To Birther or Not To Birther, That is the Question


Recommended Posts

To Birther or Not To Birther, That is the Question

I am not a birther, since that means I hold that President Obama was not born in the USA.

But after seeing all the weirdness surrounding this issue, I do not hold that he was born in the USA, either.

I simply don't know.

Here is what I do know.

There is something he--or someone close to him--wants to hide regarding the original document. It's not rocket science to produce it, nor is it any great hardship. In fact, it's silly not to produce this thing, given that so many credible people are asking why he doesn't. It's a simple verification of his eligibility, just to make sure the USA citizens have not been conned.

Michael

Michael,

The Constitution states that to be eligible to become president of the United States one must be a "natural born citizen." Since that is not a requirement for any other high office, one hoping to be a Senator or Congressman must merely be an American citizen, not a "natural born citizen," one must determine what did that concept mean to those who wrote it. Contrary to the widespread notion that it only meant that one was born on American soil, it was understood at the time that it meant that both of one's parents were American citizens. The Founders thought that it made sense that a future president would be more likely to be loyal to America if both his parents were citizens of America. If a child had a parent whose citizenship and loyalties were to another country it would have a profound influence on him.

The concept of "natural born citizen" appeared in the Law of Nations document written some years before the Revolution and was evidently widely understood at the time so it was taken for granted that its meaning would be clear and would require no elaboration or definition when it was included in the clause stating the eligibility requirements for president.

Even Obama himself readily acknowledges that his father was Kenyan and therefor a British subject and not an American citizen. He has cashed in on the failure of our educational system to properly enlighten the electorate on such matters. He also is cashing in on the prevailing tendency to ignore the Constitution in so many ways.

gulch

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 165
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Even Obama himself readily acknowledges that his father was Kenyan and therefor a British subject and not an American citizen. He has cashed in on the failure of our educational system to properly enlighten the electorate on such matters. He also is cashing in on the prevailing tendency to ignore the Constitution in so many ways.

gulch

Irrelevant. His mother was American and Obama was born from an American mother on U.S. Territory. There is nothing further to be said on the matter. It would make no difference if the man he acknowledged as his daddy were a Martian. Only maternity can be know for sure.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> what did you mean by "argument from intimidation"? [GHS]

Is this the same George H. Smith that claimed not to know what I meant by psychologizing and then promised to write a long article proving that the standard Objectivism meaning of the term was wrong....and then abandoned the thread before he had rendered for us his Super-Duper Kantian-Length proof?

[in the essay Rand referred often to -moral- intimidation. But it is meant to include any other form of intimidation...such as in the form JR constantly uses on every thread where I disagree with him about literature, -intellectual- intimidation: "no one who knows literature", "no credible source"... Or, in this case, anyone who discusses or even thinks about whether Obama was born in the U.S. and thus was eligible to be elected President.]

Rand gives parallel examples we've all seen: "Surely you are not an advocate of capitalism, are you?"..."Oh, you couldn't be! Not really!"

(You couldn't possibly take the birther argument seriously? Don't you know no one credible does so?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> what did you mean by "argument from intimidation"? [GHS]

Is this the same George H. Smith that claimed not to know what I meant by psychologizing and then promised to write a long article proving that the standard Objectivism meaning of the term was wrong....and then abandoned the thread before he had rendered for us his Super-Duper Kantian-Length proof?

I never set out to prove anything one way or the other about how Rand used the term "psychologize." You are the one who raised this subject, and I put you on ignore so as not be distracted by your Randroidian detour to nowhere.

So please stop lying, Phil. Of if you don't like the term "lying," then stop misrepresenting my posts.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> stop misrepresenting my posts.

Why don't -you- stop misrepresenting -my- arguments - and those of Ayn Rand - in regard to what psychologizing, ad hominem the argument from authority, and the argument from intimidation are.

And why they are sleazy, vicious, character assassinating...and unworthy of both yourself and Jeff Riggenbach.

And then apologize and promise to stop doing this sort of thing on thread after thread!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> stop misrepresenting my posts.

Why don't -you- stop misrepresenting -my- arguments - and those of Ayn Rand - in regard to what psychologizing, ad hominem the argument from authority, and the argument from intimidation are.

