Hon. James David Manning, PhD responds to Fox News's Shepard Smith
for calling people who are looking for Barack Obama's birth certificate, "crazies"
Shepard Smith Shut Up
Pastor Manning makes MANY valid points in this video. Let's keep the emails coming to Mr. Smith and perhaps he might LEARN SOMETHING ABOUT THIS VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE!!!
Pastor Manning Excoriates Shep Smith video link
In case any visitors here did not see Shepard Smith's rant about the "crazies" who are legitimately questioning Barack Hussein Obama's (a.k.a Barry Soetoro) eligibility for POTUS and his subsequent refusal to release not only his bona fide COLB (not that forgery online) to the public; but also his refusal to release all of the papers listed (below) to the public***; some of which Pastor Manning mentions in his video. Here is the YouTube version of the broadcast:
Shep Smith's Rant Video Link
*******
***
From American Grand Jury.org: When pressed about important and relevant issues surrounding his life and background we get the following results:
Original, vault copy birth certificate — Not released
Certification of Live Birth — posted on Internet — Counterfeit
Obama/Dunham marriage license — Not released
Obama/Dunham divorce — Released (by independent investigators)
Soetoro/Dunham marriage license — Not released
Soetoro adoption records — Not released
Soetoro/Dunham divorce — Released (by independent investigators)
Fransiskus Assisi School School application — Released (by independent investigators)
Punahou School records — Not released
Selective Service Registration — Released — Counterfeit
Occidental College records — Not released
Passport — Not released and records scrubbed clean by Obama’s terrorism and intelligence adviser.
Columbia College records — Not released
Columbia thesis — Not released
Harvard College records — Not released
Harvard Law Review articles — None
Baptism certificate — None
Medical records — Not released
Illinois State Senate records — None
Illinois State Senate schedule — Lost
Law practice client list — Not released
University of Chicago scholarly articles — None
Be sure to read everything at that website! There have already been several indictments handed down!
Status update on American Grand Juries:April 29th concluded, Indictment handed down
May 9th concluded, Indictment handed down
May 16h concluded, Indictment handed down
May 23rd concluded, Indictment handed down
May 30th concluded, Indictment handed down
Lone Star State GJ Texas concluded, Indictment handed down
Arkansas State GJ concluded, Indictment handed down
June 6th concluded, Indictment handed down
All and all approximately 200 unique American Grand Jury members have voted to indict Obama in the past 7 weeks. Thus far we have served over 120 presentments with different courts, sheriffs, judges and district attorneys around the Nation.
So what is happening with our indictments in the hands of the courts? It is still too early to tell and we certainly have an uphill battle but as we increase the numbers the courts are starting to figure out we mean business. There are only so many excuses a court, judge or prosecutor can use as they tell you they do not believe in the Constitution. And folks, that is EXACTLY what these government officials do when they fail to do their job. As time goes on we at American Grand Jury will try our best to make the public aware of just who these elected officials are that refuse to adhere to the will of the people and support the laws of the Constitution.
We are booked solid for the month of June but we need many more Grand Jury members for July.
Our goal is to get over 1,000 presentments served on the courts within the next 60 to 90 days. We cannot do it without your help. Look at it this way, if only 5% of the Courts we serve actually take action it would mean 20 criminal prosecutions would be enacted against Obama. The first thing the courts are going to demand from Obama is to prove he is a “natural born” citizen. Fat chance Obama can prove anything!
Things are moving fast. Don’t miss out. Send me your email message by clicking the link below. Tell me you are ready to serve on an American Grand Jury and we will get you scheduled as quickly as possible.
Become a Grand Jury Jurist on American Grand Jury Website
I have already signed up! From what I have read in the comment section, there is one forming in California right now!!!
Hat Tip:
Southcottus Livejournal
American Grand Jury.org
*******
Update:
WOW! Mario Apuzzo put up a very powerful quote that answers the question: Why Should We Care That Our President Is At Least a Natural Born Citizen?
