Hosni Mubarak Dead...

[Skyshark]

"I don't think Obama is a Muslim, but I do think he's an atheist and a socialist/closet communist. In my opinion that's worse. At least Muslims believe in a higher power."

Man , I can't believe that statement.You would rather a Muslim with a H-bomb rather than a atheist/communist ?

I would, depending on the Muslim/Atheist/Communist in question.

[diroco]

I would, depending on the Muslim/Atheist/Communist in question.

I can understand that because you were not around in 62' ---The commies did not believe in a paradise after death if the bombs started to fly.If a Muslim leader was in charge of the U.S.S.R. at the time ?

[Static-Line]

I can understand that because you were not around in 62' ---The commies did not believe in a paradise after death if the bombs started to fly.If a Muslim leader was in charge of the U.S.S.R. at the time ?

Right now the Muslim countries to be worried about in terms of a nuclear weapon would be Iran, Pakistan and to a lesser extent Saudi Arabia. Syria was developing WMDs earlier in the decade, but an Israeli airstrike took care of that much like their strike on Iraq back in the early 80s...

[Static-Line]

The Brotherhood just won the Egyptian Presidential elections:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...d=pm_world_pop



Not a good sign. I'll be curious to see what the Army does next...

[Skyshark]

I can understand that because you were not around in 62' ---The commies did not believe in a paradise after death if the bombs started to fly.If a Muslim leader was in charge of the U.S.S.R. at the time ?

What does that have to do with anything? I wasn't there so I don't know? Whatever.......

My point of my post was the entire Muslim world can not be labled as one. I truly believe that htere are true Muslims out there that do not believe in War and want peace and do not want to "kill all Americans" or to take part in the Jihad. Just as there were Coimmunists that didn't want WWIII. If ALL Communists in 1962 wanted it, then why didn't they drop the bombs they had? Same thing goes for the NAzi PArty in WWII Not all Germans believed in what HIlter wanted. They fough because it was thier country at war. People mistake the Nazi's for all the German race at that time, they don't realize that the Nazi Party was exactly that. A political Party. Not all Germans believed in it or took part in it. Not all Muslims believe in the Jihad on the Americans and not all take part in it. IF that was the case then the POTUS would be at war with us.

See my point?

So depending on the Muslim/Communist or Atheist that is in question it all depends. The questions that was asked was, Would you want a Muslim over a Communist? I said it all depended on the Muslim and Communist. If I were to choose between Obama and Stalin? You bet your ass I would choose Obama every time.

Because I wasn't around in 1962..............whatever.............

[Zimmy]

I'm pretty damned sure any random Christian shouldn't have "da Bomb".

Those asshats who protest funerals of soldiers come to mind from the Westboro Baptist Church.

[Skyshark]

I'm pretty damned sure any random Christian shouldn't have "da Bomb".

Those asshats who protest funerals of soldiers come to mind from the Westboro Baptist Church.

Exactly my point.

[Static-Line]

What does that have to do with anything? I wasn't there so I don't know? Whatever.......

My point of my post was the entire Muslim world can not be labled as one. I truly believe that htere are true Muslims out there that do not believe in War and want peace and do not want to "kill all Americans" or to take part in the Jihad. Just as there were Coimmunists that didn't want WWIII. If ALL Communists in 1962 wanted it, then why didn't they drop the bombs they had? Same thing goes for the NAzi PArty in WWII Not all Germans believed in what HIlter wanted. They fough because it was thier country at war. People mistake the Nazi's for all the German race at that time, they don't realize that the Nazi Party was exactly that. A political Party. Not all Germans believed in it or took part in it. Not all Muslims believe in the Jihad on the Americans and not all take part in it. IF that was the case then the POTUS would be at war with us.

See my point?

So depending on the Muslim/Communist or Atheist that is in question it all depends. The questions that was asked was, Would you want a Muslim over a Communist? I said it all depended on the Muslim and Communist. If I were to choose between Obama and Stalin? You bet your ass I would choose Obama every time.

Because I wasn't around in 1962..............whatever.............

You're absolutely right. It depends on the school of Islam that carves up the Sunni-Shia factions. Sunni extremists such as Al Qaida, for instance, follows the Wahabbist school, which is so radicalized they view other Muslim sects in the same light as they do Jews and Christians. Groups like Hamas, PLO, Muslim Brotherhood/Egyptian Islamic Jihad etc follow the Salafi ideology, which BTW is just as bad as Wahabbism. In fact, EVERY Sunni Muslim terror organization out there is influence by one of these two ideologies, which are so similar we see organizations like Al Qaida recruit Salafists into their ranks (e.g. current leader of Al Qaida Dr. Ayman Al-Zawahiri who is a Salafist and Muslim Brotherhood alumni). Fortunately, the majority of the Muslim community doesn't fall into these two categories. The bad part is these two groups are so violent they've been able to effectively isolate and push out the other sects. There's very much a culture war going on right now. We're even seeing it where I'm at in Afghanistan.


