Okay Liberals – Game On!
Last Friday President Obama announced an “executive action,” not an executive order, outlining how his administration will not deport illegal aliens between certain ages that were brought to America as kids by their parents and issue them work permits. This act of refusing to enforce American law goes along with his previous decisions not to enforce certain U.S. laws and his administration being held in contempt of court over the Gulf of Mexico oil drilling moratorium following the BP spill.
In my opinion, it is game on and liberals – President Obama – have set the rules.
Think about every law on the federal books that conservatives find distasteful and are breaking the U.S. budget. Consider, for example, conservative America’s deeply held opinion that Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, the Department of Education, Transportation Department, Environmental Protection Agency and so much more are just blatantly unconstitutional.
What if…?
What if President Romney decided not to fund the Environmental Protection Agency?
What if he decided – because he’s pretty rich, you know – not to fund the IRS? What if President Romney decided that our U.S. tax code was so antiquated, so unfair, so oppressive and tyrannical and there was no will in Congress to make the required changes so he should just act unilaterally and defund the IRS – or just refused to prosecute tax avoiders, protestors and cheats?
We can play this game all day but I think you get the point. There is a reason the rule of law matters. Just leave out for a moment the division of powers in America and the fact the president has no constitutional authority whatsoever for his latest action, and ask yourself why the rule of law matters.
Sit down and think about what the president has just done and then ask yourself, if you like this president and agree with his actions, what the next president might be able to justify to himself and his voter base.
June 17th, 2012 at 2:14 pm
But the real question is why there are no media outlets pointing out 24/7 that we now have a dictator.
Making your own law (i.e., taking actions and making policies without the authorization and funding by *elected* representatives) is the absolute definition of a dictator.
I dare you to prove me wrong.
June 17th, 2012 at 4:20 pm
You are exactly correct J.
June 17th, 2012 at 11:04 pm
Mr. Bussey seems smart, and for the most part on the money, even if he is a conservative. I do not believe that this was a good move by our beloved President Obama, on the issue of immigration. But, before you jump for joy that I have to a degree, agreed with Mr. Bussey. It is only in the context that it is always dangerous to do a go around a law making body to do a thing. However, the Republicans and those who support them have been acting just like traitors to this country of ours, by deliberately helping to sabatoge the economy in order to defeat the current President. All agree that any economy which is based upon the will of the people to purchase or not to purchase is easily shakable by the slightest sadness of the mood of those people.
And the conservatives have deliberately, knowing tthat such behavior would further depress this eeconomy, chose to select their own egos that a bblack man could or would issue orders of any kind. Lets call it what it is!!! We all know that this President has been shown so much ddisrespect and refusal to cooperate or ccompromise, SIMPLY FOR THE SAKE OF REFUSING, because of who it might help.
Remember, while the Republicans were rightly claiming that President Obama’s laser scope should be and should have been directed at the economy, they were not focusing on it so as to help, but rather, their “sole mission” was the defeat of Barack H. Obama. So Mr. Bussey, because the Republicans have been conducted some of this “low-intensity agitation” against this nation’s own President, and this rightly forces him not to be disrespected nor pushed around. Republicans, can you respect the office of the Presidency, ever, when its a Democrat in office? Show me!
Carthegenian of http://www.defendingthevillage.com
June 21st, 2012 at 12:40 pm
Well that was a perfectly gratuitous attack by you “Defending.” The fact is that it is you progressives who seek to overwhelm and collapse our system – our economy – through the Clowrad-Piven strategy and you have actually been working to do it.
Do you remember the Clinton campaign of 1992 and the slogan, “it’s the economy stupid?” During 1992 U.S. GDP growth never dropped below 4% growth and yet Bill Clinton intentionally convinced American voters we were in a recession by talking down the economy – that’s what liberals and progressives do.
In fact, the Bush administration warned about the impending housing market collapse and sought additional oversight powers from Congress at least 21 times but was blocked by Democrats in the Senate and on the House Banking Committee like Barney Frank. Democrats in Congress from 2001 through 2007 wanted the collapse the Bush Admin. warned about.
As far as sabotaging Obama he has made it clear that it is his way or the highway and the Republican-conttrolled House of Representatives has passed at least 30 bills providing for things that have historically worked in America but Harry Reid and Obama are not interested.
Your argument is completely vacuous while there are reams of historical evidence to support the Republican positions.
June 24th, 2012 at 4:26 pm
Well Carthegenian or should I call you the village idiot. You completely destroyed you argument when you brought race into it. You discredit yourself with the simple “black man” comment. You also have shown your colors (no pun intended). You make yourself look as racist as you claim that the republicans are racially motivated. You would better serve yourself, your children and your readers if you realized that race is only an issue in this country when it suits you or if you yourself are a racist.
