WHO announces world’s deadliest roads
Forgetting about this ad hominen attack for a moment, let’s ask Paul this question from a different perspective:
2007 TIMSS Math Score http://timss.bc.edu/timss2007/intl_reports.html
In 2007, the highest scoring countries who took TIMSS math were Singapore where the average math score of the 6,018 students who took the test was 610, and Hong Kong where 4,972 students averaged 584. The lowest scoring students were 5,100 students in Ghana who averaged just 261, and Botswana where 5,150 students averages just 377. Seven students in Ghana scored higher than 558, BUT: none of them scored higher than 657. We know that NO Ghanan student scored as high as the AVERAGE for Singapore, whose average IQ is estimated at 106. Seven students in Botswana scored higher than 587, but just like Ghana, NONE of them scored higher than 657.
This is absolute solid statistical evidence that at least in these two countries, which represent a total African population of 27 million, NO Black student has an IQ higher than 106.
Is this MY fault, Paul?
The scion of distinguished U.S. naval officers, McCain was born to two American
parents in the Panama Canal Zone. On April 30, 2008, the U.S. Senate sought to
answer the question by passing a nonbinding resolution, which states, “Whereas
John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military
base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it resolved, that John
Sidney McCain, III, is a ‘natural born citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of
the Constitution of the United States.”
PLUS a FORGED Long Form Certification of Live Birth
“4. 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
“Society not being able to subsist and perpetuate itself, but by the children of its citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children, and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.
“A Natural Born Citizen is one who is born of citizen parents. A child born abroad to two US citizen parents is a natural-born citizen: Provided, That at least one citizen parent had a prior residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions.” U.S. Code: Title 8, 1401.
“A Natural Born Citizen is one who is born of citizen parents (Note the “S”, that means plural). A child born abroad to 2 US citizen parents is a natural-born citizen: Provided, That at least one citizen parent had a prior residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions.” – U.S. Code: Title 8, 1401.
Posted on Tuesday, August 04, 2009 12:25:56 PM by Hillary’sMoralVoid
What I find so amazing about the “birther bashers” (or “afterbirthers” as I call them) is that they have so little appreciation for the complexity of Obama’s citizenship dilemma. They also do not appreciate the trap doors that exist at various points in his life regarding adoption and immigration between countries where he resided. Most of all, though, they don’t understand the basic terms that they banter about.
In short, Obama’s life path is fraught with potentially disqualifying conditions for the office he holds. As a constitutional law instructor, perhaps no one understands these conditions like he does, and that explains his intransigence in releasing anything that might expose him to constitutional challenge.
Let me just take a stab at a few terms that the ‘afterbirthers” throw around like they are interchangeable.
American citizen – this only means that at least one of the birth parents was an American and that the indivicual was naturalized, if not born in the US. These alo include immigrants who have been naturalized citizens. You can be considered an American citizen if you have dual citizenship with another country. To scream that Obama is an American citizen, as many afterbirthers do, proves NOTHING avout his right to be president. Even Syrian-born Tony Rezko is an American citizen.
Native Born Citizen – this means that an individual, in addition to having at least one parent who is an American citizen and you were born on US soil (including territories and American bases). Although this term is thrown around by afterbirthers, this still does not meet the definition of a Natural Born Citizen.
Natural Born Citizen – this is an individual born of two American parents, whether the parents were native born or were foreign born and then naturalized. I believe that Bobby Jindal’s parents were not native born, but he would be qualified for president because both parents were American citizens through the naturalization process.
The afterbirthers scream that there were seven presidents born that had at least one foreign parent like Obama. That is true, but in every case, the foreign parent was naturalized, with the exception of Chester Arthur. His father was Irish and became a Canadian citizen, never a naturalized US citizen. He obviously realized he was not qualified for office because he actually burned some of his personal records to keep anyone from finding out. A familiar pattern of behavior?
The fact is, we don’t need to go to Kenya to disprove Obama’s eligibility. It is hidden in plain sight. He is not a Natural Born Citizen due to to his Kenyan father. The Supreme Court simply has to take on this issue to declare that the meaning of the term has never changed. Constitutional scholars have been eerily silent on this issue, but in the research I’ve done, I can find no other interpretation.
As mentioned earlier, there is a plethora of reasons why Obama might otherwise be unqualified should the Supreme Court not decide against his natural born status, but that is the most logical starting point.
The Conclusive Definition Of “Natural-Born Citizen”
Natural-born citizens of the United States are those who are citizens of the United States from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their American citizenship. These are those whose parents are citizens of the United States at the time of their birth.
