Wanna give 1bad an aneurism?

[MasterKiller]

http://i54.tinypic.com/21kkvpk.jpg

[wenshu]

Why Obama shouldn't have had to 'show his papers'
By Goldie Taylor
11:16 AM on 04/28/2011 (http://www.thegrio.com/politics/why-obama-shouldnt-have-had-to-show-his-papers.php?page=1)


"Show me your papers!"

Major Blackard, then just 19 years old, dug into his trousers in search of his wallet. He padded his jacket, but could not find his billfold.

"Sir, I done left my wallet..." Blackard said. Before he could finish his sentence, the young man was posted against the brick wall, cuffed and taken to the St. Louis city jail. Unable to prove his identity, he would spend the next 21 days in a cramped, musty cell. That's where his older brother Matt found him, beaten and bloodied. Matt returned with Major's employer later that day, wallet and identification card in hand, to post bond.

The year was 1899. Major Blackard was my great, great grandfather.

The real crime, as Pulitzer Prize winning author Doug Blackmon points on in his seminal work Slavery by Any Other Name, was that my grandfather was a colored man in America.

This morning, as White House staffers released copies of the president's long form birth certificate, I couldn't shake the feeling that something very ugly was going on. For the first time in recorded history, a sitting president of the United States found it necessary to produce his original birth certificate for public inspection. Not once, in 235 years, have we ever demanded proof that our president was born on American soil.

In a stunning display of unchecked ego, Donald Trump quickly hosted a news conference, during which he took credit for forcing President Obama's hand. The sometime real estate developer, socialite, author and television personality went on to caution onlookers to let "experts" examine the document. Lest the president continue perpetrating was Trump has called potentially the "biggest fraud in American history."

For weeks, the thrice married, comb-over construction magnate has enthralled news reporters with his apocalyptic ranting. Trump openly questioned whether President Obama belonged in the White House, a boardroom, or even an Ivy League lecture hall.
And we let him.

We used all manner of excuses to justify giving Trump as much oxygen as he could suck up. Rarely, if ever, did we press him to produce a shard of evidence to substantiate his wild claims. We smiled gingerly as he all but called us stupid sycophants who were in cahoots with an illegitimate president. We allowed him to hold court on issues on which he clearly has no knowledge and no credibility, beyond the limo ride briefings he apparently receives from his merry band of "yes men."

Trump didn't just want the birth record. He wants the president to release his college transcripts. "How did such a bad student get into Harvard?," Trump keeps asking. The implication is the Barack Obama was the beneficiary of affirmative action and took the place of a more qualified white student. Apparently, graduating magna cum laude from the nation's most prestigious law school and being named editor of the Harvard Law Review -- the institution's highest student honor -- is not enough for him.

It never is for people like Trump.

"If he gets off the phone, or gets off his basketball court or whatever he's doing at the time," Trump said. "I mean he should be focused on OPEC and getting those prices down."


When they tell you this isn't racial, don't believe them. This controversy was constructed solely as a way to de-legitimize the presidency of a black man. Those who question the location of Barack Obama's birth are the very same people who would pack up and move out of the neighborhood if someone like me moved in next door.

When they say they want to take their country back, they mean from us.

According to a recent Public Policy Polling survey, a stunning 51 percent of Republicans believe the president wasn't born in the United States. In Mississippi, nearly half of all Republicans believe interracial marriage should be illegal. If they had their way, not only would Obama not be president, he never would have been born.That's how far we have not come.

Some 112 years after my grandfather was snatched from a street corner in the central west end section of St. Louis, it seems we still need to prove our right to be here.

I thought we were better than this.

[BJJ-Blue]

I stopped reading when I saw this rubbish:

"For the first time in recorded history, a sitting president of the United States found it necessary to produce his original birth certificate for public inspection. Not once, in 235 years, have we ever demanded proof that our president was born on American soil."

[MasterKiller]

I stopped reading when I saw this rubbish:

"For the first time in recorded history, a sitting president of the United States found it necessary to produce his original birth certificate for public inspection. Not once, in 235 years, have we ever demanded proof that our president was born on American soil."

WASHINGTON — Officially, a hearing this week before the Senate Judiciary Committee was titled "Maximizing Voter Choice: Opening the Presidency to Naturalized Americans."

A constitutional amendment, proposed by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, is called the Equal Opportunity to Govern Amendment.

Unofficially, it is the Arnold bill. Or more correctly, the "Awnald" bill, as in Arnold Schwarzenegger, the box office terminator and reigning governor of California.

