See other Editorial Articles
Title: The Fall of the South: A Sesquicentennial Wake By Bill Buppert
Source:
ZeroGov
URL Source: http://zerogov.com/?p=3964
Published: Apr 10, 2015
Author: Bill Buppert
Post Date: 2015-04-10 12:45:59 by X-15
Keywords: None
Views: 2795
Comments: 204
“So far from engaging in a war to perpetuate slavery, I am rejoiced that slavery is abolished. I believe it will be greatly for the interests of the South. So fully am I satisfied of this, as regards Virginia especially, that I would cheerfully have lost all I have lost by the war, and have suffered all I have suffered, to have this object attained.” -Statement to John Leyburn (1 May 1870), as quoted in R. E. Lee: A Biography (1934) by Douglas Southall Freeman. On this day, 9 April in 1865, the Lincolnian project to enslave the entire nation under the yoke of Union supremacy, central planning and a country administered by national political fiat and the naked fist of government aggression prevailed. The South and the Confederacy for all it flaws died at Appomattox. Lee is often erroneously quoted as saying the following: “Governor, if I had foreseen the use those people designed to make of their victory, there would have been no surrender at Appomattox Courthouse; no sir, not by me. Had I foreseen these results of subjugation, I would have preferred to die at Appomattox with my brave men, my sword in my right hand. Supposed made to Governor Fletcher S. Stockdale (September 1870), as quoted in The Life and Letters of Robert Lewis Dabney, pp. 497-500.” No lesser literary luminaries and historians have said this is false than Douglas Southall Freeman, Shelby Dade Foote, Jr. and Bruce Catton. This appears to be historical myth-making by Mr. Dabney. My casual research and interest in Lee find this simply does not fit in his character; now there were certainly Confederate worthies who professed such sympathies. Lee is certainly one of the greatest captains of arms in the history of the West. A far more competent and talented warrior than the base incompetency and abject martial malpractice of George Washington; he joins the ranks of Douglas Haig (WWI) and Pompey (Rome) for an exaggerated sense of warrior skills untethered to reality. Lee was at the forefront of a Confederate high tide that was destroyed by the Gettysburg debacle and worsening political travails in the South as Davis tried to emulate the Sovietized system of the Union to salvage a victory. At least the South fought to fight a just war in defending their own soil from invasion. I am amused at Union apologists who claim that the South fired the first shot at Fort Sumter. Let me employ a tortured analogy; you buy a house and the owners refuse to vacate and bring friends with guns to ensure you can’t possession of your rightful property. Such was the case in Sumter where the Fort commanded the entry and exit to richest transportation hub in the south employing constant threats against the indigenous community it sat in the middle of. The War Between the States was a Second American Revolution, the last gasp of trying to unshackle the nation from the Constitutional straitjacket that extinguished liberty at every turn. Alexander Stephens, the Vice president of the Confederacy had other ideas. He is no hero of abolition nor a moral man in regards the disposition of humans in chains: “Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.” Lincoln claimed this was his only disagreement with Stephens but the curious ability of Lincoln to free all slaves outside his legal jurisdiction and maintain it within his control regime. Historian Clarence Carson has astutely commented: “It should be noted, however, that as of the moment it was issued and to the best of Lincoln’s knowledge, the proclamation did not free a single slave. It did not free a slave in Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky, Missouri, West Virginia, nor in any state or portions of a state within the Confederacy occupied by Union troops…In short, Lincoln freed only those slaves over which he had no control. No doubt that was by design.” As Al Benson Jr. notes: “What it amounted to was, that, as an effective propaganda tool, the proclamation freed only those slaves that the North had no jurisdiction over and it didn’t free any slaves over which the North had some jurisdiction.” Author Webb Garrison, a former dean of Emory University noted that: “…the Emancipation Proclamation was a war measure – not an edict issued in a dramatic move to better the lives of blacks. No one knew this better than the author of the proclamation. Nine months after it was issued, he told Salmon P. Chase ‘The original proclamation has no constitutional or legal justification except as a military measure’.” There was no major politician except Charles Sumner on either side interested in the least in emancipation much less abolition of black chattel slavery. Sumner would famously ask Lincoln: “Do you know who is at this moment the largest slaveholder in the United States?” Sumner informed Lincoln that he was the largest slaveholder because the President “holds all the slaves of the District of Columbia.” This ended on paper in 1862. This war was about slavery but not in the commonly held beliefs that permeate the nonsense about the conflict in the government school systems. This war was about the Union grasp at codifying a new kind of slavery just as awful as chattel or indentured servitude. The object was to chain tax cattle to a regime that could rob them at will and ultimately using every power at its disposal to drain a person’s resources and at worst cage and murder them when it saw fit. The essential result of the horrific conflict was to out everyone on the plantation under any Constitutionally protected” territory or state. Go guerrilla indeed, what would the future have wrought? Poster Comment: "The birth of Empire. Not a damned living soul has lived under the Constitution as it was intended in 1787-1791 – or at least as it was said to be intended."
