When people think of “Civil Rights” the first thing to come to mind is Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
Rightly so, this man of God was a brilliant and eloquent advocate for concepts first enshrined by our Founding Fathers. His words echo through time and history. Dr. King believed in the inherent qualities of man before looking at his skin color. These are true and real beliefs held by conservatives across the nation. “I have a dream,” he cried, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”
It is nothing short of staggering, that those on the left who claim to be the champions of down trodden minorities (Black and Hispanic Americans), could so viciously and unjustly accuse the right of racism as it has been doing with such astounding venom in the past year. ‘All we see are images of white tea partiers, “they must be racists!”’ is their cry. One has to wonder why such personalities as Alfonzo Rachel are not being interviewed for their beliefs on CNBC.
This is categorically false. While there are racists left in America, by and large they are not found in the tea party. Conservative Black leaders are not only welcomed, they are welcomed as kindred spirits, brothers and sisters, fellow Americans.
Indeed, the tea partiers are not waiting around for a government handout, and this seems to be their real crime against the left. Skin color has nothing to do with it. “Hey jackass, get your government off my freedom” is their blunt rallying call, and they could care less what the color of anyone’s skin is. It isn’t about race, it is about protesting a government that is taking too much from them, and giving it to those who didn’t do a damned thing to earn it.
The disgusting goad of racism is beyond untrue, it is immoral and fundamentally without any honor whatsoever. Only when the left lets go of its shameless and frankly repulsive mantra, will racism ever end, because it is they who are keeping it alive.
“Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force.” - Dr Martin Luther King Jr. August 28, 1963
The left has lost that soul force, and instead uses venom and hatred to divide us, at a time when the very fabric of our nation is unraveling. Indeed, it is their own daggers tearing the fibers apart.
.jpg)
After Obama's Inaguration 1-20-2009
It is the protesters on the left, who slip into building alcoves in Downtown Portland to urinate into baggies to throw at the police during Liberal protests. Police there to protect the businesses of shop owners whose life work and incomes, along with that of their employees, depend. The businesses whose windows are broken and upon whose doorsteps the foulest refuse of humanity are smeared must have that protection from these liberal protesters. They all endure the abuse and foul behavior of a mob out to take what they have created, and destroy it in the name of progressivism. Yet the perpetrators of these deeds simply brush this off by saying, “oh well they aren’t with us.” Yes they are with you, you are them, and you are not fooling anyone anymore. They feel entitled to their debauchery, their racism, and their government checks. They will continue to vote for the those who will make sure those checks keep getting sent, democrats.
Entrepreneurs set out to create their own destinies and are ridiculed, vilified on a daily basis. Dehumanized, deconstructed, and called racists. They struggle to succeed, even as punitive taxation forces them to layoff their employees. They attempt to look past the figurative urine and feces thrown at them by liberals of all shades who preach peace in the press, while practicing the war of taxation and socialism on the street. Attempting to see the human being beneath the filth of these words and deeds, more often than not despairing ever finding a shred of humanity with which to connect.
These are the progressives who call tea partiers racists? The same tea partiers who left the Washington D.C. mall in the same condition they found it in before nearly 2 million protesters gathered there on September 12th 2009? They showed their respect for their nation and themselves by simply cleaning up. The comparison is so stark, it is difficult to put into words. The pictures here speak louder than words.
Consider this, what was used to finally guarantee the civil rights Dr. King spoke of? What was the foundation the Black Civil Rights movement built upon? What gave it the possibility to succeed?
The Constitution of the United States of America.
It is the shortest constitution in the world. It is the longest continually in use constitution. It is just flexible enough to be amended with the will of the people, yet rigid enough to limit government running our lives. It is the single source of our civil rights, and it is the only thing that makes us Americans. It is also the very document under attack by progressivism, which is deliberately through congress and the White House, forcing unconstitutional legislation upon America.
Since the early 1900’s the Constitution has been under attack, originally by the labor movement and machine politics because it protects the little guy - us - from the rigors of tyranny and control. It once protected us from government, labor unions, and those who would use both to enrich themselves while beggaring and enslaving all others. The Constitution created a nation where men (and of course women) could create whatever they wanted to. The people could create wealth beyond imagining as much as it allowed that same person to perhaps wallow in poverty. That poverty stricken person could then change his or her destiny and create the wealth they once lacked. Such was how John Jacob Astor created his wealth; he arrived in America with nothing other than the clothes on his back.
