Talk:Main Page/archive93

Incorrect Spelling

I'm not sure if this intended or not, but transparency is misspelled on the front page; it's spelled with an e, not an a. --MarkN85 15:22, 13 April 2011 (EDT)

Not intended, but a mistake caught nonetheless. Thanks for pointing it out!  :) Karajou 15:29, 13 April 2011 (EDT)

News article?

Hihi, long time reader first time poster- a friend of mine pointed this (http://triblocal.com/crystal-lake/2011/03/28/religion-and-obesity-can-church-make-you-fat/) out to me recently, although it's a couple of months old now. Is the American left wing media simply reading Conservapedia and saying "Nuh huh, you do!"? Disgusting. May god be with you. --AKirsch 23:57, 15 April 2011 (EDT)

Another Article...

http://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-election-2011-latest-updates-and-comment/story-e6frfkvr-1226028144507

Blow-by-blow details about how the right wing political movement in New South Wales, Australia, utterly destroyed the incumbent left wing hacks that had almost ruined the state.

God be with you. --AKirsch 00:14, 16 April 2011 (EDT)

Social Security Numbers

WorldNetDaily reports that Barack Obama has a Connecticut social security number despite living in Hawaii, and that Bill O'Reilly tried to cover up for it by falsely claiming that Obama's father was somehow a Connecticut resident.
I was curious about the geographical aspect of social security numbers was, so I did a bit of looking and found this interesting info, from the Social Security Administration.
"The Area Number is assigned by the geographical region. Prior to 1972, cards were issued in local Social Security offices around the country and the Area Number represented the State in which the card was issued. This did not necessarily have to be the State where the applicant lived, since a person could apply for their card in any Social Security office. Since 1972, when SSA began assigning SSNs and issuing cards centrally from Baltimore, the area number assigned has been based on the ZIP code in the mailing address provided on the application for the original Social Security card. The applicant's mailing address does not have to be the same as their place of residence. Thus, the Area Number does not necessarily represent the State of residence of the applicant, either prior to 1972 or since. Generally, numbers were assigned beginning in the northeast and moving westward. So people on the east coast have the lowest numbers and those on the west coast have the highest numbers.
Note: One should not make too much of the "geographical code." It is not meant to be any kind of useable geographical information. The numbering scheme was designed in 1936 (before computers) to make it easier for SSA to store the applications in our files in Baltimore since the files were organized by regions as well as alphabetically. It was really just a bookkeeping device for our own internal use and was never intended to be anything more than that."

Parents typically didn't apply for social security numbers until the numbers were needed. Nowadays you need this number within the first year to get a reduction in income taxes but this is relatively new. Prior to 1986, you didn't need to supply a social security number to get a reduction in taxes for your children so it was not uncommon for children to not have a social security number until they got their first job. If the family moved to a different state between the birth of a child and the first instance the child needed a social security number, then the state of birth and the region of the social security number might not jive. This exact situation happened to my father who has lived in California for most of his life but took a job in Indiana when he was a teenager that required a SSN, so his SSN starts with a 3, while all his brothers and sisters SSN's start with a 5 Jsparks 3-5-11

Standard and Poor's and the US credit rating.

The headline as posted is a little bit off the mark. S&P has downgraded its outlook on the US credit rating to "negative," it has not downgraded the credit rating to "negative." The rating itself remains unchanged. LloydR 18:03, 18 April 2011 (EDT)

Good point. I think I fixed it. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly 19:15, 18 April 2011 (EDT)

Conservative Constitution project

Has a conservative Constitution project been proposed? This would basically be the same as the Bible project, removing ambiguity, clarifying and making use of powerful conservative terms not available to the authors. BradB 14:58, 20 April 2011 (EDT)

I don't know about others, but I'd oppose such a project. The Conservative Bible project is a worthy venture because it is translating something that is in of itself a translation; the KJV was flawed in many ways and the project corrected that and restored it to more of the Bible's original intent. On the other hand, we already have the text of the Constitution in english free of any bias-it's the original document, unlike the KJV being a translation. Amending the text of the constitution to remove ambiguity and use conservative terms-no matter how noble the intent- would open the project up for hijacking to alter the intent to suit a particular agenda. Such a reinterpretation would smack of the liberal activist judges interpreting the Constitution as they see fit, an affliction that has plagued the US court system up to the top. We at Conservapedia, in my opinion, should steer clear of that. WallyRyan 21:24, 24 April 2011 (EDT)

Wally makes excellent points. Unlike the Bible, the Constitution was written in modern English. We're openminded here, but I don't see much to be gained in "translating" a document written so relatively recently in our own language. That said, thanks Brad for your surprising suggestion.--Andy Schlafly 22:22, 24 April 2011 (EDT)

Andy, I'm also openminded and I'm just as surprised as you are that you oppose this project. No matter how openminded you are, I know that you can't deny that the Constitution is missing a geometrically growing list of conservative words. Perhaps, as a lawyer, you are biased towards legalese. Would you really tell Joe Sixpack "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."? Do you think it's impossible that the Constitution could be made more concise and clear with common, modern-day English? Or is it not important that an "everyman" can easily read and understand the Constitution? BradB 13:17, 26 April 2011 (EDT)

It's a dead point but, that is pretty concise of an example. and not hard to understand. --SeanS 18:26, 3 May 2011 (EDT)

Malicious Website?

Hi folks,

The link to the 2004 Associated Press article on Obama on the main page takes me to a site my Norton flags as a "malicious website." Any ideas why? --Benp 17:13, 21 April 2011 (EDT)

Likely because this is not a real news article. The AP would definitely not have spelled Obama's first name incorrectly, as he was a state senator at the time, and even the laziest AP editor would have caught that. EricAlstrom 17:26, 21 April 2011 (EDT)

[2]

Brietbart gets it wrong re: the Pope's Homily on Evolution.

Breitbart seems to want it all; he valorizes the Holy Father's message, but then tries to backpedal by claiming that "the Vatican, however, warns against creationism, or the overly literal interpretation of the Bibilical account of creation." Either the Bible is true or it isn't, and it's impossible to be "overly literal" about these things, sir. LloydR 00:07, 24 April 2011 (EDT)

More Fine Investigative Journalism by the New York Times...

[3]

Well done, gentlemen...well done! It's good to know that they turn to highly-respectable sources like Tiger Beat and the Onion for their facts nowadays. --Benp 18:54, 25 April 2011 (EDT)

The last sentence of that article is: "More recently, Fox Nation fell for the outlandish headline, 'Frustrated Obama Sends Nation Rambling 75,000-Word E-Mail.'"

But the NYT needs to be even more diligent because...? DevonJ 20:06, 25 April 2011 (EDT)

...because now they look like fools? -- Jeff W. Lauttamus_Discussion 20:48, 25 April 2011 (EDT)

...and because liberals claim that the New York Times is an intellectual authority?--Andy Schlafly 20:54, 25 April 2011 (EDT)

I'm not understanding the point other than the gloating over the NYT having to eat crow? The real reason conservatives distrust the Times is that Rupert Murdoch owns the Wall Street Journal, (which is in direct competition with the Times); if Murdoch bought the NYT it'd be a bastion of conservatism overnight, (without messy purges). DevonJ 13:51, 26 April 2011 (EDT)

Reminders for new usernames

One thing I've noticed for new people is that some of their accounts get blocked a few minutes after they're created (since they aren't using their real first name and the last initial).

While we can send friendly reminders to use real first names/last initials, it may look discouraging to first-time users who are keen to join, only for them to be blocked. To limit this from happening, is it worth rewriting the 'Note' section on the account creation page? While the current message discourages frivolous names etc, the statement "User names based on your real name or initials are preferred" might not be strong enough and could be misleading; someone can follow that in good faith (using their last name instead), only to get blocked. Does the wording need to be touched up if the real first name/last initial is what people ought to be using? Michael4 22:02, 25 April 2011 (EDT)

I first joined and was dealt the same policy. While a name was blocked, accounts are not and they are free to re-register. It doesn't happen all that often so I don't think it is an issue but maybe the site owner will take a second look. Thanks for caring Michael. --Jpatt 22:07, 25 April 2011 (EDT)

Usually when we block someone for user name it's not because they're using their last name instead, like in my case, DavidM was unavailable, so I used DMorris. However, my first account here, PCHSNJROTC, was blocked for user name because it is not my real name. DMorris 23:24, 25 April 2011 (EDT)

(edit conflict)Michael, thanks for your suggestion. Our policies are always worth revisiting and reconsidering. However, as Jpatt points out, users blocked for naming reasons are typically invited to re-register, unless their chosen user id. was obviously inappropriate. Also, users who make valid contributions are almost never blocked even if they don't use a real name.--Andy Schlafly 23:30, 25 April 2011 (EDT)

Although we are re-invited, It would probably help if it was a bit more clear. but that is up to you. --SeanS 22:07, 26 April 2011 (EDT)

Ahh yes I support the change as well. I first created an account named Caode as both JacobS and JSmith were taken, and it simply was a suggestion. The very next day I was blocked infinitely with no sort of reason listed. (It took me a while to realize I could use my full name.) I tried to contact both the person who blocked me via email and the email address listed to contact the administrators to no avail. JacobSmith 12:58, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

Is mine OK? AdamD was taken, so I went with my first and last name. --AdamDiscordia 21:33, 8 May 2011 (EDT)

Should be fine, welcome to Conservapedia! DMorris 21:38, 8 May 2011 (EDT)

Speculation

Here is the Draft Resolution from a meeting of the Petrograd Soviet January 14, 1918, "to fight speculators"; "4) Speculators who are caught and fully exposed as such shall be shot ...on the spot. " [4] Blaming speculators, and combating speculation the record reveals, is the immediate reaction of socialists to rising prices and economic problems. Where can this information be fit in? Rob Smith 07:17, 26 April 2011 (EDT)

Syria, Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan - Not a Obama fan, not a Bush W. fan either

Re: Syria, Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan

I am definitely not a fan of Obama. On the other hand, other than Bush's Supreme Court nominations and his tax cuts, I was definitely not a fan of the free spending Bush nor his expensive wars. I think the reason why America went into Iraq for the second war was oil and the reason why America went to war in Libya and not Syria is once again oil. JP Morgan said something that applies to both people and to countries: "A man always has two reasons for doing anything: a good reason and the real reason."