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 190.
#5. To: X-15 (#0)
The essential result of the horrific conflict was to out everyone on the plantation under any Constitutionally protected” territory or state. The above is about all I can agree with. The author doesn't like Lee's "No, Sir, not by me" quote -- why? Even if it's true about Lee and Gettysburg, he appears to buy the notion that slavery was this huge evil deal. "The disposition of humans in chains" -- please. The point is that the entire war was the embodiment of yankee arrogance and hypocrisy and totally unnecessary. It itself is a stain much bigger and blacker on our history than slavery will ever be -- and it's really a blotch on the New England states and the covert Jew from hell they elected in 1860 and '64. Nota bene, I value a good Northerner as much as anybody and treasure the many of them who have supported the modern Southern rights movement. But they're not yankees, they're present and former Northerners -- major difference. Many of them, however, have had to work to shake off the diversity dementia most people are born with beyond Dixie's borders. The Yankee Problem in America http://archive.lewrockwell.com/wilson/wilson12.html
I got into a typical war-like debate with war on this very topic not long ago here. It was of course laden with the typical reading comprehension issues and challenges in logic that war seems to be perpetually faced with. Debating with him is like watching a dog chase its tail in circles but never catching it. Lincoln worship in this country is akin to Churchill worship in England. Both men were personally responsible for doing tremendous damage to the moral basis of their very nations, in one case terminally for an empire, in the other the forerunner of the nation that we've become and on the cusp of the destruction of a similar empire.
Lincoln worship in this country is akin to Churchill worship in England. Both men were personally responsible for doing tremendous damage to the moral basis of their very nations, in one case terminally for an empire, in the other the forerunner of the nation that we've become and on the cusp of the destruction of a similar empire. Very astute. I'd say there's no point even dialoguing with war anymore -- in some thread I asked him doggedly whether it's true he's an Obongo-loving "progressive" who was banned from here once, and he doggedly didn't say one word in response -- so even if he should do so henceforth, he's already admitted it in my book. EVERYBODY LISTEN TO YOUR FRIEND NN -- don't waste any more time debating war! What do you say we just stonewall the gliberals who come around here? Churchill worship.... anybody looked at Imprimis lately? It seems to be one big fossilized Churchill and Reagan worship cult. ewwww, GROSS! BTW, I have to agree with Cynicom's and X-15's answers to you here. "Why not firebomb Berlin, Hanover, Frankfurt, Stuttgart, etc. too then?" The Jew world order makes sense sometimes but not others. Could be the world was so shocked by Dresden they didn't want to repeat it. Remember, Nagasaki and Hiroshima happened to have unusually large Christian presence for Japan.
