Archive for April 2011
Do ‘Birthers’ Have a Legal CONSTITUTIONAL Issue?
Does the U.S. Constitution require BOTH parents to be “natural-born American citizens” for their offspring to become legally eligible or qualified, meet the test of Constitutional law, to legally become President of the United States?
The issue emphasized here in this question, is NOT whether or not Barack Obama was born in the United States. Rather if BOTH of his parents were also born in the United States, thus becoming natural born citizens. – Certainly NOT naturalized citizens.
To become a “natural born citizen” one must have TWO natural-born citizen parents, NOT just ONE as is the case of Barack Obama.
There’s an interesting analysis of this issue raised on this blog, “Obama has declared war on the Constitution.”
Wikipedia also has a considerable discussion on this issue of natural born citizenship: “Natural Born Citizen Clause“. The definition discussed and argued ALWAYS stipulate to the TWO parent requirement – in other words “natural born PARENTS” for a “natural born child” for a “natural born citizen.” All three born in America or on American soil.
Does Barack Obama meet the legal test? He certainly is a “citizen born on U.S. soil, but I’m not so sure that he is a “natural born citizen.” His father certainly was NOT a natural born citizen. A copy of his recent released Birth Certificate is here – click “rest of the entry”.
[UPDATE :: April 7, 2011 – Trash-Talking – A Way of Life]
The Report “Goody Two-Shoes” is about the unabashed, shameless hypocrisy of this areas number one Opinionator. Well, possibly with the rare exception of Hank Sims who seems to be growing more and more vocal since he departed the North Coast Journal. For example, his My Word contribution in the Times-Standard, Wednesday, April 6, 2011, was at least appropriate, positive and pertinent to present circumstances and the local community. As exhibited by Dave Stancliff’s responding commentary on my comparison of his trite newspaper rant on “frivolous lawsuits” when he was publicly threatening me occasionally noticing some of his weekly efforts to “game the system.”
A really good example of how he tries to “game” the system, in this case, his systemic support for personal credibility and legitimacy, is contained in the total disconnect and irreverence for his own credibility. Not one time EVER has he produced any personal integrity regarding the issue he raises. Refute his egregious accusations, and he simply moves on to something more profane, insulting and abusive. That course of conduct is, by definition, the obvious characteristic of an empty, hollow, self-serving and amoral person without any substance whatsoever.
Is Joe Blow attacking the messenger? Hardly. As it turns out, nearly two years of his demonstrated conduct as recorded on this blog demonstrates that he never had a “message” other than himself. He is the message. As it turns out that “message” is a stupid joke. He’s a person caught in his own trap; what he wants, he can’t give. What he gets is exactly what he gives.
[UPDATE :: Friday, April 8, 2011]
This Report’s responses regarding the bogus issues raised by Dave Stancliff in the comments he makes on this blog are at an end. You can read the reasons why here. As demonstrated below by his total disconnect from the very issues he raises, his only purpose is to use the opportunity to get off on making his kind of degenerate, filthy commentary. I’ve given him amply opportunity to workout whatever differences he believes exist. Not one time has he stopped his personal assaults. Enough is enough.
Dave Stancliff came on my blog, again, and called ME a “hypocrite.” Can anyone believe this guy? Pathetic Parasite, is all I can say!
Read for yourself: Joe, you know that I tried to meet with you to personally talk out our differences and you refused. Yet, here you preach the only way to solve problems is “peacefully one on one.” [Emphasis added]
Who is this “Joe” he talking to, anyway? He’s been attacking Joe Blow as if he is some literal, carnal person for over two years. Joe Blow is a nameless, non-person alter ego. Joe Blow is and can be anyone at any time. What is it with this guy anyway? Again he demonstrates his inability to distinguish between reality and fantasy. He apparently read what I wrote and is totally clueless.
EVERYTHING about Dave Stancliff’s years-long assaults, his very personal attacks, name-calling, incessant hyperbole, ad hominem diatribe and paranoid threats are recorded on this blog. What I know or whatever he THINKS or BELIEVES “I know” are only the results of his paranoid delusions or his self-emasculating dreams manifest in his continual verbal conjectures or spoken worthless opinions. Notice I did not call him a LIAR, even though that is exactly what this statement is, a bald-faced lie: “Joe, you know that I tried to meet with you to personally talk out our differences and you refused.”
I repeatedly and categorically stated that Joe Blow did not possess any “differences” with Dave Stancliff despite the fact that right from Joe’s very first observation Stancliff personally and publicly attacked the author of this Report or at-least tried to, and never stopped. Dave Stancliff went to WAR with Joe Blow. He NEVER showed any intentions of trying to make peace or “resolve our differences.” More importantly even as he made his disingenuous offer to “meet Joe” he continued with his personal assaults, diatribe and lying personal accusations. That act, consequently BECAME a “difference.” A false, lying accusation personally directed at someone is the equivalent of a physical slap in the face. How does anyone “talk” out the “differences” while getting slapped in the face? You don’t, you can’t. All you can do is try to defend yourself. In that regard, to test his honesty and sincerity and as a visible or literal, sign of good faith, the equivalent to a handshake, I asked him do one simple, little thing for me, to simply stop. He refused.