The New York City Library exists today because of Astor’s rise from poverty to wealth; all things were once possible because we were free. Then came the New Deal and soft socialism, the government would come to everyone's rescue, but it would come with a huge hidden price tag... Freedom and the Constitution.
.jpg)
After the tea party Washington D.C. Mall 9-12-2009
Today, the government takes 30 to 50% of income from the average person who actually pays taxes. It then gives it to those who pay nothing, create nothing, and only contribute to humanity in so far as to walk to the mail box to pick up the check.
Naked wealth re-distribution, wanton destruction of the Constitution, and liberal leaders now speak openly of this insanity.
From the creators it is taken and given to the moochers… it is disgusting and hostile to the ideals of personal greatness and of mankind and what mankind can create. It is incompatible with America. Taking a loan from a neighbor makes returning that kindness a moral obligation, a real personal debt. Taking it from the government requires none of that personal responsibility, and for that reason leaves a huge moral void. There is no accountability; there is no return in kind. There is only dependency and despondency.
People once had a choice; their own destiny was an unwritten book, the pages written in the ink of their own blood, sweat and tears. There was no guarantee of success or failure and as a people, we were truly alive and free in every sense of the word. The journey that shapes the soul was once as important as the destination. The manner in which one got there, spoke of one’s own level of personal honor and integrity. The greatness of this nation is a testimony to that freedom. In order to guarantee something to everyone, we must give up the freedom both to succeed and to fail.
No wonder progressives openly speak of the United States no longer being (or even seeking to be) number one in the world. They are aiming lower, where the socialist nations live. This too is what motivates the tea partiers. They still believe in the potential greatness of America, and want to remain the leader of the free world. To the tea partier America's greatest days are ahead, not behind.
Today honor is ridiculed. Integrity has become something to be pawned off to gain control and half of the political spectrum wallows in the mire of the happy sounding phrase “if it feels good, do it! It’s ok!”
Well, it isn’t always ok. Lost is the value of personal achievement through hard work, dedication and self-sacrifice. It’s been replaced by a whiney dark and sticky demand…”gimmee gimmee gimmee”.
In throwing around accusations of racism for political gain, the left espouses the height of hypocrisy. It is the political conservative, the tea partiers and the constitutionalists where Blacks, Hispanics and minorities have shined, not for any opportunity they were given, but from what they themselves created! No one handed them anything in the name of 'afirmative action'. They earned it through their own hard work and merit, just like every other American.
This is the mark of an American, the desire to make of one’s life whatever can be dreamt up and more. Not to be hitting up the mailbox looking for the government check! Not signing away life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for health care!
For this reason, the hyphenated American is rejected by the right. For this reason those in the Tea Party movement reject it. Americans are Americans FIRST. What a man or woman chooses to do with their own life comes second and adds to the first. Race should not be on the list at all. With freedom, an American can do or be anything. All it takes is the fortitude and self responsibility to go create it, and a government that gets out of the way.
This what Dr. King dreamed of: mankind judged by the content of their character, the color of their skin irrelevant.
Progressives call this racism.
We don’t need leashes, we don’t need government checks. We don’t need this soft porn tyranny and its corrosive guile. We certainly do not need progressive racism.
The tea party is right. It is government that needs to be put back on the leash the Progressives have slipped off. They took that leash off and put it onto the citizens of this nation. Progressives demand our freedom for their social programs, health care and their government checks. The tea party is its antithesis, and that is why the left rages in helpless fury resorting to accusations of racism, nothing more than projection on a grand scale. Progressives know they are using race as a weapon, something only racists do. Perhaps this is the real source of their venom.
The tea partiers look at the quality of every man's character.
They and Americans can see the "quality of" progressive "character", and it is sorely lacking.
.jpg)
Tea Partiers 9-12-2009 Huffington Post/AP
More information: Jason Levin, an angry young man
Comments
Not all TPers are bigots; such is the danger of absolutes, Dianna. And it's just as true that some in the Far Left are pretty disgusting. For example, there are the lunatics that follow Lyndon LaRouche that I'd run off my porch and chase down the street.