Natural-born American citizens are those born of American citizen parents, within or without the American Republic, provided in the latter case that one of the parents had resided in the United States prior to the birth of the child.
Their American citizenship is natural, the result of parentage, and not artificial
or acquired by compliance with legislative provisions.
A natural-born citizen is one not made by law or otherwise, but born. And this class is the large majority, in fact, the mass of our citizens; all others are exceptions specially provided for by law.
A natural-born citizen is defined as one whose citizenship is established by the jurisdiction which the United States already has over the parents of the child, not what is thereafter acquired by choice of residence in this country.
It is not necessary that a man should be born in this country, to be “a natural born citizen.” It is only requisite he should be a citizen by birth, and that is the case with all the children of citizens who have ever resided in this country, though born in a foreign country.
Natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens and naturalized citizens, are
those born in the United States of parents who are citizens.
Natural-born citizens are also those born outside the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions prior to the birth of the child.
Hence, a child born abroad to two US citizen parents is a natural-born citizen: Provided, That at least one citizen parent had previously resided in the United States or one of its outlying possessions. U.S. Code: Title 8, 1401.
Oxford English Dictionary – “One who is a subject of another country than that in which he resides. A resident foreign in origin and not naturalized, whose allegiance is thus due to a foreign state.”
According to dictionaries dating as far back as Webster’s 1828 Edition, the term natural born citizen has a very simple and specific common meaning, and according to the framers of the US Constitution, a very important distinction.
Natural – Pertaining to nature; produced or effected by nature, or by the laws of growth, formation or motion impressed on bodies or beings by divine power.Born – To be born, is to be produced or brought into life.Citizen – In the United States, a person, native or naturalized, who has the privilege of exercising the elective franchise, or the qualifications which enable him to vote for rulers, and to purchase and hold real estate.
Based upon the official definition of these words, we know immediately that the term natural born citizen is not based upon statute or any form of man-made law. It exists in nature, the result of natural law, by divine power, only able to be recognized or ignored by legislative process, but still inalienable via legal processes.
Many self-proclaimed experts insist that the US Constitution was written in some secret code, which can only be deciphered for the common folk, by legal scholars of the highest order. Yet on the basis of simple definitions, we know that if we are discussing any form of man-made law requiring the analysis of legal scholars, we are NOT discussing natural-born.
The term natural born citizen is of nature, not man-made law. The Constitution is written in plain and simple English, each word with a specific definition and meaning easily found in any English dictionary. Fortunately, not only legal scholars have access to dictionaries, making it possible for anyone who can read, to understand the Constitution, so long as they have a dictionary in hand.
During adebate (see pg. 2791) regarding a certain Dr. Houard, who had been incarcerated in Spain, the issue was raised on the floor of the House of Representatives as to whether the man was a US citizen. Representative Bingham (of Ohio), stated on the floor:
“As to the question of citizenship I am willing to resolve all doubts in favor of a citizen of the United States. That Dr. Houard is a natural-born citizen of the United States there is not room for the shadow of a doubt. He was born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, and by the express words of the Constitution, as amended to-day, he is declared to all the world to be a citizen of the United States by birth.” (The term “to-day”, as used by Bingham, means “to date”. Obviously, the Constitution had not been amended on April 25, 1872.)
Notice that Bingham declares Houard to be a “natural-born citizen” by citingtwo factors – born of citizen parents in the US.
John Bingham, aka “father of the 14th Amendment”, was an abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln’s assassins. Ten years earlier, he stated on the House floor:
“All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.” (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862))
Then in 1866, Bingham also stated on the House floor:
“Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))
No other Representative ever took issue with these words on the floor of the House. If you read the Congressional Globe to study these debates, you will see that many of the underlying issues were hotly contested. However, Bingham’s definition of “natural born citizen” (born of citizen parents in the US) wasnever challenged on the floor of the House.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court’s holding in Wong Kim Ark did not address Presidential eligibility, nor did it define “natural born citizen”. It simply clarified who was a “citizen”. Had the framers of the 14th Amendment sought to define nbc, they would have used the words “natural born” in the Amendment. But they didn’t.
How many proofs do you need that the putative obama birth certificate is a FORGERY?!:
Even the OTHER birth certificate released 2 1/2 years ago was a FRAUD:
I’m not a “birther”, since there was never any evidence that Barak Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii. That said, I can’t get over the fact that the pdf of the birth certificate posted on whitehouse.gov has been manipulated in Adobe Illustrator.
The “proof” is making me doubt. I’m a graphic artist. I know how to manipulate, and I know how to disguise the manipulation, but this manipulation hasn’t been disguised. The pdf doesn’t contain a bitmap of a photographically copied birth certificate. It contains layers of manipulation. This disturbs me no end.
