Ksren Said:
9:58 am

Hmmm . . .I simply must take issue with you view that the so-called “birthers” are all paranoid crazies. It’s simply not true.

When Maj. Hassan slaughtered US Army soldiers @ Ft. Hood, I recall an FBI Agent (probably on Fox) say that: “you know who a person is by his/her life history, associations & affiliations.” Right.

Problem is that we do know who Obama is by his life history, associations and affiliations too. The pattern of Obama’s life history — from cradle to present — is dominated by actual Communists (FMDavis and others), Black LIberation Revolutionaries (J. Wright) and a problematic number of militant America-hating Islamic radicals. There’s simply no evidence of transformation and rejection of marxist ideology — literally — at any point in his life except when he’s stumping on the campaign trail.

“Guilt by association” is considered wrong, or perhaps simple-minded but in reality, one of the important ways we can understand the true mind/views/ideology of a person.

Re: the “birther” issue — well, in reality, it’s irrelevant where Obama was born. He could have been born in the Soviet Union (in 1961) and he’d still be a US Citizen (via the 14th Amendment) b/c his mother was a US Citizen.

The legal/constitutional question is whether Obama — with one US Citizen parent and one FOREIGN NATIONAL parent — is also, constitutionally/legally a “NATURAL born citizen [NBC] of the US” which he must be, per Article II of the US Constitution, in order to BE the POTUS and C-in-C.

Only a handful of SCOTUS cases exist that deal address the definition of NBC. . .and ALL acknowledge that only one definition of NBC exists in US Law currently: born on US soil/territory to US citizen parentS, meaning both parents.

FACT: Obama is the FIRST US President, born after 1787, who had only one US Citizen parent. In effect, Obama has just CHANGED the only recognized definition of NBC in Article II of the Constitution by, essentially, violating it/challenging it.

One can obtain US Citizenship via a couple/few processes: 14th Amendment “naturalization” and “citizen-at-birth”, statute and “naturally” (NBC).

My understanding is that Obama is a “citizen-at-birth” b/c his mother was a US citizen and he was born on US soil. He would still be a “citizen-at-birth” if he were born in the USSR or Kenya or Afghanistan or Iraq so long as ONE parent is a US Citizen OR Obama would be a “citizen-at-birth” if BOTH of his parents were foreign nationals but he was born on US soil.

The Article II requirement that the POTUS must be a NBC — and that is the ONLY use of NBC in US Law: eligibility of the POTUS/VP — was not affected by the 14th Amendment and cannot be affected by any statute.

The Constitution, itself, can only be changed via a Constitutional Amendment. So far, there has been no Amendment (ratified by the states).

Thus, to date, no such Amendment exists and no SCOTUS case law exists that EXTENDS the only known and recognized definition of NBC to include “born on US soil/territory to at least one US citizen parent.” And, SCOTUS has specifically ruled: “that all definitions of NBC other than “born on US soil to US Citizen Parent(S)is speculative.”

So, in 2008, a new precedent was created in which Article II of the US Constitution was CHANGED with no Amendment and no ruling by SCOTUS re: whether a NBC is a US Citizen with only one US citizen parent instead of two.

Obama changed Article II and by so doing he, personally, has opened Pandora’s Box to the question of WHO can hold that singularly most powerful position in the Executive Branch of the US Govt and WHO can be, legally, the Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful military force ever to exist on the planet.

Oh yah, this IS a dreadfully serious matter. I consider those who dismiss, outright, all questions concerning Obama’s constitutional/legal eligibility to BE the POTUS to be intellectually and shamefully careless.

In 2008, Article II of the US Constitution was rendered UNENFORCEABLE.

And, incidentally, Black Liberation Theology is what J. Wright admits to preaching. Well, Liberation Theology IS marxism. So, Wright’s church would not have been a ideological conflict for Obama. 20 years absorbing the truly anti-American, racist “hate-speech” of J. Wright . . .and the American people had no problem with that? Wow.

What if McCain had chosen to be a member of Dobson’s or Robertson’s church for 20 years, would that have been okay with you, Rick? It wouldn’t have been okay with me. If McCain — or ANY R Potus candidate– had chosen to sit in Dobson’s or Robertson’s church for 20 years, he would have been UN-electable.

Perhaps sir you just don’t comprehend the full breath of what occurred in the USA during the 2008 election cycle. I have no doubt that it will take historians generations to understand and reconcile both the 2008 election and the deeds and intentions of this current Administration.

I would just point out that from a war-fighting pov, CJ is right. The insane mix of anti-islam, pro-Israel and “conservatism” (wich is in fact extreme radicalism) is a major force in the West today. See the Swiss ban of minarets recently, wich is followed by a initiative to ban jewish cemetaries. These are the folks that Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer hang out with, and wich Pajamas Media and others of the far right anti-muslim force support. Osama bin Ladens expressed war-aim is to start a war between the west and the umma, or islamic world. Blogs like Gates of Vienna could be sponsored by Al Quaeda. Because it serves the enemy.

Just saying.

I was removed, and I haven’t the foggiest as to why, because I was removed sometime in a four week span when I had not commented at LGF.

Big Brother Charles Johnson is always watching for apostates from the Church of Charles Johnson.

To claim the GOP is open-minded would be to claim they have minds they actually use. Unfortunately, that’s becoming an oxymoron, as you so ably demonstrate for us.

–Dave

Consider nonsense by Dave Ricky:

In essence, the GOP has already left you, as they left me, as they have step by step left everyone to the right of Pat Robertson. They don’t want moderates, they don’t want anyone that tells them they *need* moderates, and their answer to every reversal or success is going to be the same: More purity, less compromise. How long you’ll pine for what the GOP used to be before admitting it is the only question.

My guess is that Dave knows no Republicans - that he lives in an echo-chamber of progressives who spend their days concocting caricatures of their political opponents. He eagerly embraces this partisan perspective of Republicans because that’s what he wants to believe - and that’s OK - but my sense is that he has no idea how simplistic he sounds. Has he forgotten that the Republican party was represented by a “maverick” moderate in the last presidential election? McCain got more conservative voters as a percentage than Reagan did! This meme that the Republican party is close minded is a progressive slander inspired more by political calculation than fact.

Too often people spend their time attacking the motivations of others they know nothing about. To criticize Obama is to hear again how racist one is. To wonder aloud about man-made global warming is to be anti-science. To oppose same-sex marriage is the hate gays. There’s too much of this kind of rhetorical ignorance, and it poisons conversation between ideological opponents. It’s a big reason why I no longer visit LGF. Hatred of the religious and the trivializing of mass murdering movements so one can slander people you disagree with is ugly and revealing. Charles Johnson has given in to the paranoia he rails against, and that’s a big loss for all of us that enjoy the debate on big issues.

In trying to capture the difference in a word or two, scientific explanation gives great mental satisfaction that a lot of physical loose ends or mysteries have been knitted together or solved, however temporarily, while religious inspiration fills the heart and mind with the pleasures of love that seem to be permanenty “there” for the taking.

Both phenomena should be appreciated to the fullest in one’s life, I believe.

But personally, I find it all very tedious.

As for Johnson’s other criticisms, I’ve been in agreement with you for a long time that the loonies are too prominent and have been allowed to become too powerful. But I’m also in agreement with you, and in disagreement with some of the other voices here, that the solution is not to leave but to let the cycle play itself out and after the upcoming disaster in 2012, start putting together a party that makes more sense and offers better ideas and good policies.