Shirley Sherrod, Mark Twain, Teddy Roosevelt and American Racial Hysteria
Thursday 29 July 2010
by: Cary Fraser, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed
(Image: Jared Rodriguez / t r u t h o u t; Adapted: Loving Earth, sera_leaving, Okinawa Soba, Wesley Fryer)
The recent firing of Shirley Sherrod by the secretary of agriculture after an excerpt of a video of her speech at an NAACP event was used to portray her as a poster child for anti-white racism by Andrew Breibart, the conservative media personality, provoked a firestorm of controversy about race and its legacies in American life. The unseemly rush to escape the fallout from the video excerpt by the Department of Agriculture leadership and which invoked unverified White House pressure to have her resign as quickly as possible, led to the denial of due process to Sherrod at the Department of Agriculture. When she was condemned by Benjamin Jealous, the president of the NAACP ( later retracted) and commentators like Bill O'Reilly of Fox News (also retracted), it was evident that Sherrod had become a target of the vituperative politics, which has transformed American public debate into an incessant stream of calumny. The rapid dissemination of the video excerpt across the mainstream media outlets added to the reckless coverage of the story that ensued.
The hysteria dissipated as soon as the full video of Sherrod's speech was made public. It revealed that her story was one of personal transcendence of the crippling legacies of racial resentments due to the murder of her father in rural Georgia, where the perpetrator went unpunished, and her evolution as an activist committed to challenging the institutionalized politics of divide-and-rule among racial groups that has governed American life. Like her husband, Charles Sherrod, who had emerged as a prominent leader in the Student Non-Violent Coordination Committee in the 1960s during the height of the civil rights struggle, Sherrod revealed herself to be another exemplar of the generation of African-Americans whose generosity of spirit and vision of citizenship made it possible for America to escape the philosophical penury of the "Jim Crow" legal regime and its sterile political culture. In effect, Sherrod's personal story in her address to the NAACP audience was a metaphor of the challenge that faces America in contemporary context - finding ways for the society to rise above its sordid history of racist politics.
It was left to Barack Obama as president to remind the American public of the most important lesson from the episode: "We have to take our time and think these issues through."(1) For a society where racist sentiment remains deeply embedded in the body politic and is often inflamed for political agendas - large and small - Obama's caution reflected the awareness that his own ascent to the presidency has unleashed destabilizing currents of racist resentment in American society. As the current anti-immigrant campaign in Arizona suggests, those resentments are not directed solely against African-Americans. The emergence of the Latino/Hispanic community as the largest minority group in contemporary America and an increasingly critical constituency in elections across the country, has triggered competition by the two major parties for their votes. The volatile issue of undocumented workers, creating a route to legal status for these migrants and the threat of police profiling and harassment of both American citizens and immigrants, have all become volatile issues in Arizona with implications for the midterm Congressional and local elections later this year. The increasing cultural pluralism that defines race and citizenship in contemporary America and the fact that the United States is being led by its first African-American president, have combined to expose the ugly legacies of white supremacist politics in American life.
Busy schedule? Click here to keep up with Truthout with free email updates.
The contemporary context is a reminder that changes in the American racial status quo are never comfortable for all Americans and trigger irrational outbursts that have to be contained in a society that is prone to episodes of violence against minority communities and individuals. As Mark Twain observed more than a century ago in his parody of American cultural mores at the turn of the 20th century - "The United States of Lyncherdom" - lynching had become "a fashion which will spread wide and wider, year by year, covering state after state, as with an advancing disease." In the course of its spread in post-Civil War America as a cultural, political and quasi-religious phenomenon, lynching and its collective counterpart, pogroms, became devices used by whites to exorcise the "threat" that African-Americans - and others not accepted as "white" - were perceived to pose to the sanctity of segregation and white supremacy in Jim Crow America. Lynching, thus, encapsulated the finding of the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision in 1857 which ruled that: "They [the Negro African race (to use the term from the original decision)] had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order and altogether unfit to associate with the white race either in social or political relations and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect ..."(2)
It is arguable that Sherrod, in being denied due process to defend herself when faced with a smear campaign designed to portray her as an anti-white racist and being fired summarily in response to the video excerpt of her speech, was made subject to a discredited legal doctrine that remains a subconscious reflex in contemporary America. Happily for her, the recognition of the grave injustice done to her has been recognized and she has been made an offer to return to the US Department of Agriculture. This legacy of racism as legal doctrine and psychological conditioning is also at the heart of the hysterical efforts by the "Birther" movement to question the legitimacy of Barack Obama's birth in Hawaii. For Americans who have been socialized into the notion that whites can lay claim to American citizenship and political office without question, Obama is seen as an interloper whose accession to the presidency is simply unimaginable.
It is striking that very little attention has been paid to the fact that John McCain, who ran for president against Obama, was born in the Panama Canal Zone where his father was serving in the US Navy.(3) Being white, a former military officer and son of a military officer and Republican, the issues of the place and legitimacy of McCain's birth are/were apparently not considered as important as Obama's origins in Hawaii. Again, according to the Dred Scott decision on the issue of eligibility for citizenship in the early American Republic: "The first of these acts is the naturalization law, which was passed at the second session of the first Congress, March 26, 1790 and confines the right of becoming citizens 'to aliens being free white persons."'(4) Thus, the lack a sustained campaign to question McCain's citizenship can be interpreted as the deference to the notion that whites have an unquestioned entitlement to American citizenship while people of color, including the large numbers of people of Native American and Hispanic origin in McCain's home state, Arizona, can be subject to stop and search procedures by law enforcement officials under recent immigration legislation signed by the Governor of that state. It is to the Obama administration's credit that it has decided to mount a court challenge to the Arizona legislation.
The Sherrod episode has provided powerful insights into the politics of calumny that has increasingly overtaken contemporary American public life and the undercurrents of race that have driven debates over race, citizenship, rights and justice in an increasingly fractured society. It is, perhaps, time to reflect upon Teddy Roosevelt's 1906 State of the Union Address:
"The members of the white race on the other hand should understand that every lynching represents by just so much a loosening of the bands of civilization; that the spirit of lynching inevitably throws into prominence in the community all the foul and evil creatures who dwell therein. No man can take part in the torture of a human being without having his own moral nature permanently lowered. Every lynching means just so much moral deterioration in all the children who have any knowledge of it, and therefore just so much additional trouble for the next generation of Americans.
Let justice be both sure and swift; but let it be justice under the law and not the wild and crooked savagery of a mob."
Roosevelt, as a Republican president, had invited Booker T. Washington to dinner at the White House in 1901. He was roundly condemned by Southerners for violating the color line and offering a symbolic recognition to African-Americans that was dangerous to the Jim Crow order. The invitation to dinner suggested that an African-American was the social equal of the president. Notwithstanding his own racial prejudices that were shared by the majority of his contemporaries, Roosevelt, as president, was sensitive to the corrosive effect of racism upon American life and culture in the early 20th century.
It is striking that at the beginning of the 20th century, Mark Twain, the vociferous critic of American imperialism, and Teddy Roosevelt, an architect of the American imperial project, shared a recognition that the psychology that drove lynching in American life was "beyond the pale." The Sherrod episode should encourage Americans in the first decade of the 21st century to reflect upon the fact that, notwithstanding the election of an African-American president, the society is still trapped by spasms of racial hysteria that illustrate "a loosening of the bands of civilization ..."
Footnotes:
1. "President Obama Said Sec. Tom Vilsack 'Jumped the Gun' on Shirley Sherrod's Ouster"
2. Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856).
3. See Carl Hulse, "McCain's Canal Zone Birth Prompts Queries About Whether That Rules Him Out," The New York Times, February 28, 2008, for an account of the issue.