What I know for a fact is HE REFUSED to “work out ANY difference,” including one he said we had when I asked him and when given the opportunity. So, he lied.
Now, about this nonsense: “Yet, here you preach the only way to solve problems is “peacefully one on one.” What is this, “I preach,” but he doesn’t? You would think this guy sits on God’s right hand the way he knows what other people believe and think. PREACH? No one put a gun to his head and made him come to my blog home” and read what was written there. Here is a quote of what Joe said:
“There’s another lesson learned here and that is when you don’t communicate, and I am not talking about arbitrary ultimatums either, the only other way to resolve issues is WAR. The choice: either talk peacefully or act violently. When people refuse to recognize your legitimate rights to exist same as them and then act on that belief refusing to talk to you, they are at de facto war with you.”
Does that sound like I said there is “only” one “way to solve problems”? To continue on in the article:
“The best solution is to work out the problems personally – peacefully – one on one. Whenever you bring in a surrogate to speak for you or act in your behalf, you are ostensibly at war.”
Lest anyone forget, at the time of this writing, Dave Stancliff already threatened me with legal action. Since actions speak louder than words, the HYPOCRITE self-manifests for all to see. It isn’t the fact of what observations Joe Blow makes regarding Dave Stancliff that harms or degrades his self-made importance and value. It is the fact that he has proven himself to be an unprincipled, deviate, and corrupt individual incapable of rational and decent behavior.
Dave April 1, 2011 at 9:31 pm
you know that I tried to meet with you to personally talk out our differences and you refused. Yet, here you preach the only way to solve problems is “peacefully one on one.”
Now the shoes on the other foot for you.
How do explain this hyprocrisy after this post?
When I first looked to see what Dave Stancliff had written in his Sunday As It Stands opinion column I thought,
“here he goes again – preaching more lawless, mob rule.” After reading the article I decided not to make any observations – the whole thing was way too trite.
So, what changed my mind? You don’t suppose I could pass up another golden opportunity to excoriate Dave Stancliff, do you?
Actually, no. What griped me is the constant drum-beat for more laws to deprive everyone of what freedom, justice and accountability remains in our corrupt society. “Frivolous lawsuits” are just that, FRIVOLOUS.
When every deck there is, is totally stacked against the average working and retired man and woman in this country, using one Mickey Mouse lawsuit to fill newspaper space railing against “frivolous lawsuits” does everyone a disservice. Rather than denigrate the injured, he would have better served everyone had he spent the time and word dealing with the real cause of the problems: greedy, self-serving and amoral lawyers.
Let’s set the matter right – right up front, I don’t have any use for lawyers. First, its been my experience, that they all believe they are better than everyone else. If for no other reason than they are in a position to victimize the people that are forced to use them. The judges in this country think they are too good to speak to or recognize the “common” man. So they breed this special class of royalty that judges will accept past their Bar. Second, if you don’t have the money to pay their exorbitant fees, despite the fact that they are employed by you, the “fee” payer, they exercise their right to betray you, to the detriment and harm to you, your business and your family’s best interest. Even if you have the money, where “money” is no issue, they still treat you like some sub-human, low-class pile of dog crap.
Since that’s pretty much the bottom line when it comes to lawyers, for me personally today, whenever I have a problem, rather than look to a lawyer to purportedly speak in my behalf, I deal directly and personally. Since the gutless, effeminate paranoid have passed so many laws today restricting speech, the safe possibility to personally resolve ANY matter by simple speech (communicating by letter, email, telephone or personally) – actually talking to one another, I realize this is a rather precarious solution. That’s the way people used to settle their problems. So, what’s happened?
Well, in Mr. Stancliff’s case, the “shoe’s on the other foot.”
It wasn’t too long ago that Dave Stancliff was threatening to take me to court for writing an observation or two about his newspaper column. Despite the fact that he was making all kinds of outlandish accusation, from where I stand, that was about as “frivolous” as it could get. His “threats” were not “frivolous,” but the basis he set forth certainly was.
What have we recently learned about how we are justified in dealing with people that makes threats? What was the justification President Obama gave for going to war with Muammar Gaddafi and Libya? His, Gaddafi’s “threat.”
There’s another lesson learned here and that is when you don’t communicate, and I am not talking about arbitrary ultimatums either, the only other way to resolve issues is WAR. The choice: either talk peacefully or act violently. When people refuse to recognize your legitimate rights to exist same as them and then act on that belief refusing to talk to you, they are at de facto war with you.
The best solution is to work out the problems personally – peacefully – one on one. Whenever you bring in a surrogate to speak for you or act in your behalf, you are ostensibly at war. No one ever wins at war. Yet, it seems, that is a lesson few if any wannabe elitist Americans have learned.
April Fool’s Day today, right?