Friday, July 17, 2009

Obama's 'noble truth' is a Lie

Click on the title above to read my latest article at WND.com, then return here to post and read comments.

59 comments:

pbunyon said...

I remember being a young boy having told a lie to protect a friend from what I saw as an overbearing adult with what looked like malice. I did not understand what I saw and felt but I did know it was very wrong. Taking a chance by telling the lie was worth possible consequences if there was a chance my friend would not have to endure more undeserved suffering.

I felt so bad that when I got home I told my mother about it. She then told me about the midwives and mothers in Exodus 1. They lied about their baby boys to protect them from the Pharaoh. She then told me the women were blessed by God and He "dealt well" with them.

In either case I am not sure "noble truth" would be a good way to identify what I and those women in Exodus did. "Noble lie" is more of what my mother described to me and that it was an attribute of a Godly man. Who would not lie to divert or confuse the enemy who has malice when the otherwise defenseless innocents are in jeopardy?

However, I believe that what Gibbs did is indeed a "noble truth" as Dr. Keyes outlines it. Unfortunately Gibbs is trying to protect the one with malice who seeks our children. I wonder what God thinks of this.

How can we REALLY do anything about this and other "noble truths"? How long should we wait to rise up and defend our children's future as our founding father did? There are great pains in birth and for a time after the birth. I don't think we are in enough pain to birth a revolution against this oppression but we may soon be.

Shame on Obama and Gibbs. God bless Alan Keyes and all the others who stand, for the truth, against these "noble" men.

chiu_chunling said...

It is always worth remembering that the greatest and singular accomplishment of Socrates was to perceive that he understood nothing. Not merely because it is the greatest truth any human can truly comprehend, but because Socrates really didn't know anything.

In the metaphorical imagery of scripture, the Lord of hosts is frequently represented as having a sword for a tongue. Once you get over the startling impression this creates in the visual imagination, and think of it in the more linguistic idiom which was the mode of the writers, you understand that the tongue is indeed a weapon.

But, what is the nature of this sword? It is called the sword of Truth, which proceedeth forth out of the mouth of God and His prophets.

Lies do not have the power which truth does. While the truth may be a double-edged sword, and thus requires care to use, when dealing with an enemy truth is still the best course. A lie is poison which you must taste yourself before administering it to another. Easier to use, but less effective and fatal to master. The master of battles does not merely feint to deceive, he is honestly ready to take advantage of whatever the enemy decides to do.

When Reagan won the Cold War, he did it with the truth. It was not just a matter of refuting the lies of the international Communist movement. He also shook the Soviet Union to its core with revelations of what they had not even suspected.

It is, sadly, a rare gift among men, to be able to know the truth well enough to wield it effectively. Most mistake truth for lies about even the most mundane topics, and the invented languages of humanity are riddled with false assumptions. Since ancient times, speaking truth has ever been an ability reserved to the servants of the Most High. For the great mass of humanity, poisoning themselves with lies in order to spit them at the foe has ever been the only option.

But if you will serve God without reservation, He will supply your lack. He is Truth, and no power can withstand His word.

pbunyon said...

Well Chiu,

Yes the truth is the greatest sword among the souls of and the spirit of man. How do you think this fits with the women in Exodus 1 and Hebrews 11 where I think another "noble lie" was told?

If you are able to reason for those events and still maintain that truth is always the best way to deal with every situation, including what the women of Exodus had, we may end up agreeing completely. I suppose the first step would be to agree on what truth actually is.

Is truth a brand which can be chosen for use? Could it be that truth has more to do with the one who possesses it rather than the one who it is used for or against? Could it be that when acting as those "deceitful" women did we may somehow be in truth? Perhaps they held truth and the pharaoh did not. In spite of what he did was he capable of the truth? In protecting the innocent children were the women capable of lying? If you use the truth to hurt another would it be likened to a lie?

Maybe we should also discuss the term "lie" and come to an agreement on what it really means too. Since deceiving can be perceived as a negative and the deceiver is a negative force is it not possible that deceiving the deceiver can produce truth in some circumstances such as Exodus 1? Does Gibbs see himself as the possessor of truth or is he a willing participant in a lie or better yet a "noble truth"?

There are many words used in day to day conversation which, if only on a scholarly level, need to be used with a much greater understanding and honesty.

Another great word would be "knowledge" and another "know". I find the word "art" to be a tough one for the masses. The understanding of many of these very meaningful words now seems elementary to me but so hard for so many to grasp. Honestly, though I am guilty of the offense, I get tired of these words being misused or misunderstood. Perhaps I will be mulling over the word "truth" now and forever.

I will admit, however, that I too know little or nothing but I am eager to learn.

Derek P. said...

My question - How does "Obama's 'noble truth' is a Lie" advance the conservative agenda?

Call me simple minded, but I am of the opinion that in order to advance an agenda, an agenda has to be promoted.

chiu_chunling said...

The truth is...sometimes you must be willing to face your own death, and even the deaths of those you love. As for the midwives, they were blessed. God does make allowances for imperfection, after all. His mercy is ever extended to those who earnestly wish to do good, even if their actions are imperfect.

But...it is dangerous to count too much on that mercy. Because in choosing the easy path as a matter of course, you habituate yourself to compromise with evil-doing, and soon enough your well-wishing will be only a hollow incantation. For humans, in whom is the power to desire what is good, there is no greater tragedy than the erosion of that will. No matter how infinite the mercy of God, if you lose the desire to follow Him you cannot be saved. That is also His mercy, that He leaves you free to choose.

As a human, there are limits on what one can do. But never forget that with God, all things are possible.

As I said, the first barrier we face is that human languages are created for practical use, not for communicating truth. I mention the idiom and metaphor of the Hebrews partly to draw attention to this fact. It is clear that the tongue, which does not even contain bones and cannot even mark the skin, is not a sword. Dr. Keyes does well to point out that the "noble lie" Socrates suggests is very close to being a profound truth. It is so close to what all men who defend their homeland come to understand instinctively, without anyone telling them to believe it, that one wonders how Socrates (who was such a man himself) would think it necessary to devise a lie about it.