4. Scott v. Sanford.
This work by Truthout is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.
Comments
This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.
Don't sweep Teddy
Thu, 07/29/2010 - 15:46 — Anonymous (not verified)Don't sweep Teddy Roosevelt's "Aryan Superiority" under the rug. Read James Bradley's book The Imperial Cruise to understand more of the deep-seated current of white Americans' feelings of entitlement"
Absolutely agree with the
Thu, 07/29/2010 - 16:22 — Dave W. (not verified)Absolutely agree with the first comment here. James Bradley's "The Imperial Cruise" is an eye opener into the "true" nature of T.R.'s attitudes concerning race and more importantly "white racial superiority." Booker T. Washington was invited to the White House, but came under cover of darkness and entered and departed thru a back door. Filipinos were seen as less than human, African-Americans were still being lynched in record numbers and the Japanese were being hailed as "worthy partners" with white western "civilization" because they had demonstrated a willingness and the ferocity to accompany it,in the expansion of their own "empire". Roosevelt, is quite simply, the least understood, most overrated President in American history. Read that book!
Okay, first of all, we
Thu, 07/29/2010 - 17:25 — Anonymous (not verified)Okay, first of all, we shouldn't be screaming at Breitbart over this issue. I can at least credit this article with avoiding some of the more blatant anti-free speech rhetoric I've heard from some people on this issue (For instance, calling for Breitbart to be charged with "defamation" and calling for a return to the "higher standards of the corporate media) but the author still seems to be more interested in tying this incident to racial issues than discussing the real issue here.
We should all be worrying about the fact that the people in charge of a federal agency responsible for making critical decisions about public are too stupid to check their facts before firing someone based on some story they find on the Internet. If these people are really that incompetent, then they clearly aren't qualified for any government job, and should be fired. The fact that some guy decided to take a few words out of context shouldn't be able to do this much damage, and to lay all the blame on him implies that anyone who says something which is later repudiated is a criminal.
Second, if we really want to move toward becoming a post-racial society, we need to stop bringing race up every time something like this happens. To quote from the article:
"The Sherrod episode has provided powerful insights into the politics of calumny that has increasingly overtaken contemporary American public life and the undercurrents of race that have driven debates over race, citizenship, rights and justice in an increasingly fractured society."
There is no evidence of any widespread overt racism in America. Yes, there are a few idiots who think that Obama is secretly a Muslim. However, the majority of Americans believe in the vision Martin Luther King set forward of a society in which we're judged by our own virtues, not by the color of our skin. As for the common argument that all white people are secretly closet racists (Which is itself racist), this is an attempt by actual closet racists to project their problems onto other people. The rest of us are mature enough to hold these feeling in check, and if we have confidence in our own ability to judge others by their personalities, not by their race, then we can move away from racism.
Let us also not forget that
Thu, 07/29/2010 - 17:30 — Bill (not verified)Let us also not forget that Roosevelt warned of "race suicide" in 1905, upon noticing that immigrants, increasingly from S and E Europe, unlike previous waves from N and W Europe, tended to have larger families than native-born Americans.
Still, I think it is to Roosevelt's credit that he is ultimately impossible to characterize neatly.
The above comments give an
Thu, 07/29/2010 - 17:49 — MrKaphie (not verified)The above comments give an unbalanced assessment of Teddy Roosevelt's record on race. At a time when most white attitudes were exceedingly racist, Teddy Roosevelt took a comparatively enlightened stance.
As police commissioner in New York City T.R. lifted the ban on Jewish persons serving. As governor of New York he pushed for a bill to desegregate the public school system (through it failed.) And as President of the United States, T.R. integrated the federal bureaucracy. (Only to have Woodrow Wilson undo it.)
The "Nordic Thesis" that he publicly embraced to argue in favor of American Imperialism, was one of the cultural trends of the time and connected to European justifications for imperialism. Arguably, T.R.'s real reasons had more to do with American economic and political greatness. The Nordic Thesis was pragmatically employed to get more citizens "on board."
I never read or hear about
Thu, 07/29/2010 - 17:51 — emberAZ (not verified)I never read or hear about white supremacy. It's the disease this country suffers and all the racist yuk comes from it. It's an enduring system which has been here since the British landed. When we get rid of it the country will be better for it and we will not have these episodes of hysteria. White supremacy hysterical about a non-white President, a non-white group suggesting racism in the Tea thing. White supremacy needs to be stamped out -- I wish I knew how and I would do it.
The lesson that has been
Thu, 07/29/2010 - 18:22 — Ronald L. Iverson, Ph.D. (not verified)The lesson that has been missed in the reporting on the Sherrod incident is that we all must uncover and admit our own racism in order to be free of it. Sherrod's courageous self-disclosure was summarily crushed, but the redemption that followed should make us all feel safer to admit our own faults and break-throughs. This event has the potential for positive cultural change if that message can be understood.
It is not right to use
Thu, 07/29/2010 - 18:42 — drosera (not verified)It is not right to use present ethical standards to judge those from the past that held different values. People like TR and Walt Whitman, for that matter, were doing something bold in speaking out against racism, something that required courage. They did not have a century to listen to people like MLK or Malcolm X and then reach inside themselves to rethink the values they imbibed as children. It is easy from the vantage point of the twenty-first century to ridicule the barbarous ways of our ancestors, but it is hard to see that their actions were performed within a context very different from our own. It is time to appreciate the small moves that were made from the very beginning rather than denigrating them.
The Obama administration
Thu, 07/29/2010 - 19:57 — Guerry Hoddersen, Radical Women, Seattle (not verified)The Obama administration blew it on Ms. Sherrod because the White House is so damn anxious to appease the right. They caved before they even had the facts! And the same for Ben Jealous! Good grief, the majority were appalled by the Tea Party crack pot who wrote that "letter to Lincoln" in his name. It was the most racist thing I've read in years! Then Mr. Jealous jumps on the bandwagon against Ms. Sherrod. We need a REAL, multi-racial civil rights movement in this country to stand up for all people of color, including immigrants without papers, against white supremacists and opportunists of color.
It is peculiar that
Thu, 07/29/2010 - 20:01 — Bill O'Rights (not verified)It is peculiar that statements like: "The volatile issue of undocumented workers, creating a route to legal status for these migrants and the threat of police profiling and harassment of both American citizens and immigrants" simply side-step the obvious fact that these 'migrants' are actually flagrant violators of U.S. Immigration law - while quite a number of legal immigrants do make the effort and show the respect for U.S. law, and it should be worth the trouble - otherwise, you have a flow of immigrants whose first act upon arrival is flagrant violation of the law - sort of 'getting off on the wrong foot' if you ask me. The phrase in this article should have read "The volatile issue of illegal immigrants, and deciding how and whether to pardon them for breaking U.S. law, and how to deal with those who show probable cause for being illegal immigrants..." - that would be a non-double-speak statement. Note that in any other country, people who enter illegally are treated as criminals, yet it has somehow become a 'progressive' ideal to pretend they have done no wrong. Try immigrating to Iceland - you have to learn their incredibly difficult language - or any other civilized country... It is impossible to legislate morality - this is why the ridiculous and flatly unconstitutional (equal protection under the law) so called 'hate speech' and 'hate crime' laws will produce more racism as a result. For God's sake, we elected a black president, who turned out to be identical to the white presidents before him - we now have racial equality at the very highest level of government. We are a nation of laws - or should be - that is what made this place a relatively good place to live.