Don't forget about the first person of their unholy trinity: Abraham Lincoln. For several years, 4 of every 5 editions were dedicated at least in part to exalting that mass murderer. Then a couple of years ago they switched over to Reagan/Churchill idolatry, and I thought that perhaps their formerly incessant philosiminianism was only a case of temporary monkey love. But the latest issue (March 2015) disabused me of that foolish notion, and it appears that they were only recoiling a little that they might strike the better. Lincoln is again the Supreme One, from whose mouth and pen flow rivers of wisdom and righteousness. The ape and/or his memorial are mentioned 16 times. And in the spirit of trinitarian propriety, Churchill and Reagan also garner a couple of mentions each. Oh, and the statue of liberty -- "the greatest light since the Star of Bethlehem." Have a five gallon emetic bucket handy when you read it, especially the last two sentences: ".. the moral regeneration of America that (Frank) Capra had hoped to bring about will require more than a Capra. It will require a Lincoln."
Have a five gallon emetic bucket handy when you read it, especially the last two sentences: ".. the moral regeneration of America that (Frank) Capra had hoped to bring about will require more than a Capra. It will require a Lincoln." Yeah, I mentioned Lincoln in 18. what do we expect though from someone with those credentials, they're mired in establishment politics. Anyone approaching that on the basis that the foundation is not flawed can only come up with conclusions well outside the bounds of reality. The vast majority of Americans believe that, it's stunning. Many agree on the symptoms, but on the playing field handed to them by the government, not on one that makes any holistic sense.
Still not getting the semi-colon *thingie*, eh?
Always good to hear from you war. You're a nice reminder of the 50% that rank below the mean on the normal curve of the intelligence scale. It's OK though, these days the government is squarely in the corner of the less intellectually fortunate. So you've got that going for you.
Chyea...but @ *49* I'm still @ a comfortable 4x's higher than you. Have no fear...you do still rank quite high on the not normal scale of the intelligence curve. Here's a helpful hint: When you want to insult someone over their level of *intelligence* either learn how to write a clear and concise sentence or find someone to ghost for you...I'm sure that the G-Man who is watching you from inside of your closet will be *happy* to *help*. It's OK though, these days the government is squarely in the corner of the less intellectually fortunate. Oh...he already is...carry on...
I'd bet you money that your IQ is not within 20 points of mine. Either way, yet one more classic post by you demonstrating that your ability to focus and coordinate thoughts is abjectly defunct.
One sign of intelligence (non-sarcastically, now) is not making he same mistake over and over... like getting into it with war.
I'm bored, actually looking for a little one-upper contest here. There's nothing real to debate, the poster's a fool thru and thru. I'm not biting on anything worth discussing. war is a fantastic example of the average American. The AA believes what he sees on TV, does little if any independent research to validate it because it came from his favorite and chosen "news" network, and then believes that he's well informed despite no validation of any of it and while ignoring the error rate of reported "news," which is nothing more than TV for fools and gullible people. Then, when challenged, he becomes frantic, adversarial, refuses to consider anything else while insisting that he/she is open-minded. Classic Americanism.
Just to defend myself here, if it's not hockey or a movie or, maybe a Law & Order or M*A*S*H rerun, I'm not watching TV at all.
Oh, boy -- Mash and Law and Order, two of the most libjew shows ever! I would advise you not to defend yourself any further, conflict! ROTF....
Is that why I feel so compelled to eat crackers and drink sweet wine - all over clean white linen - when I watch them?
Since you're such a liberal, yeah -- matzohs and Manischewitz on a heap of nice silky tallitot.
Well...Saltines and Riesling and we WASPs always have white linen around..w.e just usually don't eat crackers and drink sweet wine over it... On the other hand, it has been a while since I've had a pint of the old Mad Dog 20-20...
There are numerous white so-called liberals, it's true, and you're notably still not denying that part -- a consistent pattern for weeks or months now. Let the record show you are a so-called liberal. AH -- too late to deny it. Silence has been connoting assent for too long!
I am a proud liberal, mon frère... How has anyone gotten it in to their head that I am not or somehow *refuse* to admit to it?