And why they are sleazy, vicious, character assassinating...and unworthy of both yourself and Jeff Riggenbach.

And then apologize and promise to stop doing this sort of thing on thread after thread!!!

Since this is not what happened on this thread, why should anyone take your word about "thread after thread"? You followed Jeff--his #5 with your #9--where you were completely wrong and it went downhill from there.

--Brant

Edited by Brant Gaede
Link to comment
Share on other sites

> what did you mean by "argument from intimidation"? [GHS]

Is this the same George H. Smith that claimed not to know what I meant by psychologizing and then promised to write a long article proving that the standard Objectivism meaning of the term was wrong....and then abandoned the thread before he had rendered for us his Super-Duper Kantian-Length proof?

[in the essay Rand referred often to -moral- intimidation. But it is meant to include any other form of intimidation...such as in the form JR constantly uses on every thread where I disagree with him about literature, -intellectual- intimidation: "no one who knows literature", "no credible source"... Or, in this case, anyone who discusses or even thinks about whether Obama was born in the U.S. and thus was eligible to be elected President.]

Rand gives parallel examples we've all seen: "Surely you are not an advocate of capitalism, are you?"..."Oh, you couldn't be! Not really!"

(You couldn't possibly take the birther argument seriously? Don't you know no one credible does so?)

What you are attempting to describe is actually a form of the appeal to authority -- you know, the tactic you used earlier today when you referred to your S.A.T. scores.

Rand's "argument from intimidation" is actually a debating tactic, not a type of argument per se. It works only if the person using it is regarded as an authority in the relevant field -- which is why we see it used by professors against students. The supposed authority of the professor (relative to the ignorance of his students) is what makes the intimidation possible. It would not work if the professor were arguing with another professor who had equal or greater knowledge in the field.

Appeals to authority are sometimes justified and sometimes not. This depends on the subject being debated.

Also relevant is how we assess the credibility of a proposition or an argument (or their source). To assess a knowledge claim as "credible" is not to say that it has been justified; rather, a credible proposition is one that we regard as worthy of serious consideration. If a proposition does not meet our minimal standards of credibility, we will dismiss it out of hand.

Suppose someone claimed that all the moon landings were hoaxes perpetrated by NASA. And suppose I replied, "You surely don't expect anyone to take you seriously" -- followed by statements about "no credible source." This could be a perfectly legitimate response on my part.

In those cases where JR has not treated you with the respect you think you so richly deserve, it is clear that he does not regard your assertions as credible. If he does not deal with your assertions in detail, this is because he doesn't think they merit even that much consideration. If you are intimidated -- whether morally or in any other way -- by Jeff's bluntness in such matters, then that is your problem, not Jeff's. He has no power to intimidate you (or anyone else) unless you accept him as an authority.

I have discussed the subject of credibility in a number of places. See, for example, "Atheism and the Virtue of Reasonableness" (in Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies) and the first chapter of Why Atheism? It is at this level of argumentation that "psychologizing" plays a crucial role.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> stop misrepresenting my posts.

Why don't -you- stop misrepresenting -my- arguments - and those of Ayn Rand - in regard to what psychologizing, ad hominem the argument from authority, and the argument from intimidation are.

And why they are sleazy, vicious, character assassinating...and unworthy of both yourself and Jeff Riggenbach.

And then apologize and promise to stop doing this sort of thing on thread after thread!!!

Where did I ever misrepresent Rand on any of the points you mentioned? Cite even one example -- and I mean an actual quotation or post number.

The last time you made an unsupported allegation -- to the effect that I had launched a personal attack against you earlier in a thread -- I repeatedly asked you to quote the passage or at least identify the post you had in mind. You bluntly refused to do this, even though there were only three or four relevant posts and even though you had demanded that Michael do essentially the same thing. You get caught in a lie, and then you hope the problem will go away until you decide to lie again.

I used to chalk this up to incompetence on your part, but no longer. You have the intellectual ethics of a snail.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not arguing that Obama is a good president by any standard. I actually detest the guy but aren't you "appealing to a legal technicality" by making an issue of where he was born?

Indeed, that's what I was going to say. The purpose of the birth requirement is to ensure that a person has American values. No American in recent history has had them. So it's a moot issue anyway.