Answer:
"A nation can survive its fools and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable for he is known and carries his banners openly. But the traitor moves among those within the gates freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself... for the traitor appears no traitor: He speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their faces and their garments, he appeals to the baseless that lies deep in the souls of all men. He rots the soul of a nation; he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city; he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is to be less feared." ~ Cicero
From: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
*******
Update 6/15/09
Political Vel Craft: Shepard Smith’s Hate Speech: – Shepard’s Smith’s Arrest – Short Fuse But No Powder
Posts
28 comments:
Yes, I suspect the main thing that Shep will learn is that you people are crazier and scarier than he ever imagined. I hope he has a bodyguard.
Oh look...it's Talk Wisdom's "his head is in the sand" nemesis and ObamaBORG Bot Kool-Aid drinker - Ken!
By any chance do you know Mike Rucker? Nah....but you remind me of him. He's such a coward to the truth about Obama that he blocked my site from his blog months ago.
Well...I'll take Ciceo's wisdom over your trite insults or Shepard Smith's cluelessness any day!
Update:
WOW! Mario Apuzzo put up a very powerful quote that answers the question: Why Should We Care That Our President Is At Least a Natural Born Citizen?
Answer:
"A nation can survive its fools and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable for he is known and carries his banners openly. But the traitor moves among those within the gates freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself... for the traitor appears no traitor: He speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their faces and their garments, he appeals to the baseless that lies deep in the souls of all men. He rots the soul of a nation; he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city; he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is to be less feared." ~ Cicero
Typo correction - should read:
Well...I'll take Cicero's wisdom over your trite insults or Shepard Smith's cluelessness any day!
The absurdity of your argument is very easily demonstrated. Are you saying that only natural born citizens can be loyal to our country? Are you saying that being a natural born citizen is a guarantee that one will be loyal to our country? Of course not. Either statement would be absurd. Were those black slaves dragged to our country in chains by "natural born citizens" less than loyal when they picked up rifles to fight for the union during the Civil War? Were the hard-working Japanese-Americans who were uprooted and thrown into internment camps less loyal than those "natural born citizens" who violated the Constitution by putting them there? What about those "natural born citizens" who have sold secrets to our enemies? The whole concept is a racist throw-back to less enlightened times.
As I've pointed out before, you have criticized gay activists for trying to overturn the will of the people of California by seeking an activist judge to throw out Prop 8 on a constitutional technicality. Now you and the other birthers are trying to disenfranchise the millions of voters who elected Obama by the same means.
Since I have never made any attempt to deprive you of the right to express your opinion, I'm a little puzzled by your gratuitous use of the term "coward," but then again your reality has never been limited to mere facts.
Ken,
When it comes to POTUS, the Founding Fathers wrote into the Constitution that only "Natural Born Citizens" should be President of the United States.
Please see this article: Why the POTUS Needs to Be a Natural-Born Citizen
for an excellent explanation of why this is so important.
Also, if you scroll down along my right sidebar, you will see additional links to read under the title: Why Natural Born Citizen for POTUS Matters.
I've read them, and I'm telling you they don't make any sense. Why don't you read my comment above and respond to the logic of it?
I'm sorry to hear that they "don't make any sense" to you, Ken. They make PERFECT SENSE TO MOST AMERICANS.
I think that you have become brain-washed (or, is it more like brain-dirtied??) from the political elitists who have hypnotized you into the "progressive" mindset. What a dangerous place to be. I feel sorry for you.
Also, the links I shared with you will point you towards answers to your questions.
Bottom line. Dual citizenship can lead to divided loyalties. The Framers knew this better than anyone else when they broke away from England.
Obama has already shown his loyalties are more towards being a "citizen of the world" rather than an American citizen. That speaks volumes.
Dance around it all you wish, but again it is no GUARANTEE of loyalty, and the whole concept is an implied insult to millions of fiercely loyal naturalized citizens. Many of them are more appreciative of the benefits of liberty than some of the complaisant "natural born citizens" who take their freedom for granted.
Ken,
I'm not "dancing around" the issue. I am trying to explain to you why the Founders put that clause into the Constitution. They surmised that one day, a person might run for POTUS with secret loyalty to another nation
which could put our nation in jeopardy.
