Peace Talks With Taliban While They Murder Foreign Tourists

There has been talk lately that the White House wants to hold peace talks with Taliban leaders in hopes of ending the 12 year war the US has been fighting in Afghanistan.  The talks were to be held in Qatar where the Taliban has an official office.

Last week, those peace talks were stalled in jeopardy of never taking place because Afghan officials complained about the Taliban’s flag and seal being displayed at their Qatar office building.  Even though the government of Qatar had given the Taliban permission to erect the flagpole and display their flag and seal, peace efforts hinged on their removal.  By Sunday it was reported that police had removed both the flagpole and seal in order to help the peace talks move forward.

The Taliban had taken control of Afghanistan and ruled it with an iron fist.  After the attacks on September 11, 2001, the US launched a military invasion of Afghanistan which pushed the Taliban out of power and control of the country and helped establish the current government run by President Hamid Karzai.  But the Taliban have not given up the fight to regain their power and control of Afghanistan.

As peace talks between the Taliban, US and Afghan governments are tenuously hanging in the balance, Taliban militants attack a party of foreign tourists in Pakistan.  The tourists were visiting the base camp of Nanga Parbat, the 9th highest mountain in the world.  The mountain and base camp are located in the northern area of Pakistan that has been relatively free of the ongoing conflicts that have been waged throughout the rest of Pakistan and Afghanistan.

It is not clear if the foreigners were there to mount a climb of Nanga Parbat, also known as the killer mountain, or if they were just visiting the general area as typical tourists.  The Islamic militants arrived wearing police uniforms when they opened fire on the foreigners, killing 5 Ukrainians, 3 Chinese, 1 Russian and wounding another Chinese national.

The Jundul HafsaTaliban group from that general area quickly took responsibility for the murders and said that it was done in retaliation for the death of Waliur Rehman, a Taliban deputy leader that had been killed by US drone attack on May 29.  Spokesman for the Taliban in Pakistan, Ahsanullah Ahsan told the media:

"By killing foreigners, we wanted to give a message to the world to play their role in bringing an end to the drone attacks."

Even though these were Taliban attacks that took place in Pakistan and not Afghanistan, I believe it sends a clear message that no matter what the US does, the Taliban will continue to carry out its insurgency until it regains control and power over the region.  There will never be peace throughout the Middle East region because the many different tribes and ethnic groups hate each other have been warring amongst themselves for over a thousand years.

Most Americans think of the people of Afghanistan or Pakistan as being all one national group of people, but they’re not.  Just like America when the Europeans first reached our shores, there were hundreds of Indian tribes scattered across the country.  Many of those tribes have fought with other tribes for centuries.  It was only their common hatred for the spread of the Europeans into their lands that brought many warring tribes together.

Many of the ethnic tribes in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq have tenuously joined each other in the fight against the United States, but when left alone to their own devices, they will go right back to warring with each other like they always have.  The very nature of the Taliban is not that of peace, but of fighting, killing and forcing their way on as many people as possible.

Therefore, I believe we need to withdraw from the whole region and let them fight and kill each other if they want to.  American men and women should not be losing their lives and limbs over the internal conflicts of other nations that we really can’t do anything about or ever hope to really change.

And as for peace talks with the Taliban?  I trust them as much as I trust President Obama to return the US to its Christian foundations.  They may say and agree to one thing, but be certain they’ll do what they want in the long run anyway.  Just bring our troops home safe and sound.

Comments

comments

  • Screeminmeeme

    ''Therefore, I believe we need to withdraw from the whole region and let them fight and kill each other if they want to. American men and women should not be losing their lives and limbs over the internal conflicts of other nations that we really can’t do anything about or ever hope to
    really change.''

    I fully agree. That so many have been maimed or killed by these maniacal Muslims is the shame of government leaders who refused to recognize the truth about the evil of Islam and the futility of trying to reason with those who hold to it. We went to war with them thinking that we would win...they would ultimately submit to us..... and then, when ''given the chance'' to become a democracy, they would chuck 1300 years of Islamic culture and become civilized. And we were terribly wrong.