Economics drives politics more than politics drives economics in most cases in the modern world. I am not saying this is necessarily right, I am just saying that it appears to be true. The bottom line is empires often decline due to expensive wars and America with its trillions in debt cannot afford its expensive military budget and wars. Standard and Poor's announcement concerning America's debt was a warning shot across its bow and if it ignores it, I think the economic point of no return without considerable effort to bounce back is going to occur. conservative 12:11, 26 April 2011 (EDT)

This should be good read, interview with Reagan assistant secretary of US Treasury Paul Craig Roberts. [5] He may have clarifed overall goals. Rob Smith 12:25, 26 April 2011 (EDT)

Interesting article. conservative 13:50, 26 April 2011 (EDT)

"Was a child born in 1961 to a foreign parent visiting the United States automatically an American citizen?"

According to 8 USC Section 1401, yes. LloydR 18:58, 27 April 2011 (EDT)

Nope, please read it again and quote what you think applies.--Andy Schlafly 23:23, 27 April 2011 (EDT)

"The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Obama was born in the USA and was subject to the legal jurisdiction thereof." LloydR 10:27, 28 April 2011 (EDT)

Born to a foreign citizen

I'm confused by the question posed by the latest news item. For one, Obama was born to an American citizen. Secondly, jus soli from the 14th Amendment would grant him citizenship anyways. This is supported by Title 8 Section 1401 (if memory serves...) of the US Code.
I think the real issue here is the disrespect shown to the American people by waiting so long to answer the calls for his BC - I wish politicians acted more like employees of the American people rather than their bosses. EricAlstrom 19:12, 27 April 2011 (EDT)

"One problem: children born to foreigners -- such as diplomats or a foreign student as now confirmed by Obama's birth certificate -- are not necessarily American citizens." This seems wrong. The law doesn't treat children of foreign diplomats the same as children of foreign students. Children of foreign students are natural born citizens of the United States if born in the United States under Title 8 Section 1401. Children of diplomats are not. Any person born in Hawaii after April 30, 1900 is a natural born citizen under Title 8 Section 1405. I suppose that would also be subject to the same exception for children of foreign diplomats and heads of state but my brother is the lawyer/I'm the welder. President Obama appears to be a natural born citizen of the United States. Nate 23:14, 27 April 2011 (EDT)

Good points, Eric. Nate, please quote the provision that you think applies. Don't you think a child born to a married couple from say, England, who were studying as students in the U.S., would be a British citizen rather than an American one???--Andy Schlafly 23:26, 27 April 2011 (EDT)

"The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." I think that a child born to a married couple of students from England studying in the US would be a dual citizen. Nate 23:45, 27 April 2011 (EDT)

That seems to be pretty much what happened to Boris Johnson (born New York 1963 to two British parents). LindaMorris 10:59, 28 April 2011 (EDT)

Nate, are foreign diplomats subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? BradB 23:57, 27 April 2011 (EDT)

(edit conflict) Nate, no, I don't think dual citizenship would arise as you describe. That's why the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is there. Throughout American history, citizenship has not arisen simply because someone was born here. Native Americans, for example, were not American citizens for much of American history, despite having been born here.--Andy Schlafly 23:59, 27 April 2011 (EDT)

Andy, are you implying that Ann Dunham was not an American citizen at the time of Barack Obama's birth? BradB 00:05, 28 April 2011 (EDT)

No, how could you possibly draw that inference? A child is born to two parents, one is a citizen of one nation, and the other is a citizen of another nation. Presumably there is a procedure for the child to seek citizenship of one nation or the other or (if later adopted into another family) the citizenship of a third nation. But the child would not acquire citizenship based solely on where he is born.--Andy Schlafly 00:18, 28 April 2011 (EDT)

I just got a different screen than I'm used to and had to retype my post. What is that screen? I disagree Mr. Schlafly. From the beginning of our nation any person born on this soil and subject to US jurisdiction has been a citizen. Have a look at United States vs. Wong Kim Ark. It conclusively answers this question as to a man under similar circumstances as the president. Nate 00:19, 28 April 2011 (EDT)

The 14th Amendment would have offset historical precedent concerning Native Americans, just as the 13th Amendment offset historical precedent concerning slavery. While children of foreign diplomats - who are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States (due to diplomatic immunity) would not be citizens, children of foreign students - who certainly don't have diplomatic immunity - certainly are (what if a citizen and a foreign diplomat had a child? I'm unsure.) In this case I would have to agree with NKeaton and his citation of US v Wong KIm Ark.--IDuan 00:36, 28 April 2011 (EDT)

(edit conflict) In Wong Kim Ark the Supreme Court, quoting President Grant's Secretary of State Hamilton Fish, stated that "the qualification, 'and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' was probably intended to exclude the children of foreign ministers, and of other persons who may be within our territory with rights of extraterritoriality." Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 690 (quoting 2 Whart. Int. Dig. p. 394). Citizenship requires agreement to the jurisdiction of the sovereign; consent by the sovereign and the child (or both parents) is what matters.--Andy Schlafly 00:40, 28 April 2011 (EDT)

Is jurisdiction tantamount to consent?--IDuan 00:46, 28 April 2011 (EDT)

Yes, for this purpose. Jurisdiction means consent to American citizenship by both the sovereign (the U.S.) and both parents. Presumably there was a procedure for establishing that, if American citizenship was intended.--Andy Schlafly 00:52, 28 April 2011 (EDT)

However, the argument appears to be ignoring the fact that Obama's mother was a US citizen at the time of his birth, and thus, if he was born to a US citizen, in the US, then he must qualify for citizenship. The "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means that the individuals are subject to US laws, which they - as foreign students - would have been. That provision only excludes those who have diplomatic immunity and that does not exclude foreign students and certainly does not exclude a US citizen giving birth within the US. TracyS 10:06, 28 April 2011 (EDT)

No, the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" has exempted many people other than diplomats, such as Native Americans for many years.--Andy Schlafly 18:00, 28 April 2011 (EDT)

Please can you provide examples, or a link to the specific definition in the law that covers "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" other than Native Americans, who were, in any event either packed off to reservations, or massacred, so hardly form a credible basis for an example. Who else is exempt from jurisdiction? Also, nobody is addressing the fact that his mother is a US citizen, which should make the whole question moot.

In addition, why was the "dual citizenship" question not raised initially, but only rolled out once the birth certificate was released? Sadly, bringing this up now, smacks of bad faith and that the issue was never about the birth certificate in the first place. It's time to start focussing on issues, not red herrings. That is what wins elections. TracyS 09:29, 29 April 2011 (EDT)

In the opinion of US v Wong Kim Ark, justice Gray mentions "the American citizenship which Wong Kim Ark acquired by birth within the United States" and that Wong Kim Ark was ""subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the same sense as all other aliens residing in the United States." BradB 18:50, 28 April 2011 (EDT)

"consent by the sovereign and the child (or both parents) is what matters." The phrase "both parents" applies only in part (c) of 1401, dealing with the children of US citizens who are born abroad. There is nothing in the law that speaks to the need for one, either, or both parents to be US citizens when we're talking about kids who were born in the USA. LloydR 10:32, 28 April 2011 (EDT)

Obama Senior

He is obviously a natural-born citizen. I'm confident that anyone who objectively looks at the facts can easily see that. JonS123

What exactly was his father's position with government of Kenya, and when did receive that appointment? How accurate and reliable are civil service records from Kenya? Did Obama Senior have any family connections with the Kenyan government during his stay in the United States? or was his appointment to government post with the Kenyan regime the result of family ties with others in the Kenyan diplomatic corp? Rob Smith 20:17, 28 April 2011 (EDT)

Good questions, Rob. Obama's father was a 25 year old student getting a bachelor degree in economics when Obama was born. He did not work for the ministry of transport/finance until after getting his masters in economics. I can't find any evidence that Obama's grandfather would have been anyone that had anything to exclude Obama Sr. from the jurisdiction of the United States. BradB 20:43, 28 April 2011 (EDT)

This article, A drunk and a bigot - what the US Presidential hopeful HASN'T said about his father, By SHARON CHURCHER, London Daily Mail, 27 January 2007, gives us some background on Obama Senior. He did hold a civil service position. But the more interesting parts are,

"Yet an investigation by The Mail on Sunday has revealed that, for all Mr Obama's reputation for straight talking and the compelling narrative of his recollections, they are largely myth."

or this discovery,

"Mr Obama Jnr claims that racism on both sides of the family destroyed the marriage between his mother and father. In fact Ann divorced her husband after she discovered his bigamous double life.

