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: 4009
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
#1. To: X-15 (#0)
If one stands at Gettysburg, where Lee stood, when he ordered Picketts men charge the Yankee line, one would not agree. Pickett did not agree. Hundreds of soldiers died in one of the most callous waste of human life ever ordered by any General.
"Lee was at the forefront of a Confederate high tide that was destroyed by the Gettysburg debacle..."
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
"""Pickett's 6,000-man division left more than half of its men dead, bleeding or captured on the field at Gettysburg, including all 15 regimental commanders. In Pettigrew's Division the 26th North Carolina, which had lost about half of its 843 men in the first day's fighting, brought its casualty total to 687, the most of any regiment on either side. Pettigrew himself survived, only to be mortally wounded in a skirmish with Union cavalry on July 14. Union losses as a result of "Pickett's Charge" totaled about 1,500. Lee told the men trudging past him "It is my fault," but in his three official reports on the battle and in the postwar years, he never repeated those words and generally implied the failure was due to others. Many in the South placed the blame on Longstreet, although he had strenuously argued against the plan. Years after the war, Pickett was asked why the assault had failed. He responded laconically, "I've always thought the Yankees had something to do with it." ''
Classic. “The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
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
Pickett did not agree. Hundreds of soldiers died in one of the most callous waste of human life ever ordered by any General. At least the vast majority of those that died were armed. That war was the first major stepping stone in the creation of a nation that would over the decades make that waste of lives look like chump change compared to the infinitely more callous waste of civillian human lives in operations that began with the systematic fire bombing of a city named Dresden in WWII and which have escalated into calling systematic killing "collateral damage" in Newspeak.
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.
The A bomb was intended for Germany, not Japan. Jew operation from day one. They wanted to eradicate as many Germans as possible. Fire bombing was the next best.
And your point is?
Restate the obvious... World Jewry built the A bomb for Germany. They were dismayed that the war was ending before the A bomb was ready, thus the fire bombing.
The Jew-beast planned to devastate German civilians to an even greater degree than General Sherman pillaged the South. The American Jews had the imprimatur of FDR to have their way over Germany, only the end of hostilities on the continent saved the German civilians from the hell we visited upon Japan. I say this with the difference that the two A-bombs dropped on Japan were done to end the conflict, NOT to exact any revenge upon the Jews declared enemy (they had no axe to grind with Japan).
Lee is certainly one of the greatest captains of arms in the history of the West.
#2. To: Cynicom (#1)
#3. To: Lod, X-15 (#2)
#4. To: Cynicom (#3)
Years after the war, Pickett was asked why the assault had failed. He responded laconically, "I've always thought the Yankees had something to do with it." ''
#5. To: X-15 (#0)
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.
#6. To: Cynicom (#1)
If one stands at Gettysburg, where Lee stood, when he ordered Picketts men charge the Yankee line, one would not agree.
#7. To: NeoconsNailed (#5)
#8. To: Katniss (#6)
#9. To: Cynicom (#8)
#10. To: Katniss (#9)
And your point is?
#11. To: Cynicom, Katniss (#10)
-Alex Kurtagic
#12. To: Cynicom (#10)
What's your evidence for this? Why not firebomb Berlin, Hanover, Frankfurt, Stuttgart, etc. too then?
#13. To: X-15 (#0)
Staying on topic, had Stonewall Jackson not been killed, Gettysburg probably would have had a different outcome and so would have the war.
#14. To: X-15 (#11)
That concept seems not to be understood by some people. Japan was never the "enemy", Germany was the "enemy". That is why we went to war. Tween you and me. If you ever read the book by General Harris there is this.... He ordered bombing of Dresden because it had not been bombed prior and thousands of Germans had taken refuge there. This included the military running communications in their fight against the Russians....To aid our Russian allies, the Brits and Americans fire bombed Dresden to destroy the military network... Those are the words of Bomber Harris in his book, written after the war. He was in charge of both Brit and American bombers, it was his call. The Jew-beast planned to devastate German civilians to an even greater degree than General Sherman pillaged the South.
#15. To: Katniss (#12)
This is not a trial. Thank heavens, I would be shot for having a brain. General Harris gave his reasons in his book. He ordered it, I was not there. What's your evidence for this?
#16. To: Jethro Tull (#13)
Amen, and thanks for St. Joan. ... had Stonewall Jackson not been killed, Gettysburg probably would have had a different outcome and so would have the war.
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
#17. To: Lod (#16)
Lincoln offered command of the Yankee forces to General Lee, he declined. Interesting to think about what would have been the outcome, had Lee accepted.
#18. To: Katniss (#7) (Edited)
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. 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.
#19. To: Cynicom (#17)
Yes, who knows the outcome? Since it was a war of attrition, prolly no difference in the ending.
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
#20. To: NeoconsNailed (#18)
May war soon join up with dumplin', wherever he went.
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
#21. To: Lod (#20) (Edited)
Mebbe he went to enlist in the 100-year "war against terrorism". ;-) Joan does seem to have gotten the Southern truth. Here's a great Baez rarity with an unusual message and arrangement: JOAN BAEZ ~ Lincoln Freed Me Today ~ https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=PGrW-PgY39Q
#22. To: Cynicom (#15)
Thank heavens, I would be shot for having a brain. General Harris gave his reasons in his book. He ordered it, I was not there. No, it's not a trial, so what does that mean, that we need to simply believe what you say? Why would anyone here have read that book? Try not to be so pretentious and condescending as if anyone who's anyone has read some obscure book. Try recommending it instead. Otherwise, you're so far off on your takes of Churchill and the root causes from WWII based on our conversation in another thread that if I were to defer to simply what you say I'd be considered a fool. Frankly, that's exactly why I was asking. This is not a trial.
#23. To: NeoconsNailed (#18)
That's interesting, I didn't know that. Remember, Nagasaki and Hiroshima happened to have unusually large Christian presence for Japan.
#24. To: NeoconsNailed (#18)
Was there ever? I'd say there's no point even dialoguing with war anymore
#25. To: Katniss (#22)
I would say take his word for it, Katniss -- because Bomber Harris is known in the truth movement as one of the big, shocking genocidal maniacs, a sort of Churchill Junior. Britons are as stupid as amerikans on average, but when a Harris statue (with pillar?) was ceremoniously unveiled a few yeas back there was considerable public denunciation of it on this above basis. For many, "Bomber" is not meant as praise for the fiend. Think of that -- even in Britain where many people still worship the Holy Jew War, there's some understanding that Britain's obliteration of Dresden was one of the darkest days in moral history. When the statue was done up our pundits too the occasion to bring out the hideous truth on this forgotten World War Jew monster. But Cynicom, please explain something -- " the Brits and Americans fire bombed Dresden to destroy the military network..." One of the main points about Dresden was that it had no military significance and was indeed an art city full of civilian refugees. No?
#26. To: Katniss (#24)
Ha! you tell me -- you seem to have been here long than I (most or all of you do).
#27. To: NeoconsNailed (#25)
Ya think? I don't see that understanding here anyway. there's some understanding that Britain's obliteration of Dresden was one of the darkest days in moral history.
#28. To: Katniss (#27)
To me, the destruction of Dresden was just as gratuitous as was that of Japan.
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
#29. To: Lod, Jethro Tull (#28)
Plans for Operation Downfall are available in great detail on the internet. Most estimates of American dead as a result of an invasion of Japan were for at least 500,000, and up to 1,000,000 wounded. The estimated time for wars end was variable, most military people thought it would be at least two more years. Japanese dead estimates were for more than 2,000,000. Our "ally" Russia was preparing their own invasion of Northern Japan, even though they had a peace treaty with Japan, one that promised they would NOT invade Japan. Many factors involved in A bombing Japan. Morality had no part in it. It was numbers, some of them die, or millions of both sides die in the carnage. Cold blooded numbers.
#30. To: Katniss (#27)
I mean in the UK, like I said. Amurricans wouldn't know where or what Dresden is if their banal little lives depended on it. What are the chances that even half of the Amurrican troops in active duty could find the country they're molesting on a map? If this is 2013, it must be Pakistan.
#31. To: Cynicom (#29) (Edited)
Cold blooded numbers. It sounds like you're agreeing that it was amoral and indefensible. Hope so. Gratuitous -- that's the word for both Japan and Dresden, yeah! Isn't it alleged Dresden was partly a test of the latest killing methods? You know, like the Nazis are accused of testing medical techniques on poor pitiful Jew campgoers. Morality had no part in it. It was numbers, some of them die, or millions of both sides die in the carnage.
#32. To: NeoconsNailed (#31)
wrong, wrong and wrong. Check the numbers again. You have a DECISION TO MAKE. Do you go with several millions dead or half a million????? It sounds like you're agreeing that it was amoral and indefensible.
#33. To: Lod (#28)
Even more so because the entire intent, and for the first time in history therefore breaking an unwritten rule of warfare, a civilian populace was deliberately targeted for no military or strategic reason whatsoever. It was purely to demoralize the populace. In Japan the intent was to end the war, which of course it did. It's debatable, given the unknown death tallies, whether it saved lives or did not. Insofar as Dresden goes, there's no debate about much of anything there except for how big a psychos the allies are, particularly given that it breached a barrier that today has seen the few remaining barriers of decency and civility eradicated entirely. To me, the destruction of Dresden was just as gratuitous as was that of Japan.
#34. To: Cynicom (#29)
more here -
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
#35. To: NeoconsNailed (#30)
Gotcha. I don't think that most people in this country can even name the three major allied nations or the two primary axis nations during WWII, any relevant facts about the civil war much less the truth about the reason for it, or be able to identify at least 25% of the states on a US map. Among other things like being able to state the three branches of government.
#36. To: Cynicom (#32) (Edited)
Don't tell me you're trotting out this old saw that we had to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If not for President Rosenfeld's warmongering they never would have bombed us -- it's that simple. As it is, we go down as one of the most barbarous entities that ever lived on earth. Countries are like people. Those that see properly to their own affairs and don't invite trouble have far less of it on average. There was never any valid reason for us to fire a single shot in Asia or Europe -- never. And some things never change, including that. What the world needed most from us from the beginning was a message by example that war is not the answer. What they get instead is a country that simply can't stop bombing, invading, raping, looting, killing. Bravo for Colorado, Lod. More fuel for the flames!
#37. To: Katniss, NeoconsNailed (#23)
Katniss: That's interesting, I didn't know that. The Bombing of Nagasaki August 9, 1945: The Un-Censored Version the massive Cathedral was one of two Nagasaki landmarks that the Bock’s Car bombardier had been briefed on, and looking through his bomb site 31,000 feet overhead, he identified the cathedral through a break in the clouds and ordered the drop. At 11:02 am, during morning mass, Since the Cathedral was the epicenter of the blast, most Nagasaki Christians did not survive. The Bombing of Nagasaki August 9, 1945. Unwelcome Truths for Church and State The Bock’s Car crew had instructions to drop the bomb only with visual sighting. But [the city of] Kokura was clouded over. So after making three failed bomb runs [...], the plane headed for its secondary target, Nagasaki. here is one of the important points of this article: What the Japanese Imperial government could not do in over 200 years of persecution (destroy Japanese Christianity) American[s] did in 9 seconds.NeoconsNailed: Remember, Nagasaki and Hiroshima happened to have unusually large Christian presence for Japan.
Nagasaki was the most Christian city in Japan and ground zero was the largest cathedral in the Orient. [St. Mary’s, Urakami River district]
The first and only field test of an atomic bomb had been blasphemously code-named “Trinity” (a distinctly Christian term).
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#38. To: GreyLmist (#37)
Grey! Fantastic. Thanks -- didn't have any of that. Further proof that (among other ghastly things) government is really this country's God, and one of our favorite pursuits is smashing the real God in the face with a sledgehammer. THANK YOU, President Rosenfeld, even 70 years afterward, for this further evidence that your kind are vile beyond belief. You too, Prexy Wilson/Wolfsohn -- Rosie's doppelganger of two decades previous. We rake the muck here and it's ugly and malodorous, but ahh the beauty of truth. What a privilege -- what an adventure!
#39. To: GreyLmist (#37)
Thanks Grey, that's highly interesting. Those two reads will be my readings for the day!
#40. To: NeoconsNailed (#38)
LOL President Rosenfeld
#41. To: X-15 (#0) (Edited)
Every little screech like this one fails to note the obvious...the southern states were in rebellion...the militia had been legally called forth to suppress the rebellion and such states would be subject to martial law which includes dictates of a supreme commander. Lincoln, as Commander in Chief, most certainly had it within his power to dictate legal terms to those states in rebellion.
--Fuck your breath.