As for the Shia, the big one here is the late-Ayatollah Khomeini's Revolutionary Twelver form of Shia Islam that forms the basis of the IRGC, IRGC-Qods Force, Hezbollah and other proxies such as Jaysh Al-Mehdi, Dawa Party and SCIRI/ISCI/Badr Corps. Those guys are ones to watch for the simple fact they believe in the coming of "The Mehdi," or their version of the return of Christ. That's all well and good, until you get to the part about his return can only happen when the "end days" have arrived and the world is on the verge of being wiped out. The twisted thing about what the Iranian Regime follows is they believe nukes are a way of "expediting" this process of bringing about "the age of the Mehdi." That's something every last one of us should be concerned about.

[IEDmagnet]

You're absolutely right. It depends on the school of Islam that carves up the Sunni-Shia factions. Sunni extremists such as Al Qaida, for instance, follows the Wahabbist school, which is so radicalized they view other Muslim sects in the same light as they do Jews and Christians. Groups like Hamas, PLO, Muslim Brotherhood/Egyptian Islamic Jihad etc follow the Salafi ideology, which BTW is just as bad as Wahabbism. In fact, EVERY Sunni Muslim terror organization out there is influence by one of these two ideologies, which are so similar we see organizations like Al Qaida recruit Salafists into their ranks (e.g. current leader of Al Qaida Dr. Ayman Al-Zawahiri who is a Salafist and Muslim Brotherhood alumni). Fortunately, the majority of the Muslim community doesn't fall into these two categories. The bad part is these two groups are so violent they've been able to effectively isolate and push out the other sects. There's very much a culture war going on right now. We're even seeing it where I'm at in Afghanistan.


As for the Shia, the big one here is the late-Ayatollah Khomeini's Revolutionary Twelver form of Shia Islam that forms the basis of the IRGC, IRGC-Qods Force, Hezbollah and other proxies such as Jaysh Al-Mehdi, Dawa Party and SCIRI/ISCI/Badr Corps. Those guys are ones to watch for the simple fact they believe in the coming of "The Mehdi," or their version of the return of Christ. That's all well and good, until you get to the part about his return can only happen when the "end days" have arrived and the world is on the verge of being wiped out. The twisted thing about what the Iranian Regime follows is they believe nukes are a way of "expediting" this process of bringing about "the age of the Mehdi." That's something every last one of us should be concerned about.

Yep.... The fact is that all the decent people of the religion are silenced by threat of death.

Let us not forget the Mahdi of Muqtada Al Sadr, who may be quiet....but is merely biding his time. The list is unending of twisted fucks who are fighting a new age crusade.

[zanshin]

I believe that at the top of these extremist pyramids, the assclown in power is little different than the buttnuggets that try to run America. Power corrupts, and the theology and extremism is merely the mindset they employ to get stupid people to do their will. Oh, they turn it up a notch or two farther than the US politicians to be sure, but getting people to buy into your particular brand of horseshit is the name of the game, and the guy at the top ain't strapping no vest on to take out the enemies of his particular God. He just wants to be the next bath-robed douchebag cruising around in a private Airbus A-380 and signing oil deals while he sucks down umbrella drinks and bangs infidel whores.

[Old All American]

Yep.... The fact is that all the decent people of the religion are silenced by threat of death.

Well said - Think Anwar Sadat.

[Static-Line]

Yep.... The fact is that all the decent people of the religion are silenced by threat of death.

Let us not forget the Mahdi of Muqtada Al Sadr, who may be quiet....but is merely biding his time. The list is unending of twisted fucks who are fighting a new age crusade.

Oh yes, we can't forget our old friend "Muqi." He's the next Hasan Nasrullah (of Hezbollah)...

[Jeff82]

During all this crap about his birth certificate I couldn't help but wonder what was really going on here. By Jus Soli, Law Sanguinis or "Law of the Blood" he'd be a US citizen no matter WHERE he was born as long as his mother was a US citizen. Now, there is a chance she might have done something stupid like renounce her citizenship or something like that (she was quite a job), but without proof... So all this nonsense was nonsense - it was like when some folks tried to claim John McCain wasn't a US citizen because he was born in the Canal Zone. For crying out loud, if that's the case then half the kids I graduated high school with weren't citizens.

Had a guy I was stationed with in Germany whose mother was German, he had a bit of a mess because he had dual citizenship and the German Army tried to draft him. Our BC (Battery Commander) had to let them know he was in the US Army and he renounced his German citizenship - problem solved.

So what is all the hoo-rah about? Why didn't he just let everyone see his REAL birth certificate at the start and stop the confusion? Then there's this thing about his college transcripts - what's going on there?

Then it hit me - it's all abour diversion. If we have folks screaming about his birth certificate and transcripts we're not watching what he's doing elsewhere. Watch my hands so I can kick you! Watch my feet so I can punch you out. All the while he can make anyone who criticizes or question him look like a lunatic by lumping them in with the "birthers." Yeah, and everyone who criticizes him or his policies is automatically a racist...