Most honest people whether they are black, white, brown etc realize these are the words of desperation or once again the words of a true racist. You can’t accept that the current president is not acting in the true interest of the country but in the interest of his followers.
Which is also a serius problem on the right.
We now have black mayors, congress men and women, senators oh and by the way we have a black president. Now I know he does not count as a black man to you because he is 50/50 and I’m sure that if he looses you will say it’s because of racism. However you make yourself look like the village idiot when you play dishonest race games. You can say that it is partisan politics and there you may be right but you are not taken seriously when you say “black man” which is code for white racist.
You know the saddest thing is that you take racism and make it something that most people excuse as BS because of the misuse of the word. You know the boy who cried wolf has a message.
Please continue to show people what you are and what you believe because it will be used in the future to teach people how to recognize a fake from a truly concerned citizen.
You sir are the problem with this country because you sir believe that if you don’t get the prize it’s because you were screwed by others. When the true reason is that you did not keep your eyes on the prize. Yep that’s right I can also quote MLK because he was an American that saw the true unjust that comes with true racism and used truth and god to make real change in what was a completely unacceptable and disgusting situation.
Racism should never be taken lightly but it should never ever be used as a crutch or a weapon.
Just for the record I still believe that Herman Cain would be a much better president than Romney. Not because he is black but because he sir kept his eyes on the prize.
Is he a “black man” or just a Tom?? Answer this with truth and you will see your own heart.
June 24th, 2012 at 5:23 pm
Searching 4 Truth – thank you and very well said.
June 25th, 2012 at 12:07 pm
No Sir THANK YOU for your service to our country!!
People like Carthegenian feel free to swing the racism club every time they want to shut someone up or make up excuses for their own actions. However it has been so misused that most people have become numb to it and no longer fear the threats from its users.
We must as a Country eradicate the false assumptions that if you don’t agree with someone or even if you don’t like them and they are a different color than you must be a racist.
I know plenty of people that are of my color that I don’t agree with or don’t like. Does this make me a racist of my own race, a sellout or a Trader??
Black Americans should be proud to have survived the civil rights movement not to mention slavery and it is a complete slap in the face of those who risked their lives and lost their lives to give Carthegenian the freedom to accuse everyone that is lighter and even those who are darker than him of being the problem. He can do this without the fear of a mob ascending on his home and dragging him into the street because MLK looked to the highest authority for direction.
I would suggest that Carthegenian do the same. Honesty can be a bitter pill when it is yours to swallow but it will cure many ailments of the heart and the soul.
I believe that if Carthegenian looked past his own issues he would see the truth and would become the man that god intended him to be. He had a fair argument and then his true views came out and completely destroyed his credibility.
June 28th, 2012 at 7:36 pm
Back to the issue at hand, I just have two questions for you. You seem to be fairly strict on abiding by the true intent of the founding fathers. What part of this statement: “All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…” requires us to deport children who’s parents came to the USA in pursuit of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
My second question is: Who had to make a law allowing Augustine Franklin (Father of Ben and immigrant from England), John Washington (Great grandfather of George and immigrant from England), William Randolph (Great grandfather of Thomas Jefferson and immigrant from England), etc… to avoid deportation?
All that I am saying is that regardless of political affiliation, I don’t think that we should turn away others from our borders, since we would not have borders to defend if our ancestors had not been allowed here in the first place. Our nation is an evolving force, and without diversity and acceptance, it will not be a pleasant place to live.
June 28th, 2012 at 9:07 pm
Let me start with your second question first: There were no controlling laws at the times those people – Franklin – Washington, et al, came here. Even the native Americans did not have immigration laws. Liberals somehow believe our Constitution – the Supreme Law of the Land – evolves with time but not that international law from the 17th or 18th centuries evolve. I find that somewhat hypocritical. Even the Native Americans didn’t believe they owned the land – no man owned the land. There was no single sovereign nation in place on the North American continent to which the Franklins, Washingtons, et all could immigrate so your question, and by inference your comparison, is moot – irrelevant.
Now, to your first question;
All men are created equal, but that doesn’t override our right to our national sovereignty and security. There is a long-standing right and even a responsibility in international law – and even in natural law – to control our borders and protect our society – our civilization – our sovereignty.
You talk about “evolving” and then deny evolution in the law and society. You want to pick and choose what evolves and how according to your own myopic views. I find you very hypocritical.
June 28th, 2012 at 10:29 pm
The second question, the one about deportation laws in the 17th century, wasn’t meant to be taken literally, and I get your point. Of course there wasn’t a governing body in place to authorize deportation of new residents. The people here shot a few arrows but our ancestors found ways to take care of that.
