Patterico's Pontifications

12/29/2008

U.S. to Disintegrate in 2010

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 8:29 am

A Russian professor says so, so it must be true:

A polite and cheerful man with a buzz cut, Mr. Panarin insists he does not dislike Americans. But he warns that the outlook for them is dire.

“There’s a 55-45% chance right now that disintegration will occur,” he says. . . . Mr. Panarin posits, in brief, that mass immigration, economic decline, and moral degradation will trigger a civil war next fall and the collapse of the dollar. Around the end of June 2010, or early July, he says, the U.S. will break into six pieces — with Alaska reverting to Russian control.

You can see Alaska from Russia, you know. It’s not just a one-way deal.

I think 55-45 is too bold, by the way. I’m going 50-50. That way I’m right no matter what happens. I learned that from weathermen who say there’s a 50% chance of rain.

The article prompted a question about the White House’s reaction to Prof. Panarin’s forecast at a December news conference. “I’ll have to decline to comment,” spokeswoman Dana Perino said amid much laughter.

For Prof. Panarin, Ms. Perino’s response was significant. “The way the answer was phrased was an indication that my views are being listened to very carefully,” he says.

We’re not carefully listening with you, we’re carefully listening at you.

Then again, maybe this fellow’s predictions will find adherents here. Some of you are pretty pessimistic about Barack Obama. Just how deep does that pessimism run?

112 Responses to “U.S. to Disintegrate in 2010”

  1. If ass-clown Franken becomes a senator, I put the number at very near 100%.

    Old Coot (f036b5)

  2. Though Russia would become more powerful on the global stage, he says, its economy would suffer because it currently depends heavily on the dollar and on trade with the U.S.

    Mr. Panarin’s apocalyptic vision “reflects a very pronounced degree of anti-Americanism in Russia today,” says Vladimir Pozner, a prominent TV journalist in Russia. “It’s much stronger than it was in the Soviet Union.”

    They hate us but they need us, they need us but they hate us…meh. Nothing new under the sun.

    Dana (79a78b)

  3. I of course have optimism for Obama and America.

    And I know people here have great optimism for at least America.

    I would just like to know that Russian Professor Mr. Panarin’s views will be discounted by all Americans and even the world, if America does not “disintegrate” by June 2010.

    Oiram (983921)

  4. I’m sure there would have been a stimulus had McCain been elected, but the mandate for big government through Obama scares the heck out of me. If Obama goes forward with his make-work, print-money program, we are in Big Trouble.

    We are the biggest debtor nation in the world. What happens when China or India get tired of our dollar dragging them down?

    Patricia (89cb84)

  5. Perhaps not a total disintegration, but certainly a Balkinization is underway.

    SeniorD (50f696)

  6. Though Russia would become more powerful on the global stage, he says, its economy would suffer because it currently depends heavily on the dollar and on trade with the U.S.

    IOW, “we are in as bad a state as you.” Their population can’t afford their products so they rely on an inflation-wracked, deb-ridden US population for trade? Come on–most of this breakup talk is KGB mind games. The collapse of the dollar–not so crazy.

    Patricia (89cb84)

  7. Wonder of wonders, Pravda suddenly loves this guy – their oil revenues are plummeting, civil unrest is being reported as far away as Siberia, so Putin deploys his infamous “hey, look, over there!” strategy. Won’t work.

    Dmac (eb0dd0)

  8. The current level of government spending is not sustainable. What “not sustainable” means is anyone’s guess. Whatever happens will not be pretty.

    Wesson (3ab0b8)

  9. There’s a cargo cult in Malaysia that doesn’t believe the United States exists! So I figure there’s a 50-50 chance it doesn’t.

    tim maguire (72f509)

  10. Russia and backwater hellholes like Chavez’s Venezuela cannot be happy with the collapse of oil prices. Drudge has some story about China noting that US vs Russia military balance is changing. Right. I’m sure Obama is another Clinton in regard to his lack of respect for military.

    History repeats itself endlessly. I’ve never had anyone comment on the likelihood of a Great Depression scenario “soon” (within a couple of years) as outlined in work like http://www.thegreatbustahead.com

    Libs are against nuclear power, drilling for oil and use of coal. New oil refineries are taboo. ANWR could have helped us and a vote for it by Az. wad McCain would have let the bill pass. I think someone like Palin in the place of dickwads like Specter and McCain would improve the Senate. Does the GOP really miss Chafee?

    Might not be so bad for rest of us if S. California, SF, Chicago and NYC did secede. So many combat deaths in Iraq? How does that measure up to EACH big city with high murder rates?

    aoibhneas (0c6cfc)

  11. “History repeats itself endlessly. I’ve never had anyone comment on the likelihood of a Great Depression scenario “soon” (within a couple of years) as outlined in work like http://www.thegreatbustahead.com

    I have to ask this: Are you making this statement because you think we’re due? Or are you saying this because you HOPE this happens, since you want to find some way to stick it to that group or person that needs some form of comeuppance?

    The true test of leadership is to help ensure the decisions leaders make keeps the country on the right path, and does NOT end up “sticking it to ‘em.” Conservatives, the last 8 years, FAILED THIS TEST because they showed the world they were more interested in sticking it to those irritating liberals, rather than putting their own unique stamp on society and history.

    Brad S (9f6740)

  12. The U.S. congress destroyed a booming economy for political purposes (thank Chuckie for the banking collapse) and the only way it will recover is to put them in a cage and keep them away from it. The economy can and will come back on it’s own in a few months, with congressional help it will take years. Don’t give up, hammer the hands off message through the thick skulls of your congress critters. As the American auto industry has found out, the economy is self correcting, they are going broke due to the unions (following the example of the steel/textile industry) while others (non-union foreign names) are and will continue to boom.

    Scrapiron (ce69ff)

  13. I do wonder why oil tanked so badly and so quickly. Is Saudia Arabia secretly helping their customers? Demand couldn’t be off by that much…

    Patricia (89cb84)

  14. ‘California will form the nucleus of what he calls “The Californian Republic,” and will be part of China or under Chinese influence. Texas will be the heart of “The Texas Republic,” a cluster of states that will go to Mexico or fall under Mexican influence. Washington, D.C., and New York will be part of an “Atlantic America” that may join the European Union. Canada will grab a group of Northern states Prof. Panarin calls “The Central North American Republic.” Hawaii, he suggests, will be a protectorate of Japan or China, and Alaska will be subsumed into Russia.’-Professor Pancake

    What a loon.