There is TOO MUCH SECRECY around Obama's history and lack of papers - especially the fact that he has hundreds of lawyers (and Gov. Lingle in Hawaii) trying to
keep his vault length COLB from being examined by the public. Why is that? There can be only three possible reasons.
1. He doesn't have one. We should know why!
2. The one he has will prove he's not a natural born citizen as required by the U.S. Constitution and is therefore, ineligible to be POTUS. Obama has taken great lengths not to let anyone see it. This scenario seems the most plausible.
3. There is something embarrassing on it that he wants hidden from the public.
I really doubt that the last reason would cause such intense secrecy.
I think that the American public deserves to know the truth about where Obama was born - and we need to demand that his vault length COLB be shown to the public!
I agree that many NBC DO take their freedom for granted. That is, indeed, very sad. They have never lived under Communist or Dictatorship rule. Therefore, many have no idea how fortunate they are to live in the greatest country on this earth.
Tell me. Do you think that the United States Constitution is a "flawed document" - which is what Obama once said he believes?
When flaws are found in it, what is the proper method to make changes? The Founders thought of that too! It's called the Amendment procedure. However, there has been no Amendment to allow non-Natural Born Citizens to be President.
(con't next comment)
How would you feel if the truth reveals that Obama was born in Kenya and therefore not eligible to be POTUS? How would you feel if he is found to not even be a naturalized citizen of the United States? Would your opinion of him change - at all? Or, are you just glad that "your guy got in" - no matter what rule(s) of law he has broken?
Do we know for sure that Obama is eligible? No. Why? Because he refuses to show the very documents that would prove it. McCain did. Why does Obama get a pass?
"There is an immensely important reason why our Founding Fathers put "natural born citizen" status as a prerequisite for POTUS. They intellectually surmised that one day, a person might run for POTUS with secret loyalty to another nation which could put our nation in jeopardy."
I shared that above statement with Sean Osborne of The NEIN Blog several months back. This is what he added:
Nailed it! I think every Citizen of the United States should at least once in his or her life pay a visit to Colonial Williamsburg, Virginia. Perhaps even twice. On the tour you will learn the basis for the "natural born citizen" clause.
What I was previously unaware of until a recent visit to Williamsburg was that the ultimate basis for this belief was the pre-existing fear-based rivalry between the British throne and the Papacy - which is to say between the Church of England and the Roman Holy See & the Pope - and it had everything to do with the fear of a leader with real or imagined loyalties to a foreign king. It even goes further back than that to Imperial Rome and the new Christians whose loyalty was to the Messiah King, Jesus Christ. This was translated or transmutated over time to earthly realms of kings, princes and principalities, and it still a fact to this day, and will be a fact during the reign of the
future antichrist. It is the core of the conflict between Judeo-Christianity and Islam, the real God vs. false god core issue. But I digress...
Did you know this sense continued in America right on up to President J. F. Kennedy? That's right, no Catholic had been elected President until JFK was
elected because of the long-standing fear that a Catholic believer would be ultimately loyal to the Pope before and above the Constitution of the United States. This is the basis for the "natural born citizen" clause. And it took a trip to Colonial Williamsburg just last summer for me to learn this important bit of American history.
Good work bringing this point up Christine, and thank you for reminding me about it.
Now we're worried about a likely POTUS who has not so much a loyalty to a foreign king, but loyalty and an agenda tied to a foreign ideology - an antithesis ideology - to that which has been uniquely American since the founding of this Republic. That is the core issue in a nutshell, and this is why I had to return to this comment.
One last thing. If you are pleased with all of the decisions that Obama has been making over the past 6 months, then perhaps this conversation is a waste of time. If, however, you have become alarmed at the "changes" Obama campaigned on which are leading us on the fast track to Socialism and Marxism; then perhaps his 21 "Czar" appointments (that are unconstitutional because they do not have to answer to the people, Congress, or the Supreme Court) - they only have to answer to Obama - will alarm you.
Hopefully, what I have written and shared here will finally open your eyes to the dangerous destruction that Obama is inflicting upon our nation.