My point was intended to remind that our country was built on a foundation of immigration and relocation… involuntary or not, and who are we now to turn others away from the land of opportunity? Our base population all came from Europe in the 17th and 18th century, in the 19th century we shipped hundreds of thousands of Africans here, and in the 20th century we allowed millions of more Southern Europeans to pass through Ellis Island. The biggest difference between now and then is money. The government takes more, and the government gives more. This is the “evolution” in government and society that I see.
Before the Latin American wave of immigration (Pre WWII), taxes were low and government spending/benefits were also low. Is this what worries you about allowing more immigrants to join us i the workforce? That, while they might pay taxes, they will be in a low bracket and won’t contribute enough to offset the expenses of putting their children through public schools and the wear and tear they put on our tax funded highways driving to work every day? If you’re worried about them draining the system by soaking up welfare money and foodstamps you can rest easy. I work with the public every day and if their is one thing that I can say about our neighbors from down south, it’s that they always get off work with dirt on their hands and hard earned cash in their pockets… They come here to work. Hard. More than we can say about many of our American brothers and sisters who wake up every day with the sole purpose of finding a way to get something for nothing by working the system that they have learned to manipulate. I guess my main question here is: What are you afraid of?
September 19th, 2012 at 12:23 am
I keep leaving comments and they are never saved nor published. Only when I enter a comment, the submit box malfunctions. Hummm! The original to this comment was five paragraphs long, but Mr. Bussey or someone couldn’t take it. But if you really want to hear truth, just tune in at http://www.defendingthevillage.com, as I wait for any of the so-called conservatives to accept my challenge to a public debate either on my website or on this one.
I depart with one question: NAME ONE PRESIDENT IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF THIS GREAT NATION THAT WAS ASKED FOR HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE. I’ll wait! Still waiting! That’s what I know, NONE is the answer. It’s okay Mr. White conservative, you can admit it. Notice I said White conservative. Why? Because White progressives are not rude and hateful, they are my brothers both in spirit and body. But you conservatives, are my brothers only in the word, because God commanded it. But we are nothing alike spiritually.
I have never reaped the benefits of slavery and Jim Crow and refuse to even acknowledge it. YOU DID! Like it or not, one day, which is what you have been running from since the time of slavery, YOU WILL PAY FOR ALL YOUR EVILNESS. I know you think no one can punish you, but whoa unto you who think that the hand of God is weakened, or that he wink at thy doings. Whether God uses man to punish you or does so himself, I can assure you that evil never goes unpunished.
I will say this in closing: I dare that White Conservative Country Bumpkin Sheriff to go to the White House and try to forceably remove this President. The day you try that is the day you will pay.
As always, I challenge any of those fools running around like they get to control the world to a public debate either on my website, http://www.defendingthevilage.com or this site.
Carthegenian
September 19th, 2012 at 4:45 am
Your comments get bounced because they contain a web site. As for the “birth certificate” issues it is not an issue that I follow, but “no other president’s” place of birth has ever been in dispute before so your comment is irrelevant. There are newspaper accounts of Obama being born in Kenya from when he ran for the senate.
Also, very racist of you to imply all whites benefited from slavery and Jim Crow. The comment you made implies that all white people are lesser people due to Jim Crow and slavery whether they were around for it and participated in it or not. Remember, racism is simply the beliefe one’s ethnic stock is superior and your statement implies bblacks are superior to whites as a race due to Jim Crow and slavery.
Your attitude is very sad and primarily responsible for the racial divisions and strife in America today.
September 20th, 2012 at 8:10 pm
THIS PRESIDENT’S BIRTH PLACE HAS NEVER BEEN IN QUESTION. THE QUESTION WAS CONTRIVED! NO FURTHER ANSWER NEEDED ON THAT POINT. LESSON SELECTIVE READERS, DON’T PRETEND LIKE YOU DIDN’T SEE THE PART IN MY ARTICLE WHERE I SAID IT IS ONLY CONSERVATIVE WHITES IN GENERAL, ALONG WITH THE BLACK OR LATINO COUNTERPARTS ARE THE ONES DESIROUS OF THE RETURN TO JIM CROW, NOT ALL YOU IDIOT! YOU ALL CAN’T TELL THE TRUTH TO SAVE YOUR LIFE CAN YOU? One day it will be a matter of saving your own life where you had better summon the spiritual growth to at least be honest in the simple effort to comment on someone else’s words.