    Dave Surls (e856e7)

  15. Yes, DMac that is what is called projection in the business. The Georgian effort ended up failing miserably, triggered a whole cascade of nationalism all throughout the region, Chechnya is in the interlude of peace before the next confrontation. Oil price collapse, has shattered
    the base of their economy; as it has damaged all
    petroleum price sensitive nations and localities.
    From Venezuela to the state of Alaska. Much of this is tied to the collapse of the global credit market. A possible problem are the silovki that Putin has empowered; like General Shamanov ‘hero of Chechnya and Georgia’ and Nagovitsyn, the Russian archetype of General Ripper, who has challenged the BMD deployments in Eastern Europe with aggressive moves. They have been empowered by Putin’s egotism, and sadly in the future by some of Obama’s advisors. So they might try something stupid, it’s in their nature. But as long as we have people of the caliber of Sarah
    Palin, up there, pushing the good fight, I feel
    confident that any such controversy shall pass

    narciso (57971e)

  16. Brad S, you have it wrong or you are blind to facts. The economy boomed for 6 years. The democrats promised in 2006 to reverse the course of the Nation. Someone put them in charge (not one of them got a vote from me) and they carried out the promise. A change from up is down. The set out in their BDS haze to destroy GWB but destroyed the country instead. Guess what, GWB will be gone in a few days and the BDS crazies will still be with us. There is no cure for stupid and no effective treatment for the effects of BDS, other than suicide by those suffering BDS.
    When the sun comes and goes down on schedule and the ocean tides remain normal after Jan 20th, I expect a boom at the undertakers office. That in itself should help a small part of the economy.

    Scrapiron (ce69ff)

  17. I believe demand collapsed along with the rest of the world economy – other than a few bright spots in China (which is still down significantly), when you look at the trendline, it’s in line with expectations. Look at the implosion of imports from the 3rd world to the 1st world over the past few quarters, it’s fallen off the map. Consumers were the first market segment to respond to the current economic troubles, now businesses have followed quickly – to cite just one example, despite record cold across much of the country, natural gas prices are still below former levels. That is a direct result of businesses cutting back on their infrastructure spending.

    Dmac (eb0dd0)

  18. The sky is falling! The sky is falling! We’re screwed. All we’d need is one or two terrorists to detonate an A-bomb or two above a major metropolitan area and the house of cards will come tumbling down. We don’t make anything here any more, we rely upon imports for just about everything. The only thing we’d have plenty of would be grain. Getting it distributed could be difficult if we can’t import any oil or refined gasoline. remember, our oil refineries have turned into obsolete dinosaurs incapable of producing nearly enough to satisfy our demand.

    We’re screwed. We owe everybody money and we are headed towards bankruptcy. Just look at Kalifornia, it is leading the way. When people haven’t eaten anything for two or three days they’ll revert to freakin stone age barbarism. It will be kill or be killed. The sky is falling! The sky is falling! But no one listened and the once great nation, the greatest nation in the history of the world, crumpled from within, collapsing on itself hara-kiri style, slowly bleeding to death. Guns, ammo and food and water. Guns ammo food & water. The basic essentials for life we take so much for granted could be pulled right out from under us in the blink of an eye. How could we be so blind? Because we are the most selfish, self-centered materialistic king babies who didn’t listen to anything history had to teach us and in the end our arrogance and pride caused our precipitus downfall.

    Alas, we’re screwed. And the ironic thing is: we screwed ourselves.

    J. Raymond Wright (d83ab3)

  19. 11 fwiw- your lib congress has been in charge for the past two years. Your Dodd, Franks, Rainey and Gorelick, among others, are knee deep in the scandalous behaviors. How about they forfeit their ill-gotten gains?

    Why project? Why would I want a Depression? Like I’m happy now that my property value has collapsed by 2/3 in past few years. As if I want armed desperadoes with a sense of entitlement preying on the rest of us? I’m not sure that the Feds can print their way out this with multi-trillion dollar bailouts for just about EVERYONE who helped create the mess. Let’s build more fancy golf courses for the UAW. Let’s give the MSM a fe wbillion. Why is it that some people get fat off the public when times are good and when things go south, the risk is socialized and the public bails out the assholes- banks, brokerages, insurance companies, whatever? And now the ethanol industry needs a cut too?

    aoibhneas (0c6cfc)

  20. Disintegration….
    Well, that could lead to a whole host of problems.
    Just imagine the confusion within the political class as they look around, and there is nobody looking to them for leadership, not even the usual gadflies giving them the finger.

    Now, for the important decisions:
    I don’t have enough shotgun ammo, should I get more OO, or slugs?
    Rifle and Pistol: OK!

    Another Drew (wwbkaADitcy) (209453)

  21. There’s an 8% chance that in 2010, San Francisco will become part of the United States.

    Cicero (8db983)

  22. Projection.

    Amphipolis (fdbc48)

  23. Unfortunately, the real, literal meaning of the “50% chance of X” forecast is “5 out of 10 forecasters guessed X”…

    mojo (8096f2)

  24. “The Texas Republic will go to Mexico…” ha ha, that’s funny. I didn’t realize the man was writing a comedy piece.

    Vaultenblogger (91c4b7)

  25. Just how deep does that pessimism run?

    Not that deep.

    EW1(SG) (da07da)

  26. #25 – Well Dang!

    I just put all my remaining laundry quarters into a sackcloth and ashes hedge fund.

    Adriane (497622)

  27. My response to this very learned fool is this: Go wash your backyard!

    love2008 (1b037c)

  28. I think Panarin and his map may have unwittingly provided a solution to those calling for a college football playoff solution.

    Bob (d96391)

  29. There was a large concern during the Cold War that the Soviet Union’s leadership did not understand the West and the United States in particular. This shows that that problem continues in modern Russia.