Update 6/15/09
Political Vel Craft: Shepard Smith’s Hate Speech: – Shepard’s Smith’s Arrest – Short Fuse But No Powder
"the whole concept is an implied insult to millions of fiercely loyal naturalized citizens."
Giving the Ken his due, I do see considerable logic in his argument. Historically, naturalized citizens have had a much greater appreciation that many native born citizens.
Ken's argument is also irrelevant however from a legal standpoint. One of the major pillars of our representational government system is that the people consent to the laws and amendments through their representatives. Having gone through that process to approve the requirement "natural born citizen," it can only be overturned by using the same process. I do not expect Obama's election to be overturned based on the birth clause (whether reason exists or not), but if it is, it will not be the people upholding the law who disenfranchised millions of voters. It would be Obama himself and the Democrat Party who put an ineligible candidate on the ticket. From a legal standpoint, Mike's argument has the same validity as saying that if a majority of the people voted for "Mickey Mouse" for president, then Mickey Mouse is the president. No amount of voting or public will can legitimize a candidate not lawfully eligible.
"No amount of voting or public will can legitimize a candidate not lawfully eligible." I'll be sure to remind you about that little piece of logic when Prop 8 is eventually overturned. REMEMBER: Gary Baker says that the will of the people doesn't matter if you can find a technicality to overturn it, even if, as he admits, the technicality doesn't make any real sense.
Oh please Ken. You are showing too much ignorance here.
Prop. 8 is, and was, a LAWFUL MATTER that was placed on the ballot. If Barry Soetoro was not eligible in the first place (which is true because his father was a British Citizen since he was born in Kenya) to run for POTUS, and this is finally brought out in a court of law (which is likely to happen in the Kerchner et al vs. Obama et al case) then the Constitution of the United States instructions tell us that he cannot be president. All that he has done would be null and void.
It's not just a technicality, either. This is a serious subject that needs to be vetted - no matter how long it takes!
By definition, Prop 8 is not a LAWFUL MATTER if the Supreme Court rules that it is not. (By the way, capitalizing words is not a valid substitute for logical argumentation.) You know very well that if a court throws out Prop 8 you both will be screaming, "The will of the people! We voted on this! Not fair!" As I've said many times, this eligibility issue has nothing to do with the Constitution and everything to do with the fact that you hate Obama's guts and can't accept the outcome of the election.
Well Ken, since you don't want to believe me when it comes to the "divided loyalties" concern of the Framers, perhaps you will believe when someone else shares some history about Obama's family in Kenya. The commentary explains why Obama not only hates America, but also hates Britain!!
From The Obama File
Divided Loyalties
Senior aides to Barack Obama accompanied four Uighur prisoners as they were flown from Guantanamo Bay to the British colony of Bermuda, without the United Kingdom (UK) being informed, it was revealed yesterday, angering the UK.
In an escalating diplomatic row over the transfer of the former terrorist suspects, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton discussed the transfer with British Foreign Secretary David Miliband in what was said to be an uneasy conversation. Privately Whitehall officials accused America of treating Britain, with whom it is supposed to have a "special relationship," with barely disguised contempt.
Remember, in February, in one of his first exchanges with the UK, Obama sent a bust of Winston Churchill back to Britain. Then, in March, Prime Minister Gordon Brown faced humiliation after he was snubbed by Obama. During Brown's visit, the Prime Minister brought several meaningful and valued items to give to Obama. What he got in return was 25 CD's of classic movies, that were incompatible with the UK format. Then, in April, Obama gifted Queen Elizabeth II with an iPod, a gift that was criticized by etiquette experts.
Just this month, Queen Elizabeth -- the only living head of state that participated in WW II -- was snubbed and not invited to the D-Day ceremonies, described as a "Franco-American" event. And now the Uighur incident. Obama has not missed a single opportunity to insult the Brits.
Accidents? I hardly think so. The US State Department, Office of the Chief of Protocol, under the direction of Acting Chief of Protocol Laura B. Wills, is responsible for avoiding these gaffes. Career bureaucrats, working out of the White House are in place to ensure insults such as these, don't occur. So, they must be purposeful -- but why?