    The notion that ''all men want to be free'' is untrue. There ARE those who are literally dying to live under the boot of sharia law. And trying to negotiate with them on any level is insanity because they have a religious directive to wage war against the world and nothing short of a voice from heaven will stop them. That Quran-obeying Muslims have such a determined hatred of all people (including their own brethren, tribal against tribe) is a fulfillment of the biblical prophecy about Ishmael and his descendants (the Arab nations)

    Gen 16:12 And he will be a wild ass of a man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.

    That these mountaineers were all brutally slaughtered should open everyone's eyes to the certainty that as long as Islam is on this earth, this kind of murderous behavior will continue.

    • Doodlebug

      Amen!

    • /.murphy

      Does no one remember that we were quite content to let them fight it out with each other until they provided a base for others to attack US?

      • Screeminmeeme

        The entire Muslim world is a '''base'' for them to attack the US because the ideology of Islam compels them to do so.

        I was against both wars and am foursquare opposed to involvement in the Middle East because I believe that we are not the world's policeman and our objective should not be to convert all governments into democracies. People must want freedom bad enough to fight for it themselves...as the colonists did in our Revolution.

        • /.murphy

          Hmmm... I don't terribly disagree with that. The Middle East is full of ethnic and sectarian conflicts that we don't really have to be part of. And we shouldn't. Syria is a great example, yet we're drawn to it because of the Russian submarine base there that the Russians want to keep. We'd like to see them lose it, and that desire may distort our reasoning about what's going on in Syria. Personally, I believe the Syrians need to decide their future for themselves, BUT the Russians may prevent the natural overthrow of Bashar al-Assad. It may be Afghanistan all over again, starting with Babrak Karmal.

          Pet your Iranian kitty for me and tell him/her
          بهتر است که در امریکا زندگی می کنند، زن سبک و جلف

        • Libertarian Soldier

          Sure you pet your own kitty because nobody else can stand your ignorance.

  • Bobseeks

    There can be no peace with any islamic group. Islam is like marxism/liberalism - it is an oppressive, aggressive belief that seeks to force itself on everyone.

    • Doodlebug

      But, obummer MUST make it LOOK like he is trying to do something! You know, like he is the big commander when he is a nothing but an arrogant, lying ................. bow down to them and kiss their ..................! Who would you want to answer the phone at three in the morning? This ............... can't manage a hen house. What pray tell can he do with peace talks? America has never sunk so low, how will we ever come out/ Come, Lord Jesus, Come.

      • Bobseeks

        Amen to that.

  • patriotusa2

    "And Ishmael will be a wild ass among men; his hand shall be against every man, and every man’s hand against him. And he shall dwell over against all his brethren.” (Genesis 16:12). Their hostility toward one another was prophesied right from the beginning. It's time to get out and let them kill each other, rather than kill us.

  • Rob Pobe

    if anyone recalls President Obama (using Gen. Petraeus) began burning evil Bibles as a force protection measure under US military regulations that requires all trash in warzones to be burned, but then when Korans were included, Obama vowed to Karzai to track down and punish any US troop who dared to defile Islam. President Obama (and Hillary re:Benghazi) peace offerings include 'throw another Christian on the bar-be'

    • colleenf

      Yes, obozo's loyalties are becoming more and more clear on a daily basis.
      Just sad that so many really ignorant Americans do not see it.
      May God have mercy on us all..........obozo is setting us up for a really bad next few years..........muslim insurgence and rampant terrorism in our country...........escalating race riots and crimes (black on white)...............and the complete destruction of our economy.
      Many, many people are going to die because of this jerk.
      I hope the libs enjoy the things that are going to happen to ALL of us.
      When obamacare hits full swing in October, I am going to sit back and just sadly say "I told you so" when they are denied medical services that the death panels and bureaucrats deem unnecessary.

      • Sam

        And it has already started. Little by little they will cause chaos in an attempt to wear US down. Be prepared to meet force with mega-force. Use the hollow point bullets on them....

  • VanceJ

    there will never be peace with the Taliban until each and every one is STONE COLD DEAD.!!!! with pork flavored bullets.

    • colleenf

      Yeah, and to think we used to worry about making silver bullets to kill vampires and werewolves!
      Now THOSE were the good old days!
      I would GLADLY donate a box of whatever is needed to eliminate some more of these muslim terrorists.

