WBUR

Judge: Oath Of Citizenship Cannot Be Used Against Tsarnaev

BOSTON — A federal judge in Boston has ruled that the oath of citizenship cannot be used against accused Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev at his coming trial.

When the government announced its intention in January to seek the death penalty against Tsarnaev, it alleged a number of factors that aggravated his crimes.

Describing Tsarnaev’s actions as “especially heinous, cruel and depraved,” federal prosecutors stated that when and if the jury convicted Tsarnaev, it should consider a number of “aggravating factors” in deliberating about the death penalty.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the suspect at large, sought by police in connection to the Boston Marathon bombings. (FBI)

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev (FBI)

They include the multiple killings, the death of a child, the large crowd that the Boston Marathon draws, the iconic event and the shootout that Tsarnaev allegedly engaged in with police several days after the bombings.

What drew the objection of Tsarnaev’s attorneys was the government’s listing of “betrayal of the United States” as another aggravating factor. It was, according to the government, a betrayal of the oath he took when he became a U.S. citizen.

“I will bear true faith and allegiance” is part of that oath.

Tsarnaev, an ethnic Chechen whose family came from Dagestan, swore to that oath seven months before the bombings that killed three, injured 260 others and led to the shooting death of a police officer.

“He betrayed his allegiance to the United States by killing and maiming people,” the government asserted in January.

But at a status conference Wednesday, Judge George O’Toole granted a defense motion and dismissed the government allegation as “unduly prejudicial.”

“Drawing a distinction between naturalized and natural-born is highly inappropriate,” O’Toole said.

Only naturalized citizens are required to take the oath of citizenship. And defense attorneys had argued that the betrayal language of the allegation makes it seem that someone who obtains and enjoys “the freedoms” of American citizenship is worse than a natural-born American who commits the same acts.

The judge said from the bench that the other aggravating factors alleged by the government “that are not obnoxious” are “adequate for the government’s purpose.”

Please follow our community rules when engaging in comment discussion on wbur.org.
  • Tradecraft46

    I can see the judge was just a local political hack. If you can’t see why the diff is important you shouldn’t have the job.

    • jai151

      You can’t make a second class citizen. Therefore you either have to charge every murderer with betrayal of the United States or none.

      • Tradecraft46

        Boy are you stupid. You see, he had to positively swear to be here. The rest of us are here by right of birth.

        You disgust me, you really do. Since you call your self Jai, I suspect you slunk in like he did.

        • cgallaway2000

          Why don’t you try reading the Constitution? It does not treat immigrants different under the law. There are plenty of laws on the books that make what the kid is alleged of doing a terrorist act regardless of his “oath”. If there isn’t enough evidence to prosecute for Treason or Terrorism, perhaps the psuedo charge shouldn’t be allowed.

          • Tradecraft46

            You’re stupid too. If he had not falsely sworn he wouldn’t be here. It is just an additional factor in his crime.

            Don’t bloat.

          • Pyromra

            no, he would still have committed the crime. Being a US citizen and being a permanent resident are two different things. He was not here on some tourist visa that would have made him leave. He was here as a legal resident. His becoming naturalized has no bearing on whether he was able to commit this crime. His brother was not naturalized, yet he did the same thing.

          • disqus_cixz0qD6zh

            How many naturally born citizens said the “Pledge of Allegiance” every day of their childhood? Said under oath or not, there would be overwhelming evidence that it had been pledged- that’s a positive action as well, and the crimes in Boston would betray that pledge just as much. In fact, ANY crime is a betrayal of loyalty to the laws of the nation. This crime, and its perpetrator, are not unique in that regard.

          • http://batman-news.com/ Stephen

            So if you as a naturally born American citizen, commit a crime, did you betray the United States? Simple question. With a yes or no answer.

        • cliffndort

          Yes, he had to swear an oath of allegiance to the US. You are here by “right of birth”, and never had to swear an oath of allegiance to the US – because you were born here, that allegiance was automatically assumed.

          Scenario: Now a naturalized citizen, who swore that oath and you, the natural born citizen commit a crime together. How can the prosecution use the fact of that one of you had to swear an oath of loyalty, when the other one did not, when both of you committed that same crime?

          Your, and my right of birth in being born in the US, and a naturalized immigrant’s citizenship all have the same rights in a court of law.

        • Biff Spiff

          There are those Americans who love the country for what it stands for, and respect the Constitution for the rights it protects. Then there are those who would rather thump their chests and shout “imma murrican!” Tsarnaev, if convicted, deserves the death penalty for murdering his fellow citizens. However, the judge was right about the oath.

        • http://www.meatspin.com JudgeDredd

          Is it your belief that citizens of The USA born in other lands should receive a different quota of justice than those born within its borders? Is this how you respond to a posters concern about the creation of a second class citizen? Is this how you define “justice”? frankly sir you are the disgusting one here. I can only hope you heed common sense responses to your distasteful post and reflect upon what the word “justice” actually means.

        • jai151

          Actually, you dumb git, I was born and raised here. I also uphold the Constitution, which you might want to take a look at some time. Especially that pesky little amendment which guarantees equal protection.

          • Tradecraft46

            You really are a toad: seems we don’t have to import.

            Equal protection means that you are measured by the same rules. In this case toady, he falsely swore to be here, why can’t you or the other goons understand that?

            False swearing, perjury is a crime: they judge is just saying that being a naturalized citizen is exculpatory, in this instance.

          • jai151

            Why can’t you understand that is not what’s being argued. They were not trying to add perjury to the list of crimes. They were trying to use the oath as a reason why the other crimes were more heinous.

            Wipe the ignorance out of your eyes and try reading.

          • cgallaway2000

            How do you know that he falsly swearing? Perhaps, at the time of his swearing his oath, he meant it….then had a change in perspective later.

          • Tradecraft46

            You are scum just like all liberals: everything is an alibi, and all excuses valid. If you swear an oath, it is supposed to be binding on you being a condition for getting something you want.

          • cgallaway2000

            Remind me again of the last politician that was thrown in the pokey for going against his oath? The answer is none. They’ve gotten thrown in jail for doing something illegal, but not because they went against some oath. But, Trade, should we lock up all the divorced people, simply because they took an oath to love each other “Til Death do us part” or, lacking that specific phrase, they took an oath “Forever”?

            What about you, should you be convicted of a crime because you maybe didn’t fulfill your promise, and that is what an oath is, a promise, to keep writing to a pin pal? Should not living up to that promise be used in court as a means of detailing how you are not truthful? To ruin your character?

          • Tradecraft46

            Again you are vile.

          • Al Rex

            All the articles of the U.S. Constitution and the amendments to the Constitution were means only and exclusively for White-European American and not for Blacks and certainly not for Muslims,Chinese and the other invaders who we have allowed into this Country. Our forefathers never thought that a non-White, non-Christian would be allowed to enter our society and be part of it. The Equal Protection Clause was only for those Whites who were living here at the time it was written into the Constitution and future White-European immigrants. This was supposed to be a White Nation with the exception of the few existing I Red Skin Indians.

          • jai151

            You need to learn some history, man.

          • cgallaway2000

            not entirely true….considering that Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin traveled to Muslim societies and appreciated their endeavors in science.

      • fbxl5

        Well said . Unfortunately our history is filled with people who have tried to do just that. These people are some of the worst Americans who ever lived.

      • Cris0000

        Where did this idea that this has to do with a charge of betrayal of the US come from? This ruling has nothing to do with that.

        The ruling just says if a person who is a naturalized citizen commits murder, being a naturalized citizen does not elevate the crime’s heinousness to the level of the death penalty.

        Several other factors in this case which were mentioned in the article do make it death-penalty eligible though.

        There was no ruling on any charge of betrayal of the US.

        • jai151

          In my case, it was simply a bad formulation of my response. What I meant was you’d have to use betrayal of the United States as justification of the death penalty with everyone charged with murder.

    • Ded Kitty

      I can certainly see the judge’s point. What the judge is saying is that government has no business putting a wedge between Americans who naturalized and those who happened to be born here based on the crimes committed by a naturalized citizen. All are Americans under the same laws, and when Tsarnaev took his oath he opened himself up to American jurisdiction. His native country has no say as to what our laws will do to him. We are already holding Tsarnaev to the oath he betrayed by putting him on trial for his crimes the American way. If you don’t like the American way, you are free to move out, naturalized or not.

      • Tradecraft46

        You reasoning or the lack of it is the reason we have problems. They guy falsely swore, a positive act.

        You are stupid too: it is just another inculpating factor.

        • cliffndort

          You, Trade, are the one who needs to understand the rule of law. Whether Tsarnaev falsely swore on his oath of allegiance for US citizenship or not, he was granted citizenship. The same rights that we have in a court of law now also apply to him. In court, the prosecution cannot use his oath, falsely sworn or not, against him since anyone else committing the same crime who was born here, no oath applies. If Tsarnaev commits this crime, and you, a natural born citizen, never having had to swear an oath of allegiance, commits the same crime, both of you are US citizens, and as such, have the same rights under the law..

          • Justin Wilson

            I support your words, but you’re just feeding the troll.

        • Ded Kitty

          First of all, I did not call you names, and if you don’t know how to make a point without doing that, surely I am not the stupid one here.
          Secondly I base my opinion on the FACT that judgements in the US set precedents. The judge knew that as well. Prosecutors are being too zealous here.
          Besides you don’t have to be a citizen to commit crimes here, you just need to have utter disregard for the laws. Your reasoning is based on blind nationalism, guess what that did to Germany in the 30s. Cool your head off and get civilized. I promise it doesn’t hurt, and in fact may make your social life less like Tsarnaev’s, spent hating on people, and more interesting.

  • cliffndort

    This judge was correct in his ruling about the oath of allegiance. If two people commit exactly the same crime, bombing the Boston marathon.

    One was born in Podunk USA and is a natural born citizen. From birth, that person is a citizen and it is automatically assumed that his allegiance will be to the US – no swearing to allegiance is required.

    The other was born in another country, immigrated to the US, became a naturalized American citizen, and has to swear to the oath of allegiance to the US.

    Same crime. The prosecution cannot use the fact that a naturalized citizen swore an oath of allegiance unless the prosecution can also use the fact that the natural born citizen is also “assumed” to have that same allegiance.

    All of that being said, however, I do hope that Tsarnaev does get the death penalty. Prosecution just cannot use that one little tidbit of an oath of allegiance as part of their case.

    • jobardu

      Very politically correct. Granting or denying citizenship to those requesting it is a one of the duties of government and one that must be taken seriously if citizenship is to be taken seriously. The judge declared that it doesn’t matter, that oaths of loyalty don’t matter, and,ultimately, America doesn’t matter.

      That is very liberal and very self-destructive. The issue of taking an oath of office is used in prosecutions of American citizens in the military and elsewhere. It matters.

      • jai151

        That’s your interpretation of his ruling. I see it as the judge ruled that since EVERY citizen is bound by loyalty to the United States, you can not single out the oath in this case.