I liked Guerry Hodderson's
Thu, 07/29/2010 - 20:49 — tomo (not verified)I liked Guerry Hodderson's comment. I worked for Obama's nomination. I voted for him. He has by now pretty much lost my confidence. The bungling over the defamation of Ms. Sherrod is a good instance of why. O.k., it was ONLY Obama's administration that made this mistake. What it exemplifies is an administration elected by progressives which has proven oblivious to the concerns of progressives while it has been cravenly responsive to the concerns of corporate America and of narrow-minded and bigoted members of the electorate.
To emberAZ: You're right,
Thu, 07/29/2010 - 22:39 — Paul W (not verified)To emberAZ: You're right, white supremacy has no place in the 21st century. It does need to be stamped out. And guess, I've got good news for you. IT WILL BE!
Already, as the rest of the world carries on having babies, we don't have so many. And consequently, there are less and less of us so-called "pure aryans", (or whatever rubbishy descriptors the racists use for White!), and more and more 'people of color' (to use one of the racists' more polite terms, for non-Whites).
Eventually, though admittedly probably not in my lifetime or yours, the whole world will be a nice shade of coffee brown. The kind of honey-brown colour we whites desperately try to attain with our 'summer tans'! (I guess those of us who do that have some kind of twisted yearning to be 'inferior', yeah?)
And then ... this whole dumb-ass, ignorant, staggeringly out of date thing called racism
WILL BE GONE!!!
So this guy who lied
Thu, 07/29/2010 - 22:45 — Anonymous (not verified)So this guy who lied viciously gets ID'd as a "conservative media personality." I guess that tells us something about the level of ethics to be expected from those who share that lofty sounding title.
It is insufficient to send
Thu, 07/29/2010 - 23:25 — Prof. William Maxwell (not verified)It is insufficient to send hate-looks to Breibart. We as a society, particularly the media and the academic world, need to take a look at the institutions that created or failed to clean-up Breibart's ways of thinking, not only about race but also about democracy and justice and other noble aspirations. Did he grow up in a bullying family, as I suspect? What did his elementary and high school teachers do to counteract the default attitude of racial superiority? Did his university professors introduce him to an epistemological style of thinking that was illustrated in the great classic movies such as "12 Angry Men" or "To Kill a Mockingbird"? Mr. Breibart represents the price America pays for not paying for first-class teachers and professors. Apparently, we'd rather spend those funds on war toys to enrich the war industry. Alas for America!
Breitbart used the same
Fri, 07/30/2010 - 00:09 — S.O. Teric (not verified)Breitbart used the same media trick as the guy who got ACORN ruined. This is a pattern. What 22:25 says is legalistic gibberish to obscure the fact that what he calls "free speech" actually means the freedom to commit slander, i.e. ruining someone's reputation and taking away their livelihood. This "ends justify the means" attitude is smiled upon as "hardball politics," but it is what it is, the desperate act of desperate people with no legal leg to stand on, not to mention moral. But he is right about the Obama administration acting too hastily without checking the whole story. That's stupid. It happens because Obama said naively he wanted to be the President of all the people; he never reckoned on just how polarized we can be made to be by cynical shills who don't think of him as a man who wants to bring US together, but as a fool who can be manipulated. What a country.
Andrew Breitbart is scumbag,
Fri, 07/30/2010 - 00:54 — notamerica (not verified)Andrew Breitbart is scumbag, racist, fat white boy.
He should be thrown in jail at least for 2 years.
It would be nice if they threw him in with racially mixed cell block.
He could stand to learn much in jail.
Things he has no clue about right now.
In the immortal words of the
Fri, 07/30/2010 - 07:48 — bluesman (not verified)In the immortal words of the NAACP, "you've been snookered" by your own ignorance of history. Teddy Roosevelt was one of the most, if not THE most, racist presidents in US history. His view on Aryanism were strikingly similar yo Hitler's, and he regularly indulged in the most vile rhetoric against blacks, Asians - indeed everyone except Anglo-Saxon whites. Read James Bradley's book "The Imperial Cruise" if you want to story.
You really are stupid if you
Fri, 07/30/2010 - 08:00 — alex (not verified)You really are stupid if you can't see that the whole point of mentioning and quoting TR is that EVEN HE was robustly against lynching as a 'quaint Southern custom'. EVEN HE, the racist imperialist expansionist.
I'm a lifelong Democrat
Fri, 07/30/2010 - 08:21 — Mike Nolan (not verified)I'm a lifelong Democrat somewhat to the left of President Obama and no fan of John McCain (who was proud of his role in bombing innocent civilians in Vietnam, and who now says he was never a maverick.)
McCain's birth in the Canal Zone wasn't challenged during the 2008 campaign simply because leftists play honestly. It has nothing to do with race. U.S. citizens born on military bases are considered "native born," just as citizens born in the U.S. (as opposed to foreign-born, as my children are). Yes, Obama is challenged from the right because of his race, but that doesn't mean that McCain's lack of a challenge is based on race. It means that liberals play by the rules.
Another issue with the birthers that everyone seems to ignore is the right of the State of Hawaii to issue the kind of birth certificate they deem appropriate. You would think that proponents of the 10th Amendment would adamently support the State of Hawaii, but instead they have insisted on one standard birth certificate for the entire country. Ironic, isn't it?
Good article, well written.
Fri, 07/30/2010 - 08:53 — Anonymous (not verified)Good article, well written. It's a pleasure to read thoughtful, well-written work. I do think it makes too much of race as the central issue in Arizona's immigration problem, though. In my day to day personal experience, I just don't see it. Sure, there are some Americans who don't like Mexicans because of race, but even here in this conservative region of Colorado, I never hear a disparaging word (not, I'm not about to break into song, LOL) against Mexicans. Or Latinos. Only against those here illegally.
I suspect that on the issue of immigration, most intellectuals, most thoughtful people, and most liberal writers, are out of touch with the opinions of average Americans. Mostly because they assume the issue is about race.
With all this hoo-hah about
Fri, 07/30/2010 - 11:39 — goobagooba (not verified)With all this hoo-hah about "illegal immigrants," there's not one mention about the arrogance of the national border system in place anywhere in the world.
I'm happy to live here - don't get me wrong on that - mainly because I have lived nowhere else. But I have no more "right" to be here than anybody else.
As for racism, it's as legitimate as 'tallism' or 'shortism,' and, at base, is a rationale for economic protectionism. All of it so much bushwah.
“This legacy of racism as
Fri, 07/30/2010 - 13:59 — Anonymous (not verified)“This legacy of racism as legal doctrine and psychological conditioning is also at the heart of the hysterical efforts by the "Birther" movement to question the legitimacy of Barack Obama's birth in Hawaii.”
I like Fraser's solid analysis of American racial hysteria. That's a great phrase. However, his analysis needs to be extended into the racist hysteria and sheer ignorance surrounding the birther discussion, even though it may lead in an uncomfortable direction for those on the left who somewhat still support Obama.
Whatever implication it carries for Obama, Hawai'i is not now and has never been a territory of the United States, let alone a state. By the underpinnings of international law established at the treat of Westphalia in the 17th century, Hawai'i is an occupied state, with exactly the same status as Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia under Soviet occupation. Its sovereignty is not in the least extinguished by military occupation, no more than the sovereignty of those states. The treaty of Westphalia established the gentleman's club of European nations in such a manner that the territory of indigenous peoples did not qualify for membership, and was thus available to be colonized. Hawai'i, however, was granted membership into this select club in the 19th century and recognized in reciprocal treaties with numerous countries. (Interestingly, Switzerland a few years ago affirmed that those treaties are still in effect.) The fact that American businessmen and American marines overthrew Queen Liliuokalani in 1893 does not in any way extinguish the sovereignty of the nation of Hawai'i. If one wishes to ignore international law, as the US often does, it is enough to apply US constitutional law. The mechanism set out in the constitution for the acquisition of new territory mandates a 2/3 vote of Congress. In the case of Hawai'i, the vote was a simple majority. The acquisition of Hawai'i never happened. Both international law and US constitutional law mandate a vote by the inhabitants of a territory, indicating that they wish to become assimilated. That vote never happened here. However, a petition has been recently discovered by a respected Hawaiian scholar in the US Archives signed by 40,000 Hawaiians in 1893, virtually every adult Hawaiian alive at that time, asking that sovereignty be restored. Subsequently, after the return of the findings of the Blount Commission, President Cleveland issued an executive order, mandating that Hawaiian sovereignty be restored. Here is an analysis of the binding nature of executive agreements upon successor presidents, written by a respected Hawaiian scholar: http://www2.hawaii.edu/~anu/publications.html.