That said, there are enough loonies in the TPer movement to give them plenty of bad press, and I'd advise that you advocate cleaning up the movement of seditionists, birthers and white supremacists.
And thanks for the link to Huffington Post on the phony shot of the 9-12 rally and the story that went with it. There were 70,000 at the Mall that cloudy day. 2 million is simply not truthful.
Dianna's link: www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/14/912-tea-party-photo-false_n_286082.html
Excellent article. After 40 years of dealing with the Left, it is my opinion it has hardened to the point of being anti-American, and it has taken over the Democrat party. This is no longer about working together to form a more perfect Union. This is a battle for the heart and soul of the country: will we have George Washington or Karl Marx? That is the only question on the table. They play the race card as if shooting real bullets. They don't care about the impact so long as they hit someone.
Obot is not telling the truth about the Tea Party rally. We were there staying at The Intercontinetal Willard a block from the White House. It was cloudy. But the crowd went from almost at the Willard all the way down that street filling it. This is at the same time as the Capital Mall was filled. And the spill over DID reach the Monument that's how we walked.
If it wasn't 2 million it WAS at least 1 million. There is ample video on youtube which shows exactly what our family experienced. Sorry Obot, as much as yuo'd like us to disappear we aren't going away. This is our country too. And we will fight for it.
wow Allen, just saw your post. After much soul-searching we switched from being democrats. You have said it much better than I can put it. Thanks.
The Tea Baggers can deny the charge of racism all day long, but the proof is out there. Over and over again - the signs, the spitting, the name calling, all have been well documented.
Monday the Tea Party candidate for Gov in NY, Paladino, was busted sending racist emails to all his Tea Party buddies.
Indeed, our friend the author, has in the past expressed racist sentiment. Her disrespect for the POTUS is well documented, referring to him as an usurper and illegitimate.
Do you still support Oily Taint, Di? Are you still a good little birther? Are you still pushing your quo warranto fantasy?
Olivia, given your venom, it looks like I hit a soft spot. The only bigots and racists that have been found at tea parties have been infiltrators like Jason Levin out to deliberately leave bad impressions and get it in the press.
As for YOUR racist comments, I don't like Obama because he is a British Citizen - never could have been a Natural Born Citizen because of that alone and I don't care where he was born. I detest his socialist ideals, his policies, his leftist staff and the other criminals he has filled the White House with. I dislike him on a personal level, and that has absolutely nothing to do with his skin color, or his lack of skin color.
The only racist between the two of us is you.
Racists use RACE as a means to an end, and you are using it as part of a policy of personal destruction, which is of course what makes you racist. Your own words and deeds.
Olivia, I forgot to mention, being a homophobic and using such a disgusting sexual slur makes you look HORRIBLE.
Note folks, the venom comes from the leftist, the insults come from the Progressive.
Know them by their words and deeds, and you will see what they really are.
ObotDave - Lying about the 9-12-2009 rally will not make it disappear. Maybe they should have left tons of trash as proof of their presence, but unlike liberal gatherings, conservatives have the self respect to clean up after themselves. We do not wait for someone to come do it for us.
It took hours and hours for the marchers to reach the mall. the CCTV cameras caught it all. There were between 1.5 and 2 million in attendance, and THAT ought to scare you deep down in the place where your soul used to be.
We can put 2 Million in DC. Imagine what ELSE we can do.
The sleeping giant is awake, and it is NOT happy.
There weren't 2 million in D.C.
Please go back to the inauguration to see how that city was affected by 1.8 million people. D.C. was NOT shut down by your tea party. Sure, there were a few inconveniences, but not 2 million people worth.
The more you folks delude yourselves into believing the stuff the ORGANIZERS tell you, the more upset you get.
And, I suggest you read Media Matters post titled: "Another month, another Breitbart debacle" where it's shown that the video Breitbart has been using as "proof" of no slurs used was mislabeled.
Before you start with "liberal" source accusation, Media Matters cites the AP story "Wrong video of health protest spurs N-word feud". Google that story instead if you want.