Guys,

That was not my point. But to address that point, if you are not a natural born American citizen, you can't be President. That's just the way the law is. If they someday amend the Constitution, OK. But that's not the way it stands now.

Anyway, like I said, that was not my point. Since this birther thing is an item of legitimate legal contention (with emphasis on the "contention" part), I believe it will be used as a device to take Obama down--and I believe it has a good chance of doing so. That being the case, I'm throwing in my little part to help it along. I want Obama gone from high office.

Obama is sleazy and the way he is handling this thing throws his sleaziness into strong relief.

See my response to Robert below for more explanation.

Part of what happened with the WMDs is that Saddam acted as though he was hiding some because he thought it would intimidate his enemies in the region if they believed he had them.

That didn't work out as planned.

Robert,

I'm not discussing the merits of the WMD thing per se, but your observation actually proves part of my point. It didn't matter who was right with Bush. I believe Obama got elected just because the issue existed in the form perceived by the public.

Public perception was strongly with Bush on going into Iraq. It took a while to turn against him, but now that it has, it is still against him. It doesn't matter whether Buyh was right or wrong or a victim of circumstance. He handled the WMD thing poorly by stonewalling for the longest time after he knew there was a problem. He treated the pubic as idiots and there was an "Audacity of Hope" and "Change We Can Believe In" and "Yes We Can" backlash.

Obama is now making the same mistake Bush did except in his case, it is the birther issue. It's not going to matter whether he wins the argument or not. He's losing his credibility with the public big-time. And there will be a price to pay.

I know it's hard to imagine he can do worse credibility-wise than the sleazy manner he got Obamacare through (and some other massive bills), but he's managing it. He was castigated for the first in the midterm elections and I believe he will be severely castigated for both that and his handling of the birther thing in 2012. I don't care if he does raise a billion dollars for his election fund.

If the birther thing explodes (as it might since there are many, many powerful interested parties watching it intently--and they will act if they think there is a chance for taking Obama down), I don't discard an impeachment and even later prosecution for fraud.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys,

That was not my point. But to address that point, if you are not a natural born American citizen, you can't be President. That's just the way the law is. If they someday amend the Constitution, OK. But that's not the way it stands now.

Anyway, like I said, that was not my point. Since this birther thing is an item of legitimate legal contention (with emphasis on the "contention" part), I believe it will be used as a device to take Obama down--and I believe it has a good chance of doing so. That being the case, I'm throwing in my little part to help it along. I want Obama gone from high office.

Obama is sleazy and the way he is handling this thing throws his sleaziness into strong relief.

I think the Birther controversy will work to Obama's advantage politically. I think someone else already noted the reasons for this, but they are pretty obvious in any case.

For me, the worst case scenario would be the revelation that the Birthers are correct, that Obama does not meet the constitutional requirements to be president. If this were proven true while Obama is in office, it would precipitate an unprecedented constitutional crisis of the first order. The legal fights would take years to resolve, and the crisis would suck up so much of the political atmosphere that the really important issues would receive little if any media attention.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Though Michael never directly replied to my request that he name one "credible person" who took the whole "birther" movement seriously, it has emerged from the thread that he probably meant Donald Trump. To which, I'm afraid, my response is: Donald Trump? He's a clown!

Jeff,

I already imagined that was your view and this was one of the reasons I didn't address it directly. It wasn't relevant to my point.

But since the confusion persists, now I will address it.

My meaning for "credible" in the context of my opening post was "credible to the public." not "credible to Jeff." I was basically discussing public relations and propaganda, not personal standards of trustworthiness and expertise.

Trump is a successful commercial real estate developer, best-selling author of several self-help books, and highly rated TV entertainer. The phrase, "You're fired," as stated by him has become a meme in our culture. When that level of achievement is compared by the public against the track record of your run-of-the-mill conspiracy theorist (or even a not run-of-the-mill conspiracy theorist like Orly Taitz), Trump is clearly more "credible."

If you want to see a butt-load of credible people in my meaning, i.e., "credible to the public" (I don't know how many would qualify in your meaning, i.e., "credible to Jeff"), here is a long Wikipedia article:

Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories

Even Camille Paglia mentioned in that article as being on record with a view very, very close to my own.

Hope that helps.

