Replies

"It is what it is."

Now I'm more confused than before. Pointing out that some of the Founders (as the Franklin quote in #66 did) may have been racist by intending the presidency for white children of white citizens (their "Kind") so as to demonstrate that attitude (citizens born of citizens, who were nearly universally white at the time) toward natural born citizenship is not the same as bushpilot1 advocating that the presidency, in the here and now, should be reserved for white European descendants.

I'm now unconvinced that bushpilot1 didn't get the bum's rush on this one. I've looked through about a dozen pages (so far) of their commentary history and I'm becoming increasingly leaning toward the opinion that if the Mods give a fair review of the posting history, bushpilot1 could very well have their banned/suspended status lifted.

If there are folks here that can point to comments made by this poster that definitively mark them as racist (and putting up images of African/Kenyan tribesmen to point up the lawlessness of the situation doesn't qualify in my opinion), then I'm perfectly willing to weigh that evidence. Until then, I'm not ready to "convict" them simply because they put up historical anecdotes, even anecdotes by founders that are racist by today's standards, unless it can be shown that bushpilot1 advocates such a philosophy. I don't think at this point, based on my admittedly limited knowledge, any fair-minded Mod will, either. Just my $.02.

I've Pinged the extra names (including those I can recall from memory as being "anti-birthers" in the hopes of bringing a broader knowledge base, and therefore hopefully clarity, to bear on the subject.

Of course, pointing out that some of the Founders may have intended the presidency for the white children of white citizens (or, more specifically, as bushpilot1 did, for the Anglo-Saxon children of Anglo-Saxon citizens) is not the same as advocating that the presidency, in the here and now, should be reserved for white European descendants.

But, bushpilot1 took that extra step. In post 33, he said that Bubba Ho-Tep is not a natural-born citizen because he is descended from Italian immigrants and "Those who immigrated from Southern Europe do not fit into this Kind." In post 56 (which has been removed), bushpilot1 again explained his position that the Founders limited the presidency to those with Anglo-Saxon heritage, and said (to paraphrase, since I don't want to re-post something that's been removed) that if you don't like it, ask Congress to change the Constitution. He was clearly saying that the presidency was and is Constitutionally reserved for those with Anglo-Saxon heritage.

I've long thought that the argument he made in this thread, which he's been repeating for over a year, was in itself worthy of a ban, but you obviously disagree.

Until then, I'm not ready to "convict" them simply because they put up historical anecdotes, even anecdotes by founders that are racist by today's standards, unless it can be shown that bushpilot1 advocates such a philosophy.

He clearly believed that these were the standards by which Obama should be held. In the first thread I read of his, he was saying Obama was a "squatter occupying the White House" with "no natural born right to be President," because, he says, Obama doesn't have "kindred blood with the Founders."

I believe such a line of reasoning would be better suited for a place like Stormfront, not Free Republic.

If there are folks here that can point to comments made by this poster that definitively mark them as racist (and putting up images of African/Kenyan tribesmen to point up the lawlessness of the situation doesn't qualify in my opinion), then I'm perfectly willing to weigh that evidence.
Start here...@Yet, you just implied earlier that he was biased because he's a Muslim!
Go up the thread and then read it down to get "the Full Monty".

I don't care what race, nationality or religion (a cult isn't a religion, per se) a person is. There is supposed to be an adherence to the Constitution and the principles established by the Founding Fathers. Even an atheist can seek public office as long as they hold true to the Constitution. It's the unconstitutional imposition of one's personal or religious beliefs on others that revolts me. If an Islamist sits on the bench, judges according to the Constitution and doesn't impose his own personal or religious principles of Sharia, then I could care less that he's an Islamist. When, or if, he does impose them contrary to the Constitution I'll be one of the shrieking heads.

And the wagons are circled!
That is an unwarranted accusation as my previous statements will indicate, if you even bother to read them.

Like I've said before...lot's of folks like to go fishing at FR.
He's been "fishing" his "kind" bait for a long time. He apparently got pulled in by his own over weighted line.