        • Geebo Harris

          Maybe your reading comprehension isn’t up to par, jai151. He clearly is drawing a distinction between those who are natural-born citizens and those who are naturalized by saying a naturalized citizen cannot ever be considered a traitor.

          • jai151

            Maybe yours isn’t. He made no such distinction. What he did say is they can’t be called a traitor on the basis of the oath. They can still easily be called a traitor.

          • Cris0000

            Geebo, that’s just completely wrong and shows you don’t understand the how death penalty cases work at all.

        • jobardu

          It is my interpretation. Actions have consequences. He was required to take an oath as a condition of being allowed citizenship. While every citizen is bound by loyalty to the United States, the question is whether his taking the oath places as more specific onus on the oath taker. He looked a judge and his fellow citizens in the eye and made an oath.

          Similarly, if a soldier betrays the country then that is a higher order crime than an ordinary citizen. That is true for almost anyone working in government too. What you are implying is that the oath of allegiance is irrelevant and can be replaced with his signature accepting citizenship. Ditto for other people taking oaths. You are a citizen, so why do you need to sign a separate oath? Why have security clearances, since those being cleared are mostly US citizens.

          There are good reasons why taking oaths and pledging allegiance to the flag are meaningful rituals for people. Ditto for drill and marching of soldiers, or for religious rituals. Part of the meaning is the elevated form of commitment involved.

          • jai151

            What is being said is that they take the oath to become a citizen at which point they are held to the same standards as anyone holding citizenship. Every citizen is held to the oath, naturalized or not.

          • jobardu

            I can see your interpretation. The difference is whether naturalized citizens, having thought about it and being granted citizenship, should be held to a higher standard. I think so since I am concerned about the impact on the social fabric of society, especially now.

            Legally, logically I see your point, but sociologically I’m not sure. Converts to a new religion are cut less slack than a person born to the faith. A Muslim immigrant from an anti-western country needs be extra careful since society took a risk granting him citizenship.

          • jai151

            The problem is that by definition you are then holding natural born citizens to a lesser standard. Everyone should be held to a high standard, regardless of their origin.

          • jobardu

            I’ll have to think about that one. I was thinking that I was holding them to a higher standard. This has been a good exchange of ideas, thank you.

  • Derek Keener

    Feels like a “testing the waters” scenario.

    If we do not hold those who immigrate to this country to a different standard based on a promise they bore upon arrival, we should not be surprised when amnesty is granted to other immigrants that have come illegally. IE the oath means nothing.

    It is discouraging to me that these “tests” have become so prevalent.

    • Justin Wilson

      We hold all citizens to one standard. By that logic we need to charge every criminal with this additional crime. A stolen iPhone cheats the government out of taxes. The murder of one person cheats the government out of revenue potential. What punishment do you give the crime “betrayal of the United States?”

      • Derek Keener

        I understood betrayal of ones country to be treason.

        Would it be within the realm of possibility to call this a hate crime against the US?

        • Justin Wilson

          Treason in US Federal law specifically targets those who levy war against or adhere to their enemies by aiding them. He wasn’t an enemy and therefore he’s just a psycho murderer regardless weather or not he though the US was his enemy. I don’t know if you can commit a hate crime against a country. You can commit a crime because you hate a country. I think hate crimes are more defined than that.

          • Geebo Harris

            Justin, he made claims that he was aiding enemies of the United States. Sure, maybe he is just a random nutjob trying to ingratiate himself with Muslim terrorist groups in general (which I think is likely), but it’s entirely possible that he had ties to real terrorist organizations. It’s up to the court to decide, and the option to level treason charges shouldn’t be taken off the table just because he is a naturalized citizen.

          • jai151

            While Justin may not call this treason, it has not been taken off the table. That is a completely separate issue from the ruling.

          • Justin Wilson

            You’re right. And the court (Judge) decided that the evidence did not warrant the charge. Perhaps, and this is speculation, they left off the charge to charge him with it at a later date for a different trial. I don’t really like to speculate.

          • Cris0000

            There was no charge taken of the table by the ruling.

            Death penalty cases have to have factors that justify the death penalty. Those that make the crime worse than murder.

            The judge just ruled that being a naturalized citizen is not a factor that worsens a murder to be punishable by the death penalty.

            The judge also said that in his opinion, the other factors that were given are already enough to justify the death penalty.

            The ruling doesn’t change the charges or the possible punishment.

          • Derek Keener

            Treason – Oran’s Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as “…[a]…citizen’s actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation].” In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aiding or involved by such an endeavor.

            Quite grey based on this definition. Very open to interpretation.

            ——————————

            Hate Crime – “In both crime and law, hate crime (also known as bias-motivated crime) is a usually violent, prejudice motivated crime that occurs when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her perceived membership in a certain social group. Examples of such groups include but are not limited to: ethnicity, gender identity, language, nationality, physical appearance, religion, or sexual orientation.”

            Seems to fit this definition.

            ——————————

            Based on Citizens United, if a company can be a “person”, a Country; The United States, could also be a considered a person/individual.

            Come what may, I hope that justice is just whatever the verdict.

          • Justin Wilson

            Thanks for looking all that up. I really appreciate it.

            I’m not so sure about the hate crime. I don’t think America could be considered a victim of the attack. It’s interesting stuff to think about from a legal perspective.

      • Geebo Harris

        Justin, there is no federal sales tax. So someone might be betraying a state, a county, or a city but hardly “the United States” by not paying a sales tax for stolen goods. Also, they didn’t pay for the item, so nitpicking about not paying a tax on something they didn’t pay for in the first place is a bit disingenuous. Being considered a citizen by the federal government on the other hand and then being given a double-standard like O’Toole is doing is a very different story.

        • Justin Wilson

          I agree with you. Those argument have been made already. I was merely positing the potential slippery slope. The business would have paid federal income tax on profit generated from the phone had it not been stolen. I wasn’t being clear, but I didn’t want to open up multiple lines of argument when those positions had been argued well already. Thanks for the feedback.

  • Don Reno

    We can’t have two standards.

    The next thing you know… They’ll be letting naturalized citizens become POTUS.

    • GetAClueOr2

      interesting response isn’t it :)

      • Geebo Harris

        It sure is! Makes me wonder if jai151 has someone specific in mind.

        • jai151

          No, though that makes me wonder who you think I’d have had in mind.

          • cgallaway2000

            The Governator!

    • jai151

      “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.”

      That is the actual text from Article II. The problem with it is that NOWHERE is “natural born citizen” defined. There is an accepted definition, but there has never been a challenge which forced a true judicial definition. The really interesting thing, though, is that if you read the sentence strictly it DOES define natural born citizen as a citizen of the United States.

      • Don Reno

        Sorry, inflection is lacking, in print. I was being facetious. It was a tongue-in-cheek reference to Obama.

        • jai151

          I still find it funny that McCain had an argument against him being “Natural Born” as well. Wonder if there’d have been liberal birthers if he got elected.

          • Don Reno

            I found that very hard to believe, as well. Among military personnel, it is well known that, if you’re born on foreign soil to parent(s) who are there working, on behalf of the US government, you are automatically a natural born citizen of the US. It’s been that way since before McCain was born.

          • jai151

            Natural born citizen is not actually defined anywhere, though. It only has an accepted definition, not a legal one. Which was what I was saying in my initial response.

          • Don Reno

            Right, I wasn’t disagreeing with you. The US Supreme Court has always shied away from making a clear cut definition. This is partially why McCain had a problem during the 2008 election.

          • jai151

            Gotcha. It is pretty goofy, honestly. I’m not sure I’d be terribly opposed to letting a naturalized citizen run, though we would need an amendment to define both and maybe up it to 30 years a resident for a naturalized. But then again I definitely don’t feel strongly enough to fight for it either.

          • Don Reno

            I’m all for someone who is born to parents living outside US borders being “naturalized”, but ONLY if they were there working for the government.

            Several people have been born to US citizens whom were living outside the US voluntarily and tried to run for POTUS. Lowell Weicker comes to mind, (only because I’m from Connecticut).

          • cgallaway2000

            What about those who are working for companies overseas but are still U.S. Citizens? Or perhaps a couple of U.S. Citizens, one natural, one naturalized, that goes to visit the naturalized family while one of them is pregnant? Birth happens outside the U.S. Is that kid not a natural born citizen? What about someone who lives close to the border with either Canada or Mexico and just happens to go into labor on the wrong side of the border? Is that kid a Natural Born Citizen? I would think so, regardless of governmental employment.

          • Don Reno

            If the parents maintain residence, in the US, any children born overseas are US granted citizenship, as immigrants, upon return… Provided they intend to reside, in the US, permanently.

            If the parents maintain a residence outside the US, but retain their US citizenship, any child born 12 miles OUTSIDE US borders has to apply for naturalization.

            Before 9/11 the laws were different. Weiker ran for President, in 1980.

            If a woman has a child, within 12 miles, of the US border, or it’s territories, that child is a US citizen, regardless of the citizenship status of the mother, or father. This includes flying and the origin, or the destination of the flight doesn’t matter.

  • Al Rex

    This Muslim should be stripped of the U.S. Citizenship because he lied
    under oath. He only had obtained the citizenship six month earlier to
    the bombing. This means that he he had never been a person of good moral
    character and ready to uphold our Constitution and value.

    “Drawing a distinction between naturalized and natural-born is highly inappropriate,” O’Toole said.

    Judge
    O’Tool is a liberal Irish Democrat appointed by President Clinton and
    this says it all. There is a distinction between natural born and
    naturalized citizens and in the case of muslim Tsarnaev’ is clear that
    when he swore to be a good “American” to become a citizen he never meant
    it, he lied, and this should be an enhancement to his guilt

    • Zach

      “There is a distinction between natural born and naturalized citizens”

      Good for you being able to see that. Unfortunately, you got the distinction wrong.

    • Peter

      >O’Tool is a liberal Irish Democrat appointed by President Clinton and this says it all.

      That says it all for shallow thinkers that base their arguments on stereotyping.

      • Al Rex

        Yes, I’m upset because if certain Whites and not only Irish, had any sense of survival in this Country they wouldn’t be in the Democratic Party today. Yesterday, fifty, one hundred year ago the Democratic Party meant something for dissenting Whites as in the example of Irish and Italians, Germans, Polish who were discriminated against by their “own” White people, by today is another story by being in the Democratic Pary today is nothing but helping destructive minorities to faster becoming majorities and take over power over us and subject us to humiliation.

        • Kirk Kirkpatrick

          Sieg Heil!

          • Al Rex

            Amen.

          • Kirk Kirkpatrick

            Ich habe gedacht Sie ein bisschen NSDAP in sich.! Vielleicht mehr als ein bisschen.

          • Al Rex

            Well, look at Germany today. Almost all taken over by demanding Muslims and third word scumbags and Germans cannot even complain about it and if they do they’re routinely arrested and prosecuted, This is the EU Dictatorship: Oppressing its own people to empower the sub-animals of the third world and dispossess it own local indigenous population.
            This is not fair either.