Generally, on the issue of
Fri, 07/30/2010 - 15:20 — S. Wolf Britain (not verified)Generally, on the issue of racism in America, and the matter of stop and search procedures based on race, this article is right on, but it is extremely misleading on the "Birther" issue:
On the matter of McCain's eligibility to be a U.S. presidential candidate, or to be president if he had won the (s)election, the U.S. Congress DID carry out an investigation to determine if he was eligible under the Constitution and/or other U.S. law. But NO SUCH investigation was EVER carried out by Congress into the matter of such eligibility concerning candidate Obama. Why is that?
The birther issue is not being pressed because of racism against Obama; though, because MOST Americans are racist, of course there are no doubt some racists in the birther movement. But the issue is being carried forward, and will not be silenced, because Obama is hiding something regarding where he was born and whether or not he is eligible to be president. In fact, he is hiding a great many things that would resolve the question of whether or not he is eligible to be president under Article 2, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, including his long-form birth certificate, as well as virtually all of his records, which most candidates for the U.S. presidency, or sitting U.S. presidents, usually release to the public.
If Obama has nothing to hide, why is he refusing to release ANY of this material, particularly his long-form birth certificate; and why has he spent almost two million dollars fighting the many birther lawsuits? By the way, since there are legitimate legal questions as to Obama's eligibility to be president because he refuses to release any definitive proof that he is eligible to be president under U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, those plaintiffs bringing the lawsuits have a Constitutional DUTY to do so, as do all True, Constitutional Americans to constitutionally and legally resolve this issue to the conclusive determination of Obama's constitutional eligibility, or lack thereof, to be President of the United States.
The so-called "birth certificate" that Obama did release is available in Hawaii to people who were NOT born in Hawaii, and were NOT born on U.S. soil; and everyone from the former elections clerk who worked for the Hawaiian government department responsible for the elections at the time of Obama's campaign, to family members of Obama himself, have said that he was NOT born in Hawaii because the Hawaiian government has no long-form birth certificate for Obama (or at least didn't have at the time that that elections clerk worked for the Hawaiian government); and because, where they have said so, he was born in Kenya, Africa, making him ineligible to be president under Article 2, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.
It is NOT a matter of whether he is now an American citizen. The question is if he is a "natural born" citizen of the U.S. under the foregoing section of the Constitution. But Obama absolutely refuses to categorically prove that, when he could simply, if nothing else, release his long-form birth certificate, if he has one stating that he was born in Hawaii. The so-called "birth certificate" that Obama did release, does NOT prove categorically that he was born in Hawaii or on U.S. soil; so, if he has a long-form birth certificate proving without question, once and for all, that he was born on U.S. soil, why won't he release it? Obviously, he DOES have something to hide on this issue; and, most likely, it's because he was NOT born on U.S. soil, is NOT a "natural born" citizen, and he is NOT eligible to President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. military.
This is NOT a small issue where it "shouldn't matter", "it's no big deal" or "too big a deal is being made out of it". The Constitution is "THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND" of the United States; and it must be obeyed, followed and completely protected at all times, and without exception; particularly in the matter of such an important question as to whether or not a sitting U.S. President is eligible to be Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. military, with the power over life or death issues, not only over U.S. soldiers, but countless numbers of innocent civilians in the foreign countries that the U.S. government and military have invaded and/or now occupy.
It is NOT "hysterical" to seek to have the U.S. Constitution upheld without exception, NOR is it "unimaginable" that U.S. citizens would seek to do so.
If one looks objectively at the lawsuits thus far brought in courts of law regarding this presidential eligibility matter, virtually all of the judges who have presided over the cases have done everything in their power to corruptly and fraudulently, and in contravention of the U.S. Constitution and other U.S. law(s), dismiss the cases, claim that the lawsuits are "frivolous" and seek sanctions against the lawyers for the plaintiffs, and/or claim that the plaintiffs supposedly don't have legal "standing" to bring the lawsuits in the first place.
In other words, and because of other evidence that it would take too long to go into now, there has been a concerted effort, from the White House on down to the courts, to unconstitutionally and illegally block any and all attempts to definitely prove whether or not Obama was born on U.S. soil, is a "natural born" citizen, and is eligible to be President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. military.
Again, if Obama, and all of these other people involved in blocking same, has and/or have nothing to hide, why is the resolution of the matter, and categorically settling the issue once and for all, being blocked at every turn? The bare minimum that should come out of all the legal cases regarding this matter, is that SOMEONE, or at least ONE person, should be able to definitively settle the matter once and for all, and determine if Obama is or is not eligible to be president. The American people, and the entire world, have a right to know, and to have the question settled without any further obfuscation.
If there is a long-form birth certificate proving that Obama is a "natural born" citizen of the U.S., then release the damn thing for God's sake!
Wrong, Mike Nolan! The State
Fri, 07/30/2010 - 16:46 — S. Wolf Britain (not verified)Wrong, Mike Nolan! The State of Hawaii issues TWO types of birth certificates, a "long-form" and a "short-form". The actual names of each no doubt contribute to the confusion because they sound almost identical. The long-form is called a "CertificatE of Live Birth"; and the short-form is called a "CertificatION of Live Birth". (Emphasis added by me.) But that's where all except the most limited similarities between the two forms cease.
I wish I could post the pictures of the two forms in the comments section of this TruthOut article; the actual short-form birth certificate which is the ONLY one Obama has "released", and a copy of what a long-form birth certificate looks like. But, since I can't post the pics here, I am going to upload them to my hosted domain, and post a links here to the pics, as follows (take a close look at the MAJOR differences):
www.wolfbritain.com/certification.jpg
www.wolfbritain.com/certificate.gif
The short-form (the "CertificatION of Live Birth") simply gives the most basic details of the birth, but is NOT signed by the doctor who delivered the baby, by ANY doctor, nor ANYONE ELSE; and IS ISSUED TO PEOPLE WHO WERE NOT EVEN BORN IN HAWAII.
The long-form (the "CertificatE of Live Birth"), on the other hand, DOES list the signatures of several individuals; and, thus, is a, or THE, definitive PROOF that someone was born in Hawaii, BECAUSE IT IS NOT ISSUED BY THE STATE OF HAWAII REGARDING ANYONE WHO WAS NOT ACTUALLY, AND DEFINITELY, BORN IN HAWAII, and because it gives much more conclusive information and proof of same than the "CertificatION of Live Birth" does.
Once more, if Obama has nothing to hide, and he most definitely was born in Hawaii (on ALLEGED U.S. soil; thank you, "Anonymous -- Fri, 07/30/2010 - 18:59"), is a "natural born" citizen, and is eligible under U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1 to be president, why is he hiding his long-form birth certificate, and fighting to the tune of millions of dollars in legal fees to keep it from being released? Possibly because he does not possess one? Rhetorically speaking, don't you think we have the right to have these questions answered once and for all?