It may be that he was simply betrayed by the poverty of the language he spoke, or by how sophists of the day commonly used it. In the end, truth must be measured by how it brings the mind into a relationship of power with respect to reality. Jesus said, "If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."

Is there any human language which has such innate power, that a given spoken phrase will invariably correspond with a clear and unambiguous idea of ultimate reality? If so, I'm afraid it has been long lost to mankind.

Deception is not a particular matter of using particular phrases, but of endeavoring to divorce the mind from known realities, such that the power to predict the consequence of a given action is disrupted. Then the question arises, how can we defeat an enemy by increasing his freedom and power? But the greatest excellence is not to win a hundred battles. It is to win without having to fight at all. Such is the power of truth. Reagan could have attacked the Soviet Union with lies, and then troops, and eventually missiles, following the pathway of 'statesmen' before him. Perhaps America would even have 'won' that war. He chose truth instead.

The truth that Americans must now understand is that their nation has already been overthrown by the enemy while they complacently pursued luxuries. That an usurper now holds the executive power of the government is an important element of that truth...but it is not all of it, or even the greater part. Americans must stand against the lawless tyranny which threatens them, and they must stand now.

It is, perhaps, no longer proper to call this a "conservative" agenda. You are not in the position of having a republic to conserve, after all. But what was built once can be rebuilt, if you survive to do so.

pbunyon said...

Chiu,

I have to say that your response is nearly perfect. I could pick at it a little but being the lesser of the two thinkers in my opinion I will be satisfied with your wisdom over mine for now.

Mick said...

Mr. Keyes,
While I admire your stand for the American people against the Usurper Barack Obama, you must not allow yourself to be part of the trap that is being set for the eligibility issue. If you think that Gibbs is calling on the WND reporter out of fairness or that Dobbs is having you on his program because he is interested, you are sadly mistaken. The END GAME of this drama is in play. The object of this criminal administration now is to narrow the focus of the argument to the Birth Certificate only. When that is done, they will surely spring the most perfect BC you ever saw, and will declare the argument over. At that point you will have been used to destroy the constitution. You MUST get the word out that a Natural Born citizen is born in the US to 2 US CITIZEN PARENTS. It is of the utmost importance, lest you allow Obama to get away with this charade. You need to emphacize the Citizen Parents part of the equation for the good of the Republic or you will allow him Obama to skate free of the eligibility issue. Please do it immediately, and make it known at WND, they are playing right into the hands of the Usurper.!!!
Here is a discussion of Vattel, who wrote the treatise "Law of Nations" (1763), from whence the term Natural Born Citizen came. The Constitution was highly influenced by his ideas about Natural Law, and it is the only place that the term could have come from.

http://www.schillerinstitute.org/fid_97-01/971_vattel.html

"I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept, has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting."
—Benjamin Franklin, letter to Charles W.F. Dumas, December 1775


http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/03/18/two-minute-warning-vattel-decoded/

Mr. Keyes I implore you to change your tactic to the Citizen Parents issue, it is of the utmost importance.
Thankyou

Derek P. said...

"You MUST get the word out that a Natural Born citizen is born in the US to 2 US CITIZEN PARENTS." (Mick)

Mick, I asked this question once before, and now I ask it of you. Does Bobby Jindal lack the eligibility for presidential consideration?

chiu_chunling said...

The issue of Barack Obama's birth citizenship has potential to arouse the American people against him. Any fact already well established and known to the electorate prior to even the primaries cannot have the same effective impact.

Obama has never even tried to hide his parentage. And the general electorate has never had the slightest problem with it. Only those who are his most determined opponents even bother to discuss the precise meaning of 'natural born' citizenship.

Also, at this point, the issue of Obama's birth certificate has gone too far. He cannot capitulate without arousing real anger and a sense of betrayal at the meaninglessness of his previous recalcitrance. Also, while he has supporters in the necessary places, some of them still apparently balk at clearly criminal personal involvement. It also seems that the technical skills necessary for the swap are (as usual) skewed towards those with a "pro-reality bias".

I understand the superior aspects of emphasizing the "natural-born" aspect of "Natural Born Citizen", but you also must consider the practical difficulties. The majority have already committed themselves to another opinion. You must create a dramatic revelation which undermines the existing opinion before your position will be considered by most.

Going back to the discussion of truth for a moment, I have to dispute my own point about pure original language being lost. It occurs to me that music, and particularly vocal choir, has exactly such a nearly universal effect without the necessity of instruction. We may speak of love, or beauty, or longing, or melancholy, and understanding is uncertain. But express those concepts in song, and anyone willing to listen will understand. We no longer know the fullness of that language, but there are elements of it which do survive.

Which, in the context of the conversation, is just to reiterate that even though truth does exist, our attempt to approach it remains limited by the merely human means presently at our disposal.

Mick said...

To Derek P.,
NO Bobby Jindal is certainly NOT a Natural Born Citizen. His parents arrived here from India 6 months before he was born . At the time of Jindal's rebuttal speech after Obama's speech
earlier this year 2/09, there was an entry in WIKI claiming that his father was naturalized before Jindal was born, but it was promptly removed (within hours). There is no way they could be naturalized when they came to the US in January and Bobby was born in June. If he was a real Patriot he would have graciously declined to be considered for future POTUS since his parents were not citizens during that speech! That would have sent real shock waves through the BO Camp and America, but alas, he is just another politician with ambition and is NO PATRIOT> I have no respect for him now. I made a post about this in Freerepublic in February, and was attacked by the ACLU and promptly banned on FR. Freerepublic is playing right into Obama's hands by dismissing the citizen parents requirement, just like WND, but they are WRONG, and dangerous to the eligibility issue. A good Lawyer never asks a question that he doesn't know the answer to, and they don't know for certain that there is no BC to present, Real or Fabricated (and vouched for). They should be attacking the LEGAL QUESTION, which is whether Obama is eligible because his father was not a citizen, which of course is NO.