How has anyone gotten it in to their head that I am not or somehow *refuse* to admit to it? I've only challenged you on it 4 or 5 times. Why the coyness? So, what are you doing here in a conservative site? Feel sure I've asked you that too. Aucun libéral ne sera mon frère!
My *Tab* key doesn't work...
Another cheap evasion..... Yep. You're liberal. As misdefined today at any rate. Evasions and name-calling are all these individuals have. How are you liking your putative president's work at this point?
Frankly, I'm not a fan of Senators running for POTUS. I've run organizations...some small...some rather large...it's always BETTER to have someone in there with executive experience...Governors have always been the better Presidents... That said, I was unhappy that he caved on the size of the stim but understood at the time that he was looking for a bipartisanship that shares a similar existence to a virgin prostitute...the stim did one part of its job, tho, but it should have been extended...I was further disappointed when he took the Medicaid buy in option out of his health care plan but I believe that ACA has been highly effective. I'd still like to see a Medicaid buy-in for those who are just above being covered under the expansion... I was not a fan of the Libya campaign which, I think, he got goaded in to by believing that Kaddaffy would give way to a consensus government ala Kosovo... That said, I believe that he's done a decent job of it...much, much better than his predecessor...but not as good as Clinton...
It's good to have in on the record here that you support the biggest liar yet to hit the campaign trail. You're "not a fan of the Libya campaign", how do you like his stomping one country after another to death to please Izrul after promising to bring the troops home? To cite just one of the whoppers he worked before getting himself into the Oral Office (as it's been called since your other hero Slick Willy). Notice I'm not saying "since he got elected." I don't believe he ever has been, not legitimately.
It's not even close...Dumn Dumb was, without a doubt, the biggest liar as well as dumbest POTUS that this nation has ever seen. Fortunately, history is treating as one of the worst... how do you like his stomping one country after another to death Huh? One...huh after a what? IF McCain were POTUS the draft would have to have been reinstated to provide enough soldiers for his adventures...if anything, Obama has kept us out of war, not an easy task given how militarized this nation has been since WWII... after promising to bring the troops home ...from where? Iraq? Notice I'm not saying "since he got elected." I don't believe he ever has been, not legitimately. And why would that be?
No, Obozo is a bigger liar, ptly because he's throwing far more "wars" (actually national rapes). The comparison with McCain is so lame as to be laughable. The only thing that matters is how Obozo rates compared to what he promised and compared to his Constitutional job description -- and he's worse than a mere zero on both. He's illegit because he's never proved he's an actual American, and is in any case a total traitor to everything that's normally gone under that rubric. Indeed the whole system is corrupted or he'd be no more than an obscure dishwasher at Man's Country Adult Entertainment.
He has a birth certificate that says he's an American from the State of Hawaii, with legal signatures and seal.
Got a picture of it? hopefully not the one where the contents are straight though the background design clearly curving.
If it has the raised seal, and the correct signature stamp, its genuine. What turned out to be fake was the guy claiming Obama's bc was a forgery.
Everything we've been presented with as being a bc of one kind or another is clearly fake. These purported doc's were faked, not because he was or was not born in Hawaii or in this or that territory, but because his paternity is a fake and must remain so. His real dad was not an Obama. That is a physical unlikelihood, in my opinion. His real dad was more likely a card carrying communist whose name and face are now familiar to many who are following these things.
Then his citizenship is not in question.
