And for the record, we are Constitutionalists, not BIRTHERS! That’s like calling a black person a nigger!
KenyanBornObamAcorn commented
1 hour ago
· Flag
When you talk about biased and unbalanced, this article takes the cake.
You should really do a little research before making a fool of
yourself.
The 14th amendment does NOT grant
citizenship to just anyone. You democrats always forget that pesky
little phrase that says, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, which
means “not awing allegiance to any foreign power” and Obama was born
with allegiance to Britain through his father and Obama as admitted this
himself!
Lyman Trumbull, the man who wrote the citizenship clause in the 14th amendment is “ON RECORD” in the 14th amendment debates defining what his clause meant:
“The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States,
and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means
‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by
‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ NOTOWINGALLEGIANCE TO ANYBODYELSE. That is what it means.”
If you have never watched a minute of The Maury Povich Show, the daytime talk show boils down to one simple sentence: "You are the father!", or "You are not the father!". Almost every day, the people who come on Maury's show are women in a bad relationship, the men who treat their women like shit, live in a trailer park, don't have a job, and cheat around often, and the ugly whores who start fights with the girlfriend and the audience, and claim that the man is really in love with her and is carrying his child. Regardless of the outcome, you can count on a few things happening on that show:
* There will be fights between the girlfriend and the mistress. * Maury will announce whether or not he is the father of said mistress. * The girlfriend will either have enough smarts to break off the relationship and the whore will be with the cheating ex-boyfriend, or she will idiotically stay with his lying ass and beleive that he will change his ways and will never see that home-wrecker ever again. * Everyone on that show will act like the ignorant, ridiculous caricatures we see on The Jerry Springer Show.
By now, you know that billionaire Donald Trump, has been in the news lately and has once again rung the bell on the Birther conspiracy - that Barack Obama was not born in the United States, therefore unqualified to act as President of the United States of America. Conservative figures like Michelle Bachman, Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, and the other right-wing talking heads of the world have, for months, played with, or hinted in interviews, that they believe, or have suspicions, that the Birthers are on to something: that Barack Hussein Obama, is not who he says he is. It had gotten to the point where a poll asking Republican voters whether they believed the current President wasn't born in the United States, almost half of them - 47% of GOP voters to be exact - actually believed that he wasn't an American-born citizen.
Well, after months (and years) of debate, the results of this are in...Barack Obama......you are a natural-born citizen of the United States!!!
The move came as a surprise to the press corps, many of whom had not shown up for Wednesday's early-morning White House briefing. By the time word had spread that Obama would be making a 9:45 a.m. statement on the matter, however, the top anchors at all the networks had scurried into the briefing room.
Once there, they received a presidential scolding for their concern with "silliness." Obama began his five-minute statement with the complaint that he wouldn't be able to get the networks to break into their regularly scheduled programming for a speech on policy proposals.
"I know that there is going to be a segment of people for which no matter what we put out, this issue will not be put to rest," Obama said. "But I am speaking for the vast majority of the American people as well as for the press. We do not have time for this kind of silliness. We have better stuff to do. I have got better stuff to do. We have got big problems to solve."
There you have it: the man was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961 to a white mother and a Kenyan father. Thank you, birthers for wasting two years of our time on this issue and thank you Donald Trump, for lowering the debate and reaching out to the lowest common denominator of people's deep-seeded prejudice in order to position yourself in Iowa in 2012. This whole episode was like a taping of the Maury show: you had a rabid, hot-tempered guest, the once-in-a-while honest and sympathetic figure, and an audience that couldn't believe the nonsense spewing from the batshit and clearly prejudiced guest who dragged this out to begin with.
But at the end of the day, those papers the President decided to show to put to bed the nonsense of his citizenship won't be enough for the Birthers. Case in point: Orly Taitz, the Queen of the Birthers, her exchange with Lawrence O' Donnell, and O' Donnell finally having heard enough of her malicious lies.
President Obama's birth certificate was never the real issue on the table. It was - and continues to be - his skin color. The Birthers cannot except a man of color as their Commander-In-Chief, or the fact many successful African-Americans have made huge strides in contributing to the continuing story of our nation's history. These are the people who are stuck in the Jim Crow-Era and miss the "good ol' days", like a wife misses her husband who's on a business trip cross country. Guys like Trump and Bachman may not be racist, but they are happily catering to the lowest common denominator in our country, which is much worse and more harmful to our society. It's time we moved on from this silly and stupid episode and turn our attention to more important matters, and put people like the Birthers and "The Donald" where they belong: back in the sandbox where they can continue to play pretend.