          • Kirk Kirkpatrick

            Garbage. Lets shift the conversation to German and see how much you know about this. I will bet you have never even been there. My children are 1/2 German and live there. I am there every year.

            Why do you make up lies like this?

            Never mind. I know why. That is the only way you can keep these sick opinions.

          • Al Rex

            I know all what’s happening in Europe because many of my family are there and I’m a member of various liberation political parties there even by being in the United States. The EU is nothing but a Dictatorship and as long as people don’t go against established politics of “DIVERSITY” them all is ok but if people complain about non-White immigration and the need to stop it then they’re prevented from exercising that option with Police going after them.

    • Kirk Kirkpatrick

      And this a-hole, @disqus_uzyPXgZmUl:disqus should be stripped of his US citizenship for violations of the ideas on which the US was founded. Shall we do that too?

      Why diid you mention the religion of the person? And the political leanings? Were you making the case that the Judge was not conservative and therefor capable of rational thought? Because you certainly are not.

      • Al Rex

        All of those ” ideas” in the Constitution were meant only for existing Christian Whites only and not for others because there were no others in those says other than Whites.

        • Kirk Kirkpatrick

          “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,” The treaty of Tripoli, Ratified unanimously on June 7, 1797.

          Please educate youself.

  • Jakob Stagg

    If they want to use that oath again him, why aren’t we jumping up and down on the traitors in our own government who have violated their oaths to protect and defend the Constitution. The death penalty sounds right for both.

  • Geebo Harris

    “Drawing a distinction between naturalized and natural-born is highly inappropriate,” O’Toole said.

    A traitor is a traitor, regardless of how they became a citizen. O’Toole is wrong because he is the one drawing a distinction between a natural-born and a naturalized citizen.

    • jai151

      “A traitor is a traitor, regardless of how they became a citizen” is precisely why O’Toole is right in his ruling.

  • James

    Did Timothy McVeigh have this added to his charges?

    • RightishLeft

      No, at that time they still required government attorneys to at least read the Constitution, if not respect it. Nobody needs this excessive level of professionalism in our times. Or we wouldn’t have the openly racist and anti-Constitution Eric Holder running the circuis.

      • James

        And if I remember correctly McVeigh was in military, so at one point in his life he also swore an oath.

    • Cris0000

      There’s no additional charge here that was being considered.

      • James

        My bad, did McVeigh have this included for justification for death penalty

  • Brock Samson

    Take him out behind a shed somewhere, put a bullet between his eyes, & then let his family come get him. Simple & quick resolution for a heinous act he obviously committed. All this pageantry is not needed.

    • jai151

      I would NEVER give the government that kind of authority. It’s a small step from there to those wonderful despotic dinner parties where you invite all your political enemies and then have your staff kill them all.

      • Brock Samson

        Have those kind of dinner parties happened in modern times? And if so, why wasn’t I invited?

        • jai151

          Yes. North Korea does them all the time.

        • http://batman-news.com/ Stephen

          I guess you haven’t made enough enemies, yet.

    • RightishLeft

      Remember Waco, TX ?

      I say, give him every bit of Constitutional protection and due process he’s entitled to under the law. An out of control Government is far more dangerous than any terrorist.

    • Kirk Kirkpatrick

      I agree. Line @disqus_uvz1oWQRfL:disqus up with him. These types of brainless comments are as much a violation of the grounding ideas of this country as what Tsarnaev did. So you have not acted on your traitorous thoughts yet, but why wait? Let’s take YOUR solution

    • M Donohue

      He should have never emerged from the Boat ! I will never forgive the Police for not finishing him off when they had the chance ! The “Trial” of this scumbag will cost us MULTI MILLION Dollar’s by the time it’s finished ! A Bullet is only a couple of Buck’s ! He will be found GUILTY and spend

      • jai151

        Why would you want to give the police that kind of power?

  • RightishLeft

    There can’t be two levels of citizenship.The natural born citizens don’t have to take the Oath because they didn’t previously hold allegiance to another country – doesn’t mean they are not held to the same satandards as naturalized citizens. Or is anyone implying that it’s OK for the born Americans to commit acts against their country, because they didn’t have to take the oath ? This is silly.

    The prosecution set themselves up for a well deserved rebuttal by the judge for being stupid.

    • veronica castille

      A foreign person seeks citizenship and then commits an act of terror-YES that is an important point. Any body can be a murderer anywhere, but to seek citizenship and then explode a WMD is a whole different set of circumstances and should be tried as such.

      • RightishLeft

        So in your opinion, when a born American commits an act of terror against his own country, it’s a lesser crime ? To me it’s just as bad of a betrayal.

        • veronica castille

          Nope, not what I typed. I typed “to seek citizenship and then explode a weapon of mass destruction is a whole different set of circumstances and should be tried as such”.

          • chaizydain

            What crime would that be, veronica? The AUSA can only charge legislated crimes…not feelings. So which provision of the US Code did he violate by taking the oath of citizenship and then commiting a bunch of henious crimes…you do recall Tim McVey doncha?

        • chaizydain

          To me its a worse act of betrayal. The difference between killing your mother and killing a stranger who just happens to be letting you crash on their couch…one gave you life the other merely a temporary roof.

          • jai151

            More like the difference between killing your birth mother and killing your adoptive mother.

      • Kirk Kirkpatrick

        The modern political idea, in the US, that Citizens and non-Citizens have different rights (except as it comes to voting) is as dangerous an idea that the world has ever faced.

        • Richard Turnbull

          Hyperbole much, do ya?

          • Kirk Kirkpatrick

            Absolutely not. Of course it does not seem so from someone living in the US propaganda bubble but I guess North Korea is a great place if you ask a North Korean!

            Repeat propaganda a lot, do ya?

          • Richard Turnbull

            ??? Are you on your meds? Comparing the US to NORTH KOREA — not even to SOUTH Korea, mind you — ai yi yi

          • Kirk Kirkpatrick

            Spoken like a North Korean!

            How many wars has North Korea started in its history? The US has killed more innocent people in the last 20 years than North Korea in its history.

            But to the North Korean, NK is a great country. And to the Americans who bathes in its propaganda, the US is the savior.

            The rest of the world just shakes its head.

            “(The US) is seen — according to a new poll — as the biggest threat to world peace.

            The global survey, conducted by WIN/Gallup International, polled residents in 68 countries on everything from the global economy to politics and living conditions.

            According to the poll, 24 percent of the surveyed countries ranked the United States as the greatest threat to world peace today, followed by Pakistan at 8 percent, China at 6 percent and four countries (Afghanistan, Iran, Israel and North Korea) tied at 5 percent.”

            http://www.salon.com/2014/01/09/the_top_4_threats_to_global_peace_guess_who_is_number_one_partner/

          • Richard Turnbull

            Hilariously stupid — a world-class howler, comparing the USA to North Korea and citing some poll of the uniformed. gibberish calculating — when was “North” Korea ever in a position to rival the US in anything? Art, music, film, literature — it’s a fascist backwater, and why you defend it is
            your own personal problem, or set of problems.

          • Kirk Kirkpatrick

            I guess the German from 1940 thought it was “Hilariously stupid” that someone thought that Germany was not the Savior of the world.

            I do not “defend it.” As well, North Korea is not Fascist, it is communist. If you do not understand even basic political ideas, why continue? This is a perfect illustration as to why the US is so dangerous. Strong opinions, no knowledge to back it up. AND NO PERSONAL EXPERIENCE AT ALL. I was a prisoner in a Communist jail accused as an American spy. How about you slick?

            A self appointed expert who can’t add.

            “You” are “the uniformed” singing the line “programmed into you.”

            “greatest country on earth”, right

        • chaizydain

          The non-citizen might have different rights, but once citizenship attaches, which it has here, the rights are identical regardless of whether that citizenship was obtained by birth or by naturalization with ONE constitutional exception…the right to take the oath of office as President.

          • Kirk Kirkpatrick

            NO, The constitution, when speaking of rights other than voting, uses the word “people” or “persons” not citizens. The “rights” delineated are supposed to be granted by the creator as unalienable rights. They are not limited to “citizens.”

      • chaizydain

        Then the government should have charged him with treason. If they want to point to loyalties as a basis for the death penalties they should have charged treason. Since they didn’t his loyalty is not at issue and they are not allowed to poision the jury with an irrelevant argument…or would you like to see his conviction overturned on appeal and have to have the victims and their families put through a SECOND trial years from now.

      • cgallaway2000

        I’m having trouble trying to fit “Pressure Cooker Bomb” into the category of “Weapons of Mass Destruction”. That pressure cooker bomb was nothing more than a home made hand grenade. You can hardly call them Weapon’s of mass destruction….now nuclear bombs, mustard gas, yes those are.

        • veronica castille

          Well, I’m no expert on bombs-can’t say as I ever even heard about a pressure cooker bomb. I only knew that it detroyed some people and wreaked destruction on some others. The man purposely became a citizen and a few months later exploded a bomb in a crowd of people . I still am of the opinion that the oath he just took should come into play in his trial.

          • cgallaway2000

            I’m still don’t like the idea of his oath being used against him. Honestly, I think that if there is enough evidence to convict, then they don’t need that argument…..and if the evidence is thin enough to where they need to use that argument, then they simply don’t have enough evidence for a capital trial. Really, what I am worried about is the idea of an oath being able to be brought into court in an effort to show the defendant as not being trustworthy. For example, if you were married, but then decided to get divorced, you violated your oath. Why should that have any bearing on a murder trial where you were the suspect? If you ever “Pledged to be Drug Free” as part of a D.A.R.E. campaign in school, then eventually started drinking alcohol or smoking cigarettes or maybe some pot….should your trustworthiness be called into question in a court of law, because, after all, you broke a pledge?

            The other thing I worry about is that this is the first time someone has tried to use that oath as an argument against a defendant. Natural Born Citizen or Naturalized. Why should a naturalized citizen be treated differently, or more to the point, why should a naturalized citizen be able to be more easily undermined in a court of law?

  • agcala

    Sure, let him walk free as well…after all he’s a liberal.

    • jai151

      *facepalm*

      He’s still on trial for mass murder, inciting terror, etc, etc, etc…

    • Kirk Kirkpatrick

      A conservative religious radical is a “liberal” Americans can be so dumb. Tell you what @agcala:disqus why don’t you elaborate on the “liberal” ideas of this bomber?

    • Richard Turnbull

      Do you people wake up hundreds of miles from the California-AZ-NM-TX border petrified with fright about this very real, but manageable problem?
      I have hitherto resisted the flat interpretation of these comments as racism/nativistic bias, but more and more, it seems an ineluctable conclusion.