    SPQR (72771e)

  30. Mr. Panarin posits, in brief, that mass immigration, economic decline, and moral degradation

    Wow, even the Russians can see it but we can’t.

    quasimodo (edc74e)

  31. If ass-clown Franken becomes a senator, I put the number at very near 100%.

    Comment by Old Coot — 12/29/2008 @ 8:36 am

    I am going to hold you to that prediction.

    truthnjustice (c313be)

  32. Comment by liesntyranny — 12/29/2008 @ 11:57 am

    Accountability we can depend on!

    Another Drew (wwbkaADitcy) (209453)

  33. How deep does my pessimism run? Not as deep as this Professor’s but, like many American soldiers, I have doubts:

    When asked how they feel about President-elect Barack Obama as commander in chief, six out of 10 active-duty service members say they are uncertain or pessimistic, according to a Military Times survey. In follow-up interviews, respondents expressed concerns about Obama’s lack of military service and experience leading men and women in uniform.

    The survey undersamples minorities, women, and junior enlisted personnel and oversamples soldiers. Since blacks are very positive about Obama, the overall military support may be at 50-50 — just like this post.

    DRJ (30954e)

  34. The only way this would happen is if

    1) Obama is discovered to be not a natural born citizen.

    2) Obama refuses to obey the Consitution and tries to stay in power.

    Civil war.

    Roy Mustang (ad5f36)

  35. Anyway, I think Obama is a natural born citizen. I think he is hiding something else BIG. Like Obama actually being the One to achieve Hillary’s dream of being the first female President.

    Roy Mustang (ad5f36)

  36. He’s Bristol Palin’s baby.

    nk (2f022a)

  37. Obama is indeed a natural-born citizen. The question is–of what country? The Berg v. Obama case is on the Supreme Court docket again, scheduled for January 16th.

    Official Internet Data Office (a693d6)

  38. If oil keeps dropping I think we will be able to buy Russia and add it onto to Alaska.

    Dennis D (ae900a)

  39. In response to the Berg case:

    http://www.yestodemocracy.com/yes_to_democracy_no_to_pu/2008/08/wingnuts-away-.html

    Apparently Berg is a nut.

    truthnjustice (c313be)

  40. Also, these are the types of shows that are giving Berg his voice. Did they film this in somebody’s basement? I wonder if this program airs right after Wayne’s World…

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSqGePdZ0fU

    OIDO- You are losing your credibility when you give this lawsuit any second thought. Do your homework.

    truthnjustice (c313be)

  41. Comment by liesntyranny — 12/29/2008 @ 1:04 pm

    Rich commentary that!

    Another Drew (wwbkaADitcy) (209453)

  42. Berg is a headcase. So is truthnjustice. Funny how that works, like a blind squirrel finding a nut.

    Pablo (99243e)

  43. Hey Oidotard, do you even know what Rule 11 is? Hint: it *doesn’t* mean the judges are impressed with your legal arguments.

    The day a real question arises as to whether BHO is a natural-born citizen is the day you can show *both* that he was not born in Hawaii *and* that his mother wasn’t a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth. Until you’re prepared to do both, your best bet is to quit while you’re behind. Way behind.

    Xrlq (e0ec4f)

  44. You are losing your credibility

    Most hilarious line – evah.

    Dmac (eb0dd0)

  45. So, I guess the wingnuts don’t have much to say about the links. Nice discussion we’re having here.

    truthnjustice (c313be)

  46. So, I guess the wingnuts don’t have much to say about the links. Nice discussion we’re having here.

    Boy, that sounds familiar. But what is it you expect to hear about Berg?

    Pablo (99243e)

  47. TMJ, why would I bother to follow any links of yours given the propensity you’ve demonstrated for linking things you’ve not bother to read or comprehend? Funny you commenting on others’ credibility, eh?

    SPQR (72771e)

  48. SPQR- I guess that is your way of saying ‘yes, I know this guy is f-ing nuts, but I wish what he were saying was true so I am going to roll with it’.

    truthnjustice (c313be)

  49. TMJ, I guess you’ve not paid any attention to any of my comments on the matter. And to cover that, you decide to invent things.

    No surprise there.

    SPQR (72771e)

  50. So what is your response to the information I posted in counterpoint to the Berg case?

    truthnjustice (c313be)

  51. In the Russian professor’s wet dreams. Did you see that Texas and New Mexico were supposed to line up with Florida? Idaho was to come under the influence of China (I knew some Idaho sheepherders in my youth–they were only in love with ewe. No way Jose or No Way Wong Dong or whatever–those boys ain’t going to be influenced by China.) However, maybe the mid Atlantic States led by Jean Francois Kerry will make a nuanced decision to leave those red neck red states behind–and join the European Union. Not everything is all bad with the Russki professor’s scenario.

    Mike Myers (31af82)

  52. I be happy to give many Democrat occupied territories away. Think Detroit, Chicago, DC and New Orleans under Chinese control.

    Perfect Sense (9d1b08)

  53. Hey Oidotard,

    Them’s fightin’ words, cowboy.

    All right, counsel, let’s hear you enlighten all those without a law degree about what Rule 11 means.

    If Berg’s case has no merit, it will be denied a hearing. (The Supreme Court, however, will not hire a psychiatrist to determine if Berg, or any plaintiff, is nuts.) Then it’s on to other petitions. But if there’s nothing to all of this, why do the moonbats object so strenuously? You should also note that I freely concede that Obama is a natural-born citizen of some country.

    Official Internet Data Office (a693d6)

  54. Is there any provision in the Constitution for replacing Congress in its entirety and starting over? Some sort of special “housecleaning” election provision?

    I can’t think of one politician in Congress that deserves my respect. Call it contempt of Congress or something…

    bobdog (8bb090)

  55. Impeach Congress! The whole bleeding bunch of them!

    J. Raymond Wright (0440ef)

  56. Hey, Xrlq, I was under the impression that Obama’s mother was 18 at the time of his birth, which under the law at the time (but not now) she would not grant American citizenship to her child at the moment of birth given that the father also was not an American citizen. Which would mean that if Obama was born in Kenya, then at the moment of his birth he wouldn’t be a US citizen. Is that incorrect?

    luagha (5cbe06)

  57. I guess that is your way of saying

    Now it has resorted to fabricating other’s thoughts, even though none have been expressed on that subject matter. At this rate of devolution, it will be carrying on conversations between itself.