During the 1950's, as America was under threat of the Red Scare, one elected official rode that wave and used it to shamelessly and carelessly exploit the fears Americans had about communism. His witch-hunt on "suspected" communists destroyed careers and ruined personal lives, and targeted those who had the courage of their convictions to show that the self-appointed emperor wears no clothes.
That man's name was Joseph McCarthy, the Senator from Wisconsin.
Decades later, one Congressman is shamelessly trying to follow in his disgraceful footsteps: Peter King, the chairman of Homeland Security Committee, of New York's 3rd District. Today was the first day of King holding hearings regarding the suspected radicalization of American Muslims, and it began with another Congressman, Keith Ellison of Minnesota's 5th District, recollecting the story of a Muslim-American firefighter who died trying to rescue other people on 9/11.
Not only is this hearing a waste of time, but this piece of political grandstanding by King is an insult to Muslim-Americans everywhere and a deeply cynical ploy used by King to further solidify himself in the eyes of many bigoted and paranoid lock-step members of the far-right as someone who's taking the fight to Al-Qaeda and keeping Americans safe. If you want to know why most Americans give Congress low approval ratings, stunts like the one Peter King pulled, are a shining example why.
The video in which Pollster Frank Luntz asks the audience in De Moines, Iowa if they believe the President of the United States is a Muslim shouldn't surprise anyone who's heard this nonsense before, but listening to some of the responses the small audience give are just astounding.
Of all the comments made during the near-3 1/2 minute clip, the following comment pissed me off the most:
"I think he believes that America is at fault for all the world's problems. I think he doesn't see the good that America has done in the world."
What utter BS!!! Obama has, many times, referred to his background, being born to a white mother and a black father from Kenya, how his mother and white grandparents raised him, and how his rise in the modern political landscape and said that nowhere else on earth is his story possible but in America. In almost every major speech, Obama has referred to America's defining moments - from beating Nazi Germany and the Empire of Japan and emerging as the world's superpower, to Dr. King and the Civil Right Movement and the moon landing in '69, after JFK challenged the nation to put a man on the moon in a decade's time. How in the hell do you get off saying some incredible crap like that!?
And let's cut the "he's a Muslim", and "he sympathizes with Islam" catch-phrases, and get right down to the heart of the matter: you don't like the President because he's not the right skin color. Words like "Muslim sympathizer", "socialist" etc., are just code words for what these ignorant men and women really want to say aloud: I'm not comfortable with that n****r in the White House.
There's been a lot of news lately about one individual's plans to publish a version of Mark Twain's classic The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn with strategic edits throughout to the "n-word" so prevalent in its pages.
I grant you that the n-word is offensive in the extreme in modern usage. I also understand the sensitivity around teaching this work anywhere in the K-12 curriculum as a consequence of that offensiveness.
But, surely, the answer is not to simply remove anything offensive from any work of literature! (And certainly not to make a terminology substitution that turns many passages into gobbledygook.)
Herewith, some of my arguments for the position that doing this is a bad idea:
Respect for the literary canon and for the integrity of the author. Works get elevated to the level of "classics" for a reason. They exhibit enduring value for their themes, the splendor of their language, or their status as an accurate portrait/reflection of the times in which they were created. To mess with that is to tamper in a very nonconstructive way with the fabric of global history and culture. Spenser's The Faerie Queene arguably loses much if not all of its value if you rewrite it in modern English and publish it under his name as a valid edition of the original. Would we re-write Faulkner for his use of the n-word? Strip Shakespeare of its iambic pentameter because that's "not how people talk nowadays"? Re-imagine Romeo and Juliet, say, as West Side Story or any number of modern-dress stagings, sure. But don't edit out one of the core themes of the story and still call it by its original name.
Respect for the student. Learning is supposed to be about preconceptions being challenged, and new viewpoints explored. Bowdlerize these literary texts and you're basically saying to the reader, I want your horizons restricted, your opportunities to confront important issues sidelined. It's a diet of skim milk and saltines for you: nothing meatier need apply.
Latitude for the teacher. As a former English teacher myself, I don't know of any of my colleagues who would approach Twain's use of the n-word as anything but a teachable opportunity; a chance to engage his or her students in the dialogue about what the novel's impact at the time of publication would have been on what was, on the whole, an overtly and prevalently racist society. It's the height of irony to me that when Huck was published, the outcry against it was because it dared depict a black man as, wow, human; and that today's outcry is reduced to a derelict piece of terminology.