      • chaizydain

        Some of us have lived quite a bit closer than hundreds of miles and KNOW that it is NOT a trivial problem. The US federal response to what is going on at the sothern border is shameful. I personally know people who cannot step foot on their OWN property for fearthat they will be harmed by 1) invading undocumenteds 2) armed Mexican military or 3) USBP.

        • Richard Turnbull

          Look Sparky, you need to (1) go to the nearest legitimate governmental authority, (2) insist that they do their taxpayer-funded job. (3) Then raise hell, if 1 & 2 don’t lead to a constitutionally guaranteed “redress of grievances.”
          But again — calm the F$%^ down; illegals are not on the verge of stealing your mess of pottage — this is a scare-fear-fascistic tactic straight outta Rush Limbaugh.

  • M Donohue

    Why not hold this POS to a higher standard? He wasn’t Born here and deliberately took the Oath, as I did when I Swore allegiance to my adopted Country! I knew the word’s were very important to America and how we had to defend the Constitution and renounce the place’s we came from, so there wouldn’t be and confusion where our loyalties were ! He Falsley did that and now we are told by an American Judge , it isn’t important ? Bullshit !

    • Kirk Kirkpatrick

      Why don’t we start by educating our populace. Our loyalties are national and bound to certain ideas. One of these is that all American Citizens are equal under the law. If you took this oath, this post is a violation of those American Ideals.

      I say prosecute him and YOU for this violation since that is what you think is appropriate.

      • M Donohue

        Evidently you are from Boston, the Bastion of the Liberal ! Give this POS the benefit of the doubt, pay for a mulitmillion dollar defence and find him guilty of spitting on the Sidewalk, You must come down from your Ivory tower and live amongs’t the rest of us who wanted to see this bastard killed in the Boat !

        • jai151

          Speak for yourself. I don’t want to give the government the power to murder because I don’t trust them with that power.

        • Kirk Kirkpatrick

          I am not from Boston. I am from the backwoods of North Georgia, Not really anyone’s liberal bastion. Nor do I subscribe to brainless mob lynching type justice. But your comments speaks volumes. Only the most deluded of Americans see “liberal” as a negative.

          You continue to betray all of the ideas of the US. As someone arrested in a communist country accused as an American spy, you are as bad as the ones I was fighting against. I did not put my life on the line to see people like you say “You must come down from your Ivory tower”

          You put your ass on the line and then come talk to me. But you don’t believe in these American ideals now, do you?

    • jai151

      A) Because doing so directly violates the 14th Amendment of that Constitution you swore to defend.

      B) Because judicial precedent can have massive unforeseen consequences that would reach far beyond this case. For example, any naturalized citizen would now be subject to the death penalty for committing any crime.

      • Richard Turnbull

        Wow, how did you reach that conclusion in “B)”? Because, it might be useful to place your brain under an MRI and see which neurons misfired.
        There’s no way in hell that “any naturalized citizen” can somehow mystically and magically evade the numerous blockades between themselves and the DEATH PENALTY based on this relatively innocuous decision.
        The news media is going to love the trial, if this coverage is indicative. We all have our reasons for being especially outraged — my ancestors were in Braintree in the 1640s, for instance — but the
        ALLEGED perp deserves the most scrupulously fair and impartial trial, insofar as that’s possible. Surprised the defense didn’t move, in fact INSIST, on a change of venue. Mind you, I would be untroubled by a death penalty verdict nonetheless.

        • jai151

          It’s not an evasion. It is however a precedent created to call any crime now far more heinous as it is a “Betrayal of the United States”

          • Richard Turnbull

            Nice try. But a completely bogus bit of what looks like paranoia — the unreasonable inflating of real concerns into possibly debilitation fears and trembling. (My ad hoc, provisional definition).

          • jai151

            No, it’s precisely what could occur. Judicial precedence is huge.

        • chaizydain

          “Betrayal of the United States” is the prosecutions teams shorthand for treason. Treason is subject to the death penalty. Murder is not treason. But murder that is a betrayal of the US is treason. Murder alone under federal law is not subject to the death penalty, treasonous murder is. The argument that any Naturalized citizen’s crime is somehow more heneious, more a “betrayal.of the US” than a natural born citizen is one that could easilly extend to ANY crime turning ANY crime into treason.

          it is not unlike the fact that CONSPIRACY to comit a crime is ALWAYS a felony…even if the conspiracy is to comit an infraction or a misdemeanor (I.e. you can be prosecuted for a felony conspiracy charge to engage in speeding, an infraction for which no jail time can be imposed, if you agree to drag race (if the da was so inclined). Getting together to plan with others to comit a crime is often more criminal than simply carrying out the crime.

          jai’s post is not without merit

    • RightishLeft

      So it’s OK for the natural born citizens to betray the US because they didn’t take the Oath ? Are you saying they should be held to lower standards of loyalty ?

      • Xanderoth

        Natural born citizens are Americans and afforded all those rights by birth. Naturalized citizens want american rights and status which they do not have and are unable to receive unless they are willing to swear an oath. Most people have a innate sense of loyalty to their home country. The ruling is simply political correctness in our justice system. There is a distinctness between the two, and should be. This is why you have to be born is the USA to run for president. There is a difference.

        • Richard Turnbull

          Of course you are correct about this, but not “politically correct” — therefore you’ll be ignored unless and until the consensus catches up to you.

        • RightishLeft

          You can’t have rights without responsibilities. People who break the loyalty to their country are committing the same moral crime whether they are naturalized or born. One could argue that a natural born American should actually be held to higher moral standards in case of betrayal.

      • Richard Turnbull

        No, that was this court’s bizarre misinterpretation — it’s a laughable non sequitur — only a judge (or a philosopher) could believe it is sound reasoning.

  • agcala

    Just a piece of advice. If America collapses it will be the Dark Ages again.

    • jai151

      That would be par for the course. Christianity caused the last Dark Ages, fitting for religion to strike again.

      • Richard Turnbull

        Do you internet commenters ever actually read books? You know, those extended works of history and philosophy, law and politics, which tend to shred apart inanely glib summaries of complex phenomenae such as you have just posted?
        Read something in depth about the Crusades — gain some self-respect in the process; stop spreading bilge as if it were insight.

        • jai151

          Do you really think I’m going to sit here and sum up all the reasons in historical context in a goddamn comment which was just mocking the one I was responding to?

          Christ, grow a brain.

          That said, Christianity’s rise to power and its wholesale destruction of scientific and historical texts and knowledge as heresy were a large if not the prevailing factor in the onset of the Dark Ages.

          • Don Reno

            jai151, Have you noticed, Section 11 of The Treaty of Tripoli has begun to be used, (erroneously mind you, it’s not taken in context of the situation at the time), to prove the US wasn’t founded as a predominately Christian nation?

          • jai151

            Depends on what you mean by “predominately Christian nation.”

            As a nation where most citizens were Christian, yeah, it was.

            As a Christian nation, no, it wasn’t.

            That said, Christianity wasn’t the religion I was referring to as causing a second Dark Ages.

          • Don Reno

            I understand, most of the founders were not strict adherents to any form of Christianity, but if you read their papers you’d notice many had a monotheistic belief system. That system correlates most closely to Christianity and not Judaism, Islam, or any other type of monotheism.

            Politicians being politicians, I can understand why God was referenced so often… To appease the majority of voters.

          • jai151

            It’s the division between the people founding and what they founded. There were definitely Christian founders, but that does not necessarily mean that the Nation was founded as Christian.

          • Don Reno

            The founding documents have too many mentions of; God, year of our Lord, divine providence and more to think they were mere words.

            Edit: typo

          • jai151

            Well, that depends on what you consider founding documents. Aside from the Federalist Papers, there really aren’t that many mentions of God. Year of our Lord is not a religious statement, it’s simply how the date was given in that time. And what mentions there are of God are given in such a way as to not be beholden to any one religious interpretation.

          • Don Reno

            The Articles of Confederation, the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence all have references to a God-being.

            Granted, year of our lord was broadly used, in that time, but it still shows a monotheistic presence and preference.

          • jai151

            The Articles were thrown out. References to a God-being do not equate to a Christian nation.

          • Don Reno

            When those references are not congruent with any other monotheistic religion, they do.

          • jai151

            They’re congruent with EVERY monotheistic religion.

          • Don Reno

            Ah, but they aren’t, or there would be certain qualifiers, or salutations. SAW, or PBUH (Islam), YHVH (Judaism). For the other monotheistic religions suffice to say, their Gods aren’t called just “God”.

          • jai151

            God is the generic term for a God. Therefore using it is acceptable shorthand.

          • Kirk Kirkpatrick

            Why do people like Don Reno write stuff when they don’t know these things?

            No Muslim says عليه السلام (PBUH) when referring to God (Allah) nor do Jews write YHVH, they write אֲדֹנָי, (Adonai or Lord)

            And it is acceptable in Islam to refer to Allah as “God” when speaking English.

            Islam refers to God as Allah (the Arabic word for God and YES I do speak the language. Allah is the word the Arabic bible uses.

          • Don Reno

            Because I’m an antitheist. I may not know the intricacies, but I do know both Jews and Muslims would not use “just” God. Kirk, thanks for the correction. I’ll make it part of my knowledge-base.

            For the record; I did use PBUH wrong. God isn’t a prophet, my apologies. Allah was what I was reaching for.

          • Kirk Kirkpatrick

            “I do know both Jews and Muslims would not use “just” God.”

            No, You do not “know”. I am too am an atheist but I have studied these religions (Islam in Kuwait, Judaism in Israel). Muslims would write just God. So would a majority of Jews. Only the ultra orthodox do not write God, they write G-d.

          • Don Reno

            I’m not an atheist. I’ve been against any form of religion for over 40 years. Christians, even 200 years ago, were appeasing to Islam and Judaism. Case-in-point the Treaty of Tripoli.

            Did you do your studies 200 years ago?

            The mention of a “God”, in the founding documents of the US were a blatant nudge, nudge, wink, wink at Christianity. There is no context to show otherwise.

          • Kirk Kirkpatrick

            This is not “appeasing to Islam and Judaism” nor does anything you write even remotely resemble reality. Forced conversions, of Muslims and Jews, in Christianity was common 250 years ago.

            The writings of most of the founding fathers are very explicit of saying “no, not Christianity.” There was no “Wink wink” except in your mind. in fact, as a group, the FF were MUCH MUCH more hostile to Christianity than the general public.

            The treaty of Tripoli was one of only three treaties ratified unanimously in our history. It was published for open comment in major newspapers without a single incident of objection. Please state your source of information to the contrary.

          • Don Reno

            The English version has never been proven to be the same as the Arabic version (Barlow translation). It may not exist at all, in the Arabic translation; Miller 1931.

            “Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in
            any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no
            character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of
            Mussulmen [Muslims],—and as the said States never entered into any war
            or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is
            declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions
            shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the
            two countries.”

            I don’t know about you, but given the context it reads as appeasement, to me.

            I also understand that Christianity wasn’t a government religion, but I also understand Christianity permeated all levels of society, including the government.