    Dmac (eb0dd0)

  58. Hey, Dmac:

    When TMJ wrote:

    “…Do your homework….”

    Did you laugh for the reason I did?

    Eric Blair (9294a8)

  59. Oui.

    Dmac (eb0dd0)

  60. Honestly, the “smart people” sure seem to reveal more of themselves than they intend to reveal. That is the trouble with, well, lying: you have to remember what you said and to whom.

    Like my father always told me: it’s simpler and easier to tell the truth. You just have to remember one set of facts.

    Eric Blair (9294a8)

  61. [...] Rumors of U.S. demise are greatly exaggerated So China notes the “waning strength” of America and a Russian professor predicts the break-up of the U.S. by 2010 (Heads up from Patterico). [...]

    Rumors of U.S. demise are greatly exaggerated « Wellsy’s World (01f13c)

  62. “…it will be carrying on conversations between itself.”
    Comment by Dmac — 12/29/2008 @ 3:37 pm

    AFAIC, it already is!

    Another Drew (wwbkaADitcy) (209453)

  63. Let me guess…. Dmac, you laughed because you remembered the time that you misquoted me and wouldn’t admit it or apologize. Yeah, I figured so.

    So Drew, you’re going by the name ditzy in the new year? Awesome.

    truthnjustice (d99227)

  64. Nope, TMJ. That’s not it at all. You know why we chuckled.

    Eric Blair (9294a8)

  65. One reason we chuckled is because

    “…Do your homework….”

    is likely the most frequent phrase you hear at home from day to day.

    Official Internet Data Office (a693d6)

  66. It makes up entire conversations that it only remembers. You know the old saying – you’re never alone when you’re a schizophrenic.

    Dmac (eb0dd0)

  67. Actually the best treatment, of this topic, was Stephen Green’s in Pajamas Media; about two weeks ago, which people misunderstood the parodic elements he was introducing.

    narciso (57971e)

  68. TMJ, given that you’ve just made up crap about my positions, you have no place to talk.

    But then, not having any place to talk is your only skill.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  69. Whaddya know! He’s only two years off the mark.

    I hate to break the news to anyone who hasn’t heard, but, America is dead already.

    Eyas (f8adc1)

  70. And yet another member of The Earth is Flat Society is heard from.

    Dmac (eb0dd0)

  71. OIDC, I’d put my money on: “When are you going to move out of the basement”

    SPQR (26be8b)

  72. Followed by: “did you take out the litter box yet?”

    Dmac (eb0dd0)

  73. [...] Russian Professor Predicts U.S. Disintegration in Two Years December 29, 2008 at 7:57 pm | In Uncategorized | Tags: politics, Russia, US Russian Professor Predicts U.S. Disintegration in Two Years: “There’s a 55-45% chance right now that disintegration will occur…” [...]

    Russian Professor Predicts U.S. Disintegration in Two Years « The Salty Pundit (b093c9)

  74. luagha

    Hey, Xrlq, I was under the impression that Obama’s mother was 18 at the time of his birth, which under the law at the time (but not now) she would not grant American citizenship to her child at the moment of birth given that the father also was not an American citizen. Which would mean that if Obama was born in Kenya, then at the moment of his birth he wouldn’t be a US citizen. Is that incorrect?

    No, it’s correct, but it’s also irrelevant. Obama ran for President in 2008, not in 1961. Today’s version of 8 U.S.C. § 1401(g) clearly defines as a “national[] and citizen[] of the United States at birth” anyone born outside the U.S. to one non-citizen and one parent who is “a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years.” The same law further provides that it applies to all “persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date.”

    It doesn’t get much clearer than that.

    Xrlq (62cad4)

  75. Oidotard:

    All right, counsel, let’s hear you enlighten all those without a law degree about what Rule 11 means.

    Rule 11 is the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure under which attorneys can be sanctioned for filing frivolous suits or motions in federal court. In other words, this case isn’t back on the docket to re-visit your phony issue about Obama’s citizenship. Berg lost on that issue already. The only issue before the court now is whether Berg’s argument was merely wrong, or so insanely wrong as to warrant a fine, or worse. It’s not this crackpot’s first run-in with Rule 11, either.

    Xrlq (62cad4)

  76. Since we’re all making projections, I project that Prof Panarin is trying to use reverse psychology to unite the Democrats and the Replublicans so the US doesn’t collapse and Russia doesn’t go down with it.

    If the D&Rs can’t agree that this guy is nuts, then I don’t know what they could agree on.

    Paul Hsu (646236)

  77. Obama ran for President in 2008, not in 1961.

    Why would that matter? Surely whether or not one is a natural born citizen is a matter fixed at birth, not subject to later modification.

    aphrael (9e8ccd)

  78. Comment by Xrlq — 12/29/2008 @ 8:18 pm

    Game, set, and match.

    Ouch, that had to hurt, eh fellas?

    truthnjustice (d99227)

  79. Um. What the heck are you talking about? You seem to think that everyone who posts here thinks one specific way, and you are the Brave Dissenter.

    To coin a phrase, move on.

    Eric Blair (9294a8)

  80. You have quite the ego, EB. Who said I was referring to you? If, however, you believe that this Berg fellas has (had) a case, well then ‘shame on you’ and the comment is directed towards you. Eh?

    truthnjustice (d99227)

  81. fella*

    truthnjustice (d99227)

  82. Thanks, Xlrqtard.

    I see you’ve taken the time to explain Rule 11 upon request–which you’d probably charge a client at the rate of $100 an hour.

    You’ve also cited 8 U.S.C. § 1401(g), which I’m familiar with. However, it defines a citizen in one set of circumstances, but not necessarily a natural born citizen in the Constitutional sense. For example, John McCain qualifies as a citizen under 8 U.S.C. § 1401(c), but the US Senate still felt the need to prepare and pass Resolution 511 (April 30, 2008). That non-binding resolution states, in part:

    “Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen’ of the United States;
    “Whereas the term ‘natural born Citizen’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States”

    and they went on to “resolve” that McCain was a “natural born citizen.” But that is not law. It was just the Senate’s opinion. Even so, there was no reason to resolve anything unless § 1401(c) or (g) didn’t suitably define the precise meaning of “natural-born citizen.” So, what was the Senate so worried about?