Artistic honesty. An artist's creation deserves to stand as the artist ultimately left it to us. Changes after the fact are, I think, impertinent and an act of high hubris. Are we going to go and re-erect new monoliths at Stonehenge just because we think we've worked out how it "must" have looked, and some stones have fallen down over the centuries? Paint ancient Greek statues in the colors they were originally adorned with, even though they've come down to us as pristine marble? Give the Sphinx back its nose? Don't second-guess the artist and the verdict of time. Let it stand.
Finally...where does it stop? If you re-write Huck - and even though it may seem on the surface an innocuous edit, it truly does amount to a re-write - then where does the march of literary correctness end? Do we eliminate all references in The Merchant of Venice to Shylock's Judaism? The notion of revolution offends some people, so maybe we should excise the guillotine from A Tale of Two Cities, or change the plot of Les Miserables? And don't get me started on what we might do with Lolita, or Fahrenheit 451, or The Handmaid's Tale.
I guess it goes back to one of my core principles, which is that our allowing one another the mutual courtesy of free speech and free expression of our beliefs does not give you - or me - the inherent right never to be confronted with something that might offend. The wonderful, beautiful peril of freedom of speech is that, around every corner, something someone might say will challenge me, make me think, piss me off, or push me out of my comfort zone. Reducing that to the mere forms of political correctness seems to me a sad diminution of the human condition.
I hope that the widespread derision this guy's plan is meeting with comes to cancellation. Because I truly think that publication of this sanitized version of Huck would open the floodgates for a whole host of literary works long in the public domain being excised of all their thematic value, reduced to tidy, "safe" objects of study, for no doubt any number of Texas school districts whose graduates believe that humans once rode dinosaurs. Thinking students, teachers, parents, and societies deserve far better than that. And publishers should be mindful of the responsibility they have to the latter audience, rather than to the profit margin dangled by the former.
Please share your comments. I'm interested to hear what everyone thinks about this issue, which I see through a lens that admittedly views the text as primary and untouchable.
Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour says he doesn’t remember the Civil Rights era being “that bad,” citing his attendance at a Martin Luther King Jr. rally nearly 50 years ago.
“I just don’t remember it as being that bad,” Barbour (R), 63, told the conservative Weekly Standard, which did a lengthy profile on the governor. “I remember Martin Luther King came to town, in ’62. He spoke out at the old fairground and it was full of people, black and white.” [...]
Barbour said they wanted to hear King speak, but he could not recall what the reverend said.
“I don’t really remember. The truth is, we couldn’t hear very well. We were sort of out there on the periphery,” he said. “We just sat on our cars, watching the girls, talking, doing what boys do.
“We paid more attention to the girls than to King,” he added.
Thank you to the fine people at Political Carnival.
What a waste of time this website is - nothing but a bunch of Jews, blacks, commies and queers all patting each other on the back about how brilliant they are in fighting the evil Fox network and the evil Bush administration. You people are less significant than a fly on a turd. I regret the time I wasted reading this crap. I'm finished | 06.24.06 - 9:53 pm | #
BTW Our old friend Ranger Bob was outraged by this post and told 'I'm finished" off No actually Ranger Bob agreed with it.
Oh, but one last thing,,,when obama gets on a bus does his white side want to sit in the front of the bus, while he demands his black side to sit in the back....Must be an incredible conflict of rage going on inside of him everyday....I'll bet you this, I bet his black side is always stealing money from the pocket of his white side.
A blogger named "The Old Man" begins his tirade with this headline: Get That Worthless N****r Out Of The White House. Yes, it's going to be one of those wildly racist rants highlited on Banned and Dangerous, but you can read the whole tirade on your own. I'm not going to post any of his racist bullshit on here because i'd be giving this jackass more attention than he's already getting.
E.J. Dionne's latest at truthdig.com gets it absolutely right. Go there and read the whole thing, but here are some nibbles to whet your appetite:
The smearing of Shirley Sherrod ought to be a turning point in American politics. This is not, as the now trivialized phrase has it, a “teachable moment.” It is a time for action.
The mainstream media and the Obama administration alike must stop cowering before a right wing that has persistently forced its own propaganda to be accepted as news by persuading traditional journalists that “fairness” requires treating extremist rants as “one side of the story.”
...
The traditional media are so petrified of being called “liberal” that they are prepared to allow the Breitbarts of the world to become their assignment editors. Mainstream journalists regularly criticize themselves for not jumping fast enough or high enough when the Fox crowd demands coverage of one of their attack lines.
...