  • colleenf

    And THIS is who obozo wants to have "peace" talks with?
    Or will he just send Lurch Kerry over to grovel at their feet? I think obozo is best at bowing and groveling.
    This just disgusts me to no extent!

    • JCaude4553

      мy coυѕιɴ ιѕ мαĸιɴɢ $51/нoυr oɴlιɴe. υɴeмployed ғor α coυple oғ yeαrѕ αɴd prevιoυѕ yeαr ѕнe ɢoт α $1З619cнecĸ wιтн oɴlιɴe joв ғor α coυple oғ dαyѕ. ѕee мore αт...­ ­ViewMore------------------------------------------&#46qr&#46net/kkEj

      That these mountaineers were all brutally slaughtered should open
      everyone's eyes to the certainty that as long as Islam is on this earth,
      this kind of murderous behavior will continue.

  • Libertarian Soldier

    We need an eligible, American born, American raised President, not a pResident that isn't one of us. I've been afraid this guy would take us down the road to be a member of the united states of the caliphate and that's what he's doing.

    The drone program should stop hunting and killing Americans and should be used for what they were built, for killing our enemies. Strike the taliban back. Take your tail out from between your legs and use our weapons on our enemies, not our citizens. Use your surveillance the way it was designed. Use your surveillance programs on our enemies, not our citizens.

    Keep the hateful, angry islamic faith that calls for our submission or our death and encourages lying to their enemies, anyone that is not muslim out of our military! Don't attack our Christian soldiers and threaten them with court marshal for worship, bumper-stickers supporting conservative candidates, reading materials by conservative authors, bibles left in plain sight for giving their business to food suppliers with Christian, Conservative ownership.

    Get this Constitution hating, free speech censoring, illegal alien out of our White House!

    • Sam

      But obamy is a closet muslim and dictator wannabe. He is out to destroy the United States of America. He wants US to be a third world country!

    • /.murphy

      Uhhhh... last I checked, Hawaii is a state, making anyone born there a natural-born American citizen.

      • patriot2

        you are not a natural born citizen just because you are born here.also what do we know,pelosi said he was good & we know how she lies.it's likely he was born in hawaii,kenya(look it up,it exists) & the democrats don't want to admit they're the most ignorant life form on the planet(my guess).

        • /.murphy

          You are dead wrong about that. If you are born on US soil, you are automatically an American citizen-by-birth. Didn't you ever wonder why so many people have a problem with so-called "anchor babies?" The fact that there can even be a such thing illustrates beautifully how our citizenship laws work.

        • Gadget1132

          The difference is native born vs natural born. The Constitution requires are president be natural born not native born. Those anchor babies are native born. You must have 2 parents that are citizens of the USA at the time of your birth to be Natural born. This is per the understanding of the word Natural born at the time our founders wrote the Constitution. It comes from the definitions of Vattals. Words do mean different things.

        • /.murphy

          Yes. Those definitions come from Emerich de Vattel, a Swiss legal expert who lived in the 1700s. It is important to note, however, that Vattel's definitions regarding citizenship are not operational in current US law.

          Spiro Agnew was born in NY in 1918 to an American mother and a Greek father who was not a citizen at the time of Spiro's birth. If Vattel's definitions were ever operational, then Spiro never could have been elected Vice-President. There are a number of Presidents with a similar situation, with only 1 citizen-parent at their birth. I believe Obama is the 7th.

          The landmark case regarding this issue was in 1898, United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Basically, the precedent set in that case (and a number of previous ones) is that if a baby is born on US soil, then that baby is legally considered a natural-born US citizen. That's why the citizenship of Spiro Agnew's father, as well as the citizenship of the parents of 7 Presidents, made absolutely no difference.

          There are people who would like to apply Vattel's definitions of citizenship to the United States, but doing so would first require overturning about a century of legal precedent.

          So you're right, words do mean different things: "wishing" is not the same as "reality."

        • Gadget1132

          The evaluation of the meaning of “natural born citizen” in the
          Constitution comes from Dr. Herbert W. Titus, of counsel to the law firm
          William J. Olson.

          He previously taught constitutional law, common law and other
          subjects for 30 years at five different American Bar
          Association-approved law schools. From 1986 to 1993 he was the founding
          dean of the College of Law and Government at Regent University.