    You may recall that there was a Republican Senator Lowell Weicker, Jr. from Connecticut, who was briefly touted as a Presidential candidate, until people realized that he was likely ineligible, based on his birth in Paris, France to American parents.

    Official Internet Data Office (a693d6)

  83. Wow, TMJ. You sure showed me. Burn.

    Eric Blair (9294a8)

  84. Okay. Here we go. Final test. On January 20 if Obama is indeed sworn in as the next president then I (well, we all) win this argument. If not, then I will be the first to log onto this site and issue an apology.

    truthnjustice (d99227)

  85. Jeez. Truly unclear on the concept.

    Eric Blair (9294a8)

  86. I know, you really are. I am trying to clear this up for you and I hope it helps.

    truthnjustice (d99227)

  87. Right. Again, you sure did show me. All of us!

    Please.

    Again, there are many people on this site who have differing opinions on this subject, as reading the thread amply demonstrates. You are doing your usual “all posters at Patterico believe one way” game.

    Like that is a surprise.

    Eric Blair (9294a8)

  88. ____________________________

    Around the end of June 2010, or early July, he says, the U.S. will break into six pieces — with Alaska reverting to Russian control.

    Dismissing the timeline and specifics of Panarin’s predictions, I do envision a future — exactly when, I’m not sure — in which the United States has become a somewhat less mediocre, or slightly less dysfunctional, version of Mexico (or perhaps Venezula or Argentina).

    I think the degree (or severity) and timing of that scenario is dependent on politicians along the lines of Obama (or Gore, or Kerry, etc) in particular and the left in general. The more that either or both of those two camps dominate government and our culture, the sooner that future of stagnation and decline will arrive.
    ____________________________

    Mark (411533)

  89. An amusing premise to be sure, however there is a grain of truth, if not a warning, in this piece. Perhaps we should take the hint.

    I was in the Soviet Union in 1971. Moscow to be exact. Around Easter and by chance a Communist Party conference was in session and the city was cleaned up and festooned in red with Lenin banners on every building. In other words, they were putting on their best show. And it was a sight to see.

    At that time, its military power and space program– something better celebrated and honored by the Soviets than by Americans– was on a par with the United States. Yet even at that time, it was easy to see their society could not survive much longer fueling a massive military while their consumer economy stagnated and declined.

    For years, VOA and West German television beamed reruns of old U.S. TV shows into the Eastern Block, mainly as a propaganda ploy to showcase the goodies denied to the average Soviet citizen (and I don’t just mean Elizabeth Montgomery’s ‘Bewitching’ kitchen or Ward Cleaver’s Chevrolet. (This has always fueled my contention that liberal Hollywood did as much if not more to win the Cold War than the right cares to admit, or the military could have dreamed.)

    We saw long lines at food kiosks and petrol stations; soldiers on every corner with machine-pistols slung over their shoulders at the ready. We were forbidden to photograph this, of course. Juince and beer vending machines with community glasses chained to them— no individual aluminum cans for purchasers. You drank from the same glass everyone else did. Children attempting to buy the blue jeans we wore (they were made in America then); adults bartering for ball point pens in exchange for Communist Party badges (I have them framed in my home). Old women pulling wooden carts with their belongings along unpaved, mud-rutted roads. (Katrina refreshed those old memories.) Again, this was 1971.

    Pieces of fine art, worth millions, hanged on pegboard in shabby museums. The pegboard, the kind most Americans have in their garages. Most telling, off Red Square, was the famed Gum Department Store. The Soviet Macy’s. We passed through the shoe department and there, on what clearly was an old ping-pong table, was a pile of brown shoes with a sign stuck in the middle carrying the price for a pair of Russian wingtips. A few kopeks. Buyers had to ferret out matching sizes and styles from the pile themselves. No shoeboxes. It was quite a sight and made Woolworth’s seem like Gimbel’s (they’re bankrupt and gone now, too.)

    It was clear evidence that the Soviet Union in its then current state would eventually collapse from decay and decline from within. They could build missiles but not microwaves. (Similar to America today.)

    Yet in 1971, it seemed improbable that a complex superpower bureaucracy in a geographically massive and diverse country would collapse and cease to exist in my lifetime, 20 years later. Yet it did.

    Take the hint. Panarin’s parameters may be way off, but his premise may have a hit of merit. He knows of what he speaks. His own country experienced it.

    Decline and decay will bring collapse from within. In America, the decline may be more akin to Britain’s decline in the early 20th Century. It has begun here. Gated enclaves of the over-affluent block out a struggling, lower middle class rabble surrounding them, spiralling down will be a signpost.

    We already see it in California… and Florida… and so on.

    DCSCA (d8da01)

  90. Aphrael:

    Why would that matter? Surely whether or not one is a natural born citizen is a matter fixed at birth, not subject to later modification.

    AFAIK, the only thing “fixed” about whether or not one is a natural born citizen is anyone born in the U.S. must qualify per the 14th Amendment. The rest of the definition (and all of it at the time the original Constitution was enacted) is up to Congress.

    OIDO:

    Thanks, Xlrqtard.

    Wow, that was original. Did you think of that all by yourself? Next time you might want to branch out a bit and try the one about rubber vs. glue instead.

    You’ve also cited 8 U.S.C. § 1401(g), which I’m familiar with.

    Not too familiar, obviously, else you wouldn’t have argued in a previous thread that BHO doesn’t qualify under it because he is too young.

    However, it defines a citizen in one set of circumstances, but not necessarily a natural born citizen in the Constitutional sense.

    Obviously, you’re even less familiar with the Constitution than you are with Rule 11 or 8 U.S.C. § 1401. As the Senate resolution notes, there is no constitutional definition of “natural born citizen.” The only common sense definition is that it covers anyone who is a citizen at birth, under the laws in effect at the time he is inaugurated. So the issue is purely up to Congress under the original Constitution. The only thing off the table, per the Fourteenth Amendment, is that Congress cannot strip those born on U.S. soil of their citizenship. But by OIDO-logic, I guess even that issue is up in the air. If a statute saying someone is a “national and citizen of the United States at birth” doesn’t make you a natural born citizen, then presumably a constitutional amendment that merely states that a person is a “citizen” won’t accomplish that, either. Which is why we never hear the end of this canard, which was thrown at everyone from Chester Arthur (born in VT but the OIDOs of his day swore he was born in Canada) to Barry Goldwater (born in AZ before it became a state) to McCain (born in Panama Canal Zone) and now Obama (born in Honolulu with a ferrin’ sounding name). But the fact that you and others make outrageous arguments is not evidence that the arguments themselves have a shred of merit. They don’t, which is why your hero Berg is back in court now.