#42. To: Katniss, NeoconsNailed (#40) (Edited)
Katniss: LOL ~ROOSEVELT’S REAL JEWISH FAMILY NAME WAS ROSENFELD/ROSENVELT~THE RABBIT HOLE IS DEEP~ A "triumvirate" of Kamenev, Grigory Zinoviev, and Josef Stalin assumed tacit control of the [Communist] Party and state in 1923 Lev Kamenev - Wikipedia served briefly as the first head of state of Soviet Russia in 1917, and from 1923-24 the acting Premier in the last year of Vladimir Lenin's life. Kamenev was the brother-in-law of Leon Trotsky. During Lenin's illness, Kamenev was the acting Council of People's Commissars and Politburo chairman. Together with Zinoviev and Joseph Stalin, he formed a ruling 'triumvirate' (or 'troika') in the Communist Party Edited formatting. NeoconsNailed: President Rosenfeld
KAMENEV, LEV BORISOVICH - encyclopedia.com Born July 18, 1883, in Moscow and raised in Tbilisi, Lev Borisovich Rosenfeld entered the revolutionary movement while studying law at Moscow University. In 1901 he joined the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party (RSDLP) and adopted the pseudonym Kamenev ("man of stone").
born Rozenfeld
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#43. To: war (#41) (Edited)
The militia? Lincoln called forth Major Anderson [of the Federal Army] and company to be expectedly sacrificed in South Carolina/at Fort Sumter for his war agenda. Edit sentence 2 + to cross-reference discussion info on Lincoln's War at Title: Judge Napolitano: Lincoln Set About On The Most Murderous War In American Historythe militia had been legally called forth to suppress the rebellion
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#44. To: Cynicom (#29) (Edited)
The Naval blockade of Japan was working and Japan was moving to surrender because of that. Dropping the bombs robbed our Navy of their victory, imo, for expansion marketing of "The Manhattan Project" -- so that nuclear development would continue to be funded and supported by the "spectacular" effects observed: Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Wikipedia Edited spelling. some of them die, or millions of both sides die in the carnage.
The Target Committee stated that "It was agreed that psychological factors in the target selection were of great importance. Two aspects of this are (1) obtaining the greatest psychological effect against Japan and (2) making the initial use sufficiently spectacular for the importance of the weapon to be internationally recognized when publicity on it is released.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#45. To: All (#44) (Edited)
THE DECISION TO BOMB HIROSHIMA & NAGASAKI "It should be used on a military installation surrounded by houses or other buildings most susceptible to damage; "It should be used without explicit warning of the nature of the bomb." Those were the words of the "Interim Committee of the Manhattan Project" in May, 1945. This was the group in charge of building the first atomic bomb. The Target Committee of the Manhattan project believed it was desirable that the first use of the bomb be (according to notes, memos and documents formerly classified top secret for a generation) "sufficiently spectacular for the importance of the weapon to be internationally recognized when publicity on it was released." Already the Japanese were looking for terms of surrender, but these approaches for peace from Japan, not made public, even to members of the Manhattan Project, were ignored. The U.S. wanted no terms, no conditions; not even the safety of the Emperor could be guaranteed (although that request was granted, after the two atom bombs were dropped). Japan had to surrender immediately and unconditionally - the U.S. knowing full well that Japan could never go for that. (Add'l evidence, in square brackets, added 1999): [That there really were surrender overtures by the Japanese was confirmed by a man who ought to know, CIA chief Allen Dulles. In an interview with Clifford Evans (1/19/63 (NY) WOR-TV), Dulles said: "I had been in touch with certain Japanese.... They...were ready to surrender provided the Emperor could be saved so as to have unity in Japan. I took that word to Secretary (of State) Stimson at Potsdam July 20, 1945...." [Just weeks later, August 6 and August 9, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed.] most of Japan's navy had been destroyed, all its Axis allies were defeated, and its hold on the Pacific had been broken. For Truman, the real issue was that only a show of actual destruction from the bomb's use would serve to warn the USSR of the new formidable military power of the U.S. No harmless academic "demonstration" far from life would do. The U.S. Congress (which is supposed to run the show) had been kept in total ignorance of the Manhattan Project, even though the War Department, by trying to disguise it in various budgets, spent $2 billion on it. As time wore on, Congress grew aggressive and suspicious. What's it all for? came the demands. On August 6th and 9th, as Einstein bitterly noted then, Truman showed Congress that it got its money's worth; At the expense of nearly a quarter-million lives (including U.S. prisoners of war in Japanese target areas), Truman's overkill took the Congressional heat off himself. On the list of possible targets were Kokura, Hiroshima, Niigata and Kyoto [My note: Nagasaki was substituted for Kyoto because Henry L. Stimson, the Secretary of War, objected to targeting the old capitol of Kyoto]. The documents read that Hiroshima "has the advantage of being such a size and with possible focusing from nearby mountains that a large fraction of the city may be destroyed." All targets on the list I were then "reserved," and no conventional bombing was to be permitted there. [My note: However, Nagasaki was a secondary target and had already been conventionally bombed about 5 times previously.] The desire was that there be little or no prior bomb damage. For example, the damage already done to Tokyo by regular bombing would detract from the "spectacular" effect and measurement of the bomb's true power. Tokyo was thus excluded from the target list.. Other targets were debated, without conscience, on how "flat" they were so as to show the full ability of the bomb's blast to spread through a city Edited formatting. The Naval blockade of Japan was working and Japan was moving to surrender because of that. Dropping the bombs robbed our Navy of their victory, imo, for expansion marketing of "The Manhattan Project" -- so that nuclear development would continue to be funded and supported by the "spectacular" effects observed:
"It should be used as soon as possible;
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#46. To: GreyLmist (#43)
Quoting Napolitino as some sort of authority is a non-starter with me,
--Fuck your breath.
#47. To: war (#46) (Edited)
I wasn't quoting Napolitano. I linked a thread with his name in the title to reference discussion info there on the topic as needed and for continuity. Edited to expand statement. Quoting Napolitino as some sort of authority is a non-starter with me,
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#48. To: All (#37) (Edited)
THE DECISION TO BOMB HIROSHIMA & NAGASAKI - linked source at Post #45. Excerpt: Those were the words of the "Interim Committee of the Manhattan Project" in May, 1945. This was the group in charge of building the first atomic bomb. The Bombing of Nagasaki August 9, 1945: The Un-Censored Version - linked source at Post #37. Excerpt: At 11:02 am, during morning mass, Since the Cathedral was the epicenter of the blast, most Nagasaki Christians did not survive. 2 second "warning" or less: Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - linked Wikipedia source at Post #44. Excerpts: At 11:01, a last-minute break in the clouds over Nagasaki allowed Bockscar's bombardier ... to visually sight the target as ordered. It exploded 47 seconds later ... above a tennis court halfway between the Mitsubishi Steel and Arms Works in the south and the Mitsubishi-Urakami Ordnance Works (Torpedo Works) in the north. ... nearly 3 km (1.9 mi) northwest of the planned hypocenter The Manhattan Project - U.S. Department of Energy A reference cited at the bottom of that .gov page for the Manhattan Project: Paul Saffo's essay "The Road from Trinity: Reflections on the Atom Bomb"; Intended for Nagasaki’s center, Fat Man missed its aiming point by over a mile. The third bomb of the atomic Trinity exploded in searing Pentecostal fire over the Catholic neighborhoods of Uragami. Warriors from a Christian nation had just nuked the largest cathedral in Asia. It is tempting to wonder if Nagasaki’s cloud-kami or Trinity¹s ironic ghosts had nudged the bombardier’s hand, for the geometry of the Uragami Valley also ensured that Suwa-jinja, Nagasaki’s largest Shinto shrine, was utterly untouched by the blast. Had Fat Man imploded over the intended AP [alleged Aiming Point?], Suwa-jinja would have disappeared as just so much cedar tinder in the ensuing atomic firestorm. The officially cited Saffo source and Wikipedia both assert/speculate that the Nagasaki bomb missed an unspecific target by more than a mile. But the Manhattan Project's DOE/OSTI .gov page doesn't make that claim -- just likewise shutters their array of Nagasaki targets imprecisely, spinning whatever/whomever was hit with the most force as something of a lucky break in the cloudcover by happenstance; then vaguely and indifferently alludes to a more commercial and urban residential southerly point, which would probably have greatly maximized that city's casualties and damages...unless bomb shelter occupancies and evacuation precautions were possibly arranged there in advance for high numbers of so privileged persons there, whether loudly or secretively alerted, I'd suppose hypothetically. What's evidently discernable from those sources is that the Project Management's mission objective wasn't some centralized dropzone over the city generally (e.g. landscape "geometry"/interference issue) and it wasn't to aim at a tiny tennis court or a stadium as a decidedly optimal halfway-point between the Mitsubishi facilities. Even the one that's most directly stated to have been a Pearl Harbor Attack manufacturer was reportedly upwards of 2 miles from an unidentified planned target. Reference not only the lack of any confirmation about target-missing at the Manhattan Project site (linked here above) but also: This is not to endorse Saffo's camouflaging-propaganda attempt to shift responsibility for the Nagasaki cathedral strike away from the Manhattan Project and soley onto the nation of America and its WWII flyers as an attack on Christians by Christians. Although war actions of Christians against Christians haven't been uncommon historically, the n-bombing of Japan was Manhattan Project propelled and not Christian propelled -- even though Christians were involved, among others, knowingly and willingly or not. This is for remembrance of how far removed the Manhattan Project was from Christian Concept affiliation: J. Robert Oppenheimer: "I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds." Grammar edits + formatting and to include a link for: Trinity (nuclear test) - Wikipedia "It should be used without explicit warning of the nature of the bomb."
ordered the drop.
at 11:00, The Great Artiste [an observation aircraft on each mission; role: blast measurement instrumentation] dropped instruments attached to three parachutes. These instruments also contained an unsigned letter to Professor Ryokichi Sagane, a physicist at the University of Tokyo who studied with three of the scientists responsible for the atomic bomb at the University of California, Berkeley, urging him to tell the public about the danger involved with these weapons of mass destruction. The messages were found by military authorities but not turned over to Sagane until a month later.
[OSTI - Office of Scientific and Technical Information]
https://www.osti.gov/manhattan- project-history/Events/1945/nagasaki.htm At the last moment the bombardier, ... caught a brief glimpse of the city's stadium through the clouds and dropped the bomb. At 11:02 a.m. ... A small conventional raid on Nagasaki on August 1st had resulted in a partial evacuation of the city, especially of school children. There were still almost 200,000 people in the city below the bomb when it exploded. ... almost exactly between two of the principal targets in the city, the Mitsubishi Steel and Arms Works to the south, and the Mitsubishi-Urakami Torpedo Works (left) to the north. Had the bomb exploded farther south the residential and commercial heart of the city would have suffered much greater damage. ... The official Manhattan Engineer District report on the attack termed the damage to the two Mitsubishi plants "spectacular."
this is available on Paul Saffo's web site at
http://www.saffo.com/essays/
the-road-from-trinity-reflections-on-the- atom-bomb/ Chapter 3: Nagasaki - Excerpt
http://www.saffo.com/essays/
the-road-from-trinity-reflections-on-the- atom-bomb-3/ the strike damage being assesed therein as "spectacular" rather than militarily strategic ... the Allied POWs in the blast vicinities not even noticed to be worth a counting as deliberately lost and wounded (or any mention of them at all) ... and the catastrophic, ground zero civilian casualties (ironically, in a particularly Trinity Observant area: the Urakami district of Christianity) denoted very like an afterthought -- only in terms of their presumed collective lesserness as a better outcome (regardless of being a Christian Categorical ELE/Extinction Level "Event" there) than some other place closer to the more business-oriented sectors, where higher casualty and property damage factors might have computationally transmuted into a negative impact on the Manhattan Project's international-marketing goals by overly much "Shock&Awe" of the financial sort, possibly deterring prospective investors somewhat.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#49. To: GreyLmist (#48) (Edited)
Oppenheimer and his fellow jews working on the project were feeding daily information on their progress directly to Stalin. The youngest spy was Ted Hall, jew, only 19 years olde. He was never fried and spent the rest of his worthless life in Europe. J. Robert Oppenheimer:
#50. To: Cynicom (#49) (Edited)
Thanks for your input on that. I think America was held hostage by the Great Depression orchestrators until it was agreed to supply those like Oppenheimer, who wanted to develop n-weaponry, with the uranium and funding they requested. Likely they had floated their dastardly plan roundabout in Europe/Eurasia before here in the U.S. Wouldn't surprise me if Stalin knew about it before FDR did and thought it would be a grand idea for our country to become hugely indebted by that "Science Project". Saw a documentary some time ago on the Venona Papers/Project about Soviet spies within the Manhattan Project and America is still being undermined by Communism. HUAC/the House Un-American Activities Committee should not have been dissolved. Gus Hall was Chairman of the Communist Party USA. Might be they were related. Here's an article on another Communist by the last name of Hall -- an Olympic silver medalist and Dem. State of Ohio legislator (who eventually changed to the Republican Party but undoubtedly was still a Communist): Olympic medalist and spy suspect Sam Hall dies at 77 -- September 4, 2014 His father was a Mayor of Dayton and his brother, Tony Hall, a Dem. U.S. Rep. from Ohio [also a UN Ambassador, etc.], secured his release from Nicaragua where he was jailed as a spy suspect for 49 days. Edited spelling and punctuation. Oppenheimer and his fellow jews working on the project were feeding daily information on their progress directly to Stalin.