          And before that, he was a trial attorney and special assistant U.S. attorney with the Department of Justice.

          His degrees are from Harvard and the University of Oregon, and he’s
          admitted to practice before the U.S. Supreme Court, appellate courts in
          the 6th, 7th, 9th, 10th and other districts. His practice has taken him
          into courts more than a dozen different states.

          His perspective:

          He explains that much of the discussion of citizenship, and the 14th
          Amendment, essentially can be ignored in this argument, in a video from
          TheAmericanView.com.

          “‘Natural born citizen’ in relation to the office of president, and
          whether someone is eligible, was in the Constitution from the very
          beginning,” he said. “Another way of putting it: There is a law of the
          nature of citizenship. If you are a natural born citizen, you are a
          citizen according to the law of nature, not according to any positive
          statement in a Constitution or in a statute, but because of the very
          nature of your birth and the very nature of nations.”

          If you “go back and look at what the law of nature would be or would
          require … that’s precisely what a natural born citizen is …. is one who
          is born to a father and mother each of whom is a citizen of the U.S. or
          whatever other country…”

          “Now what we’ve learned from the Hawaii birth certificate is that Mr.
          Obama’s father was not a citizen of the United States. His mother was,
          but he doesn’t qualify as a natural born citizen for the office of
          president.”

          There have been allegations since long before Obama’s election in
          2008 that he is not a “natural-born citizen,” a requirement imposed by
          the Constitution on no other official.

          Obama’s critics believe that at the time the Constitution was
          written, the founders agree with Titus, and understood “natural-born
          citizen” to mean the offspring of two citizens.

          Obama has claimed he was born in Hawaii, but birth documentation he’s
          released has been judged by a number of document, imaging and graphics
          experts to be fake.

          Others believe he would fail to qualify no matter his place of birth,
          because his father, Barack Obama Sr., was a Kenyan subject to the
          jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of Obama Jr.’s birth.
          They allege the founders precluded dual citizens by specifically
          demanding a “natural-born citizen.”

          http://www.wnd.com/2011/12/375625/

        • /.murphy

          I can only tell you this: mainstream US attorneys who daily work with citizenship law in this country believe Titus is a religious extremist (a Dominionist) as well as a cynical crackpot. He completely ignores more than a century of legal precedent that establishes the fact that ANY person, born on the soil of the United States of America, is a natural-born American citizen by virtue of said birth on American soil, without reference to the citizenship of that person's parents.

          Here's an article on one of the landmark precedents, United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). (There are others as well.) It's published by the Cornell University Law School: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZS.html

          Titus completely ignores the above case as well as many others. I'm not saying Titus isn't making a successful argument. He is, according to his purpose. But his purpose is not to adjudicate whether or not Obama is natural-born (that's for the courts to decide, and he ought to knows that); instead, Titus' purpose is to introduce confusion into the topic, and cause uninformed people who wish that Obama were not eligible to contribute to his cause and buy his books and pamphlets. In that sense, Titus has been VERY successful. It's a racket, and he knows it.

        • Gadget1132

          Back in 1875, the United States Supreme Court, in Minor v, Happersett, ruled that “natural born citizen” was defined as children born of two U.S. citizens – regardless of the location of the birth. It found: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.”

          Origin of the natural born citizen clause

          The strict constitutional requirements were enacted to exclude citizens for the sake of national security in safeguarding the office from inexperience and from persons who may not have sole allegiance. It appears the clause was first introduced for constitutional
          consideration in a letter from John Jay to George Washington dated July 25, 1787:

          Permit me to hint whether it would not 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 Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.

          Jay underlined “born” which signifies the importance of allegiance from birth. The “natural born” requirement renders irrelevant that a person – born to foreign or dual allegiance – may not have renewed his foreign citizenship upon reaching maturity. One is either eligible to be president at birth, or one will never be eligible.

          An important historical definition of “natural born citizen” comes from a 1797 translation of the “Law of Nations,” a 1758 text by Emerich de Vattel, which summarized that body of international law known also as the “Law of Nations”:

          The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

          Note that a child of former aliens can be a natural born citizen under this standard if born in the United States to parents who were naturalized prior to the child’s birth. That was made clear by the Supreme Court’s opinion in Perkins v. Elg.

