Main Menu

Name your poison

I got a real laugh out of this New York Times Op Ed piece that included:

Depending on where you stand –” or the given day –”[Obama] is either an overintellectual, professorial wuss or a ruthless Chicago machine pol rivaling the original Boss Daley. He is either a socialist redistributing wealth to the undeserving poor or a tool of Wall Street’s Goldman Sachs elite. He is a terrorist-coddling, A.C.L.U.-tilting lawyer or a closet Cheneyite upholding the worst excesses of the Bush administration’s end run on the Constitution. He is a lightweight celebrity who’s clueless without a teleprompter or a Machiavellian mastermind who has ingeniously forged his Hawaiian birth certificate, covered up his ties to Islamic radicals and bamboozled the entire mainstream press. He is the reincarnation of J.F.K., L.B.J., F.D.R., Reagan, Hitler, Stalin, Adlai Stevenson or Nelson Mandela. …

25 Responses to Name your poison

  1. avatar
    G April 4, 2010 at 11:16 pm #

    It just goes to show that many people just project onto others what they want to see and selectively hear what they wish to hear instead of objectively observing and taking someone at face value.

    One of the things that has struck me the most so far about Obama is how fairly consistent and level-headed he is.

    Other than seeing periods (both during the campaign & his presidency so far) where he seems to coast a bit before eventually taking charge and getting fired up again, he’s about as consistent in his message, demeanor and actions as anyone I’ve ever seen.

  2. avatar
    Black Lion April 5, 2010 at 9:38 am #

    G, and that deliberate attitude is what riles some on the right up…The fact that they can’t goad him into making a critical mistake or intimidate him drives them crazy…That is why you hear code words like “arrogant” or “condesending” because they believed that he would act in some sort of stereotypical fashion,,,

  3. avatar
    Mary Brown April 6, 2010 at 12:30 am #

    He is an adult while some of his critics display the maturity of a thirteen-year-old bully. He defeats the bully and the bully cries foul.

  4. avatar
    G April 6, 2010 at 7:52 am #

    I couldn’t agree more. Bully is the perfect analogy.

    Every time I see these weird, childish attacks and stories, followed so often by people also trying to play the “victim card”, I’ve always thought it reminded me of schoolyard bullies, who were usually really cowards themselves trying to act tough but who were the first to run or cry when anyone actually stood up to them.

  5. avatar
    Black Lion April 6, 2010 at 9:59 am #

    Unfortunately the same stories are still written….The lastest from the Post and Fail site…They use every debunked theory, repackage it, and try and make you think that somehow it is true. For instance they cite Vattel and the SCOTUS ruling in Minor, but neglect Blacksone and Wong Kim Ark. It just goes to show you how disingenous they really are.

    “(Apr. 5, 2010) — Obama, born in 1961 of a U.S. Citizen mother and a British Citizen (born in Kenya) father, was born a “U.S. Citizen” by virtue of his mother’s U.S. Citizenship; however, since Obama’s father was not a U.S. Citizen and thus not “attached to the U.S.,” Obama, even if born of a U.S. Citizen mother within the jurisdiction of the United States, is not, by definition and Constitutional intent, a “natural born Citizen” as is specifically required by Article II, Section 1 (the Presidential Clause) of the U.S. Constitution, and is, therefore, ineligible to serve as President.

    The intent of the Framers with respect to the meaning of “natural born Citizen” (vs. “born in the U.S.” or U.S. Citizen”) within the context of the Presidential Clause specifically takes into account the father’s allegiance and citizenship at the time of a child’s birth. Thus, the father’s citizenship and, thus, his “attachment to the U.S.” at the time of the child’s birth, carried more weight than merely the geographic location of the child’s birth. Why? Still reeling from British rule, the Framers, as represented by the words of John Jay in a July 1787 letter to George Washington, who presided over the Constitutional Convention, wanted to avoid dual citizenship or dual loyalties of any future Commander-in-Chief by declaring expressly “that the Commander-in-Chief…shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born citizen,” thus to insure future leadership’s freedom from foreign influences.

