May 25, 2010

"The more he talked, the more he got upset... He needs to take a valium before he comes in and talks to Republicans..."

"... and just calm down, and don’t take anything so seriously. If you disagree with someone, it doesn’t mean you’re attacking their motives — and he takes it that way and tends then to lecture and then gets upset."

Said Senator Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) about President Barack Obama.

154 comments:

campy said...

Scandal! GOP Senator Wants Obama Drugged!

Practicing Medicine Without a License?

Hearings To Start Monday.

chuck b. said...

Really? But he was a community organizer! I don't get it.

Beth said...

Well, if the Republican senator from Kansas says it, it must be so.

Trooper York said...

Tag

Obama is like Jeremy.

danielle said...

I'm surprised he said that to a reporter. Seems like the sort of think he may regret saying, just because it makes him look rather petty.

I'm glad to see Obama get a little pissed sometimes.

danielle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
garage mahal said...

wv- asschaps

That is all!

AJ Lynch said...

I suggest Obama try and focus and attempt to fix one thing at a time. His admin is failiing bigtime at multi-tasking. So
secure the borders or "plug the damn hole" or amend DADT but do them one at a time cause the Obama team is full of inexperienced idiots.

Quayle said...

Obama is an arrogant prick - plain and simple.

edutcher said...

The Zero sees his little Chicago slipping away as the gales of November blow early.

It was not supposed to be this way.

He is The Messiah, after all.

(apologies to Gordon Lightfoot)

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

Oh My!! He tends to lecture people who don't understand what the fuck he's saying! And to people representin' the state that tried to elevate creationism to a scientific theory! For shame!

Roger J. said...

The president is a remarkably thin skinned idiot. But thats just my opinion--I do look forward to the next election cycle.

Joe said...


I'm glad to see Obama get a little pissed sometimes.


Be nice if he got as grumpy with Kim Jong-Il or Achmadinejad....

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

The smartest thing Pat Buchanan ever said was how much of a loser Bush made America looked like when he elevated Ahmedinejad to the role of someone worth taking seriously.

Mick said...

They all know Obama is not an eligible Natural Born Citizen, since his father was never a citizen (much less at the time Obama 2 was born). Maybe he is just defensive.

Craig said...

Krauthammer said tonight that he'd be happy to write the prescription.

Roger J. said...

Ritmo--I am simply not following your point about Bush and Achadinjad--In what way has the Obama administration changed its approach to Iran?

Joe said...

Ahmedinejad to the role of someone worth taking seriously.


Sure being the leader of an expansionist regime, sitting on the world's most critical waterway whilst developing a nuclear program should make you someone to be ignored.

At least if you are a POTUS more interested in Union politics, health care nationalization, and "green growth" OR if you are one the aforementioned POTUS' enablers.

Eric said...

I don't believe we've had a president with skin this thin in my lifetime. It never ceases to amaze me he managed to get elected.

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

Ritmo--I am simply not following your point about Bush and Achadinjad--In what way has the Obama administration changed its approach to Iran?

He doesn't treat him as someone possessing the power and esteem of Satan himself.

Maybe it's just a rhetorical move, but it sure seems to deprive the walking fashion faux-pas from Tehran the sort of negative attention that he seems to cherish, relish and live for.

OTOH, maybe it's not that different from the Bush approach, but Bush sure seemed to like surrounding himself with advisors and supporters who preferred the approach I describe.

Roger J. said...

Echoing Joe, I see no substantive change in American policy toward the Iranian regime--they are continuing with their nuclear ambitions, and now have the Russians backing them up. While the Bush polilcy was apathetic the Obama policy is anemic. Of course, little difference between the two except Mr Obama did drone on about engagement. That does not have appeared to work.

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

Sure being the leader of an expansionist regime, sitting on the world's most critical waterway whilst developing a nuclear program should make you someone to be ignored.

At least if you are a POTUS more interested in Union politics, health care nationalization, and "green growth" OR if you are one the aforementioned POTUS' enablers.


Spoken like someone truly intent on depriving the Green Revolution of the national legitimacy that Iran's theocracy would love to deprive it of.

Roger J. said...

Ritmo--I will take your point about Satan and all of that--that said, Mr Achmadinejad, whatever his relationship to the devil, is a major threat in a volatile region. And now Iran has some rather significant allies--The Bush approach to Iran was bad; the Obama approach is worse.

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

Of course, little difference between the two except Mr Obama did drone on about engagement. That does not have appeared to work.

Of course, post hoc ergo propter hoc and all, but the timing of the current rebellion in Iran doesn't seem to support this theory.

Trooper York said...

I think he should carry Rahm Emanuel in a backpack while he mows the White House lawn.

That might help him cool off.

Joe said...


Of course, post hoc ergo propter hoc and all, but the timing of the current rebellion in Iran doesn't seem to support this theory.


That one would be the one that Obama did his best to ignore, right?

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

Iran will always have a strong claim to power in the region. The question is whether we want it run by a dimwitted quack in a Members' Only jacket or decline to give the regime a reason to reject the legitimacy of the opposition.

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

That one would be the one that Obama did his best to ignore, right?

Great idea, Joe. If only Obama were that much smarter, he would tie the protests to external, American interests. I think that would have gone over really well.

Roger J. said...

Re the current revolution in Iran--while my sympathies lie with the revoltion, it appears that the regime is quite capable of crushing any resistance.

On a more geostratic level, I find the the Russian Iranian rapprochment a bit disturbing. Now I will hark back to long standing Tsarist ambition to create a warm water port--I dont believe that ambition has gone away. An Iran, supported by an increasingly autoractic Russia is not a pleasant thing to behold.

Roger J. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joe said...


Iran will always have a strong claim to power in the region. The question is whether we want it run by a dimwitted quack in a Members' Only jacket or decline to give the regime a reason to reject the legitimacy of the opposition.


Of courswe if we just IGNORE the Opposition they'll grtow stronger. I mean it worked with the USSR and the Refuseniks...OH WAIT. OR in South Africa where we...NO WAIT AGAIN!

Sorry MUL/Ritmo your point is rejected....but please continue to flounder about, defending the indefensible.

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

At least we can take heart in Russia's declining power, as well as its decline in so many other things.

Joe said...


Great idea, Joe. If only Obama were that much smarter, he would tie the protests to external, American interests. I think that would have gone over really well.


Just addressed your non-point, MUL.

Joe said...


At least we can take heart in Russia's declining power, as well as its decline in so many other things.



Now our policies must succeed ont he failures of others, man you must be a world class sports coach Ritmo!

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

Of courswe if we just IGNORE the Opposition they'll grtow stronger. I mean it worked with the USSR and the Refuseniks...OH WAIT. OR in South Africa where we...NO WAIT AGAIN!

Sorry MUL/Ritmo your point is rejected....but please continue to flounder about, defending the indefensible.


By this logic, I take it you believe that communism was a great system on the verge of leading the Soviet Union not to collapse, but global supremacy.

Same logic goes for apartheid.

Maybe someday you'll let the light of a real-world analysis peek through into your ideologically-limited understanding of things.

jr565 said...

I'm willing to bet that that is exactly what happens as Obama has been nothing but tendentious and two faced when it came to his dealing with republicans. on one hand it was his "we need to be bipartrisan" out of one side of his mouth and on the other it was "I won. Bush sucks, they drove the economy into the ditch do you think we're going to let them get back behind the wheel (referring to Republicans). The guy has not even attemped bipartisan outreach unless he means by that, republicans should in the interest of bipartisanship agree with everything he says. And of course if they don't then his acolytes brand all racists or teabaggers or tea bagging rednecks.
And now he gets upset because people aren't aggreeing with him. Whaaaaaaaaah!!!! This has ot be the most thin skinned president I've ever witnessed.

Iapetus said...

They tell us that the President is "eloquent." Some part of being eloquent is being persuasive. So let him persuade. He was elected President, not Devine Ruler. If he can't do that, he is in the wrong job.

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

Great idea, Joe. If only Obama were that much smarter, he would tie the protests to external, American interests. I think that would have gone over really well.


Just addressed your non-point, MUL.


Yes Joe. Everyone in the world is interested in nothing more than promoting American interests. Especially the taskmasters in Tehran. Brilliant.