Again, a credibility gap,

"In his book, he attempts to put the best face on it. His father, he writes, lost his civil service job after campaigning against corrupt African politicians who had 'taken the place of the white colonials'."

whereas independent journalists found a family friend who said:

"He is haunted by his father's failures. He grew up thinking of his father as a brilliant intellectual and pioneer of African independence only to learn that in Western terms he was basically a drunken lecher." This ugly truth, say friends, has made Mr Obama ruthlessly determined to use every weapon that he has to succeed, including the glossily edited version of his father's story. "At the end of the day Barack wants the story to help his political cause, so perhaps he couldn't afford to be too honest," said [one of Obama Senior's old drinking buddies].

So, perhaps we have a little bit better understanding of the president's motivations amidst all the recent speculation.Rob Smith 21:59, 28 April 2011 (EDT)

Fascinating, Rob. and none of it relevant to the fact that a child born in the USA is an American citizen. LloydR 22:02, 28 April 2011 (EDT)

"a child," correct. The questions are, which child? Rob Smith 22:10, 28 April 2011 (EDT)

What? Barack Obama (JR), of course. Who else could we be talking about? LloydR 22:18, 28 April 2011 (EDT)

The president produced a piece of paper on file in Hawaiian archives somewhere; what that means is, there is a piece of paper on file in Hawaiian archives somewhere. It should be noted, the gentleman in question became famous for getting the Cook County Register of Deeds elected in an Illinois Statewide election -- rather curious, the person charged with registering birth and death certificates working with ACORN to register voters. Rob Smith 22:47, 28 April 2011 (EDT)

Rob, you're firmly in tin-foil hat territory now. Are you sure that George Soros or KAL 007 weren't involved somehow, too? LloydR 22:57, 28 April 2011 (EDT)

I'm not saying I don't believe it, I'm asking why I should believe it. This question is really no different than the argument an athiest uses. In spite of all evidence, and the consensus of opinion, individuals still have the right to be sceptical. Can we just, at a minimum, grant respect for a diversity of views? Rob Smith 23:59, 28 April 2011 (EDT)

Stanley Ann was 17 when she got impregnated, Hawai'i wasn't yet a state, if an illegal alien impregnates an underage American- the child is an American. B. Hussein is practically an anchor baby. No?--Jpatt 00:19, 29 April 2011 (EDT)

No - Hawaii became a state in 1959, and the age of consent was 14 (raised to 16 in 2001) - so neither point is valid really. TracyS 11:01, 29 April 2011 (EDT)

Oopsy, thanks for clearing that up. What will people think of me? I feel soo stoopid, doh! --Jpatt 12:21, 29 April 2011 (EDT)

The apple falls not far from the tree. Rob Smith 00:25, 29 April 2011 (EDT)

Citizen and Natural-Born Citizen

Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution regarding members of the House of Representatives:

"No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen."

Article 1, Section 3 of the Constitution regarding members of the Senate:

"No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen."

Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution regarding the President:

"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 Founders checked, re-checked, triple-checked, and peer-reviewed the Constitution before they signed it, and they knew there was a distinct difference between a citizen and a natural-born citizen. It has very much to do with dual loyalties between different countries. Obama may be a citizen, but he's definitely-not a natural-born one. Karajou 22:47, 28 April 2011 (EDT)

What, then, counts as a "natural-born citizen"? The term is not defined in the material you provided here? LloydR 22:58, 28 April 2011 (EDT)

From the opinion in US v Wong Kim Ark:

"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 [p680] 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."

I don't think it's so clear-cut that Obama is not a natural-born citizen. BradB 23:18, 28 April 2011 (EDT)

It's making sure that whoever holds the office of the president and acts as commander in chief of the armed forces has absolutely no loyalty, oath, or affirmation due to another country. At the very least, we would call it "conflict of interest". The best people to get a definition from are the Founding Fathers. Try these:[6][7][8]. Besides, I think Washington's, Hamilton's, Jay's, Jefferson's, Franklin's, Madison's words have a lot more weight and authority than those today who pretend they are better. Karajou 23:25, 28 April 2011 (EDT)

In the quote above and many more, Gray cites precedents that confirm it was the founder's intention that these were natural-born citizens. BradB 23:30, 28 April 2011 (EDT)

Brad, your quote refers to when both parents are citizens. In the case of Obama, one parent was an American citizen and one was a Kenyan citizen, and there is no reason to think the American part would take precedence.--Andy Schlafly 00:35, 29 April 2011 (EDT)

There is a reason to think the American part would take precedence. From the opinion:

"All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England."

"The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, speaking by Mr. Justice (afterwards Chief Justice) Sewall, early held that the determination of the question whether a man was a citizen or an alien was "to be governed altogether by the principles of the common law," and that it was established, with few exceptions, that a man born within the jurisdiction of the common law is a citizen of the country wherein he is born. By this circumstance of his birth, he is subjected to the duty of allegiance which is claimed and enforced by the sovereign of his native land, and becomes reciprocally entitled to the protection of that sovereign, and to the other rights and advantages which are included in the term 'citizenship.'"

What is your strongest argument that a citizen is not natural born by having an alien who is under the jurisdiction of the United States as a father? BradB 00:46, 29 April 2011 (EDT)

It's simple logic. What makes you think Obama was not a citizen of the nationality of his father, or not a dual citizen rather than a natural born citizen of only the U.S.?--Andy Schlafly 01:02, 29 April 2011 (EDT)

BradB, the clear fact is that Obama, Sr. was an alien under the jurisdiction of the United States as a father, an alien who only stayed for the time he was in school before heading back to a country where he did have bona-fide allegiance. Natural-born means the individual is born an American citizen, and whose parents are American citizens as well - and no possible allegiance to another country. Was Obama, Sr. an American citizen? Nope. Karajou 01:06, 29 April 2011 (EDT)

Andy, what makes me think Obama was not a citizen of the nationality of his father (from the opinion): "Two things usually concur to create citizenship: first, birth locally within the dominions of the sovereign, and secondly, birth within the protection and obedience, or, in other words, within the allegiance of the sovereign."

Karajou, from the same opinion: "Allegiance is nothing more than the tie or duty of obedience of a subject to the sovereign under whose protection he is, and allegiance by birth is that which arises from being born within the dominions and under the protection of a particular sovereign." BradB 01:20, 29 April 2011 (EDT)

John Jay said it best in a letter to George Washington, 25 July 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 command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen. " Do you think it would be wise today to drift from that sound advise and grant the control and use of our troops to an individual who's beholding to another country? Karajou 01:28, 29 April 2011 (EDT)

No, it would not be wise to drift from that advice. However, Obama passes the checks because, by the many precedents cited, he is a natural born citizen.

Andy, further on why Obama would not be a Kenyan citizen, nothing in the Constitution of Kenya implies that he would be a Kenyan citizen. BradB 01:34, 29 April 2011 (EDT)

Sorry to disappoint you, BradB, but Obama is not a natural born citizen. The precedents that count are what the Framers of the Constitution wrote about the subject, and not some court case that "thinks" it can do a better job by "correcting" them. Karajou 01:37, 29 April 2011 (EDT)

Karajou, this isn't personal, so I'm not disappointed. I'm glad we're both seeking the truth and I'm pleased to continue doing so. Please tell me how the Framers of the Constitution defined natural born citizenship. BradB 01:42, 29 April 2011 (EDT)

We're going to dig it up from online and libraries and whatever books we have, and we're going to ensure it gets posted here. It should be an interesting search. Karajou 01:46, 29 April 2011 (EDT)

I agree. According to the opinion, "The Constitution does not...say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. ... The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law. ... It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England...every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject...".

I'm not aware of the Framers themselves defining natural-born citizenship, but it is absolutely worth looking for as it would obviously trump common law. BradB 01:56, 29 April 2011 (EDT)

More to Andy's point, after further consideration, I believe Kenya was technically still a British colony at the time, although, considering the rebellions, British dominion over the colony could be contested (especially by Kenyans like Obama Sr). If Kenya was still under British dominion, it would have logically been subject to the same common law granting citizenship, awarding British citizenship to Obama. The question of whether or not a dual-citizen could still be a natural born citizen of his native sovereign is an interesting one. Considering the same common law's definitions of allegiance and obedience, I'm not yet convinced that it would be prevented. Nonetheless, fascinating considerations that I don't think the mainstream media would ever touch. Racism!!! BradB 03:04, 29 April 2011 (EDT)

And upon further consideration, I don't think Obama Sr. had renounced his citizenship at the time and would have arguably still been a British subject, making a case for dual citizenship of Obama Jr. BradB 03:15, 29 April 2011 (EDT)

So anti-birtherism is rather Amero-centric, and by extension, Eurocentric, then, correct? Rob Smith 08:19, 29 April 2011 (EDT)

Calling a spade a spade

The elephant in the room which is being ignored amidst this hair-splitting over definitions is the now-undisputed fact that Obama was born in the USA to an American citizen parent. Hence, by any standard, he acquired American citizenship at birth. We can debate all you want over the fine detail of particular cases, diplomats, foreign students, anchor babies, births to Americans overseas, dual citizenship, but that doesn't change the simple fact that Obama's citizenship status at birth can no longer be under dispute. His situation satisfies every possible definition of "Natural Born Citizen," either as general dictionaries describe it, as "a person who becomes a citizen at birth (as opposed to becoming one later)," or somewhat differently as Black's has it: "A person born within the jurisdiction of a national government." There is not and has never been in America a tradition of jus sanguinis, but even if there was, having one American parent should make such an argument moot, unless you're willing to make the outdated argument that only the citizenship of the father matters. I find it odd to see such a focus on his father in the threads above, because his father's citizenship proves nothing. A judge of any political persuasion would never take such arguments seriously.