    Per the 14th Amendment, wherein the distinction between “natural born” and “U.S. Citizen” is never defined, a person born within the jurisdiction of the United States to non-citizens who “are employed in any diplomatic or official capacity” is automatically (by law) a U.S. Citizen. The prevailing view regarding citizenship was again drawn from E. Vattel’s Law of Nations, which stated that “natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens,” and that “as society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”

    Of contemporaneous interest is that according to the U.S. State Department’s Foreign Affairs Manual (7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency), “the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute (“natural born citizen” and “by statute” is incongruous) does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.” The incongruity created by the statement’s use of “natural born citizen” and “by statute” notwithstanding, it appears that a naturalized citizen (by law/statute) is not eligible to assume the office of the President, but it seems to be generally agreed that children born within the jurisdiction of the U.S. of naturalized parents are considered to be “natural born citizens” since that child’s parents are, as part of the naturalization process, required “to renounce and abjure any allegiance or fidelity to any foreign sovereignty” and, thus, are, at the time of the child’s birth, “attached to the U.S.” Similarly, and more obviously, a child born within U.S. jurisdiction of two U.S. citizen parents is also considered a “natural born citizen.”

    From this summary of law, I think it can be most reasonably concluded that since a child derives his attachment to the U.S. from his U.S. Citizen parents, a child born of U.S. Citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the U.S., inclusive of those U.S. parents who were naturalized U.S. citizens at the time of the child’s birth, is very clearly a “natural born citizen.”

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/04/05/why-obama-cannot-be-a-natural-born-citizen/

  6. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 6, 2010 at 12:37 pm #

    Huh?

    Was that FAM citation an April Fool joke?

  7. avatar
    SFJeff April 6, 2010 at 1:15 pm #

    I had never read the FAM before- fascinating reading. The section on foundlings is particularly of interest given some of the speculation that has been cast here.

    But Black Lion is absolutely correct about how disingenuous these Birthers are- 1131 they cite is the chapter on “Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship by Birth Abroad to U.S. Citizen Parent”- which means everything else they cite is knowingly inapplicable to the question of whether a person born in the United States requires citizen parents.

  8. avatar
    Black Lion April 6, 2010 at 2:25 pm #

    Jeff, I believe it was out buddy Sven that first brought up the issue regarding “foundlings” and the FAM statute. Maybe Sven is really John Charlton, head miswriter and fictional creator for the Post and Fail. However the bottom line is that they are citing laws and statutes that have nothing to do with the President and the fact that he was born in the United States.

  9. avatar
    DickWhitman April 6, 2010 at 4:34 pm #

    To my knowledge, it was Orly that first brought up the subject of foundlings.

    It would be historical if we found out what type of prenatal care POTUS had. But, for some reason, that’s a secret.

  10. avatar
    DickWhitman April 6, 2010 at 4:41 pm #

    Why would highly educated men modify the noun citizen with the adjectives natural and born when simply stating POTUS had to be a citizen born in the U.S. would meet your definition of natural born citizen?

  11. avatar
    Scientist April 6, 2010 at 5:26 pm #

    Perhaps they anticipated that birfers would come along and provide entertainment for future generations and they didn’t want to inhibit the fun. Perhaps they didn’t give that much thought to the matter. Believe it or not, the qualifications for President weren’t #1 or even #20 on the list of things they discussed. You might also ask why they didn’t define high crimes and misdemeanors. You may recall that about 12 years ago there was much discussion as to what the term meant without any firm resolution.

    Maybe we should stop trying to mind read dead guys and just define it for ourselves (or get rid of it entirely).

  12. avatar
    Greg April 6, 2010 at 5:26 pm #

    1. “Citizen born in the United States” is longer than “Natural Born Citizen.”

    2. Natural born was a term in common use in the laws, charters and Constitutions of the states.

    3. “Citizen born in the United States” would allow the children of diplomats or invading armies who later naturalized to become President.

    Do you answer questions, or just ask them, Dick?

    Why would highly educated men change the 400 year old definition of “natural born,” without telling anyone? Why would they use a phrase that in every previous occurrence meant “born here regardless of parentage,” when they meant the exact opposite?

  13. avatar
    Greg April 6, 2010 at 5:29 pm #

    What kind of prenatal care did W. have? Did Reagan’s mom take her vitamins? Did Clinton’s mother get enough rest?

    For some reason, these things are all kept secret!

    There must be a conspiracy!

    I know, each of our last 5 presidents has been a space alien!

  14. avatar
    Arthur April 6, 2010 at 5:34 pm #

    Why would highly educated men modify the noun citizen with the adjectives natural and born when simply stating POTUS had to be a citizen born in the U.S. would meet your definition of natural born citizen?

    I don’t know. But based on what I’ve learned from reading the debate on this topic, the phrase “natural born citizen” was understood to describe a citizen who was born in the United States.