          It appears from James Madison’s notes of August 1787 that the delegates used the terms “native” and “natural born citizen” synonymously. Additionally, Ben Franklin stated that the framers frequently consulted Vattel’s text. Also consider that Article I, Section 8, grants Congress the authority to “punish … offenses against
          the Law of Nations.”

          In the case of The Venus 12 U.S. 253, 289 (1814), Chief Justice John Marshall stated:
          Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more
          explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its
          authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. …”

          Chief Justice Marshall relied upon a pre-1797 edition of Vattel’s text. The 1797 translation was adopted by the Supreme Court in Minor v.Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), where Chief Justice Waite stated:

          The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be
          natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. …
          It’s significant that this decision was issued six years after the 14th Amendment was enacted. As such, Minor illustrates that the 14th Amendment simply defines who is a citizen, not which citizens are
          natural born.

          In 1898, Justice Horace Gray wrote one of the most controversial opinions in Supreme Court history wherein a man born in the United States of Chinese alien parents was held to be a citizen. Wong Kim Ark
          is the precedent relied upon for the assertion that any person born on United States soil, regardless of parentage, is a citizen. But that’s not accurate. The holding in Wong Kim Ark appears to require for citizenship that a person be born on United States soil to parents who are permanently domiciled here. If the domicile requirement is upheld in future cases, anchor babies will no longer be assumed to be United
          States citizens.

          Regardless, the holding in Wong Kim Ark did not state that such a citizen was “natural born.” In fact, Justice Gray reiterated the definition of natural born citizen as one born on United States soil to parents who are citizens when he favorably discussed Minor v. Happersett:

          That neither Mr. Justice Miller nor any of the justices
          who took part in the decision of The Slaughterhouse Cases understood the court to be committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is manifest from a unanimous judgment of the Court, delivered but two years later,
          while all those judges but Chief Justice Chase were still on the bench,

          in which Chief Justice Waite said: “Allegiance and protection are, in this connection (that is, in relation to citizenship), reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other: allegiance for
          protection, and protection for allegiance. … At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens. …”

          While the dissent feared the majority holding would make Wong Kim Ark eligible to be president, Justice Gray’s restatement of the Minor Court’s definition of a natural born citizen as one born in the United
          States to parents who are citizens stands in direct contrast to the dissent’s fear.

          A few years after Wong Kim Ark was decided, the Albany Law Journal published an article by Alexander Porter Morse entitled, “NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES: ELIGIBILITY FOR THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT” (Albany Law Journal Vol. 66 (1904-1905)):

          If it was intended that anybody who was a citizen by
          birth should be eligible, it would only have been necessary to say, “no person, except a native-born citizen”; but the framers thought it wise, in view of the probable influx of European immigration, to provide that the president should at least be the child of citizens owing allegiance to the United States at the time of his birth. It may be observed in passing that the current phrase “native-born citizen” is well understood; but it is pleonasm and should be discarded; and the correct designation, “native citizen” should be substituted in all constitutional and statutory enactments, in judicial decisions and in legal discussions where accuracy and precise language are essential to intelligent discussion.
          The term “native born citizen” has been erroneously substituted for “natural born citizen” by numerous commentators.

        • /.murphy

          In Minor, that was cited as only one of the possible definitions--the child of two citizens. That was also right before Chief Justice Morrison Waite went on to say that since Virginia Minor was the child of two citizens, that the case had no need to further address questions of citizenship. So Minor v. Happersett did not really consider the question in any depth. Waite merely said that there could be "no doubt" that a person born on US soil of two parents who were also citizens, was, in fact, themselves a US natural-born citizen. He alluded to other definitions that were operational at the time.

          Wong Kim Ark really capped it 23 years later, and has defined how current law works.

          You have correctly noted that the "anchor baby" problem may provide the basis for this issue to be reconsidered, particularly because of the mention of domicile in Wong. A tough point of argument, however, is that that domicile of the parents was not cited as a requisite in Wong's citizenship; instead, the decision was based solely on Wong himself--that the birth of Wong in California and the fact that he had only that one residence in his life were the issues that really mattered.