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the Birther controversy will work to Obama's advantage politically. I think someone else already noted the reasons for this, but they are pretty obvious in any case.

For me, the worst case scenario would be the revelation that the Birthers are correct, that Obama does not meet the constitutional requirements to be president. If this were proven true while Obama is in office, it would precipitate an unprecedented constitutional crisis of the first order. The legal fights would take years to resolve, and the crisis would suck up so much of the political atmosphere that the really important issues would receive little if any media attention.

George,

I used to think like you in your first paragraph. I'm seeing too much stuff happening right now (just look at something like the Wikipedia article for an eye-opener) to continue thinking that way.

Incidentally, as I stated before, I don't have a solid opinion about whether Obama was born in the USA. Except maybe this--I do hope he was since I agree with your second paragraph.

For me, the best outcome will be for Obama's credibility (to the public) to be shot to hell because of this issue, he gets voted out of office and people get tired of discussing it as he fades into the sunset of Jimmy Carter-like legacy land. Note: I'm discussing public relations and propaganda in this projected outcome, not the legal merits.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys,

That was not my point. But to address that point, if you are not a natural born American citizen, you can't be President. That's just the way the law is. If they someday amend the Constitution, OK. But that's not the way it stands now.

Anyway, like I said, that was not my point. Since this birther thing is an item of legitimate legal contention (with emphasis on the "contention" part), I believe it will be used as a device to take Obama down--and I believe it has a good chance of doing so. That being the case, I'm throwing in my little part to help it along. I want Obama gone from high office.

Obama is sleazy and the way he is handling this thing throws his sleaziness into strong relief.

I think the Birther controversy will work to Obama's advantage politically. I think someone else already noted the reasons for this, but they are pretty obvious in any case.

For me, the worst case scenario would be the revelation that the Birthers are correct, that Obama does not meet the constitutional requirements to be president. If this were proven true while Obama is in office, it would precipitate an unprecedented constitutional crisis of the first order. The legal fights would take years to resolve, and the crisis would suck up so much of the political atmosphere that the really important issues would receive little if any media attention.

Ghs

Maybe. I think the courts might find he was President regardless and stays President unless removed from office by conviction of charges put up by his Impeachment. And the courts have already come down on his side anyway, sanctioning his 2008 candidacy. If he were a Republican, the elite media would hound him from office, of course, but not Obama. All else being equal, he's President until January 2013, at least. The Supreme Court would take up the matter so fast your head would spin--and make a declarative judgment that he's President until removed by such a conviction. It will do this just to avoid the mess you're afraid of.

--Brant

doesn't matter any now; Obama is a done deal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gentlemen:

What do we do if he refuses to leave?

Hey America...guess who's come to dinner and is staying,

I am actually petrified to think that we might not be able to remove him.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gentlemen:

What do we do if he refuses to leave?

Hey America...guess who's come to dinner and is staying,

I am actually petrified to think that we might not be able to remove him.

Adam

You remove him when the next guy is elected. If he refuses to go the army will show up at 1600 Penns. While the army is subservient to the civilian substratum and over-stratum, it is not subserviant to what you are referring to: a non-commander-in-chief acting like one. The chain of command is incredibly strong and it can backwash on an impostor and sweep him away. And it wouldn't be a coup, for the new President will have taken the oath of office on January 20 and the army will be acting on his orders. What will actually happen is a few FBI guys with warrants will go to the White House and after conferring with the Secret Service, arrest him. The Secret Service will still act to protect his corpus but not his other-puss.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even Obama himself readily acknowledges that his father was Kenyan and therefor a British subject and not an American citizen. He has cashed in on the failure of our educational system to properly enlighten the electorate on such matters. He also is cashing in on the prevailing tendency to ignore the Constitution in so many ways.

gulch

Irrelevant. His mother was American and Obama was born from an American mother on U.S. Territory. There is nothing further to be said on the matter. It would make no difference if the man he acknowledged as his daddy were a Martian. Only maternity can be know for sure.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Ba'al,

You are confusing the way that Israel decides whether a person is Jewish or not. In that case they only care who the mother is. But the Founders were following the Natural Born CItizen concept which refers not just to the mother rather both parents in keeping with the Laws of Nations precedent which required that both parents be citizens.

gulch

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Subject: defending myself against more of GHS's attacks and sophistry

1. > Appeals to authority are sometimes justified and sometimes not. This depends on the subject being debated. [GHS, post 32]

Yes, but it doesn't apply to the kinds of subjects we normally talk about here. Unlike subjects that require a Ph.D. or advanced training in medicine, technology, some of the sciences, etc., each of us can read books of history or literature and come to our own conclusions whether or not George H. Smith or Jeffrey Riggenbach or their alleged experts are 'talking through their hat'.