Obama can so easily remove all doubt, and resolve all questions concerning this matter, if he would just simply release the long-form birth certificate, if he has one. That's NOT too much to ask; and it IS fulfilling the Constitutional DUTY to seek to have that definitive proof provided for all to see.
One positive thing thing I
Fri, 07/30/2010 - 17:18 — Stephen Kennedy (not verified)One positive thing thing I can say about the "Birthers" is that they are persistent. They're thoroughly misguided, but they ARE persistent. That is often a positive human personality trait. In their case, it's simply annoying, bordering on infuriating.
We're now 20 months into the Obama Presidency, and they still can't believe that he actually won! In the course of your ever-so-articulate rant about the sanctity of the U.S. Constitution, our obligation, as citizens, to live by it, etc., S.Wolf Britain, you ignore so many facts of recent history, and fundamental facts about the nature of "native-born" citizenship that it would be tiresome to address them all. You wouldn't listen anyway because you don't want to be confused by facts, since your mind is made up.
The fundamental criteria for eligibility to be President, as listed in the original language of the U.S. Constitution, state that the President must be a "natural-born citizen", and must have been "fourteen years a resident within the United States". PERIOD. It doesn't say that the President must have been born on U. S. soil, and it doesn't say that his period of residency must be continuous. He or she can leave the country or its territories, and return, as long as he/she has been a resident for fourteen years. PERIOD. No amount of nuance that you try to apply to that language can explain away its specificity. You are WRONG!!
Case law that later addressed the issue stated clearly that a candidate born on U.S. soil, or of whose parents one was a natural-born American citizen was, de facto, an American citizen. The former instance explains clearly why so many people residing illegally in this country want to have their babies born here. They want their children to be natural-born Americans, so they can have the rights and privileges appertaining to such citizenship.
In Obama's case, his MOTHER was from KANSAS, an AMERICAN state, in case you hadn't heard! THAT makes Obama an AMERICAN CITIZEN!! GET OVER IT!! Yes, his father was Kenyan. He has told that to the world. It isn't a secret. But, neither is the fact that his MOTHER WAS FROM KANSAS!!
In the history of this country, there has never been the kind of fruitless ongoing demand for the birth certificate of a President as there has been for President Obama. How many of you asked George Bush or his father to produce their birth certificates? NONE! If it did happen, it would be headline news to more than 300 million Americans, because it was never reported. Is there any wonder why the "Birther" movement has been labeled racist? After all, none of the other Presidents was anything but white-skinned. Case closed? If not, what are you hiding behind your protestations of concern for the Constitutional legitimacy of the Obama presidency? What do YOU have to hide?
People like you worry about the sanctity of the Constitution and our obligations to live by its legal guidelines only when it's convenient for you. Where were the legal filings to protest the Bush Administration's illegal electronic surveillance of American citizens? Where were your legal filings when Bush, Cheney and a raft of other high officials in their administration were lying us into war with Iraq, in direct contravention of the Congress' Constitutionally-mandated war-making powers, violating international boundaries and waging a war of aggression against a sovereign state; acts for which German and Japanese political and military leaders were prosecuted and either imprisoned or hanged following WWII? Where were your legal filings when the Bush Administration violated the Geneva Conventions against war crimes by torturing prisoners taken during the War in Iraq and its misnamed "War on Terror", also known as the undeclared War on Afghanistan? I could go on, but to continue with someone whose principal concern is to refute what has already been proven irrefutably would be pointless.
I strongly suggest that Birthers spend their time, money, and effort on finding and fielding candidates for office that are electable to the Presidency and Vice Presidency, unlike McCain and Palin, and stop taking up the time of our overburdened courts with lawsuits that have so little basis in legal viability or fact.
If it is the argument of
Fri, 07/30/2010 - 18:56 — MrKaphie (not verified)If it is the argument of James Bradley in "The Imperial Cruise" that Theodore Roosevelt was one of the most racist of American Presidents because of his use of the Nordic Thesis in promoting American imperialism, then I'm not especially sold on even bothering to read it. Theodore Roosevelt's domestic policies (previously noted) suggest an opposite mentality. It is irresponsible to ignore his record of domestic policy.
Let's face facts, most white males in the United States and Europe had racist pretensions during the 18th and 19th centuries, and most of the 20th century. It would surprise me more if any President of the United States did not have, and operate on, certain racist pretensions before LBJ.
I think there were plenty of Presidents of the United States more racist than Theodore Roosevelt. Most of them likely were, in fact, and that includes Abraham Lincoln -- a man who had no qualms voting in favor of Black Laws in Illinois before he was president.
No, you are WRONG, you
Fri, 07/30/2010 - 20:06 — S. Wolf Britain (not verified)No, you are WRONG, you typical neo-liberal denier of facts and presumer of guilt, Stephen Kennedy!
You presume that "I'm guilty" of being a "right-winger"; but I am NOT a right-winger. I am a True Conservative AND True Liberal. I am a Constitutionalist, and not a member of ANY party, not even any of the independent parties, including the Constitution Party. Nor am I either a capital 'L', or lower case 'l", (L/l)ibertarian. I am COMPLETELY, AND TRULY, independent.
You also wrongly presume that "I HAVE TO BE" a right-winger in order to be a "Birther", or to believe in the Birther's cause as I do; and that EVERYONE who is a "Birther" has to be a right-winger. But they do NOT; and I do NOT! You probably also presume that "I'm a racist", which in addition I am NOT.
"Natural born" MEANS to be born on U.S. soil (look it up)!! What could it possibly mean otherwise, rhetorically speaking?! It does NOT mean "naturalized", which is a completely separate designation and conference of citizenship.
If you would FULLY study the matter out, as I HAVE done and you clearly haven't, the Founders, the Supreme Court and others have said that BOTH PARENTS, particularly the father, need to have been born on U.S. soil for their offspring to be eligible as "naturally born" to be a U.S. president. Granted, that was later changed; but, at the time of Obama's birth in 1961, his American citizen mother was NOT old enough under the law at that time, to be able to confer citizenship on her son, "Obama, Jr." at birth, thus (NOT!) making him "natural born".
Obama's father, was NEVER a U.S. citizen, let alone born on U.S. soil, but was a citizen of Kenya, which at that time was a colony of Great Britain; therefore, "Obama, Sr." was a citizen of Britain, and thereby conferred British and/or Kenyan citizenship on "Obama, Jr., thus making him NOT a "natural born" citizen of the United States. (Soon after "Obama, Jr's" birth, Kenya obtained independence from Great Britain, thus conferring Kenyan citizenship on "native-born" persons of Kenya.)
Contrary to your lie(s), I do NOT only stand for the upholding of the Constitution "when it's convenient for (me)". I stand for upholding the Constitution always, at all times, in every way, and entirely without any exception(s) WHATSOEVER!
If Obama is eligible to be President and Commander-in-Chief, WHICH HAS NOT YET BEEN PROVEN, then so be it. But if he is NOT eligible to be same, WHICH A GREAT DEAL OF STRONG EVIDENCE POINTS TO HIM NOT BEING, NOT LEAST OF WHICH IS HIS HIDING AND REFUSING TO DIVULGE ANY DEFINITIVE PROOF OF HIS BEING A "NATURAL BORN" CITIZEN, AND SPENDING ALMOST TWO MILLIONS DOLLARS TO DO SO, ETC., then he is an usurper; is Constitutionally, and completely, ineligible to be President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. military; ALL of his orders, ALL of his Executive Orders and Presidential Directives, and ALL bills he has signed into "law" are null and void; and NO ONE can Constitutionally follow or obey ANYTHING that he orders, but is in fact, under those circumstances, obligated NOT to follow or obey ANY such orders in any way coming from him.
