Sunday, August 07, 2016

The National Review agrees with Obama

Here.  In other news, hell freezes over.

13 comments:

William Brown said...

What a ghastly election cycle, when I find myself in agreement with Hillary and Obama over the "Republican" candidate. Yeah, those are quotes, because the word has changed drastically over the past 6 months.

Ilíon said...

Trump is unfit for office? This coming from the Obamination ... who isn't even a natural born citizen, much less a lover of America?

Look, I cede no ground to anyone in my despite of Trump. But having Obama and that rag (*) NR call him unfit is more likely to make me think slightly better of him than worse.


(*) Some years ago, the decided they'd rather be invited to the leftist's tony parties than effectively oppose leftism.

Joe Hinman said...

Trump is unfit for office? This coming from the Obamination ... who isn't even a natural born citizen, much less a lover of America?

we the people of earth have a concept folks on your planet might care to hear, it's called "facts." It is a proven fact Obama was born in the US it's just plain stupid and malicious for you aliens to keep coming down to our planet to say this. let me know if you re interested. I'll tel you more abouit this notion of facts. but back last fall weren't you one of those telling us Trump was no good? Back in our first big acrimonious squabble?



Look, I cede no ground to anyone in my despite of Trump. But having Obama and that rag (*) NR call him unfit is more likely to make me think slightly better of him than worse.

read between the lines

Ilíon said...

This post isn't addressed to the self-satisfied fool above -- that would be an irrational waste of time.

=====
Whether or not Obama was born in the US -- and we have no unimpeachable evidence that he was (*) -- he is not a natural born US citizen, for his father was not a US citizen at the time of his birth (nor, indeed, ever).

In this post on my blog, I present for the perusal of the intellectually honest among us what "natural born citizen" means in the US Constitution.


(*) Further, he himself has claimed to have been born in Kenya, and his wife has publically made that claim for him. In this post on my blog, I link to a YouTube video of Mrs Obama, speaking to the Democratic Perversion Caucus in 2008, referring to Kenya as her husband's "home country". Way back then, I had seen a different video of her speaking to a different crowd and saying the same thing, but as I didn't keep a link to it, I don't have that link to share.

B. Prokop said...

RE: Obama's citizenship

Ilion, I have read everything you have ever written on this subject, and still fail to understand why I should in the least care. I can see how that clause in our constitution may have been relevant in 1789, but it's way past its sell-by date in 2016. It serves no purpose. It's a vestigial organ, a palimpsest, a burp from yesterday's lasagna dinner. It's like those laws (still on the books in places) that require a man waving a red flag to precede a woman driver on the streets.

No, wait. You might actually regard that last one as a good thing!

Time to move along. Nothing to see here.

Ilíon said...

^ So, are you acknowledging that Obama is not a natural born US citizen?

B. Prokop said...

No, I am not. I am saying I do not in the least care. It matters not to me, as long as he is a citizen today, natural born or otherwise.

And to repeat, I do not understand why you care. What difference does it make?

The Constitution is riddled with junk that no longer serves any purpose, meaningful or otherwise. Did you know that one of the delineated powers of Congress is to authorize people to become pirates? (The last time that clause was invoked was in 1942, when the Goodyear Corporation was granted a Letter of Marque to use its blimps to search out and destroy enemy submarines.)

Crude said...

"The virtue of a democratic system with a First Amendment is that it readily enables the people, over time, to be persuaded that what they took for granted is not so, and to change their laws accordingly. That system is destroyed if the smug assurances of each age are removed from the democratic process and written into the Constitution. So to counterbalance the Court's criticism of our ancestors, let me say a word in their praise: they left us free to change. The same cannot be said of this most illiberal Court, which has embarked on a course of inscribing one after another of the current preferences of the society (and in some cases only the counter majoritarian preferences of the society's law trained elite) into our Basic Law."

But don't worry, the constitution is dumb lol.

Enjoy what's coming.

Ilíon said...

B.Prokop: "I am saying I do not in the least care."

Riiiight! And atheism is perfectly analogous to not-collecting-stamps.

B.Prokop: "No, I am not [acknowledging that Ilíon is correct about Obama not being Constitutionally qualified to be US president]. I am saying I do not in the least care [that he is not a natural born US citizen]."