The youngest spy was Ted Hall, jew, only 19 years olde. He was never fried and spent the rest of his worthless life in Europe.
The [alleged] 1972 massacre of 11 Israeli Olympic athletes in Munich shocked Mr. Hall and led him to his counterterrorism [spy] activities, said his old friend Bonbright, 78.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#51. To: GreyLmist (#50)
Great package, Grey. wicked pedia tells an opposite story on Sam Hall, quite possibly a lying one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Hall_(diver) It now seems we were wrong about Nicaragua the whole time, but I would have fully agreed with Sam's anti-communism back then ('80s and early '90s). Even the "good" impulses of a spoiled rich country like ours end up causing nothing but trouble half the time! Ha, "Arvo Kustaa Halberg" -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gus_Hall
#52. To: NeoconsNailed, Cynicom (#51) (Edited)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Hall_(diver) It now seems we were wrong about Nicaragua the whole time, but I would have fully agreed with Sam's anti-communism back then ('80s and early '90s). Even the "good" impulses of a spoiled rich country like ours end up causing nothing but trouble half the time! Ha, "Arvo Kustaa Halberg" -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gus_Hall Thanks and for providing those references. I didn't know that was Gus Hall's real name. Apologies if the Sam Hall in my post wasn't a Communist and I mistakenly confused him with the one below of the same name but from a different State. (Am still leery, though, about his brother Tony's stationings at the mostly Commie UN.) Sam Hall, Communist - pg. 147: The History of the North Carolina Communist Party by Gregory S. Taylor Parenthesis edit. Great package, Grey. wicked pedia tells an opposite story on Sam Hall, quite possibly a lying one:
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#53. To: GreyLmist (#52)
Of course! I wondered if there was another political Sam Hall in the mix.
#54. To: NeoconsNailed (#53)
I tried to check if Communist Sam Hall was a relative of Gus Hall's but the name Sam associated with his in websearch results is Sam Webb, who was his successor. Of course! I wondered if there was another political Sam Hall in the mix.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#55. To: NeoconsNailed, Katniss (#18)
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." Churchill worship.... anybody looked at Imprimis lately? It seems to be one big fossilized Churchill and Reagan worship cult. ewwww, GROSS!
#56. To: StraitGate (#55)
Whew, Strait, that's the limit!!! You've trumped them all in exposing perfervid Lincolnolatry! I see it here -- thanks https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/frank-capras-america-and-ours/ I was overwhelmed by Mr. Smith Goes to Washington seeing it as a teenager and wrote the director. Would be afraid to look at it now. He was both extremely right about the American ideal and drastically wrong about amerikan reality even then. Uggghhhh...... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_We_Fight Well! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Capra#Political_beliefs Every man has his price, huh.... I see Mr. Smith was released 10/17/39, ironically enough a few weeks after America declared its WW2 neutrality and a few days before the "First meeting of the U.S. Advisory Committee on Uranium under Lyman James Briggs, authorized by President Roosevelt to oversee neutron experiments, a precursor of the Manhattan Project." Yes I'll readily opine we never should have messed with nukes. Never! Just another way we've led the world into more instead of less misery and death. OK, somebody, hit me with your best shot. Fire away.
#57. To: NeoconsNailed, StraitGate (#56) (Edited)
OK, somebody, hit me with your best shot. Fire away. A "Ron Paul Goes to Washington" Presidential Campaign Flashback: CAMELOT CASTLE - A SONG for RON PAUL from CAMELOT CASTLE P.S. Would have been best to edit out those Lincoln thematics, imo. I was overwhelmed by Mr. Smith Goes to Washington seeing it as a teenager and wrote the director. Would be afraid to look at it now.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#58. To: NeoconsNailed, Cynicom (#56) (Edited)
NeoconsNailed at #56: Mr. Smith [Goes to Washington] was released 10/17/39, ironically enough a few weeks after America declared its WW2 neutrality and a few days before the "First meeting of the U.S. Advisory Committee on Uranium under Lyman James Briggs, authorized by President Roosevelt to oversee neutron experiments, a precursor of the Manhattan Project." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1939 Yes I'll readily opine we never should have messed with nukes. Never! Just another way we've led the world into more instead of less misery and death. Thank you for posting that important info. Here's some data confirmations: Lyman James Briggs - Wikipedia In 1939, President Franklin Roosevelt called on Briggs, by then aged 65, to head "The Uranium Committee", a secret project to investigate the atomic fission of uranium progress was slow and was not directed exclusively towards military applications. Eugene Wigner said that "We often felt we were swimming in syrup". Boris Pregel said "It is wonder that after so many blunders and mistakes anything was accomplished at all". Leó Szilárd believed that the project was delayed for a least a year by the short-sightedness and sluggishness of the authorities. At the time Briggs ... was unable to take the energetic action that was often needed. Britain was at war and felt an atomic bomb should have the highest priority, especially because the Germans might soon have one; but the US was not at war at that time and many Americans did not want to get involved. One of the members of the MAUD Committee, Marcus Oliphant flew to the United States in late August 1941 in an unheated bomber to find out why the United States was ignoring the MAUD Committee's findings. Oliphant said that: "The minutes and reports had been sent to Lyman Briggs, who was the Director of the Uranium Committee, and we were puzzled to receive virtually no comment. I called on Briggs in Washington, only to find out that this inarticulate and unimpressive man had put the reports in his safe and had not shown them to members of his committee. I was amazed and distressed." Oliphant then met the whole Uranium Committee. Samuel K. Allison was a new committee member, "Oliphant came to a meeting", Allison recalls, "and said 'bomb' in no uncertain terms. He told us we must concentrate every effort on the bomb and said we had no right to work on power plants or anything but the bomb. The bomb would cost 25 million dollars, he said, and Britain did not have the money or the manpower, so it was up to us." Allison was surprised that Briggs had kept the committee in the dark. Oliphant visited other physicists to galvanise the USA into action. As a result, in December 1941 Vannevar Bush, director of the powerful Office of Scientific Research and Development, undertook to launch a full-scale effort to develop atomic bombs. As the scale of the project became clearer, it came under direct military control as the Manhattan Project. MAUD Committee - Wikipedia S-1 Uranium Committee - Wikipedia World War II began with the German invasion of Poland on September 1, 1939, prompting Albert Einstein and Leó Szilárd to complete a letter to U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt they had been working on over the summer. This letter was signed by Einstein on August 2, and it was hand-delivered to Roosevelt by the economist Alexander Sachs on October 11, 1939. The letter advised Roosevelt of the existence of the German nuclear energy project and warned that it was likely the Germans were working on an atomic bomb using uranium, and that the U.S. should be concerned about locating sources of uranium and researching nuclear weapon technology. At this time the U.S. policy was neutral in the war. Experiments with the fission of uranium were already going on at universities and research institutes in the United States. Harry Truman, Vannevar and Prescott Bush. The Hit on Japan. - sodahead.com In August 1942, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers established the Manhattan Engineer District (MED), also known as the Manhattan Project, Edited formatting + to expand next to last link section Me at #50: I think America was held hostage by the Great Depression orchestrators until it was agreed to supply those like Oppenheimer, who wanted to develop n-weaponry, with the uranium and funding they requested. Likely they had floated their dastardly plan roundabout in Europe/Eurasia before here in the U.S.
director of the National Bureau of Standards during the Great Depression and chairman of the Uranium Committee before America entered the Second World War.
The Maud Committee (Military Application of Uranium Detonation) was the beginning of the British atomic bomb project, before the United Kingdom joined forces with the United States in the Manhattan Project. It prompted the USA to begin its own atomic bomb project.
a Committee of the National Defense Research Committee that succeeded the Briggs Advisory Committee on Uranium and later evolved into the Manhattan Project.
Was Vannevar Bush related to Prescott Bush? Records do not come up. Intentionally blocked. But it is clear Vannevar was working on the Manhattan Project. How could he not know Prescott? Prescott was in charge of Financing the Manhattan Project.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#59. To: GreyLmist (#57) (Edited)
Oh, no -- it (#57) starts with MLK? Anything but that!!! Sentimental journey though -- thx.
#60. To: GreyLmist (#58)
No connection mentioned -- doesn't mean there isn't one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vannevar_Bush
#61. To: X-15 (#0)
The South was the first victim of the Empire......
"The government ruling us draws its authority not from the principles of the Declaration of Independence, or even from the delegate powers listed in the U.S. Constitution, but rather from the war to re-conquer the independent South. That conflict, usually referred to by the artfully misleading title “Civil War,” established the fact that the government in Washington is willing to kill Americans in whatever quantity it deems necessary in order to enforce its edicts, and then sanctify the slaughter in the name of some suitably “progressive” social objective.
#62. To: Rube Goldberg, Rebs, 4 (#61)
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
#63. To: StraitGate, NeoconsNailed (#55)
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. 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)
Still not getting the semi-colon *thingie*, eh? Yeah, I mentioned Lincoln in 18. what do we expect though from someone with those credentials, they're mired in establishment politics.
--Fuck your breath.
#65. To: X-15 (#0)
Facts never require an apology but that wasn't the first shot of the crybabies who wanted to own slaves...that happened when some brats at the Citadel fired on a US ship that was in waters that it had every right to navigate. 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.
--Fuck your breath.
#66. To: Katniss (#63)
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. Well said, Katniss, and I agree with you 100%. Even here in the South the brainwashing has been extremely effective. When I asked a former boss of mine who had attended government schools from K-12 in Georgia, "What did they teach you about Abraham Lincoln?", he answered, "That Abraham Lincoln was the greatest president in U.S. history." Yeah, I mentioned Lincoln in 18. what do we expect though from someone with those credentials, they're mired in establishment politics.
#67. To: NeoconsNailed (#56)
But, without nukes "we" might not have been able to win WWJew for the communists! The US was almost out of conventional bombs near the end of the war; that's why "we" could drop only about 14 billion tons of them on Dresden. What are you, some kind of anti-semite, or something? Note: I use "we" in quotation marks not for emphasis, but to indicate that I do not consider the armed forces of the US government to be mine. Yes I'll readily opine we never should have messed with nukes. Never! Just another way we've led the world into more instead of less misery and death. OK, somebody, hit me with your best shot. Fire away.
#68. To: war (#65) (Edited)
Major Anderson at Fort Sumter was Pro-Slavery and from Kentucky -- one of the Union's slave States throughout the war. Edited punctuation. that wasn't the first shot of the crybabies who wanted to own slaves...that happened when some brats at the Citadel fired on a US ship that was in waters that it had every right to navigate.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#69. To: StraitGate (#67)
Are you being sarcastic? ;-) Amen brothah! 'I use "we" in quotation marks not for emphasis, but to indicate that I do not consider the armed forces of the US government to be mine' -- I am so sick of seeing patriots use quotation marks for emphasis I could spit. (Old bumper sticker: Walk with "Jesus" and you'll never walk alone, arrrggh.) "Support our troops in Operation XYZ".... I enjoy telling jingoists that they're not mine or even amerika's. We used to say they were really the UN's, I guess now they're just Bibi Satanyahu's.
#70. To: NeoconsNailed (#69)
I'm right there with you, brother. Just as you now cringe at what you wrote to Frank Capra in another life long ago, I now regret how -- about 10 years ago -- I answered the jewspaper editor who asked me, "Do you support our troops?" I said, "Yes, when they are deployed in the defense of the United States in accordance with the U.S. Constitution... blah, blah, blah." If interviewed today, I would simply answer, "I don't have any troops." "Support our troops in Operation XYZ".... I enjoy telling jingoists that they're not mine or even amerika's. We used to say they were really the UN's, I guess now they're just Bibi Satanyahu's.
#71. To: StraitGate (#70) (Edited)
Don't regret that! Hard to say which reply is better. Brevity is definitely the soul of wit. I don't regret writing Capra. Got his autograph ;-)
#72. To: StraitGate (#70)
They're all mine and every Constitutionalist's of our Republic. I've said many times, "All troops home now!" but those messages might have been intercepted by foreign system(s) agents. If interviewed today, I would simply answer, "I don't have any troops."