If I may call a spade a spade, it seems the only reason why Conservapedia suddenly is tortuously re-legislating 150-plus years of clear-cut case law and common law is that they simply don't like Obama; they believe he's a morally-corrupt president who does not have America's best interests at heart and is taking her off a cliff. These are all fair beliefs with evidence in their favor, and God bless America for allowing a spectrum of such beliefs, but instead of focusing on the substance of their disagreement Conservapedia is chasing a specious argument which they know to be false, a line of argument which I'm sure would never be tolerated on this site if directed against conservative darlings like Marco Rubio, who was born to Cuban exiles. Such a twisting of easily-demonstrated fact only for one's political opponents is, I believe, what Conservapedia calls a "liberal double standard", and I quote: a harsher or stricter attitude against someone else than one holds about himself.

Express your political beliefs proudly, but do it with integrity. Just my two cents. JDWpianist 09:51, 1 May 2011 (EDT)

It all depends what is is. Rob Smith 10:25, 1 May 2011 (EDT)

The economy and Obama's wars have a good chance of killing his re-election chances so this controversy may become a moot point post election 2012. Also, Ben Bernanke's economic duct tape may not hold until 2012 and there could be a severe economic recession or depression. The American populace gave Clinton a second term largely because of the economy and they rebuffed Carter's second term largely because of the economy. There is a good chance that Obama is going to be Jimmy Carter 2.0 On the other hand, maybe Obama is better compared to LBJ given LBJ's poor economic policies and his Vietnam war policy. conservative 11:57, 1 May 2011 (EDT)

Teleprompter

I saw that the inventor of the teleprompter passed away recently. How will Obama speak now? Is this worthy of coverage? TedCarter75 14:06, 28 April 2011 (EDT)

I don't see how the inventor dying means the tech stops working. --SeanS 18:14, 28 April 2011 (EDT)

Out of context quote?

On the main page, there is a quote from the New York Times ("It was a profoundly low and debasing moment in American political life,"). The problem is, if you read the article it cites, it actually disagrees with our point. The article is not "bemoaning" the fact that the attempt doesn't prove anything, it's bemoaning the fact that Obama had to do this in the first place (and why shouldn't he? The article is ridiculous) But yeah. Maybe a different quote would be better? -LarryNK

I don't see the a distinction. The Times article is bemoaning that Obama felt compelled to try to prove he was qualified to be president. Shouldn't this have been addressed by Obama before he became president???--Andy Schlafly 17:58, 28 April 2011 (EDT)

If you say so, but the Times is saying that it's low and debasing he had to show it at all. The front page news thing implies that the Times saying it's low and debasing because it's not proof. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LarryNK (talk)

Roger Goodell on collective bargaining

The article written by Roger Goodell is greatly in favour of collective bargaining. He warns about the dangers that a complete free-market system would pose to the health of the league. Keep up the good work! JoshuaL 19:23, 28 April 2011 (EDT)

You may be right; collective bargaining brought these unionized millionaires and billionaires to the point where they threaten to bite the hand that feeds them. Rob Smith 20:10, 28 April 2011 (EDT)

"Gasoline prices are skyrocketing — and so are oil company profits."

"What's good for General Motors is good for America," right? Same thing for Exxon, too, then. What do you want, some government regulation on free enterprise? The oil companies are doing what they are supposed to do: Producing wealth for their shareholders. LloydR 23:00, 28 April 2011 (EDT)

I agree with LloydR. The leftist boogeyman is BigOil. They are not the problem. Look at these two articles: record income tax [9] and profit margins compared to state taxation [10] --Jpatt 00:02, 29 April 2011 (EDT)

"What's good for GM...", (attributed to Robert McNamara). That may have been true when the US had manufacturing jobs, but no more. Now it's housing jobs, so it's more like, what's good for toxic mortgage holders is good for America. Oh, and hey, looks like bankruptcy was good for GM and now bankruptcy is good for America. Rob Smith 00:19, 29 April 2011 (EDT)

That's witty, Rob. "Bankruptcy was good for GM, so it must be good for America!"--Andy Schlafly 00:31, 29 April 2011 (EDT)

If a company makes profits in a sector and it is not due to being a monopoly, this very often serves as a incentive for more competition. More competition increases supply and lowers prices. Obama only allowing the riskier deep well drilling (and not the less risky shallow water drilling) and then effectively banning deep water drilling merely lessons supply which causes higher prices. Simple economics. Obama is no financial genius and Ben Bernanke has a terrible record of making predictions and he recently lost money in the recent downturn. I am no fan of Soros, but at least he made money in the downturn. conservative 23:17, 30 April 2011 (EDT)

There are two factors that do not bode well for the recovery: gas prices, and interest rates. Both are owed to foreigners. Bother represent an export of capital which comes from economic growth. In both cases, we knew three years ago how this would play out.

To stimulate the economy (remember, "consumer spending is 70% of the US economy;" how many times was that drilled home over the last three years?) means to stimulate gas prices. More economic activity means more movement of consumer goods. Lower unemployment means more workers driving to work. $2.59 a gal gas was the result of 10% unemployment. Lower unemployment means higher gas prices, only this time it may be short lived.

The crash of 2008 occurred at precisely the time Americans could no longer afford $4.00 per gal gas. Many paid more in transit & commuting costs than housing. The Federal Reserve quantitative easing is the only reason we can absorb $4.00 per gal gas now, without throwing us back into a recession, cause the Fed pumped an additional $600 billion in federal reserve notes into circulation. Nevermind the fact that the US economy has not grown $600 billion in size to equally offset the increased demand notes in circulation.

So, how much is $600 billion? If total output is $14.6 trillion ($14,600 billion) growing at 1.8% as reported a few days ago, the US economy is only producing about $400 billion in new goods and services of which there is $600 in claims, or federal reserve notes, against it. But add to that, the fact that much of these new federal reserve notes must be paid to foreigners to buy oil. We can absorb the $4 per gal increase because of the federal reserve 'funny money' in circulation for awhile, but that doesn't leave any capital produced by economic growth (the result of stimulus) to create jobs with.

Now Ben Bernacke just said days ago that quantitative easing ends in June -- meaning the deliberate suppression of interest rates by the Fed, which goes against a worldwide trend of rising interest rates -- will end. That means the US is back to paying worldwide market rates for its borrowing costs. That also means the $4 trillion ($4,000 billion) principle, and interest, that we just borrowed over the past three years, also must be repaid, at higher rates. And what did we get for the $4,000 billion borrowed from foreigners to stimulate? How many jobs? Zero. There are no more workers employed today (or very marginally) than there were 10 years ago. So, thanks to Obama & company, and all the other brilliant communist geniuses who borrowed nearly one third of total US annual output over the past three years, we not only have zero job growth over what we had ten years ago, we have an increased debt burden at higher rates and higher energy costs, too boot. Thanks a lot. Thanks for nothing. Rob Smith 00:30, 1 May 2011 (EDT)

"Illegal alien" employment discrimination

According to the article cited "The Immigration and Nationality Act generally prohibits discrimination in hiring against authorized workers on the basis of citizenship status." [Emphasis added] In other words Wendy's was only hiring American citizens, documented and law-abiding foreign nationals need not apply. DevonJ 16:20, 30 April 2011 (EDT)

The case referred to on the main page is not about the employment of illegal immigrants (their very status as 'illegal immigrant' means they cannot legally be employed). The case is about LEGAL immigrants who DO have the right to work in the US, and as such it is illegal for the employer to discriminate against them. WilliamB1 16:24, 30 April 2011 (EDT)

(Sorry, I must have started writing that just as you were finishing) WilliamB1 16:30, 30 April 2011 (EDT)

Bin Laden

The White House is reporting Osama Bin Laden dead. I'm still hunting for a link; apparently breaking news. -- Jeff W. Lauttamus_Discussion 22:49, 1 May 2011 (EDT)
"Obama's speech: many self-serving references to "me", "my" and "I" ... and no credit given to George W. Bush." Hahaha. Oh Conservapedia. I was honestly wondering how you would attempt to spin this into a criticism of Obama. Even Rush Limbaugh said, "God Bless President Obama." Guess what? The President (yes, the legitimate President) and his administration have accomplished something wonderful for this country. And in this moment of unity and national pride, pathetically attacking the President is un-American and unpatriotic. But, you already know that. None of you actually care about this country. Just a sick, distorted, false, "self-serving" fantasy of a country that you selfishly want where only your opinions and so-called values are ever heard. Good luck in 2012. Peace. --Jackg 18:10, 2 May 2011 (EDT)

Remember the public criticism of Al Gore after he tried to take credit for the internet?--Andy Schlafly 19:11, 2 May 2011 (EDT)

Whatever anyone may think of his policies, he is the commander in chief, and as such it was he who gave the order for the mission to be carried out. The buck stops with him whether a mission is successful or unsuccessful. He was quite clear in praising those who actually carried out the operation, he was merely stating the facts in that he had to give the go-ahead and I don't imagine anyone here would disagree that he made a good call in doing so. WilliamB1 19:20, 2 May 2011 (EDT)

So he thinks he's gonna ride a corpse all the way to election. Good luck. Gas is still $4 a gal. Rob Smith 02:37, 3 May 2011 (EDT)