If Obama hates the current media climate, he should stop overreacting to it. And the mainstream media should stop being afraid of insisting upon the difference between news and propaganda.
Iowa Tea Party leaders now say they disagree with the use of the pictures, but not the Obama-is-Hitler message. North Iowa Tea Party co-founder Bob Johnson stated that while the “the pictures might be overwhelming,” the sign “highlights” the right message. Iowa state Tea Party coordinator John White agrees that while the “sign goes” where “the Tea Party doesn’t want to be”, “everything Obama has done is ‘lock-step’ with what Hitler did in his day.”
Until President Obama transforms the military into millions of brown-shirts, chanting "Zeig Heil!" down Times Square, invades a sovereign nation so the "master race" can expand across the globe, starts another World War, and murders another couple million Jews, Slavs, Poles, homosexuals, handicapped, and prisoners of war, then you can throw around the Hitler reference as you damn-well please. Finally, let's be honest with ourselves here: Just come right out and say what you really want to say -- you don't like that nigger in the White House and you want to throw his black ass out because he's not the right skin color.
You can see the the ungodly thing behind olsteeen's eyes. He has an enemy critter in him. He is keeping people out of the Kindom by the thousands. There is no belief, no repentance from transgressing Gods laws (sin), and no Baptism for the remission of sin in the name of Jesus Christ. Acts 2:38, aka the blood of Christ, even mentioned like most "judeo-xtian" churches. They like the idea of an efiminent Jesus, but they don't follow Jesus at all. They don't obey his commandments "Laws" or feed his sheep. Homosexuals and interracial fornication is sin and in open rebellion to Gods original plan. There is a war against God's plan, and there are pure enemies of God in government powers around the world. Get ready. Time is short. Come quickly Christ.
July 7, 2010 2:23 PM
Since this comment was left on a Jeremiah thread the question is was it left by Jerry or one of his minions?
Maybe but a better idea would be to adopt a dog that is blind so it doesn't have to look at Michelle everyday, that should be classified as cruelty to animals.
a blind dog would be very fortunate not to have to look at MO or BO.
sure why not they are already taking out the rose garden and putting in a watermelon patch, changing the presidential seal from an eagle to a chicken, and no more turkey on thanksgiving now were having fried chicken.
For all the talk about the GOP being a big tent party that welcomes all, that they aren't a bunch of aging, old white guys using tricks that play like they came right out of Nixon's Southern Strategy, ads like the one run by Dale Peterson, all point to the contrary.
Now, towards the end of the ad, Mr. Perterson catches a man with dirty clothing, wearing a worn-out cap, and dark skinned, and promptly does what any good southerner would do: scare the guy off by firing his gun!
Do I even need to pint out what Peterson was inadvertently saying during that last part?
Buoyed by recent public opinion polls suggesting they're on the right track with illegal immigration, Arizona Republicans will likely introduce legislation this fall that would deny birth certificates to children born in Arizona — and thus American citizens according to the U.S. Constitution — to parents who are not legal U.S. citizens.
But the likely new bill is for the kids. While SB1070 essentially requires of-age migrants to have the proper citizenship paperwork, the potential "anchor baby" bill blocks the next generation from ever being able to obtain it. The idea is to make the citizenship process so difficult that illegal immigrants pull up the anchor and leave.
The 14 Amendment state the following on being born in the United States: " All persons, born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." Apparently, the 14th Amendment doesn't mean shit to him.
Today, Pearce says, the 14th Amendment has been "hijacked" by illegal immigrants. "They use it as a wedge," he says. "This is an orchestrated effort by them to come here and have children to gain access to the great welfare state we've created." Pearce says he is aware of the constitutional issues involved with the bill and vows to introduce it nevertheless. "We will write it right."
I don't know what's more appauling: How Arizona lawmakers are adding more fuel to the contriversey, or that the Republicans are more and more confortable of exposing thier ugly, hateful side in this shameful episode.
Stupid really is as stupid does – now we’ll get to see if California has an ounce of sense left in it.
Europeans had the Sistine chapel in the 1400’s and Michael Angelo painted it in the 1500’s, built the tower of Pisa, aqueducts, the Romans built huge architectural wonders that still stand today.
The central Americans,, Africans, and native indians, lived in thatched – mud huts and had tribal communities until the mid 1800’s.
America was built on European independence, skill, Christianity, and freedom. As we bring in more and more third world tribal people we will become more like them, 3 rd world hell hole murderous societies, who want to be governed from cradle to grave by a tribal oligarchy not a constitutional republic.