Roger J. said...

Ritmo: while I cannot produce any positive evidence, I would assert what revolutionary fervor in Iran is centered in Teheran--the rest of the country is considerably more conservative and supports the regime. Then there is the whole Shiite mindset that, I think, will support the ayatollahs before the secular leaning Teharanis. I will, of course, defer to someone who knows something about Irani politics.

Joe said...

I don't think you even tried logic on that last response Ritmo...We were all may the more stupid for having read it.

Use logic and connective phrases to flesh out your thesis.

My point, as I will reiterate was that the US and others took up the causes of the Refuseniks, and Solzhenisyn, and Mandela, not ignored them, and so "freed them from the taint of foreign contamination."

Your response was gibberish.

Ritmo Brasileiro said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joe said...


Yes Joe. Everyone in the world is interested in nothing more than promoting American interests. Especially the taskmasters in Tehran. Brilliant.

Again flesh out your thesis, pull my argument from my statements!

Where did I mention that anyone in Iran is interested in furthering US interests?

Only that the US and the West, to include Liberals such as yourself, have championed individuals such as Aung San Suu Kyi or Nelson Mandela, funny they didn't get tagged as American agents. Or they did I didn't hear the likes of you complaining.

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

Joe is getting ready to take over the world through... ideology! His power flows from it.

If he just thinks he's right strongly enough, he will prevail. No physical or social analysis of the events on the ground is necessary.

I'm looking forward to every West Point grad forsaking courses in tactics and strategy so that they can just learn the Pledge of Allegiance and the intellectual history of the American Revolution. That'll teach the world to mess with us.

We'll go out on the battlefields and chant songs and hymns and sing "God Bless America". Everyone will be converted. Hallelujah.

Joe said...

Wow MUL you're losing it...have I mentioned IDEOLOGY?

Trooper York said...

It is generally agreed that the President with the thinnest skin was in fact William Howard Taft. Of course this was only because the skin had to stretch to cover his entire body.
(The Presidential Skin Game, Doris Kearns Goodwin, Playboy Press 2010)

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

Not just ideology, Joe. You think propaganda and the right words will push us just over the edge.

You're obviously not worth taking seriously. Save the armchair battle tactician and strategy stuff for some pundit who thinks that power is all just in one's head.

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

I'm listening to my iTunes library in alphabetical order now.

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

How thin was the skin on his skin flute, Trooper?

Roger J. said...

As Joe notes, ideology is what, IMO, drives iran--at least ideology in Shiism. I do regret we in the west do not (IMO) have a good grasp of Islam, and more important in the case of Iran (not arabs) twelver shiism. I think some basic apprehension of these concepts would help frame a response.

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

Like everyone else here, I'm no expert either. But at least got halfway through Hooman Majd's really cool book on modern Iran.

Kissinger's book on diplomacy is also a great general, basic framework to keep in mind when understanding power and international relations.

As I understand it, Iran's most popular driving force is nationalism. That's a more generic thing than whatever vicissitudes Shi'ite Islam supposedly imparts on the political culture of Iran. And it can be exploited in a liberal direction or more conservatively.

We have no reason to taint the nationalism of the reformers with our interests. A home-grown Iranian reformation would be much better than one imposed top-down from abroad. Not that that could ever happen anyway.

Trooper York said...

The president widely acknowledged to have the most sensitive skin was of course John Adams. Suffering from ecema all of his life he would rub a concotion of whale oil and tar to properly lubricate his epidermis. Unfortunately the oil would grease him up and cause him to slide off of his chair until the tar stuck often left him in an unfortunate pose on the edge of his chair. The only other president who was more often stuck in an uncomfortable positon due to tar was of course Thomas Jefferson but for entirely different reasons.
(The Presidential Skin Game, Doris Kearns Goodwin, Playboy Press 2010)

Kansas City said...

This is pretty smart criticism (and possibly accurate) because there is a perception of Obama as think skinned. It is the kind of thing that takes hold over time (of course, mores slowly with a fawning press), but if he mistakenly shows some thin skinness in public, I think it really might catch on.

Roger J. said...

Ritmo: we are in agreement that the US is NOT going to shape any iranian revolution--my position is that Iran is far more fundamentalist that we think--Now they have the support of the Russians which makes our task much more difficult. The international agencies have proved impotent, so we are left with dealing with Iran who, by my estimation, will do what it damn well wants. My only concern is that our foreign policy seems to be adrift on Iran.

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

We are in agreement on (more or less and to different degrees) everything, Roger. But I have to quibble with you on the fundamentalist thing. The regime still is. Its basic structure guarantees that. The generations that grew up under it and resenting it, not so much.

Roger J. said...

And as a small aside, we need to recognize that Iran regards itself as PERSIAN--they do have three millenia history as PERSIANS. To Ritmo's point about nationalism.

If there is a failure in American diplomacy it was to let the Russian Republic become involved as Iran's protector. Of course this reflects the fact that I am not the secretary of state and my role, ala Clint Eastwood, is to keep dogs and kids off my lawn.

bagoh20 said...

It's denial to think we will affect this regime with anything short of decisive action - war. We may not want it, but they will stop at nothing less. They'll do what they want unless they are stopped by force. The rest is just us whistling while they work. The only real question I see is: Can we live with that? Can we live with nuclear war in the Middle East? Soon this question will also be moot.

Roger J. said...

Ritmo: apologies for not making myself clear--the Iranian people are very fundamentalist shiites--what progressive influences are confined to Teheran. The regime feeds off of fundamentalism. And it appears that until we (the US) recognizes that, we will never have any ability to apprehend Irani politics.

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

The regime is fundamentalist, but until I see more evidence that the Iranian people as a whole are as religious as you assert, I'm going to have to go with their sustenance relying on the nationalism of the provincials. Of course, it might be nationalism of a more conservative, and therefore more likely religious, flavor. But it's still nationalism that's the stronger overall game in Iran than a religion that supposedly forswears nuclear warfare.

Yes, millenia of Persian history undoubtedly inform the nationalism of the country that Persia became.

Joe said...

Ritmo, I'm not just talking about words or propaganda...
I'd recommend REAL sanctions, but those aren't likely to happen, so we might also think the use of force.

Or we can continue on thwe current approach of talking, weak sanctions, and ultimately an Islamist regime with nuclear weapons. And then a nuclear weapons race or realignment of power within the Gulf region, either under India or more likely Pakistan, as the nuclear guarantor of Gulf Security.

Which is, of course, perfectly fine with Obama. The less he has to worry the Gulf or Iran or National Security the more he can focus on what matters....domestic policy.

Any way the US is just another nation, a normal state....like any other.

Roger J. said...

Ritmo: nicely argued; I appreciate the opportunity to interact with you. I think, to summarize, we are in fundamental agreement although you attribute more import to nationalism than I do to shiism. Nonetheless, enjoyed the interaction--now I have to go sample strong drink at my local pub. Have a good day.

Ritmo Brasileiro said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ritmo Brasileiro said...

You too, Roger. Thanks. Enjoy the drink(s) and have one for me.

Joe said...


Few strategists think Iran can be prevented from getting nukes.


Really I haven't heard that...I've just heard that Israel would ahve trouble doing it in one strike.

Trooper York said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jason (the commenter) said...

I'm shocked a Senator could say something so clever and to the point. Maybe the Republicans have a chance after all.

Fen said...

Ritmo: Of course, post hoc ergo propter hoc and all,

*snicker*

The episode "Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc" of West Wing was on this AM.

And Ritmo took notes. What a fraud.

Fen said...

Few strategists think Iran can be prevented from getting nukes.

Not now, they don't. Obama has squandered any chance we had of doing that.

Fen said...

Oh noes, the Diversity Hire is getting frustrated with the workload. Time to start writing your EEO complaints, Obama.

prairie wind said...

Quayle's right. Obama is an arrogant prick. An arrogant, bullying prick.

Alex said...

Ritmo's at it again, insulting everyone and being generally disrepectful.

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

Fen's so genuine when he assumes that everyone else lives (or would care to live) his own existence. I guess that's why he knows so much about being a fraud.

Trooper York said...