          • Don Reno

            The only reason FEW of the founding fathers were, “more hostile to Christianity than the general public”, is because they were more affluent and separated from “everyman”. Thus they had more freedom to “flaunt” their views, (especially was the case with Franklin).

            As I’ve stated previously, personal papers show Christian undertones, in the majority of the Founding Father’s belief systems, (discount any political writings, as they were merely propaganda that all politicians employ and do not show actual personal belief, but what would be acceptable to the recipient).

            Adams and Franklin were the only ones whom were consistent, in their views, otherwise. Jefferson longed for a Christianity he could wrap himself in so much that he edited the Bible, for crying out loud.

          • Kirk Kirkpatrick

            Again, you don’t get to change history to meet your opinion. It is OBVIOUS that the US was not based on any Religious tradition. The fact that our society was highly FORCED Christian at the time notwithstanding. There will be Christian “undertones” but there are Greek undertones as well. I hardly think the US was set up on a ancient Greek system.

            You write:
            “As I’ve stated previously, personal papers show Christian undertones, in the majority of the Founding Father’s belief systems…”

            You might have stated something but unsubstantiated “declarations,” especially coming from someone who has a history in this thread of commenting on thing you really don’t understand (See Muslim name of God) I hardly think your “Declarations” are authoritative.

          • Don Reno

            If you’d look at the architecture, in DC, you’d see some very real Greek influences.

            Read: John Adams, March 6, 1799. A Proclamation – Recommending a National Day of Humiliation, Fasting, and Prayer. then tell me what his views were.

          • jai151

            Antitheist would mean you are against God, not that you are against religion. Areligious or Anti-religious would be more along the lines of what you intended.

          • Don Reno

            I’ve always considered antitheist to mean, against Gods.

          • jai151

            If you are against God, you would be atheist, but you said you were not, you were specifically against religion.

          • Don Reno

            Antitheism differs from atheism, in that an antitheist believes; Theism is harmful, not only to the believer, but also to those around them. It is also harmful to society, culture etc… Antitheists also believe theism should be actively denounced to counter any influence it has.

          • jai151

            So you are, in essence, a militant atheist?

          • Don Reno

            Well, the law prevents me from being militant, but when I used to own a bar right next to a Catholic church, I had a sandwich board which I used in as militant a manner as I was legally able.

          • jai151

            Interesting. I don’t deny that you are, it’s just the arguments you’ve made thus far and the bits you’ve thrown out to prove the US was founded as a Christian nation falls more in line with the beliefs and proposals of the religious right than of someone who claims to be vehemently against religion.

            I could see, perhaps, that you’ve gone so far to the side of denying the existence of a deity that the denial has become your religion and, thus, you take any mention of a god as an adherence to Christianity regardless of historical context. A holy war on the “fidels”.

            Very, very interesting.

          • Don Reno

            I can understand how some would consider any belief a “religion” although, I’ve never held that view. Taken in context evidence shows, the US was founded by people with strong religious beliefs. Those beliefs being Christian, in one form, or another.

            Only since the mid-to-late 1800′s has there been any opinion that the US wasn’t founded, on Christian beliefs.

            To simply state since there was an amendment denying the government to sponsor any one religion fails to see what wasn’t denied, (which, to me, is just as harmful). The amendment was mainly to make sure a US version of the Church of England wouldn’t be formed. It just looked better if all religions were inclusive. A means to an end.

            I won’t deny I have an agenda. Anyone who does deny an agenda, when debating any topic, is lying to you, or themselves. My agenda is to make sense of what was written, in the context it was written, by whom it was written and for what intent and purpose it was written.

          • jai151

            Oh no, I don’t consider any belief a religion at all. I do consider beliefs that rely on faith in the face of all evidence as religions.

            The context of history shows that right up to the period you mention (and even beyond a bit), to not claim a religion was to be ostracized. Thus the Federalist papers and their religious propaganda to sell the idea of the government. That’s why no one questioned the beliefs of the founders before that period.

            There is no doubt that historically the country was not founded to be a Christian nation. There may have been some (non-theistic) Christian beliefs put into the institution, but the religion itself was not the basis for the Nation, nor was it founded as one country under God. That gobbledegook didn’t find its way into the country until the 1950s in order to show a harsh division between the US and the (communist and thus atheist) USSR.

            The United States was founded as an agnostic nation. Neither adhering to nor outright rejecting any one religion is at the core of religious policy. To believe otherwise is to fall for the propaganda the founders sold the nation on, which is far distinct from the actual intentions.

          • Don Reno

            I agree, “One nation, under God”, was used to show our national hatred of Russian communism. The implications run far more deep though. Why not use a more innocuous phrase such as; “One nation, spiritually free”?

            The bit I find hard to swallow is, ONLY the social stigma of not choosing a Christian belief set when the founders wrote and signed the documents. Our Founding Fathers could not have been so brilliantly foresighted to see that their inclusion of an anti-establishment clause would also cover irreligious beliefs, as they do today.

            The founding fathers played ping-pong with their beliefs, depending upon whom they were corresponding with and when. Any good politician can kowtow opposing sides to think he’s on “their side”, whilst not being on the other, or no side.

            The Declaration of Independence, as short as it is, has four references to a “higher being”; Nature’s God, Creator, Supreme Judge and Divine Providence. Taken, in context of the times, how can those words be anything, but Christian-based? The majority of the population was not Jewish, Islamic, nor Buddhist.

            Edit: word spacing >,<

          • jai151

            Nature’s God is not Christian based in any context, as it implies the existence of further gods. Creator, Supreme Judge, and Divine Providence apply to any religion with a central figure. None of it acknowledges, references, or demands the rites, dogma, or practices of Christianity.

          • Don Reno

            As seen through 21st, or even 20th century eyes, I’d agree, but seen from the perspective of someone living, in the colonies, in the 1770′s?

          • jai151

            Seen from the perspective of the common man, you mean? That would be why it’s called propaganda.

          • Don Reno

            To anyone from 18th century New England, Divine Providence would have nothing to do with Deism.

            A Deist is one who believes that a God created and then either left, or has little to do with what he/she created and lets natural law rule. (God is transcendent).

            Divine Providence is the “guiding hand” of God, in the everyday lives of his/her creation. (God is alive and with you).

            Divine Providence, also reminds me that, in 1636, Roger Williams named Providence Plantations after Divine Providence and the British term for colony.

            There is an unbroken path from 1606 through to 1776 that Providence means the same throughout. From; the first Charter of Virgina (1609), to Roger Williams (1636), to Nathaniel Morton’s, History of New England (1669) William Penn’s pamphlet to attract new settlers (1681), to Joel Chandler Harris’ reference to the founding of Georgia(1733), to John Adams’ chronicle of the first Contentinental Congress (1774), to George Washington’s description of his capture of Boston (March, 1776), to the Declaration of Independence (June, 1776).

          • jai151

            They were selling the new nation and using a very old tactic. See: The divine right of kings.

          • Don Reno

            I find that explanation a bit of a stretch.There is no mention of monarchy, in any of those examples, other than the Kings of England. The documents that address rule, (other than 1606 see below), mention it, in a new light, self government, rule by the people, not sloughing off one monarchy for another.

            The 1606 Charter of Virginia, I’ll admit was heavily fortified with Christianity by King James I, for that reason, but the later examples don’t share that same sentiment at all.

            Isn’t it much more easy to think of Divine Providence as, men who believed, in a God who was guiding their ventures and therefore adding a deeper meaning to them?

            For a mindset to completely exchange governing fundamentals, (monarchy for democratic republic rule), and not abandon the Divine right of kings, is not logical, is it?

          • jai151

            I’m not talking about monarchy. The divine right of kings was an example I was using of the “old tactic”, using god to sell an idea. If you didn’t know, the divine right of kings basically says that a king’s rule is ordained by god because if god didn’t want him there, he wouldn’t have allowed him to take the throne.

            What I was saying is that the mentions of god are not there to show piety but to give the new nation a divine reason for existence in order to sell the idea to the common man.

          • Don Reno

            Monarchy wasn’t the only thing “being sold”. The idea of a God, was being sold. A God whom guided his followers and rewarded them. Certainly not a deist God.

            The Divine Right of Kings was merely a way to put the king above reproach from legal systems. The king was only subservient to the Pope. Some kings wanted to go further, only allowing God to be their judge.

            I’m sorry, but I don’t understand how piety is different from showing a divine reason for existence. Are you saying it was just lip service?

          • jai151

            Precisely

          • Don Reno

            That doesn’t explain the Puritans, or the Quakers. Why, if they could just pay lip service, did they endure such hardships?

          • jai151

            Why do they need to be explained? They’re the customers, not the salesmen.

          • Don Reno

            Customers of a product they didn’t want, but could have saved themselves much grief, (sailing off to a distant land, not knowing if they would survive), if they’d have just been complaisant.

          • jai151

            You’re saying that events occurring in the 1600s were caused by people in the late 1700s. I think you lost track of what we were talking about somewhere in there

          • Don Reno

            No, I’m saying the founding fathers were the continuation, or offspring, of that mindset. A matter-of-fact approach to religion, in general. There may have been doubt, but that doubt was mainly denominational and not heretical.

          • jai151

            Oh, then no, you’re just wrong. The founders had no connection to those groups. The quakers and puritans were considered extreme groups even then.

          • Don Reno

            The Puritans were kicked out of England because they were “radicals” who wanted adapt Anglicanism to their dogma. They came to the New World, in order to preserve their religious identity and smother everyone else whom settled, in their new home.

            Religious persecution was reversed, in the newly formed colonies. the Puritans were the ones who persecuted those whom didn’t adhere to their strict dogma. This led to expansion and the founding of other colonies. Connecticut, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, New Hampshire and Maine were all founded by one-time Puritans. Puritans persecuted Quakers. And they, in turn, left to settle Pennsylvania.

            There is no way Puritans had no influence on what the Founding Fathers (FF) were framing. The idea of religious freedom may not have been original, but it was continued by the FF.

            One of my favorite quotes is by, George Santayana; “Those who cannot remember the past, are doomed to repeat it.” This wasn’t a revelation and the FF knew of this great idea, or they wouldn’t have placed as many conditions, on the new form of government they instituted.

            One’s Religion was much more private 250 years ago, but religion was also much more embedded, into the fabric of everyday life, as well. I’m not saying the FF were the direct offspring of Puritans, but their mindset was greatly affected by what came before them… Puritanism.

            Ever notice how people love to claim to be able to trace their ancestry to the Mayflower? You don’t hear so much about people being proud of being descended from those who came here aboard the Arabella. Pilgrims wanted to be free to practice their religion along side the Church of England (CoE) and Puritans wanted to change the CoE. Fredom wins over conformity.

          • jai151

            None of that has anything to do with, well, anything. The Puritans were a VERY small population in Massachusetts. People love to trace their ancestry to the mayflower because it’s rare and people love to be special.

          • Don Reno

            Sorry, for the long posts.