Also, before it was known that the tape was mislabeled, Dave Weigel of the Washington Post reported that, although he didn't hear that particular slur, he heard other racist remarks.
The Tea Party is filled with racists.
BTW, the photo debacle is hy
Nice article Dianna. It is well known to those who study history that the progressives are evil people. From Shaw to Wilson to Sanger, these are the cornerstones of the progressive movement. These are racists and the legacy of these racists persists today.
Racists are those who wish to control another human's life because the racist knows better. The progressives think they are smarter and so they know better. Because they think they know better, they want to run other people's lives. That is racism pure and simple. The progressives have got to keep the black man down so that they can control him. They toss him a morsel and he is grateful. But they toss only enough to keep him beholding to the masters.
Then what is a conservative? It is one who believes as you quoted Dr. King. A conservative believes in the potential of every man. That potential is derived from his freedom and is also diminished by tyranny, the tyranny of the progressives.
Quoting official sources about the 70,000 marchers certainly makes one of us a liar. And you unwittingly provided the source debunking your stale story.
70,000 folks, 99% white and a good half on Medicare and Social Security can't support your tale.
I don't accept Media Matters nor AP. However, I would be willing to consider a more in depth analysis - one that uses photos, accounts from various sources (Park police, transit ridership, etc). Perhaps you should check out:
moderateinthemiddle.wordpress.com/2009/09/12/update-tea-party-documentary-contract-from-america-attn-obots-i-own-the-world-has-the-pic-we-need-to-get-a-real-countupdate-how-big-was-the-crowd-media-credibility-plunges-to-new-low-aerial-views-a/
Or check out www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sjvc6baor8 which is a nice time lapse. There are also a bunch more 9/12 videos there.
Objective and independent sources are there.
Diana - I object to the attempts to speak for the founding fathers. They were not a monolithic group, who all believed in the same things.
George Mason refused to sign the constitution and actively campaigned against it.
Hamilton wanted the government to start a national bank as a private corporation with the government as a shareholder. Jefferson and Madison thought the idea was unconstitutional. Hamilton argued that Article 1 Section 8 Clause 18 gave congress an implied authority to create the bank. President Washington agreed.
Read the Sedition Act of 1798, it curtailed the rights of Americans to criticize the government and provided punishment for any person writing, uttering, or publishing "any false, scandalous and malicious writing" against the president or Congress.
Read Jefferson's letter to Philip Mazzei, he complains that the Federalist were attempting to makeover the US into a second England.
Adams signed into law a manditory health insurance law for seamen.
People believe what they believe and they can find the evidence to defend their position becuz that is the only evidence they are looking for. Dianna you're as bad as the rest. I will give you credit that you must get some narcissistic enjoyment out of inciting this small group of responders. But, the fact is you're just another "spoon" that likes to stir things up. And you get a few people to nibble at your "bait".
In reality you can't get published anywhere journalistically. You're just another blogger and that's fine. But, you don't cite objective fact or knowlegeable case law
I agree Think.!!! Especially with repect to posters like" think people".
What the F--- does case law have to do with the issue presented? The left in this country is trying every trick in the book to denomize, to marginalize the average persons position in rgards to overtaxation and TOO BIG Government. They want you to believe somehow that your opinion is subservient to some halloed "Case Law". Let us all remember that that Hallowed of institutions of Law called the Supreme Court once ruled that African Americans were only 3/5 th a human being AND were propertry. Don't argue FOLKS the "court" says it's so...
This is a good article tieing together significant aspects of the current Social and political space...a space that is affecting EVERYONE. The Left at heart has ONE GOAL at this point. And that is to stop Dialogue..to STOP your voice at any cost. They do it by Phoney attacks on Liberals, By claiming you have no rhetorical position because you don't wade into arcane case.Cont.
cont... Arcane case law,by calling you racist, homophobes, armed militias, wackos, wing-nuts etc etc...
Think People indeed !! Think about this coordinated attack against a simple American tradition....That of Free Political Speech, free and open dialogue.
Trying to minimize reponses to any particular article is another "tactic". MANY more people see and READ these articles than comment on them....and believe me the Left KNOWS that and it scares them. Think "Fairness Doctrine"...that's coming next.