Please! Not even the resident 'atheists' are going to fall for that one.

You *know* that I am right; you *know* that I have demonstrated that I am right; and your continuing behavior (including this very post) acknowledges that I am right. But, as you always do when you are in the wrong about something and refuse to switch to being right, you are trying to play the "What Difference, At This Point, Does It Make?" Card.

Still, at least you don't ramp-up your refusal to switch to being in the right by spreading lies about me. I'll give you that.

B.Prokop: "... It matters not to me, as long as he is a citizen today, natural born or otherwise."

1) Is he *even* a US citizen? I have seen no unimpeachable evidence that he is, and at least some hints that he is not.

2) It doesn't matter in the least what you (or I) want the facts to be; the facts are what they are, and the Constitution requires what it requires.

3) Henry Kissinger is a (naturalized) US citizen, is he not? Or, how about Arnold Schwartzenegger, or Dinesh D’Souza, or (the late) Ayn Rand, or (the inflatable) Pamela Anderson? That little clause is/was the only prohibition against any of them attempting to attaint the presidency.

4) Don't you know that it is Present Year? How parochial of you to insist that the US president must be a US citizen! Why would any reasonable man care about such a piddling matter in Present Year?

Ilíon said...

B.Prokop: "And to repeat, I do not understand why you care."

If you do not understand why I care, then it is only because you *refuse* to understand, for I have *stated* it time and time again -- if those who would rule us are not themselves ruled by the Law, then we are not citizens of a Republic, we are subjects of a dictatorship.

B.Prokop: "What difference does it make?"

If there are no limits that those who would rule us must respect, then there are no limits to what they may do to us. If there are no limits that those who would rule us must respect, then the *only* way to change our rulers is to kill them, and then kill the next set, and then kill the next set ...

Why is it that you leftists are always wanting to "turn back the clock"?

B.Prokop: "The Constitution is riddled with junk that no longer serves any purpose, meaningful or otherwise."

Riddled?

The Constitution provides more than one mechanism for removing "junk that no longer serves any purpose, meaningful or otherwise". Saying "I don't care to abide by that limitiation on my power once I get my hands on the levers of governmental violence" is not one of them. Saying "Let's all pretend that the Constitution says 'X' because we all want it to say 'X'" is not one of those ways.

If the Constitution does not mean exactly what it says, no more and no less, then there are no limits that those who would rule us must respect, and there are no limits to what they may do to us.

B.Prokop: "Did you know that one of the delineated powers of Congress is to authorize people to become pirates?"

You even stated it yourself -- the Constitution allows the Congress to issue letters of marque, it does not require the Congress ever to do so.

B.Prokop: "The last time that clause was invoked was in 1942, when the Goodyear Corporation was granted a Letter of Marque to use its blimps to search out and destroy enemy submarines."

OMG! It's Present Year! And Christ is never recorded as saying either "butt-fucking is sin" or "killing unborn babies is sin", so they must not be.

B. Prokop said...

So if I understand you correctly, if the clause were not in the constitution, you would have no objection to someone not born a citizen becoming president? The only reason you wish to exclude them from eligibility is that the constitution does so? But if we amended the constitution to remove the relevant clause, then you'd be fine with, say, Arnold Schwarzenegger running for president.

Is that right, or do you have something other than a purely constitutional objection to him doing so?

Ilíon said...

Naaa, we're not changing the subject just yet. I don't fall for those tricks.

The subject is my claim (supported by evidence and argument) and your refusal to openly (*) acknowledge the truth, that Barack Obama is not a natural born US citizen ... and thus is not legally the US president ... and thus is not actually the US president.

Either I am right or I am not (hint: I'm right).

You don't get to "disprove" the truth I have demonstrated by an airy "I don't care what the truth is, so let's just pretend that the truth doesn't matter"

You have two options:
1) Show that I have made an error in my demonstration; that is, show that I am wrong;
2) Acknowledge that I am right;


(*) Again: your behavior demonstrates that, contrary to your frequent claim, you care very about this issue; for if you didn't, you'd not have piped up yet again. AND, your behavior implies that you *know* that I am correct.

Ilíon said...

... you *know* that I am right, and I *know* that you know that I am right. And you're not fooling anyone else with your claimed indifference.