Liberal stooge Joy Behar says, "cancel the elections, it's over, Obama can't be beat now." [11] America knows the real story, Obama loves himself, the Navy Seals and General David Petraeus are the national treasures worthy of ticker tape parades. Obama, making decisions over a game of golf, likely called off missile strikes so that they had time to read a Miranda warning to Osama. --Jpatt 09:54, 3 May 2011 (EDT)

Wikipedia news:

From the news section: Definition of "natural born citizen" - the very one from Swiss legal philosopher Emmerich de Vattel used by the Founding Fathers when the United States was created - vanishes from Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a wiki. Anyone can change any info at any point. I fail to see how this item is newsworthy. RobCorti 15:49, 2 May 2011 (EDT)

Wikipedia has been dominated by liberals for a long time. The result is erasure of valuable information when disliked by liberals. It is worthwhile to continue to post illustrations.--Andy Schlafly 19:11, 2 May 2011 (EDT)

I agree that it was probably deleted by a liberal vandal who was upset with the accusations against Obama, but it seems to have been restored to the Wikipedia page, possibly as a result of the WND article. You can check by going on it and using "find." - AzadJ 20:09, 2 May 2011 (EDT)

The story doesn't end with Wikipedia. Apparently, all online dictionary sources are deleting "natural born citizen" info. Source has some vulgar language [12] --Jpatt 00:00, 7 May 2011 (EDT)

It's not surprising at all. The birth certificate showed the world that Obama is not eligible to be president, so the liberal "elite" has to go an a little tirade to redefine the meaning of "natural born citizen". Karajou 00:26, 7 May 2011 (EDT)

DNA

Just to correct the main page story: the only way that a 100% match is even theoretically possible would be if they analysed his entire genetic sequence. DNA testing of the sort described is never going to be 100% accurate, and with this in mind, and along with supporting evidence, it seems we can be pretty certain that he's dead. On that note, can we not turn this website into one that contributes to the inevitable conspiracy theories that he's still alive? It has taken 10 years to get this far, let's not denigrate the efforts of the intelligence and military personnel.

(With regard to another story questioning why he wasn't taken alive, it has been widely reported that the troops gave him the opportunity to do so, but he resisted) WilliamB1 10:00, 3 May 2011 (EDT)

William, the phrase "virtual match" is typically not used in connection with DNA. It would be like saying that "2+2" "virtually equals 4." When someone claims that DNA was a "virtual match," then the obvious implication is that it was not a real match.--Andy Schlafly 10:59, 3 May 2011 (EDT)

And what, that comes from your expertise in absolutely nothing at all?ColinM 11:36, 3 May 2011 (EDT)

It comes from any Bio 101 textbook. Do you think they completely sequenced his genome? Within 6 hours of the raid? At most they used a DNA chip to get preliminary results. And those kinds of tests are often inaccurate. Besides how can they get a 100% match when they are apparently comparing the sequence to his sister. Does Osama have a x chromosome secret we haven't heard about yet? JimmyRa 11:51, 3 May 2011 (EDT)

Precisely why the term "virtual match" is used. You do not have to completely sequence a genome to figure out that it is directly tied to or related to another individual. You can simply look for genetic markers that occur between two different DNA chains and see how the protein sequence is similar between the two. You're not looking for a complete match because between two individuals who are not identical twins, you are not going to find it. ColinM 11:54, 3 May 2011 (EDT)

Than why do they keep saying it is a 100% match? How much of a lie does the term virtual conceal? I'll remind you that Osama Bin Laden comes from a large family. I'm not saying he definitely wasn't killed; I'm just saying, because it was Obama that told us we should be cautious and not take everything said as the revealed truth. JimmyRa 11:58, 3 May 2011 (EDT)

Whatever phrase the people who report the matter use, it doesn't change the fact that such DNA tests are never 100% accurate. You cannot equate 2+2 = 4 with a DNA test. The former is absolute, it doesn't involve probabilities, the latter does. Saying 'virtually' is merely to acknowledge this while simultaneously acknowledging that the probability that this wasn't Bin Laden is so low as to be, for all intents and purposes, negligible, especially when considered in light of the non-DNA evidence.

The amount of material on the main page now questioning whether this was in fact Bin Laden is increasingly disturbing and, in my view, insulting to the efforts of everyone involved in this operation. Whether or not that woman was his wife is immaterial; neither situation does anything to undermine the fact that Bin Laden is dead. There are always errors in reporting that are corrected as the knowledge of an event improves; it is very rare that all the facts are immediately to hand (let alone in a case such as this where it involve a covert operation in a foreign country). Can I also remind the doubters that even if you refuse to trust anything Obama says, he's not the only source for this news; it has been confirmed and reconfirmed. He's dead. I think I can quite safely speak for everyone on this site by saying he won't be missed. It's taken 10 years, why try to drag it out any further? WilliamB1 12:11, 3 May 2011 (EDT)

Your right that no one here will mourn his death. About the rest... No one is insulting the efforts of the special forces, but they aren't holding press conferences. No one wants to drag this out further, but no one wants to be taken in by one of Obama's lies either. Therefore we should be cautious. Nobody can evaluate the evidence on this, it hasn't been released. And I don't want to take Obama's word on something this important, do you? JimmyRa 12:21, 3 May 2011 (EDT)

JimmyRa, you take the evidence of other people all the time. We all do. None of us could go about our daily lives if we did not. At what point is there enough evidence? I took some aspirin the other day. It says on the box it's good for dealing with headaches. But can I trust the box? Can I trust the manufacturer? I haven't read any of the scientific papers that provide the evidence, but even if I had how can I trust them? Even if the scientists showed me all of their results, and their laboratory equipment, how do I know they haven't just faked it all? Scepticism has to end somewhere, otherwise you simply can't function as a social being. I can understand that some people don't trust Obama, but to take it so far as to completely discount everything he says? Do I take his word on something this important? Yes, I do. WilliamB1 12:32, 3 May 2011 (EDT)

Why hasn't the Obama Administration released the DNA evidence to the public, if it is so convincing? What happened to the promise of transparency?--Andy Schlafly 12:35, 3 May 2011 (EDT)

I trust Bayer a lot further than Obama. One gives me a headache, the other takes it away.JimmyRa 12:38, 3 May 2011 (EDT)

What form would it take? They've released the conclusion of the test. The results will take the form of very technical data, what use is that for the vast majority of people? Or should they release the actual DNA sample itself and let us conduct our own analyses?! (personally, I'd have to decline that offer, my garage isn't a suitable substitute for a scientific laboratory). As I said in my previous post, one might just claim all of that is faked? At what point does one say enough is enough? On the main page right now is a story claiming he died years ago. There is even less evidence for that, so why is that not being questioned? WilliamB1 12:41, 3 May 2011 (EDT)

It doesn't have to be checked by every citizen. But it would be great if they could release it, so someone outside the White House could. They could easily release the data on the internet, and send samples to trusted labs to confirm it. The story is ahead of the facts on Osama's death, I hope the facts catch up.JimmyRa 12:47, 3 May 2011 (EDT)

This debate is making this site look very silly indeed. If bin Laden released another one of his crazy ranting videos of him holding up a picture of the NY Times with the 'Osama Dead' headline, that would instantly result in the collapse of the US Government - Obama would have to resign immediately, no question about that, and it would arguably be the greatest Presidential scandal in US history, let alone alone an utterly historic victory of the terrorists against us. Worldwide chaos would ensue, and Al Qaeda would have scored not just a propaganda coup, but total victory against the West - bringing down the US Government. There is simply not a snowball's chance in H--- that this is a lie - the consequences of an utterly pointless lie (imagine if it didn't come out until the 2012 election?!) are so outstandingly vast. Sometimes you just have to see the end of your nose and believe it's there, I'm sorry, but I completely trust the President on this issue. JanW 15:12, 3 May 2011 (EDT)

I think Obama's telling the truth on this one as well. I may not like the body of bin Laden being buried at sea without a closer exam, but traditionally in the Navy, trash is dumped overboard as soon as possible. Karajou 15:24, 3 May 2011 (EDT)

If this were a case of mistaken identity about Bin Laden, would Obama admit it? Reagan admitted and apologized for the Persian Gulf missile mistake made during his Administration, but Obama is no Reagan.

