May 29, 2009
John Hawkins polled righty bloggers. I didn't respond, but decided the questions were interesting enough to take on. Still haven't looked at the poll results. My answers below the fold:
1) Do you think the GOP will gain or lose seats in the House in 2010?
Gain, but only modestly.
2) Do you think the GOP will gain or lose seats in the Senate in 2010?
3) Colin Powell said the following, "Americans do want to pay taxes
for services. Americans are looking for more government in their life,
not less." Do you agree?
Agree with the first statement. Disagree with the second. We want something for nothing - more government services with less government regulation and lower taxes. Hence what just happened in California, which I think most conservative pundits have badly misgauged.
4) Whose views do you think are more representative of your personal
opinion: David Frum, Meghan McCain, John McCain, & Colin Powell or
Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Tom Coburn, & Newt Gingrich?
Sin duda, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Tom Coburn, & Newt Gingrich. Not even close. However, I think many of the folks I agree with (and many I disagree with) are needlessly snotty and divisive. They need to go to charm school. As the old saying about Southern women goes, "A lady can tell you to go to hell and make you enjoy the trip."
We need more of that.
5) Do you support the NRSC's decision to endorse Charlie Crist in
Florida's Republican primary?
No opinion. Haven't kept up with the story, so I lack the ability to offer an informed opinion.
6) Do you think Barack Obama was born in Hawaii or elsewhere?
Since his mother was an American citizen, why is this germane? I was born in the Philippines. To American parents. Guess I'll never be President.
7) Do you think that Sonia Sotomayor will be confirmed?
Probably, but the racism issue will damage her and has the potential to torpedo her candidacy... but only if we pass up the temptation to beclown ourselves and deprive the other side of the chance to turn her into a martyr.
Given our uninspiring track record to date, what are the odds of our handling this well?
Posted by Cassandra at May 29, 2009 08:14 AM
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Your answers mirror mine - except I did have an opinion on the NRSC and Crist. I think the National organs of the parties should stay out of the primaries. However, what a lot of people miss regarding things like the NRSC is it's an incumbency protection and Status Quo preservation society, which isn't how they present themselves, of course.
It's an interesting question as to whether or not you and I can be President. I have a naturalization certificate, because I was born overseas (Germany) to US parents, like you.
McCain was facing that question over his birth at the Panama Canal, and you can bet the Leftards would be all over that if he'd won.
But, most importantly, do elaborate, plz:
Hence what just happened in California, which I think most conservative pundits have badly misgauged.
Posted by: The Gun Nut of Argghhh! at May 29, 2009 10:46 AM
I've seen a lot of silly blather about how this "vindicates" the notion that voters want less government. I think that's crap.
I think they want just as much government as they can possibly get (if that means benefits). They just get pissed when the bill comes due and it has their name - as opposed to someone else's name - on it.
Different objection entirely.
Posted by: Cassandra at May 29, 2009 10:50 AM
Technically I was born on U.S. soil (the Naval Hospital). But I'm not sure that even matters.
My parents were both American citizens.
Posted by: Cassandra at May 29, 2009 10:53 AM
Well, as I understand the citizenship argument, it's that at the time Obama was born, being born to a US citizen was not enough to qualify for citizenship. The US citizen also had to meet a residency requirement for their offspring to be citizens.
For example, let's say that your parents were citizens and had lived in this country for 20 years. They moved to Italy and gave birth to you. You are then a US citizen. You, however, stay in Italy and have never set foot on US soil. You then have offspring. Your offspring then would *not* be a US citizen as you would not have met the residency requirement.
I believe this law has since been changed, but the argument is that Obama's mother did not meet the residency requirement and thus Obama would only be a citizen if born on US soil.
Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at May 29, 2009 11:10 AM
The Naval Hospital did not count as US soil, unless the rules for the Phillipines were different than the rules for the US Army 10th General Field Hospital im Stadt Wurzburg in the recently unoccupied OberFranken region of Bavaria.
Ich habe eine Geburtsurkunde, und einer Report of Live Birth to go with my Naturalization Certificate.
Posted by: Help! I'm being Oppressed! at May 29, 2009 12:00 PM
I've never had a Naturilization cert, and yet I've cleared the state dept for my passport twice and it says I'm an American citizen. Don't have time to look up the law, but I don't think any of this matters.
Through birth abroad to two United States citizens
See also: jus sanguinis
In most cases, one is a U.S. citizen if both of the following are true:
1.Both parents were U.S. citizens at the time of the child's birth
2.At least one parent lived in the United States prior to the child's birth.
INA 301(c) and INA 301(a)(3) state, "and one of whom has had a residence." The FAM (Foreign Affairs Manual) states "no amount of time specified."
A person's record of birth abroad, if registered with a U.S. consulate or embassy, is proof of his or her citizenship. He or she may also apply for a passport or a Certificate of Citizenship to have his or her citizenship recognized.
 Through birth abroad to one United States citizen
For persons born on or after November 14, 1986, a person is a U.S. citizen if all of the following are true:
1.One of the person's parents was a U.S. citizen when the person in question was born;
2.The citizen parent lived at least 5 years in the United States before his or her child's birth;
3.A minimum of 2 of these 5 years in the United States were after the citizen parent's 14th birthday.
INA 301(g) makes additional provisions to satisfy the physical-presence requirements for periods citizens spent abroad in “honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization”. Additionally citizens who spent time living abroad as the “dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person” in any of the previously mentioned organizations can also be counted.
A person's record of birth abroad, if registered with a U.S. consulate or embassy, is proof of his or her citizenship. Such a person may also apply for a passport or a Certificate of Citizenship to have a record of his or her citizenship. Such documentation is often useful to prove citizenship in lieu of the availability of an American birth certificate.