Mick said...

To Chiu,
I don't know what you are talking about, but the Constitution is the constitution, and whether the general population knows what a NBC is is irrelevant. It means what it did in 1788, which could only be derived from Vattel's Law of Nations (1763), the only place the term appeared in that time period, which, by the way, is also the standard of International relations mentioned in Article 1. The Constitutional Congress leaned heavily on Law of Nations and Natural Law. Where do you think "Inalienable Rights" and "Life Liberty and Happiness" came from? Any Constitutional Relativity is damaging to the Republic."I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept, has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting."
—Benjamin Franklin, letter to Charles W.F. Dumas, December 1775

tonystarks said...

Mr. Keyes...why didn't you make this argument after obama trounced you in the race for the illinois senate seat, a state that you never have even lived in. now you're accusing him of not being a citizen. i think you're just mad because he has excelled at two things you failed to do: become a state senator and become the first black president. why is it that two illegal aliens can have a baby on american soil and that baby becomes a natural born citizen but his father is kenyan and his mother is american and he is born on american soil he's not a citizen. correct me if i am wrong but something doesn't make sense here.

Mick said...

To Tonystarks,
The issue is whether Obama is a Natural Born Citizen, not US Citizen. Children of illegal aliens born in the US are NOT Natural Born Citizens. They may be U.S Citizens only by an incorrect Stare Decis of Wong Kim Ark, but certainly NOT Natural Born Citizen, which is Born in the U.S. to 2 Citizen Parents. Senators and Representatives can be Citizens. President and Vice Presidents must be Natural Born Citizens, and the constitution made a distinction. Obama KNOWS FULL WELL that he is not a Natural Born Citizen (he is, after all, a Constitutional Lecturer). He has been QUOTED as saying that the constitutiopn "Constricts" his agenda. Yeah, probably because it prevents him from being POTUS!!

gward said...

I thoroughly enjoyed Dr. Keyes’ article on World Net Daily. Of course, I enjoy all his articles and particular enjoy hearing him speak. One thing I like most about Dr. Keyes’ articles is that they make you think and this one not only got me thinking but angry as well. Not angry with Dr. Keyes but angry of the way he and others are being treated.

For instance, why was Robert Gibbs' riposte smug and evasive to Les Kinsolving's question? For the same reason liberals’ ridicule and laugh at anyone who suggests that we have a usurper in the White Hall. He is scared. Scared because he knows Obama is hiding something and afraid that that something involves his origins. In essence he is lying for him. Try looking up the signs of a liar and these are some of the signs you will find:
• A guilty person gets defensive. An innocent person will often go on the offensive.
• Liars sometimes avoid "lying" by not making direct statements. They imply answers instead of denying something directly.
• Using humor or sarcasm to avoid a subject.

Not only is the White House scared but you can tell the Mainstream News Media is scared too. In a recent interview on CNN, Dr. Keyes and Orly Taitz were no doubt set up to look like fools. Even before they had a chance to present their case, the interviewer tried to bias the audience by stating that there is overwhelming evidence proving that Obama was born in Hawaii and then she showed clip after clip all in favor of this viewpoint. (I’m still waiting for the overwhelming evidence she promised us.)

One of the arguments that an opponent to the birth certificate issue will use is “How, can such a secret be held from the public?” Well, duh, it can. Take for instance the Watergate Break-in. How long did it take before the truth became known that President Nixon was behind it? Until he did the honorable thing and resigned, most everyone in the general public didn’t believe he had anything to do with it.

Of course if it is a secret being held from the public, it’s being held by the Mainstream News Media (including FOX). An example of this is President Clinton. Remember the famous words, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman?” He went as far as perjuring himself under oath to try and conceal his lies and most everyone still believes him up unto this day because the Mainstream News Media downplayed the out of court settlement which resulted in a five-year suspension of his law license and $25,000.00 fine for contempt of court. Now, how many people in the general public know about that?

I hope the time is near when Obama is finally exposed. For each day he is in office, it will no doubt take much longer to undue the damage than the time he’s spent usurping. However, when the truth finally does come out, the Mainstream News Media’s biggest fear will be not us Birthers, but from the Animal Rights Activist when the crow population begins to diminish beyond extinction.

Mick said...

gward,
Again, the BC issue is a Red herring. If you think that Kensalving (WNJD) is being called on by Gibbs to be fair or nice, you are mistaken. If you think that Keyes and Taitz were on CNN out of fairness, think again. Obama's strategy now is to focus attention on the BC. That is why he has scubbed Fight the Smears from the Internet (go ahead try to find it). He had admitted on FTS that his father was not a citizen and that his citizenship was "governed" by the British Naturalization Act of 1948. He also, so as not to out right lie, said he was a Native Citizen. Now as a Constitutional Lecturer don't you think he knows the correct term is Natural Born Citizen? Is he trying to make you think he is saying NBC? You can bet that the sudden discussion of the BC in the MSM is not an accident. The true LEGAL QUESTION is how could he be a NBC when born with dual citizenship (British, due to Kenyan father)? It would not matter if he was born in JFK's lap in the Oval Ofiice, with a big Star overhead, and 3 wise men visited. Dual citizenship at birth excludes him from being a Natural Born Citizen. Of course, being a Constitutional Lecturer, he is well aware of this little snag, that why he wants everyone focused on the BC, at which time he will spring it, bet on it. Think about it, when you talk about a Natural Born Athlete, it means that athletics is in one's Blood, DNA, Genes. Obama's Blood, DNA, and Genes are Kenyan.

Terry Morris said...

What a dumb*ss thread this has become. Very ... demoralizing.