QUESTION: What is necessary FOR ANY PERSON to dispel any beliefs about ones birth place? I’ll wait. Still waiting! A TRUE ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE RIGHT?! RIGHT Mr. We are always right? FINAL QUESTION: Did this President product that to the satisfaction of the authorities whom has the responsibility to determine? You lie if you say anything other than yes. You silly people I point out YET AGAIN BLIND PEOPLE, that you call into question the entire legal mechanism of vetting in this country. And if you are doing that, then you question the legitimacy of every President before this one. This places our Great Nation in a peculiar situation to the world at large, but do you care? No, so long as you lie enough times to cause the public to believe what lie is being told.
In closing, you did not comment on my challenge to intelligently debate any person you name on this earth. We shall do it either on my website or yours. MAKE YOUR CALL OR ARE YOU AFRAID YOU WILL BE SHOWN A LIAR?!
Carthegenian
September 20th, 2012 at 9:23 pm
Stop lying on my web site.
You can look at this article yourself:
http://web.archive.org/web/20040627142700/eastandard.net/headlines/news26060403.htm
Sunday, June 27, 2004
Kenyan-born Obama all set for US Senate
Kenyan-born US Senate hopeful, Barrack Obama, appeared set to take over the Illinois Senate seat after his main rival, Jack Ryan, dropped out of the race on Friday night amid a furor over lurid sex club allegations.
There is also information from a literary agent that says:
Obama’s Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet: ‘Born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii’
Also, information from Obama’s mother about his birth doesn’t match up.
Now, whether or not you believe any of this is irrelevant. The fact is that it is all out there and causes people to ask questions and there has never been this type of information out there about any other president or presidential candidate and that’s why none of them have ever been asked for a birth certificate.
The “birther” issue has never been “my issue” but I will not allow lying about it and I will not condone people concerned with it to be called racist in light of the evidence to support it.
September 20th, 2012 at 9:26 pm
I will dedicate 1 half hour to debating you on my radio show on September 29th, 2012 starting at 2:06 PM (ET). You can call in at (321) 631-1300 or I will send you a Skype ID to call if you have Skype (better audio quality).
September 20th, 2012 at 10:07 pm
Oh, and the question of Obama’s birthplace was first brought by the Clinton presidential campaign – a Democrat – in 2007/2008 when Hillary was running against Obama – not by the right-wing, not by the tea party and not by conservatives.
September 20th, 2012 at 11:01 pm
Oh, I’m sorry, let me elaborate more: When I said it was contrived, first I did not identify who the perpetrators were, and second, it is irrelevant to the point to which I stated and restate here, that the only thing that matters, as have most political leaders of both parties over decades, is the rule of law right? Right! So my point was and is that it does not matter what you, or the Clintons, if true, THe PUBS or anybody else thinks about the President’s birth place. It only matters what the policing agencies envolved in vetting Presidential Candidates think and say, and they apparently found that the President was in fact an American. Would you dispute this fact? I hope not God I hope not. Because if you did, that would mean that the state political affairs is worse than I thought.
I don’t give a rats tail about some article because the author of said article IS NOT the person whose job it was and is to determine those things.
I close with the acceptance to your reciprocated invitation to debate you on your radio show. I shall by all standards remain respectful, however forceful as I know you will also in both regards.
TUNE IN EVERYONE
Thank you sir.
Carthegenian
September 21st, 2012 at 2:27 am
Carthegenian
I am gong to use small words to help you understand that you have offended my friend Steve with your comments.
1 … it is NOT racist to question the President and his qualifications. To the point Hillary Clinton stated under Bush that it is Patriotic to question the President and his policies at all times.
2 … Claiming it was the Conservatives who created Jim Crow laws is a historical farce since it was the Republicans who pushed for the ” Reconstruction Amendments which granted citizenship to freed slaves, also gave them voter rights, AND protection through due process. The very 3 Amendments that were NOT supported by the Democrat party, and were circumvented by a Democrat President and Congress in 1894, which gave us the entire Civil Rights movement of the modern era. I can go date by date if you so choose on which side of the aisle actually passed civil rights legislation since the Civil War, but I can guarantee you will not like the facts presented.