For the Presidency and the Vice Presidency, the Constitution requires natural born citizenship, which is not synonymous with citizenship in-general. It does not merely say that no person except a Citizen of the United States shall be eligible to the Office of President but "No person except a natural born Citizen"; meaning birth here to parents who are both American citizens only at the time of it, with no dual or multiple citizenships of other nations conferred to the child through birth. The only people trying to apply a different standard to Obama are those who don't understand the difference between citizenship and natural born citizenship or who want to discard Constitutionality on that point. McCain was not qualified for the office on those grounds, despite the Senate's unilateral and ex-post facto farce to declare him so. The birth certificate said to be Obama's indicates that his legal father of record was a foreigner and paternity otherwise has not been procedurally authenticated. Additionally, his mother may have been a British citizen by marriage. The issue of whether or not she was even technically able to confer basic U.S. citizenship by a birth abroad, if that had occurred, is a separate matter. At the time of our founding, basic citizenship status could be primarily determined by the father being an American citizen. A foreign born mother could be considered here to be an American-only by marriage to the American father but the mother's birth country might object, which could result in compromised allegiance and other nationality obligations (ref. the War of 1812 British draft of American citizens, for example) that our Founders meant to avoid regarding the Presidency (which also acts as Commander in Chief during times of war) and the Vice Presidency (which might have to move up to the Presidency in succession).
The 14th Amendment says: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. One can be a natural born citizen, or a naturalized citizen - that's it. There is no third option.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. One can be a natural born citizen, or a naturalized citizen - that's it. There is no third option. That Amendment isn't about natural born citizenship. It only speaks of basic citizenship status in-general and the key phrase is "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Children born here to a foreign parent are subject to the country of their parents' citizenship and acquire that citizenship by birth -- foreign allegiance and obligation problems that our Founders intended to shield the Presidency and Vice Presidency from being compromised by. Only natural born citizenship by birth here to American-only parents (both the father and the mother) does not require legislation to determine.
Again, no... IF what you promote here was to be true, what other foreign laws are applicable to people in the US? Can France sue a person born of French parents residing in the US, in a US court for the French taxes those parents owed? According to you, France could.
Can France sue a person born of French parents residing in the US, in a US court for the French taxes those parents owed? According to you, France could. No. According to me, their child shouldn't be made liable for taxes owed by their parents and not them. As for other foreign laws applicable to people in the U.S. of foreign parentage; also those of dual or multiple foreign citizenship ... I've already noted the drafting of American men by Britain that considered them to be British subjects as well. Ref. The War of 1812 impressment issue. If you think our Founders' intent wasn't to guard the Presidency and Vice Presidency from the possibility of such happenstances, as well as compromised allegiance and other foreign obligation entanglements, think again. I've been intending to get back to our Civil War discussion in this thread eventually and you are prolonging that by errantly conflating the 14th Amendment as if it's a nullification of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5's natural born citizenship stipulation which, according to your interpretation, would then do nothing whatsoever to protect the Presidency and Vice Presidency from divided allegiances and foreign complications and 14A would very much facilitate those national security dilemmas. Wishful thinking on your part, evidently, but clearly an incorrect supposition.
I chose France for a reason. Under French law (or what was law at some point in my life), a child can be held liable for the taxes that were owed by the parents. Since you claim that the child is subject to the jurisdiction of their foreign parent then my point stands to reason. The only way that it could not be, would be if the child had protection under US law. The 14th amendment establishes that anyone BORN or NATURALIIZED is a citizen of the US...that child was NOT naturalized...thus he was born a citizen of the US and could not be compelled by a US court to comply with French law...not so with the parents... As for other foreign laws applicable to people in the U.S. of foreign parentage; also those of dual or multiple foreign citizenship .. They could only be held responsible for acts committed outside of the US within the jurisdiction of the other nation. Nor, btw, are they subject to recall by the other nation, unlike ambassadors or attaches... I've already noted the drafting of American men by Britain that considered them to be British subjects as well. The US never considered impressment legal. IN fact, one of the roots of the War of 1812 was impressment. I've been intending to get back to our Civil War discussion in this thread eventually and you are prolonging that by errantly conflating the 14th Amendment as if it's a nullification of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5's natural born citizenship stipulation which, according to your interpretation, would then do nothing whatsoever to protect the Presidency and Vice Presidency from divided allegiances and foreign complications and 14A would very much facilitate those national security dilemmas. The plain language of Article II Section I SS5: No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President... Can you find me what qualifications did a person need to be a *citizen* of the US in 1788? In other words, excluding those born in the US...the parentage of whom, btw, is an unknown...what made anyone else a US citizen?