For the umpteenth time: it's not about if he's a "citizen" or not! It's about if he's a "natural born citizen" according to the US Constitution. Article II, Section 1: "No person except a natural born Citizen ... shall be eligible to the Office of President;"

"Natural born citizen" according to the Birther argument means a citizen who is jus soli ("right of the soil"), born in the country, and jus sanguinis ("right of the blood"), born of two citizens loyal to only the US. There are several court cases arguing various points and legislation that has modified laws pertaining, but a court has never explicitly answered the very questions being asked about 0bamao. This is what the Birthers want: a legitimate look by the court at the legitimacy of The 0ne.

BTW, The 0ne has yet to provide a real birth certificate.

[Old All American]

For the umpteenth time: it's not about if he's a "citizen" or not! It's about if he's a "natural born citizen" according to the US Constitution. Article II, Section 1: "No person except a natural born Citizen ... shall be eligible to the Office of President;"

"Natural born citizen" according to the Birther argument means a citizen who is jus soli ("right of the soil"), born in the country, and jus sanguinis ("right of the blood"), born of two citizens loyal to only the US. There are several court cases arguing various points and legislation that has modified laws pertaining, but a court has never explicitly answered the very questions being asked about 0bamao. This is what the Birthers want: a legitimate look by the court at the legitimacy of The 0ne.

BTW, The 0ne has yet to provide a real birth certificate.

"Natural born citizen" according to the Birther argument means a citizen who is jus soli ("right of the soil"), born in the country, and jus sanguinis ("right of the blood"), born of two citizens loyal to only the US. There are several court cases arguing various points and legislation that has modified laws pertaining, but a court has never explicitly answered the very questions being asked about 0bamao. This is what the Birthers want: a legitimate look by the court at the legitimacy of The 0ne.

BTW, The 0ne has yet to provide a real birth certificate.[/QUOTE]


My comment wasn't meant to attack "birthers" the crap was the controversy - which could have been avoided - by OBAMA himself by providing his verified birth certificate at the outset. My question was, and still is - why didn't he just show it from the start? It would have saved a lot of "crap." But he allowed the whole matter to balloon way beyond what it should have. Was he hiding something or was he putting himself in the "victim" mode again? This is the job of a "Community Organizer" to create "victims" to use as leverage in whatever cause it is you are championing today. In Big O's case it's his election and re-election.

I totally understand your point Jeff, but it's moot because the courts have refused to deal with the issue and it won't make any difference anyway because enough American voters in their infinite wisdom, voted the sucker in without caring. We should know beyond a reasonable doubt that our President's loyaties are not divided, that was the purpose of requiring the President to be a natural born citizen in the first place.

But, now the whole issue has been turned to make anyone who questions his citizenship look like a lunatic - which I think is the point. As I said, he could have put this thing to rest from the outset by producing a legitimate birth certificate, but he didn't - instead he let this whole controversy go on and on. That was the point of my post, not necessarily to poke at birthers. At this point, I believe pursuing the matter is a waste of time (as much as I'm curious) because it will do no good. The guy's been in office three and a half years, screwed our national debt, our economy, and tangled up our healthcare system even if SCOTUS overturns Obamacare it will be a mess undoing the damage already done - and we haven't even begun talking about the disaster of his foreign policy (or lack thereof), and if we did somehow prove or get the Court to rule he's not a citizen what do we get? Joe Biden? That's a scary thought. I don't think they'd say McCain should have won and put him in - he'd move in just in time to move out again. So I say we move on and remove the guy in this election and then see that it doesn't happen again by ensuring no candidate ever gets on a ballot without proving they are a natural born citizen (I personally believe either by jus soli or jus sanguinis works- but a person with dual citizenship should have renounced that second citizenship quite some time before running).

The Constitution is vague on what "Natural Born" means, but various statutes and practice have established that a child with at least one American parent is a citizen no matter where he/she was born providing (in the case of an American mother) the American parent has spent a total of five years in the US before the child's birth with at least two of those five years being after her 14th birthday. In that case Obama is a natural born citizen. There are different rules for kids whose dads are American because of the kids our soldiers have left in foreign lands over the years; for the child of an unwed American mother born overseas, the mother only had to be in the States for one year. This is all we have to go by and in effect, the courts have ruled by refusing to rule on the subject; they are staying out of it and leaving it to the other branches much as they have refused to rule on what exactly a republic is numerous times.

I understand the frustration here, felt it myself many times, but as I said before, this has become a moot point, like it or not. Perhaps one day we'll know the truth and I'd like to know for my own self. Right now I want to concentrate on his defeat in November, the prevention of as much damage as we can before we say goodbye to his butt in January. As the old soldier said, "Choose your battles wisely."

Have a great day, buddy!

[Skyshark]

The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term “natural born” citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth,” either by being born “in” the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship “at birth.” Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an “alien” required to go through the legal process of “naturalization” to become a U.S. citizen.^[1]

The Naturalization Act of 1790 stated that "the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens". (Act to establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, 1st Congress, 2nd session, March 26, 1790, 1 Stat.L. 103 at 104, 2 Laws of the U.S., ed. Bioren & Duane (1815) 82 at 83.) This act was superseded by the Naturalization Act of 1795, which did not mention the phrase "natural born citizen".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural...citizen_clause