I’m trying out a new feature here at Obama Conspiracy Theories: a Quote of the day. There are just so many interesting things that come and go on this blog. This is an attempt to keep them from getting lost. There is no guarantee that the quote will change every day 😉
The QOTD is in the right sidebar.
Interesting QOTD – by the chancellor’s standards, Anwar al-Awlaki would be considered a natural born citizen and would therefore be eligible to be POTUS.
As I have said before – It’s not about Obama (as much as that will hurt the racist theory) – it’s about who comes after – who, by Obama’s precedence, will be allowed to hold the most powerful office in the world.
Actually, as long as Anwar al-Awlaki hasn’t given up his citizenship, then yes, he is a Natural Born Citizen, and therefore eligible for the Presidency…
Now, there’s a few other requirements (which he doesn’t have) before he can be President…
1. Live in the United States for 14 years.
2. Get a majority of the Electoral College to vote for him.
It is probably #2 that he’d have a problem with. That’s where you and I diverge. You believe that the voters are stupid, so they need to be protected. I believe that the voters are capable of voting for who they want in the Presidency, as long as that person meets the most basic requirements for the Presidency.
You are correct that there is no Constitutional bar to a-Awlaki becoming President. But just because someone meets this requirement does not mean that they would meet all requirements. There is the little thing called an election. Assuming that you are a NBC do you really think that you have a chance?
sure scott brown sure, after all Obama is 50% white or is that part of your racist theory?
Well, you’re right. It’s not just about Obama. It’s about the color of one’s skin and the bigoted belief that non-whites are not real citizens and can’t possibly be trusted — and you’ve just affirmed the racist theory beautifully. Thank you!
If Timothy McVeigh can be President, then anyone born within the US borders can too. If it up to electorate to decide.
hey Lupin, it appears you recognize closet racists quite easily, 50% of closet racists think they can hide it, 100% really can’t hide it.
Rand Paul and Derek Black can become president, too.
Are they more acceptable?
Dr. C, besides the quote of the day, consider a “birther paypal” button. Each of the OMG moments that get the birthers excited were all designed to illicit paypal responses. To make our birther friends feel at home maybe you should also include a paypal button on the sidebar (for birthers only). That should make them feel right at home. We know who the scammers are(WND et all), the birthers are the scammees (the marks).
I guess you’re saying that you have grave concerns about the kind of people who are elected by a majority of Americans. I have at times had those concerns as well, though the worst in my lifetime has been George W. Bush, who managed to do as much damage as he did in spite of being every bit as much Constitutionally eligible as Obama.
I have difficulty at times following the racist/non-racist debate, but I will weigh in with my opinion: it is clear that some birthers are entirely motivated by racism, and it is just as clear that some are not, and for most it is not clear one way or the other. As a prominent example of the non-racist type, I would give Orly Taitz. I have spent way too much time reading her blog, and I conclude that her birtherism is powered by her powerful loathing of Muslims, and the fact that she sees some connection between the President and Muslims that she has never managed to articulate.
By the way, over at Redstate there is an amusing story asserting that Senator Scott Brown voted for the President’s financial regulation bill because Organizing for America asked him to. Do you suppose Sen. Brown is in the habit of doing what OfA asks?
“Orly Taitz…I conclude that her birtherism is powered by her powerful loathing of Muslims, and the fact that she sees some connection between the President and Muslims ”
Orly and Phil Berg are doing this because they feel Obama is bad for Israel. Orly is an Islamophobe.
Chancellor Sandford did a far reaching legal and historical survey before reaching his conclusion. It was not just the “chancellor’s standards” but the founders’ standards and the universal standard of the people of his day.
But you seem to be arguing that if an interpretation of the Constitution allows some odious person to be to be president then that interpretation is wrong, and this is ridiculous.
Let’s assume for a moment that your view, that the Constitution requires presidents to be born in the United States of two Citizen parents, is correct. Your interpretation allows Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma city terrorist bomber to be eligible to be president. It allows the majority of rapists and murderers in prison to be eligible to be president. It allows the criminally insane to be eligible to be president. Your interpretation does a pretty poor job of screening out most of the people that I think we could get near universal agreement that they are unfit. Trying to interpret the Constitution just to make a couple of people (Obama and Anwar al-Awlaki) ineligible is like trying to kill an ant with a hydrogen bomb.