3 … According to the Constitution … one needs to be a ” natural born citizen ” to be President. That term has been defined by no less than 4 Supreme Court written opinions, Congressional Record, AND as recent as the Senate Resolution 511 as the following …
natural born citizen is a child of citizen PARENTS … ( meaning 2 citizen parents )
Obama’s Father is not American Citizen
hence he is not legally eligible to be President
If you have any questions please respectfully ask and I will give you case by case record / Congressional record / and the definition at the time of the Founders…
Do not think for a moment this has anything to do with race / color / creed
this is the rule of LAW …
and the Constitution as it was written and defined at the time of the Founders. Since there was NO amendment to change the Article 2 Section 1 wording we must follow what the founders said and their known definition as accepted / referred to in Supreme Court rulings
Is the President American by birth …
yes he is a citizen under the 14th amendment
is he a ” natural born citizen ” as per the known definition at the time of the Founders …
NO
~ the opening statement has been given ~
September 21st, 2012 at 3:08 am
seeing as I am awake now I might as well drop a few facts on you in regards to which side of the aisle has a proven record for being ” racist ”
I will do so by date and legislation …
July 17, 1862
Over unanimous Democrat opposition, Republican Congress passes Confiscation Act stating that slaves of the Confederacy “shall be forever free”
January 31, 1865
13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. House with unanimous Republican support, intense Democrat opposition
April 8, 1865
13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. Senate with 100% Republican support, 63% Democrat opposition
November 22, 1865
Republicans denounce Democrat legislature of Mississippi for enacting “black codes,” which institutionalized racial discrimination
February 5, 1866
U.S. Rep. Thaddeus Stevens (R-PA) introduces legislation, successfully opposed by Democrat President Andrew Johnson, to implement “40 acres and a mule” relief by distributing land to former slaves
April 9, 1866
Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Johnson’s veto; Civil Rights Act of 1866, conferring rights of citizenship on African-Americans, becomes law
May 10, 1866
U.S. House passes Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the laws to all citizens; 100% of Democrats vote no
June 8, 1866
U.S. Senate passes Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the law to all citizens; 94% of Republicans vote yes and 100% of Democrats vote no
January 8, 1867
Republicans override Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of law granting voting rights to African-Americans in D.C.
July 19, 1867
Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of legislation protecting voting rights of African-Americans
March 30, 1868
Republicans begin impeachment trial of Democrat President Andrew Johnson, who declared: “This is a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government of white men”
September 12, 1868
Civil rights activist Tunis Campbell and 24 other African-Americans in Georgia Senate, every one a Republican, expelled by Democrat majority; would later be reinstated by Republican Congress
October 7, 1868
Republicans denounce Democratic Party’s national campaign theme: “This is a white man’s country: Let white men rule”
October 22, 1868
While campaigning for re-election, Republican U.S. Rep. James Hinds (R-AR) is assassinated by Democrat terrorists who organized as the Ku Klux Klan
December 10, 1869
Republican Gov. John Campbell of Wyoming Territory signs FIRST-in-nation law granting women right to vote and to hold public office
February 3, 1870
After passing House with 98% Republican support and 97% Democrat opposition, Republicans’ 15th Amendment is ratified, granting vote to all Americans regardless of race
<>
May 31, 1870
President U.S. Grant signs Republicans’ Enforcement Act, providing stiff penalties for depriving any American’s civil rights
June 22, 1870
Republican Congress creates U.S. Department of Justice, to safeguard the civil rights of African-Americans against Democrats in the South
<>
September 6, 1870
Women vote in Wyoming, in FIRST election after women’s suffrage signed into law by Republican Gov. John Campbell
February 28, 1871
Republican Congress passes Enforcement Act providing federal protection for African-American voters
<>
April 20, 1871
Republican Congress enacts the Ku Klux Klan Act, outlawing Democratic Party-affiliated terrorist groups which oppressed African-Americans
October 10, 1871
Following warnings by Philadelphia Democrats against black voting, African-American Republican civil rights activist Octavius Catto murdered by Democratic Party operative; his military funeral was attended by thousands
October 18, 1871
After violence against Republicans in South Carolina, President Ulysses Grant deploys U.S. troops to combat Democrat terrorists who formed the Ku Klux Klan
November 18, 1872
Susan B. Anthony arrested for voting, after boasting to Elizabeth Cady Stanton that she voted for “the Republican ticket, straight”
January 17, 1874
Armed Democrats seize Texas state government, ending Republican efforts to racially integrate government
September 14, 1874
Democrat white supremacists seize Louisiana statehouse in attempt to overthrow racially-integrated administration of Republican Governor William Kellogg; 27 killed
March 1, 1875
Civil Rights Act of 1875, guaranteeing access to public accommodations without regard to race, signed by Republican President U.S. Grant; passed with 92% Republican support over 100% Democrat opposition
<>
January 10, 1878
U.S. Senator Aaron Sargent (R-CA) introduces Susan B. Anthony amendment for women’s suffrage; Democrat-controlled Senate defeated it 4 times before election of Republican House and Senate guaranteed its approval in 1919. Republicans foil Democratic efforts to keep women in the kitchen, where they belong
<>
February 8, 1894
Democrat Congress and Democrat President Grover Cleveland join to repeal Republicans’ Enforcement Act, which had enabled African-Americans to vote
<>
January 15, 1901
Republican Booker T. Washington protests Alabama Democratic Party’s refusal to permit voting by African-Americans
May 29, 1902
Virginia Democrats implement new state constitution, condemned by Republicans as illegal, reducing African-American voter registration by 86%
February 12, 1909
On 100th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln’s birth, African-American Republicans and women’s suffragists Ida Wells and Mary Terrell co-found the NAACP
<>
May 21, 1919
Republican House passes constitutional amendment granting women the vote with 85% of Republicans in favor, but only 54% of Democrats; in Senate, 80% of Republicans would vote yes, but almost half of Democrats no
August 18, 1920
Republican-authored 19th Amendment, giving women the vote, becomes part of Constitution; 26 of the 36 states to ratify had Republican-controlled legislatures
January 26, 1922
House passes bill authored by U.S. Rep. Leonidas Dyer (R-MO) making lynching a federal crime; Senate Democrats block it with filibuster
June 2, 1924
Republican President Calvin Coolidge signs bill passed by Republican Congress granting U.S. citizenship to all Native Americans
October 3, 1924
Republicans denounce three-time Democrat presidential nominee William Jennings Bryan for defending the Ku Klux Klan at 1924 Democratic National Convention
June 12, 1929
First Lady Lou Hoover invites wife of U.S. Rep. Oscar De Priest (R-IL), an African-American, to tea at the White House, sparking protests by Democrats across the country
August 17, 1937
Republicans organize opposition to former Ku Klux Klansman and Democrat U.S. Senator Hugo Black, appointed to U.S. Supreme Court by FDR; his Klan background was hidden until after confirmation
June 24, 1940
Republican Party platform calls for integration of the armed forces; for the balance of his terms in office, FDR refuses to order it
August 8, 1945
Republicans condemn Harry Truman’s surprise use of the atomic bomb in Japan. The whining and criticism goes on for years. It begins two days after the Hiroshima bombing, when former Republican President Herbert Hoover writes to a friend that “The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul.”
September 30, 1953
Earl Warren, California’s three-term Republican Governor and 1948 Republican vice presidential nominee, nominated to be Chief Justice; wrote landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education
November 25, 1955
Eisenhower administration bans racial segregation of interstate bus travel
March 12, 1956
Ninety-seven Democrats in Congress condemn Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education, and pledge to continue segregation
June 5, 1956
Republican federal judge Frank Johnson rules in favor of Rosa Parks in decision striking down “blacks in the back of the bus” law
November 6, 1956
African-American civil rights leaders Martin Luther King and Ralph Abernathy vote for Republican Dwight Eisenhower for President
September 9, 1957
President Dwight Eisenhower signs Republican Party’s 1957 Civil Rights Act
September 24, 1957
Sparking criticism from Democrats such as Senators John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, President Dwight Eisenhower deploys the 82nd Airborne Division to Little Rock, AR to force Democrat Governor Orval Faubus to integrate public schools
May 6, 1960
President Dwight Eisenhower signs Republicans’ Civil Rights Act of 1960, overcoming 125-hour, around-the-clock filibuster by 18 Senate Democrats
<>
May 2, 1963
Republicans condemn Democrat sheriff of Birmingham, AL for arresting over 2,000 African-American schoolchildren marching for their civil rights
September 29, 1963
Gov. George Wallace (D-AL) defies order by U.S. District Judge Frank Johnson, appointed by President Dwight Eisenhower, to integrate Tuskegee High School
June 9, 1964
Republicans condemn 14-hour filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act by U.S. Senator and former Ku Klux Klansman Robert Byrd (D-WV), who still serves in the Senate
June 10, 1964
Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) criticizes Democrat filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act, calls on Democrats to stop opposing racial equality. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was introduced and approved by a staggering majority of Republicans in the Senate. The Act was opposed by most southern Democrat senators, several of whom were proud segregationists—one of them being Al Gore Sr. Democrat President Lyndon B. Johnson relied on Illinois Senator Everett Dirksen, the Republican leader from Illinois, to get the Act passed.