We wont stand for long once we reach the tipping point….welcome to the new America/haiti/mexico…..run by islamists…
Instead of going after this moron, I pity him and his ilk that share similar beleifs. In the past years, African Americans, Latinos, women, etc. have been making strides and broken barriers that were once thought to be a fool's dream. People like neocon1/fmr. marine -- who probably grew up during an era when white superiority still lingered with "Separate but Equal" -- can't take the fact that the Jim Crow era has sailed and that their prejudices, customs and beliefs are outdated. To quote Bob Dylan: "How does it feel? To be without a home / with no direction home? Like a complete unknown / Like a rolling stone?"
Arizona's new immigration bill allows the cops to profile anyone who maybe considered "an illegal immigrant." At the same time, it makes certain people -- think "them brown-skinned, taco eatin' folk" -- produce their immigration papers to prove that they are legal citizens.
The new measure would be the latest crackdown in Arizona, which has an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants and is the nation's busiest border crossing point.
Arizona enacted a law in 2005 making human smuggling a state crime and prohibited employers from knowingly hiring illegal immigrants with a law in 2007.
The latest bill would make it a state crime for illegal immigrants to not have an alien registration document. It also would require police to question people about their immigration status if there's reason to suspect they're in the country illegally.
Other provisions allow citizen lawsuits against government agencies that hinder enforcement of immigration laws, and make it illegal for people to hire illegal immigrants for day labor or knowingly transport them.
Adding insult to injury, Arizona's House of Representatives approved of the birther bill, in which the potential candidates running for office have give out their birth certificate in order to be on the ballot in the state.
I should be outraged over the right's attempt to make themselves out to be the Party of reactionary, outdated bigots, but then again, Sasha Baron Cohen sang a satrical song about killing the Jews, with Arizona rednecks singign and clapping along with Cohen's infamous Borat.
using urself as a source is the diff bet a blogger & a journalist.
cluster says: April 19, 2010 at 8:01 am
And using proper English is the difference between a conservative and a stupid black man.
A big round of applause for cluster, for being a jackass with a keyboard, and Mark Noonan for allowing this nasty, racially insensative comment to stand! But, of course he continues to preach that its the liberals who are the mean-spirited, immature, hateful lot.
WHY BLACKS HATE THE US CONSTITUTION? read on The Founders were all White, Brilliant and smart. They created a Constitution for the White Children of Adam. There were no black founders. Our Founders considered Blacks beasts of burden. If they had intended to include blacks they would have included blacks at the Constitutional Convention. In fact, they declared blacks as sub-human in the Constitution itself.
The US Constitution says Blacks are only 2/5 human. The Founders knew long ago that Blacks are Sub- Human apes..I say nothing. The US Constitution does. Questions: Are we trying to make Humans out of Apes? Why do we allow them a Black Caucus? Why are they in Congress or in Higher Offices? Why are they in Law Enforcement? Why are we allow they to have Black History Month? Why are we allowing them to get away with Affirmative Action? AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AFFIRMS BLACKS ARE 100% INFERIOR TO WHITES INTELLECTUALLY. THEIR RIDE ENDS NOW!!!
Late Edit by Jonathan: This idiot also realizes that whites that were not well-educated and did not own land also joined slaves and women as people who could not vote, or were lower on the ladder in the eyes of the Founding Fathers in the early years of the United States, right? He also realizes that, along with slaves and women, the people barred from attending the Constituitonal Convention were significant portions of his own race - i.e. poorly educated, non land-owning whites - the Founding Fathers supposedly made for their caucasion brethern. Only those who were rich, owned slaves, had land, and were highly educated attended. You know, the same people who wrote the freaking document! By his rhetoric, me, ET, the Count, and this idiot would all be in the same boat: no represntation of any sort. And lets not forget that in the year 2010, whites are still the majority ethnicity group in the U.S. Somehow, its us "sub-human apes" that are taking everything away from Whitey.
News flash, white boy: you're not losing shit, so shut the fuck up!
Pat Buchanan is the posterboy for ignorant, Southern, racist white men who secretly pine for the Jim Crow days like a heroin junkie craves his next fix. They see people like Sonia Sotamayor and Barack Obama making important strides and breaking barriers that were once thought nearly impossible to bypass, and naturally, guys like Buchanan are freaked that the lever of power they've enjoyed since the birth of our nation is starting to be pried away from their hand. Here's Rachel Maddow exposing Buchanan as the old-school bigot that we all know Uncle Pat is.
KenyanBornObamAcorn commented
1 hour ago
· Flag