But to insiders and out, the bill is about Arnold, whose charisma electrified GOP conventiongoers in New York City this summer but who is ineligible to run for president because he was born in Austria. And he personified a quirk in the U.S. Constitution that he is eligible to aspire to any office in the land — except president.

"Citizenship, whether by birth or naturalization, is the cornerstone of this nation's values and ideal," said Hatch, chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Supporters of the amendment are quick to point out that the amendment is about much, much more than Schwarzenegger. Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm was born in Canada and is therefore ineligible to become president.

Nor can former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and Madeline Albright, nor current Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao, nor former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Mel Martinez, who is now running for the U.S. Senate.

"This is also true for the more than 700 immigrant recipients of the Congressional Medal of Honor, our nation's highest decoration for valor, who risked their lives defending the freedoms and liberties of this great nation," Hatch said. "But no matter how great their sacrifice, leadership or love for this country, they remain ineligible to be a candidate for president."

Article 2 Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution sets the criteria for who can be president. It specifically requires a president to have been born in the United States.

And under that clause, none of the 20 million Americans who became naturalized since 1907 is eligible, no matter their qualifications or patriotism.

"That does not seem fair or right to me," Hatch said.

Several constitutional experts agreed, testifying that the "natural born" requirement is an anachronism carried over from old English law, but never fully embraced by the Founding Fathers who penned the Constitution. Seven of the 39 signers of the U.S. Constitution were born in other countries.

[BJJ-Blue]

Your point being? :confused:

That article is not written well at all. It states many of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence were not born here. That is true. What it failed to mention was that anyone who was a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution was 'grandfathered in' so they were eligible to serve as President.

And long story short, I disagree with Senator Hatch on this issue.

[wenshu]

I guess that is a convenient justification for ignoring point that the entire birther movement is predicated on virulent racism illustrated by the Jim Crow law requiring a black man to carry identification on his person at all times.

[BJJ-Blue]

Can we have one political thread without race popping up? :rolleyes:

[David Jamieson]

And long story short, I disagree with Senator Hatch on this issue.

why?

I'm willing to bet that a newly made citizen of america may very well know more about the history and politics and structure of america than your average american natural born does.

Patriotism is often a misplaced ideal drummed up in place of...???

What is it exactly that make you think you are better than anyone else by virtue of geographical location?

what?

Anyone in the world can become prime minister of Canada so long as they are a citizen. Not born here, but a citizen.

We have the oldest english built and still existing city on the continent, we have french and english languages as a national standard, we have huge populations from all over the world and every single one of them upon being made a citizen has an opportunity and a right to participate in the direction of the country.

that whole natural born thing is a hold over to more narrow minded times. You didn't want to chance electing a newly imported Lord who was well spoken and Charismatic to the presidency on the off chance he'd change his mind about your independence.

That doesn't apply anymore and you simply need to evolve to a higher and more modern standard.

can you give me one reason why you think it should be only someone who was born there? What exactly qualifies someone to be president because their mom birthed em in a given state?

You right wing republican type guys seem to hold tight to prejudices. It's is weird on a scale of awesome actually.

[wenshu]

Ask the GOP.

[BJJ-Blue]

Ask the GOP.

You're the one who injected it in this thread, not them.

[BJJ-Blue]

why?

Where is the 'facepalm' icon when we need it?

[David Jamieson]

Where is the 'facepalm' icon when we need it?

Not good enough dude.

Now, for some of your own medicine.

Just answer the question.

why? Why should someone who is naturalized or who became a citizen not worthy of being the president?

answer the question.

do it.

:p

betcha can't give a good response to that. I can't think of any reason why other than what I indicated and that would have applied...oh a couple of hundred years ago.

[JamesC]

As your friendly neighborhood US ICE officer, I would just like to say that I find the law idiotic.

In my opinion this law was created at a time when people weren't as able to educate themselves on the current political, economic, religious, etc. standing of a country. Not to mention the fact that some people have only ever known our country as their homeland, having come here when infants.

[Lucas]

most imigrants that i have met have a better grasp of reality than many nationally born americans...just sayin... its true. many americans are a fat, lazy, ignorant stock of humans....most of which should never even consider thinking about politics in the first place...

[BJJ-Blue]

why? Why should someone who is naturalized or who became a citizen not worthy of being the president?

Because the Constitution says only a natural born citizen may become President.

Did you really need me to answer that for you?

[BJJ-Blue]

most imigrants that i have met have a better grasp of reality than many nationally born americans...just sayin... its true. many americans are a fat, lazy, ignorant stock of humans....most of which should never even consider thinking about politics in the first place...