August 4, 1965
Senate Republican Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) overcomes Democrat attempts to block 1965 Voting Rights Act; 94% of Senate Republicans vote for landmark civil right legislation, while 27% of Democrats oppose. Voting Rights Act of 1965, abolishing literacy tests and other measures devised by Democrats to prevent African-Americans from voting, signed into law; higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats vote in favor
February 19, 1976
President Gerald Ford formally rescinds President Franklin Roosevelt’s notorious Executive Order authorizing internment of over 120,000 Japanese-Americans during WWII
September 15, 1981
President Ronald Reagan establishes the White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities, to increase African-American participation in federal education programs
June 29, 1982
President Ronald Reagan signs 25-year extension of 1965 Voting Rights Act
August 10, 1988
President Ronald Reagan signs Civil Liberties Act of 1988, compensating Japanese-Americans for deprivation of civil rights and property during World War II internment ordered by FDR
November 21, 1991
President George H. W. Bush signs Civil Rights Act of 1991 to strengthen federal civil rights legislation
August 20, 1996
Bill authored by U.S. Rep. Susan Molinari (R-NY) to prohibit racial discrimination in adoptions, part of Republicans’ Contract With America, becomes law
You can go step by step and check every single reference and every legislation mentioned above and you will find out I am correct.
The Democrats were the party of the KKK
The Democrats were the party of Jim Crow Laws
The Democrats fought Women’s Right to Vote
The Democrats CAUSED more problems with Civil Rights than they solved …
Please refrain from accusing Steve of being a racist when he is far from it …
September 21st, 2012 at 4:23 am
Now as to the eligibility of Barack Obama Jr to hold the office of President …
I do not look at the Certificate of Live Birth that was released first …
I do not look at the long form birth certificate that was released second …
I look at this purely from a Constitutional aspect
Our Constitution states the following preconditions to be eligible to hold the Office of President …
Article 2 Section 1 of the Constitution states the following …
” 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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. ”
We only need to look at the first part of the sentence, because the second part pertained to only those ” at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution ”
” No person except a natural born citizen ”
there was 2 like terms known at the time of the Founders …
” natural born subject ” …
defined by Blackstone as the following …
Commentaries on the Laws of England, Volume II, Chapter 10
As to the qualifications of members to sit at this board: any natural born subject of England is capable of being a member of the privy council; taking the proper oaths for security of the government, and the test for security of the church. But, in order to prevent any persons under foreign attachments from insinuating themselves into this important trust, as happened in the reign of king William in many instances, it is enacted by the act of settlement,l that no person born out of the dominions of the crown of England, unless born of English parents, even though naturalized by parliament, shall be capable of being of the privy council.
hence if you were born in the country you were a subject
then we have ” natural born citizen ”
which was defined by de Vattel in 1758
“the Law of Nations,” book one chapter 19, ” Of Citizens and Naturals ”
The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens
As far back as 1790 did we find some record of a true definition in the wordings of Congress itself.
United States Congress,
“An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790).
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.
note the following line …
” And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens ”
from this we infer that it was accepted at the time that children of citizens born in this country were considered ” natural born citizens.” Why else would they add that the children of citizens of the US born OUTSIDE of this country become ” natural born citizens”? It was to confer the same rights on the children that their parents AS citizens obtained. They felt why punish a child of citizens who’s only issue was they were born out of the country.
Thus we see the first true definition coming out from Congress …
Now there are many people who claim there is no proof that Vattel was used …
that there is no case law / court opinion that refers to Vattel in the creation of the Constitution …
thus we must follow what recent decisions have been made by lower courts / Congressional laws / guidelines.
Yet upon digging deeper into the subject do we find the detracters are dead wrong in their reasoning.
Now to those who claim Vattel was not instrumental in the forming of our Republic / our Founding Documents …
We find in John Adams’ personal diary the following entry …
” The Idea of M. de Vattel indeed, scowling and frowning, haunted me.”
We also find a letter from Benjamin Franklin to the editor of Vattel’s book in France in 1775
“ I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations. has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting. Accordingly, that copy which I kept has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author. ”
Note how our Founders felt about Vattel …
They held him in high regard …
even feared him in a weird sense
now WHO asked that the ” natural born citizen ” clause be added to the Constitution?
That was our first Supreme Court Justice John Jay …
who wrote the following to the President of the Constitutional Convention George Washington …
“Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government ; and to declare expressly that the command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.”
He understood that people with dual citizenship would have dual loyalties …
which was NOT what they wanted for our future Presidents.
(( the above debunks the argument that our Founders did not use Vattel as a reference while writing our Constitution / forming our Constitutional Republic. ))
NOW when people say there is no reference to Vattel in Supreme Court written opinion …
they too are sadly mistaken …
All we need to do is move forward from 1790 to 1814.
The case is called The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253
It states the following …
” Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says … “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”
take note the direct reference to Vattel and his definition …
” those born in the country of parents who are citizens ”
note the plural ” parents ” meaning 2
Lets move a bit farther down the historical path …
to just before the ” Civil War ”
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”
take note they used Vattel almost word for word …
now during the Civil War …
John Bingham, father of the 14th Amendment, which gave citizenship to American slaves after the Civil War, stated on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives in 1862
“All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens.”
note again Vattel’s definition being used by our Legislature
He also stated in the House on March 9, 1866 …
” … I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…”
Once more it is Congressional Record that Congress itself understood that to be a natural born citizen you must be born in this country to parents NOT owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty … aka … born to citizens of this country
Now to the 14th Amendment …
1. 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.
The Naturalization / Citizenship section was ONLY written to grant citizenship on freed slaves. It is part of the 3 ” Reconstruction Amendments ” that were passed after the Civil War. They were never meant to rewrite the clear definition of natural born citizen. They were used to define citizenship for those who were brought here not of their free will, and grant them rights and protection under the law.
If it was meant to change the meaning of ” natural born citizens ” it would have been worded thusly. It only states the term ” citizen ” because the framers wanted to make sure there was a difference between a ” citizen ” and the before defined ” natural born citizen.”
Now we move to the 1870′s, where another case was brought to the Supreme Court …
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
“The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”
Here the Supreme Court states correctly that the Constitution did not define ” natural born citizen.” It also states that they must look elsewhere.
Where else but previous Supreme Court rulings and Vattel?
They put it bluntly …
” At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
Who else but Vattel wrote that clear definition back in 1758?
Now lets move a bit more forward into the 1890′s and another Supreme Court case …
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
“At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
Note they took the very wording from the 1875 case …
which mirrors Vattel’s definition one more time.
Now we look at just a few attempts by Congress to remove the ” natural born citizen ” clause in the Constitution …
June 11, 2003
H. J. RES. 59
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to permit persons who are not natural-born citizens of the United States, but who have been citizens of the United States for at least 35 years, to be eligible to hold the offices of President and Vice President.
September 3, 2003
H. J. RES. 67
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to permit persons who are not natural-born citizens of the United States, but who have been citizens of the United States for at least 20 years, to be eligible to hold the Office of President.
November 5, 2004
H. J. RES. 104
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to make eligible for the Office of President a person who is not a natural born citizen of the United States but has been a United States citizen for at least 20 years.
January 4, 2005
H.J.RES.2
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to permit persons who are not natural-born citizens of the United States, but who have been citizens of the United States for at least 20 years, to be eligible to hold the Office of President.
February 1, 2005
H. J. RES. 15
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to make eligible for the Office of President a person who is not a natural born citizen of the United States but has been a United States citizen for at least 20 years.
April 14, 2005
H. J. RES. 42
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to permit persons who are not natural-born citizens of the United States, but who have been citizens of the United States for at least 35 years, to be eligible to hold the offices of President and Vice President.
hmmm …
it seems to me that members of Congress wanted to remove that simple qualification …
NOW lets move to 2008.
Now in 2008 we have the following …
S. RES. 511
Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.
in the Resolution we find the following line …
” Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen’ clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen’ ”
and that clearly references the following definition …
” And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens ”
or to be clear …
children of citizens … once more plural meaning 2 citizens
It was during the bill’s hearing that Sen. Patrick Leahy, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, made the following statement:
“Because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen,”
“I expect that this will be a unanimous resolution of the Senate.”
At a Judiciary Committee hearing on April 3, Leahy asked Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, himself a former Federal judge, if he had doubts that McCain was eligible to serve as President.
“My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen,” Chertoff replied.
“That is mine, too,” said Leahy.
What’s interesting here is that Sen. Leahy, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary, confirms that a “natural born” citizen is the child of American citizen parents. Parents — that’s two. That’s BOTH parents. Every time the words, “citizen” and “parent,” are used by Sen. Leahy and Sec. Chertoff, the plural case, “citizens” and “parents,” is used. The plural case is the operative case.
Thus by the Senate Resolution 511 in 2008 …
a natural born citizen is the child of citizen parents
with all this legal defining of the term ” natural born citizen ”
how can we accept the fact Obama was vetted / elected to be President …
when his Father was NOT a citizen of this country?
His Father was a British Subject born in what is now known as Kenya
There has NEVER been an amendment passed to change the Constitutional Qualification from ” natural born citizen ” …
thus we should still follow it to the letter …
History shows us there is a clear definition that the Founders used …
a clear definition accepted and used by the Supreme Court numerous times
a clear Congressional record of the known definition
and a Senate Resolution stating the very same definition …
” The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens ”
Thus …
by historical record …
Congressional Law …
Supreme Court definition
and Senatorial Resolution
Barack Hussein Obama Jr is NOT a natural born citizen …
and not eligible to hold the Office of President of the United States.
~ the defense rests ~