          Some government official is going to have to try denying an American their citizenship because their parents were from somewhere else and had no legal residency in the US. That will open the can of worms, because you'll find lots and lots of people with parents from somewhere else, who are citizens by virtue of being born on US soil, have never been out of the country, and are as American as apple pie. How likely is it that some court is going to order such a person deported?

          Again, we come back around to Wishful Thinking does not equal Reality.

        • Gadget1132

          Not really as the framers of the constitution were very concerned about our President holding dual citizenship. They wanted the leader to have only one citizenship and one loyalty. This is referenced in many of the writings of our founding fathers. And it is eluded to in the way the amendment was worded exempting the first 35 years.

          This issue may come to the Supreme yet as the challenges continue and a lot of evidence is finally being uncovered. One only hides what they know is not right.

        • /.murphy

          Yes, you're right. The founders were concerned about that. BUT that's not current US law.

          The hypothetical, though, is the following: if Richard Nixon had died in office, could a man with dual citizenship become President of the US? The answer is YES. Greece would have claimed Agnew as a citizen, whether he had acted upon his right to Greek citizenship or not. If he had, he might have been a President with two passports. Perfectly legal.
          After the court battle, my guess is that he would have been asked to renounced Greek citizenship, but there would have to be a legal battle first.

        • Gadget1132

          So you are saying throughout all of this that two wrongs make a right. And current law is still required to follow the Constitution as it has not been rewritten as of yet. It is not exactly a fluid document unless additions are made. So past offenses do not make a current offense legal.

        • /.murphy

          I'm not saying that at all. I'm just saying that our citizenship laws have been tested many times in the last century and a half, and the way it stands TODAY, a person--any person--born on US soil, except the children of foreign ambassadors, emissaries, etc., are automatically considered legal "natural-born" citizens of the United States, regardless of their parents' country or countries of origin. There is also no current legal distinction between the terms "native-born" and "natural-born." They are both taken to mean "citizen by virtue of one's birth on US soil."

          If you want to change it: go to your Congressman, start a referendum, or find some situation where the legality of an American-born person's citizenship might be challenged because his parents came here illegally. Good luck on that, because our government is even having trouble deporting the children of illegals who were born in their PARENTS' countries, brought here at a young age, and are virtually indistinguishable from American kids.

          I'm not sure what you mean by "past offenses" and "current offenses." Nothing is offensive to US law unless and until proven in a court of law. Right of due process.

        • Libertarian Soldier

          Objeciton; irrelevent; argumentative

        • Libertarian Soldier

          What she's saying is, with no evidence to support the assertion, if you ignore the fact that this unAmerican published a biography to support that he was an exchange student, to get financial aid, that he was Kenyan born you just have to believe, Virginia"

        • Libertarian Soldier

          The answer has to be yes, because one without any proof or even argument for citizenship is in the white house and the real answer is not legally.

        • Libertarian Soldier

          Show me the change in the law if that has been changed.

        • /.murphy

          There is also a little nuance (or maybe not so little!) that you missed: the Founders were specifically worried about European landed gentry coming to America and buying their way into power. That's the real reason for the whole "natural-born" thing.

        • Libertarian Soldier

          We're a bit concerned that an illegal alien may have stolen his way in and gotten the wing nuts to fund him. It's going be funny when you people stop with these ignorant, baseless arguments and drop back to some stupid assertion that he was more american than americans so it doesn't matter.

          That's the problem with the troll society. They don't care and are incapable of learning.

        • Libertarian Soldier

          Still off the subject. Back to your bridge

        • Libertarian Soldier

          Off the subject. Don't listen to the troll

        • /.murphy

          What's up with the name-calling? Are you 15? Or are you just running short on intellect?

        • Libertarian Soldier

          So, now you're listening? Sorry! Did I hurt your feelings. Funny you keep coming up with the same irrelevant arguments, absent any substance and you're questioning my intellect!

        • Libertarian Soldier

          Spiro Agnew was never pResident.

        • /.murphy

          Correct. But he was Vice-President, and if you had even one ounce of familiarity with the Constitution of the United States, which you clearly don't, you'd already know that the prerequisites for the Vice-Presidency are the same as for the Presidency. The Constitution is explicit about that. It's called Amendment XII: "...But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

          See? Like I told you... we're gonna laugh!