It's very easy to release the DNA evidence and photos. But that's not being done and millions of people from all across the political spectrum are doubting the unproven claims of the Obama Administration about this.--Andy Schlafly 15:48, 3 May 2011 (EDT)

You seem to have missed the point, which is not about Obama admitting anything at all. If this was a lie, or a case of mistaken identity, no-one would be happier than Al Qaeda and Osama, and you can be 100% certain of one thing - they'd be releasing a video within minutes of a very alive bin Laden, making a laughing stock of Obama and the US, waving a Kalashnikov and issuing death threats to all and sundry. JanW 15:54, 3 May 2011 (EDT)

Really??? How is a new video released in the likely event that bin Laden died years ago???--Andy Schlafly 16:30, 3 May 2011 (EDT)

Wait - are you suggesting that George Bush or his group (Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc) either didn't know bin Laden died, or covered it up? Or that Obama covered it up until now? That's an even more peculiar assumption. Given that he has been the Most Wanted man in the world for a decade, anyone who had any evidence of his passing would have been crowing about it, just as Obama is crowing about it now. And if Obama was covering it up, it would have made a lot more sense if he had waited until near the election to announce this? This is getting into the field of wild conspiracy theory, and they're all ludicrous theories, I'm sorry. Bin Laden is dead, can't we all just celebrate that fact and move on? JanW 17:13, 3 May 2011 (EDT)

Bin Laden may well be dead, but it is far from proven. He could well release another video in the future. It took Al Zawahiri two weeks to get out a video on the uprisings in Egypt. These guys can't just log onto Youtube and upload a video. One of the reasons they think this house might be where Osama was is because it had no phone or internet. They use carriers and cut outs to maintain security but that means it takes extra time to get messages out. There isn't enough evidence on the table yet and I don't trust that Obama is being straight with us. JimmyRa 17:26, 3 May 2011 (EDT)

But these theories are becoming so tortuous it's really absurd. Either you're saying Obama is a complete idiot, and has pulled an incredible lie on us all, which will inevitably be uncovered (because Osama is alive and that will come out) - which would without a doubt lead to Obama's resignation, or the theory is that Obama is a manipulative genius who has....what....lied to us and is going to get away with it, and Osama (or al Qaeda) isn't going to bother releasing a video? I mean, which is it? There's twisted logic layered on tautology layered upon tautology in there and no consistency in the point of these theories whatsoever. I'm no fan of Obama's, but you can't have him be a manipulative conspiratorial liar AND be a total dunderhead at the same time, can you not see that? JanW 17:44, 3 May 2011 (EDT)

I'm just waiting to see if another video surfaces. The one thing that is clear, as the link I posted below demonstrates, is that Obama's version of the story is beginning to fall apart. Haven't you ever met a manipulative dunderhead? They are the kind of dunderhead that pulls the wool over the eyes of the American people but fails in the end. JimmyRa 17:53, 3 May 2011 (EDT)

But but but....that's my point exactly! If you're saying he's a total dunderhead but is also a manipulative politician attempting to bring in a socialist/sharia society, then surely he's just committed political suicide and knows he will be out of office in less than two weeks once Osama/al Qaeda gets their video out? That doesn't seem very manipulative or power grabbing does it? I mean, that doesn't exactly fit with a plan of going for his second term of office? I'm sorry, there's just no logic to any of these arguments, none whatsoever. JanW 18:00, 3 May 2011 (EDT)

He could know something we don't. As Rumsfeld said it's an unknown unknown. It could be we got Osama under Bush, or Obama could have gotten Osama's brother by accident. On some sites people are saying that Osama and Obama might be in this together. I don't believe that, but I sure do get their names mixed up. I don't know what happened, what I do know is that whatever happened Obama is going to tell the story that he thinks will make him look the best. But I never said he is going to get away with it. JimmyRa 18:13, 3 May 2011 (EDT)

This is an interesting [post] from a popular and very liberal blog. Apparently conspiracy theories are rampant today! How many more inaccuracies are there in the White House's story? JimmyRa 17:35, 3 May 2011 (EDT)

Step back a second and look at this logically

It is just a few days after the shooting. Therefore the facts, as always with events happening halfway across the world, have not all come in and been sorted out yet. The posters who say that it wouldn't make any sense for Obama to lie about this have a very good point. Andy seems to be gravitating toward the theory that bin Laden might have died years ago, and that Obama is just now making up a story. Ok, within the realm of the possible, but why now? It's still 19 months away from the election. If bin Laden had indeed been dead for a long time, why didn't the White House release this story last October, before the Democrats' "shellacking" at the mid-terms? What would be the motivation? Because World Net Daily is still harping about the long form birth certificate? (By the way, while I'm on that subject, I notice no one really responded to my post above...)

I think that your zealous opposition to Obama is leading you to latch onto ridiculous conspiracy theories which are ultimately counter-productive. There are so many legitimate reasons for a conservative to oppose Obama. Why not focus on those instead of chasing specters like his citizenship status and speculations about faking bin Laden's death? If you take a step back, I think you'll find that the shadows dancing on the wall are just your own, gyrating to and fro to horrific music which is in fact only in your head. JDWpianist 18:12, 3 May 2011 (EDT)

There are things that the mainstream media, even Fox, are afraid to touch. One of the reasons Conservapedia is so valuable is that on these issues we don't just touch Obama, but flog him. Whats going on with the question of Obama's birth is far more than shadow play, even if MSNBC would have us believe that's all it is. Why is the Republican front runner Trump still asking questions, at great political cost, if there were only shadows?JimmyRa 18:23, 3 May 2011 (EDT)

Some good points. For one, how is it that the government of Pakistan authorized or allowed a foreign force to assualt a neighborhood in its sovereign territory? If so, who gave the go ahead? If so, is written authorization available.

Let's look at two conflicting stories: (1) one says the helicopters flew low so as to avoid radar; (2) a second says survivors in the compound were "turned over" to Pakistani authorities, implying cooperation bewteen the Navy Seals & local Pakistani authories. If there were cooperation, why then did they have tyo fly low to avoid radar? Rob Smith 19:31, 3 May 2011 (EDT)

I don't think there's any contradiction. The mission was kept very secretive, with only a few people having knowledge of it. They didn't tell Pakistan for fear that at least some elements in the Pakistani authorities have been helping Bin Laden. However, the raid lasted 40 minutes, it was close to a military base and once the shooting started it wasn't going to stay secret. The Pakistani authorities would always have gotten involved then, but given the nature of the operation when they became aware of it they could hardly be seen to oppose the US incursion. The US forces got their target, they were unlikely to take any extra risks by trying to fly a large number of suspects out. WilliamB1 19:59, 3 May 2011 (EDT)

Yet certain holes remain in the story, for instance White House official John Brennan [said] "the United States did not inform the Pakistanis of the operation until its helicopters had exited Pakistani air space". If they did not inform the Pakistani's until after they left how did they hand over prisoners? JimmyRa 20:36, 3 May 2011 (EDT)

To anyone who accepts the official and self-contradictory story, do you support transparency or not? What is the value of the internet and free speech if one is going to insist on automatically accepting whatever story is told by a politician?--Andy Schlafly 00:14, 4 May 2011 (EDT)

@Andy: Of course I support transparency, and no, I'm not accepting the story at face value. As I said above, I expect it to take some time before the facts get sorted out before making up my mind. Remember other high-profile events like 9/11, the beginning of the Iraq war, the Laughner shootings? There were always wildly contradictory stories at first because no one quite knew the whole story until all the debriefing had taken place. Can you answer the questions above? Why, if the White House were covering something up, would they make an announcement at this point in time as opposed to a more politically advantageous one? What would the motivation be? Why do inconsistencies automatically make you latch onto unlikely explanations and conspiracy theories with little apparent motivation?

@Rob: WilliamB1 pretty much summed up what I'm thinking. The fact that the world's most wanted terrorist was relaxing in a (relatively) nice suburb of Islamabad makes it pretty clear that the Pakistani government couldn't be fully trusted to keep the operation a secret. JDWpianist 03:29, 4 May 2011 (EDT)

I would like to propose a different approach. I agree that some things are very fishy about this story (i.e. DNA, photos and burial at sea). I also agree though, that it would be a catastrophic event for Obama, if he said that Osama was killed, when the latter still lives in freedom. It would have also been much easier for Obama to just bomb the compound and claim that Osama was there. There would be far less witnesses to the farud.
But what if Osama was actually captured alive. Making this public would have many many backlashes for Obama: 1. Liberal cooks would demand a trial for Osama. 2. The public would demand that if he were tried, that the trial would be made public, thus giving Osama a platform to spread his distorted message of hate. The trial might also go on for years just look at the Milosevic-trial 3. Human Rights Groups would monitor Osama very closely and try to prevent him being waterboarded or tortured. This would make getting information out of him very difficult. 4 Terrorists would be far more motivated to commit terroristic acts, since there would be the slight possibility that those would eventually free Osama.
So that would be my explanation why the whole story doesn't quite add up. Just my two cents--VPropp 09:52, 4 May 2011 (EDT)

Really? Andy, You're going to question whether or not Bin Laden is dead?

Andy, how do you fake the death of someone like Osama Bin Laden? TerryB 10:55, 3 May 2011 (EDT)

When the liberal media will lap up any lies you spew like they were honey faking things isn't all that difficult. Given the character he has shown previously can you doubt Obama would lie if he thought it was to his advantage politically? JimmyRa 11:32, 3 May 2011 (EDT)

Troll more subtly. ColinM 11:36, 3 May 2011 (EDT)

Thanks for the advice Colin, I'm sure you have all kinds of expertise with trolls. Maybe Osama is dead, but hearing Obama saying he is isn't all that convincing.JimmyRa 11:39, 3 May 2011 (EDT)

Then it must be particularly reassuring that the vast majority of people learned about what happened before Obama spoke about it in confirmation? ColinM 11:51, 3 May 2011 (EDT)

Ya from leaks from the White House, or leaks from people who had just heard the news from the White House. It is still from Obama even if it didn't come directly from his lips. JimmyRa 11:53, 3 May 2011 (EDT)

I suppose what the country could have really benefited from was Andrew Schlafly swooping in through the windows and taking the final shot that ended Osama bin Laden. Even with that, I would not be surprised if Andy somehow thought that it was a conspiracy that Osama was found in the country that Obama pronounced the "Muslim" way. ColinM 12:01, 3 May 2011 (EDT)

It looks like Andy has really gotten under your skin Colin. I happen to believe the louder a liberal squeals the more pain (s)he is in. But it is a necessary pain, it will scour your lies and hypocrisy away. JimmyRa 12:12, 3 May 2011 (EDT)