I chose France for a reason. Under French law (or what was law at some point in my life), a child can be held liable for the taxes that were owed by the parents. Since you claim that the child is subject to the jurisdiction of their foreign parent then my point stands to reason. The only way that it could not be, would be if the child had protection under US law. The 14th amendment establishes that anyone BORN or NATURALIIZED is a citizen of the US...that child was NOT naturalized...thus he was born a citizen of the US and could not be compelled by a US court to comply with French law...not so with the parents... They could only be held responsible for acts committed outside of the US within the jurisdiction of the other nation. Nor, btw, are they subject to recall by the other nation, unlike ambassadors or attaches... The US never considered impressment legal. IN fact, one of the roots of the War of 1812 was impressment. The plain language of Article II Section I SS5: No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President... Can you find me what qualifications did a person need to be a *citizen* of the US in 1788? In other words, excluding those born in the US...the parentage of whom, btw, is an unknown...what made anyone else a US citizen? As I've stated before, back in the early era of our nation, having an American father at the time of the child's birth was enough to qualify a child then as an American citizen -- but not necessarily equivalent to a natural born citizen unless both parents were Americans only at the time of their child's birth here. More recently in the last century, a son born abroad to an American diplomat father (and possibly the child's mother being an American, as well) lost his claim to American citizenship by choosing to stay overseas after adulthood. I think the country of his birth was France but would have to research that and would rather not right now. I think the tax law of France that you mentioned is unfair but mainly France's jurisdictional business internationally and not any remote-business of mine that I'm presently aware of. As I've tried to explain before, all foreigners who have babies born here might not want their child's nationality by birth to be compromised by auto-attachment of American citizenship. Perhaps that might be considered at some point by plentiful numbers of them as comparable to the War of 1812 impressment issue of our citizens being subjected to tyrannical control by Britain, a recent enemy of American memories in those years. Others shouldn't have to ponder going to war to stop America from claiming jurisdictional control over their child's citizenship identity or spend money to legally overturn the proclamation. Many foreigners don't even like America. Some probably don't even like being here on a business matter, sullied as it's become by misdirections. The natural born citizenship clause, a section of which you highlighted, makes a distinction between that higher citizenship standard and a more basic State Citizenship, which was the case for those of our Founding Fathers' timeframe who were Citizens of their State at the time of the Articles of Confederation being replaced by the Constitution -- none of whom, I'm confidant in saying, are still being classified as applicable candidate-exceptions to the natural born citizenship rule for Presidential or Vice Presidential office in this century. Whether in plain language by your readings or not, the 14th Amendment neither states nor implies any nullification of the Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 requirement of natural born citizenship -- more complex than the assertions like yours as meaning anyone at all born here or born anywhere to an American parent, which could jeopardize our national security contrary to our Founders' intent of preventing foreign influence and obligation entanglements of the Presidency and Vice Presidency as best they could for us in America's best interest. Should be obvious, imo.