Additionally, in that state of affairs, ANYONE AND EVERYONE who obeyed ANY of his orders would be automatically committing treason; as Obama himself has committed, and is continuing to commit, treason if he has unconstitutionally, illegally and fraudulently usurped the Office of President and Commander-in-Chief. This is why, among the other reasons that I have stated heretofore, as well as others which I have not delineated previously, We the People MUST get to bottom of this matter, and have it definitively proven whether he is guilty of any of the foregoing, or not. We cannot let it go undetermined without being traitors to our Constitutional duties and responsibilities as American citizens.
Obama's eligibility to be president, contrary to your false claims, has NOT been "proven irrefutably"; and, also contrary to your false claims, that issue is NOT my "principle concern", but a part of many principle concerns that I have.
There is also much more to this entire matter than delineated in the foregoing; but, for the sake of at least attempted-brevity, I will dispense with going into more particulars at this time.
In regards to your completely baseless and false claims questioning "where (I) was" concerning the Constitutional violations and other violations of the Bush administration, etc., I was putting my very liberty and life on the line speaking JUST AS MUCH against it as I am about the extremely similar impeachable offenses, other Constitutional violations, and other violations of law by the Obama administration.
I was setup and framed for, and falsely and fraudulently accused of, "threatening a federal employee", and "perceived threatening conduct" under the so-called "U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T Act", for doing NOTHING but stand up for my rights, and against violations of law and those rights; and, without ANY court hearing or trial, and without ANY due process of law protections WHATSOEVER, completely unconstitutionally served [by two agents of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)] what essentially amounts to a "federal restraining order", though it is not, officially, called that, which was NOT issued or signed by ANY court of law or judge, also WHATSOEVER, unconstitutionally denying my right(s) of access to ALL federal employees of a particular government agency [especially because I did NOT truly threaten ANY federal employee(s), and because I was not proven guilty of ANY of same in a court of law], and ordering me not to make contact with ANY but ONLY ONE employee of that agency in the entire state in which I live (which could possibly also be "legally" interpreted as applying to the entire nation as well).
I still have an outstanding ACLU Complaint regarding the foregoing matter, which you can read on my blog, at:
www.wolfbritain.com/
I have a "paralegal" and/or "legal assistant" background from before I became totally physically disabled; and I am a bonafide member in good standing of the National Lawyers Guild [(NLG) as a fully physically disabled former legal worker], the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and Amnesty International (AI). So I am FAR from stupid, and I would NEVER threaten ANY federal employee(s), OR ANYONE ELSE FOR THAT MATTER, in ANY way, shape, form or fashion WHATSOEVER. Neither would I EVER do what essentially amounts to "putting a sign on myself, and 'asking' to be arrested" (which I never was in regards to this matter) by threatening a federal employee. I have NEVER threatened ANY government employees of ANY kind in any way whatsoever, either.
Which brings me to the question, Stephen Kennedy, have you put, or are you putting, your very life and liberty on the line standing up against all that you list in your "hate-full" tirade, as I have, and as I continue to? It's a relatively safe bet that you haven't, and/or that you aren't continuing to do so. But, as a result of the foregoing visit of myself by DHS, I am probably on (a) "terrorist watch list(s)" and/or the "No-Fly List" [I haven't flown since 1996, so I have no way of knowing whether I am or not, and I am not about to (seek to) fly in order to find out]...
Hell, you are so good at presuming people guilty of things that they aren't guilty of, now that I've gone into these false claims against me by the government, and even though literally millions of completely innocent Americans like myself have been and are being visited by the federal government "alphabet agencies" (DHS, FBI and SS, etc.) all across the country, you probably, in complete violation of and traitorousness to both the state and federal constitutions, presume me guilty of what I was falsely accused of, rather than presuming me innocent as those constitutions obligate you and all Americans to do.
I really wish you knew what you were talking about, Stephen Kennedy; but, you don't; so what is truly "fruitless" is continuing to try and reason with you and your false, libelous and slanderous claims.
Therefore, please spare me and everyone else here from any more your ignorant and traitorous tirades, as well as your civilly illegal libel and slander; and I'll thank you to do so or I will take nothing but legal action(s) against you to the fullest extent of the law and my legal and Constitutional rights.
I rest my case. Your
Fri, 07/30/2010 - 23:19 — Stephen Kennedy (not verified)I rest my case. Your situation notwithstanding, if in fact what you say is true, you have yet to prove yourself to be clear enough about significant facts to think otherwise.
Aside from that, I have neither libeled nor slandered you. By definition, a "Birther' is someone who insists that President Obama must produce a birth certificate to prove his citizenship. That's what you have done with your none-too-brief statements. A statement of fact is not libel, nor is it slander. I simply asked questions.
I made no accusations about you, personally. I asked questions about the behavior of Birthers, which you, by your statements, have proven yourself, by definition, to be. I asked if you have something to hide. Do you? The answer to that question is a simple "yes" or "no". Nor was my statement hateful. I asked specific questions about historical events, and made statements correlating behaviors of high government officials with those of proven war criminals. There was no "hate" in those statements. They were statements of fact. The questions were couched using the generic "you" and "your". Why would you take them personally?
Moreover, by resorting to an ad hominem attack on me, about whom you know nothing, other than what I have written, and drawing inappropriate conclusions about my political bias and my personal history, you attempt to divert my attention from the emotionality and falseness of your own claims.
In any case, by claiming that I am traitorous, you may very well open yourself up to charges of slander. Be careful. You are in no position to silence me, or prevent me from expressing my Constitutionally-guaranteed opinions in this public forum (remember, there IS a little thing called the 1st Amendment; you DO remember that one, don't you?). I am not intimidated by your baseless threat of lawsuits, nor will I be silenced by someone like you.
You should be careful about whom you threaten. Apparently, your tendency to act in ways that might be interpreted by significant authorities as threatening has already gotten you into boiling hot water, if what you say is true. Lawsuits can flow in more than one direction, and Constitutional rights and guarantees apply to ALL American citizens, of which I guarantee you that I am one. Regardless of that particular fact's relevance to you, I CAN prove it.
@S. Wolf Britain You have
Sat, 07/31/2010 - 01:30 — Mark P. Kessinger (not verified)@S. Wolf Britain
You have written, what I am sure you believe to be a definitive account of why President Obama is not a "natural born" citizen. But your argument is faulty in a number of respects.
First, the Constitution does not define what a "natural born" citizen is. It provides a general framework, but authorizes Congress to define the specifics, both in Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 (where it authorizes Congress "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"), and in Section 5 of the 14th Amendment. Congress, through enactment of the U.S. Code, Title 8, §1401, defines the various sets of criteria that define who is to be considered a U.S. citizen at birth. They are:
1. Anyone born inside the United States
2. Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
3. Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
4. Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
5. Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
6. Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
7. Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
8. A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
Now, granting, for the sake of argument, your assertion that President Obama was born in Kenya, see no. 7 above. The fact that his mother was a U.S. citizen who lived in the U.S. for more than five years is all that is needed for him to be considered a U.S. citizen at birth, and thus eligible to hold the office of the Presidency.
Like virtually every other birther I have encountered, you make the mistake of assuming you know what the legal definition of "natural born" is. But you fail to grasp the complex interplay between the Constitution and duly enacted legal statutes, one of the hallmarks of a common law system such as ours.
In short, your argument holds no water whatsoever legally speaking.
Thank you, Mark P. Kessinger.
Sat, 07/31/2010 - 02:21 — Stephen Kennedy (not verified)Thank you, Mark P. Kessinger.