I don't understand why liberals are so blindly faithful in Obama. Yes, it would be hard to fake his (Osama's) death, but not impossible, and I wouldn't consider our government above it. The relevant news at this point is regarding Osama's death, so don't be mad when you see such news items. - AzadJ 12:41, 3 May 2011 (EDT)

So blood on Obama's hands is supposed to make him credible, or more credible? I don't follow the logic. Rob Smith 15:55, 3 May 2011 (EDT)

(undent) It's not that I have blind faith in Obama, I'm just amazed that an encyclopedia that bills itself as "Trustworthy" would have shoddy conspiracy theories in the news section, especially since the 9/11 truthers (also an idiotic theory) are derided on this very site. Between the birther and Osama nonsense, how is this encyclopedia "trustworthy"? TerryB 19:00, 3 May 2011 (EDT)

There is no "conspiracy theory" in requesting transparency, and in asking questions when such transparency is surprisingly denied.--Andy Schlafly 00:16, 4 May 2011 (EDT)

I agree. However, you said "Was Bin Laden even there?", implying a conspiracy. How is this different than saying "were the 9/11 hijackers really there?" TerryB 10:53, 4 May 2011 (EDT)

Christian Education

Hello, I am a long time reader of the Conservapedia, but a first time editor, so please excuse my faulty editing. I love this wiki, as it is the only one that truly represents my christian beliefs without any liberal lies polluting the holy word. I was thinking though, this wiki lacks a lot in the way of providing information to help teach young children about our lord. I recently adopted a son from the middle east. I don't feel safe saying his name online, so I'll just call him "A". When I brought him home for the first time, I was appalled to learn that my new son was misguided into believing the lies of Islam. I tried to find a good source online that I could trust to make "A" into a christian, but found every website to be filled with libral lies, and worse, exeptance of the homosexual life style. That is why I turn to you, my fellow true christians, to make a source of true information that we can safely raise our children on. God Bless You. --JohnDo 13:15, 3 May 2011 (EDT)

I grew up a Muslim as well, and what really spoke to me and led me to convert was learning about the history of both religions and the injustices that the Koran condones. From then on, it was fairly obvious which was the righteous path. Good luck in your efforts, and God bless your lucky son who has finally gotten his opportunity to be saved. - AzadJ 14:45, 3 May 2011 (EDT)

Canadian Elections Fix

The news article is appearing above the column where it is supposed to be, someone should fix this.--IScott 17:40, 3 May 2011 (EDT)

Not a mistake: big news deserves big headlines.--Andy Schlafly 22:37, 3 May 2011 (EDT)

I see it was taken down off the main page, should it not at least be added to the news feed? JacobSmith 15:23, 4 May 2011 (EDT)

Hearsay

I have always been surprised that Andy, as a lawyer, has never understood the relatively straightforward concept of hearsay. The Main Page news states that Obama is insisting 'that the hearsay "confirmation" of the identity by a terrified woman is proof'. If the woman was present at bin Laden's compound her testimony is not hearsay. She is a direct witness. Pick up a law book and have a read Andy. --QuentinC 18:30, 3 May 2011 (EDT)

It's hearsay to "hear" and then repeat what she "said", and expect people to believe that. In this case, there it is actually several layers of hearsay, sometimes called double or triple hearsay. The woman herself could get on TV and say what she saw, and then be asked questions about it, but that hasn't happened and I don't expect it to.--Andy Schlafly 18:39, 3 May 2011 (EDT)

On that basis your news item is wrong. In the item you characterise her confirmation as "hearsay". You now acknowledge that her confirmation of the identity is not hearsay at all but you want to directly observe her making the identification. You should reword the news item. --QuentinC 19:24, 3 May 2011 (EDT)

No, I don't see anything wrong about the headline. I made clear that if the woman were to make a new statement on TV and take questions, which hasn't happened, then that would not be hearsay.--Andy Schlafly 21:56, 3 May 2011 (EDT)

You do understand that on that basis everything you read in the newspaper is hearsay? On that basis every item of news on the Main Page is hearsay. But only one item says "hearsay". Why is that?

Furthermore, you haven't even bothered to address my point. The item indicates that the identification itself was a "hearsay" identification. That is utterly false and misleading. The identification itself was direct (so far as one can determine from the article). Your only (and somewhat bizarre, in my opinion) complaint is that bin Laden's wife hasn't gone on American TV to be questioned about his death. Do you feel you might be asking a bit much there?

Finally, the item attempts to throw doubt on the woman's identification by calling it "hearsay" but completely fails to mention the two other identification methods relied upon. The item needs to be changed. --QuentinC 23:34, 3 May 2011 (EDT)

Canada elections

Unfortunately there is a bit more in this story. Yes, the good news is that the conservatives won majority, and that it was the greatest defeat of the liberal party in history. However, the liberal party is not the most leftist party in Canada, they are more in the center - left. The bad news is that the much more leftist "New Democratic Party" got by far it best result in history, partly at the expense of the liberal party, and partly at the expense of the bloc Quebecois. They became the main oposition party. So, I would not call this the greatest defeat of liberals in the history of Canada, but rather the greatest defeat of the liberal party.--AlejandroH 18:36, 3 May 2011 (EDT)

Interesting point. Thanks. I'll trim the headline rather than try to explain all that.--Andy Schlafly 22:38, 3 May 2011 (EDT)--Andy Schlafly 22:38, 3 May 2011 (EDT)

A new experiment confirms relativity

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/04may_epic/

I was wondering if anybody here had any thoughts on this? JacobB_{Shout out!} 15:03, 4 May 2011 (EDT)

NASA is a government agency, and as the suspicion surrounding Bin Laden's death shows, the government is not above misleading the public. If the theory of relativity were true, then why isn't it mentioned in the bible??? Truly, it is strange that tax payers throw away billions for this atheist trash, when I can give you all of the answers you need from a book that has been around for thousands of years. - AzadJ 16:35, 4 May 2011 (EDT)

Where in the Bible are the tables for calculating shear stress in filleted welds? I would assume that's New Testament since welding is a fairly modern technology but you seem to have all the answers. Nate 17:22, 4 May 2011 (EDT)

The key difference is that the theory of relativity contradicts many things in the bible, such as the instant healing of Jesus and that the Lord is behind the movement of the solar system. Moreover, merely observe the lack of evidence for Relativity, and you will see the many flaws in your argument. Also, there is a grammatical error in your second sentence, but I'll leave it to you to figure out as a mental exercise. - AzadJ 17:27, 4 May 2011 (EDT)

You got me. Thanks for the rigorous Biblical scholarship there. Nate 17:34, 4 May 2011 (EDT)

Liberal last wordism at its best. Please consider getting saved like I did. - AzadJ 17:40, 4 May 2011 (EDT)

Not a "liberal" AzadJ. And I've been an active member of the Catholic Church since I started serving mass as an altar boy nearly 40 years ago. I see you might not know it's considered extremely rude to make presumptions about a man's faith when you have literally no evidence to go on. But thank you for your concern. Nate 17:45, 4 May 2011 (EDT)

Please, on your user page you admit to playing soccer, which has been proven to be a socialist sport on this very site. Why do liberals try so hard to denial or downplay their being liberal? - AzadJ 17:48, 4 May 2011 (EDT)

Conservatives and the photos

I think it's only fair to point out that not every conservative wants the photos released; here's what I think is a very apropos quote from Mike Rogers (via the New York Times):

"Some lawmakers expressed similar views, saying that releasing the photos would serve little purpose and could endanger American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. 'Imagine how the American people would react if Al Qaeda killed one of our troops or military leaders, and put photos of the body on the Internet,' said Representative Mike Rogers, Republican of Michigan and chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. 'Osama bin Laden is not a trophy. He is dead, and let’s now focus on continuing the fight until Al Qaeda has been eliminated.'"

I do understand the reasoning behing wanting the photos released, but at some point I do also think that there will always be claims that the government makes that the American people have to take at its word. Some information, contrary to Wikileaks philosophy (and photos are certainly information), is best left confidential.--IDuan 15:19, 4 May 2011 (EDT)

I don't know if Mike Rogers is a conservative, but when a president makes an implausible claim, then transparency requires publication of some proof to back up his claim. Now some may be opposed to transparency and think people should automatically believe what liberals say, but most conservatives reject that view. Note that many non-conservatives don't believe the president's claim either, in the absence of making proof available to the public for verification.--Andy Schlafly 16:23, 4 May 2011 (EDT)

But what level of empirical evidence will be enough for you? If they release a photo that will do nothing to appease the conspiracy theorists, all it will do is lead to claims that the photo was faked. Are we not also forgetting that there is not one scrap of evidence that he's still alive?