            If the Puritans were a fringe movement, I could understand your point, but the Massachusetts Bay Colony (MBC) was a Puritan colony. They were no longer the fringe, that they were, in Europe. King Charles didn’t know this and if he did he, probably, (most certainly), wouldn’t have granted their charter. He may have been a greedy monarch, but I’m sure he would have had reservations.

            If, as your post assumes, the Puritans were a “VERY small population” wouldn’t that make them more rare and therefore more “glamorous” to have been descended from? (I’m not contending they weren’t a small population, just making a point). I’ll admit there were only a few hundred Puritans, but they were still the “majority” because they held the charter.

            Puritan thought and rule was the law-of-the-land (charter). MBC was the first British Colony whose governing board didn’t live, in England. They were, in effect, self ruling. Puritan dogma was the driving, (away), force that led to further expansion, in New England.

            To trace the one’s heritage is, to better get to know those who came later. I was tracing Christianity’s lineage, in New England. If it weren’t for the Anglican Church and the Puritans would religious freedom have been so important to the FF?

            Why was religious freedom important to people whom, as you’ve said, were merely paying lip service? Am I wrong, in thinking that, religious persecution would strengthen one’s resolve and further fortify their religious beliefs? (The Puritans who “fled” to the New World and those who “fled” the MBC later.)

          • jai151

            I don’t follow what you’re trying to say here at all. The base question is was the country, not the population, not one of the colonies, but the country itself, founded as Christian. The answer is undeniably no, and the references to God in documents were both not directly Christian and propaganda to get the common people to back the revolution and separation from England and the grand experiment of the Constitution and representative government. You’re giving a whole lot of events that happened over a century prior, which would have as much bearing on these questions as the southern secession had on our decision to invade Iraq.

          • Don Reno

            I’m not saying the US was founded as a Christian country. What I’m saying is, all the references, no matter how abridged, after numerous rewrites, reflect a Christian attitude rather than Jewish, or Islamic. Looking at earlier drafts, if it weren’t for a vocal level-thinking minority, the US would have been a Christian country.

            William Williams, a delegate from CT, vehemently, wanted a Constitution which included a Christian God. The Fundamental Orders of CT had a Christian God. (Again, I’m from CT so, I’m familiar with him). The majority of the colonies had Christian Constitutions, replete with religious tests. Why think their delegates would feel any differently?

            The Bible is still used in courtrooms. Our elected officials still take oaths on the Bible. (Rep K. Ellison being the only exception I know of).

            In my examples, the Puritans were the beginning of the line. Washington taking Boston was the end. Those and all the references, in between, used the same words, with the same meaning, and reference to divine divinity and a Christian God.

          • jai151

            Actually, in a courtroom, you can use any text you want, and the reason you only know the one exception is because regrettably you still have to be (or pretend to be) Christian to get elected.

            But yes, if we go all the way back to the beginning of this argument, you DID say the US was founded as a Christian nation. And that’s what I’ve been arguing against this whole damn time.

            EG Your exact quote: “That’s my point. On-the-whole, the US WAS founded, on the notion of being a Christian nation.”

          • Don Reno

            I owe you an apology. I apologize.

            Yeah, jury oaths like, military oaths can be avowed and not sworn, but it’s still called being “sworn in”.

            I have a pamphlet that lists the states which don’t allow anyone who doesn’t believe, in some form of supreme spiritual being, to hold office. I think it is/was 8, or 9 states? Just goes to show how few, openly, agnostics/atheists run for public office, or those laws would have been repealed.

            It was a poor choice of phrasing, on my part. My intention was to use ‘notion’ as, meaning an underlying thought of. Using words that reflected Christian ideals whilst not proselytizing them. Not one of being founded blatantly Christian. (There are too many Bible thumpers who believe that, as it is).

            I’m sorry, once again, to have wasted so much of your time.

          • Don Reno

            Then you should also know, the Muslim God is, Allah and the Jewish God is Yahweh.

          • NoFightingInTheWarRoom

            And the Christian God is Christ/Holy Trinity, what’s your point?

          • Don Reno

            My point is; God when written 250 years ago meant God the Christian God.

          • Kirk Kirkpatrick

            No you are wrong. This is like saying the Christian god is “GOTT” if one is German. You are confusing languages with names. “Allah” is the Arabic word for god. It is also the word used by Arabic Christians. Yahweh is ONE of the names of God used by the jews, as well there is El, Elohim, and a host of other names. According to YOUR “logic” the “Christian” word for God is “Dieu” (if one is French).

            You have a very precursory understanding of this and still want to exert your uninformed “opinion” rather than simply learning. I believe this is the archetypical AMERICAN disease. This is displayed here by a number of people.

            You take quotes from the Quran you do not understand like, “What is the punishment for Apostasy in Islam?” and ignore things like “What is the punishment for disobedient children in Christianity?” Answer – Stoning to Death.

          • Don Reno

            As I’ve stated before, ever since the New World was landed upon by Christians, it’s been Christian. From the Ten Commandments, in front of court houses to Supreme Court opinions to prayer in schools. (I was made to carry my metal and wooden desk to the hallway when I was in first grade because I refused to participate).

            Please explain, Divine Providence from a deist view.

            How long has it been since someone has been stoned by a Christian for being disobedient, in the US?

            How long has it been since someone has been stoned for Islamic Apostasy, in the US?

            How long has it been since an “honor killing”, in the US, in the name of Islam?

            I don’t expect an answer to any of these questions. As you’ve not answered any I’ve posited before.

          • Kirk Kirkpatrick

            Can you be real? I begin to think you are a troll.

            Your “questions,”in this context are non sequitur. Like me asking you,

            “When are you going to stop BSing on internet forums?” They hardly need to be answered.

            You make several factual errors and more errors of Judgment. I do not write to “convince” you, there are its of silent readers who can judge the level of understanding of this subject. In any case, the US was not explicitly or with intent founded on a Christian faith. This is patently clear. The founding fathers mostly, by virtue, not of their affluence, but of their intelligence, paid lip service to the cultural faith but made it CLEAR they did not ascribe to Christian faith.

            You will find that the society if the US is much more European than “Christian.” Christian dominant countries in Africa do not share the same societal influences that the US and its European brothers do. Yet they are as Christian as the US is.

            I have lived in Muslim countries for a significant portion of my life. Your questions show you have not. Christians, the same as Muslims, Hindus, etc commit atrocities in many places in the world, in the name of their religion, including in the US. (Shall we discuss Eric Rudolph and the groups he was associated with?) There are Christian dominated countries where homosexuals are routinely executed. But if one looks at the sacred documents of Christianity compared to Islam, you will find the Bible is considerably more violent and contains a lot more of these draconian punishments than the Q’uran does.

          • Don Reno

            I’m no troll. I’ve not debased you, although you’ve been less than polite to me.

            I didn’t mention what happened, in other countries, for a reason. You are correct, in pointing out the fact that, atrocities do happen in the name of God, Allah and myriad other Deities. My concern is only with the US.

            As for Eric Rudolph can we also speak of; Palestina Isa, Sandeela Kanwal and Noor Almaleki?

            Still nothing about the First Barbary War?

            You’ve mentioned that you studied, in a Muslim nation, you’ve also used a tried and true Muslim diversionary tactic; Belittle others whilst saying little of value. I have been to a few Islamic nations, when I was in the Army. You should well know, it depends on which country you are in how Islam is practiced. Saudi Arabia is nothing like Turkey, in how it practices Islam (both over 99% Muslim).

            You accuse me of being illogical yet, the stoning of disobedient children is from the fifth book of the Jewish Pentateuch, namely Deuteronomy. My questions drew directly from your rebuttal, which was wrong, on it’s face. I chose not to point it out, out of common courtesy.

            To play the “I’m-better-than-you-and-you-don’t-deserve-my-time” card isn’t very becoming.

          • NoFightingInTheWarRoom

            Yeah, we would.

          • Don Reno

            Perhaps, today, when language has been mingled. Not 250 years ago.

          • NoFightingInTheWarRoom

            Yeah they are just called “God”. I’m Jewish, and “God” and “Lord” is referenced often. “God” means any divine creator, not just the Christian God. I mean, Hindus have hundreds of “gods”.

          • Don Reno

            Were you living 250 years ago? Language, and the written word were much different. Any Jewish writings were written, in Yiddish, if God was meant to be, in reference to the Jewish God it would have been written as Yahweh.

            You don’t seem to fathom that, since the first Christian “landed”, on the New World, “God” has been a Christian God. First from the Spaniards and Portuguese to the Dutch and English… All Christian. Some sects views were considered too extreme for their homeland hence, the reason they came here.

            There is an unbroken line of writings from the 1606 First Charter of Virginia through to the Declaration of Independence of 1776.

          • NoFightingInTheWarRoom

            That’s just how people spoke back then. The Constitution and the Treaty of Tripoli specifically states that there will be no official religion. The argument ends there.

          • Don Reno

            “That’s just how people spoke back then.” Perhaps, you don’t care how much weight your words carry, but the founding fathers most certainly did, or they would not have made so many revisions.

            The Treaty of Tripoli was mere appeasement to Muslims. In fact article 11 may not have even been in the Arabic translation, as written.

            The argument does most certainly not “end there”. Do some research into US Supreme Court decisions and you’ll see it doesn’t end, ever.

          • Kirk Kirkpatrick

            “That system correlates most closely to Christianity and not Judaism, Islam, or any other type of monotheism.” The deism that the founders believed in (most of them) was FAR CLOSER to Judaism and Islam than to Christianity.

            Please substantiate.

            Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting “Jesus Christ,” so that it would read “A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;” the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.

            -Thomas Jefferson

          • Don Reno

            “A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen; it is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.” Th Jefferson, on his edit of the bible, in 1804.

          • Kirk Kirkpatrick

            The doctrines of Jesus are beautiful. But this does not imply that deism is somehow based on this.

            “I have found Christian dogma unintelligible…Some books on Deism fell into my hands…It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared much stronger than the refutations; in short I soon became a thorough deist.”
            -Benjamin Franklin, “Toward the Mystery” (autobiography)

            “When the clergy addressed General Washington on his departure from the government, it was observed in their consultation, that he had never, on any occasion, said a word to the public which showed a belief in the Christian religion, and they thought they should so pen their address, as to force him at length to declare publicly whether he was a Christian or not. They did so. However, the old fox was too cunning for them. He answered every article of their address particularly except that, which he passed over without notice….he never did say a word of it in any of his public papers…Governor Morris has often told me that General Washington believed no more of that (Christian) system than he himself did.
            -Thomas Jefferson

            “Finally, in answer to Fortescue Aland’s question why the Ten Commandments should not now be a part of the common law of England we may say they are not because the never were.”
            -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, 1814

            “I was glad to find in your book a formal contradiction, at length,…that Christianity is part of the common law. The proof of the contrary, which you have adduced, is inconrovertible; to wit, that the common law existed while the Anglo-Saxons were yet pagans, at a time when they had never yet heard the name of Christ pronounced, or knew that such a character had ever existed…What a conspiracy this, between Church and State. Sing Tantarara, rogues all, rogues all. Sing Tantarara, rogues all!”
            -Thomas Jefferson

            “I promised you a letter on Christianity, which I have not forgotten…The delusion…on the clause of the Constitution, which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favourite hope of an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own…the returning good sense of our country threatens abortion of their hopes and they (the preachers) believe that any portion of power confided to me (such as being elected president), will be excerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly: FOR I HAVE SWORN UPON THE ALTAR OF GOD, ETERNAL HOSTILITY AGAINST EVERY FORM OF TYRANNY OVER THE MIND OF MAN.”
            -Thomas Jefferson

          • Don Reno

            Those are all quotes from Jefferson, the politician. Of course a politician has to skate a line, dependent upon his audience be they singular, or plural.