        • /.murphy

          One more thing--a legal hypothetical. Imagine this situation: an "anchor baby" is born in the US, but the parents decide to take it back to their home country. If that person returns to the US after 20 years, attains the required age and US residency to run for President, could they, in fact, be legally elected President? The answer, based on current US law, is "YES." That situation isn't very likely to occur, but if it did, it would be perfectly legal.

        • Gadget1132

          Perhaps it’s a good thing that the U.S. Senate didn’t take up a resolution on Barack Obama’s status as a “natural born Citizen” in 2008 –as members did for GOP candidate Sen. John McCain while both were
          seeking the U.S. presidency.

          The Democrat might not have qualified under the requirements the Senate, including Obama, a co-sponsor and then-senator, put in the resolution, including the demand that the candidate have “American citizen” parents.

          The candidates’ circumstances were not the same: Questions were raised over McCain’s eligibility under the Constitution’s demand that a president be a “natural born Citizen,” because he was born to American citizen military parents while they are on assignment overseas.

          The statement includes two references to “Americans” as parents or “American citizens” as parents.

          2d Session
          S. RES. 511
          Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.

          IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

          April 10, 2008
          Mrs. MCCASKILL (for herself, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. OBAMA, Mr. COBURN, Mrs. CLINTON, and Mr. WEBB) submitted the following resolution; which was
          referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

          April 24, 2008

          Reported by Mr. LEAHY, without amendment
          April 30, 2008 Considered and agreed to

          RESOLUTION

          Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.

          Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen’ of the United States;

          Whereas the term `natural born Citizen’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;

          Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country’s President;

          Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen’ clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining
          the term `natural born Citizen’;

          Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders;

          Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and

          Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore,be it

          Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.

          The statement was sponsored by Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., who was joined by Sens. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y.; Thomas Coburn, R-Okla.; Patrick
          Leahy, D-Vt.; Jim Webb, D-Va.; and Obama.

          http://www.wnd.com/2011/04/292901/

        • /.murphy

          ...But you'll note that there is NO MENTION of any kind of "requirement" that a person has two American-citizen parents. That's because there isn't a requirement for that. If there were, then Spiro Agnew wouldn't have been eligible to serve as Nixon's VP. EVER.

          I also see you're using WND as your source of information. You probably ought to at least supplement that.

        • Libertarian Soldier

          Objection! Argumentative! Irrelevant and argumentative.

        • Libertarian Soldier

          You're the one living in the hypothetical belief of what if our pResident was actually qualified to be a President!

          Stop arguing off the point, like you democrats always do, exaggerating, misstating the facts and making stuff up.

        • /.murphy

          You just go ahead and believe what you want, silly boy. But the informed are still gonna laugh at you. LOL

        • Libertarian Soldier

          That's a good one! Who are the informed? I'm far more informed on this if you're citing "Hundreds of frivolous cases". Every single suit had merit and your cowardly pResident failed to act, not surprisingly since that's his MO in his whole pResidency.

          Not once has he said, "here it is; this is my proof". His white house staff had a forged birth certificate and a forged draft registration posted on the white house web site. Had attorneys been heard in their cases, those were part of the suit.

          His attorney acquiesced that they may be forgeries. They could not put original documents on a web site. What they did not do is show real birth certificates or draft registrations because they don't exist.

          The respondent party, barack hussein obama arged that it was unfair to have to prove his eligibility because nobody else had.

          Plaintiff argued that they could produce proof for the other candidates and obama, per attorney objected and used a retroactive argument that it was not first required, that there was no standing since the defeated parties did not adjoin the suit and that there could be no proof of irreparable harm.

          Now, you're informed but I've had this conversation with you before and your learning disability keeps you repeating, with no evidence whatsoever to support your claim that your pResident was born in Hawaii.

        • /.murphy

          LOL! Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett wouldn't permit Obama to be on his state's ballot in 2012 without proof. Bennett went to Hawaii, where they showed him something. Obama was on the ballot in Arizona in 2012. Conclusion: Hawaii has proof he was born there. That's where logical Americans are on this issue.

          But go ahead and believe whatever you want. Just look out for the Red Queen.