From what I see, bushpilot has been researching the language etymology of natural-born citizen as strictly related to the understanding and intent of the founders. The reaction from Obama sympathizers has been to treat that as if BP has a personal racist agenda, which we all know is a typical tactic used against anyone who questions Obama's legitimacy. BP defended what the historical intent and language is, as well as the fact that the Constitution has not been changed, which is true. That's why I pointed out that the Supreme Court said their job was to interpret what the law is, not what they want it to be or what THEY think it should be. Unless the constitution and/or the definition of NBC has been specifically changed, then it stands as the founders intended it.

IMO, BP was advocating for upholding the Constitution and for those who don't like it, to change it. That's what the Supreme Court said in Minor. BP seemed to say the intent of the founders would not just prevent Obama from being a natural-born citizen, but also those non-Anglo Saxon Europeans. That would exclude plenty of white people.

Interestingly, BP's point seems to be confirmed in Canada of all places. In 1907, evidently they had some racial backlash because of a wave of Asian immigration. This comment seems to confirm a very British tradition:

"Rev. Dr. Fraser said he was body and spirit with the movement, as he almost felt that unless some steps were taken to stop the influx his own pulpit would soon be in the hands of a Jap or a Chinaman," the Daily News-Advertiser reported the next day.

"There was no such thing as this cheap or common labour that was talked about," the Presbyterian minister was reported to have said. "It was pure Anglo-Saxon blood that had made the Empire and it would never be made with a mixture of Asiatic blood."

link to: "When racism ruled"

And speaking of British empire, when one looks at the British tradition, seeing as how so many folks are quick to say that we follow English common law on citizenship, there have historically been plenty of racism isues in the British colonies: Australia, India, New Zealand, Africa ... Does this mean those persons who support an English common law definition of citizenship are advocating a racist agenda??

To quote Shakespeare, IMO, the accusation that BP is racist or a bigot is "much ado about nothing."

I have just noticed yesterday that bushpilot1 has been zotted, and I am at a loss as to explain why. If I read him correctly, he is pointing out what was common knowledge in 1787. Many of the founders were racists.

Well Duh.

I was under the impression that everyone knew this. Apparently it was a revelation to some.

That is not to say that ALL the founders were racist. I posted information pointing out how James Otis was vehemently advocating the abolition of slavery and advocating equality for all people. Samuel Adams was well inspired by him. The efforts of many of the founders went into limiting and abolishing slavery as explicitly written into the Final Document. Even some of the Virginians were not so enamored of it, Thomas Jefferson being but one example.

Abraham Lincoln was horribly racist. I just read something from him yesterday of which I had not been previously aware. From Gerard Vanderleun

"Now I ask you in all soberness, if all these things, if indulged in, if ratified, if confirmed and endorsed, if taught to our children, and repeated to them, do not tend to rub out the sentiment of liberty in the country, and to transform this Government into a government of some other form.
"Those arguments that are made, that the inferior race are to be treated with as much allowance as they are capable of enjoying; that as much is to be done for them as their condition will allow. What are these arguments? They are the arguments that kings have made for enslaving the people in all ages of the world.
"You will find that all the arguments in favor of king-craft were of this class; they always bestrode the necks of the people, not that they wanted to do it, but because the people were better off for being ridden. That is their argument, and this argument of the Judge is the same old serpent that says you work and I eat, you toil and I will enjoy the fruits of it.
"Turn it whatever way you will---whether it come from the mouth of a King, an excuse for enslaving the people of his country, or from the mouth of men of one race as a reason for enslaving the men of another race, it is all the same old serpent." -- Abraham Lincoln. Speech at Chicago, Illinois | July 10, 1858

Nevertheless, His policies set about making all men equal under the law, as did those of Jefferson, Madison, Mason, etc.

It was the Democrats who have always been the racists, starting with Andrew Jackson (Indian Removal Act of 1830) to Slavery, To Chief Justice Taney in the Dred Scot decision, to Nathan Bedford Forest's founding of the KKK, to Margaret Sanger's Eugenics policies, thru Jim Crow, to lynching, to opposition to the civil rights act of 1964, and numerous and sundry subsequent offenses (by Democrats) to the idea that people should be judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.

That someone should be zotted for pointing out that (some of) the founders were racist indicates an excessive sensitivity to the issue in my opinion.