It's my opinion that Obama's divided loyalties are at the bottom of his treatment of the UK and he harbors a deep and abiding hostility towards the Brits because of the treatment he believes his grandfather and father received during British colonial rule.
During Obama’s first visit to Kenya in 1988, his grandmother Sarah told him about the resentment against white colonial rule in Kenya, with rallies and mounting violence that would explode into full-scale rebellion in 1952. "Most of this activity centered on Kikuyuland," she told him. "But the Luo, too, were oppressed. Men in our area began to join the Kikuyu"
"Granny Sarah" told Obama that Hussein Onyango Obama, Obama’s paternal grandfather, became involved in the Kenyan independence movement while working as a cook for a British army officer after World War II. He was arrested in 1949 and jailed for two years in a high-security prison where, according to his family, he was subjected to horrific violence to extract information about the growing insurgency. Sarah, said that her husband had supplied information to the insurgents. "His job as cook to a British army officer made him a useful informer for the secret oathing movement which would later form the Mau Mau rebellion," she said. "At the time the insurgents were secretly taking oaths which included promises to kill white settlers and colonialists," Mrs. Onyango said.
(con't next comment)
"To arrest a Luo, WW II veteran, who was a senior figure in the community, is pretty serious. They must have had some damn good evidence," said Professor David Anderson, director of the African Studies Centre at the University of Oxford, and an authority on the Mau Mau rebellion.
Obama refers briefly to his grandfather’s imprisonment in his best-selling memoir, "Dreams...," but states that his grandfather was held only for "more than six months." Obama described his grandfather’s physical state: "When he returned to Alego he was very thin and dirty. He had difficulty walking, and his head was full of lice." For some time, he was too traumatized to speak about his experiences.
Barack Obama Sr., Onyango’s son and Obama’s father, seems to have inherited his father’s attitudes towards the colonial power. He was also arrested, for attending a meeting in Nairobi of the Kenya African National Union (KANU), the organization spearheading the independence movement. Sarah told Obama that his father, unlike her husband, had been held only for a short time in the white man’s prison: "Because he was not a leader in KANU, Barack [Sr.] was released after a few days."
Onyango may have been a victim of the fight for Kenyan independence, but his son became a direct beneficiary of that movement. In 1959, Barack Obama Sr. was sent, on a scholarship, to the University of Hawaii. Obama Sr. was selected by a former Kenyan cabinet minister, the late Tom Mboya, who was earmarked as the successor to Jomo Kenyatta, Kenya's first prime minister and leader of the terrorist Mau Mau.
It is clear that the Obama's were close to the leadership of the independence movement. It is also clear that Obama's "divided loyalty" -- his anger at the white British colonists' treatment of his grandfather and father -- is behind all of these insults to America's greatest ally.
"Divided loyalties" was an issue during the Constitutional Convention because of the Founders fear of foreign influence and the possibility of incidents, such as the ones mentioned above.
In fact, Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts wanted to take the issue so far as to stop foreigners from becoming citizens at all, claiming that the naturalized citizens would always have divided loyalties both to their home land and to America. John Jay, Superintendent of Foreign Affairs (the predecessor of today’s office of Secretary of State), claimed that it would be "wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen."
Pierce Butler, an Irish-born delegate from South Carolina, developed an intense plan that would defeat all objections arising against earlier proposals for electing the president. However, given the doubts concerning divided loyalties that Elbridge Gerry, John Jay, and others expressed, Butler’s proposal also included what became Article II, Section I of the Constitution.
It is evident that the Founders had a clear reason to fear conspiracy and divided loyalties, and it is evident that Obama, a native-born Kenyan, has allowed his divided loyalties influence his judgment and behavior in regards to the UK.
This is personal and purposeful.
And don't even get me started on Obama's divided loyalties and Islam.
P.S. Go to the link to read the additional links provided within the essay.
So because Britain is ticked off about some protocol issues, therefore Obama hates the British? Good grief, Christine, your hatred of Obama has completely destroyed your sense of logical perspective. Are you happy about the way the British tried to prevent the United States from separating and becoming its own independent nation in 1776? No? Then you must hate the British. How do you explain Michele Obama's apparently warm relationship with Queen Elizabeth?