This whole thing is entirely politically motivated. By your own admission you said you don't believe what liberals say simply because they are liberals. If I stop and ask someone for directions I don't consider it necessary to enquire about their political beliefs before accepting their help. WilliamB1 16:33, 4 May 2011 (EDT)

First of all, you spelled "inquire" wrong. Secondly, it takes little to no effort to release the many photos the soldiers supposedly took. Obviously, the photos he claims to have are fake, and he is keeping them only to fool future presidents/officials who may look into the files of the operation. Obama knows that, just like how people were quick to point out the many signs that his birth certificate is faked, many internet denizens will quickly spot the flaws in his doctored pictures. This time he will not take any chances. - AzadJ 16:43, 4 May 2011 (EDT)

But what is "implausible about [Obama's] claim"? There is nothing implausible about it at all. THe US has been hunting Bin Laden for a decade, and the US is the world's only Superpower, so it was inevitable that we would get him eventually. What's implausible is the claim that Obama would willingly cover up either a) the killing or b) the person who was killed - he would have no motive to do so whatsoever as it would be almost instant political suicide. Also, I think you'll find most conservatives do not "reject that view" - Michele Bachman, Donald Trump, Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Karl Rove, George Bush, Condoleeza Rice, Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, all senior GOP'ers and many, many others all openly accept that Bin Laden has been killed and are not pushing to see either photos or DNA evidence. It seems only Glen Beck and yourself are skeptics? Who else from 'our side of the fence' is challenging this? And your suggestion that accepting the presented position is to be "opposed to transparency" and "automatically believing what liberals say" is also patently false given that list. - JanW 16:50, 4 May 2011 (EDT)

I believe Bin Laden is dead. You have it carried live on real-time video watched by Obama, his cabinet, and his national security team; there's the witness statements at the scene confirming it; there are witnesses onboard USS Carl Vinson confirming it. I couldn't care less about the non-release of photos. Karajou 16:55, 4 May 2011 (EDT)

I find myself agreeing with Karajou. But to be clear, I would disagree with Will and Azad and Jan who suggest that inquiring about the photos equates a conspiracy theorist.--IDuan 16:57, 4 May 2011 (EDT)

I too agree with Karajou, but personally, I haven't been suggesting that the simple act of enquiring about the photos makes one a conspiracy theorist. To claim that there is no evidence without the release of the photos does. To simply claim that Obama and everyone else involved is lying does. WilliamB1 17:05, 4 May 2011 (EDT)

Here's my thought on the subject: I take anything President Obama says with an extremely large grain of salt. His word is not sufficient evidence for me. However, we're not talking about just President Obama's word. As Karajou pointed out, we also have the word of a great number of other people, many of whom have served honorably in the military. I am not willing to accuse such people of being liars without extremely good evidence; their service has earned them the benefit of the doubt, as far as I'm concerned. --Benp 20:03, 4 May 2011 (EDT)

No one is accusing anyone in the military of being liars. It's typically not even the military's job to identify someone and it's unclear how they would even do so. The fact is undeniable that mistaken identities happen all the time even in the best of circumstances. A mistake was made in the Persian Gulf under the Reagan Administration, and no one faulted the soldiers for it.

If a mistake has been made, would Obama admit it???--Andy Schlafly 20:13, 4 May 2011 (EDT)

Yes, mistaken identities happen, but I've yet to hear of a case where the identity of someone has been later found to have been wrong following the use of facial recognition software, visual identification, AND, most crucially, DNA evidence. Would Obama admit a mistake? Who knows, it doesn't matter here because there has been no mistake with regard to the central question, is Bin Laden dead? The answer is a resounding yes; all of the evidence available confirms it, and what's more there is no evidence to the contrary. This leaves only one logical conclusion. WilliamB1 20:20, 4 May 2011 (EDT)

Even if there were no mistake in this case, it is still worth supporting transparency here. Otherwise, a precedent is set for secrecy, and in the future there won't be any transparency even when there is a mistake or someone is lying.--Andy Schlafly 21:22, 4 May 2011 (EDT)

The nature of such operations is inherently clandestine. For national security concerns, it's possible that they should remain that way. Not releasing the details of the operation may leave some unconvinced, but it sure won't get any more Americans killed than informing terrorists of the details. BradB 21:37, 4 May 2011 (EDT)

---

I only ask that he release the videos and pictures so as to continue his supposed "transparency." What reason does he have to hide them? None! - AzadJ 17:15, 4 May 2011 (EDT)

On the trusted and unbiased Gawker news network, there is a story circulating that explains that Obama has no choice but to release the photos. Now he's breaking the law just to hide these photos? What reason would he have to do that? I have one idea... - AzadJ 17:52, 4 May 2011 (EDT)

Even transparency has its limits doesn't it? We don't know the names of the Navy Seals involved, and with good reason. I don't see any complaints about a lack of transparency there. I think national security is an issue here and while I'm ambivalent on the question of whether or not the photo should be released, I can certainly understand why some people are in favour and some opposed.

And in response to AzadJ, according to that article he isn't breaking the law by not releasing the photo. He would only be breaking the law if he attempted to prevent its release following a FOI request for which there were no legal grounds for rejecting. Even if someone has made a request already, the time limit for responding has a while to run yet. However, the national security argument would almost certainly come into play in determining whether or not the FOIA request was acceptable. WilliamB1 18:50, 4 May 2011 (EDT)

Yeah, actually my cover was blown on the "vandal site." But the fact that anyone took me seriously enough to reply speaks volumes about Conservapedia. I'll admit, playing the paranoid, denialist conservative was pretty difficult, so I really must congratulate Andy on playing the part so convincingly. And now I must go. - AzadJ 19:20, 4 May 2011 (EDT)

If photos of Castro aren't proof that he's alive, photos of Bin Laden wouldn't prove he's dead. There's no point in releasing the photos, it would probably only serve to provoke terrorists.

RE Andy: Even if the Obama administration released the DNA, what would anyone compare it to? And if you don't trust the conclusions of their DNA analysis, I don't know why you would trust the DNA samples they would give you. Conservatives may never believe that Obama had Bin Laden killed. Furthermore, why would conservatives believe Benazir Bhutto when she said Bin Laden was murdered? What ironclad proof did she have? Will conservatives ever believe that Bin Laden is dead? BradB 21:15, 4 May 2011 (EDT)

I really hope Osama is dead. Especially given all the contradictory information coming out of the White House. But if Obama is lying he has given Osama the perfect opportunity to hurt America. Now that Americans thinks we have him we will stop looking. This means Osama will be safer and could become more active. Obama couldn't do more to help Osama if he was directly on Osama's payroll. JimmyRa 13:27, 5 May 2011 (EDT)

So let me get this straight; they shot & killed an unarmed guy after he gave up; then, forgetting to bring a tape measure, one of the SEALS lays down beside the corpse just to illustrate for a photo the guy they killed is 6'4". Then they take a DNA sample, and dispose of body. Then we await positive confirmation they killed the right guy. Shheeesh....all this without a no-knock warrant. At least no one is being faulted for lack of professionalism. Rob Smith 17:12, 5 May 2011 (EDT)

Superman

In the Superman item on MPR, why is MSNBC the cited source? Everyone knows it is not trustworthy. Also, Superman never technically became a citizen of the US, and is in all likelihood an illegal immigrant as he came from space. TedCarter75 10:20, 5 May 2011 (EDT)

Good question; Superman may not even been a white guy, then, huh? "I never met a white man who didn't think he knew it all or didn't think he was Superman". Rob Smith 17:21, 5 May 2011 (EDT)

Superman was the toughest Jew I have ever known.--Jpatt 17:40, 5 May 2011 (EDT)

Is this suppose to be ironic or is this just racism? JacobSmith 12:44, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

And how is it racism? Both Joe Siegel and Jerry Shuster were Jewish kids in Cleveland when they created that character, and if Superman is meant to be Jewish, than that's a plus. Karajou 12:50, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

Perhaps I misspoke. What I am trying to say is that it's troubling that RobSmith made a connection between 'illegal immigrant' and 'not white'. JacobSmith 16:17, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

The thing to remember is what Siegel and Shuster intended when they created him. He represented core American values; he grew up on a farm near a small town; he was for all intents and purposes an immigrant who did what he could for America. Siegel and Shuster would both be appalled at the proposed treatment of Superman by DC Comics. Karajou 17:00, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

I agree with everything you said there with one exception. Superman did not know he wasn't born on Earth until well after he became a super hero. I'd have to think that in his mind he was a natural-born citizen doing what he could for our great country until that point. JacobSmith 20:24, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

Superman has provided his long form birth certificate, no verification needed. He is an American citizen even though his father was not born on this planet. --Jpatt 20:29, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

Superman was born near Smallville, Kansas. [13] This does leave open the question whether a non-human natural born space alien can assume citizenship rights. Rob Smith 20:42, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

No he wasn't. He was born on Krypton. LloydR 23:02, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

<- The cite says,

Superman is the sole survivor of the planet Krypton. His father, Jor-El, discovered that a nuclear chain reaction was building inside Krypton that would soon shatter the entire world. Jor-El therefore had his unborn son Kal-El removed from the Kryptonian Gestation Chambers and affixed the life matrix containing Kal-El to an experimental vessel for travel through hyperspace. Jor-El launched the starcraft toward Earth just before Krypton exploded. Superman was, in effect, born on Earth when the starcraft landed there. Jonathan and Martha Kent found the infant inside the vessel and brought him to their farm in Smallville, Kansas. Since he appeared entirely human...

Maybe we can get somebody to check out the veracity of these details. Rob Smith 14:23, 7 May 2011 (EDT)

I've been trying. As far as I can tell (needs more looking into) this origin was only used in 'The Man of Steel' which only ran of six issues. Ironically the point of this was so that Superman could become the President. The standard story seems to follow the 'born on Krypton, sent into space as an infant' plot from the original. I believe that's also the current version as well. It's worth noting that there are version of him landing in the Soviet Union and England. JacobSmith 15:31, 7 May 2011 (EDT)

The Coneheads movie explored a similiar line; while Beldar Conehead was not born in the United States, and like Superman, presumably was not human, nevertheless he obtained a drivers license and even ran his own drivers ed school. Rob Smith 15:48, 7 May 2011 (EDT)