Mick said...

to Terry Morris,
Why is it so demoralizing? Are you fixated on the Red Herring also? If so you are being had.

Terry Morris said...

My friend, this assertion that Hussein Obama is all of a sudden going to release his long form birth certificate at the time appointed, ending the controversy in one fell swoop, is just ... dumb, to put it mildly.

Methinks you've been reading Devvy Kidd too much.

pbunyon said...

Well, we all know he is not legally our President. I thought we were looking at what else this administration and its unbelievable supporters are doing both legally (gesture) and illegally to push back against the overwhelming, and building case which should lead to impeachment...already.

It quickly struck me what Dr. Keyes is saying about their kind of perceptions and how it pretty well permeates, well, everything they do.

They are already dead to truth.

Mick said...

To Terry Morris,
Who is Devvy Kidd? The point is that it will allow him to end the controversy if you all are focused on the BC. Like I said before, a good Lawyer never asks a question that he doesn't know the answer to, and you or anyone else don't know if he has a real BC or not. The POINT is that the legal question and FACT that he was a Dual Citizen when born is something that is absolutely KNOWN and admitted to. Born in the US does not make a NBC. It is Born in the US OF 2 U.S. CITIZEN PARENTS. If he can get everyone focused on the BC and then produces one, then the air will go out of the "Birther" Movement real quickly, and he will make you all look silly. That is the path he is trying to achieve, and those that focus on the "All you have to do is produce a $12 document" are being set up to look silly. There is NO WAY that the founders, in their desire to insulate the POTUS from Foriegn influence, would have allowed anchor babies to become POTUS, it is Laughable to even consider.

tjmarz said...

the just seed

in my left hand
one grain of dirt
in my right hand
one drop of water
i am the middle
the just seed
kill me
bury me
watch one thousand
leaders
like me
grow

-tj marz

Terry Morris said...

Mick wrote:

There is NO WAY that the founders, in their desire to insulate the POTUS from Foriegn influence, would have allowed anchor babies to become POTUS, it is Laughable to even consider.

I and others have already covered that any number of times here at this site and elsewhere. The point is this -- I know that, you know that, some others know that. What you seem to be missing, though, is that a huge number of Americans do not care about that little problem. On the other hand, however, almost everyone has a birth certificate and would not hesitate to produce it in order to settle such a controversy. In point of fact, they would have produced it on day one, at the first sign of a controversy, ending it then and there. Just like Hussein Obama should have done (assuming he has one), if you catch my drift.

But you're right, I can't know for absolute certain that Hussein doesn't have a birth certificate tucked away in some vault in Hawaii (I don't recall arguing otherwise, but anway...). But why this irrational fear of being made to look silly? How can it ever be considered "silly" by rational people, the demand to produce real uncontestible evidence of a supposed president's actual place of birth? There are a lot of irrational people out there, I grant you. But those people already think we're 'silly.' Nothing will ever change that.

Mick said...

To Terry ,
By focusing only on the BC you are playing right into Obama's hands. If he produces the BC then the issue is over if that is the focus. There are 2 parts to the equation of NBC. Birth on US soil AND 2 Citizen Parents. It is NOT A LITTLE PROBLEM. The dual citizenship at birth issue is the KNOWN LEGAL REASON that he does not qualify. Again, do you really think that Gibbs is calling on Kesalving at press conferences to highlight the question of the BC because he doesn't have it? You must not be a very good poker or chess player! Whether the majority of the Population is astute enough or care enough about the dual citizenship issue is irrelevant. It is the Legal question that needs to be answered. The "birthers" resistance to this astounds me.

chiu_chunling said...

The "birthers" are (generally speaking) not resisting the notion that "Natural Born Citizen" has a distinct meaning from "Citizen" or even a citizen by birth. My personal view is that the term definitely implies a person who would receive incontestable citizenship by virtue of parentage.

What "birthers" recognize, which you seem determined to ignore, is that such a definition lacks broad support and does not even appeal to most people. Further, even considering that restoring the understanding of the Constitutional requirements takes primacy over any merely pragmatic attempt to save the Republic, the best argument in favor of taking "Natural Born" at its face value would be to prevent a recurrence of the birth certificate controversy.

The "birthers" are helping you (whether they will or not), while you respond by deriding and dividing their efforts. Why does it then puzzle you that they don't view your arguments with much favor?

If not for the birth certificate issue, the quibbling over whether Obama is a "Natural Born Citizen" would have absolutely no significance to the vast majority of even his dedicated opponents. With the birth certificate issue, you have gained an audience, if admittedly still a small one. So at least show some gratitude, or even a little respect.

It will make you much more persuasive.

And however correct your position, you desperately need to become a lot more persuasive. Indeed, the very correctness of your contention magnifies your responsibility to find an effective voice on the issue. Don't meaninglessly squander any potential goodwill you might build with those who are concerned about Obama's eligibility.

Mick said...

To Chiu,
You are still not understanding that the very insistance on the singular BC issue is endangering the entire eligibility argument. "Birthers need to highlight both sides of the NBC equation, lest they get blindsided with an immaculate BC and Game Over! Why wouldn't you all talk about and insist on both sides? It defines common sense. Basically you are saying that the generall populace is incapable of understanding the entire argument.

tonystarks said...

to Mick

maybe i need a constitutional lawyer to help me out here. i would understand your argument if the constitution actually defined what a natural born citizen is. article 2 states that "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States." the part that sticks out to me is the part that says "or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution." maybe they didn't really define NBC and put that little clause in there because they knew that America was a country of immigrants and was still growing at the time and there would be children born to immigrant parents that may grow up to run for president. lets take a look at other presidents who fits your description for not being eligible.

Andrew Jackson (1829-1837) is the only president born of two immigrants, both Irish. Presidents with one immigrant parent are Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809), whose mother was born in England, James Buchanan (1857-1861) and Chester Arthur (1881-1885), both of whom had Irish fathers, and Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921) and Herbert Hoover (1929-1933), whose mothers were born respectively in England and Canada.