Di admits she is a birther, that alone is enough to discredit anything else she may have to say. Even legitimate Tea Partiers want nothing to do with birther wing nuts and their racist rants.
Ha Ha Ha Ha
I think Olivia is an example of what jaime was sayin. They just step right in it. Ha ha ha ha.
well Jaime ...... you win the Pulitzer Prize for the most rhetoric filled no content response for 2010. The only dialogue that these supposed "conservatives" want is the "my way or the highway" discourse. Since when did democracy mean that opposing positions on issues should be unilaterally discredited by the extremes of either side. But, that is what is happening on nearly every issue nearly very day. You people act the King Soloman parable where one mother was willing to cut an infant in half rather than let the other mother possibly raise the infant. It's all or nothing with you! Those of us with a more moderate position still see a social model where the goal is to debate and find consensus without "throwing the baby out with the bath water".
And, by the way genius, case law has evrything to do with the rhetorical accustion in the article of "wanton destruction of the Constitution". That type of inflammatory crap is designed with one purpose in mind. And its obvious to all here
Dear sweet Olivia, A "Birther" is someone who believes that Barack Obama was born somewhere other than Hawaii. I have no real opinion on that at all.
I consider it irrelevant. Therefore, you cannot classify me as a birther.
I do believe that the Constitution demands that a person be a Natural Born Citizen. I believe that Barack does not meet this demand by virtue of the fact his father is British. Obama did not hold citizenship of the United States singularly and solely at the moment of his birth, he held two. This is what disqualifies him. From the instant of his conception, by virtue of inheritance of 2 different citizenships from his parents, he could never have been a Natural Born Citizen.
He should be immediately removed from office, as he is a clear and present danger to the Nation. He is not bound by the Constitution, he is breaking it.
I am not into conspiracy theories. I demand that POTUS be legal and constitutional. Obama is neither.
Diana - Thomas Jefferson wrote the 1779 Law for citizenship in the Commonwealth of Virgina:
"Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth and all who have resided therein two years next before the passing of this act, and all who shall hereafter migrate into the same; and shall before any court of record give satisfactory proof by their own oath or affirmation, that they intend to reside therein, and moreover shall give assurance of fidelity to the commonwealth; and all infants wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was, a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth,"
See the part about born in the state, no mention of the status of the parents. That only matters for kids born outside the state.
Jefferson's 1779 law became the "An ACT for the Admission of Emigrants, and declaring their Rights to
Citizenship."
"Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, That all free
persons, born within the territory of this Commonwealth ; all persons, not being natives, who have obtained a right to citizenship under the Act, intituled, " An Act declaring who shall be deemed citizens of this Commonwealth;" and
also all children, wheresoever born, whose fathers or mothers are or were citizens at the time of the birth of such children, shall be deemed citizens of this Commonwealth,"
Jefferson was only worried about the parents' citizenship when the child was born outside the state or country.
So shouldn't we stay true to the ideals of the Founding Fathers, especially the one who wrote the Declaration of Independence.
Good article Dianna. It is so refreshing to read your stuff after reading that constant flow of garbage in the Portland Progressive Examiner.
Why did you post a link to a site that claims your pic is a lie? It's like you're calling out for help! After much soul-searching, I've decided that you are retarded.
Also, someone call Aerosmith! Lady looks like a dude!
Biff, its a great picture of a full National Mall. I didn't and don't claim that it is of the 9-12-2009 rally, and I think it fair to include links to opposing viewpoints. I am not afraid of that at all.
As with everything that has the "Gore" label attached, Gorefan's post is a stretch of reality. Issues relating to the Commonwealth of Virginia are only thinly related to the Constitution, which is very clear: "No person EXCEPT a natural born Citizen..." Further, the Constitution was ratified in 1789 NOT 1779. Virginias' ACT is NOT the same as a Constitutional eligibility requirement, and was not even THEN binding on the country as a whole entity.
Also the concern in 1789 was establishing a set of requirements for the new country at its'beginning...as the Constitutional further states "..or a Citizen of the United States, AT THE TIME of the Adoption of this Constitution...". 221 years out the INTENTION is more than crystal clear
But your argument deconstructs further when you say: "Jefferson was only worried about the parents' citizenship when the child was born outside the state or country." Because if there was a Kenya birth,then Jefferson's argument against Obama would hold.
jaime - If Obama was born in Kenya, you might have a point.