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President... Can you find me what qualifications did a person need to be a *citizen* of the US in 1788? In other words, excluding those born in the US...the parentage of whom, btw, is an unknown...what made anyone else a US citizen? Me: As I've stated before, back in the early era of our nation, having an American father at the time of the child's birth was enough to qualify a child then as an American citizen -- but not necessarily equivalent to a natural born citizen unless both parents were Americans only at the time of their child's birth here. The natural born citizenship clause, a section of which you highlighted, makes a distinction between that higher citizenship standard and a more basic State Citizenship, which was the case for those of our Founding Fathers' timeframe who were Citizens of their State at the time of the Articles of Confederation being replaced by the Constitution -- none of whom, I'm confidant in saying, are still being classified as applicable candidate-exceptions to the natural born citizenship rule for Presidential or Vice Presidential office in this century. Whether in plain language by your readings or not, the 14th Amendment neither states nor implies any nullification of the Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 requirement of natural born citizenship -- more complex than the assertions like yours as meaning anyone at all born here or born anywhere to an American parent, which could jeopardize our national security contrary to our Founders' intent of preventing foreign influence and obligation entanglements of the Presidency and Vice Presidency as best they could for us in America's best interest. Should be obvious, imo. To try and further clarify why there was a lowered standard of residential State Citizenship (temporarily), rather than natural born citizenship, for those of America's Founding time-period -- whether they had 1. been born here as Colonial era citizens or otherwise as citizens of foreign nations by their parentage (such as: Britian, France, Spain, etc.) or 2. were not born here and had arrived as foreign born Colonials or other immigrants sometime prior to the establishment of government by the Articles of Confederation during America's War of Independence or 3. were born here or had immigrated (as Military assitants or otherwise) during construction of the Articles of Confederation while the American Revolution was ongoing or 4. were not born here as residential citizens of a U.S. State but had become naturalized immigrants in the State of their residence during the Articles of Confederation period Those sort of legalistic minutia/minutiae incidentals/technicality exceptions were necessarily "Grandfathered" into the clause on Presidential requirements only for Americans of that timeframe by the lowered State Citizenship standard so that they (many of whom had helped to make America a nation) could be considered for the Presidency too because: possibly during their lifetime here, America was not even a semi-independent nation yet that could indisputably grant them citizenship status officially until the end of the American Revolution and the Articles of Confederation were then fully in official effect for America as new nation; and also because America was being transitioned from the Articles of Confederation to a new form of official government by the Constitution.
From the point of view of the Revolutionary era US, who could have disputed that other than what was, effectively, a foreign nation? Careful...this could get spun in to a discussion of the Civil War...
There are no replies to Comment # 190. End Trace Mode for Comment # 190.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestThis war was about slavery but not in the commonly held beliefs that permeate the nonsense about the conflict in the government school systems. This war was about the Union grasp at codifying a new kind of slavery just as awful as chattel or indentured servitude. The object was to chain tax cattle to a regime that could rob them at will and ultimately using every power at its disposal to drain a person’s resources and at worst cage and murder them when it saw fit.
#7. To: NeoconsNailed (#5)
#18. To: Katniss (#7)
(Edited)
I got into a typical war-like debate with war on this very topic not long ago here. It was of course laden with the typical reading comprehension issues and challenges in logic that war seems to be perpetually faced with. Debating with him is like watching a dog chase its tail in circles but never catching it.
#55. To: NeoconsNailed, Katniss (#18)
Churchill worship.... anybody looked at Imprimis lately? It seems to be one big fossilized Churchill and Reagan worship cult. ewwww, GROSS!
#63. To: StraitGate, NeoconsNailed (#55)
Don't forget about the first person of their unholy trinity: Abraham Lincoln. For several years, 4 of every 5 editions were dedicated at least in part to exalting that mass murderer. Then a couple of years ago they switched over to Reagan/Churchill idolatry, and I thought that perhaps their formerly incessant philosiminianism was only a case of temporary monkey love. But the latest issue (March 2015) disabused me of that foolish notion, and it appears that they were only recoiling a little that they might strike the better. Lincoln is again the Supreme One, from whose mouth and pen flow rivers of wisdom and righteousness. The ape and/or his memorial are mentioned 16 times. And in the spirit of trinitarian propriety, Churchill and Reagan also garner a couple of mentions each. Oh, and the statue of liberty -- "the greatest light since the Star of Bethlehem."
John Marini, a professor of political science at the University of Nevada, Reno, is a graduate of San Jose State University and earned his Ph.D. in government at the Claremont Graduate School. He has also taught at Agnes Scott College, Ohio University, and the University of Dallas. He is on the board of directors of the Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy and a member of the Nevada Advisory Committee of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission.