Just like Rand's point about philosophy being open to every man's mind and not a highly specialized, abstruse, technical field.

2. > If a proposition does not meet our minimal standards of credibility, we will dismiss it out of hand. Suppose someone claimed that all the moon landings were hoaxes perpetrated by NASA.

The issue where I took Jeff to task was his denying that anyone credible would spend more than seconds thinking about whether or not Obama was born in America and why he doesn't simply produce a birth certificate. This is especially important because if he wasn't, he is not eligible to be President and could be removed.

Jeff has still not withdrawn his silly "argument from intimidation" statement intended to browbeat and show contempt for anyone who would even raise the issue. It's not a big deal to write a post making a rash, arrogant, bullying statement once in a while. We all post silly things from time to time. What's notable is that he *won't back down from it or admit error* (did you notice I made a silly post yesterday and then immediately retracted and apologized for it - I had not carefully read one of Jeff's long posts?) Are you just faithfully being Jeff's wingman on this point despite the facts?

Hardly on the same level as questioning the moon landing, as you so cleverly and subtly wish to insinuate.

3. > If he does not deal with your assertions in detail, this is because he doesn't think they merit even that much consideration.

The real issue is whether I raise legitimate points or questions, not whether Jeff or you refuse to consider them. Or wish to ignore them because they are difficult or time-consuming, which is what I suspect.

Claiming that none of my posts are worthwhile or worth your time or that you will simply 'ignore' them is pompous bluster. A trait you and Jeff often resort to when I challenge either one of you. And you are unable to answer easily.

4. > that I had launched a personal attack against you earlier in a thread -- I repeatedly asked you to quote the passage

I don't need to respond to your request to reread all your posts to find a -particular- one. Anyone who reads this board knows that you have repeatedly attacked me, called me names, questioned my honesty to a degree that amounts to character assassination. I telescoped a half dozen of your attacks against me a few weeks back into a post. (I don't see a need to keep doing it for readers because anyone who doesn't grasp that you've been constantly attacking me, insulting me, using ad hominems, etc. is almost too dumb or inattentive to be ambulatory.)

So now you come back and act all innocent as if you had never launched a personal attack? GIVE ME A FUCKING BREAK. (If any further proof were needed, you've just offered here on this thread one more of an long string: "You have the intellectual ethics of a snail. [post 33]")

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4. > that I had launched a personal attack against you earlier in a thread -- I repeatedly asked you to quote the passage

I don't need to respond to your request to reread all your posts to find a -particular- one. Anyone who reads this board knows that you have repeatedly attacked me, called me names, questioned my honesty to a degree that amounts to character assassination. I telescoped a half dozen of your attacks against me a few weeks back into a post. (I don't see a need to keep doing it for readers because anyone who doesn't grasp that you've been constantly attacking me, insulting me, using ad hominems, etc. is almost too dumb or inattentive to be ambulatory.)

So now you come back and act all innocent as if you had never launched a personal attack? GIVE ME A FUCKING BREAK. (If any further proof were needed, you've just offered here on this thread one more of an long string: "You have the intellectual ethics of a snail. [post 33]")

You are an intellectual clown. That's all you have ever been, and that's all you will ever be. So put on your red nose and big shoes, grab your seltzer bottle, and get on with Part 452 of "Watch the Clown Cry Some More."

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4. > that I had launched a personal attack against you earlier in a thread -- I repeatedly asked you to quote the passage

I don't need to respond to your request to reread all your posts to find a -particular- one. Anyone who reads this board knows that you have repeatedly attacked me, called me names, questioned my honesty to a degree that amounts to character assassination. I telescoped a half dozen of your attacks against me a few weeks back into a post. (I don't see a need to keep doing it for readers because anyone who doesn't grasp that you've been constantly attacking me, insulting me, using ad hominems, etc. is almost too dumb or inattentive to be ambulatory.)