You have a point. I work in high tech, so I interact with alot of foreign born people in my job. FYI, they are almost all very conservative. Several even point out that our country is rapidly becoming just like the places they left to come here.

[JamesC]

Because the Constitution says only a natural born citizen may become President.

Did you really need me to answer that for you?

Our Constitution is never wrong then? I suppose that is why there are 27 amendments. :rolleyes:

[sanjuro_ronin]

Because the Constitution says only a natural born citizen may become President.

Did you really need me to answer that for you?

When was that added to the constitution since none of the founding fathers were born in the US, where they?

[JamesC]

No they weren't, but they were "grandfathered in." It is in Article 2 of Constitution.

[BJJ-Blue]

Our Constitution is never wrong then? I suppose that is why there are 27 amendments. :rolleyes:

I didn't say that.

And yes, if you don't like the laws pertaining to the qualifications for President, lobby your elected officials to change them.

[JamesC]

I didn't say that.

And yes, if you don't like the laws pertaining to the qualifications for President, lobby your elected officials to change them.

Fair enough.

My point is that just because the Constitution says it right now, that doesn't mean that it is the ultimate truth. There are a lot of things wrong with it because, frankly, it is outdated and narrow-minded in some aspects.

It worked for them then, but it doesn't work for us as well now. You can't keep citing it as the final say in these matters when it has already been shown to be wrong 27 times.

[David Jamieson]

Fair enough.

My point is that just because the Constitution says it right now, that doesn't mean that it is the ultimate truth. There are a lot of things wrong with it because, frankly, it is outdated and narrow-minded in some aspects.

It worked for them then, but it doesn't work for us as well now. You can't keep citing it as the final say in these matters when it has already been shown to be wrong 27 times.

sweet lord man. You aren't actually trying to talk sense to the ditto head are you? lol

try to leave some of the stuffing in him so others may knock it out now and then. lol

[BJJ-Blue]

My point is that just because the Constitution says it right now, that doesn't mean that it is the ultimate truth. There are a lot of things wrong with it because, frankly, it is outdated and narrow-minded in some aspects.

It worked for them then, but it doesn't work for us as well now. You can't keep citing it as the final say in these matters when it has already been shown to be wrong 27 times.

Amendments don't mean it was "wrong". Take the 18th Amendment, Prohibition. It didn't mean the Founders were wrong because they didn't ban alcohol.

And fyi, the Founders put in the first 10. We've only added 17 since then.

[BJJ-Blue]

try to leave some of the stuffing in him so others may knock it out now and then. lol

Like you did when you told me that the Federal Reserve is a private corporation?

[JamesC]

Amendments don't mean it was "wrong". Take the 18th Amendment, Prohibition. It didn't mean the Founders were wrong because they didn't ban alcohol.

And fyi, the Founders put in the first 10. We've only added 17 since then.

You're just splitting hairs now.

The Constitution was amended by the government because the government is a constantly evolving entity. They felt at that time that changes should be made.

It doesn't change the fact that amendments have been, and will continue to be made because we are always evolving.

[BJJ-Blue]

You're just splitting hairs now.

The Constitution was amended by the government because the government is a constantly evolving entity. They felt at that time that changes should be made.

It doesn't change the fact that amendments have been, and will continue to be made because we are always evolving.

I'm not splitting hairs at all. You said we have 27 Amendments, so it's been wrong 27 times. I simply pointed out that wasn't true and gave a perfect example.

You are right that it's constantly evolving. But look at what it says. PLEASE. It's not a blueprint for passing new laws and taking away choices. It's a document limiting the scope of Government and guaranteeing the rights of The People.

Do you really think the Founders would want the Government banning certain types of candles? Or certain breeds of horses because they were too big and created more waste than smaller horses? Do you think they would have put limits on how big a washtub could be? Of course not, so why are we now saying it's ok for our Government to ban certain types of lighting, transportation, and laundry cleaning devices?

PLEASE, PLEASE, read anything Thomas Jefferson wrote. Anything at all. Then come back and tell me that the Government isn't overreaching it's bounds. And fyi, I'm not trying to fight with you guys here. I'm not trying to 'win'. I'm not trying to hear you say 'Wow, BJJ youre right'. I just want Americans to remain the most free human beings on the face of the earth. I want this country to be the country I admire, not the country I fear will take away the simple pleasures of hard-working Americans.

[JamesC]

I'm not splitting hairs at all. You said we have 27 Amendments, so it's been wrong 27 times. I simply pointed out that wasn't true and gave a perfect example.