I think some people are so outraged that there party did not win that they forgot to look back at history to find that this has happened before and are ignoring the fact that the constitution doesn't define NBC. maybe that's why the senate had to adopt resolution 511 to agree that John Mccain was eligible to run for president since he wasn't born on "American Soil" but on a military base in Panama. Don't let hatred blind you. if you don't like him you can vote him out in 2012. if you can find a suitable candidate.

chiu_chunling said...

"Basically you are saying that the general populace is incapable of understanding the entire argument."

Well, I would replace "incapable of" to "uninterested in", but you seem to be getting close to understanding my point. The comment by tonystarks is quite relevant in demonstrating that lack of interest and some of the practical reasoning behind it. And you must agree that such a comment is a good bit above the level at which the "general public" is going to be debating an issue like this.

I won't disagree with the sentiment you attribute to my statements, even though it doesn't correctly represent what I've said. I don't know whether the general populace is capable of following your "Natural Born Citizen" argument, but I certainly can tell that they are not interested in following it.

Yes, tonystarks makes a basic mistake by both including men not subject to the "Natural Born Citizen" because they were born before ratification, and by failing to address the importance of naturalization of the parents prior to the births of the other men on the list. But that mistake is very natural and even if it weren't honest, you seem to be quibbling over a minor point of timing which does not have any outstanding legal characteristics. Even the fact that a prior violation of the Constitution cannot justify continued transgression will not really undermine the basic sense of most people that tonystarks' argument has plenty of weight compared to yours.

You or I can easily see that argument as flawed and irrelevant. It doesn't change the fact that most people won't see any such thing. Whether this is from a lack of capacity or interest does not matter.

Mick said...

Whether the general populace understands or cares about the argument is irrelevant. Vattels Law of Nations is the inspiration of the term (it is the only place that the term appeared at the time of the writing of the constitution). If you apply Game theory to the argument, then you must present both requirements, since one (dual citizenship) is known, and one is not (existence of domestic BC). Why would you argue only the unknown? It is not very smart.

chiu_chunling said...

The opinion of the general populace is not irrelevant if you're going to try and work through elections (or popular revolt). And if you intend to work through subversion or irresistible force, arguments are unimportant.

To ignore the practical tenability of a given course of action when constructing a game set invalidates the attempted use of game theory. Because you can always construct some "super move" if you ignore the limits of what can actually be accomplished by a given course of action.

As it is, the "Natural Born Citizen" argument only has any force on those who have already made a determination that Obama is utterly ineligible. In my own case, this is because I take the actual wording of the Constitution seriously enough to argue that the entire national government lacks Constitutional authority right along with him. So the fact that Barak Obama is ineligible by birth, while a valid point in my opinion, adds nothing substantial to his incapacity to serve. For many others it is an argument that has merit because they are already convinced that Obama is lying about his birth citizenship, whatever documents he might produce.

When your argument can persuade someone, anyone, who would otherwise not oppose Obama's Presidency, then you can set it up as an alternative to the Birth Certificate argument. The Birth Certificate argument has long since passed that point, millions of Americans who supported Obama are upset over his refusal to produce a valid Birth Certificate. This is not unrelated to the fact that it should be possible for him to do so.

I am in favor of interpreting "Natural Born Citizen" to mean a person eligible for citizenship at birth based on parentage. But I am not persuaded that this interpretation is broadly accepted or even acceptable among the general populace. I cannot even imagine any sane individual who, accepting Obama on other grounds, would be disposed to reject his eligibility based on your argument.

Mick said...

To Chiu,
Psychobabble Nonsense. The Term NBC means what it did in 1788, which is from Vattel's Law of Nations. Clinging to an argument that you don't no for sure is true is just not smart. Stick with the fact that is irrefuteable! "The Populace" will not make this decision. Constitutional Relativism is the death of the Republic. Your stance on this matter leads me to believe that you are a Plant of the Usurper side.

Mick said...

To Tonystarks (obvious Obot),
You are absolutely WRONG. Every President that you named except for Chester Arthur was a Natural Born citizen by the Law of Nations definition. 200 years of Precedent (precedent is LAW) supports the Born in the U.S to Citizen Parents definition. Arthur is NOT PRECEDENT because he committed fraud and Lied about his father's citizenship and even his own birthdate. As far as the Presidents born before 1788, they were grandfathered in by the Garndfather Clause "or a Citizen at the time of the ratification of this Constitution" You can read about all of the examples of supposed Non Natural Born Presidents here and why they indeed fit the Law of Nations (Born in the US of Citizen parents) definition.

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2008/12/05/president-chester-arthur-et-al-why-they-aren%e2%80%99t-precedent-for-obama%e2%80%99s-eligibility/

As for hatred blinding me--- NOTHING is blinding me. The Truth sets me free. Obama KNOWS FULL WELL that he is NOT a NBC, and put his hand on the Bible and swore to protect the constitution--- Think about what kind of man would do that! As for Resolution 511. It was another sham of our government, in their power grab over We the People. First of all, congress has NO Right or POWER to decide who is or to define Natural Born Citizen (That power ONLY belongs to the Supreme Court, see Marbury v. Madison). To change the meaning they would have to amend the Constitution. Second, John McCain was born in Colon, Panama, and even if he were born to citizen parents he could never be Natural Born (see the Naturalization Act of 1795, which revoked the Naturalization Act of 1790). He is NO hero. Resolution 511 was designed to clear the way for both Obama and McCain to run as NBCs when they obviously were not. Come to think of it, why was it acknowledged that McCain was and needed to be born of 2 citizen parents when Obama was not? Read this.

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/06/24/why-do-both-obamas-state-department-and-the-senate-require-two-us-citizen-parents-for-those-born-abroad-to-attain-natural-born-citizen-status/

And this about Vattel's Law of Nations.

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/03/18/two-minute-warning-vattel-decoded/

And this great overview of the issue. Although somehow I know that no matter what you see or read will chang your mind. Maybe it will educate those who wish to be educated.

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/06/16/obama-presidential-eligibility-an-introductory-primer/

Peace

Angelopeter said...

As a Canadian neighbor to you all, I am surprised the masses of God loving American patriots have not yet marched on Washington with torches and pitch forks. I have always admired the patriotism of your country and wished the same for my own, but how much more will all Americans take??

However the frightening thing is that I believe that the Obamanation administration is welcoming, if not willing an uprising so as to have an excuse to enforce a near martial law. They want madness and chaos, they are trying to artificially produce chaos and mass hysteria, because in doing so they can open wide the arms of the nanny state and embrace the mindless immoral citizens who run to her for protection and basic means of life. Then to point the blame at the church going, gun clutching, diesel driving, cigarette smoking “rebels” whom in their “evil minds” value individual freedom over state control and wealth redistribution.

My dear brothers and sisters in Christ ( if I may be so bold to state) Barak Obama is indeed the antichrist foreseen by the prophets and the fathers of out faith (and I know many of you agree)

Daniel chapter 8 speaks of the antichrist, it says…….
“He shall be proud of heart and destroy many by spreading peace.”

SPREADING PEACE! Why I wonder? Who can that be?

gilbertabrett said...

Dear Angelopeter, many of us do believe that O'Drama is either the Antichrist or his forerunner. A world renowned prophet and preacher has also advised many in the USA to put back enough water and food for 30 days. He believes something is getting ready to happen in this country - not sure when, but maybe involving riots. Either which way, people in this country have little if any resolve anymore unless it comes to self. We do not stand for much and love to express our knowledge one to another while our government slowly erodes everything our forefathers died for. We will NOT give our lives for OUR children, of that you can be sure. Our children are even worse - the ones we have not murdered in their mothers' womb. They are spoiled egomaniacs, rude to the core, have no sense of their TRUE history and have the morals of gutter rats. Soon we will join your country and those in Europe, like "Great" Britain, who bow down to the Muhammadans. We will become a third world country and speak Spanish and give 75% of our income to repay all the "slaves." All the criminals will have guns while all of the people who work will pay for everyone else to have "free health care." Some day, the ones who make it through this turmoil will look back and think of all the things we should have done, but then, OF COURSE, it will be too late. I am sad to say that even though I know Dr. Keyes is noble and a strong and courageous man, I do not think there are enough of us out here who would die for what is right. A lot of us do not even KNOW what is right. Pray for us in the USA. You see the feet of the image in Daniel 2? Sometimes I really think we are the feet...

chiu_chunling said...

I just had to quote Colonial Marine Private Hudson there, but went ahead and deleted it. Sometimes, humor is not the answer. But neither are hysterics. Yes, prepare yourselves. Things are going to get very bad. But I promise you that your enemy shall not prosper. At times I have felt that cold comfort to those who face the loss of so much. I have wished it were possible to offer you more.

But I was not fated to be your friend. I will simply do as I have been instructed, and enjoy it more than I ought.

gilbertabrett said...

As one of my friends says in PA, when you ain't got nothin', you can't loose nothin'. We were not impressed with the Criminalus Bills, Wall Street or the Bank Bailouts...

I am a poor man financially, but am happy with JESUS. Americans can sit by and let O'Drama take over this country if they want. I am happy to speak my mind, even if it is wrong and I get corrected. I learn and move on. So many do not know what it is to have that kind of luxury.

I think it is really sad when our Constitution is being ripped to shreds in front of us and no one in our government really cares. WE do not even care, because we do NOTHING when these liars SWEAR to uphold the Constitution and disregard and manipulate the entire document. There is no mass protest from our citizens. No repercussions. No jail time, no fines, not even a person removed from office. I would LOVE to see 500,000 people storm the US House and pick Nanny Polutesy up from her seat and throw her sorry behind into the middle of the Anacostia River.

We can have a Million Man March for black men in America, but only a few show up for Tea Parties? Granted there were not a million men at that march, but there were more than 30,000. In a country of 300+million people, there are not 1 million people with enough spine to go to DC and be recognized?

We have computers so we can organize overnight, but NOTHING is being done. These people are STEALING what time we have left and DESTROYING any future our children COULD have had. And we debate amongst ourselves...

Mick said...

To Gibertabrett,
I TOTALLY agree with you. The people of Iran and Honduras put us to shame. We are asleep while we are being taken over from within. We are DUMB, FAT and LAZY. On my end, I try to wake people up but no one seems to care. I guess we get what we deserve.

chiu_chunling said...

True, a march on Washington has some certain appeal. But it is not the heart, nor any longer the head, of America. You might as reasonably march on Paris.

It seems Obama is fond of saying, "elections have consequences." Whatever he means by that, it is nonetheless true. As a result of certain elections, America no longer has a Constitutional government.

But you still have a Constitution. And it will be well to prepare to defend it.

Call Me Mom said...

I know this is off topic, but...
You were among my choices to receive the "Honest Scrap Award" for your blog. It seems a bit like a chain letter, but it brightened my day and I hope it will brighten yours as well to know that I find your blog brilliant in design/content or encouraging.
Call Me Mom

Here are the guidelines for accepting the award:

In accepting this award, I need to do the following:

1) Say thanks and give a link to the presenter of the award.
2) Share "ten honest things" about myself.
3) Present this award to 7 others whose blogs I find brilliant in content and/or design, or those who have encouraged me.
4) Tell those 7 people that they've been awarded HONEST SCRAP and inform them of these guidelines in receiving it.

pbunyon said...

Mick,

You want to be point man? (j/k) It's true about DC needing a good sweeping. It's time we do really start looking at our options. There aren't many.

Getting folks together is tough. They know we have to work real hard and steady to support the programs they further enslave us with. I agree that folks are asleep. I have been preaching that everywhere I go and most agree. I think we are all waiting for the right 'stimulus'.

Angelopeter said...

@ Gilbert

Yes my friend, I will pray for your country, I promise.


As a catholic I constantly pray for the intercession and aid of the mother of our Lord, to beg of him mercy for this world. However I now have begun to ask for the protection of the Archangel Michael, the defender of God’s children from the Evil One, because I believe that the hourglass of mercy is near empty and now we need protection. I am not trying to be over-dramatic, but all Christians are living in a time where becoming a martyr will be very likely.

Forgive my frankness, America was the greatest country ever created, and Lucifer was the greatest angel created. Im sure you see what Im trying to say. God bless you all my brothers and sisters in Christ! We must not despair! We must remember those glorious words of hope, “ Yes I am coming soon!”

Kyrie eleison

gilbertabrett said...

I do not forget to look into the sky and ask JESUS often how long will HE keep HIS church waiting. Then I feel bad for asking such a bold and direct question, remembering HE said HE did not know the hour. Only GOD. Then I remember I AM HUMAN... I am allowed to ask these things. I need to know and I want to know, but more importantly - and REALISTICALLY - I have to be ready no matter the time.

I am not talking about a march on Washington. I may be termed clinically insane or maybe Janet Reno will come pick me up and intern me (have they built those yet), but I am thinking a little more rigorous action than going to the Dollar Tree, buying crayons and poster board, and creating little catch phrases that get put on You Tube. I am SERIOUS that I would love to see a group of about six REAL WOMEN pick Nanny Polutesy up and throw her in the river. Of course having 1 million people there to stand between them and the riot police would be helpful...

We spend so much time discussing things, but nothing of any real consequence. WE may change our individual lives, but these people in DC are changing the world. MORE IMPORTANTLY to me, they are stealing OUR country from us AND OUR CHILDREN to give to someone we have yet to see.

Now we have King Hussein, or as I also call him since he came back from Ireland and claimed his Irish heritage, O'Drama, saying he likes country music? What is really going on people? Anything to throw us off his horrible scent or endear us to his bosom. YUCK...

I still am in favor of a MILLION AMERICAN revolt. NO work, NO gas, NO TV, NO anything for a week that would send taxes to the federal government. Someone told me they did not see the reasoning behind that. I felt pity for them... Maybe they had not an elementary math education...

gilbertabrett said...

PS - Sorry about Janet Reno in the previous post. I, of course, meant Janet Napolitano... they all look alike...

Mick said...

I am with you Gilbertabrett!!

chiu_chunling said...

I personally would advise people to stay away from any major cities for...the duration. As for a tax protest, the time for that was April 15th. It would be interesting to know how much of the current revenue shortfall is won't pay rather than can't pay. But a million Americans not working for a week? Who would even notice that in the current economy?

The current posturings in D.C. are nothing but a stage show, and all the players know it by now. The world economy is now a giant game of musical chairs, the band stopped playing a while ago, but everyone's trying to whistle loudly till they can edge closer to one of the remaining seats. With so few seats, and so many whistling, it becomes quite the interesting game. But it can't last.

And when this game's over, it's really over.

Terry Morris said...

Chiu wrote:

But a million Americans not working for a week? Who would even notice that in the current economy?

Yeah; kinda reminds me of the great "Gas Out" of '08. Or, more properly, the flawed theory behind it, which somehow had the oil companies 'coming to their milk' once they were 'deprived' of the revenues generated during a single day's gas sales. And gas prices plummeting as a result.

Who would notice it in the current economy? Only the people who ultimately joined in the chorus. They'd notice it on a personal level when they incurred their own budget shortfalls, which would amount to about a week's worth of earnings. And most of 'em would be clamoring around trying to find a way to make up the lost wages. That is, if they hadn't already worked that out beforehand. You know, topped off the tank a day early. But anyway...

pbunyon said...

Terry,

What you are talking about is one of those issues where the devil comes out from the details and devours the weak even if it his own. You can see part of the effects when you go to town and you see huge empty warehouses. If any are operating they are either run down or owned or contracted to a much larger conglomerate.

In college we studied much about how to get around warehousing and to become efficient and interdependent by forming the JiT supply chain model. I always contended that I would not be comfortable depending solely on the chain for day to day operation because a rough spot in the tracks could easily result in a train wreck and often it does.

This is just one more example of how the pursuit of financial prosperity (another 'noble' thing to do) rather than spiritual leads directly to the traps set by Lucifer. We can go on over this but I will not "rabbit trail" any further.

chiu_chunling said...

I guess my point is that Obama isn't trying to avoid wrecking the economy. He's trying to insure that you go down with the ship. For the time being, surviving the present crisis with your independence intact is the most effective 'protest' you can make.

Make no mistake, they're keeping tabs on who's drinking the kool-aid, and who isn't.

gilbertabrett said...

I think maybe a million people not buying anything for a week would make a difference, but maybe not enough? You think how much federal taxes are on so much in this country.

Ok then... How about 10 million? I just know that $ is the only thing that gets peoples attention. Or sex, but that is certainly not something we can use unless someone has some strange pictures with King Hussein... or Michelle... yeah, right... people could care less there too. Monica Lewinsky...

I do see the point about musical chairs though and I realize through Scripture that it is just a matter of time before we get what is comin' to us. I just want to go out fighting.

pbunyon said...

Gilbert,

You need a good night's rest. We are gonna win this one.

TSAQ said...

Is (AMERICA) a (LEGITIMATE) nation? Where in scripture is (AMERICA) located in the (HOLY BIBLE)? (AFRICA) was created by the (GOD OF HEAVEN) and the evidence is in the (HOLY BIBLE). Therefore, (AFRICA) is a (LEGITIMATE) continent. Will the (RED MAN) be mentioned in the bill regarding (BIRTH CERTIFICATES) for the presidency? Further, will the (ENSLAVEMENT) of (MY) ancestors be documented in this bill?

pbunyon said...

TSAQ,

I take it you are one of those people who thinks that Negroes are the original humans of the earth. Do you also think it is possible that any part of the physical earth was not created by the "God of Heaven"? If so, then what part? What does the "Red Man" have to do with the BC issue?? That is like suggesting that you don't need a driver's license because your great grandfather didn't have one. If you need closure on the whole "enslavement" issue, remember "your" ancestors were brought out of slavery in AFRICA which is still happening over there. Unfortunately you show the manifestation of an enslaved mind. You have to get past that.

God Bless

TSAQ said...

Thank you (pbunyon) for evidencing that the (GOD OF HEAVEN) did not create a nation called (AMERICA). No, the (GOD OF HEAVEN) is not a (thief), (robber), nor (murderer). In other words, the (RED MAN'S) homeland. Therefore, the (ONLY), (CITIZENS), on these shores. May God Bless You, Too

chiu_chunling said...

God isn't a (thief), (robber), nor (murderer)?

Since when?

Er...not that I'm saying such things, but doesn't it depend on who you ask? Which, come to think of it, might be a point that bears examination.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but my cousins didn't exactly find America unpopulated when they first moved in either. The Asiatic races, beginning from a very small 'inheritance' in Mongolia, used their advantages (whether genetic or cultural) to...ah, expand that inheritance. At the expense of several earlier races, some of whom are not entirely extinct.

The Ainu, for example. And...er, I can't think of any others off the top of my head. Certainly I cannot recall what the original inhabitants of America would have been called. I don't know that the (RED MAN) bothered to learn their languages. You know, back when they were...gaining citizenship.

Anyway getting back to more relevant matters....

The revenue shortfall is already much worse than can be plausibly explained by the (current) economic picture. You can participate in that much more directly than by putting off your shopping for a week, if you really like. But...while someone might inform Obama if ten million people did so, it's not like it would deter him. The difference between tax receipts and the economic figures indicate that far more than ten million Americans are already doing this to some extent or another.

Obama, except for a very brief and promptly forgotten announcement that he was going to double the funding for IRS enforcement, has not thus far acknowledged the implications. I think that means he simply doesn't want to do so. By all means, try to keep those dollars from going back to Washington...but don't forget that they can always just print more (or, actual printing being expensive, they can just issue trillions of dollars through electronically recorded loans to themselves).

Which is why taxes have been a complete charade since the invention of fiat currency. Back when money was based on actual amounts of precious metals in coins, governments needed to get their hands on that metal in order to spend it as currency. Now we only have a tax collection structure at all (and I mean everyone, not just Americans) to keep up the illusion that governments consider their monetary instruments to have "real value". Oh, and to satisfy class-warfare rhetoric about "soaking the rich". Does anyone believe that actually works in real life?

pbunyon said...

TSAQ,

I guess people really do hear what they want! WOW! You are good at that.

Ya know, the two oldest remains found in (AMERICA), one in Canada and one in Peru are both NOT (RED MAN). A Scandinavian boy was found in Canada predating all known (RED MEN). The older remains found in South (AMERICA) are of Polynesian decent. I say (AMERICA) belongs to the white man and South (AMERICA) belongs to the Polynesians. It makes sense right?

As far as (AMERICA) goes I gotta say the bible talks directly about it. The meek indeed did and will inherit the earth. That might explain why you have so much angst. I cannot speak for Dr. Keyes but I am assuming that (SOPHOMORE) is the last status anyone will give you.

Do you still think that (AFRICANS) or Negroes are the original people of the earth? I am betting you do!

I am Blessed,
-PB

Terry Morris said...

tsaq,

Any relation to "Kid?"

gilbertabrett said...

I need rest? At least I do not write with parenthesis around every other word... Is that code for something? I have a day off on Thursday and I will get some rest - I promise. Maybe there will be a new post by Dr. Keyes by then (HINT, HINT). I don't remember Africa being mentioned in the Bible - Egypt and some other countries, but not the continent per se. I am so tired of people that have never been a slave crying about their "ancestors" being slaves. Most black people do not know what side of slavery their ancestors were on - the slave side or the selling into slavery side - like King Hussein, Massa O'Drama or as some refer to him, the President of the United States... I am not too sure what we are going to win here Mr. PBunyon, but I do not think it will be anything MY ancestors would recognize.

pbunyon said...

I understand you Mr. Gilbert. I reference about winning something is more to do with the spiritual battles that go on and how in that sense it can be very calming.

All the parenthesis of course were an attempt to meet TSAQ where he/she is. In the mean time, Mr.Gilbert, check this out: There were black slave owners in the south who attempted to join the Confederacy. This is one of those things many of us know in the deep south but were never taught in school. You should go to Scroogle.org and hit the Scroogle Scraper and then enter the search terms "Black Slave Owners". They were throughout the coastal plains of the south, most notably in New Orleans.

Maybe TSAQ can chew on that for a while.

PB

gilbertabrett said...

Mr. PB,

I want you to know I NEVER knew there were black slave owners until I read Thomas Sowell's Black Rednecks and White Liberals earlier this year. I also was always lead to believe that white people just walked around in Africa, picking up slaves like they were at Wal-Mart... it was not until I grew older and could CHOOSE what to read, without the US Dept of Edumacation shoving their nonsense down my throat, that I realized that many Africans made a lot of money off of selling their brothers, sisters, cousins, grannies and whoever they could - AND STILL DO TO THIS DAY. It is also understood that King Hussein's (O'Drama's) tribe in Kenya was well known for going into the jungle for the Portuguese to bring them slaves.

tonystarks said...
This comment has been removed by the author.

Post a Comment

Be advised that this comment section is moderated in order to assure respect for civil proprieties. Posts that use obscenities, scurrilous epithets or that are gratuitously disrespectful of others will be removed ASAP. If you think a comment offensive in this way, report it in an email to alan@loyaltoliberty.com.