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#73. To: GreyLmist (#72)
Consequences? "All troops home now!"
#74. To: Cynicom (#73)
Consequences? They'll get many mailed thank you notes for their service from our foreign friends? Or maybe not if we don't have any. "All troops home now!"
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#75. To: GreyLmist (#74)
Tell us what will be the real consequences you perceive, good or bad. They'll get many mailed thank you notes for their service from our foreign friends?
#76. To: Cynicom (#75)
150 foreign countries will dance a jig, and we'll have a huge influx of wonderfully talented, capable, experienced all-Americans added to the work force where they've belonged this whole time. The percentage of amerikans in our home population will rise by some imperceptible but very meaningful degree. Tons of them are sex criminals, but we're not supposed to think about that -- and in today's gliberalized world, when you think a politically- correct thought (such as "our military are normal healthy mature responsible people") it instantly becomes reality! Ha, "Philippine–American War" -- NEWSPEAK IS ALIVE!!! en.wikip edia.org/wiki/Philippine%E2%80%93American_War Look at this - we're even in Bulgaria!?! "Under the agreement, no more than 2,500 U.S. military personnel will be located at the joint military facilities.... The Bezmer Air Base is expected to become one of the major US strategic airfields overseas, housing American combat aircraft" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bul...ican_Joint_Military_Facil ities USA! USA! USA!.....
#77. To: war, All (#64)
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.
#78. To: StraitGate (#66)
Yeah, it's amazing how most people seem to want to be fooled. They've been trained like dogs to sit around that propaganda machine that spews filth 24/7 when it's not spewing lies, which is part of the root of the problem. I rarely watch anything that was created post-1980. Even here in the South the brainwashing has been extremely effective. When I asked a former boss of mine who had attended government schools from K-12 in Georgia, "What did they teach you about Abraham Lincoln?", he answered, "That Abraham Lincoln was the greatest president in U.S. history."
#79. To: Cynicom (#75) (Edited)
Firstly, they could help the States as Military advisors and instructors for their Militias. Ask the Governors if they'd like some help patrolling our borders. The rest of the Western world might ask NATO and UN Forces to act on their behalf, if needed. Ukrainians might decide to get along better with their Russian neighbors (which they were a part of anyway until the Bolshevik Commies traded away its territories to our WWI foes for international recognition of their government-overthrow). Israel might try more to get along better with its neighbors too. Trade would likely improve. Americans who don't think of our country as our Military's also (except as a home base from which to deploy abroad) might have some attitude adjustment issues but I'm not really seeing any downsides about our troops coming home. How about you? Parentheses #1 edit + next to last sentence. Tell us what will be the real consequences you perceive, good or bad.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#80. To: GreyLmist (#79) (Edited)
I see no mention of geo/political changes within the world we would be withdrawing from. No mention of a world power vacuum. Should we assume there would be none? but I'm not really seeing any downsides about our troops coming home. How about you?
#81. To: Cynicom (#80)
I see no mention of geo/political changes withing the world we would be withdrawing from. No mention of a world power vacuum. Should we assume there would be none? Don't you think NATO and UN Forces would be enough geo/political vacuum managers? I do. It's not like we wouldn't still be a superpower. You're a Korean War Vet. We're still over there but South Koreans are well able to defend themselves against North Korea -- from China, Japan and/or Russia probably not but I don't think we actually have to be there to advise those nations (or whichever) that it would be an unwise move on their part to try and invade, do we? but I'm not really seeing any downsides about our troops coming home. How about you?
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#82. To: GreyLmist (#81)
In the recorded history of man, there has never been peace in this world. Newtons third law of action and reaction comes to mind. We play nice, the rest of the world will play nice? That has never happened, will never happen, as long as there are evil men in this world. I lived thru the depression and the isolationist era that accompanied it. No one was for war, stay home mind our own business, we will all live happily ever after. Little did we know, we were wrong, others in the world were plotting and planning to destroy us. At that time the oceans were our main line of defense, that no longer exists. We barely escaped wide destruction in WWIII, we will not escape in the next one. Don't you think NATO and UN Forces would be enough geo/political vacuum managers? I do.
#83. To: Cynicom (#82) (Edited)
Don't you think NATO and UN Forces would be enough geo/political vacuum managers? I do. In the recorded history of man, there has never been peace in this world. Newtons third law of action and reaction comes to mind. We play nice, the rest of the world will play nice? That has never happened, will never happen, as long as there are evil men in this world. I lived thru the depression and the isolationist era that accompanied it. No one was for war, stay home mind our own business, we will all live happily ever after. Little did we know, we were wrong, others in the world were plotting and planning to destroy us. At that time the oceans were our main line of defense, that no longer exists. We barely escaped wide destruction in WWIII, we will not escape in the next one. You like Pres. "Ike" Eisenhower, as I recall, so here are two quotes from him: We seek peace, knowing that peace is the climate of freedom. Our real "climate change" problem is from peace to war and it's not been about America's war issues much, since before I was born, but wars everywhere being assigned to us to destroy our freedom. That's being destroyed from within and our Military being dispersed worldwide isn't deterring that like it could. Quite the opposite. In a way, our Military being globalized for the world's warrings is our WWIII already and their being elsewhere isn't helping, as might have been thought, to make the world play nice because they should do that in their own best interests. It's helping them think they don't have to if they don't want to, as long as America is in league with them. So, to win this virtual WWIII, we must (imo) move towards preventing it from continuing as it has by getting back on the path of peace. Gandhi said there is no path to peace. Peace is the path. Now here we are and that's my two cents. Edited spelling. #82. To: GreyLmist (#81)
The only way to win World War III is to prevent it.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#84. To: Cynicom (#82)
Now look, amigo, I'm going to ask you again and I want an answer -- where is there any war going on today except what we and our Siamese twin the UK are causing? It's almost as if humanity's finally learned its lesson. You've deuced it again, amigo. It's only a few people in the world who itch to carry a big stick that bring war. It's countries with your essentially paranoid attitude -- and the golems they systematically create -- that cause aggressions, always claiming we have to to "escape wide destruction". This is a direct mirror of the Jew mindset.... well, in this case the manifestation of it in a country that's been thoroughly Jewed. It's healthy for nations and individuals to review their own track record before calling others criminals. Israel is incapable of this and thinks it's totally righteous and totally persecuted, now Washington's the same way. You say Japan was this big global threat in the 1940s. Japan had wanted to close itself off from the rest of the world in the 19th century, and who was it that pointed cannons at her and forced her to start trading ergo modernizing, unfortunately with an ancestor of mine on board? U.S., of course. I've pointed out before that there never would have been a USSR without a USSA building and financing it every step of the way -- well, without key kosher individuals cannibalizing amerika's miraculous prosperity for it. And how without Versailles there would have been no Reichstag fire. Only a Jewed Christendom hates and tortures Germany! So there go the three big bugaboos you're concerned with. Voicing the spirit of the founding era, John Quincy Adams wrote "Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy", a policy that actually worked. But for half our history amerika's been ruled by (?) people who create monsters -- real and imagined -- to save us from. You seem to think it's a raving success. Some of us disagree. In the recorded history of man, there has never been peace in this world.
#85. To: All (#84)
For those that think NN's a bit hard on "our" military.... www.dailystormer.com/our-dead-gay-army/ If there is a benefit of America’s late stage spiritual cancer, it’s that institutions that are likely to be turned against us in the near future have been severely damaged by the spreading rot and will be a lot less effective at enforcing the tyranny than might have otherwise been the case. We see it in our 90 I.Q. police force that’s baffled by the most straightforward of investigations, their hands tied by cultural marxism and the inferior individuals they now focus on recruiting and retaining. The military, the American Golem that serves Israel, has been steadily transformed into a weak and embarrassing mass of dark flesh and mentally defective perverts who are almost completely reliant on technology and still manage to come out losers in conflicts with goat herding jihadans. I swear, honest, that I only just saw that -- not before writing #84 above. Please go to the Stormer link and see the picture! Por favor... I'm begging you... for anything our friendship has ever meant to you :-)
#86. To: Katniss (#77) (Edited)
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... You're a nice reminder of the 50% that rank below the mean on the normal curve of the intelligence scale.
--Fuck your breath.
#87. To: GreyLmist (#68)
Kentucky was *neutral* until southern state based insurgents invaded it and then, when pushed out, continued to raid and pillage it. Major Anderson at Fort Sumter was Pro-Slavery and from Kentucky -- one of the Union's slave States throughout the war.
--Fuck your breath.
#88. To: war (#86) (Edited)
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.
#89. To: GreyLmist (#83)
Since 1945 have we had WWIII? Ike also asked for and was denied UNIVERSAL MILITARY TRAINING. A draft for every American born, NO EXCEPTIONS. Good heavens no, let those less worthy do it. The only way to win World War III is to prevent it.
#90. To: Katniss (#88)
I'm rich enough on my own, thanks. Either way, yet one more classic post by you demonstrating that your ability to focus and coordinate thoughts is abjectly defunct. I'm not the one who composes impotent, stilted sentences in a failed effort to come off as a pedantic snot. On the other hand, I am the one who composes poignant and well written sentences in a successful effort to come off as a pedantic snot. I'd bet you money that your IQ is not within 20 points of mine.
--Fuck your breath.
#91. To: Katniss (#88)
One sign of intelligence (non-sarcastically, now) is not making he same mistake over and over... like getting into it with war.
#92. To: Cynicom (#89)
We're in it now. Since 1945 have we had WWIII?
--Fuck your breath.
#93. To: NeoconsNailed (#91)
She never does. She's simply trying to get by on her wit with obvious results. One sign of intelligence (non-sarcastically, now) is not making he same mistake over and over... like getting into it with war.
--Fuck your breath.
#94. To: war, All (#90)
LMAO You definitely do not lack self-esteem. Well, that I'm pretty sure that everyone in 4um will agree with the last part of that. Again, LMAO on the first part. I'm not the one who composes impotent, stilted sentences in a failed effort to come off as a pedantic snot.
On the other hand, I am the one who composes poignant and well written sentences in a successful effort to come off as a pedantic snot.
#95. To: Katniss (#94)
Have a nice weekend...(;^D LMAO on the first part.
--Fuck your breath.
#96. To: NeoconsNailed (#91)
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. One sign of intelligence (non-sarcastically, now) is not making he same mistake over and over... like getting into it with war.
#97. To: war (#95)
You too! Have a nice weekend...(;^D
#98. To: Katniss (#96)
Then why do you bite, instead of like posting more of your vital news links? Merely curious. If you all won't argue with him he'll stop. Nobody listens to me. I'll converse with him within reason, but that's it. There's nothing real to debate, the poster's a fool thru and thru. I'm not biting on anything worth discussing.
#99. To: Cynicom (#89) (Edited)
Technically, in the sense of America's Military being globalized for the World's Wars rather than our own, our defacto WWIII entry began when WWI did. That root then branched towards the Arctic, continuing as something more than an aberration with the onset of the Korean War; after the WWI and WWII chapters had officially closed. During WWI, when our troops were sent into Russia to help fight against the Communist takeover, Wilson (unprecedentedly at the time) even placed most of our Polar Bear troops there under foreign, British command. Edited to include link and parenthesis notation. Since 1945 have we had WWIII?
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#100. To: Cynicom (#89)
When even war agrees with us on this, Cyni, you know you're in trouble. You thought you would peddle your fetish to less frisky targets than me, but it's not working out so well, huh. On one thread, you -- big man -- couldn't take the heat, so you ran out of the kitchen! You risked your life how many times for President Rosenfeld, but sometimes don't show much valor here.
#101. To: war (#87) (Edited)
When did that happen? The issue was slavery, not neutrality. Many of the southern states wanted to be neutral, too, after South Carolina seceded all by itself -- until Lincoln moved to invade. Major Anderson (Kentuckian) at Fort Sumter, though, was not only Pro-Slavery but Pro-Secession -- just a Union loyalist. Was friends with Jefferson Davis and Gen. Beauregard (who had been one of his West Point students, iirc). Edits to add parenthesis #1 + for spelling. Kentucky was *neutral* until southern state based insurgents invaded it and then, when pushed out, continued to raid and pillage it.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#102. To: GreyLmist (#101)
Um...can you be more specific? There were several bits of fact in my response. When did that happen?
--Fuck your breath.