You call it "divided loyalties." I call it awareness of the needs and desires of all sides, which is a welcome change from the blinkered jingoism of Bush & Co. This "natural born citizen" rubbish is just codified xenophobia, which has been a plank in the Republican platform for decades.
I fear for your sanity. You appear to be teetering on the edge of the cliff.
"By definition, Prop 8 is not a LAWFUL MATTER if the Supreme Court rules that it is not."
Every day Ken reveals the new heights that his ignorance reaches.
The only matters the Supreme Court has any authority over are lawful matters.
"Gary Baker says that the will of the people doesn't matter if you can find a technicality to overturn it, even if, as he admits, the technicality doesn't make any real sense."
And if Ken McKnight had any idea what he was talking about, he would realize that courts have nothing to do with the will of the people. The will of the people is expressed by their representatives on a national level, and as their state constitutions determine in the states. By that measure, the people already have their will.
Tell me Ken, why is it that liberals have such a hard time understanding a very basic concept? Oh, that's right...bypassing proper legal channels is about the only way they can get what they want, that's right...
Ken,
Save the typical rabid liberal asinine bullcrap that you have learned and copied from Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. Please...go use it on someone else. Your propaganda tactics won't work here. I see right through you.
Anyone who labels the "Natural Born Citizen" clause of the Constitution as "rubbish" exposes himself as either a young, brainwashed college student who simply spews the liberal leftist drivel of his Marxist professors, or, is just a kind of old English sot who harbors anger and envy against America and shows contempt towards our Constitutional Republic. Which one is closer to accurately describing you? I suspect the former description is more likely. Your comments are often very juvenile.
Your radical leader and Bogus POTUS may be running around wrecking havoc right now. But his day of reckoning will one day come.
As another blogger put it recently:
The Arizona Sentinel: Who is going to the pen in 2010 - Obama or Director Mueller?
Good points, Gary. It's too bad that your common sense replies seem to be ignored by Ken. He is so immersed in his own rabid liberal leftist ideology that he can't even step back and think on his own anymore.
Good try, though. Thanks!
At least you're consistent, Christine. Your instincts about me are, like those concerning religion and politics, unfailingly incorrect:
1. I've never read Alinsky's Rules for Radicals nor have I ever been a socialist or Marxist.
2. I haven't been a college student since the 1970's.
3. I am neither English nor a sot. I was born in Indiana and have never set foot outside the U.S. I never drink alcohol; in fact, I am philosophically opposed to drinking and recreational drug use.
I have an intellectual challenge for you. Try answering one of my comments without resorting to either ad hominem attacks or your standard stereotypes of liberals. I am capable of being convinced by logical analysis and argumentation based on evidence. I am not swayed by your re-cycled Limbaugh/Hannity/Beck/Coulter anti-liberal claptrap.
As for my "juvenile" remarks, even Gary had to admit that naturalized citizens are often more appreciative of the United States than some of its "natives." The divided loyalties argument is bull and you know it. By your logic, Catholics should still be excluded from the Presidency.
Arghh! My comment reply was just zapped!
Basically I stated that a person doesn't have to necessarily read Alinsky's "rules." Most liberal college professors already follow that ideology and therefore, teach their students to believe the same way.
Go look up the definition of "sot." It means more than a "drunkard."
You claim to be "capable of being convinced by logical analysis and argumentation based on evidence." That's a good philosophy to live by. However, when it is clouded by a staunch ideology and support for a rogue person who is out to destroy our Constitutional Republic and Capitalist method of economics, then your so-called philosophical method to be "convinced" otherwise flies right out the window.
You have been guilty of many ad hominem attacks against me here. What's the matter? Can dish it out but can't take it?
I didn't say that ALL of your remarks are juvenile. But a good deal of them are.
The "Natural Born Citizen" clause in the Constitution isn't in there to claim that naturalized citizen aren't appreciative of the U.S. It's purpose is quite clear. For the position of POTUS, who is also Commander in Chief of our armed forces, the LAW is that he/she must be a natural born citizen.