As to the term "natural born", there was only one definition around in 1787. And it came from English Common Law, which the Framers of the constitution were well aware.
Georgia Charter of 1732:
"Also we do, for ourselves and successors, declare, by these presents, that all and every the persons which shall happen to be born within the said province, and every of their children and posterity, shall have and enjoy all liberties, franchises and immunities of free denizens and natural born subjects, within any of our dominions, to all intents and purposes, as if abiding and born within this our kingdom of Great-Britain, or any other of our dominions."
This is classic English Common Law - anyone born in the dominions was a natural born subject. There was no other definition of the term "natural born" right up thru 1787.
To NONthink..(or perhaps GROUPthink would be more appropriate).
Yeah..rhetoric..that term is used alot lately in the current Political Dialogue lol. The only "rhetorical style" I used was argumentative...much like your response. Except you also engage in the high art of hyperbole. And a bit of DISinfo. We are NOT a democracy...we are A Representative Republic with a binding Constitution which has free speech quaranteed.
Further there is no hallowed ground upon which the "Moderates" stand nor is Consensus the ultimate goal of our country and culture..it is akin to the democracy you stated. This country did something UNIQUE...It protected the RIGHTS of the individual or political minority group FROM the tyranny of the Mob/Majority or their consensus agreement. The terms you use (and think you are better for using) are Socialist..from a different time. It is this Bastardization of our heritage and Constitution that Conservatives are fighting against. Dianna is accurate & cute... ;-)
(sigh) ...yes Goreplan,
There was a little issue of The Declaration of Independence...oh about 1776. Sayin sumpon like "...it becomes necessary for one people to DISSOLVE the POLITICAL BANDS which have connected them to another.." and further..."..they should declare the causes which impel them TO THE SEPARATION".
Then there was that little WAR they fought.
So on about the hot summer, with all the Philly horseflies, leading up to the first Public announcement of the Constitution... I don't think they were still confused about exactly what "natural Born" meant to the UNITED STATES of AMERICA.
And it did't include the Kingdom of Great Britain or its Dominions.
jaime - from the constitution of Vermont, 1786
XXXVI. Every person of good character, who comes to settle in this State, having first taken an oath or affirmation of allegiance to the same, may purchase, or. by other just means, acquire, hold and transfer land, or other real estate; and, after one year's residence, shall be deemed a free denizen thereof, and entitled to all the rights of a natural born subject of this State, except that he shall not be capable of being elected Governor, Lieutenant-Governor, Treasurer, Counsellor, or Representative in Assembly, until after two years' residence
Still using that Common Law term "natural born" Subject. Maybe they didn't get the memo.
Goreland,
You confuseth the State with the Union. AFTER 1789 the Constitution held sway. Itself the outgrowth of the Declaration and that troublesome little War of Independence. (Do I need to capitalize Independence?)
Last paragraph of said Declaration since the preamble didn't stick with ya: "..and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States,.." NOW again the Constitution:
" 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.."
Once it was Adopted the meaning of natural born no longer included other Counties or their territories. It included The USA and THEIR territories. Pretty simple really.
Are you going to quote every British Political document going back to the Mayflower Compact and the Virginia Charters? I am versed in those too.
University of Washington survey shows Tea Partiers motivated by race
jaime - since you are so well versed, you must be aware fot he English Common Law definition of "natural born". Its the only definition the colonists/Americans knew. It was the basic definition for citizenship in the colonies for pver hundred years.
So, jaime, when the Framers of the constitution changed this basic definition of citizenship, why didn't they tell anyone? Where are the political phamplets or recorded speeches saying "Look everyone, you know that old definition of "natural born", the one you have been using for so long. Well, we've changed and here is the new definition."
Where did the concept of ex post facto laws and habeus corpus Bills of Attainer that outlined in are in the Constitution come from? English Common Law?
LOL NOW you want to t00t your horn at being not racist?? LOL right! Thats why you used the term "Well at least white chocolate is better than dark chocolate", when referring to a boyfriend's name.