#103. To: war (#102)
war: Kentucky was *neutral* until southern state based insurgents invaded it and then, when pushed out, continued to raid and pillage it. How about you being more specific with some dates?: for 1. how long Lincoln thought Kentucky could be neutral, if it wanted to be and 2. when you're asserting that Kentucky was attacked by southern based "insurgents" to change their neutrality status, in your opinion. Um...can you be more specific? There were several bits of fact in my response.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#104. To: GreyLmist (#103) (Edited)
Awww man...you want me to BACK UP what I said? Doesn't that violate the #1 rule of the internet? history.ky.gov/landmark/k...ity-during-the-civil-war/ when you're asserting that Kentucky was attacked by southern based "insurgents" to change their neutrality status, in your opinion. 4th September 1861, Leonidas Polk took Columbus, KY to gain a high ground vantage point over the banks of the Mississippi. They were the first troops to enter Kentucky. Union troops entered to protect the Kentuckians from this blatant and egregious violation of sovereignty. The legislature convened and asked only for the insurgents to leave. How about you being more specific with some dates?:
--Fuck your breath.
#105. To: Katniss (#96)
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. 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.
--Fuck your breath.
#106. To: war, All (#105)
Makes it even more puzzling how you come up with your conclusions then since so many mirror the establishment side. In fact, as I see it, the only way that you would come up with what you believe is in fact by either watching the "news" or reading the MS newsprint papers.
#107. To: war (#105)
Yep, the less teebee, the better.
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
#108. To: Katniss (#106)
Okay...so then I'll just assume that you get your Moonbat theories frm Moonbats on the internet. See how that works? The US government did not attack the US on 9/11. The Holocaust happened. Whether you accept the AMPLE, independent evidence that is available for both is not my concern, Makes it even more puzzling how you come up with your conclusions then since so many mirror the establishment side.
--Fuck your breath.
#109. To: All (#83) (Edited)
@ #83: wars everywhere being assigned to us to destroy our freedom. That's being destroyed from within and our Military being dispersed worldwide isn't deterring that like it could. Quite the opposite. In a way, our Military being globalized for the world's warrings is our WWIII already and their being elsewhere isn't helping, as might have been thought, to make the world play nice because they should do that in their own best interests. It's helping them think they don't have to if they don't want to, as long as America is in league with them. So, to win this virtual WWIII, we must (imo) move towards preventing it from continuing as it has by getting back on the path of peace. Gandhi said there is no path to peace. Peace is the path. Now here we are ... Hi, My Name Is Joe (Jo) and I Work in a Button Factory- Lyrics - Camp Song ... This [is] a traditional camp song in a call and response format. The leader chants the first line and the campers shout back the line in parenthesis. ... after each verse[,] participants have to continue pushing the button(s) they were asked to push during the preceding verses. As with all camp songs, the lyrics vary widely depending on where you go to camp. This arrangement is by Johnny Only. www.johnnyonlymusic.com ... ... Finally, ... when the boss asks, "Are ya busy?" everyone shouts "YES!" Edited quote section, formatting. @ #99: America's Military being globalized for the World's Wars
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#110. To: Cynicom, FormerLurker, Lod (#99)
Me at #99: Technically, in the sense of America's Military being globalized for the World's Wars rather than our own, our defacto WWIII entry began when WWI did. That root then branched towards the Arctic, continuing as something more than an aberration with the onset of the Korean War; after the WWI and WWII chapters had officially closed. During WWI, when our troops were sent into Russia to help fight against the Communist takeover, Wilson (unprecedentedly at the time) even placed most of our Polar Bear troops there under foreign, British command. Cross-referencing Posts from the topic linked above for info sources and potential discussions: Cynicom at #14 and #16: [Perspectives on U.S. and other Foreign Intervention in Russia's Civil War circa WWI and also re: Russia's interference in our Civil War militarily to make sure the North won] FormerLurker at #17 [Wikipedia: Russian involvement in the American Revolutionary War] Lod at #18 [analysis/commentary of geopolitics in the 1860s at voltairenet.org: U.S. Civil War: The US-Russian Alliance that Saved the Union by Webster G. Tarpley] Cynicom at #89: Since 1945 have we had WWIII?
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#111. To: war (#105)
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.... 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)
Is that why I feel so compelled to eat crackers and drink sweet wine - all over clean white linen - when I watch them?
--Fuck your breath.
#113. To: war (#112)
Since you're such a liberal, yeah -- matzohs and Manischewitz on a heap of nice silky tallitot.
#114. To: NeoconsNailed (#113)
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... Since you're such a liberal, yeah -- matzohs and Manischewitz on a heap of nice silky tallitot.
--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
#115. To: war (#114)
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!
#116. To: NeoconsNailed (#115)
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?
--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
#117. To: war (#116)
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! I am a proud liberal, mon frère...
#118. To: NeoconsNailed (#117)
My *Tab* key doesn't work... So, what are you doing here in a conservative site?
--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
#119. To: war (#118) (Edited)
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?
#120. To: NeoconsNailed (#119)
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... How are you liking your putative president's work at this point?
--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
#121. To: All (#58) (Edited)
World War II began with the German invasion of Poland on September 1, 1939, prompting Albert Einstein and Leó Szilárd to complete a letter to U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt they had been working on over the summer. This letter was signed by Einstein on August 2, and it was hand-delivered to Roosevelt by the economist Alexander Sachs on October 11, 1939. The letter advised Roosevelt of the existence of the German nuclear energy project and warned that it was likely the Germans were working on an atomic bomb using uranium, and that the U.S. should be concerned about locating sources of uranium and researching nuclear weapon technology. At this time the U.S. policy was neutral in the war. Experiments with the fission of uranium were already going on at universities and research institutes in the United States. Archiving site pic: S-1 Committee at the Bohemian Grove, September 13, 1942. From left to right are Harold C. Urey, Ernest O. Lawrence, James B. Conant, Lyman J. Briggs, E. V. Murphree and Arthur Compton Archiving May 5, 2015 businessinsider.com article: The remarkable story of the world's first atomic bomb -- with Pics and 11 minute YouTube Video: First Nuclear Bomb Test - Code Name Trinity - New Mexico 1945 - Silent. "Gadget," the first atomic bomb, was born out of the Einstein-inspired Manhattan Project, and was detonated in the desert near Alamogordo, New Mexico. Overseeing the project was US Brigadier-General Leslie Groves and Los Alamos director and American physicist Robert Oppenheimer. Designed and launched under Oppenheimer's chosen codename "Trinity" At Post #48, link for: Trinity (nuclear test) - Wikipedia. Excerpts: William L. Laurence of The New York Times had been transferred temporarily to the Manhattan Project at Groves's request in early 1945. Groves had arranged for Laurence to view significant events, including Trinity and the atomic bombing of Japan. Laurence wrote press releases with the help of the Manhattan Project's public relations staff. The bright lights and huge explosion sparked commotion in New Mexico. Groves therefore had the Second Air Force issue a press release with a cover story that he had been prepared weeks before: ..."A remotely located ammunition magazine containing a considerable amount of high explosives and pyrotechnics exploded. There was no loss of life or injury to anyone, and the property damage outside of the explosives magazine was negligible. Weather conditions affecting the content of gas shells exploded by the blast may make it desirable for the Army to evacuate temporarily a few civilians from their homes." The press release was written by Laurence. He had prepared four releases, covering outcomes ranging from an account of a successful test (the one which was used) to catastrophic scenarios involving serious damage to surrounding communities, evacuation of nearby residents, and a placeholder for the names of those killed. As Laurence was a witness to the test he knew that the last release, if used, might be his own obituary. Information about the Trinity test was made public shortly after the bombing of Hiroshima. Groves, Oppenheimer and other dignitaries visited the test site in September 1945, wearing white canvas overshoes to prevent fallout from sticking to the soles of their shoes. The explosion was more efficient than expected and the thermal updraft drew most of the cloud high enough that little fallout fell on the test site. The crater was far more radioactive than expected due to the formation of trinitite, and the crews of the two lead-lined Sherman tanks were subjected to considerable exposure. The heaviest fallout contamination outside the restricted test area was 30 miles (48 km) from the detonation point, on Chupadera Mesa. Unlike the 100 or so atmospheric nuclear explosions later conducted at the Nevada Test Site, fallout doses to the local inhabitants have not been reconstructed for the Trinity event, due primarily to scarcity of data. In 2014 a National Cancer Institute study commenced that will attempt to close this gap in the literature and complete a Trinity Radiation dose reconstruction for the population of New Mexico state. More than sixty years after the test, residual radiation at the site is about ten times higher than normal background radiation in the area. America -- struck first by the Einstein-inspired and Commie infiltrated Manhattan Project ... similarly struck 100 times since their Trinity "Gadget" test. Estimated total casualties: Still unknown/uncalculated. S-1 Uranium Committee - Wikipedia
a Committee of the National Defense Research Committee that succeeded the Briggs Advisory Committee on Uranium and later evolved into the Manhattan Project.
File: S1 Committee 1942.jpg
On July 16, 1945 at exactly 5:29:45 a.m., the world entered the unprecedented atomic age with the successful testing of the most powerful weapon known to man.
The code name "Trinity" was assigned by J. Robert Oppenheimer, the director of the Los Alamos Laboratory, after a poem by John Donne. The test used an implosion-design plutonium device, informally nicknamed "The Gadget", of the same design as the Fat Man bomb later detonated over Nagasaki, Japan, on August 9, 1945.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#122. To: war (#120)
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.
#123. To: GreyLmist (#121)
Anybody but me ever wish radiation had simply never been discovered or exploited? Mankind is clearly incapable of handling it well.
#124. To: NeoconsNailed (#122)
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? It's good to have in on the record here that you support the biggest liar yet to hit the campaign trail.
--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
#125. To: war (#124)
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.
#126. To: NeoconsNailed (#125)
Huh? He's taken more soldiers out of battle than he's introduced in to battle... I have no idea what your statement is based upon... He's illegit because he's never proved he's an actual American... By whose definition? ptly because he's throwing far more "wars"
--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
#127. To: war (#126)
Yeah, sure you don't. I have no idea what your statement is based upon...
#128. To: NeoconsNailed (#125)
He has a birth certificate that says he's an American from the State of Hawaii, with legal signatures and seal. He's illegit because he's never proved he's an actual American
#129. To: lucysmom (#128)
Got a picture of it? hopefully not the one where the contents are straight though the background design clearly curving.
#130. To: NeoconsNailed (#129)
Even if he was born in Kenya he'd still be a natural born citizen. His mother did not renounce her citizenship and he had established US residency well prior to his 21st birthday. Lacking that, there would be some record of naturalization. So, while the birth certificate has exactitude in sufficiency, the lack of any evidence that he was naturalized buttresses his natural born status. Got a picture of it? hopefully not the one where the contents are straight though the background design clearly curving.
--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
#131. To: NeoconsNailed (#127)
My statement was pretty clear...we are engaged less today than we were 10 years ago... Yeah, sure you don't.
--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
#132. To: NeoconsNailed (#129)
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. Got a picture of it? hopefully not the one where the contents are straight though the background design clearly curving.
#133. To: lucysmom (#132)
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.
"If ignorance is truly bliss, then why do so many Americans need Prozac?" - Dave McGowan
#134. To: randge (#133)
So what? That does not make the document *fake*. His real dad was more likely a card carrying communist whose name and face are now familiar to many who are following these things.
--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
#135. To: lucysmom (#132)
Where is it to be viewed, warsmom, why did he balk for so long at showing it, and why did they seal the records in Hawaii? The governess no less! http://www.wnd.com/2008/10/79174/ Even if he were an actual citizen, there's still too much fraud and mystery all around him. As a mulatto, communist, warmonger and perpetual liar, he is NOT the founding fathers' and mothers' original intent for chief executive of this country.
#136. To: randge (#133)
Then his citizenship is not in question. His real dad was more likely a card carrying communist whose name and face are now familiar to many who are following these things.
#137. To: NeoconsNailed (#135)
Here is a timeline, and an image of the BC www.politifact.com/truth-...rth-certificate-timeline/ Obama was elected twice in the 21st century, it doesn't matter if the founding fathers, many of which were slave holders, would have approved of him or not. Even if he were an actual citizen, there's still too much fraud and mystery all around him. As a mulatto, communist, warmonger and perpetual liar, he is NOT the founding fathers' and mothers' original intent for chief executive of this country.
#138. To: NeoconsNailed (#135)
A) He released it in 2008... B) He didn't *balk* at anything. There is no law that compelled either him or any other candidate to produce one. Where is it to be viewed, warsmom, why did he balk for so long at showing it
--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
#139. To: war (#134)
Correctomundo. I am just supplying one alternate hypothesis for the desperate effort to obscure large portions of his background. That does not make the document *fake*.
"If ignorance is truly bliss, then why do so many Americans need Prozac?" - Dave McGowan
#140. To: lucysmom (#136)
Bingo. You can read. Then his citizenship is not in question.