Your view that "the divided loyalties argument is bull" is quite disturbingly naive.
You wrote: "By your logic, Catholics should still be excluded from the Presidency."
That is a blatantly false statement by you and you know it! In a previous comment, I shared what Sean Osborne researched about the Kennedy nomination. It was feared that a Catholic might have divided loyalties to the papacy in Rome. As history has shown, it did not prevent Kennedy from being president.
You can now apologize for your misstatements.
"It was feared that a Catholic might have divided loyalties to the papacy in Rome. As history has shown, it did not prevent Kennedy from being president." You just destroyed your own "divided loyalties" argument. I couldn't have done it any more efficiently. Thank you.
Not one word about your mistaken impressions of me? I'll apologize to you right after you do so to me.
According to the American Heritage dictionary, "drunkard" is the one and only definition of "sot." Wrong again.
You will notice that the subject of discussion (via Sean Osborne's comment) was on "divided loyalties." Since Kennedy was a Natural Born Citizen, the clause did not apply to him.
You are wrong - again!
Sot
Sot\, n. [F., fr. LL. sottus; of unknown origin, cf. Ir. sotal pride, soithir proud, or Chald. & NHeb. shoten foolish.]
1. A stupid person; a blockhead; a dull fellow; a dolt. [Obs.] --outh.
In Egypt oft has seen the sot bow down, And reverence some d?ified baboon. --Oldham.
2. A person stupefied by excessive drinking; an habitual drunkard. "A brutal sot." --Granville.
Every sign That calls the staring sots to nasty wine. --Roscommon.
Sot
Sot\, a. Sottish; foolish; stupid; dull. [Obs.] "Rich, but sot." --Marston.
Sot
Sot\, v. t. To stupefy; to infatuate; to besot. [R.]
I hate to see a brave, bold fellow sotted. --Dryden.
Sot
Sot\, v. i. To tipple to stupidity. [R.] --Goldsmith.
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
Cite This Source
Do you know how to read a dictionary? You used the word as a noun, so all the verb definitions are irrelevant. All of the noun definitions other than "drunkard" are followed by the notation "Obs.," which means obsolete, which means they are no longer in use.
You still can't grasp my point about the Kennedy example? I didn't say that the Constitutional restriction applied to him; my point was that the "divided loyalties" argument would also apply to his Catholicism and has been proven to be groundless.
I am sorely tempted to make an ad hominem remark about the soundness of your education/logical acuity, but I will restrain myself.
"even Gary had to admit that naturalized citizens are often more appreciative of the United States than some of its "natives."
Which is true, but it has no effect whatsoever on the "divided loyalties" argument. Just because someone appreciates the rights and privileges afforded in the US more than a complacent "native", that still says nothing about how the person will respond if a conflict of interest occurs.
Here's a thought which I believe is relevant: Everyone who ever immigrated to the US has at least one thing in common. On some level, the country and system that they left was not meeting their needs and they thought they could do better here. Logically, that should mean that to prosper they should adopt the American values as they produced a system superior to the one they left.
In practice, the opposite often occurs. They move here and then attempt as much as possible to recreate the system that they had at home even though it produced such a bad result they felt the need to leave. An excellent example is areas of the Southwest where enclaves of high Hispanic concentrations occur. The residents resist learning English and adopting American norms. That's their choice and their privilege (assuming they are here legally). It is also pretty much a guarantee that they will remain isolated from about 95% of the good jobs and areas in the country.
All of this interesting from an academic standpoint, but has no real import. As I mentioned before, Ken's argument is irrelevant because he is advocating disregard of the law. There used to be a name for people who liked to disregard laws that didn't make sense to them. Now there are two. Dictator, and liberal. Of course, they are rapidly becoming synonymous anyway.
And if you consider that an "ad hominem" attack, they please explain to me what the difference is since both types seem to be taking the position that due process should be discarded if they don't like it.
No, I don't consider it an ad hominem attack. You did veer off into your Liberals Are the Devil meme there at the end, but I'm choosing to ignore that. It's an interesting comment but I'm too tired to respond tonight. I'll think about it and get back to you tomorrow.
Post a Comment