        • Libertarian Soldier

          there is not a statement made in your post that is accurate. Arpaio and a deputy each went to Hawaii at different times and Loui refused to meet with them. Bennett did not go to Hawaii.

          Bennett says he was given the verification via email he required although he had not seen the requested document. He says that the information was the same as what was in the forged document on the web. I don't know whether they showed Bennett picture of him in bed with farm animals. You don't either.

          http://www.kpho.com/story/18605768/bennett-gets-hawaii-verification-of-obama-birth-certificate

        • /.murphy

          Arpaio?! Laughable. Remember the big press conference? The "new evidence?!" Ha! So where is it? Another fraud.

        • Libertarian Soldier

          You can't stay on point to save your life. Tired of you changing the subject. That's why everybody calls you a troll. You can't do anything but argue off the point.

        • /.murphy

          ...Still doesn't change the fact that Arpaio's "new evidence" was a complete fraud.

        • Libertarian Soldier

          irrelevant, troll. run along now

        • Libertarian Soldier

          Still has nothing to do with the fact that you made up a story that Bennett went to Hawaii which is your fabrication and that while there he personally inspected the fictitious document.

          Make up something that isn't easily dis-proven. You have to be better than that or they'll throw you out of the troll union

        • /.murphy

          Nah.

        • Libertarian Soldier

          You're finally right about something! Pat yourself on the head, for me, princess!

          First, you have to be born on US soil and not shrink from the question and send lawyers to fight about the fairness of the question, with the not so subtle playing of the race card.

          The issue is that your fuhrer has fought, in court, in 12 states, on the tax payers dime, not to have to prove eligibility and he hasn't fought on the basis of eligibility; he's fought on the basis of equal protection since other candidates have not had to prove eligibility besides party vetting and because there has been no proof of irreparable harm.

          To you, I submit the shape our country is in as the irreparable harm.

          Your statement may not be attached to anything due to its irrelevance to the subject

        • /.murphy

          There have been hundreds of frivolous court cases on Obama's eligibility all over the country. ALL of them have been pitched out of court. Not one got ANY traction.

          I guess we could conclude that there is either a huge nationwide conspiracy involving thousands and thousands of people, the military, the United Nations, black helicopters, and the highest levels of all three branches of our government,... OR, we could conclude that none of the cases simply had any merit.

          Hmmmm... what do you think is the most likely? I'm bettin' I already know your answer.

        • Libertarian Soldier

          don't work

        • Libertarian Soldier

          don't argue with the wing nut. She's a bot, a troll. This is how she makes her living, arguing off the point, making stuff up.

        • Libertarian Soldier

          The Hawaiians, the Hawaiians in the state of Hawaii, USA all wink and nod. Then they say, "off the record, it's (that birth certificate is) not here." They don't care. For them, for the record, falsified or not, they have a "pResident from Hawaii.

    • patriot2

      I think you said it all there.

  • http://www.GodAuthoredBible.com geneww1938

    Trying to talk peace with a Muslim is similar to extinguishing a fire with gasoline. Only an uneducated person would try!

    • patriot2

      easy if you approach it in the right way.dump the gas on the muslim & ask your lighter if it want's a closer look.no problem.weenie roast.

  • Franco Begbie

    The thing with a group like the Taliban is that they are not like a country or a private army, something you can make peace with and the entire organisation is now at peace with you. The Taliban, while it has an organised centre that would likely stop attacks if a ceasefire was agreed upon, largely operates with separate cells mostly disconnected from the centre. Those would keep attacking. Also, the Taliban is made of people who are rebellious and radical, they would almost definitely split into smaller groups of those who would still attack and those who would respect the peace. What is the White House thinking?

  • Troubleshooter

    What does it take for the people of the U.S. and everyone else who hates the Taliban to realize that Odumbo is Taliban?

  • TheNSAisReadingThis

    Sounds like a job for the Ukraine, China or Russia. It was their citizens that were killed, not ours.

    Travel tip - do not holiday in Pakistan.

  • tncdel

    Tourists dumb enough to go to such countries provide fodder for Darwin. No doubt most were out-of-touch leftwingers.

  • jb80538

    The taliban DOES NOT want peace.

    • Libertarian Soldier

      Democrats don't know anything about that. They're high five (ing) each other for calling the Tea Party the taliban.