"If ignorance is truly bliss, then why do so many Americans need Prozac?" - Dave McGowan
#141. To: lucysmom (#136) (Edited)
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). Then his citizenship is not in question.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#142. To: All (#141) (Edited)
This problem has been wrongfully imposed on America at least as far back as Chester A. Arthur, who should not even have been Vice President, much less ascendant to the Presidency. Republicans back then, though, had enough respect for the Constitution to not make him a candidate for another term when his non-qualification became evident. Now, multiple Republicans who are not qualified as natural born citizens are attempting to run for the Presidency as a ploy to get Hispanic votes. In the case of Jeb Bush, who is a natural born citizen (afaik), his wife is potentially an alternate route for the GOP to increase Hispanic votes in tandem with his "immigration reform" promos. those who don't understand the difference between citizenship and natural born citizenship or who want to discard Constitutionality on that point.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#143. To: GreyLmist (#141)
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. 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…
#144. To: lucysmom (#137) (Edited)
By your logic we should tear up the Declaration, Constitution, common law and rename Washington Obamaville. OK, I had it backwards on that so-called birth certificate. The background pattern in flat and the stuff printed on it bends, making it one of the lamest forgeries ever. YOU LOSE. You might as well quit. Obama was elected twice in the 21st century, it doesn't matter if the founding fathers, many of which were slave holders, would have approved of him or not.
#145. To: war (#138)
You're living in the same dream world as your mother. Liberals think they can speak realities into being.
#146. To: lucysmom (#143) (Edited)
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. The 14th Amendment says:
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#147. To: GreyLmist (#141)
There are two types of citizens of the US...naturalized and natural born. There is not a third class. Obama was not naturalized, thus... For the Presidency and the Vice Presidency, the Constitution requires natural born citizenship, which is not synonymous with citizenship in-general.
--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
#148. To: GreyLmist (#146) (Edited)
Uh...yes it is...in fact, it is *exactly* what that amendment is about...it once and for all defined who is a US Citizen, how they could become a citizen and what legal protections they were afforded. That Amendment isn't about natural born citizenship.
--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
#149. To: GreyLmist (#146)
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. Children born here to a foreign parent are subject to the country of their parents' citizenship and acquire that citizenship by birth...
--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
#150. To: NeoconsNailed (#144)
2.OK, I had it backwards on that so-called birth certificate. The background pattern in flat and the stuff printed on it bends, making it one of the lamest forgeries ever. 3. YOU LOSE. You might as well quit. 1. What logic leads you to that conclusion? 2. It is so lame, it couldn't be a forgery. It looks exactly like it would look if the original were bound (along with other birth certificates) and photocopied onto security paper. All anyone ever gets is a COPY of the original document. It is the seal and signature stamp that makes it genuine and legal. 3. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to say something I rarely say - I am correct. 1. By your logic we should tear up the Declaration, Constitution, common law and rename Washington Obamaville.
#151. To: GreyLmist (#146)
I know you don't intend to claim that non-citizens of the United States are not subject to our laws while in our country, but that is what you're saying. The exception would be diplomats, and other officials of foreign governments. Think diplomatic immunity. Citizenship is either inherited at birth through one or both parents who are, themselves US citizens no matter where in the world they are born, or by birth on US soil, no matter what citizenship their parents hold. Jus soli…(Latin: right of the soil)[1] is the right of anyone born in the territory of a state to nationality or citizenship.[2] As an unconditional basis for citizenship, it is the predominant rule in the Americas, but is rare elsewhere. Jus sanguinis (Latin: right of blood) is a principle of nationality law by which citizenship is not determined by place of birth but by having one or both parents who are citizens of the state. Children at birth may automatically be citizens if their parents have state citizenship or national identities of ethnic, cultural or other origins. (definitions from Wikipedia) Obama was born to a US citizen mother, on US soil. That makes him a natural born citizen by jus soli and by jus sanguinis. If you know where it says differently in law, or the Constitution, please let me know. 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.
#152. To: lucysmom (#150)
3. YOU LOSE. You might as well quit. 1. What logic leads you to that conclusion? 2. It is so lame, it couldn't be a forgery. It looks exactly like it would look if the original were bound (along with other birth certificates) and photocopied onto security paper. All anyone ever gets is a COPY of the original document. It is the seal and signature stamp that makes it genuine and legal. 3. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to say something I rarely say - I am correct. 1. Apparently you didn't read my short post fully -- I was referring to your statement that "Obama was elected twice in the 21st century, it doesn't matter if the founding fathers, many of which were slave holders, would have approved of him or not." In other words you trash original intent and attempt to hang the issue instead on the total irrelevancy of slave-owning. Yep, the TOTAL irrelevance of slave-owning! 2. Sorry, but this supposed copy simply won't do. Not for a communist pseudo- president or even the jerk as 2008 candidate. And he did balk -- there was much controversy over the B.C. till this blatant fake was finally produced. You have to remember it, it was only 7-8 years ago. (Copying a doc with a plain background onto security paper? They're just flaunting their fraud like they love to do, cf. how they laid Vince Foster out in Fort Marcy Park and then claimed it was suicide!) 3. You admit you're wrong most of the time -- that's progress. And momsy, I can't promise to discuss it further with you. If you support Obozo you're delusional and don't even belong here. 1. By your logic we should tear up the Declaration, Constitution, common law and rename Washington Obamaville. 2.OK, I had it backwards on that so-called birth certificate. The background pattern in flat and the stuff printed on it bends, making it one of the lamest forgeries ever.
#153. To: war (#149) (Edited)
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. IF what you promote here was to be true, what other foreign laws are applicable to people in the US?
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#154. To: GreyLmist (#153) (Edited)
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? According to me, their child shouldn't be made liable for taxes owed by their parents and not them.
--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
#155. To: NeoconsNailed (#152)
Uh...no...he requested a copy of his BC a couple of months before the nominating convention and not only posted it but allowed a member of the press to examine it... And he did balk
--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
#156. To: war (#155)
Vague as hell. More specific: The article cites Sheriff Arpaio's Cold Case Posse investigation. Since you support a lying, sanguinary, communistic, monstrous criminal bastard as pseudo- president and the Sheriff works to effectively solve real problems foisted on us by people like your Obozo, I feel perfectly confident in rejecting you as having any credibility on this and going with his viewpoint. Obummer is a lying, sanguinary, communistic, monstrous criminal bastard, and you know it. 
http://www.storyleak.com/obama-birth-certificate-confirmed-forgery-according- top- experts/
#157. To: NeoconsNailed (#156)
Hawaii states that it is not a forgery. Game over... http://www.storyleak.com/obama-birth-certificate-confirmed-forgery-according- top- experts/
--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
#158. To: war (#157)
Oh, yeah, a state government can be trusted to give the straight story! Game over, uh huh! Because of dementia of your worldview and lameness of your arguments.
#159. To: NeoconsNailed (#158) (Edited)
Lacking any proof other than stating that the then registrar has a funny name and that Barack Sr chose to call himself African rather than the American term "Negro" as proof of a forgery is a bit...well...not very compelling... Oh, yeah, a state government can be trusted to give the straight story!
--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
#160. To: war (#159)
There's nothing dumber that liberalism, unless it's coming here and expecting to convert people to it.
#161. To: NeoconsNailed (#160)
I'm not looking to do anything...but it was a poor choice of words for a forum and I've changed it...
--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
#162. To: war (#161)
Good! You admit you're purposeless. Please go away and stop wasting our time. Almost everybody else here is looking to get at ultimate timely truths, become better informed, test their wits and forensic skills. You were provided with a good mind, that's obvious, but a mind is a terrible thing to waste. Are you Jewish? I'm not looking to do anything..
#163. To: NeoconsNailed (#162)
Not since Jesus... Almost everybody else here is looking to get at ultimate timely truths... On the internet? Are you Jewish?
--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
#164. To: war (#163)
No, here in the forum of course. Not since Jesus -- what does that mean?
#165. To: NeoconsNailed (#164)
Roses Are Reddish Violets Are Bluish If It Wasn't For Christmas... We'd All Be Jewish... Not since Jesus -- what does that mean?
--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
#166. To: lucysmom (#151) (Edited)
Correct. No it isn't. Foreigners present here of any sort are not permitted by the Constitution to disregard America's laws as subjects of other government(s), nor does being subject to the U.S. jurisdiction thereof regarding our nation's laws and territory or those of our States amount to a conferring of citizenship status for them. They aren't supposed to be issued a criminality pass, afaik. I'm fairly certain that would not be in accordance with anything said about foreign officials in the Constitution. Think applicable espionage charges in their case, for instance -- especially in times of war. Jus soli…(Latin: right of the soil)[1] is the right of anyone born in the territory of a state to nationality or citizenship.[2] As an unconditional basis for citizenship, it is the predominant rule in the Americas, but is rare elsewhere. Jus sanguinis (Latin: right of blood) is a principle of nationality law by which citizenship is not determined by place of birth but by having one or both parents who are citizens of the state. Children at birth may automatically be citizens if their parents have state citizenship or national identities of ethnic, cultural or other origins. (definitions from Wikipedia) Obama was born to a US citizen mother, on US soil. That makes him a natural born citizen by jus soli and by jus sanguinis. If you know where it says differently in law, or the Constitution, please let me know. I know the difference between Jus soli and Jus sanguinis. I think it's you who doesn't quite because you proceeded to blur those citizenship definitions generally that you posted as if synonymous with natural born citizenship which, in reality, they are not. Native American Indians are a clear example of the 14th Amendment not being about Jus soli auto-birthright citizenship if simply born here, much less as a determinant of natural born citizenship -- not even by Jus sanguinis, too, of one parent or both having also been born here. Edit to add and clarify: It was long after the 14th Amendment and after WWI before Congress contrived to extend them citizenship by a decree infringing on their sovereignty, so as to increase tax revenues and somewhat decrease war debts thereby. Even so, one of the Liberty Bond issuances to finance WWI eventually defaulted. I know you don't intend to claim that non-citizens of the United States are not subject to our laws while in our country,
but that is what you're saying.
The exception would be diplomats, and other officials of foreign governments. Think diplomatic immunity.
Citizenship is either inherited at birth through one or both parents who are, themselves US citizens no matter where in the world they are born, or by birth on US soil, no matter what citizenship their parents hold.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#167. To: GreyLmist (#166) (Edited)
The USCON makes it fairly clear that Indians are not US citizens and were treated as a separate nation of peoples until 1924...the fact that the US negotiated treaties with the various indigenous nations is ample evidence of that fact... Native American Indians are a clear example of the 14th Amendment not being about Jus soli auto-birthright citizenship if simply born here
--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
#168. To: war (#167) (Edited)
Yes, I had edited that into my post with an endnote and was working to further explain the situation. Likewise, "anchor babies" are also citizens of a separate nation or more through their mother's country/countries of citizenship (indigenous or otherwise); Mexico being an example of one that we've similarly negotiated a war treaty with. The USCON makes it fairly clear that Indians are not US citizens and were treated as a separate nation of peoples until 1924...the fact that the US negotiated treaties with the various indigenous nations is ample evidence of that fact...
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#169. To: GreyLmist (#168)
Anchor babies are born in the US and subject to the laws hereof...How is that not congruent with the plain language of the 14th amendment? Some nations require that a foreign birth be registered before citizenship is established;... Likewise, "anchor babies" are also citizens of a separate nation or more through their mother's country/countries of citizenship.
--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
#170. To: war (#169) (Edited)
Foreign residents/visitors/illegal aliens are also subject to the laws hereof. That doesn't equate to auto-citizenship status for them, nor for those born to them here as if specialer than the Native American Indians who were born within the United States.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#171. To: NeoconsNailed (#152)
2. Sorry, but this supposed copy simply won't do. Not for a communist pseudo- president or even the jerk as 2008 candidate. And he did balk -- there was much controversy over the B.C. till this blatant fake was finally produced. You have to remember it, it was only 7-8 years ago. (Copying a doc with a plain background onto security paper? They're just flaunting their fraud like they love to do, cf. how they laid Vince Foster out in Fort Marcy Park and then claimed it was suicide!) 3. You admit you're wrong most of the time -- that's progress. And momsy, I can't promise to discuss it further with you. If you support Obozo you're delusional and don't even belong here. 1. If by original intent you mean the belief that blacks were inferior to whites, and counted for only 3/5 of a human being, then yes. Far from irrelevant, the belief that blacks were inferior and not counted as full human beings was an integral part of slavery. 2. Obama released his short form certificate before he was ever asked, that's what started the whole birther movement. Speaking as a professional, I can tell you it would be much more difficult to produce what you think is blatant fake than one that would pass your test. What is outrageous about putting a sheet of security paper in a photo copier to make an official copy of an existing document? 3. I don't recall reading that love, hate, or just plain indifference to Obama was a requirement for forum membership. Perhaps you would quote the relevant text. What I love is the truth. 1. Apparently you didn't read my short post fully -- I was referring to your statement that "Obama was elected twice in the 21st century, it doesn't matter if the founding fathers, many of which were slave holders, would have approved of him or not." In other words you trash original intent and attempt to hang the issue instead on the total irrelevancy of slave-owning. Yep, the TOTAL irrelevance of slave-owning!