    How would you answer this question, Dick?

  15. avatar
    BatGuano April 6, 2010 at 5:36 pm #

    It would be historical if we found out what type of prenatal care POTUS had. But, for some reason, that’s a secret.

    you do realize that it’s only been since jimmy carter that we’ve had presidents that were born in a hospital. not sure how many of their mothers had prenatal care but, obviously, that’s very important for historical purposes and to check against communist influences in utero.

  16. avatar
    ballantine April 6, 2010 at 5:53 pm #

    One day if you go to law school you will find there are legal terms of art that are used in legal documents. “Natural born” did not mean born in the juridiction of the sovereign. It meant born in the jurisdiction of the sovereign and in the allegiance of the sovereign. now go study what allegiance meant in such era and you will understand what “natural born citizen” means.

  17. avatar
    SFJeff April 6, 2010 at 6:14 pm #

    Sven: “Why would highly educated men modify the noun citizen with the adjectives natural and born when simply stating POTUS had to be a citizen born in the U.S. would meet your definition of natural born citizen?”

    Why would they say “natural born citizen” if they really meant “a citizen born in the United States to two citizen parents”?

  18. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 6, 2010 at 7:20 pm #

    It is important to note that significant parts of that text are NOT from the FAM and in particularly

    but it seems to be generally agreed that children born within the jurisdiction of the U.S. of naturalized parents are considered to be “natural born citizens” since that child’s parents are, as part of the naturalization process, required “to renounce and abjure any allegiance or fidelity to any foreign sovereignty” and, thus, are, at the time of the child’s birth, “attached to the U.S.” Similarly, and more obviously, a child born within U.S. jurisdiction of two U.S. citizen parents is also considered a “natural born citizen.”

    and anything like it is nowhere to be found in that section.

  19. avatar
    DickWhitman April 6, 2010 at 8:17 pm #

    I posted info on Refugee Travel Docs this morning and didn’t see one “Thank you.”

    You must be divorced, no?

  20. avatar
    Greg April 6, 2010 at 9:25 pm #

    So, no answer?

    Thank you for proving my point.

  21. avatar
    Greg April 6, 2010 at 9:31 pm #

    I didn’t see anything proving that Obama was a refugee, Dick.

    As to my marital status, this is more evidence of your inadequate guessing ability.

  22. avatar
    G April 7, 2010 at 12:47 am #

    Ok Dick,

    I’ll give you points for actually proving links for once.

    …But then, links for non-sequiturs don’t really count, as they don’t add anything useful to the topic. So great, you provided info on Refugee Travel Docs. But it has nothing whatsoever to do with Obama, so what use is it?

    Really, I could post links to recipes for lasagna or breeding tips for pet chameleons here, but that too would have nothing to do with Obama.

    At least you tried, but you missed the point. Next time, try providing sourced evidence that backs up one of your wild fantasy scenarios.

  23. avatar
    Greg April 7, 2010 at 8:49 am #

    It all goes into my theory. Obama is a space alien. I’ve got a link that shows that lasagna can be made with eggplants. And, Alton Brown has shown that eggplants are from outer-space.

    Therefore, Obama is from outer-space.

    Dick/Sven is great at showing that eggplants are from outer-space, but never gets around to showing that Obama is an eggplant.

  24. avatar
    Black Lion April 7, 2010 at 9:03 am #

    Meaning that the birthers or whoever wrote the article cited made up their own meaning? That couldn’t be possible. The birthers are patriots. They would never make something up in order to support their position…(snark)….

  25. avatar
    JoZeppy April 7, 2010 at 10:28 am #

    Actually, the FAM is quite clear on the subject (gee, I wonder why they never quote these sections?):

    a. U.S. citizenship may be acquired either at birth or through naturalization subsequent to birth. U.S. laws governing the acquisition of citizenship at birth embody two legal principles:
    (1) Jus soli (the law of the soil) – a rule of common law under which the place of a person’s birth determines citizenship. In addition to common law, this principle is embodied in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the various U.S. citizenship and nationality statutes.
    (2) Jus sanguinis (the law of the bloodline) – a concept of Roman or civil law under which a person’s citizenship is determined by the citizenship of one or both parents. This rule, frequently called “citizenship by descent” or “derivative citizenship”, is not embodied
    in the U.S. Constitution, but such citizenship is granted through statute. As U.S. laws have changed, the requirements for
    conferring and retaining derivative citizenship have also changed.