#64. To: Katniss (#63)
Yeah, I mentioned Lincoln in 18. what do we expect though from someone with those credentials, they're mired in establishment politics.
#77. To: war, All (#64)
#86. To: Katniss (#77)
(Edited)
You're a nice reminder of the 50% that rank below the mean on the normal curve of the intelligence scale.
#88. To: war (#86)
(Edited)
#91. To: Katniss (#88)
#96. To: NeoconsNailed (#91)
One sign of intelligence (non-sarcastically, now) is not making he same mistake over and over... like getting into it with war.
#105. To: Katniss (#96)
war is a fantastic example of the average American. The AA believes what he sees on TV, does little if any independent research to validate it because it came from his favorite and chosen "news" network, and then believes that he's well informed despite no validation of any of it and while ignoring the error rate of reported "news," which is nothing more than TV for fools and gullible people.
#111. To: war (#105)
Just to defend myself here, if it's not hockey or a movie or, maybe a Law & Order or M*A*S*H rerun, I'm not watching TV at all.
#112. To: NeoconsNailed (#111)
#113. To: war (#112)
#114. To: NeoconsNailed (#113)
Since you're such a liberal, yeah -- matzohs and Manischewitz on a heap of nice silky tallitot.
#115. To: war (#114)
#116. To: NeoconsNailed (#115)
#117. To: war (#116)
I am a proud liberal, mon frère...
#118. To: NeoconsNailed (#117)
So, what are you doing here in a conservative site?
#119. To: war (#118)
(Edited)
#120. To: NeoconsNailed (#119)
How are you liking your putative president's work at this point?
#122. To: war (#120)
#124. To: NeoconsNailed (#122)
It's good to have in on the record here that you support the biggest liar yet to hit the campaign trail.
#125. To: war (#124)
#128. To: NeoconsNailed (#125)
He's illegit because he's never proved he's an actual American
#129. To: lucysmom (#128)
#132. To: NeoconsNailed (#129)
Got a picture of it? hopefully not the one where the contents are straight though the background design clearly curving.
#133. To: lucysmom (#132)
#136. To: randge (#133)
His real dad was more likely a card carrying communist whose name and face are now familiar to many who are following these things.
#141. To: lucysmom (#136)
(Edited)
Then his citizenship is not in question.
#143. To: GreyLmist (#141)
For the Presidency and the Vice Presidency, the Constitution requires natural born citizenship, which is not synonymous with citizenship in-general. It does not merely say that no person except a Citizen of the United States shall be eligible to the Office of President but "No person except a natural born Citizen"; meaning birth here to parents who are both American citizens at the time of it…
#146. To: lucysmom (#143)
(Edited)
The 14th Amendment says:
#149. To: GreyLmist (#146)
Children born here to a foreign parent are subject to the country of their parents' citizenship and acquire that citizenship by birth...
#153. To: war (#149)
(Edited)
IF what you promote here was to be true, what other foreign laws are applicable to people in the US?
#154. To: GreyLmist (#153)
(Edited)
According to me, their child shouldn't be made liable for taxes owed by their parents and not them.
#175. To: war (#154)
According to me, their child shouldn't be made liable for taxes owed by their parents and not them.
As for other foreign laws applicable to people in the U.S. of foreign parentage; also those of dual or multiple foreign citizenship ..
I've already noted the drafting of American men by Britain that considered them to be British subjects as well.
I've been intending to get back to our Civil War discussion in this thread eventually and you are prolonging that by errantly conflating the 14th Amendment as if it's a nullification of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5's natural born citizenship stipulation which, according to your interpretation, would then do nothing whatsoever to protect the Presidency and Vice Presidency from divided allegiances and foreign complications and 14A would very much facilitate those national security dilemmas.
#182. To: All (#175)
You: The plain language of Article II Section I SS5:
#190. To: GreyLmist (#182)
America was not even a semi-independent nation yet that could indisputably grant them citizenship status officially until the end of the American Revolution...
Replies to Comment # 190.