I wasn't going to respond
Sun, 08/01/2010 - 00:40 — S. Wolf Britain (not verified)I wasn't going to respond any more in this thread to the anti-"Birther", anti-Constitution (at least not fully for the Constitution without exception obviously), anti-open-mind, anti-ever-admitting-that-the-rightwing-might-be-right-about-one-thing-every-now-and-then, and anti-facing-that-Obama-may-very-well-be-President-unconstitutionally-and-illegally crowd; but there are a couple of things that can't be allowed to go by:
First of all, a "Birther" is NOT "someone who insists that President Obama must produce a birth certificate to prove his citizenship". A "Birther" is someone who insists that Obama must provide proof that he is a "natural born" citizen, and that he fully satisfies U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, and other law connected with the issue.
Second, Stephen Kennedy, you HAVE libeled and slandered me over and over again by making false accusations against me, as this false claim that I supposedly made a threat makes even clearer. I could list about a half dozen ways in which you libeled and slandered me originally, including the latest of same, but it would be a complete waste of time to do so because you have so-called answers for everything. Plus, I don't give away all of my causes of action, or all the parts of my causes of action.
Third, you have also made a false accusation against me that I allegedly want to silence you, or to try silencing you. But I have ABSOLUTELY NO desire to do ANY SUCH THING. I truly, fully and completely believe in your right to freedom of speech, and I wouldn't try to silence your free speech no matter how harmful what you say is, as long as your speech is not illegal. Yet, libel and slander ARE illegal, and they are NOT protected free speech; so I would only, nothing but legally, attempt to silence your libel and slander of me, that is all.
Fourth, I am the one truly being literally threatened here because of a completely false claim that I supposedly issued a threat, Stephen Kennedy. AND I DID NO SUCH THING! I exercised my First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to WARN of a completely legal lawsuit. That is NOT a threat, and it is TOTALLY within my rights to do. A threat as you mean it is to threaten to physically harm someone with physical violence; but, being that I am COMPLETELY against violence, there is no way I would EVER commit violence against anyone here or anywhere else, let alone threaten it. Thus, you are again being anti-Constitution, or selectively "constitutional", violating my Constitutional rights, and falsely accusing me of something, or of doing something illegal which I have not done, and falsely presuming me guilty of things over and over again; and that makes you a traitor to the Constitution.
Fifth, you people, including Mark P. Kessinger, are so good at taking laws out of context, and of not taking into account the many other laws and legal issues that come into play with regards to the Obama eligibility issue, all while attempting to make it look like your legal and/or other arguments are supposedly a "slam dunk" when they aren't, that there is also no sense in trying to reason with you anymore on this matter, or with either of you on any other issue for that matter.
I do NOT "fail to grasp the complex interplay between the Constitution and duly enacted legal statutes, (and) the hallmarks of a common law system such as ours"; on the contrary, I DO grasp them, far more than you do apparently. My argument DOES hold water legally, but you do NOT grasp THAT either.
Therefore, I rest my case too. Have the last word. Appear to have "won" the argument---I'm not out to "win" anything. Continue to falsely lead people to believe that you're right and I'm "wrong", or to confuse people even more on the issue. Or continue to support peoples' wrong thinking and conclusions on the matter, and to just be hateful and close-minded towards everyone who espouses "Birther" sentiments. In short, just go on being the typical Godless, or nothing but counterfeit-"Christian", nasty, evil "liberals" that you are. I'm not responding to you on the Obama eligibility matter anymore, at least not here.
I am so weirded out by this
Sun, 08/01/2010 - 04:48 — Anonymous (not verified)I am so weirded out by this long birther diatribe. Obama is president get over it. Yes, race is at the core of this. Real scary!
No, "Anonymous -- Sun,
Sun, 08/01/2010 - 11:06 — S. Wolf Britain (not verified)No, "Anonymous -- Sun, 08/01/2010 - 09:48", race is NOT at the core of the Obama eligibility issue. What IS at the core of the issue is whether Obama fulfills the Constitutional requirements to be President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief of the military; and one of the primary problems that people like yourself have with the matter, as well as those others here who do, is that you don't take the Constitution very seriously, or as serious as you ought to. IT IS THE SUPREME LAW OF THIS COUNTRY; so, rhetorically speaking, what is your problem with that?
It is the OBLIGATION AND DUTY of EVERY SINGLE U.S. CITIZEN to follow, obey, uphold, defend and protect its God-given human rights and civil liberties standards and legal requirements, not just those who take oaths of office to do so. But that is another problem, most "Americans" have been intentionally dumbed-down and made relatively if not completely ignorant about the Supreme Law of the Land; and, thus, don't take it very seriously, if at all; so, because Obama happens to be be black, they wrongly assume that the question of his eligibility is supposedly an issue of race.
If is in violation of the Constitution; is a fraud and an usurper; has loyalties that are not entirely to that Constitution and/or to the United States; and is allegedly in charge of this country, its military, and life and death matters, while failing to fulfill the constitutional requirements governing presidential eligibility, it doesn't matter what race he is, he is an extremely serious threat to this country that the Founders sought to prevent through those eligibility requirements. But, very sadly, no matter how well I try to explain this, you probably still won't get it, or its great importance, but will in all probability keep falsely calling it "racist".
There are black Americans highly concerned about this eligibility matter for God's sake! At least one of the plaintiffs in at least one of the court cases regarding the matter is a black American, Alan Keyes, Ph.D.; AND he is a former diplomat of the U.S., and ambassador to the United Nations! Granted, he is a "conservative", so those of you who claim to be "liberals" will automatically and/or arbitrarily hate him as a result, but he has impressive credentials for standing up for this country and its human rights and civil liberties standards and laws to say the least! But, undoubtedly, you will just ignore all of that, and/or try to find anything you can to tear him down.
Do I as someone who is neither so-called "conservative" or so-called "liberal, and neither "Left" or "Right", but is nothing but a True Conservative AND a True Liberal, and a Constitutionalist, agree with all of Alan Keyes' politics? No, I do NOT. But, having looked into this eligibility matter, and because most of the motives, as well as the arguments, concerns and legal precedents behind it, are correct, it goes far beyond partisanship; and, because it concerns exceedingly important Constitutional matters, as well as very important questions regarding Obama's origins, loyalties and true motives, and concerning very strong evidence that he is an extreme danger to this country, I have to fulfill my constitutional duty(ies) and obligation(s) to support it.
CORRECTION(S) [in capital
Sun, 08/01/2010 - 11:24 — S. Wolf Britain (not verified)CORRECTION(S) [in capital letters]:
...If OBAMA is in violation of the Constitution; is a fraud and an usurper; has loyalties that are not entirely to that Constitution and/or to the United States; and is allegedly in charge of this country, its military, and life and death matters, while failing to fulfill the constitutional requirements governing presidential eligibility, it doesn't matter what race he is, he is an extremely serious threat to this country that the Founders sought to prevent through those eligibility requirements. But, very sadly, no matter how well I try to explain this, you probably still won't get it, or its great importance, but will in all probability keep falsely calling it "racist" AND/OR A RACIAL MATTER...
I do stand corrected in not
Sun, 08/01/2010 - 12:21 — Stephen Kennedy (not verified)I do stand corrected in not having given a properly nuanced definition of a "Birther", S. Wolf, although I am fully aware, not because of your lengthy attempts at instructing me, of the differences between a "natural-born" or "native-born" citizen and a "naturalized" citizen, as well as, the ineligibility of a naturalized citizen to be elected President. Nonetheless, for those of you still interested in this circular discussion, the sound you just heard was that of a door slamming shut on a closed mind. If you're not out to have the last word, S. Wolf, why do you keep responding when you claim that responding to people who disagree with your attempts to explain your viewpoint in "reasoned" marathon diatribes is "fruitless"?