    Xrlq (62cad4)

  91. XRLQ: granted that I havent studied this area, but that doesn’t make any sense to me. “Natural-born” implies a status that you have at birth. It seems to me definitional that either you have this status when you are born or you don’t … and if you don’t have natural-born status at birth, a later act of Congress can give you artificial-born status, but not natural-born status.

    Which is to say, I interpret the phrase ‘natural born citizen’ to mean ‘a person who was automatically a citizen at the time of their birth due to the citizenship rules prevailing at the time’, and anyone who wasn’t automatically a citizen at birth but who became a citizen by virtue of retroactive rule changes can’t be natural born.

    Otherwise, there is no distinction between ‘natural-born citizen’ and ‘citizen’.

    aphrael (12fba5)

  92. The Goldwater question should have been easy to answer, though: was someone born in the Arizona Territory, to parents who were citizens, automatically a citizen, at the time of his birth? I suspect the answer was yes.

    aphrael (12fba5)

  93. We already see it in California… and Florida… and so on.

    Actually, you’re viewing your own personal decline through your fevered imaginations. But good luck with all that flotsam and jetsam, you’re going to need it. Perhaps attending a NASCAR event to cheer yourself up?

    Dmac (eb0dd0)

  94. Hey, Xlrqtard–

    You, not me, began the silly convention of ending the other guy’s handle with a “tard.” You did it twice, in fact, before I did it once. What are you so mad about? Consider my use of that suffix as a subtle reminder that using it doesn’t advance your thesis, but detracts from it.

    You throw out red herring after red herring in your comment. For example, the issue with Chester A. Arthur wasn’t that he was not born in Vermont (he surely was), but that his father was born in the United Kingdom. In other words, one of his parents was not a US citizen at the time of his birth, and it was his father.

    You also threw out this nonsense, which is made up out of whole cloth:

    Not too familiar, obviously, else you wouldn’t have argued in a previous thread that BHO doesn’t qualify under it because he is too young.

    I’ve never said Obama was too young. He’s 47 years old, and I understand the minimum age is 35. So, he qualifies so far under that rule. Your link doesn’t link to what you say it does.

    You also say that

    . . .presumably a constitutional amendment that merely states that a person is a “citizen” won’t accomplish that, either.

    That’s also a red herring. A Constitutional Amendment would of course accomplish that as soon as the 38th state ratified it. Duh.

    You also tried this argument:

    The only common sense definition is that it covers anyone who is a citizen at birth, under the laws in effect at the time he is inaugurated.

    But we are not governed by “common sense,” but by the Constitution. Remember, we are not talking about stripping the citizenship from citizens, or how the Fourteenth Amendment prevents that, but only about the meaning of “natural born” citizen, which is important only in one situation–when specifying the job requirements of one job, President of the United States. The exact meaning of “natural-born citizen” hasn’t ever been decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, John McCain’s erratic comment about Barry Goldwater notwithstanding. I’d like to see them define it.

    The Founders deemed it necessary to narrow the definition of citizenship required to hold the office of President to “natural-born citizen.” Why? What were they thinking? What was their original intent? They were of course familiar with British law, especially as compiled in Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, and that defines a a natural-born [British] subject as one born in British territory, and if not, then if their fathers were “natural-born subjects.” (from Book 1, Chapter 10).

    Official Internet Data Office (e781ed)

  95. They could build missiles but not microwaves. (Similar to America today.)

    Except, the Soviets were incapable of satisfying even the most basic of consumer needs: Food.
    Central Planning of the economy resulted in un-natural roadblocks to even such simple tasks as bringing a wheat harvest to market. And collectivization destroyed the will of people to work…old Soviet saying: We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us.

    The United States chooses not to “make” microwaves, because we can buy them from someone else at a better price. It is called maximum utilization of resources.

    However, if push comes to shove, rest assured that “microwaves” can, and would, be made here.

    You Sir, are a fool!

    Another Drew (wwbkaADitcy) (fa7341)

  96. Sorry, the salutation in my previous comment should have read “Hey, Xrlqtard” not “Hey, Xlrqtard.”

    Thank you.

    Official Internet Data Office (e781ed)

  97. #95- Speak for yourself.

    DCSCA (d8da01)

  98. #93– NASCAR is for idiots. Enjoy!

    DCSCA (d8da01)

  99. You could also try “Sez you,” DCSCA, that’s another good riposte.

    Jim Treacher (592cb4)

  100. In any case, thank you for responding to my question, Xrlq. It’s what I wanted to know about your opinion.

    Again, as many people have pointed out, the constitutional definition of ‘natural-born’ is kind of up in the air.

    It seems odd to me that Obama could be not-a-citizen at the moment of his birth under the laws of the time, but then, at some future date when the laws change, become having-been a citizen at the moment of his birth all along. I can see as how maybe that wouldn’t make him a ‘naturalized’ citizen because he would never have had to go through a naturalization process. But then, I’m not the guy who decides this issue.

    If we’re lucky maybe we can get a special ‘double-whammy’ decision out of the Supreme Court on this one. Something like, “Not only is Obama allowed to be President, but based on the Constitution of Austria, Arnold Schwartenegger can be President too!”

    luagha (5cbe06)


  101. The Empire will fall!
    The Russian Hari Seldon speaks
    From beyond the grave.

    Pious Agnostic (291f9a)

  102. DCSCA said…
    “…I was in the Soviet Union in 1971. Moscow to be exact. Around Easter and by chance a Communist Party conference was in session…”

    Just why, other than being a U.S.Govt employee, or a conferee at said mentioned conference, was this commenter in the Soviet Union in 1971.

    I find this question interesting…

    Another Drew (wwbkaADitcy) (fa7341)

  103. This Russian is obviously confused between America and the self described America’s Team.

    America’s fate is not tied to the fate of the Dallas Cowboys.