Wong Kim Ark qualified to be the President of the USA…He is before Mr Obama!
There was an interesting write up I floated past a week or so ago. Will try and dig it up.
The tenor was that whilst Orly is best known (as for example on this site) for her general insanity of Birferism that is in no way the only or greatest of her postulates
She is also a big and loud screamer on FEMA death camps and the secret death trains all kitted out with manacles and exhaust in no exhaust out. Obama has a real secret army of “brown shirts” hidden in funding for the heatj care bill, never mind she truly believes in “Death Panels” etc etc.
She not a simple one trick pony, she’s a full blown, fully rounded nut……
(emphasis mine).
What, exactly, is Obama’s “precedence”? I find the use of that word odd. I can’t see that he’s done anything different than any other president. If you think he has, could you explain what he’s done?
What is it about Obama that you find to be precedent-setting?
If I had any say in the matter, the next president would be of Arab origin and a Muslim. It would be nice to go through 8 years of people like you having a hissy fit about it.
I almost asked the same thing but it isn’t really relevant. The word precedence can mean something other than I first connected with – like Obama has set a precedent through legal challenges which is certainly not the case here.
I’ve always seen Taitz as an attention grabber and opportunist. If her mind is actually ordered in a manner that forces her to see conspiracy behind every corner, it would tend to absolve her just a little bit (in my mind, anyway). It would imply that she inhabits a separate reality from most of the rest of us and is doing all this because its what she really believes to be true and right.
It would seem that most people spend their lives either as Alice or the Queen:
`I can’t believe that!’ said Alice.
Can’t you?’ the Queen said in a pitying tone. `Try again: draw a long breath, and shut your eyes.’
Alice laughed. `There’s no use trying,’ she said `one can’t believe impossible things.’
`I daresay you haven’t had much practice,’ said the Queen. `When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.’
If he did that, rich, Dr. C would have to at least post something that the birthers could agree with and look like he’s trying to remove Obama from office. That’s what brings in the birther bucks.
Kind of boggles your mind when people bring that out in all of the arguments. It’s almost as if they’re denying that all African Americans have any white blood.
I hereby assure all who read this that I am 100% eligible to play major league baseball. Not a single rule of baseball disqualifies me in any way. Will you be seeing me substituting for Derek Jeter against the Mets tonight? I’m afraid not. Why? I’m over 50, can’t hit, can’t field and can’t throw. al-Awlaki or Charles Manson or Bernie Madoff, who are all eligible to be President have no more chance of achieving that office than I do of playing shortstop for the Yankees.
Scott Brown:
You write, “As I have said before – It’s not about Obama (as much as that will hurt the racist theory) – it’s about who comes after – who, by Obama’s precedence, will be allowed to hold the most powerful office in the world.” Although I know it’s not in your habit to respond to questions about your postings, I hope you take the time to answer a couple of mine.
I get the impression that when you say, “it’s about who . . . will be allowed to hold the most powerful office in the world” you’re concerned about the threat Obama posses as a person (as opposed to policies he endorses). Is that correct?
Second, if you believe Obama’s presidency has set an unfortunate precedent, could you describe what that precedent is? Also could you describe the kind of presidential candidate that you feel now has the chance to become president who could not have become president before Obama’s election?
Finally, if you believe that the facts of Obama’s birth mean that his loyalties are not to the people and institutions of the United States, where or in whom do you believe his loyalties have been given? Do you have objective evidence, (that is, evidence from news or information sources that use critical editorial or peer review) to support your belief?
Thanks!
Scott Brown,
As it seems only one person (dunstvangeet) is the one to actually discuss the topic objectively, I will submit this in response and to d. as well.
dunstvangeet, you make a valid point. What about those other requirements? Here is an article that details the background of “La Raza.”
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=13863
Is this an exaggeration? Is it possible that one group could garner enough power to, through the next generation, win elections throughout the country, particularly if there is some kind of blanket amnesty granted? I don’t sit around wringing my hands over it, but present the issue for further discussion. It is O/T and I am not sure if Doc C wants to consider veering astray from his mission here.