I knew you were going to do
Sun, 08/01/2010 - 14:01 — S. Wolf Britain (not verified)I knew you were going to do and/or say something like this, Stephen Kennedy. If nothing else, you are certainly predictable, that's for sure (now, prove me wrong by doing something unpredictable! lol).
I said that I was done discussing the issue with you and Mark P. Kessinger; not that I wouldn't discuss the matter any more at all, or not respond to others' responses, especially ignorant ones like the last one, and your's.
But notice I am no longer "discussing" specifics, or anything for that matter, with you regarding the "Birther" issue. Believe me, unless you are blind, you will see that I am (going to) keep(ing) my word about that.
I am NOT close-minded AT ALL. I just got through reading early articles by John Cory, Glenn Greenwald and Frank Rich, that I was pointed to by Reader Supported News, on the WikiLeaks matter, the Greenwald one, on Salon.com, being quite long, in-depth and eye-opening.
(I can't understand why all three, or even one, of those articles aren't on TruthOut, as they are all excellent, especially Greenwald's and Rich's---hint, hint, TruthOut. Forgive me if they're in the process of being posted.)
Anyway, you keep trying to intimidate me and "catch-me-up" in some "contradictions" that you can use against me, fishing as you are for anything to attempt to discredit and/or intimidate me. Thus, it is me YOU are trying to silence.
Well, it should be obvious to you by now that it WON'T work to intimidate me, and that you can't in any relevant and/or true way(s) discredit me; although, I'm sure you will not stop trying to do so.
So, again, you are talking about yourself with regards to "a door slamming shut on a closed mind". You close-minded, so-called "liberals" always point four fingers back at yourselves while you're pointing one at others.
In fact, almost everything, if not everything, you accuse others of, is EXACTLY, to a 'T', what "liberals" like yourself are guilty of. I've observed it again and again in the attacks I've received here and on other so-called "progressive" forums.
You are a real piece of work, Stephen Kennedy, that's also for sure. The liberal "washing-of-brains", distantly akin to the "conservative" washing-of-brains, certainly hasn't been lost on you. I hope and pray for you that your mind opens before it's too late, if it isn't already to late... much too late.
Btw, Frank Rich, as I just
Sun, 08/01/2010 - 14:28 — S. Wolf Britain (not verified)Btw, Frank Rich, as I just learned in that article of his about the WikiLeaks controversy that I spoke of above, was visited by the FBI 1971 for his very first article as an official journalist, published by Esquire, about Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers. If you thought, or think, such visits of completely innocent Americans were bad back then, they are FAR WORSE, and in far greater numbers, today.
Correction(s) and/or
Sun, 08/01/2010 - 16:15 — S. Wolf Britain (not verified)Correction(s) and/or Addition(s) [mostly in capital letters]:
Btw, Frank Rich, as I just learned in that article of his about the WikiLeaks controversy that I spoke of above, was visited by the FBI in 1971 for his very first article as an official journalist, published by Esquire, about Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers. If you thought, or think, such visits of completely innocent Americans were bad back then, they are FAR WORSE, and in far greater numbers, today. AND IT'S A VERY SHORT STEP FROM THERE TO PRETTY SOON COMING AND TAKING THOSE DISSENTERS (WHICH MOST OF THOSE INNOCENT AMERICANS ARE, AND VERY RIGHTLY ARE CONSIDERING WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON) AWAY AND "DISAPPEARING" THEM INTO "INDEFINITE DETENTION", AND INTO OBLIVION.
Seriously, Wolf . . . take
Wed, 08/04/2010 - 12:51 — Frances in California (not verified)Seriously, Wolf . . . take your meds before you sit down at the computer.
Thank you, at least,
Wed, 08/04/2010 - 17:56 — S. Wolf Britain (not verified)Thank you, at least, Frances, for calling me Wolf; but, otherwise, frack off ignoramus!
Be more specific for once. You hardly ever say anything, certainly very little of any true importance, and usually nothing but ad hominem attacks without proving how and/or why people, especially me, are supposedly wrong. What is it I've said in this thread that supposedly makes me bonkers and in need of psych meds?
The U.S. government is already taking away and indefinitely detaining U.S. citizens, and is assassinating other U.S. citizens abroad. You think it isn't going to come home to roost more and more? In the past they have assassinated activists sleeping in their beds as far back as the 1960s and '70. Doesn't Fred Hampton come to mind? Can you remember that, or have you smoked too much pot until your brains have fallen out like so many people; e.g., Bill Maher?
If it's the "Birther" issue, where's your proof that it's supposedly a "non-issue"? And don't just lob the typical "It's just a GOP tactic", etc., without giving any evidence for why and/or how it supposedly is. You don't take the U.S. Constitution very seriously, like most "Americans" these days, do you?
"ObomberCON" is doing almost identically the same things and worse as what the BushCON(S) did; so what's it going to take for you so-called "progressives" and "liberals" to wake up to the fact that Obama works for the same globalists who are destroying this country, lock-stock-and-barrel; and that, as a result, very soon it won't be a sovereign country at all unless we stop usurpers like "ObomberCON", who is very likely "President" illegally?
Wolf Britain's comments
Thu, 08/05/2010 - 18:18 — Anonymous (not verified)Wolf Britain's comments about smoking pot until your brains fall out like Bill Maher paints the same erroneous picture of pot smokers as many other people who likely have never tried or or needed the drug medically. Go suck down your poisonous alcohol until your liver rots. I have smoked pot for 35 years and without it would have had to have my colon removed due to colitis and other intestinal ailments. I have 2 college degrees and have raised 2 great kids, am a homeowner and have never been arrested or covicted of a crime. If you choose not to smoke that is your decision but it is sad that alcohol is ok and it destroys lives by the millions. Pot is vilified and has never killed anyone(look up the research). I function very well and other than minor side effects, it is safer than most legal prescription drugs. Smoke a joint you damn moron and chill out a bit. As for Obama, like most Republicans lets see your ideas for our crises rather than just condemnation of the man and his background. Show me solutions instead of stonewalling and opposition. Or maybe your 'brain fell out' from too much far right indignation.
Idiot, I am NEITHER
Thu, 08/05/2010 - 19:33 — S. Wolf Britain (not verified)Idiot, I am NEITHER Republican NOR "far right"! And I am NOT against pot smoking, especially medicinal use of it. You jumped to conclusions and made false assumptions.
I am talking about using pot TOO MUCH, as Bill Maher obviously has; because, though he has had MANY people on his HBO show, "Real Time with Bill Maher", who tell it like it is, he at least used to support the Iraq war, is pro-death penalty, and is pro-abortion [unless he's changed his stand on one or more of those fairly recently, as I've heard he's allegedly no longer for the war(s)?].
But, even if Maher is no longer for the Iraq war, he probably (still?) buys the government's official fairly tale as to what happened on 9/11; buys into that al Q'aeda supposedly isn't "al-CIA-duh!" as it most definitely IS; and/or buys into the "War (OF!) Terrorism" allegedly being legitimate as it most definitely is NOT (but is nothing but a fraud to keep endless war going).
As I've said MANY times here, I am a Constitutionalist, though not a member of the Constitution Party, or ANY OTHER political party. I am Truly, Fully and Completely independent.
In addition, I am seriously physically disabled with three immune-compromising diseases (aka "autoimmune diseases"); and, other than the fact that pot doesn't agree with me neurologically, it probably would do me a great deal of good. I have thought about seeking a doctor's prescription and paying for a Medical Marijuana Card in my state where medical marijuana has been legalized, but for the foregoing reason and due the exorbitant cost for the doctor's visit and the card itself, both of which I cannot afford on my very low Social Security Disability and SSI income, I have not done so. Plus, I don't want to become even more of a target of the federal government than I already am as a human and civil rights advocate.