. But there is a strain of virulent, murderous antisemitism within the nationalist block that is very dangerous. I believe it is a big mistake that legitimate Ukrainian nationalists have not disavowed this movement within their movement. According to an analysis I have read, members of this fascist faction from the parties of Freedom and Right Block have taken many key positions within the provisional government of Ukraine. I am scared of them. They are up to no good. I saw youtube videos where they have been marching and chanting: “Bandera will come back and bring back order.” Bandera was a Ukrainian nationalist and is a Ukrainian national hero. To many Ukrainian people, he represents the ideal of Ukrainian liberation. But it is also true that his people have been involved into very bloody raids against ethnic Russians and Jews. As a Jew, I shudder when I hear the name “Bandera.”

Yes, it says that he is detained in airports where he “confesses” that he is the author of dreams. To me this implies that they forced his to confess at one point, when they detained him at an airport. Or that he “confesses” as a practical joke.

I’ve asked this before on this board but never received an answer. Perhaps I am barking up a wrong tree. Are there any astrology buffs here writing on this forum? I am not all that deeply into astrology, but only in a half-playful way. If you know anything about astrology, can you tell me whether this man looks like a Leo to you? He should be a Leo if he was born on the 4th of August. But is he? I am not getting a Leo vibe, to tell you the truth. There is something vaguely “catlike” about Leos. It is not seldom that they have cat-like eyes. Other times, there is something catlike about their expression or their body language. Leos are usually the easiest for me to reconcile with their sign. While it’s very hard to guess a person’s sign outright, once you are told (if you are sensitized to this kind of thing), you usually go, “Oh, yes, of course. I can see that.” It’s very rarely that I have said to myself:”Wow, I am surprized. He or she looks nothing like their sign.” It has happened a few times though. So it’s just possible that Obama is one of those rare people who doesn’t look like his very recognizable sign. Perhaps. But if I were to bet a small sum of money, I would bet against him being a Leo. He just doesn’t have this cat-like vibe, in my eyes. Halle Berry, for example, is a Leo, and she looks more like a Leo than Obama.

The other guy could be an ethnic Kazakh or Uzbek or something like that. Ethnic Russians are Caucasians, not Asians.

Interesting... Thank you.

Have your seen this article? It’s from 2011, but I just saw it for the first time. This is Stig’s mother talking.

http://www.thelocal.se/33472/20110429/#.UVC-hh8QCcw

“A Swedish woman, Monica Danielsson, 78, may have provided the last piece in a the puzzle on where US president Barack Obama was born, when CNN recently went to Hawaii finally lay the matter to rest.
...
“Obama was lying there next to my Stig in the bassinet and I remember him because he was the only black child there and I thought he was very cute,” she said to Swedish daily Expressen.”

“THEREFORE EVERY CHILD BORN IN THE UNITED STATES IS A NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN UNLESS THE CHILD OF AN AMBASSADOR...”

Where does this quotation come from? I googled it, and the only reference is to Free Republic. Can you point to this phrase in the Kim Wong Ark ruling?

“Potentially Expatriating Acts

Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481), as amended, states that U.S. citizens are subject to loss of citizenship if they perform certain specified acts voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship. Briefly stated, these acts include:
1.obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon one’s own application after the age of 18 (Sec. 349 (a) (1) INA);
...
etc...”

“Potentially expatriating acts” - true for all citizens, no?

“Just so we’re clear about the timeline, SCOTUS ruled that citizenship could not be taken away, and had to be renounced, back in 1967.”

Not according to the information I got in 1985. Isn’t that the whole point - if you become a citizen of a hostile country, you lose your U.S. citizenship?

But look at post 57 and go to the link.

“Doesn’t work like that. Parents cannot renounce their children’s citizenship - only adults can do that for themselves, and even then only in limited circumstances.”

Maybe you don’t need to renounce it. You can just forfeit it automatically. Adults can forfeit their American citizenship automatically. Even natural-born citizen could forfeit their citizenship automatically if they became citizens of another country. The U.S. has since relaxed its dual-citizenship stance. But it used to be much stricter.

In other words, you are talking about “renouncing” the U.S. citizenship, and I am saying that renunciation is not the only way to lose your citizenship.

“Here’s the thing: why is a 30 year old name-address combination marked “Date Reported: 02/2010”? Do you really need anything else to call the whole story into question?”

Could it be that this is when the old paper information got computerized?

Before I became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 1985, I had to read a brochure on the U.S. citizenship. What it stated was that it was fairly easy to lose one’s citizenship automatically if one was guilty of certain actions incompatible with loyalty to the U.S. My point is that it is possible to lose citizenship automatically. At least it used to be. Now, I am not saying anything about the status of children - I don’t know about that. But the loss of citizenship, in general, is not something that you have to apply for explicitly. The booklet made it very clear. It made it sound like my naturalized U.S. citizenship status was quite precarious. Of course, I can’t quote the specific language. It’s been too long. But this was precisely the impression I was left with.

“POTENTIALLY EXPATRIATING ACTS

Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481), as amended, states that U.S. citizens are subject to loss of citizenship if they perform certain specified acts voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship. Briefly stated, these acts include:

1. obtaining naturalization in a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (1) INA);”