Although Barack Obama is our first black president, he is not the one who in fact had the darkest skin. In fact James Buchanan's had a much darder shade of skin than the multiracial Obama.

Of course this only refered to President Buachanan's upper lip due to his habit of indulging in the Dirty Sanchez.
(The Presidential Skin Game, Doris Kearns Goodwin, Playboy Press 2010)

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

"Few strategists think Iran can be prevented from getting nukes."

Not now, they don't. Obama has squandered any chance we had of doing that.


I'm so glad that Bush did so much to prevent Iran from getting nuclear technology. Those Iranians thought, "Gee, when Bush yells at us, we shudder in the moral turpitude that is the Bush administration. All his minions are convincing us of what a bad idea it is to go against the wishes of a proxy one-tenth our size, like Israel. This guy, Fen, snickers in Farsi (actually Fen probably doesn't even know what Farsi is) and we feel so embarrassed. And once Israel blows up our nukes we will realize how wrong we were. We will all shake and fall to our knees at the outstretched, outsourced mercenary army of the United States and just didn't go along before because it just wasn't, you know, violent and isolated enough to be convincing."

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

Alex is at it again. Not thinking and not having any point to make.

Why don't you go enjoy a beer like Roger is doing right now, Alex.

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

Actually Iran is eighty times bigger than Israel and ten times more populous.

And it has something called... (drops of saliva drip from Althousian mouths)... oil.

But I'm sure that if we call them evil enough times, they'll not want to develop nukes and abandon any of the know-how for doing so.

It's about the evil, guys. Iran just doesn't get it. If only we could convince them of how evil they were.

But let's get Israel to knock out one of their development sites. I'm sure that will leave them very, very demoralized and ready to sign a treaty or alliance of friendship with America the very next day! Yeay!

Why can't America get everyone in the world to agree with us and do everything we say? Is there not a leader of dittoheads who speaks Esperanto?

Mark said...

I'm surprised he said that to a reporter. Seems like the sort of think he may regret saying, just because it makes him look rather petty.

The one thing that Obama has in his pocket when it comes to commanding respect is his "cool". So far, the CMM (Chris Matthews-like Media) has done a yeoman job protecting it. But every time Obama loses in a way that can't be hidden, he loses ground with the electorate, and with the rank-and-file in Congress who have to answer to the voters Real Soon Now.

I fully expect Republicans to be mocking Obama more and more often in the coming months. Considering how much the "post-partisan" Obama has been willing to work with them, there really is no downside. (And if he flies into a spitting rage with the cameras rolling, which is not out of the question, the Dems lose everything in '12.)

traditionalguy said...

The divine right Kings usually would dissolve Parlement about now. So Obama also feels that need to get rid of another set of representatives saying no to his Party and him.

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

That's a good point about Chris Matthews, Mark.

I always find myself thinking, if only the media were a bunch of dittoheads, then they'd be doing a much better job of questioning the president, keeping him on his toes, and asking, you know, salient questions that matter.

Dittoheads are all about the substance, didn't ya know?

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

Yeah he does, TG! Like that representative in New York's 23rd congressional district!11!!1!!!1!

More like him, please! More talk of repealing the civil rights act, please!

EDH said...

I suppose this episode proves Obama truly is thin skinned, especially when he's being ribbed for our pleasure by Sen. Roberts!

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

Where does Senator Roberts propose to get Valium from anyway? The same place that Dittohead Leader gets his other script for that medicine that starts with a "V"...?

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

Between Valium and Viagra, Republicans need to expand their knowledge of prescription pharmaceuticals beyond a certain region of the alphabet.

I propose that Dittohead Leader take them out for a stroll about the "O" section.

Between Valium, Viagra and Oxycontin, you could actually put together a nearly functional Republican.

Penny said...

“I don't think we were going to hash out an agreement on anything with a whole big group like that,” McConnell said. “But it was — it was a good exchange, a candid exchange on both sides. And we're glad the president came up. We thought it was — was certainly worthwhile. And I wouldn't suggest — surely you didn't think we were going to walk out of there and have some specific agreement on one of these issues. That was not anticipated by him or by us.”

THIS needs to be repeated, “I don't think we were going to hash out an agreement on anything with a whole big group like that.”

It needs to be repeated, because we know both intuitively and from experience, that this is true. UNLESS, of course, we have… ALL the time it takes…. in addition to ALL the patience it takes… to resolve ALL our CRITICAL issues to some “compromised” position, that we might all agree about in that moment….*just to get out of the room*…because WE’RE TIRED!! Dammit, ENOUGH!

Have you ever done this in EXACTLY this way, even with your spouse? Haha…that “whole big group” of TWO?

Is it possible that our country’s issues are no more “critical”, than your own family issues? Here today, but gone soon enough?

Now just think about that…while I remind you that the time it took to even CONTEMPLATE my silly question, could just possibly mean the difference between your family and my family being on this, getting hotter every day, planet.

This “Global Warming”…It doesn’t mean what you think it means.

This “Democracy”….It can be highly overrated.

David said...

Senator Corker:

"I told him I thought there was a degree of audacity in him even showing up today after what happened with financial regulation. I just wanted him to tell me how, when he wakes up in the morning, comes over to a luncheon like ours today, how does he reconcile that duplicity?"

Man, valium all around, please. Or some beer in the Rose Garden.

I think Corker is right, but no wonder Obama was pissed.

lucid said...

Do you think Beth, danielle, and Jeremy are really the same person? Similar views, similar syntax, similar type of screennames?

David said...

To Ritmo and Roger: Plug those holes. Get a room, guys.

Mark said...

That's a good point about Chris Matthews, Mark.

I always find myself thinking, if only the media were a bunch of dittoheads, then they'd be doing a much better job of questioning the president, keeping him on his toes, and asking, you know, salient questions that matter.


The funny thing is, I bet you don't get how ironic your attempt at irony was.

How well does Axelrod pay, btw?

Mark said...

...then they'd be doing a much better job of questioning the president, keeping him on his toes, and asking, you know, salient questions that matter.

Of course, I believe Obama has some sense how precarious his image is right now. Even with the history of softball journalism being practiced toward him, how long has it been since he's taken more than one or two questions from the WH press corps?

John said...

Mick said:

"They all know Obama is not an eligible Natural Born Citizen, since his father was never a citizen (much less at the time Obama 2 was born). Maybe he is just defensive."

You keep saying that. Over and over and over, regardless of what the topic is.

How about providing a link to the relevant portion of the law?

I may be the only Althouse reader to have actually run for the presidency (1988). During that run I queried the FEC on the legal definition of "natural born citizen". They sent me a letter from their chief counsel saying that it was anyone born in the US. "The US", according to them, consists of the the 50 states, DC, Guam, US Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico.

I'll be happy to send you a copy of the letter if you'll tell me where.

In other words, it doesn't matter who your parents are. If you are born on US soil, you are a "Natural Born Citizen" in the full sense of the word. It doesn't matter who your father or mother are. It doesn't matter their citizenship or legal status. Born on US soil, full citizen with ALL rights including the right to run for Prez.

The only exception is the children of diplomats who are not citizens of the US at all.

So put up or shut up, Mick.

John Henry

Fen said...

RitmoLibtard: I'm so glad that Bush did so much to prevent Iran from getting nuclear technology.

He did a hell of lot more than Obama.

But I'm sure that if we call them evil enough times, they'll not want to develop nukes and abandon any of the know-how for doing so.

Ironic attack. You and Obama have been sucking on their balls. "Smart" diplomacy, you promised. Hows that been working out for you?

And of course, its telling that you think talk (good or bad) will amount to anything.

You're such a tard. Bartlet's got some good lines for you to steal next time you misplace your thesaurus.

Beth said...

You keep saying that. Over and over and over, regardless of what the topic is.

An excellent definition of "internet troll."

El Pollo Real said...

You keep saying that. Over and over and over, regardless of what the topic is.

Yes, Obama is US citizen because he was born on US soil (jus soli). But he was also born a citizen of Kenya via his father (jus sanguinis). My wife for example is Canadian by birth and Dutch by parentage. Our kids are American but they may be eligible for Dutch citizenship (depends on the country).

I'm guessing that the dual citizenship was dropped early on after the deadbeat dad fled the scene and POTUS's handlers also found the situation too nuanced to sell.