#172. To: GreyLmist (#166)
Indeed it is possible for a diplomat to get a pass on criminal activity. From Wikipedia: Diplomatic immunity is a form of legal immunity that ensures diplomats are given safe passage and are considered not susceptible to lawsuit or prosecution under the host country's laws, although they can still be expelled…Diplomatic immunity as an institution developed to allow for the maintenance of government relations, including during periods of difficulties and even armed conflict. When receiving diplomats—who formally represent the sovereign—the receiving head of state grants certain privileges and immunities to ensure they may effectively carry out their duties, on the understanding that these are provided on a reciprocal basis. snip It is possible for the official's home country to waive immunity; this tends to happen only when the individual has committed a serious crime, unconnected with their diplomatic role (as opposed to, say, allegations of spying), or has witnessed such a crime. However, many countries refuse to waive immunity as a matter of course; individuals have no authority to waive their own immunity (except perhaps in cases of defection). Alternatively, the home country may prosecute the individual. If immunity is waived by a government so that a diplomat (or their family members) can be prosecuted, it must be because there is a case to answer and it is in the public interest to prosecute them. For instance, in 2002, a Colombian diplomat in London was prosecuted for manslaughter, once diplomatic immunity was waived by the Colombian government. They aren't supposed to be issued a criminality pass, afaik. I'm fairly certain that would not be in accordance with anything said about foreign officials in the Constitution. Think applicable espionage charges in their case, for instance -- especially in times of war.
#173. To: lucysmom (#171)
1. If by original intent you mean the belief that blacks were inferior to whites, and counted for only 3/5 of a human being, then yes. It has nothing to do with superior or or inferior, any more than apples are superior to oranges. It has to do with the kind of people the founders intended to run this country. Having a nonwhite one only increases the social tension and messes people's heads up. People who want to change human nature regarding race might as well try to change the law of gravity. If Obama were merely living up to his campaign promises, I'd be all for him in view of the hell of life with Bushes, Clintons et al and no doubt the founders would have too. But he lied about everything and I and millions and millions of other people knew it from the first. Only liars and criminals are allowed anywhere near the nomination. If you're not seeing that, there's not much I can do for you. Far from irrelevant, the belief that blacks were inferior and not counted as full human beings was an integral part of slavery. But the slavery of bygone centuries is totally irrelevant today when whites are being made strangers in their own countries and the entire population here is on the federal plantation and can't get off as long as Jews like Solomon and Adelson are picking out presidents for us. 2. Obama released his short form certificate before he was ever asked, that's what started the whole birther movement. Speaking as a professional, I can tell you it would be much more difficult to produce what you think is blatant fake than one that would pass your test. You've got your links on that, we've got ours. What you're describing is not the way I remember it at all, and in any case the BC is merely one kind of documents that are sealed. Is Wayne Allyn Root lying when he says he should be well aware of Obozo's time at Columbia, but there's nothing there? What is outrageous about putting a sheet of security paper in a photo copier to make an official copy of an existing document? It's not outrageous, but it's another way the BC's so flimsy. 3. I don't recall reading that love, hate, or just plain indifference to Obama was a requirement for forum membership. Perhaps you would quote the relevant text. Everybody here except you and war understand with no assistance that Obama is evil, those pulling his marionette strings and putting their words in his mouth even more so. It's called Freedom4um and liberalism is all about enslaving everybody. You persistently defend the worst president in amerikan history, ergo you don't belong here any more than Phyllis Schlafly belongs in Hillary's lesbian club. If you loved truth, you'd be helping to expose these evils, not rationalize them. There, you got me to blow another ten minutes on this -- don't expect an encore.
#174. To: NeoconsNailed (#173)
Thanks for those ten minutes - well said. There, you got me to blow another ten minutes on this -- don't expect an encore.
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
#175. To: war (#154)
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. 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.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#176. To: NeoconsNailed (#173)
The "everybody understands" club doesn't sound like it represents freedom of thought to me. It sounds more like "we all walk in lock step here", which looks like a form of oppression. I don't think believing the evidence that Obama is a natural born citizen is "persistently" defending him. If you are correct that everyone here agrees with you, then you are also correct when you say I don't belong here. Phyllis Schlafly? Good grief! Everybody here except you and war understand with no assistance that Obama is evil, those pulling his marionette strings and putting their words in his mouth even more so. It's called Freedom4um and liberalism is all about enslaving everybody. You persistently defend the worst president in amerikan history, ergo you don't belong here any more than Phyllis Schlafly belongs in Hillary's lesbian club.
#177. To: lucysmom (#171) (Edited)
Far from irrelevant, the belief that blacks were inferior and not counted as full human beings was an integral part of slavery. This isn't a Slavery issue and they weren't American citizens or being counted for taxation of them. Liberals shouldn't be paid to teach History classes in this country because they don't do that. They are primarily indoctrinators of dummified PC illusions. The phrase is "three fifths of all other Persons", which isn't an exact definition of Black Slaves only. Could just as readily be applied to Oriental Slaves of Oriental residents and Arabic Slaves of Arabian residents or something. Alaska hadn't been acquired yet but even the Eskimos had Slaves and that Slavery was abolished after Lincoln's War. To which advantage was it, mostly, for Black Slaves (some being Slaves of the North but fewer than those in the South) to not be counted fully? Answer: Not to the South's advantage. Counting them fully, even though they weren't considered to be citizens of America, would have given the South more Congressional representation and power -- possibly enough to stop the North from continuing to funnel taxes unfairly into its benefitings at the expense of Southerners, the vast majority of which weren't Slave owners but many freed Blacks in the South were. What you call the birther movement (in deriding shorthand of the Left about Advocates of the Constitution's Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 requirement of natural born citizenship for the Presidency) was reportedly started by Democrats regarding the likelihood of McCain's citizenship status being non-qualifying, before Obama's was questioned also. the belief that blacks were inferior to whites, and counted for only 3/5 of a human
what started the whole birther movement
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#178. To: lucysmom (#176)
You don't like Phyllis, there's REALLY something the matter with you. In addition to being admittedly not right about much!
#179. To: lucysmom (#172)
They aren't supposed to be issued a criminality pass, afaik. I'm fairly certain that would not be in accordance with anything said about foreign officials in the Constitution. Think applicable espionage charges in their case, for instance -- especially in times of war. You: Indeed it is possible for a diplomat to get a pass on criminal activity. From Wikipedia: Diplomatic immunity is a form of legal immunity that ensures diplomats are given safe passage and are considered not susceptible to lawsuit or prosecution under the host country's laws, although they can still be expelled…Diplomatic immunity as an institution developed to allow for the maintenance of government relations, including during periods of difficulties and even armed conflict. When receiving diplomats—who formally represent the sovereign—the receiving head of state grants certain privileges and immunities to ensure they may effectively carry out their duties, on the understanding that these are provided on a reciprocal basis. One of America's biggest problems is what politicians wrongfully presume is possible for them to get away with doing "conventionally" and "bindingly" by agreement/contract/treaty and such that isn't a Constitutionally authorized power enumerated for them to so act as officals of our government or even "implied" anywhere in the Constitution by any stretch of the imagination -- the "institutionalization" of "diplomatic immunity" for agents of foreign governments to be lawbreakers here being just one of multitudionous violative examples of their Unconstitutionality; and so: invalidity to govern as America's "authorities". It is possible for the official's home country to waive immunity; this tends to happen only when the individual has committed a serious crime, unconnected with their diplomatic role (as opposed to, say, allegations of spying), or has witnessed such a crime. However, many countries refuse to waive immunity as a matter of course; individuals have no authority to waive their own immunity (except perhaps in cases of defection). Alternatively, the home country may prosecute the individual. If immunity is waived by a government so that a diplomat (or their family members) can be prosecuted, it must be because there is a case to answer and it is in the public interest to prosecute them. For instance, in 2002, a Colombian diplomat in London was prosecuted for manslaughter, once diplomatic immunity was waived by the Colombian government. Comparing to this example of no apparent diplomatic immunity protocols whatsoever extended by Paul Bremer or other acting U.S. officials in Iraq for this Iraqi Christian still on death row ... for the newfangled "crime" of having ever been an official of Saddam Hussein's government before we replaced it, I guess: Me: Foreigners present here of any sort are not permitted by the Constitution to disregard America's laws as subjects of other government(s),
You: snip
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#180. To: GreyLmist (#177)
what started the whole birther movement What you call the birther movement (in deriding shorthand of the Left about Advocates of the Constitution's Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 requirement of natural born citizenship for the Presidency) was reportedly started by Democrats regarding the likelihood of McCain's citizenship status being non-qualifying, before Obama's was questioned also. How many Asian, and Arabic slaves were there? Southerners wanted the benefit of increasing their representation in Congress - that's why they wanted their non-voting, non-citizen slaves counted. Of course it wasn't the interests of the slaves that was represented, it was their white owners. Actually counting slaves as 3/5 of a free person did increase the slave holding states representation by a third, giving them considerable power in Congress. (You are no slouch in the deriding department) You are correct, Hillary supporters did question Obama's citizenship, but it was conservative Jim Geraghty who suggested that Obama release his bc to prove his middle name was not Muhammad. Four days later the Obama campaign did publish Obama's short form bc - then the real fun began. This isn't a Slavery issue and they weren't American citizens or being counted for taxation of them. Liberals shouldn't be paid to teach History classes in this country because they don't do that. They are primarily indoctrinators of dummified PC illusions. The phrase is "three fifths of all other Persons", which isn't an exact definition of Black Slaves only. Could just as readily be applied to Oriental Slaves of Oriental residents and Arabic Slaves of Arabian residents or something. Alaska hadn't been acquired yet but even the Eskimos had Slaves and that Slavery was abolished after Lincoln's War. To which advantage was it, mostly, for Black Slaves (some being Slaves of the North but fewer than those in the South) to not be counted fully? Answer: Not to the South's advantage. Counting them fully, even though they weren't considered to be citizens of America, would have given the South more Congressional representation and power -- possibly enough to stop the North from continuing to funnel taxes unfairly into its benefitings at the expense of Southerners, the vast majority of which weren't Slave owners but many freed Blacks in the South were.
#181. To: GreyLmist (#179)
Diplomatic immunity would not apply to Tariq Aziz. Comparing to this example of no apparent diplomatic immunity protocols whatsoever extended by Paul Bremer or other acting U.S. officials in Iraq for this Iraqi Christian still on death row ... for the newfangled "crime" of having ever been an official of Saddam Hussein's government before we replaced it, I guess:
#182. To: All (#175)
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. You: The plain language of Article II Section I SS5:
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#183. To: lucysmom (#181)
Why not? America was officiating there. Was a misguided Nuremberg "precedent" invoked to implement "De-Ba'aathification" of Iraq as if the equivalent of De-Nazification of Germany Post WWII or what, do you think? The new Iraq government installees didn't extend diplomatic immunity to their countryman either as an institutionalized and internationally expected "norm". Diplomatic immunity would not apply to Tariq Aziz.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#184. To: GreyLmist (#183)
Diplomatic immunity wouldn't apply because the government, under whose protection he would have operated, was overthrown, and he was an Iraqi in Iraq, not on a diplomatic mission. I think the word you're looking for here is amnesty, or maybe pardon. Why not? America was officiating there. Was a misguided Nuremberg "precedent" invoked to implement "De-Ba'aathification" of Iraq as if the equivalent of De-Nazification of Germany Post WWII or what, do you think? The new Iraq government installees didn't extend diplomatic immunity to their countryman either as an institutionalized and internationally expected "norm".
#185. To: GreyLmist (#182)
Please provide a credible source that clearly defines this third category of citizenship you claim exists.
#186. To: lucysmom (#180) (Edited)
Southerners wanted the benefit of increasing their representation in Congress - that's why they wanted their non-voting, non-citizen slaves counted. Of course it wasn't the interests of the slaves that was represented, it was their white owners. Actually counting slaves as 3/5 of a free person did increase the slave holding states representation by a third, giving them considerable power in Congress. Doesn't matter so much, imo, how many other Slaves there might have been or not as it does that any Slaves, being considered then to be non-citizens, were counted at all in the census. Aren't you astounded in the least that Native American Indians not taxed considered to be non-citizens were counted as Zero -- Repeat: Zero...not even fractionally -- but non-citizen Blacks not free to be taxed were counted higher as three fifths? I'm still astonished. Nevertheless, I'm sure that the South would have been glad to have them all counted fully to increase its Congressional representation and power. I am usually, I'd say. Practice daily at trying to stay polite and courteous always but still slip sometimes. Alrighty then. I'll take your word for the four day interval assertion because I don't have time now to verify it. Good that we can dispense with anymore caricatures of "birtherism" as Conservative "persecution" of Obama's citizenship status particularly. Btw, it wasn't just Democrats who were questioning McCain's citizenship status prior to questions about Obama. I know that to be so because I was among the questioners of McCain's status, even though I am a Conservative (not a Democrat, possibly motivated only to reduce competition instead of it being simply a matter of Constitutionality). How many Asian, and Arabic slaves were there?