So now you come back and act all innocent as if you had never launched a personal attack? GIVE ME A FUCKING BREAK. (If any further proof were needed, you've just offered here on this thread one more of an long string: "You have the intellectual ethics of a snail. [post 33]")

You are an intellectual clown. That's all you have ever been, and that's all you will ever be. So put on your red nose and big shoes, grab your seltzer bottle, and get on with Part 452 of "Watch the Clown Cry Some More."

Ghs

An intellectual clown? Women love an intelligent man with a sense of humor. Good for you Philip!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are an intellectual clown. That's all you have ever been, and that's all you will ever be. So put on your red nose and big shoes, grab your seltzer bottle, and get on with Part 452 of "Watch the Clown Cry Some More."

Ghs

An intellectual clown? Women love an intelligent man with a sense of humor. Good for you Philip!

Yeah, good for you, Phil. You have elevated self-righteous imbecility to an art form. Riggenbach makes one sarcastic remark that wasn't even addressed to you, and that's all you needed to take center ring.

It wasn't enough for you to say that you don't like Jeff's tone or style of writing. Nope, that wouldn't impress anyone -- so you go into your elaborate routine about fictitious arguments from intimidation, how JR and I supposedly don't understand what an "argument" is, the proper use of a dictionary, how you have been savagely attacked, etc., etc.

This continuous recycling of your schoolmarm routine might not be so tiresome if you actually made a legitimate point once in a while, but that hasn't happened yet, and I doubt if it ever will.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are confusing the way that Israel decides whether a person is Jewish or not. In that case they only care who the mother is. But the Founders were following the Natural Born CItizen concept which refers not just to the mother rather both parents in keeping with the Laws of Nations precedent which required that both parents be citizens.

gulch

Short of a genetic test no one knows who the father is. This is true everywhere, not just in Israel. For all you know Obama's mom might have had carnal knowledge of a U.S. male citizen which led to his conception. Until about 40 years ago the conception-father could not be determined by any known test.

The courts have not held your point. You lose. What you suggest would require a constitutional amendment.

You should also note that the late Barry Goldwater was not even born in the United States (Arizona was not a State in the year he was born), yet he was qualified to run.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Though Michael never directly replied to my request that he name one "credible person" who took the whole "birther" movement seriously, it has emerged from the thread that he probably meant Donald Trump. To which, I'm afraid, my response is: Donald Trump? He's a clown!

Jeff,

I already imagined that was your view and this was one of the reasons I didn't address it directly. It wasn't relevant to my point.

But since the confusion persists, now I will address it.

My meaning for "credible" in the context of my opening post was "credible to the public." not "credible to Jeff." I was basically discussing public relations and propaganda, not personal standards of trustworthiness and expertise.

Trump is a successful commercial real estate developer, best-selling author of several self-help books, and highly rated TV entertainer. The phrase, "You're fired," as stated by him has become a meme in our culture. When that level of achievement is compared by the public against the track record of your run-of-the-mill conspiracy theorist (or even a not run-of-the-mill conspiracy theorist like Orly Taitz), Trump is clearly more "credible."

If you want to see a butt-load of credible people in my meaning, i.e., "credible to the public" (I don't know how many would qualify in your meaning, i.e., "credible to Jeff"), here is a long Wikipedia article:

Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories

Even Camille Paglia mentioned in that article as being on record with a view very, very close to my own.

Hope that helps.

:)

Michael

Camille Paglia is, of course, an ignorant fool.

JR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should also note that the late Barry Goldwater was not even born in the United States (Arizona was not a State in the year he was born), yet he was qualified to run.

This is a triviality, but he was legally a natural born American for presidential purposes. Wasn't McCain born in the Canal Zone? I have a feeling even Obama doesn't know what is on the original birth certificate. Anyway, Americans, as always, get what they deserve, politically. I'm so glad McCain isn't President. We can fight the socialists to a standstill if we want to, without force of arms. Fascists are another matter. This country is priming itself for fascism. The communists were strong in Germany before Hitler came to power. They were utterly crushed.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now