Who is the safest American driver?
DAMN Candice Lightner and her Entire Crew of Misfits and Failed Parents
A great deal of manipulation of the data, and even ignoring a HUGE portion of the data which would have made the complete study worthless had the ignored data contained even a small percentage of drinking drivers, the very best science from government produced the following REMARKABLE ADMISSION:
<<< For all BAC classes above 0%, we found 330 drivers in the accident study. Of those accidents, 213 were attributable to the effects of alcohol. By dividing those two numbers, we obtain an AR for exposed persons of 213/330=0.65 or 65%. That means, 65% of all accidents involving an intoxicated driver can be attributed to the effects of alcohol. However, in only 16.8% of all accidents (or 330 accidents) was the driver intoxicated. To determine which proportion of all accidents are attributable to the effects of alcohol, the population AR should be computed. This is done by dividing the excess accidents by the total number of all accidents, that is, 213/1968=0.108. Thus, 10.8% of all accidents may be attributed to the effects of alcohol. >>>
In other words, the most expert government data manipulation proved that 89.2% of the fatal accidents in this study were NOT caused by alcohol, but were caused by OTHER factors. In other words, the average driver in this study was 8.3 TIMES more likely to be killed in an accident where alcohol was NOT a factor than he was to be killed in an accident where alcohol WAS a factor?
WHAT are these other factors? Why is it assumed that these other factors which are responsible for 89.2% of the accidents are not the IDENTICAL factors involved in the fatal accidents which “may be attributed to the effects of alcohol”?
Had this subset of 1,968 German drivers who were involved in 4,681 accidents been a randomly selected subset of all 6,981 drivers who were involved in these accidents, this might have been an acceptable statistical analysis. But to compound the error, they admitted that this subset was not randomly selected. The subset included only the German drivers who the police themselves, not courts, and not the drivers, determined were “responsible” for the accident. Note the wording “responsible”, and ask yourself how 5,013 or 71.8% of these German drivers could not have been “responsible” for an accident they were in. To compound the error even further, they made the presumption that all drivers who had a bac > 0 were “responsible” for the accident, while 71.8% of the drivers were not. This is great advocacy, but it’s terrible science. It’s worse than “guilty unless you prove your innocence”, because drivers who were never even proven to have been “responsible” for the accident, who never even had a chance to present their case to a court of justice, were used as an excuse to terrorize German drivers all around Germany.
In other words, they started with a faulty premise, and when the data didn’t support that premise, they changed the statistical rules to make the data fit the faulty premise. If you think drinking drivers are the criminals–then you don’t understand how serious the problems are that scientists like this have caused to societies all around the world.
If you’ve followed this so far, at least you now know why they wanted to compare the Roadside Survey against only a subset of the accident data–it made the drinking driver appear to be involved in 3 1/2 times as accidents as he was. By comparison, police reports of American accidents show that only 4% are “alcohol involved”. There are several reasons that this report may have concluded that .7% more German than American accidents are “alcohol involved”:
The conclusions of this report would have been drastically different had the statistical analysis been done properly. Where it appears that drinking drivers were only 5.5% of all drivers, but were 7.2% of all drivers involved in accidents (suggesting that alcohol was a factor in those accidents), we now know that drinking drivers are 6.7% of all the drivers, but are involved in only 4.7% of all of the accidents. Where the odds ratio favored nondrinking drivers as 34.4% less likely than the drinking driver to have an accident, the odds ratio now favors the drinking driver to be 45.7% less likely than nondrinking drivers to have an accident. Let’s put this another way. The procedure used by the German statisticians “disclosed” that drinking drivers as a group were 32.7% more likely than nondrinking drivers as a group to have an accident, whereas the correct procedure would have shown that nondrinking drivers as a group are 45.7% more likely than the drinking drivers as a group to have an accident.
Ah yes, statistics… Deaths compared to registered vehicles tell a story more sigificant to me. Here are a few:
1 Eritrea 1/751
2 Cook Islands 1/1782
3 Eqypt 1/269
4 Jamahirya 1/854
5 Afghanistan 1/854
6 Iraq 1/1161
7 Niger 1/133
8 Angola 1/285
9 UAE 1/1661
10 Gambia 1/267
1 Marshall Isl 1/2487
2 San Marino 1/51590
3 Malta 1/25437
4 Uraguay 1/6566
5 Netherlands 1/11205
5 Singapore 1/3978
7 Switzerland 1/14476
7 West Bank 1/418
9 Norway 1/11158
9 Japan 1/13764
South Africa 1/573