(You are no slouch in the deriding department)
You are correct, Hillary supporters did question Obama's citizenship, but it was conservative Jim Geraghty who suggested that Obama release his bc to prove his middle name was not Muhammad. Four days later the Obama campaign did publish Obama's short form bc - then the real fun began.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#187. To: GreyLmist (#186)
No. The US government made treaties with Indian tribes as sovereign nations. They were located within the borders of the US but separate from it. Aren't you astounded in the least that Native American Indians not taxed considered to be non-citizens were counted as Zero --
#188. To: GreyLmist (#170)
None of that class has been born or naturalized. as if specialer (sic) than the Native American Indians who were born within the United States. As was pointed out previously, aboriginals were never considered citizens. The power of treaties is to make them with FOREIGN nations and not with a class of US citizens. Foreign residents/visitors/illegal aliens are also subject to the laws hereof.
--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
#189. To: GreyLmist (#182)
And that conferral was a legislative one that was also extended to children born overseas of an natural born American father. The conditions or rules for automatic citizenship have changed. That's what you folks have never gotten. Even had Obama been born in Kenya, his mother never renounced her citizenship and he was back on US soil well before his 18th birthday to establish residency. Under the law in 1961, he would have been granted automatic citizenship. The clause was not meant to be an "Aha...we gotcha!" bar to citizenship. It was to keep someone like Arnold, who was born and raised in Austria as an Austrian, from becoming POTUS. 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...
--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
#190. To: GreyLmist (#182)
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... America was not even a semi-independent nation yet that could indisputably grant them citizenship status officially until the end of the American Revolution...
--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
#191. To: lucysmom (#184) (Edited)
I think the word you're looking for here is amnesty, or maybe pardon. Nope. Those are not words that I'm looking for and the connotations are a presumption of guilt instead of innocence. The issue is "diplomatic immunity" and at #172 you said, "Indeed it is possible for a diplomat to get a pass on criminal activity," on those grounds. Now you are essentially claiming that whenever a government is overthrown, those who had been officials of it can be "retroactively" charged, prosecuted and maybe sentenced to prison for life or executed for: alleged crimes that weren't crimes at the time in question but law enforcement, for example, that the criminally-insurgent usurpers, who were the actual lawbreakers, want vengeance for as "persecution" and "crimes against humanity". By constrast, I suppose it could be said that our Founders extended a form of "diplomatic immunity" to the British officials still here after our War for Independence ended; with colonial America as the new nation of America with a new government. Not only did they act dignitarily by not spitefully imprisoning their foes as tormenting tyrants of the former rulership structure, they very sensibly even wrote a prohibition into our Constitution against ex post facto/retroactive laws. This is another case similar to Tariq Aziz, Iraqi Christian and official of Saddam Hussein's government: Libya court to rule on Gaddafi's son Saif, former officials on July 28 - Reuters The fact that they've been charged as former government officials is in itself a recognition that they had valid diplomatic status internationally at the time or, as you've submitted on the aspects of "diplomatic immunity": a pass on criminal activity. Ergo, the intergovernmental Hague/ICC/International Criminal Court would be the wrong venue for the Libyan case, I'd think -- and especially since Libya wasn't a party to the jurisdiction and judgements of that court until after the country was "regime changed" by the insurgency and NATO. Since the Libyan insurgency had been acting as a separate government within the country during Gaddafi's administration and, likewise, the Iraqi insurgency had been doing so there during Hussein's administration, shouldn't there have been a diplomatic immunity understanding between the dueling dual governments in each of those countries? If not, why not? Or reference paragraph 3 for an exemplary American History comparison; even though the British likely wouldn't have been as diplomatic towards their foes here if they had won and Americans surely anticipated that throughout the war if they didn't win. Yet, our Founders opted to rise above vengeance and give us Peace with Honor. That's how far the concept of "diplomatic immunity" has descended to where it is now: a bunch of fabricated excuses for lawbreaking politicos. Why not? America was officiating there. Was a misguided Nuremberg "precedent" invoked to implement "De-Ba'aathification" of Iraq as if the equivalent of De-Nazification of Germany Post WWII or what, do you think? The new Iraq government installees didn't extend diplomatic immunity to their countryman either as an institutionalized and internationally expected "norm".
Diplomatic immunity wouldn't apply because the government, under whose protection he would have operated, was overthrown, and he was an Iraqi in Iraq, not on a diplomatic mission.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#192. To: GreyLmist (#191)
No. Not every government official is a diplomat. Here is a definition of diplomat "an official representing a country abroad. synonyms: ambassador, attaché, consul, chargé d'affaires, envoy, nuncio, emissary, plenipotentiary; archaic legate" Were either functioning outside their country in a diplomatic capacity at the time of their capture? Just out of curiosity, what does Tariq Aziz's religion have to do with this discussion? The fact that they've been charged as former government officials is in itself a recognition that they had valid diplomatic status internationally at the time or, as you've submitted on the aspects of "diplomatic immunity": a pass on criminal activity.
#193. To: GreyLmist (#191)
There was a philosophical law between nations that gave guidance for the conduct of war and its end. The theory of *quarter* of a surrendering soldier was well established in the 18th century. Surrendering troops were not engaged...a white flag signified truce...parleys, in which field leaders surrendered their arms to the aide of their foe, while they met to discuss terms of surrender or retreat... ...they very sensibly even wrote a prohibition into our Constitution against ex post facto/retroactive laws. Yes...also forfeiture of blood...no revenge... That's how far the concept of "diplomatic immunity" has descended to where it is now: a bunch of fabricated excuses for lawbreaking politicos. If it has *descended*, which I reject it has, it's a matter of how advanced we are...e.g. there were no cars in 1776... By constrast, I suppose it could be said that our Founders extended a form of "diplomatic immunity" to the British officials still here after our War for Independence ended; with colonial America as the new nation of America with a new government. Not only did they act dignitarily by not spitefully imprisoning their foes as tormenting tyrants of the former rulership structure,
--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
#194. To: GreyLmist (#191)
alleged crimes that weren't crimes at the time in question but law enforcement, for example, that the criminally-insurgent usurpers, who were the actual lawbreakers, want vengeance for as "persecution" and "crimes against humanity". This exchange has come a long way from the discussion of citizenship and who is not subject to "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. Now you are essentially claiming that whenever a government is overthrown, those who had been officials of it can be "retroactively" charged, prosecuted and maybe sentenced to prison for life or executed for:
#195. To: lucysmom (#187) (Edited)
No. The US government made treaties with Indian tribes as sovereign nations. They were located within the borders of the US but separate from it. I'm fairly certain that we didn't have treaties with all of the Indian tribes and, in fact, we were still at war with the Apaches then, iirc. Might we have had formal Trade Treaties or Slave Trade agreements of record with some African countries that Black Slaves here would have been considered citizens of and their descendants? Probably but treaties are, imo, beside the point of any non-citizen/foreign nationals within the borders of the US being counted at all and, worse, counted differently ... a Black Slave in this country for one day counted higher -- 60% higher -- than Native Americans born here and living here all their lives counted as Zero. If you're ok with that, I don't even want to hear about it. I've done what I can to address this topic that you brought up. If all you've gotten from it by now is that the South would have been ok with counting Slaves fully but it was the North that wasn't ok with it so much because then the South could have about doubled its Congressional representation and power (enough to maybe repeal some taxes, as well as reroute such revenues from the North's profiteers), I'll count that as something more than nothing. Not much more, though, because it should have been common knowledge already by simple common sense and not another exercise in Leftist stonewalling. Aren't you astounded in the least that Native American Indians not taxed considered to be non-citizens were counted as Zero --
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#196. To: lucysmom (#194) (Edited)
Yes but diplomatic immunity was another topic that you brought up at #151. You said, "Think diplomatic immunity," so I did. As for "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States, so are visitors and invaders. Edit to add: And that's why you should not be under the impression that's all it means in the 14th Amendment regarding citizenship. It means not being subject to the jurisdiction of other nations, which "anchor babies" are. The wording of 14A might seem clearer if you studied some Congressional commentaries about it at the time that it was being written and enacted. This exchange has come a long way from the discussion of citizenship and who is not subject to "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#197. To: GreyLmist, lucysmom (#195)
It really isn't a matter of being *okay* with it, it is a matter of what the law was. And while I really do value your historical recounting of the furcation of peoples at the Founding, you really haven't made a case for how this affects Obama, today. a Black Slave in this country for one day counted higher -- 60% higher -- than Native Americans born here and living here all their lives counted as Zero. If you're ok with that
--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
#198. To: GreyLmist (#195)
Indians were not "stateless". They were citizens of sovereign nations recognized as such (though not always respected) by the United States government. The Supreme Court ruled in Dred Scott that… "Scott had no right to sue in federal court because neither slaves nor free blacks were citizens of the United States. At the time the Constitution was adopted, the Chief Justice wrote, blacks had been "regarded as beings of an inferior order" with "no rights which the white man was bound to respect." (In fact, some states did recognize free blacks as taxpayers and citizens at the time that the Constitution was adopted)." So, while Indians were citizens of their own nations, slaves were, for all intents and purposes, stateless. They were property - nothing more.
#199. To: war (#193)
Yes...also forfeiture of blood...no revenge... If it has *descended*, which I reject it has, it's a matter of how advanced we are...e.g. there were no cars in 1776... no cars. lol That era, too, had vehicles with horsepower, though -- just not as mechanical. Thanks for your other historical and philosophical input, especially the "no revenge" part. Am fast running out of time again and don't know when I can catch up here on the various discussions. Won't be today but would if I could. There was a philosophical law between nations that gave guidance for the conduct of war and its end. The theory of *quarter* of a surrendering soldier was well established in the 18th century. Surrendering troops were not engaged...a white flag signified truce...parleys, in which field leaders surrendered their arms to the aide of their foe, while they met to discuss terms of surrender or retreat...
...they very sensibly even wrote a prohibition into our Constitution against ex post facto/retroactive laws.
That's how far the concept of "diplomatic immunity" has descended to where it is now: a bunch of fabricated excuses for lawbreaking politicos.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#200. To: GreyLmist (#199)
No worries...cheers...enjoy your day... Am fast running out of time again and don't know when I can catch up here on the various discussions. Won't be today but would if I could.
--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
#201. To: war (#197)
It really isn't a matter of being *okay* with it, it is a matter of what the law was. And while I really do value your historical recounting of the furcation of peoples at the Founding, you really haven't made a case for how this affects Obama, today. You're slowing me down by inserting words I have to stop and look up, like "furcation". I've been discussing this issue for years and years and before I was even aware there was an issue with Obama's citizenship status. When I say I don't want to hear about something if you don't agree, it's not because I'm trying to be rude or just need to understand a bit better that anything "the law" says that Liberals are ok with, no matter how Unconstitutional -- or like that counting issue, totally absurd -- is the only case there is to be made, in their opinions. It's because I very much do understand when such an impasse isn't going to be resolved for them by any amount of evidence or logic or anytime soon, anyway. While I appreciate and do highly value these conversational opportunities to seek common ground and perhaps reconcile some differences, that apparently hasn't happened. If I can think of anything else that might be more considerable, I'll let you know when I can return. See ya then, maybe about this controversy or maybe not. a Black Slave in this country for one day counted higher -- 60% higher -- than Native Americans born here and living here all their lives counted as Zero. If you're ok with that
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#202. To: war (#200)
Thanks. You too. :) No worries...cheers...enjoy your day...
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#203. To: war (#104)
Yes and No. 4th September 1861, Leonidas Polk took Columbus, KY to gain a high ground vantage point over the banks of the Mississippi. They were the first troops to enter Kentucky. Union troops entered to protect the Kentuckians from this blatant and egregious violation of sovereignty. The legislature convened and asked only for the insurgents to leave. Continued at this 4um outpost. Awww man...you want me to BACK UP what I said? Doesn't that violate the #1 rule of the internet?
history.ky.gov/landmark/k...ity-during-the-civil-war/
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#204. To: GreyLmist (#203)
Yes, the criminal lincoln ordered the invasion of the Sovereign States of the South.
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest