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: 4570
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
Comments (1-103) not displayed.
.
.
.
#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. --Fuck your breath.
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. --Fuck your breath.
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.
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
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, --Fuck your breath.
@ #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. ------- "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
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] ------- "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
Oh, boy -- Mash and Law and Order, two of the most libjew shows ever! I would advise you not to defend yourself any further, conflict! ROTF....
Is that why I feel so compelled to eat crackers and drink sweet wine - all over clean white linen - when I watch them?
--Fuck your breath.
Since you're such a liberal, yeah -- matzohs and Manischewitz on a heap of nice silky tallitot.
Well...Saltines and Riesling and we WASPs always have white linen around..w.e just usually don't eat crackers and drink sweet wine over it... On the other hand, it has been a while since I've had a pint of the old Mad Dog 20-20... --Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
There are numerous white so-called liberals, it's true, and you're notably still not denying that part -- a consistent pattern for weeks or months now. Let the record show you are a so-called liberal. AH -- too late to deny it. Silence has been connoting assent for too long!
I am a proud liberal, mon frère... How has anyone gotten it in to their head that I am not or somehow *refuse* to admit to it? --Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
How has anyone gotten it in to their head that I am not or somehow *refuse* to admit to it? I've only challenged you on it 4 or 5 times. Why the coyness? So, what are you doing here in a conservative site? Feel sure I've asked you that too. Aucun libéral ne sera mon frère!
My *Tab* key doesn't work... --Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
Another cheap evasion..... Yep. You're liberal. As misdefined today at any rate. Evasions and name-calling are all these individuals have. How are you liking your putative president's work at this point?
Frankly, I'm not a fan of Senators running for POTUS. I've run organizations...some small...some rather large...it's always BETTER to have someone in there with executive experience...Governors have always been the better Presidents... That said, I was unhappy that he caved on the size of the stim but understood at the time that he was looking for a bipartisanship that shares a similar existence to a virgin prostitute...the stim did one part of its job, tho, but it should have been extended...I was further disappointed when he took the Medicaid buy in option out of his health care plan but I believe that ACA has been highly effective. I'd still like to see a Medicaid buy-in for those who are just above being covered under the expansion... I was not a fan of the Libya campaign which, I think, he got goaded in to by believing that Kaddaffy would give way to a consensus government ala Kosovo... That said, I believe that he's done a decent job of it...much, much better than his predecessor...but not as good as Clinton... --Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
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. ------- "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
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.
Anybody but me ever wish radiation had simply never been discovered or exploited? Mankind is clearly incapable of handling it well.
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? --Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
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.
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? --Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
Yeah, sure you don't.
He has a birth certificate that says he's an American from the State of Hawaii, with legal signatures and seal.
Got a picture of it? hopefully not the one where the contents are straight though the background design clearly curving.
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. --Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
My statement was pretty clear...we are engaged less today than we were 10 years ago... --Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
If it has the raised seal, and the correct signature stamp, its genuine. What turned out to be fake was the guy claiming Obama's bc was a forgery.
Everything we've been presented with as being a bc of one kind or another is clearly fake. These purported doc's were faked, not because he was or was not born in Hawaii or in this or that territory, but because his paternity is a fake and must remain so. His real dad was not an Obama. That is a physical unlikelihood, in my opinion. His real dad was more likely a card carrying communist whose name and face are now familiar to many who are following these things. "If ignorance is truly bliss, then why do so many Americans need Prozac?" - Dave McGowan
So what? That does not make the document *fake*. --Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
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.
Then his citizenship is not in question.
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.
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. --Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
Correctomundo. I am just supplying one alternate hypothesis for the desperate effort to obscure large portions of his background. "If ignorance is truly bliss, then why do so many Americans need Prozac?" - Dave McGowan
Bingo. You can read. "If ignorance is truly bliss, then why do so many Americans need Prozac?" - Dave McGowan
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). ------- "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
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. ------- "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
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.
Comments (144 - 204) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestHow about you being more specific with some dates?:
#105. To: Katniss (#96)
war is a fantastic example of the average American. The AA believes what he sees on TV, does little if any independent research to validate it because it came from his favorite and chosen "news" network, and then believes that he's well informed despite no validation of any of it and while ignoring the error rate of reported "news," which is nothing more than TV for fools and gullible people.
#106. To: war, All (#105)
#107. To: war (#105)
#108. To: Katniss (#106)
Makes it even more puzzling how you come up with your conclusions then since so many mirror the establishment side.
#109. To: All (#83)
(Edited)
@ #99: America's Military being globalized for the World's Wars
#110. To: Cynicom, FormerLurker, Lod (#99)
Cynicom at #89: Since 1945 have we had WWIII?
#111. To: war (#105)
Just to defend myself here, if it's not hockey or a movie or, maybe a Law & Order or M*A*S*H rerun, I'm not watching TV at all.
#112. To: NeoconsNailed (#111)
#113. To: war (#112)
#114. To: NeoconsNailed (#113)
Since you're such a liberal, yeah -- matzohs and Manischewitz on a heap of nice silky tallitot.
#115. To: war (#114)
#116. To: NeoconsNailed (#115)
#117. To: war (#116)
I am a proud liberal, mon frère...
#118. To: NeoconsNailed (#117)
So, what are you doing here in a conservative site?
#119. To: war (#118)
(Edited)
#120. To: NeoconsNailed (#119)
How are you liking your putative president's work at this point?
#121. To: All (#58)
(Edited)
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.
#122. To: war (#120)
#123. To: GreyLmist (#121)
#124. To: NeoconsNailed (#122)
It's good to have in on the record here that you support the biggest liar yet to hit the campaign trail.
#125. To: war (#124)
#126. To: NeoconsNailed (#125)
ptly because he's throwing far more "wars"
#127. To: war (#126)
I have no idea what your statement is based upon...
#128. To: NeoconsNailed (#125)
He's illegit because he's never proved he's an actual American
#129. To: lucysmom (#128)
#130. To: NeoconsNailed (#129)
Got a picture of it? hopefully not the one where the contents are straight though the background design clearly curving.
#131. To: NeoconsNailed (#127)
Yeah, sure you don't.
#132. To: NeoconsNailed (#129)
Got a picture of it? hopefully not the one where the contents are straight though the background design clearly curving.
#133. To: lucysmom (#132)
#134. To: randge (#133)
His real dad was more likely a card carrying communist whose name and face are now familiar to many who are following these things.
#135. To: lucysmom (#132)
#136. To: randge (#133)
His real dad was more likely a card carrying communist whose name and face are now familiar to many who are following these things.
#137. To: NeoconsNailed (#135)
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)
Where is it to be viewed, warsmom, why did he balk for so long at showing it
#139. To: war (#134)
That does not make the document *fake*.
#140. To: lucysmom (#136)
Then his citizenship is not in question.
#141. To: lucysmom (#136)
(Edited)
Then his citizenship is not in question.
#142. To: All (#141)
(Edited)
those who don't understand the difference between citizenship and natural born citizenship or who want to discard Constitutionality on that point.
#143. To: GreyLmist (#141)
For the Presidency and the Vice Presidency, the Constitution requires natural born citizenship, which is not synonymous with citizenship in-general. It does not merely say that no person except a Citizen of the United States shall be eligible to the Office of President but "No person except a natural born Citizen"; meaning birth here to parents who are both American citizens at the time of it…
.
.
.