Presently, I live in a part of the country that where there are not large number of Hispanics, but my past experience with Hispanic people have been positive. They were primarily Cubans, but also Mexicans. I did not live in the Southwest but the Southeast. My experience likely varies from someone with property along the Arizona border.
This is my vote for the next “quote of the day”
I second that.
Charo, yes it is possible, and it happens every day in our country.
Do you believe that a pro-choice Republican can win the Republican Nomination for President? Do you believe that an pro-gun control Republican can win the Republican Nomination? Why can’t they? Because groups such as the Pro-Life lobby, and the NRA has gone completely the other way and made it impossible for those people to win, because of their political strength. This happens time and time again in our country.
And if you want to talk about it, take a look at AIPAC, and see how strong they are. I’ve yet to see a Presidential Candinate take them on, and survive.
Is that not what the religious right and others are trying? To form a coherent voting block? Do you believe our democracy would be unable to handle such a situation? I fail to see why this is a particular concern about hispanics? Personally I am more concerned about religious fundamentalists than about people with a rich culture and history and who have contributed significantly to building this country in the last few decades or so.
And Charo, take a look. Throughout the country, one group has had the power to win elections across the country. They, until recently, even blatently said that they were superior to every other group and deserved to be elected.
There were areas in the south that not only was the Ku Klux Klan powerful enough to get people elected, but if you did not have their endorsement, you were dead politically.
Or, let’s take that a step further, and address another group in this country: Christians.
When, exactly, have we had a non-Christian President? Would you vote for an atheist? I know many Christians that say that they wouldn’t. Christians are a group that have decided elections in the past.
This is not about one group coming in and changing it. It’s more about one group (White Anglo-Saxon Prostantents) seeing themselves as losing power in a Democracy, and wanting to change it.
So you want to present a completely one-sided screed and then tell us you are fair-minded? Hispanics coming to the US, whether legally or illegally are not coming to turn the US into Mexico. If that were their goal, why bother? They are coming to escape the problems in Mexico, the worst of which right now is the terrorism of the drug lords. Unfortunately, the US bears a share of blame for the rise of the drug lords, both through the appetite for drugs and the foolish “war on drugs” of the last few decades that has brought musery on both sides of the border. We need new solutions, including the decriminalization of drugs.
The mentality of trying to make a large attack on a smaller, specific problem is what has been wrong with many of the reactions to immigration, terrorism and even the birther lawsuits. The bunch the “enemy” into one large monolith and then attack that with larger and larger pushes. Yet, it rarely solves the issue and often has consequences for many.
Immigration: Many the concerns you hear about immigration is the crime and drug traffic among others. Yet, most responses have been to stop all immigration, build a bigger fence, etc. Instead, they should focus on the specific problems and attack those specific issues first (such as Mexican gang issues – and our local gangs who do business with them).
Terrorism: The enemy should never be thought of as all of Islam. The number one enemy should be the one who attacked us, Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. We even lump together Islamic groups who have a tendency to be on opposite sides (Sunni/Shia, Hezbollah/Hamas, Persian/Arab, etc.). The real battle would be in denying Al-Qaeda their greatest resource, manpower, by reducing their reason to listen to and follow the extremists.
Birther Cases: Though they would still not succeed, almost every one of the cases have included everything but the kitchen sink. They never focus on a specific issue and work on that.
Maybe a review of Sun Tzu might be in order for them.
“So you want to present a completely one-sided screed and then tell us you are fair-minded?”
I believe I presented a question, not an opinion.
Typically when I see an article titled “The Truth about X” it is an article which presents a view which is not generally accepted. It is the hallmark of crank articles (although not every article so titled is crank.) The one cited above looks like a pure propaganda piece, very much akin to the smears against Barack Obama that we deal with here.
So in answer to your question “Is this an exaggeration?” I would reply that it is worse than an exaggeration.
“when I see an article titled “The Truth about X” it is an article which presents a view which is not generally accepted. It is the hallmark of crank articles ”
правда