Fen said...

RitmoLibtard: Fen's so genuine when he assumes that everyone else lives (or would care to live) his own existence

Sure libtard, its just coincidence that the one time you use latin here on this blog, it just happens to be the same day the West Wing episode "Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc" was on.

El Pollo Real said...

Fen: Sure libtard, its just coincidence that the one time you use latin here on this blog, it just happens to be...

I resemble that remark.

Beth said...

Do you think Beth, danielle, and Jeremy are really the same person? Similar views, similar syntax, similar type of screennames?

After lo these many years, someone figures it out!

Fen said...

At least you'll admit it.

Ritmo is too pretentious to say: "sure, I saw Bartlett lecture Josh and Sam about post hoc ergo propter hoc on West Wing this morning, and I thought I'd use it tonight on Ann's blog.

Paul said...

I know it's racist to say Venus Williams doesn't look feminine, but is it also racist to say the president is "thin skinned"? I mean, it mentions the skin, so it's probably meant to bring up the color thing, which I understand is the only reason why some people have a problem with this president. Maybe one of the guest liberals should clear this up.

Penny said...

"I just wanted him to tell me how, when he wakes up in the morning, comes over to a luncheon like ours today, how does he reconcile that duplicity?"

Duplicity has no bounds.

However, it is totally incumbent on the citizens of this fine land to ULTIMATELY differentiate between the duplicitous "good guys" and the duplicitous "bad guys".

It's a NASTY "sport", but quite honestly? Easy enough to play. Easier still to win, in America.

"Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus."

And Virginia? As long as Santa sees his way clear to give me what EYE want, and what EWE want, we're lifetime friends...you and me and Santa.

But, Virginia? Do you think our friend, Santa, paid his taxes to California and New York?

The TWO of them say he is a "tax evader". He continues to declare his own innocence, as a citizen of the world.

Damn it, Virginia, Santa needs our help!

Duplicitous? You bet.

Good guy? One of the best!

Whatever he did, he did it for us!

WTF, they are trying to get Santa for back taxes because he "flies over" once a year? Or maybe because he is a clueless "nice guy" who would NEVER think to sue their asses back? Maybe they blame him for his more practical gifts last year?

No matter the answers to the above questions, if you can't stand up for Santa, who the hell CAN you stand up for?

Fen said...

but is it also racist to say the president is "thin skinned"

He's not thin-skinned. He's frustrated because he's not intelligent enough to get a handle on things. Hence the outbursts.

The time he spent pretending to be a constitutional "scholar" at Harvard Law are telling:

"The other professors hated him because he was lazy, unqualified, never attended any of the faculty meetings, and it was clear that the position was nothing more than a political stepping stool.... he had the lowest intellectual capacity in the building"

Obama is the Diversity Admit who can't handle the course load of a tier one college, much less the Presidency. He'll follow the same pattern: frustration then anger then blaming the "system" for keeping him down.

Expect more outbursts from Obama as his presidency continues to unravel.

Maybe one day we'll get a look at his SAT and LSAT scores. Hell, the guy could't even get academic honors in a major as simple as polysci.

Penny said...

"lucid said...

Do you think Beth, danielle, and Jeremy are really the same person? Similar views, similar syntax, similar type of screennames?"

How the heck would I know? I am MUCH too busy saving Santa's friggin' ass, and OBTW, Christmas is closer than you think.

Fen said...

Obama will lash out at Santa next.

Be prepared.

Mark said...

Ritmo, I jab at you because your responses do more damage to your cause than they do to mine.

Which of course is why I think you're paid by the comment.

Sixty Grit said...

Obama likes drugs. He smokes them all the time. Drinks like a fish. Valium - who knows - maybe he takes them already. He has a long track record of being a drug user, so why is this even an issue.

TellerIP said...

Someone said: "They all know Obama is not an eligible Natural Born Citizen, since his father was never a citizen..."

The reason that the US Congress voted to confirm Obama's election UNANIMOUSLY and the reason that the Chief Justice of the United States swore him in is that (1) Obama was born in Hawaii; and (2) the foreign citizenship of one parent or even two parents has no effect on the Natural Born Citizen status of a person born in the USA.

“Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition

el polacko said...

ugh... another comment thread hijacked by some off-topic loon who insults everyone who isn't in agreement with whatever crackpot theories they are espousing.
really, ann, can't there be a limit on the number of posts allowed in one thread..or SOMEthing to prevent this sort of thing ??

Dudley Do-right said...

This one's easy:

Obama : Republicans = Muslims : Infidels

He'll take anything he can from them but, beyond that, to hell with 'em.

LarsPorsena said...

He needs a valium? What he really needs is some testosterone.

Pogo said...

The Dow dipped below 10,000 yesterday. It's going to take more than Valium or Viagra to get us out of the continuing recession.

In any event, 'bipartisan' has most often meant the Republicans and Democrats divvy up the spoils of American taxation. Should anyone suggest lower spending, I'll believe there's actual conflict.

If not, this is all just for show, bitching about who'll take credit for the spending.

michaele said...

It really is shocking that Obama has not held a formal news conference since LAST July 22, 2009. During that one, he made the gaffe about siding with Prof. Gates over the police. Since Obama has time to show up on all sorts of trivial tv shows to be "interviewed", it's not as if he couldn't fit a press conference into his schedule. He really is a chicken. I can't believe the press has let him get away with this even though they are in his pocket. This is such a basic duty and right of the press. They are letting themselves be so disrespected. We are the losers. Just think back on JFK's press conferences.

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

I've never been a fan of West Wing, never watched more than 10 minutes of it at a time, and never more than 30 or 40 minutes total in my entire life.

But Finn isn't familiar with Latin phrases or fallacies of logic so I guess that puts him in a better position to know what I do or don't do.

Whatever it takes for him to take the focus off the fact that he can't argue for shit - about Obama or the drug-addicted Republicans (and their drug-addicted leader) or anything else.

rdkraus said...

The big zero seems thin skinned because he's got Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Karl Marx, Rev Wright and his "typical white woman" grandmother all trying to break through. Meanwhile, con man that he is, he's struggling to hold them back.

I wonder if he's got any Stalin or Mao in there? TF would love that.

Never forget, when Obama says he wants to work with others and compromise, he means THEY should compromise and agree with him.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Only 2 1/2 more years till we can get an adult back in charge.

Shanna said...

So basically, take a chill pill, mr president. Heh. He sounds kind of exasperated with Obama. I don't think it makes him sound petty, it makes him sound honest. I like it when politicians are honest. It happens so rarely.

Fen said...

RitmoLibtard: I've never been a fan of West Wing, never watched more than 10 minutes of it at a time, and never more than 30 or 40 minutes total in my entire life.

Sure. Its, its just coincidence that the one time you use latin here on this blog, it just happens to be the same day West Wing ran with the same phrase.

Even funnier that you crawled out from under your 4 aliases here to insist you're not a fraud.

Keep em coming, Libtard.

c3 said...

As I read this I had this fantasy that the meeting with the Republicans and POTUS had a thinly restrained anger and that after the meeting the POTUS, using his screen name ritmo and the senators using such names as Fen and Mick were finally able to express their true feelings.

PS Ritmo;
If you want to be taken serious (and obviously you don't and you won't) don't attempt weighty foreign policy discussion interspersed with vulgar epithets

former law student said...

Why would Obama have a thin skin? Consider how the mighty Rush Limbaugh welcomed him to office. January 16, 2009:

RUSH: I got a request here from a major American print publication. "Dear Rush: For the Obama [Immaculate] Inauguration we are asking a handful of very prominent politicians, statesmen, scholars, businessmen, commentators, and economists to write 400 words on their hope for the Obama presidency. We would love to include you. If you could send us 400 words on your hope for the Obama presidency, we need it by Monday night, that would be ideal." Now, we're caught in this trap again. The premise is, what is your "hope." My hope, and please understand me when I say this. I disagree fervently with the people on our side of the aisle who have caved and who say, "Well, I hope he succeeds. We've got to give him a chance." Why? They didn't give Bush a chance in 2000. Before he was inaugurated the search-and-destroy mission had begun. I'm not talking about search-and-destroy, but I've been listening to Barack Obama for a year-and-a-half. I know what his politics are. I know what his plans are, as he has stated them. I don't want them to succeed.

If I wanted Obama to succeed, I'd be happy the Republicans have laid down. And I would be encouraging Republicans to lay down and support him. Look, what he's talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the US government as possible, from the banking business, to the mortgage industry, the automobile business, to health care. I do not want the government in charge of all of these things. I don't want this to work. So I'm thinking of replying to the guy, (interruption) What are you laughing at? See, here's the point. Everybody thinks it's outrageous to say. Look, even my staff, "Oh, you can't do that." Why not? Why is it any different, what's new, what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails? Liberalism is our problem. Liberalism is what's gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here. Why do I want more of it? I don't care what the Drive-By story is. I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: "Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails." Somebody's gotta say it.


Conservatives are sons of bitches. There, I said it.

Obama is the Diversity Admit who can't handle the course load of a tier one college, much less the Presidency.

Were you guys bothered that GWB was a Legacy Admit who got into Yale only because dear old dad, et al, were alums? Did you notice that GWB was a C student (converting Yale's numerical grades into letter grades). And GWB's status as worst president since Carter seems assured.

Consider that without family connections, GWB couldn't even get into U Texas Law School, and had to settle for Harvard Business School.

former law student said...

RUSH: "Okay, I'll send you a response, but I don't need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails."

Fen said...

Oh right. Obama's lashing out because some radio guy said mean things about him. How professional.

And we cant compare Obama's grades to Bush because Obama wont release them.

As for failure, Obama has already overtaken Bush in that measure, and we're not even halfway through his term.

Mick said...

TellerIP said,

"Someone said: "They all know Obama is not an eligible Natural Born Citizen, since his father was never a citizen..."

The reason that the US Congress voted to confirm Obama's election UNANIMOUSLY and the reason that the Chief Justice of the United States swore him in is that (1) Obama was born in Hawaii; and (2) the foreign citizenship of one parent or even two parents has no effect on the Natural Born Citizen status of a person born in the USA.

“Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition"

Of course you are wrong. The term is a Natural Law term of Art that identifies the Indigenous citizens of a nation, i.e Born in a Country of parents who are it's citizens (Vattel's Law of Nations 1757). It is a security requirement, designed to insulate the Presidency and VP from foreign influence. Just by logic that would preclude the equalization of Natural Born Subject and Natural Born Citizen. If Natural Born Citizens were allowed to be born abroad of one American citizen, then that child is born the citizen of the other parent or birth country also, thus foreign influence.
Second, the Senates own faulty Resolution 511 said that McCain was a NBC because BOTH his parents were citizens (he's not because he was born in Colon, Panama, and was born a Panamanian/ American Citizen).
There are a handful of SCOTUS cases that defined NBC exactly the same as Vattel:
The Venus (1814)
Dred Scott (1854)
Minor v. Happersett (1874)
Wong Kim Ark (1898) and Perkins v. Elg (1934).
There are NO SCOTUS CASES that define it as ANYTHING LESS tan Born in country of parentssssss who are it's citizens.
If there are bring them forth. WHERE does it say that simply birth w/in the territory creates a Natural Born citizen, eligible to be POTUS.
I believe SCOTUS, the sole arbitter of Constitutional terms, before I believe Black.

Shanna said...

Why would Obama have a thin skin? Consider how the mighty Rush Limbaugh welcomed him to office. January 16, 2009:

You realize that being thin skinned is not a function of who is mean to you and who isn’t? It’s about how you handle it. And Obama is thin skinned when people
aren’t even mean to him, they just disagree. That is the problem here, not what one guy on the freaking radio said. God.

And the Natural born thing...again? His mom is from Kansas, people!!!

Mick said...

John said,

"How about providing a link to the relevant portion of the law?"

Are you John Henry the Red Sox owner and dirtbag former Marlins owner? Anyway. As anyone here can attest I have supplied MANY Cites for the definition of Natural Born Citizen, along with the rationale behind it (to prevent foreign influence). There is no right to be POTUS, you must qualify first. Natural Born Citizen is a Security Requirement. Are you saying that we discriminate against 34 year olds?
The Venus (1814)
Dred Scott (1854)
Minor v. Happersett (1874)
Wong Kim Ark (1898)
Perkins v. Elg (1934)
Some statement by some guy at the FEC means nothing, and has no force in law. I would side w/ SCOTUS over him/her.

Mick said...

Shanna said,

"And the Natural born thing...again? His mom is from Kansas, people!!!"

Both parents need to be US Citizens to produce a Natural Born Citizen. His father's Kenyan Citizenship gave Obama Jr. British Citizenship at birth, thus not Natural Born.

TellerIP said...

Someone said: "Both parents need to be US Citizens to produce a Natural Born Citizen."

Who in the world told you this? It certainly is not true. The reason that Obama's election was confirmed by the Congress UNANIMOUSLY is that not one member of Congress holds the two-parent view. The meaning of Natural Born, as it applies to Obama, is simply "born in the USA."

That applies to the children of one or two foreigners, as the courts have held. For example:

Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999) (children born in US to two Romanian citizens described as “natural born citizens” of the US):

Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States.

Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983) (child born in US to Mexican citizen is “natural born citizen” of US):

Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally [from Mexico] in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time. *** The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.

Nwankpa v. Kissinger, 376 F. Supp. 122 (M.D. Ala. 1974) (child born in US to two Biafra citizens described as “natural born citizen” of the US):

The Plaintiff was a native of Biafra, now a part of the Republic of Nigeria. His wife and two older children are also natives of that country, but his third child, a daughter, is a natural-born citizen of the United States.

What makes the third child different from the other two children? She was born in the USA.

And such prominent conservative Senators who are also lawyers as Orren Hatch and Lindsay Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA:

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:

“Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)

Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:

“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)

In other words, the chance of getting five votes on the Supreme Court for the two-parent view is nil.

former law student said...

In case it wasn't clear: Conservatives hope Obama fails. Time and again they have refused to compromise. They are not simply disagreeing with him -- they will do whatever they can to prevent him from succeeding.

Capice?

Mick said...

TellerIP said,

"In other words, the chance of getting five votes on the Supreme Court for the two-parent view is nil."

Ah SMRSTRAUSS (I recognize the cut and paste of the same nonsense response). Circuit court cases by activist judges certainly don't overcome opinions of the SCOTUS. Neither do Idiot opinions of progressives like Hatch or Graham. The fact that the Electoral College failed to stop Obama is a sign that our government has run amok, not that he is eligible. WHERE is that SCOTUS case that says that simple birth in the country creates a Natural Born Citizen? Ive been waiting for that from you for months.

Mick said...

former law student said...
"In case it wasn't clear: Conservatives hope Obama fails. Time and again they have refused to compromise. They are not simply disagreeing with him -- they will do whatever they can to prevent him from succeeding."


Absolutely correct. We will do everything w/in our power to prevent the Usuper and his sychopant lttle autocrats from destroying this nation.
With or without the help of the idiots in congress who allowed the Usurper to take office in the first place.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Did you notice that GWB was a C student (converting Yale's numerical grades into letter grades).

I noticed that his grades were better than John Kerry.

Consider that without family connections, GWB couldn't even get into U Texas Law School, and had to settle for Harvard Business School.

Fine with me since we have enough idiot lawyers in the country anyway.

Hoosier Daddy said...

In case it wasn't clear: Conservatives hope Obama fails. Time and again they have refused to compromise. They are not simply disagreeing with him -- they will do whatever they can to prevent him from succeeding.

Fine with me since nothing I have seen him propose is remotely consistent with my principles and core beliefs, I hope he fails too. I'm not seeing a problem here.

Fen said...

FLS: Time and again they have refused to compromise. They are not simply disagreeing with him -- they will do whatever they can to prevent him from succeeding. Capice?

Gotta love the lack of shame required to make that argument.

The Dems control both houses of congress, but Obama's not succeeding because of those mean republicans.

Worst. President. Ever.

c3 said...

Mick and FLS get into it...

Now kids be careful, someone's going to get hurt.

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

Libtard Fem says:

Sure. Its, its just coincidence that the one time you use latin here on this blog, it just happens to be the same day West Wing ran with the same phrase.

Even funnier that you crawled out from under your 4 aliases here to insist you're not a fraud.

Keep em coming, Libtard.


So why didn't you claim that because my posts made use of letters and numbers that I also ripped those things off from the episode of Sesame Street that your mommy made you watch today?

So now Fem claims that I've never used Latin here. What a libtard. He'd best keep his recollections confined to what he watched on television that day.

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

PS Ritmo;
If you want to be taken serious (and obviously you don't and you won't) don't attempt weighty foreign policy discussion interspersed with vulgar epithets


When Roger J. is interested in a serious conversation on policy with me, that's what he gets. When Fem is interested in nothing more than idiotic comments claiming that what I know is restricted to what he watches on TV, he gets a similarly crude response.

When considering what people think of me, I consider the source.

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

Here's an example of me using the phrase that Fem claims I learned on TeeVee with him yesterday - in November of 2009.

Once Fem has mastered the art of the alphabet from his Sesame Street episodes, maybe then he can learn how to use Google and improve his memory.

At that point he might realize that some people know more things than just what he learned today on television.

TellerIP said...

You asked: "WHERE is that SCOTUS case that says that simple birth in the country creates a Natural Born Citizen?"

It is Wong Kim Ark, in which the court ruled six to two (one not voting) that EVERY child born in the USA is natural born.

Obviously when a person is both Natural Born and a citizen she or he is a Natural Born Citizen.

That is why there are so many lower court cases ruling that the US-born children of foreigners are Natural Born Citizens. The reason is that they are following Wong Kim Ark which ruled that every child born in the USA (other than the children of foreign diplomats) is Natural Born.

That is why the Congress confirmed Obama's election UNANIMOUSLY, because not one of them held your view that the citizenship of a parent affects the Natural Born status of the child.

Mick said...

TellerIP said,

(Predictably)"It is Wong Kim Ark, in which the court ruled six to two (one not voting) that EVERY child born in the USA is natural born. "


And of course you are wrong again SMRSTRAUSS. They never said Wong was a Natural Born Citizen. It only said that Wong was a Citizen due to the fact that the parents were Unnaturalizeable resident aliens. The parents could not naturalize because of the Chinese Exclusionary Acts. Justice Gray compared them to the children of slaves that were made citizens by the 14th Amendment even though they were born when their parents were not citizens (pre 1866 as slaves, and unnaturalizeable). He was probably taking the opportunity to muddy the Jurisdictional phrase for his benefactor, the other Usurper, Chester Arthur.
READ THE CASE. Wong was never found to be a Natural Born Citizen:

"The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative."

He was very specific, and if he would have thought that Wong was a Natural Born Citizen he would have said so. Gray violated the separation of powers by directly going against the Chinese Exclusionary Acts treaty w/ the Chinese in order to muddy the water just enough for the Leftists relativists to damage our sovereignty for the last 112 years. But he never stepped over the line and said Wong was a NBC. He even quoted Binney when he said, "the child of an alien, when born within the US, is as much a citizen as the Natural Born Citizen child of a Citizen."
READ THE CASE (I know you have).

JAL said...

He -- Obama -- gets angry and shows it soooo quickly.

There may be a newsreport out there ... but when was it reported that Bush was in a meeting with congress critters and got "upset."

Who has the problem in this picture?

Who's the charming spoiled brat?

JAL said...

@danielle I'm glad to see Obama get a little pissed sometimes.

sometimes?

TellerIP said...

Mick.

I read the case. First of all, it was a ruling AGAINST the government. In other words Justice Gray ruled against the position of President Arthur.

You said: "Wong was never found to be a Natural Born Citizen:"

The ruling found that Wong was (1) Natural Born (since ALL children born in the USA other than the children of foreign diplomats are Natural Born; that is the meaning of Natural Born); and it ruled (2) that Wong was a citizen.

YOU say that it did not rule that Wong was a Natural Born Citizen, but you are in the minority. By far the overwhelming majority of constitutional scholars say that the meaning of the ruling was that Wong was a Natural Born Citizen as a consequence of being both Natural Born and a citizen.

And that is why all the cases I cited rule that the US-born children of foreign citizens are Natural Born Citizens. I have cited four or five cases, and there are more. AND, there are NONE after Wong that ruled or even suggested that a child born in the USA of foreign parents is not a Natural Born Citizen.

That is why Black's Law Dictionary says:

“Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition

The quotation from the Wong ruling that is significant is this one:

"It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established."

As you can see, it says that EVERY CHILD except for the children of foreign ambassadors is Natural Born.

Obama was born in the USA, in Hawaii. He is Natural Born, and he is a citizen. He is a Natural Born Citizen, as was Wong Kim Ark. Every citizen who was born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen. The only kind of a US citizen who is not a Natural Born Citizen is a naturalized citizen.

That is why Obama's confirmation by the US Congress was UNANIMOUS. Not one member believed that the citizenship of the father affected Natural Born Citizen status. Of the five justices you would need to rule that Obama was not a Natural Born Citizen, you may at most get one. That means they would not even call the case.

Mick said...

TellerIP (SMRSTRAUSS) said,

"Obama was born in the USA, in Hawaii. He is Natural Born, and he is a citizen. He is a Natural Born Citizen, as was Wong Kim Ark. Every citizen who was born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen. The only kind of a US citizen who is not a Natural Born Citizen is a naturalized citizen.

That is why Obama's confirmation by the US Congress was UNANIMOUS. Not one member believed that the citizenship of the father affected Natural Born Citizen status. Of the five justices you would need to rule that Obama was not a Natural Born Citizen, you may at most get one. That means they would not even call the case."



First of all the couching of the question in "who is a Natural Born Citizen? Those Born a US Citizen" is false. There are certainly 3 types of citizens described in the USC, Natural Born (Natural Law), Born, and Naturalized (14th Amendment Statutory Citizens). If a "Born Citizen" is the same as a Natural Born Citizen, then A2S1C4,5 is unnecessary.
The correct question would of course be "Who is Born a citizen of the US with no allegiance to any other foreign power." The answer to that would be Those born in a country of parents (plural, or citizen mother if unmarried) who are it's citizens. The 14th amendment did not change A2S1C4,5 or it would have said so.
Circuit cout cases by activist judges are certainly not the final say on the meaning of a Constitutional term, the SCOTUS is the final arbitter of Constitutional terms (see USC A3 and Marbury v. Madison). The SCOTUS has defined it a handful of times exactly as Vattel, i.e those born in a country of parents who are it's citizens (including the Venus (1814), only 27 years after ratification, with John Marshall on the panel, citing Vattel by name).
The decision of WKA, which I posted above, says nothing about Wong being a Natural Born Citizen. The leap that your ilk takes, that there are only 2 forms of citizenship described in the USC is certainly and patently false (since you ignore A2S1C4,5). If one is a citizen only because of the 14th Amendment, then that child is a Statutory Citizen, not an indigenous citizen of Natural Law.
The stated purpose that is well known for the clause was to prevent foreign influence, that is a fact. There is NO WAY that a child born a dual citizen, with allegiance to a foreign power (like Obama to Britain), can be a Natural Born Citizen (logic).
By the way, I like your slick take on Chester Arthur, but I hate to tell you that he was dead for 12 years at the time of WKA.
The weakness of your argument is telling, just like others of your ilk that have said Obama produced a birth certificate, and is born in Hi. (nothing has been produced or proven). Regardless, by the facts already admitted, he is ineligible.
1)Circuit court cases are not sufficient precedent.
2) The fact that Obama got through the Electoral College is certainly not proof (especially since no objections were called for).
3)Sens. Hatch and Graham are certainly not Constitutional scholars in any way.
4) There are 3 types of Citizenship described in the USC not 2.
5)WKA NEVER said Wong was a Natural Born Citizen (READ THE CASE).
6) Chester Arthur was already dead in 1898.

The truth sets me free. Your obfuscation is a prison smrstrauss.

TellerIP said...

Every citizen born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen. The only kind of a US citizen who is not a Natural Born Citizen is a naturalized citizen. Even the US-born children of foreign citizens are Natural Born Citizens, as the US courts have repeatedly held. (And no court has held that they are not.)

You asserted that: “There are certainly 3 types of citizens described in the USC, Natural Born (Natural Law), Born, and Naturalized (14th Amendment Statutory Citizens). If a "Born Citizen" is the same as a Natural Born Citizen, then A2S1C4,5 is unnecessary.”

Answer: There are only TWO kinds of citizen described in USC. A citizen at birth, which is a synonym for a Natural Born Citizen, and a naturalized citizen. There is no other kind of citizen. The writers of the Constitution used the term “Natural Born” because it was commonly used in common law. They were mainly lawyers and they used the legal terms that they were familiar with. The meaning of Natural Born in common law was “born in the country with the exception of the children of foreign diplomats.”

You may ask; Why didn’t they use the term “born citizen?” Answer, because the commonly used phrase in common law was Natural Born. You may ask why didn’t they use the words Native Born? Because the commonly used phrase in the common law was Natural Born.

You said: “Who is Born a citizen of the US with no allegiance to any other foreign power."

Answer: The writers of the constitution believed, as did Blackstone, that allegiance stems entirely from the place of birth. Thus if you were born in the USA legally your allegiance was entirely to the USA.

That is why Madison said (in a speech to the House of Representatives in 1789):

It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general, place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States.

You said: “The answer to that would be Those born in a country of parents (plural, or citizen mother if unmarried) who are it's citizens. “

Answer. If this were true, the writers of the Constitution would have said so. It would have been easy to say so. Instead they used the words “Natural Born Citizen,” and the common meaning of the term at the time was “born in the country with the exception of the children of foreign diplomats.” I can show you five or six quotations from Adams and Hamilton and other American leaders at the time that use the term Natural Born as it is used in the common law. THERE IS NOT A SINGLE QUOTATION from leaders at the time of the constitution that used the words Natural Born in the sense of ‘two US citizen parents’ or ‘excluding dual nationals’.

TellerIP said...

You said: “Circuit cout cases by activist judges are certainly not the final say on the meaning of a Constitutional term, “

Answer. You are right, but they are considerably better at interpreting the Constitution than you are. Their interpretation of the Wong Kim Ark ruling meaning that EVERY child in the USA is Natural Born and when the child is a citizen she or he is a Natural Born Citizen is the OVERWHELMING consensus of constitutional scholars, lawyers, and the Chief Justice of the United States, who swore in Obama.

You said: “the SCOTUS is the final arbitter of Constitutional terms…”

Answer: Absolutely true. We completely agree, and the SCOTUS has ruled that EVERY child born in the USA except for the children of foreign ambassadors is Natural Born.

You said: “If one is a citizen only because of the 14th Amendment, then that child is a Statutory Citizen, not an indigenous citizen of Natural Law.”

Answer. DECADES BEFORE THE 14TH AMENDMENT legal scholars were already saying that every child born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen. For example, there is this quotation from the Secretary of State of the USA in 1854, about six years before the civil war. That was William L. Marcy. (
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9B06E2DC153DE034BC4851DFB566838F649FDE)

Marcy is asked in a letter to the editor (shown in the cited quotation) whether two children born in the USA of foreign parents are citizens. Marcy replies that not only are they citizens but they are Natural Born Citizens, and though it is not asked, Marcy then throws in his view that they are also eligible to be president. What counts is that he holds, well before the writing of the 14th Amendment, that every child born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen.

You also said: “The stated purpose that is well known for the clause was to prevent foreign influence, that is a fact. “

Answer: Agreed, but the evidence is very clear that the writers of the Constitution considered birth in the USA was sufficient to protect against foreign influence. The writers of the Constitution did not even say that traitors are not eligible to be president. Why not? Because they believed that the voters and the Electors in the Electoral College could figure out such things.

TellerIP said...

You said: ‘1)Circuit court cases are not sufficient precedent.”

Answer: They are better indication of the leanings of the nine justices total and indeed of the five conservative justices needed to vote for the two-parent theory for it to pass the Supreme Court than your opinion.

You said: “2) The fact that Obama got through the Electoral College is certainly not proof (especially since no objections were called for).”

Answer: The birthers and two-fers tried to get the members of the Electoral College to change their votes. Not one did. In the Congressional confirmation vote, the procedure was that the question was asked before the vote whether anyone planed to raise any objections. That was the long-standing procedure in Congress for such votes. No one said that he planned to raise any objections. The vice president called the vote. No one shouted “Nay.” And, for that matter, if anyone had said that they planned to vote No and was not heard, she or he could have told the press afterwards. The vote was unanimous, and by far most of them were lawyers. Not one of the members of the Electoral College or members of Congress believed that you have to have two US citizen parents to be a Natural Born Citizen.

You said: “3)Sens. Hatch and Graham are certainly not Constitutional scholars in any way.”

Answer: They are far better Constitutional scholars than you.

You said: 4) There are 3 types of Citizenship described in the USC not 2.

Answer: There are only two kinds of citizens, citizens at birth and naturalized citizens.

The Wall Street Journal put it this way: ‘Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning.’

You said: 5)WKA NEVER said Wong was a Natural Born Citizen (READ THE CASE).”

Answer: I READ THE CASE. It clearly says that EVERY child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is Natural Born. It also said that Wong was a citizen because he was Natural Born. The overwhelming view of legal scholars and constitutional experts is that the meaning is that when someone is both a citizen and Natural Born, she or he is a Natural Born Citizen.

Mick said...

TellerID (smrstrauss) said,

"Answer: There are only TWO kinds of citizen described in USC. A citizen at birth, which is a synonym for a Natural Born Citizen, and a naturalized citizen. There is no other kind of citizen. The writers of the Constitution used the term “Natural Born” because it was commonly used in common law. They were mainly lawyers and they used the legal terms that they were familiar with. The meaning of Natural Born in common law was “born in the country with the exception of the children of foreign diplomats."

Already proven wrong. There are 3 types in the USC, 2 by statute ("Born" and "Naturalized" in the 14Amendment), and Natural Law Indigenous "Natural Born Citizen" (of A2S1C4,5). There would be no need to say "Natural Born" if "born" meant the same thing. As a matter of fact Marbury v. Madison forbids that argument altogether. Of course you ignore Venus (1814) altogrther, because you know you're wrong.

Mick said...

TellerID (smrstrauss) said,

"I READ THE CASE. It clearly says that EVERY child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is Natural Born. It also said that Wong was a citizen because he was Natural Born. The overwhelming view of legal scholars and constitutional experts is that the meaning is that when someone is both a citizen and Natural Born, she or he is a Natural Born Citizen."


OK here it is again. ONLY you make the jump to Natural Born. Gray says no such thing.

From WKA
""The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative."

SEE NO WHERE are the words "Natural Born". Neither does the 14A.

Mick said...

TellerID (smrstrauss) said,

"The Wall Street Journal put it this way: ‘Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning.’"


All of that means nothing, and it is wrong too for the resons already stated. Typical. Eccentric, and daft? They think John Marshall is eccentric?

Mick said...

TellerID said,

"Answer. DECADES BEFORE THE 14TH AMENDMENT legal scholars were already saying that every child born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen. For example, there is this quotation from the Secretary of State of the USA in 1854, about six years before the civil war. That was William L. Marcy. (
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9B06E2DC153DE034BC4851DFB566838F649FDE"


And here is the actual writer of the 14A, Sen. John Bingham in 1866 during the hearings for the Civil Rights Act.

"“[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…. . . ”

Source – John Bingham in the United States House on March 9, 1866 (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

Even our Senators during the Resolution 511 hearings defined it as 2 citizen parents:

"Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen' under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States."

They considered the Canal Zone to be US territory, and they SPECIFICALLY SAY "born to American citizens". Now by your logic, his birth on US territory would not necessitate US Citizen parents, but here is the Senate recently saying Citizen parents, if it weren't necessary they wouldn't say it.

Lawrence Tribe (whom Obama worked for as an assistant and who Kagen pardoned for plagarizing) defined it thus during the same hearings:

"those born within a country's territory AND ALLEGIANCE"

If one needed to be simply BORN in the US why does he say allegiance? Isn't "allegiance" a singular term.
One can't have allegiance to 2 countries, then they wouldn't have allegiance to either. (logic)

These are recent definitions by the way, all saying that you are wrong and Obama is Ineligible by the facts (father Kenyan) he has already admitted, no matter if born in the White House.

Mick said...

AJ Lynch said...
"I suggest Obama try and focus and attempt to fix one thing at a time. His admin is failiing bigtime at multi-tasking. So
secure the borders or "plug the damn hole" or amend DADT but do them one at a time cause the Obama team is full of inexperienced idiots."


He's not inexperienced or an idiot. He means to bring this country to it's knees, so as to install his Marxist wet dream. He is a NON ALLEGIANT Non Natural Born Citizen (father never a citizen), installed by the power elite to put the final nails in the coffin of American sovereignty.

Mick said...

TellerID (smrstrauss) said,

"You said: “Circuit cout cases by activist judges are certainly not the final say on the meaning of a Constitutional term, “

Answer. You are right, but they are considerably better at interpreting the Constitution than you are. Their interpretation of the Wong Kim Ark ruling meaning that EVERY child in the USA is Natural Born and when the child is a citizen she or he is a Natural Born Citizen is the OVERWHELMING consensus of constitutional scholars, lawyers, and the Chief Justice of the United States, who swore in Obama."


Apparently they are not, as I've already proven in multiple ways, which you don't defend against because you can't.
Justice Roberts was so conflicted that he never gave Obama the propper oath in public. They all know, and you know, that Obama is ineligible, and are all guilty of treason.
The truth sets me free and the lie imprisons you smrstrauss.

TellerIP said...

The reason that the US Congress confirmed Obama’s election without ONE single member objecting is that ALL of them, every single one of them, believes that Obama is a Natural Born Citizen due to birth in Hawaii AND that birth in the USA is sufficient to make a Natural Born Citizen.

The chance that five Justices of the Supreme Court would hold differently from this is nil.

The Wong Kim Ark case clearly ruled that EVERY child born in the USA is Natural Born. It said:

“It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”

Those are the actual words. It says clearly that EVERY child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is Natural Born. When someone is both Natural Born and a citizen she or he is a Natural Born Citizen.

That was the view even before the 14th Amendment, as the letter from Secretary of State Marcy in 1854 shows. And that is why there are MANY federal court rulings that the US-born children of foreign citizens are Natural Born Citizens and NO court rulings that the US-born children of foreigners are not Natural Born Citizens.

Some examples of such rulings are:

Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999) (children born in US to two Romanian citizens described as “natural born citizens” of the US):

Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States.

Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983) (child born in US to Mexican citizen is “natural born citizen” of US):

Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally [from Mexico] in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time. *** The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.

Nwankpa v. Kissinger, 376 F. Supp. 122 (M.D. Ala. 1974) (child born in US to two Biafra citizens described as “natural born citizen” of the US):

The Plaintiff was a native of Biafra, now a part of the Republic of Nigeria. His wife and two older children are also natives of that country, but his third child, a daughter, is a natural-born citizen of the United States.

What makes the third child a Natural Born Citizen while the others are not? She was born in the USA.

TellerIP said...

You keep saying: “There are 3 types in the USC.”

Answer: NO there aren’t. There are only two kinds of citizens, Natural Born Citizens and naturalized citizens.

“Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition

If someone were not born within the jurisdiction or of citizens temporarily residing abroad, she or he would be either an alien or a naturalized citizen. There can be only two kinds of citizens, Natural Born (citizen at birth) and naturalized, and that is the way the framers used the words.

Re: “you make the jump to Natural Born. Gray says no such thing….., this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative."

Answer: The Wong Kim Ark case was about citizenship. The bottom line of the case was the issue of whether Wong was or was not a citizen. That is why Gray says that Wong is a citizen. Gray concludes that Wong is a citizen. He also concluded that Wong, like every other child born in the USA, is Natural Born. The overwhelming view of constitutional scholars is that this means, as Marcy had indeed already shown in 1854, that every child born in the USA (except for the children of foreign diplomats) is a Natural Born Citizen.

There is no jump. Gray held that Wong was a citizen. Gray also held that Wong was Natural Born. Gray held that every child born in the country is Natural Born. That is why the overwhelming view is that every child born in the USA other than the children of foreign diplomats is a Natural Born Citizen, and that is the way that many courts have held, and no courts have held that US-born children of foreigners are not Natural Born Citizens.

Re: “They think John Marshall is eccentric?”

John Marshall did not rule on Natural Born Citizen status. That being the case, they are not referring to him. Who are they referring to? YOU and other two-fers.

Mick said...

TellerIP (smrstrauss)said,


"John Marshall did not rule on Natural Born Citizen status. That being the case, they are not referring to him. Who are they referring to? YOU and other two-fers."

You leftists love to ridicule, that's OK, the truth sets me free. Marshall was on the court only 27 years after Ratification when it cited Vattel specifically as the source of the term Natural Born Citizen (the Venus (1814)see above)

Gray NEVER says that Wong was a Natural Born Citizen (READ THE CASE). The Laws of England and Natural Born SUBJECTS have nothing to do w/ us, we are CITIZENS.

A "born Citizen" is NEVER SAID to be a Natural Born Citizen in any SCOTUS case. Circuit court doesn't matter. You are just plain LYING.
And the rest of the nonsense that you write is plainly just that.

TellerIP said...

You said: “Marshall was on the court only 27 years after Ratification when it cited Vattel specifically as the source of the term Natural Born Citizen (the Venus (1814) see above)”

Answer: Here is the quotation from Vattel that Marshall used in the Venus:

“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."

Does that use the words Natural Born Citizen? No it doesn’t. It only says that the natives or indigenes are those who were born in the country of parents who were citizens. And Marshall did not make a ruling in that case, in which by the way he was not the writer of the main opinion only a concurring vote, as to who was or was not a Natural Born Citizen.

Vattel himself did not say that the leaders of a country should be citizens or natives or indigenes. He gives several examples of countries picking their sovereigns from the nobility of other countries, and he never says that that was a bad thing. In short, Vattel himself thought it was perfectly fine for countries to pick foreigners as their leader. So, there is little evidence that Vattel was the source of the term Natural Born Citizen. It was not used in any translation of Vattel until well after the writing of the Constitution. The source of the term Natural Born was the common law, which should be obvious since 60-70% of the writers of the Constitution were lawyers.

You said: Gray NEVER says that Wong was a Natural Born Citizen (READ THE CASE).

Answer; I read the case. He ruled (along with five other justices) that EVERY CHILD born in the USA is Natural Born.

You also said: “Natural Born SUBJECTS have nothing to do w/ us, we are CITIZENS.”

Answer: Gray also said that citizens are the equivalent of subject where getting citizenship from Natural Born status is concerned. That is also the way that the framers of the Constitution saw it. I can show you a quote from a draft treaty written by John Adams, Benjamin Franklin and John Jay (listing them in alphabetical order) in which Natural Born Citizen is used as a synonym to Natural Born Subject.

Re “lying.”

The overwhelming consensus of constitutional experts hold that every citizen born in the USA is a natural born citizen and that the only kind of a citizen who is not a natural born citizen is a naturalized citizen. That is why Obama’s election was confirmed UNAINIMOUSLY and that is why the Chief Justice of the United States swore him in.

Mick said...

TellerID (smrstrauss) said,
"Answer; I read the case. He ruled (along with five other justices) that EVERY CHILD born in the USA is Natural Born."


Apparently you didn't, because it NEVER says WEong is a Natural Born Citizen. You will lie till the end, and have produced no proof of anything, only "Most constitutional scholars say", or "he was passed through the EC unanimously", or "they know better", or the "framers understanding", all meaning nothing.

TellerIP said...

I repeat. It says that Wong is Natural Born. It also says that Wong is a citizen. You, and perhaps a few others, chose to believe that this does not mean a Natural Born Citizen.

Virtually every legal scholar and constitutional scholar believes that this means a Natural Born Citizen, that when someone is both a citizen and Natural Born, she or he is a Natural Born Citizen.

That is why there are MANY federal court rulings that the US-born children of foreigners are Natural Born Citizens, and there are no rulings that the US-born children of foreigners are NOT Natural Born Citizens. And that is why the Chief Justice swore him in (twice) and that is why the Congress confirmed Obama's election without a single vote against.