This woman is a hypocrite everyone! In their household also are terms like Rag head and towel head used all the time. This article is a "white"wash of bull shoot.
I am still laughing.. that "garbage" photo is not after the inauguration!
Another "Faux News" image.
It was BLUE SKY that week in Washington, DC. You telling me in a day they somehow clouds abounded and sand by the tons was brought in to make a large dirt field?
That "castle building" is NOT in the National Mall and not from any inauguration. Google for the building. The National mall is NOT that far away from the Washington Memorial.
The Tea party rally had at the most 50k people NOT 2 million. Verified by police and fire marshalls and crowd control. You going to call all those hard working citizens liars? Like a tea party rally would have more attendies than a presidential inauguration!
YOu need to do some serious fact checking. And stop using false images.
Did you note that you took from the HuffingtonPost the image they used to show that Faux News used a fake photo from the inauguration and said it was the Tea Party rally?
Yet you have a tea party rally photo
Dianna says A "Birther" is someone who believes that Barack Obama was born somewhere other than Hawaii. I have no real opinion on that at all.
I consider it irrelevant. Therefore, you cannot classify me as a birther. "
www.examiner.com/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner~y2009m7d14-Breaking-Major-has-orders-recinded-Questioning-Obamas-legitimacy
www.examiner.com/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner~y2009m7d29-Barak-Obama-must-release-Original-1961-Hawaii-Certificate-of-Live-Birth
www.examiner.com/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner~y2009m10d16-Citizenship--what-America-forgot
www.examiner.com/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner~y2009m10d15-Obamas-Achiles-heel--Natural-Born-Citizenship
www.examiner.com/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner~y2009m10d14-Barack-Obama-and-State-of-Hawaii-on-the-ropes
You wrote 7 articles on it!! Here are links to 6 (ran out of characters) No opinion at all??? LOL U R a birther!!
Dear sweet Olivia, A "Birther" is someone who believes that Barack Obama was born somewhere other than Hawaii. I have no real opinion on that at all.
I consider it irrelevant. Therefore, you cannot classify me as a birther.
I do believe that the Constitution demands that a person be a Natural Born Citizen. I believe that Barack does not meet this demand by virtue of the fact his father is British. Obama did not hold citizenship of the United States singularly and solely at the moment of his birth, he held two. This is what disqualifies him. From the instant of his conception, by virtue of inheritance of 2 different citizenships from his parents, he could never have been a Natural Born Citizen. "
In her own words she uses all the BIRTHER tactics? SEVEN articles on the subject (search her archive.. but she is not a birther?? Has no opinion?? This lady is looney people..
What makes this all so laughable is that these "Examiner" articles meet no journalistic standards. This is for a bunch of hacks that get a kick out of arguing their shallow positions with opinion rather than fact. There is nothing, I repeat nothing, that can be verified as something factual that would cause a reader desiring concrete knowledge to move from his or hers current position and beliefs.
You can see a complete lack of education in political science, law or journalism. This is like a day at the sand box with the know-it-all 3 year old and her mother.
Dianna, Keep tossing your grenades of bias and superficial Constitutional opinion. You have'nt proved a damn thing in all of your writings except that there is a President in office that you have great distain for. Theonly person you have hidden that fro is yourself. And while I have no real confidence that this President is one of our greatest leaders; I CHOOSE not to to waller in the lack of respect and class that you do!
Incidentally, as you work towards writing an article of critical thinking that might attract the admiration of someone other than a like-minded reader please know your work needs to be an article organized around a critically considered, original and well-documented topic. It requires an introductory paragraph that assumes nothing. Then a well-developed middle, and an appropriate conclusion. The content of the paper must be accurate with any points raised being factually grounded. Conclusions are based on a careful consideration of verifiable (empirical) examples. The article needs to expand upon larger thematic and methodological issues raised without bias regarding the topic discussed. The writing should incoporate anthropological concepts and principles in its analysis. In addition, it has to display skepticism (critical thinking) and originality in examining "the thinking behind the thinking" by raising deep questions beyond relying on superficial hyperbole and opinion. C+ at best
Screw you "mars" - you ON Mars!! Less ain't mo. Mo IS mo!!! Git a life and a CLUE. Dianna is rite and very smart and very right, right? RIGHT! Well drawn out yor logic at every turn. My husband says so!