Different rules apply for persons born abroad to one U.S. citizen before November 14, 1986. United States law on this subject changed multiple times throughout the twentieth century, and the law is applicable as it existed at the time of the individual's birth.
Posted by: Cassandra at May 29, 2009 12:04 PM
I put up a post on the whole Obama birth thing ages ago. It's here. In that I link to a comment I put up on TigerHawk regarding applicable law when Obama was born. As I read it, the law in effect when Obama was born means that if Obama was born outside the United States he would not be considered a "natural born citizen" because one of his parents was not a US citizen and his mother by definition could not meet the residency requirement of five years in the US prior to her 19th birthday. That comment is here.
Just to make things perfectly clear for anyone who doesn't click through to the links, since I have no reason to doubt that Obama was born in Hawaii, I think this whole issue is - if I may quote our President - a distraction. I have a gentle chastisement of those who cling to this issue along with some thoughts on the perfectly understandable concerns it may be a stand-in for here And may I just say I find it distressing that what purports to be a serious poll of Right bloggers would touch on this question.
As for those who demand to know why Obama has never released his *full* birth certificate, I never got around to do a post on it but I think the answer is crystal clear: he's a triplet and his birth certificate would reveal that. It explains so much. Even his most ardent supporters during the campaign admitted his performance was uneven: sometimes stirring, sometimes pedestrian. Since being elected President he has floated ideas then backed down or come up with plans then seemed surprised at the reaction to them. That argues for at least two Obamas. The third triplet is necessary to explain his 180 on national security: the hawk triplet had to lay low during the campaign but now he's in charge of the defense portfolio.
BTW, I had to look up "sin duda" - I was kind of hoping it meant "no dudes".
Posted by: Elise at May 29, 2009 01:31 PM
And may I just say I find it distressing that what purports to be a serious poll of Right bloggers would touch on this question.
Actually I can see a very legitimate reason for the poll question.
One of our most persistent problems is that the Leftosphere tar everyone in the party with the same broad brush -- inevitably the idiotic words or actions of the biggest dimwits or loudest blowhards. So a poll showing that the vast majority of righty bloggers DON'T believe the Birther conspiracy stories would be quite useful.
Not sure if that's why John did it. But I think it matters.
Posted by: Cassandra at May 29, 2009 01:37 PM
re: sin duda.
You know, I'm not even sure where the helk that came from. As Carrie often observes when we're talking on the phone, "Womyn, your mind is so random..."
Posted by: Cassandra at May 29, 2009 01:39 PM
Birther conspiracy stories
Great phrase. And a good point. The results are up - no spoilers for those who want to vote without knowing the results - but I'm kind of surprised at the low yield: 43 responses out of 265 polled.
Posted by: Elise at May 30, 2009 09:28 AM
I was born in Germany in 1961 and have the Gebursekunde and the State Department's Report of the Birth a Citizen Abroad and a Justice Department Naturalization Certificate as does my older sister. I think that these were all required at the time if one wanted to claim American Citizenship for one's born-abroad offspring. Obama was also born in '61. I had a friend many years ago who was fighting like hell with the Bureaucracy in order to prove that his 18 year old daughter, born abroad, was an American Citizen so that she could get an American passport and study abroad. She lived in the US for 17 years after her birth but there was no record for her and so the State Department refused to grant a passport since her birth certificate clearly showed that she was born elsewhere.
viz the outcome of the California vote, where I live, I think one thing was made clear in that vote. Those who actually pay the taxes and work for a living came out in our tiny droves and voted against the various ponzi schemes proposed by the idiots in Sacramento while those that paid no taxes but derived great benefit from the taxes we pay could not be bothered to head to the polls and cast a vote.
Posted by: Curtis at May 30, 2009 05:48 PM
OK, you guys are apparently missing the entire point on the whole "Obama in Hawaii" thing.
Note: This is NOT to suggest in any way I support any attention getting paid to this issue (yeah, though I'm doing it) -- I think it's a moot and irrelevant point -- worth harping on in the days of the primaries but now, "fuggedaboutit!"
The specific text in the Constitution requires that the PotUS must be a natural-born US citizen, not a naturalized citizen. The obvious idea being that one should have grown up in the USA (or, in the case of a military brat, spent one's entire life around people placing themselves in harm's way for their country) in order to have the kind of executive power over peoples' lives that the PotUS has.
I'm not certain just what the law is on it, but I'm willing to bet that, should Cass's parents not have been US citizens, then being born on a US Naval base would still qualify her for citizenship at adulthood. "Overseas Possessions" (and that, I think, includes military bases and embassies) are included in the notion of "natural-born citizens".
This was specifically relevant with regards to John McCain, who, I gather, was born "in Panama" at the military base there.
If Obama, on the other hand, were not born on U.S. soil, then there would have been a realistic Constitutional challenge as to his legitimacy as a candidate for PotUS. Since it's a done deal, it's kind of like going back now and counting the chads for the 2000 election. It's possibly worthwhile as an intellectual exercise, but serves no rational purpose as far as the Bush presidency itself goes. The term "fait accompli" applies.
I suppose that, theoretically, you could argue that he's not a legit president NOW as a result, but the simple fact is that, were that true, then the amount of utter schreklekeit that would spring forth from it would be unimaginable (make Joe Biden PotUS? Why? and go from there...!! ), which means that any such official investigation is guaranteed, on the basis of simple reason ("what decision result causes the least problem to all involved?") to fail in finding such a thing.
It's moot, and it's been moot since November. Any insistence otherwise just makes one look like those whiny-ass February chad-counting libtards.
Posted by: O Bloody Hell at June 1, 2009 05:19 AM