    Joe (dcebbd)

  104. Aphrael: retroactive laws are always a bit counterintuitive, but I see no reason why that should invalidate them. The only area of law that bans retroactivity generally is the ex post facto clause, and then only in one direction (de-criminalizing a past crime is fine).

    Let me ask you this: if a newly-freed slave had managed to get elected President in 1868, three months after the Fourteenth Amendment had been ratified, would he have qualified for the Presidency? If not, why not?

    OIDO:

    Hey, Xlrqtard–

    You, not me, began the silly convention of ending the other guy’s handle with a “tard.” You did it twice, in fact, before I did it once.

    Only after you had earned the title too many times over to count. If I had posted comparably ignorant drivel, you’d have been equally justified in applying the name to me. But I hadn’t, so you weren’t.

    You throw out red herring after red herring in your comment. For example, the issue with Chester A. Arthur wasn’t that he was not born in Vermont (he surely was), but that his father was born in the United Kingdom.

    And you wonder why I call you a ‘tard. A simple Google or visit to Wikipedia would have sufficed to establish that Arthur Hinman accused him of not being a natural born citizen because he was supposedly born abroad, not just because of where his father was born (which, FWIW, was Ireland).

    In other words, one of his parents was not a US citizen at the time of his birth, and it was his father.

    Which had zero impact on his eligibility to the Presidency, since he was born in the U.S.

    You also threw out this nonsense, which is made up out of whole cloth:

    Not too familiar, obviously, else you wouldn’t have argued in a previous thread that BHO doesn’t qualify under it because he is too young.

    It wasn’t whole cloth, just a typo. In the prior thread, you claimed he couldn’t be a natural born citizen if born abroad because his mother was too young, thereby proving you weren’t familiar with 8 U.S.C. § 1401 after all.

    You also say that

    . . .presumably a constitutional amendment that merely states that a person is a “citizen” won’t accomplish that, either.

    That’s also a red herring. A Constitutional Amendment would of course accomplish that as soon as the 38th state ratified it. Duh.

    Duh indeed, for any person smart enough to recognize the common root word “certify” in both “certificate” and “certification,” or for anyone with the common sense to understand that anyone defined by law as a “national citizen of the United States at birth” is a “natural born citizen.” But if you can’t make those simple inferences, I’m not sure why I should expect you to understand the connection between a “natural born citizen” and someone defined merely as a “citizen” on account of where he was born.

    You also tried this argument:

    The only common sense definition is that it covers anyone who is a citizen at birth, under the laws in effect at the time he is inaugurated.

    But we are not governed by “common sense,” but by the Constitution.

    The Constitution doesn’t answer the question. Therefore, we’re left with the statutes, which should indeed be interpreted using common sense.

    Remember, we are not talking about stripping the citizenship from citizens, or how the Fourteenth Amendment prevents that, but only about the meaning of “natural born” citizen, which is important only in one situation–when specifying the job requirements of one job, President of the United States. The exact meaning of “natural-born citizen” hasn’t ever been decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, John McCain’s erratic comment about Barry Goldwater notwithstanding. I’d like to see them define it.

    I’ll bet you would, but they won’t. Certainly not now, as it’s plain as day the President-elect is a natural born citizen (and yes, you ‘tard, I do mean a natural born citizen of the United States, as citizenship in any other country is irrelevant), and no one who isn’t is likely to run anytime soon. But probably not ever. If you were smart enough not to get excited over the fact that your hero Berg is back in court to defend a Rule 11 motion, I’d try explaining the doctrines of political question and nonjusticiability. But you’re not, so I won’t.

    Xrlq (62cad4)

  105. Xrlq, that’s not even close to being a rebuttal. (That typo you claim to have made was more of a thinking typo.) And I’m going to call Rule 11 in the comments for making me come back and read your second consecutive rant. One of the recent posts on your own “blog” (I visited just once) was entitled “Obama is not My President.” Oh, really? If Obama receives enough electoral votes on January 8 he is your President. The only way he would not be your President is if he’s not a natural-born citizen. (The idea is starting to sound a little more attractive now, huh?)

    Also, I see you dropped the “-tard” from the salutation. That’s called progress. As O’Brien said to Winston Smith in 1984: “Better.” On the other hand, you did use “-tard” later on in your post, so I’m simply not going to take you seriously, on this subject or any other. You seem to be unwilling to engage in a rational discourse, unless you get to use ad hominem epithets.

    You also complain:

    you weren’t familiar with 8 U.S.C. § 1401 after all.

    That was two weeks ago. But I am now. And I believe Wikipedia isn’t the only source of information in the known universe, as you do. I’ll say it again: I’d like to see the Supreme Court of the United States rule on the precise definition of natural-born citizen.

    The other distasteful part of your rants is that you have absolutely no sense of humor. You failed to see any humor at all in my statement that I freely concede Obama is a natural born citizen of some country. I keed, I keed! But it went over your head. You felt compelled to say that “. . . citizenship in any other country is irrelevant.” Yes, we know. How tiresome. I can attribute this only to the apparent fact that you are a lawyer.

    To help develop your sense of humor, here are three punch lines to well-known jokes. As practice for you, let’s see if you can supply the joke that goes with each punch line:

    a. “Professional courtesy.”
    b. “His lips are moving.”
    c. “A good start.”

    Official Internet Data Office (e781ed)

  106. #102– I’ll bet you do.” — 1996, Gary Sinese, Apollo 13

    DCSCA (d8da01)

  107. Challenge, can anyone prove this wrong?:–

    1. Constitution Article II requires USA President to be “natural born citizen”.

    2. BHO’s website admits his dad was Kenyan/British, not American, citizen when BHO was born.

    3. BHO is therefore not a “natural born citizen” (irrespective of Hawaiian birth or whether he may be a 14th Amendment “citizen” of USA) — as confirmed in the Senate’s own McCain qualification resolution agreed to by BHO.

    4. Supreme Court has already docketed two upcoming conferences, 1/9/09 and 1/16/09 — between dates Congress counts electoral votes (1/8/09) and Presidential inauguration (1/20/09) — to address Berg Case and fashion relief on BHO’s eligibility to be President.