From Mars: I think you done graduated from college or something. I am starting to notice how incredibly smart the liberals are.
Screw you "mars" - you ON Mars!! Less ain't mo. Mo IS mo!!! Git a life and a CLUE. Dianna is rite and very smart and very right, right? RIGHT! Well drawn out yor logic at every turn. My husband says so!
Way to go From Mars! You are so correct!
Anyone can be on this site... but at least I have a college degree and could run circles around them on grammar alone, let alone quoting your sources. This is something that is ALWAYS missing from her articles. She quotes only sites like BLOG sites, no sites with journalistic integrity.
To' Fan of AlGore's Plan',
You are engaging in syllogistic logic.
English Common Law or not....By your logic since prior to the Constitution, the term 'natural born' meant England and it's Dominions and, the Colonists were (a) mostly[but not all] English and, (b) did not explicitly say ; "...OK y'all know by Natural Born we don't mean that it STILL includes England and it's dominions & y'all down there..it means 'Merica and all y'all dominions up Here..K?..". That in fact the Declaration CLEARLY stating its' intended purpose was to DISASSOCIATE in NO UNCERTAIN words from England really didn't mean what it said. And in fact the Colonists NOW meant AFTER the Constitution was written that..."oh what the Hell...we fought a war and all..but sure you all are included in our definition of Natural Born, and by association so are all your dominions.
So therefore everyone in England or its'Dominions (eg Kenya) can come on in and run for President.
I can see you want it so. But it's not!
jaime - Sorry, I assumed you were up on English Common Law - my mistake. The definition of "natural born" is that anyone born in the the realm of England was considered "natural born". It didn't matter what the citizenship of the parents were. That's why the Charter of Georgia says - "that all and every the persons which shall happen to be born within the said province" is a natural born subject.
And that's why, when Jefferson drafted the laws of citizenship for Virgina, he used English Common Law as his model. That was the system he understood.
And that's why we see so much of English Common Law in the Constitution. Ex Post Facto, Habeus Corpus and Bill of Attainers are terms from English Common Law. The Framers of the Constitution didn't have to define them for people because everyone knew what they meant.
And that's why they didn't have to define the term "natural born", everyone already knew what it meant.
Yeah...I know that. And your point is what?
That AFTER the signing of The Constitution the term Natural born actually meant to include English subjects as well as US subjects??
You keep going back to the states. After 1789 the wording in the Constitution was the Federal law for US presidency elligability. NOT the wording in the constituent states.
does anyone else notice the common "theme" here? If you're not one of "their" constitutionalist conservative birthers; then you must be a "liberal". I'm loving it! They, themselves, are dividing their own supposed constituency with their elite-ism. And, all over the fact they don't like this President.
Talk about a group of "people" that have no tolerance for any divversity in opinion or otherwise. How could any of you assert racism here. Can't you tell they have "everyones" best interest in mind. The America I revere is not the "lock step" mindset required by Dianna and her followers.
God bless the REAL USA !
btw ..... help us all out to find if we're on the right "team"
1. I'm for less government
2. I'm for lower taxes
3. I'm Pro-life
4. I like representative government
5. I'm o-k if there is an elected official I didn't vote "in" ; I'll just communicae my position and vote again in the next election.
6. I'd rather not have to have the government involved in the lives of the citizens but then that wouldn't be a government of the people, by the people, for the people.
7. I understand the larger the populace the greater challenge and complexity to provide for the populace. Thus a wide range of diverse needs based on individually needs and experiences.
8. Oh yeah; I like family values. Even have a minivan and an SUV
9. Sadly, I think for myself but like to discuss the thoughts of others. I'm ok that people think differntly than I. (including my kids)
Help me out ..... what am I missing to determine if I'm conservative or what .......
jaime - the point is not that English subjects are automatically US Citizens, it is that before the US Constitution, anyone born in the colonies was "natural born" and after the US Constitution anyone born in the US was "natural born".
I think you and I are working under two different assumptions. You assume that the President was born in Kenya and I assume that the President was born in Hawaii.
If my assumption is correct then the President is "natural born", and if your assumption is correct then he is not.
Pages
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!