You are right that it's constantly evolving. But look at what it says. PLEASE. It's not a blueprint for passing new laws and taking away choices. It's a document limiting the scope of Government and guaranteeing the rights of The People.

Do you really think the Founders would want the Government banning certain types of candles? Or certain breeds of horses because they were too big and created more waste than smaller horses? Do you think they would have put limits on how big a washtub could be? Of course not, so why are we now saying it's ok for our Government to ban certain types of lighting, transportation, and laundry cleaning devices?

PLEASE, PLEASE, read anything Thomas Jefferson wrote. Anything at all. Then come back and tell me that the Government isn't overreaching it's bounds. And fyi, I'm not trying to fight with you guys here. I'm not trying to 'win'. I'm not trying to hear you say 'Wow, BJJ youre right'. I just want Americans to remain the most free human beings on the face of the earth. I want this country to be the country I admire, not the country I fear will take away the simple pleasures of hard-working Americans.

I get what you're saying, I really do.

The implications of their actions simply weren't known as they are now. We are a world that is completely networked. We no longer have the benefit of claiming ignorance about these things. They did.

And, like you, i'm not trying to win here either. I'm not even sure the government is to blame for the things that they do now. Ultimately, I feel like it is our fault for not stepping up and taking responsibility for our own actions sooner. The only reason the government has to take these steps is because we dropped the ball.

[JamesC]

If our Founding Fathers could see us now, I don't think it is the government they'd be so disappointed in.

I think it would be us, the people. We've essentially chosen indifference and begun that "slippery slope", if you will, of handing the government our asses. I don't think blaming the government for that makes sense at all. I blame everyone that has decided it isn't worth the effort to get involved.

[BJJ-Blue]

James, I agree they would not be happy. Matter of fact, there would be a huge shortage of tar and feathers if they showed up. ;)

You're right that it's partially our fault. We elected alot of bad/inept/corrupt people. That's our fault. But it the politicians fault too. It's downright disgusting to forcefully take the fruits of one man's labor and give it to someone else to buy votes.

But I do hope you agree with me that while some choices/laws are necessary, some are over the line. Yes, we need temperary burn bans when it's too dry out. But we don't need the Government banning certain types of firewood we can use in our home fireplaces. Yes, we need the FDA to ensure our food is safe to eat, but they are overstepping their bounds when they dictate how much of it we can and cant eat. How much gas my car guzzles is my business, I pay the taxes on every gallon I purchase. That's as far as they need to go.

One more thing, thanks for being rational and polite. I appreciate that. :)

[David Jamieson]

Go sulk birther. :p

[wenshu]

The term is now officially After-Birther

The founding fathers would be p*ssed that yelling "Get me mah coffee BOY!" at black people did not have the intended results.

They would be further incensed when they are refused treatment for multiple skull fractures at the Hospital for lack of insurance or credit.

[mawali]

Because the Constitution says only a natural born citizen may become President.

Did you really need me to answer that for you?

1. The founding Euro fathers of the Constitution intended that non-white people be not or shall never become leaders of any power leadership position.

2. When they wrote equality before the law, they only meant white people. It was understood per the codewords of the day. That being said, it can and has been extrapolated that Obama should not and possible cannot be President by those who follow this thought process so I understand it.

By that token, McCain cannot be considered a true candiddate due to his not being a natural born citizen. Let us pretend he wasn't (McCain) in that one of his parents was a US citizen and so was Obama's parent.

Last I heard, Hawaii is a US territory and Alexander Hamilton was a true patriot!

[David Jamieson]

Because the Constitution says only a natural born citizen may become President.

Did you really need me to answer that for you?

Yes, well the constitution was redacted as mentioned^ numerous times.

"Because the constitution says so" therefore is not a valid answer.

your argument is potato.

[BJJ-Blue]

Yes, well the constitution was redacted as mentioned^ numerous times.

"Because the constitution says so" therefore is not a valid answer.

your argument is potato.

It wasn't redacted/changed in terms of the Presidential requirements. So my argument is 100% correct.

So go call me more names and tell us how the Federal Reserve is a private corporation.

[BJJ-Blue]

1. The founding Euro fathers of the Constitution intended that non-white people be not or shall never become leaders of any power leadership position.

2. When they wrote equality before the law, they only meant white people. It was understood per the codewords of the day. That being said, it can and has been extrapolated that Obama should not and possible cannot be President by those who follow this thought process so I understand it.

Can you back up any of that? I mean, we must have writings, speeches, etc where they say that was the reason. Those men spoke and wrote extensively, so if you are right it shouldn't take you long to find the info I'm asking for.