    5. Since no facts are in dispute, Supreme Court rules on Summary Judgment to enjoin BHO’s inauguration as President.

    6. Therefore, BHO is not inaugurated as President.

    7. Vice President Elect Biden is inaugurated Acting President under the 20th Amendment to serve until new President is determined — the procedure for which determination to be set out by Congress and/or the Supreme Court so long as in conformance with the Constitution.

    Ted (429bc3)

  108. One of the recent posts on your own “blog” (I visited just once) was entitled “Obama is not My President.” Oh, really? If Obama receives enough electoral votes on January 8 he is your President. The only way he would not be your President is if he’s not a natural-born citizen.

    OIDO, are you for real or are you some liberal moby? If you had read the first friggin’ sentence of the post in question, you’d know why I said Obama is not my President. He hasn’t been inaugurated yet. He soon will be, of course, but as of 12/29/08 he’s not anybody’s friggin’ President.

    The other distasteful part of your rants is that you have absolutely no sense of humor.

    This from the guy who harps on an ironically titled blog post without reading enough of the post to figure out the irony.

    You failed to see any humor at all in my statement that I freely concede Obama is a natural born citizen of some country.

    Wrong yet again. The joke wasn’t funny the first time you said it, and it sure as hell wasn’t funny the 7800th time.

    You felt compelled to say that “. . . citizenship in any other country is irrelevant.” Yes, we know.

    Who’s “we?” Most of us know this, sure, but you truthers obviously don’t. You yourself lent credence to the frivolous theory in the discussion on the Donofrio case, and again in this thread with your reference to Chester Arthur. A few hours later, Ted recycled that canard, arguing that the foreign citizenship of BHO, Sr. precludes BHO, Jr. from being a natural born citizen even though he was born in the U.S., that pesky Constitution notwithstanding.

    Xrlq (62cad4)

  109. Ted:

    Challenge, can anyone prove this wrong?:–

    Allow me.

    1. Constitution Article II requires USA President to be “natural born citizen”.

    Correct.

    2. BHO’s website admits his dad was Kenyan/British, not American, citizen when BHO was born.

    Correct, but irrelevant. BHO’s dad never ran for President.

    3. BHO is therefore not a “natural born citizen” (irrespective of Hawaiian birth or whether he may be a 14th Amendment “citizen” of USA) — as confirmed in the Senate’s own McCain qualification resolution agreed to by BHO.

    Nonsense. No law requires a President to be born to one U.S. citizen, let alone two. If a Mexican man knocks up a Mexican woman who’s never even been to the U.S., and she manages to sneak across the border just in time to pop out the kid, the kid is a natural born citizen.

    The only question is whether BHO, Jr. (the President-elect) is or is not a natural born citizen of the U.S. His father’s citizenship is irrelevant, as is the possibility that it may have made BHO a dual national at birth. There is no bar to current dual nationals, let alone former ones, serving as President. [In my view there should be, but that’s another matter.]

    4. Supreme Court has already docketed two upcoming conferences, 1/9/09 and 1/16/09 — between dates Congress counts electoral votes (1/8/09) and Presidential inauguration (1/20/09) — to address Berg Case and fashion relief on BHO’s eligibility to be President.

    Wrong. The Supreme Court denied certiorari on the central issue of the Berg case weeks ago. If you had read the comment thread before adding to it, you’d know that the 1/16 hearing is on a Rule 11 motion not to revisit Berg’s goofy theory, or allow him to introduce new ones (not that yours is new – it was the subject of the Donofrio case that was tossed a couple weeks earlier), but to decide whether his goofy case was goofy enough to warrant sanctions.

    5. Since no facts are in dispute, Supreme Court rules on Summary Judgment to enjoin BHO’s inauguration as President.

    In your dreams. In the real world, the issue never gets to the Supreme Court because none of the nutcases bringing have standing (only John McCain, Sarah Palin or Hillary Clinton would, and none of them are touching this turkey with a ten foot pole), and even if they did have standing, the issue would almost certainly be nonjusticiable and/or a political question. That the underlying issue was clearly wrong (the undisputed facts make clear BHO is a natural born citizen) is mere icing on the cake.

    6. Therefore, BHO is not inaugurated as President.

    Wanna bet?

    7. Vice President Elect Biden is inaugurated Acting President under the 20th Amendment to serve until new President is determined — the procedure for which determination to be set out by Congress and/or the Supreme Court so long as in conformance with the Constitution.

    Correct if it ever came to that, but it won’t, so irrelevant.

    Xrlq (62cad4)

  110. Everyone who hijacked this thread for a Berg showdown is TARD.
    I have spoken.

    /always wanted to do that

    rhodeymark (ae2b2a)

  111. Why the savaging of DCSCA? What was the commie (TARD) doing in Moscow, anyway?!1!!
    There are plenty of NATURAL BORN AMERICANS who see the printing press prop as a bad omen for a proper recovery. Putting a floor on housing values is necessary, but alone won’t be enough to reconstitute the credit madness machine that currently drives entirely too much of our current GDP. I find it telling that Paulson used an apocalyptic scenario to pry the TARP out of Congress – before he allowed the bait and switch hoarding of the initial 50% outlay. That created money will have to be borrowed into existence at some point, and the excess (which will be massive) will have to be destroyed. Those whistling past the graveyard should indeed go to a race, because all the left turns will start to feel familiar.

    rhodeymark (ae2b2a)

  112. Not Very Likely, too many interconnections,politically,economically, familial and the USA is not a tribal ,area like the Balkans,It has survived the Great Depression! and Hispanics are coming for the “Great American ” dream,What America has to do to,perhaps stave off marginalization,make English the official Language of the place,put proper social systems in place,I,e Health and Social Security, beef up your education, pull back your Military from the far east and middle east”the Russians and the Chinese “like the Americans” cannot project power for a sustainable amount of time,Keep investing in your future, Green technology,Space program ,basic science,and above all your education system,”The Youth”, Americans are a diverse and resourceful bunch, any how ,you are too liberal as a group, even your most conservative are too liberal for the rest of us out here,And Most of all you Have a wonderful Document to Live By Your Constitution.

    Rene Ramdin (eb8915)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4176 secs.