            Liken to say Jefferson favored Islam because he owned a copy of the Qur’an, (headline news when Rep. Keith Ellison used it to swear his oath), would be a fallacy. Quite the contrary, he owned it to better know his enemy precluding the first Barbary War.

          • Kirk Kirkpatrick

            Benjamin Franklin is not Thomas Jefferson.

            The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines, and whole carloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity.

            – John Adams

            As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?

            – John Adams

          • Don Reno

            Yep Adams was one of the few who didn’t have a favorable opinion of Christianity, but what about; John Hancock (Grandfather and father both ministers). George Washington (participated in Holy Communion throughout his life albeit sporadically at times).

            Declaration of Independence;

            Religious Affiliation # of signers % of signers

            Episcopalian/Anglican….32………… 57.1%
            Congregationalist……….13…………..23.2%
            Presbyterian……………..12……………21.4%
            Quaker………………………2……………..3.6%
            Unitarian or Universalist..2……………3.6%
            Catholic……………………..1…………….1.8%

            Charles Carroll, the lone Catholic, was from Maryland.

          • jai151

            Which matters not one whit. In historical context, it was social ostracization to not belong to a church. The Church served a much bigger social purpose than it does today.

          • Don Reno

            That’s my point. On-the-whole, the US WAS founded, on the notion of being a Christian nation.

          • jai151

            No, it wasn’t. That’s the point. It was specifically stated not to be.

          • NoFightingInTheWarRoom

            No it was not, it was founded on the notion of being a FREE nation.

          • Don Reno

            You arrived to the conversation a bit late. I’ll agree the US was founded to be a free nation, but under the watchful eye of a Christian God.

          • Kirk Kirkpatrick

            The Declaration was signed by Ben Franklin who has made it clear he did not belong to any of these groups. Your information is suspect.

            I can find this list too but remember that all of the Deists here are listed as Episcopalian. This is false. Deists are NOT Christian.

            Thomas Jefferson is listed above as a Christian but refers to the divinity of Jesus as “dung” so he hardly qualifies.

          • Don Reno

            Claiming to be an Episcopalian makes one an Episcopalian.

            Jefferson only refuted the miraculous Jesus not the teachings. He was completely fine with everything else Christian. He even claimed that he was a Christian… After he took his razor to the NT to remove the miracles.

          • NoFightingInTheWarRoom

            Phew so then we can finally all agree that Obama is a Christian? Also refuting the miraculous Jesus – refuting the resurrection – mean you are not Christian.

          • Don Reno

            well now, Muslims do have a “get out of jail free card” when it comes to lying, which is called taqiyya. Taqiyya is the act of concealing one’s religion to keep oneself from harm.

            Kitman is another “get out of jail free card”, which allows a believer to agree just to remain safe. Telling someone something they want to hear, whether you believe it, or not.

            The details are much more complex depending on which flavor of Islam you choose. Some branches don’t abide by them at all.

            So, if Obama is a Muslim, he is an exception to the rule. He can “legally” lie according to his religion. That is neither here, nor there. He claims he’s a Christian and therefore he IS a Christian. Get what I’m saying? The fact that he had to renounce his US citizenship, in order to attend a Muslim school is a different matter.

            For the record, I have never been a Christian, nor affiliated with any other religion.

          • Kirk Kirkpatrick

            Please learn a “little bit” about what you form opinions about. You are not even close.

            “Claiming to be an Episcopalian makes one an Episcopalian” Absolute nonsense. Where did you make this up from?

            I can call myself a Christian all day. If I do not believe in Christian dogma, I am not a Christian. It does not matter my declaration. These words have definable meanings. You don’t get to change them.

            Jefferson did not believe in the divinity of Jesus. His opinion of Jesus was a Muslim one. That Jesus was a great teacher. His beliefs about Jesus was mach closer to Islam than to Christianity.

            You have to start substantiating. You have lost any authority in your propensity to write about subject with which you have very little familiarity.

          • Don Reno

            Are you saying then that the founding fathers who declared their faith were using tiqiyya?

            Just because Jefferson didn’t believe, in miracles, that hardly aligns his belief with Islam.

            Are you familiar with, why Thomas Jefferson owned a copy of the Qur’an?

            Do you think it was to learn more about one of the world’s great religions?

            Have you any knowledge of the First Barbary War, or the USS Constitution?

          • Don Reno

            The fact that Jefferson didn’t believe in Christ’s Divinity does not put him in the Muslim camp. His ideals were more akin to Hindu than Muslim.

          • Don Reno

            When I said, “Those are all quotes from Jefferson, the politician.”, I meant, just the quotes from Jefferson. I ignored the Franklin quote. It is well known Franklin was one to be different just for the spectacle of it. Franklin would be the darling of mass entertainment media today.

          • NoFightingInTheWarRoom

            Yeah HIS edit of the Bible aka not any of the Bibles in use in any Church in America today.

          • Don Reno

            And your statement is relevant how?

          • NoFightingInTheWarRoom

            Eh that’s debatable. Invoking God in writing was a stylistic trait of the time.

          • Don Reno

            It may be looked back upon as stylistic, but it was written as literal.

        • Kirk Kirkpatrick

          Coming from you, this really funny. Are we to take it that you “read books”? How about some “real life” experience outside of books because from what you have posted I do not see evidence of either.

        • NoFightingInTheWarRoom

          So the Dark Ages weren’t a direct result of the Church’s authority and suppression of scientists and thinkers??

          • CarinDr

            No, actually, love the Church or hate it, it’s not really as simplistic as that.

    • Al Rex

      It’s been predicted, America will collapse into sectarian,racial lines just about same as it has happening in Iraq now. Different people must live separate,we just don’t like and hate each other and don’t have anything in common with the savages of the third world. Natural Law was right when it established that people of different races be in different continent separated from each other until the White man came in and messed up that system with the lie of Sisterhood and Brotherhood.

      • Kirk Kirkpatrick

        Natural law does not exist. All of your ideas are totally made up out of whole cloth.

        Biology teaches us that racial mixing strengthens the organism, not weakens it. But I guess Al does not “do” Science.

        The US is not the savior of the world. If the US collapses, it could potentially stabilize the world as the US has been a major destabilizing force in the last 50 years.

        • Richard Turnbull

          Cool, you went to hear Noam Chomsky and accepted his spiel as gospel. But just out of curiosity, since you posit the US as the locus and/or political fulcrum of INstability, what, to your your way of thinking, would have been the focus of forces of STABILITY after the Second World War?

          • Kirk Kirkpatrick

            Really so you buy into the propaganda that
            !. The US was why WWIII was won. (BS)
            2. The US was the stabilizing force after the WAR (BS)

            It is not my way of thinking. I have actually lived this. I speak 7 languages and lived on 4 continents. You would be surprised how radically different the US is viewed from OUTSIDE the US.

            But since you posit a different idea, please explain to us all how Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, etc. represented a threat to the US. We certainly engaged in a number of wars there.

            As to Noam Chomsky, I would put his intelligence and acumen way way above yours.

          • Don Reno

            I do understand how Americans think we’re always the guys who wear the “white hats”, but to say we’ve already won WWIII?

            If you’re talking about WWII. The Americans surely didn’t do it alone, but our ability to mass produce arms, motor vehicles and ships were a deciding factor. Without US intervention, there is no way the production capabilities of the Allies could have competed with the Axis. Even with the Lend-Lease agreement with Britain.

            As for a stabilizing force. No occupying country got that right. Price controls stifled the German economy.

            Herman Göring put it very succinctly, when he said;

            “Your America is doing many things in the economic field which we found out caused us so much trouble. You are trying to control peoples’ wages and prices – peoples’ work. If you do that you must control peoples’ lives. And no country can do that part way. I tried and it failed. Nor can any country do it all the way either. I tried that too and it failed. You are no better planners than we. I should think your economists would read what happened here.” -1945

            If only the Allies would have read and understood that, post-war Germany may never have endured so many years of hardship.

        • Al Rex

          Not going for it. Race-Mixing only benefits lower races and downgrades higher races like the White Race. I’m in love with the White Woman and I want to keep her that way forever the way she is,extremely beautiful, because she doesn’t need any engineering to make her different

          Then look at the achievement of the White race: everything you see and touch has been invented and created by Whites. Look at the way Whites behave and conduct their affairs, their discipline, their morals, and compare them to those of non-White. There is no match,there will never be.
          I want non-White immigration into White Nations to be stopped by any means. If we have not allowed these Muslims and all the other non-Whites we wouldn’t be in this mess today never knowing when next attach against us it’s going to happen. I favor forced deportation of all including Blacks as they were only meant o be working as slaves in the southern farms picking up cotton and not to be allowed to remain here and become U/S. Citizens, Police Officers, Lawyers, Soldiers,Mayors and Presidents.

          • Kirk Kirkpatrick

            You do not need to “go for it” Nor could you understand it if you wanted to. Your ideas are so stupid as to totally invalidate what you said.

            The white race has 4000 years of innovation to catch up with the Chinese and 1500 years to catch up with the Arabs.

            paper:Chinese
            Compass:Chinese
            printing press China invented it 600 years before the Whites.
            gunpowder: Chinese
            rockets:Chinese

            Shall I continue?

            What could be more disgusting than to postulate that the group, you personally belong to, is somehow better and then proving this wrong by your ignorance?

          • Al Rex

            The Chines,I’ll admit it, are very good at copying and nothing else, None of the Chinese wants to live in China. They’re all escaping to the USA, Canada, Europe, New Zealand and Australia. Only going to White Nations!!! Whites are the most advanced people of the world.

          • Kirk Kirkpatrick

            Ignorant. There is a drain from the US to China. Do you speak the language?

            Again, who did they “copy” when they invented gunpowder?

            But the US does a lot of copying.

          • Al Rex

            In the last U.S. Presidential Debate even those candidates brought up China and the spying and copying of whatever we do and they send it back to us by flooding the markets with cheap items while American workers who used to make those items are unemployed.
            Clearly, the movement is third world moving into the first world because there is nothing in the third word. As for the “gunpowder” I’m not sure but I don’t think that the Chinese knew what it was good for and China was nothing, was not even on the Radar, until President Nixon opened diplomatic relationship with it not too long ago,

          • Kirk Kirkpatrick

            Nice for you to point out one of the severe failings of the “white race,” the inability to see with “long term vision” the way the Chinese do. They did construction projects for 300 years.

            We have a little historical blip of 70-80 years and the stupid among us have delusions of grandeur.

            The Chinese will be here long after the US is simply an historical; entity. Like the Egyptians, the Persians, the Romans, etc. They are gone, the Chinese are not.

          • Don Reno

            Those “300 year” construction projects were manned by whom? The “Great Wall” was built by what type of labor force?

            So, you propose the US become an isolationist Communist State and conscript it’s population into a workforce? That’s what China was and did from the late 1300s-1970s.

          • NoFightingInTheWarRoom

            Wow. Such a great ignorance of history.

          • Laura Gonzalez

            Where’s your swastika?

        • Frank Brady

          100 years

        • NoFightingInTheWarRoom

          Everything you say is true is correct except the end. If the US collapsed, the whole world would become destabilized.

      • Richard Turnbull

        So you wouldn’t understand that Oath of Allegiance to American values as interpreted by the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution and SCOTUS decisions any better than the hopelessly confused nitwit about to stand trial, is that what you are trying to say?

  • thinkmore

    For all those complaining about this liberal judge: it is actually a conservative call to admit there is no distinction in this context. A liberal call would allow setting a precedent to there now being a distinction where none had been before. How mixed up American politics have become is part of its lousy public education, the influx of money into the political process and the blatant gaming of the system that followed. Ugh

  • lapazjim

    So with this ruling by this Judge it basically tells all people that become U.S. citizens not to worry about the Oath as it really doesn’t apply to them.So these immigrants both legal and illegal that take the oath are being told 1)that it really doesn’t apply to them and 2)that they are in a different class of people.Lets suppose a major war breaks out and the government bring back the draft.How many of these individuals that are drafted will use the excuse that the oath did not apply to them.Even more so how many will make a run for the border!!!!

    • jai151

      That’s precisely the opposite of what it says. What it says is that the oath applies to all citizens, whether or not they are naturalized and they are not distinct from natural born in that case.

    • Kirk Kirkpatrick

      And stereotypical American reaction. EVERYTHING is about WAR! WAR ! WAR!
      What if we had to draft? The sky is falling! Help I’m scared.

      • jai151

        War? Good God, y’all! What is it good for? Absolutely nothing.

    • NoFightingInTheWarRoom

      No, the judge is saying that all US citizens have equal rights regardless of where they are born, which is what is Constitutional. The only time where someone was born matters is the Presidency. Other than that, all citizens – natural born or not – are afforded equal rights. So in fact its the exact opposite of saying that they are a different class of people.

  • RightishLeft

    It’s scary, albeit to be expected, to ser just how many born Americans have zero understanding of Constitution and American freedoms they are so proud of.

    What the judge is essentially saying is not that the Oath which the naturalized citizens have to take is meaningless, but that it equally applies to the born Americans, they simply don’t have to formally recite it because they are being granted citizenship at birth. Both Natural and Naturalized citizens however are bound by the Oath, therefore the Gov’t can’t apply this charge to one group and not another. To do so would imply that born Americans are not expected to be as loyal to this country as naturalized citizens. But then, Holder’s views are bizzarre and unconstitutional to begin with.

    • Cris0000

      No, the judge isn’t saying anything like that.

      The only thing he’s saying is that taking the oath to become a naturalized citizen doesn’t make committing murder more heinous than when a natural born citizen commits murder.

      In this case, there are other factors that make it heinous enough to warrant the death penalty under the law.

  • J Tang

    Constitution, what’s that? Isn’t that some old antiquated document signed by a bunch of drunks? I’ve actually heard this from some of our youth. God help us.
    BL: I agree with the judge on this point. Premeditated murder is murder. How do you make it better or worse? On another note…ever notice that everything “man” tries to “fix” ends up screwed up? Stop siting, blaming and living in the past, we obviously don’t learn from it, so let’s just go on dividing ourselves in every conceivable way we can (race, creed, color, religion, social status, political party and etc). That seems to be working well. BTW – How’s that whole global warming thing coming? We will likely destroy ourselves before GW. For 30 years I defended this nation with my brothers and sisters in arms. It saddens me that I can’t say we left America in better shape than it was. By no means am I happy with our justice system, but it’s the only one we have. If you want it changed, research the folks up for office…DON’T just vote one party across the board. Better yet, don’t buy into all this party nonsense at all. It’s time people start paying attention, not to mention voting wisely. This is about the 3rd time I’ve ever commented on anything, but all this back and forth only divides us more. I’m not against good ole fashion debate, but it amazes me the junk people spend their precious time on. I wonder how much good we could do if this much effort was spent UNITING us.

  • jomat

    I think the prosecution was trying as many charges as possible so that this man would not escape through any loophole at all. Therefore this “exclusion” is no problem at all. The government has enough to charge and to find him guilty.

    • annette chapel

      you think so i do not
      dzhokhar tsarnaev is innocent

      • NoFightingInTheWarRoom

        Yes, and the Popes Muslim.

        • annette chapel

          actually no the pope is not muslim but that might be cool one day

  • jomat

    All of the charges against him are directly or indirectly connected to the oath, regardless of the judge’s decision to exclude it. It [the exclusion] does not make any difference to a prudent jury.

  • Richard Turnbull

    “I come from the City of Boston
    The home of the Bean and the Cod
    Where the Lowells speak only to Cabots,
    And the Cabots speak only to God.”

    Boston has come a long way from the era of the Salem Witch Trials (google it, or read Nissenbaum & Boyer’s award winning study — better time spent than raving lunacy) and enjoy the day.

  • Liv

    Very interesting debate. I can see some validity in the arguments made by both sides.

    I would like to propose a THIRD and totally different way of considering this issue.
    And I believe in order to examine it objectively, we will need to temporarily set aside the arguments made by both sides thus far .

    My Premise is as follows:
    IF it could be definitively PROVEN that the defendant took the oath of citizenship AS PART OF HIS PLAN (and doing so aided him in the commission of) – or – WHILE HE WAS ENGAGED IN PLANNING this Act of Terrorism on the United States, does that not make the OATH-TAKING ITSELF, a PART OF THE CRIME?!! And therefore making it necessary that the oath-taking be viewed in a totally different light?

    And if my argument is valid, taking it one step further — perhaps a new law that requires that the oath-taking itself should be PART OF THE INVESTIGATION when a person commits an act of terror against their country within a certain time period (perhaps 2-3 yrs) of taking the oath of citizenship.

    I’m just proposing this as a POSSIBLE and perhaps more appropriate way of addressing this issue. Interested in hearing your opinions.

    • Kirk Kirkpatrick

      What is the reason to try and differentiate between Naturalized and natural born citizens? Why the effort?

      Act of Terror against their country? You mean like at Little Big Horn?

      • Liv

        You’re missing my point. It’s the oath-taking (so he can continue to live here) with the purposeful intent of using it to commit a crime.

        Your comparison to 19th century historical events is not remotely relevant to the argument I was making.

    • jai151

      If they legally wished to add a charge of perjury, I don’t see a reason they could not. That said, I also don’t see a reason they would want to. It’s a relatively minor crime in the face of everything else.

    • Liv

      jai151, not so much to add to the charges, but to deem whether the citizenship is VALID if made when planning a crime.

      • jai151

        That’s an unsupportable claim, and would have little bearing on the outcome. In fact, it could lead to his former nation taking action and demanding extradition.

        • Liv

          Not necessarily unsupportable if there was written or video evidence that pre-dated the oath. BUT… your second point definitely gives me pause!!! I hope you understand that I don’t have an agenda here… just wanted to throw out something that occurred to me as I was reading the comments. Thanks for your input!

        • NoFightingInTheWarRoom

          Even he wasn’t a citizen, there’s no way we’d let someone guilty of a bombing in the US be tried in Russia.

          • jai151

            Politics makes for strange bedfellows. Besides, they aren’t Russian, they’re from Kyrgyzstan.

    • CarinDr

      “IF it could be definitively PROVEN that the defendant took the oath of citizenship AS PART OF HIS PLAN (and doing so aided him in the commission of)…”

      But what would such a plan be? The elder Tsarnaev brother was as much involved in the plot and he never took an oath. He wasn’t a citizen. What role could the oath have had in the crime? In essence, the prosecutors were arguing that the elder brother (had he lived) would have been less worthy of the death penalty than his younger brother simply by virtue of his citizenship application having been held up. And U.S. citizenship wasn’t needed for the Saudi citizens of the 9/11 plot to kill thousands more than the Tsarnaevs did, and apparently they would be less worthy of the death penalty than the surviving younger Tsarnaev brother. People don’t need citizenship to get into the country, stay in the country and commit crimes. So, your example is just too hypothetical for me at the moment. Can you give an example of citizenship aiding a plot?

      Maybe if it could be proved one was plotting when the oath was taken, there could be grounds for invalidating the citizenship, but I’m still not sure how that becomes specifically an aggravating factor for the death penalty in itself, as the prosecutors were arguing….or, well, that was maybe what they were arguing–they’d amended it a couple of times in the filings to the point where it was unclear what they were really trying to say. The word ‘oath’ wasn’t even mentioned in their initial death penalty notice, and, then, when the defense complained about the whole factor, decided to say it was all about the oath all the time.

      • CarinDr

        I was just re-reading my post here and one part of it may be unclear: I said: “Maybe if it could be proved one was plotting when the oath was taken, there could be grounds for invalidating the citizenship, but I’m still not sure how that becomes specifically an aggravating factor for the death penalty in itself, as the prosecutors were arguing.” Just to clarify, in their filings, the prosecution didn’t offer anything to suggest that Tsarnaev was “plotting when [his] oath was taken.” When I say “as the prosecutors were arguing,” I meant simply that they were using the oath issue as an aggravating factor for the death penalty. The “plotting when the oath was taken” part was just the hypothetical I was running with and I was saying that even that isn’t necessarily in itself a good death penalty aggravating factor.

    • NoFightingInTheWarRoom

      How would being a citizen have helped with his attack? It didn’t seem to make much of a difference…

  • Kirk Kirkpatrick

    “why do we ignore, the lie that would be Muslim immigrants are committing when they take the oath of allegiance” I would be more interested in hear why we should tolerate such ignorance in our population?

    The same way that Christians should be forced to renounce those parts of their Bible that conflict with our Constitution?

    Who told you that the Koran speaks against the “freedom of religion?”

    “There is no compulsion in religion.” Al-Baqara 256 – Quran.

    So you know NOTHING about this subject but still hold strong options? Ask what is wrong with this country!

    • Don Reno

      What is the punishment for apostasy, in Islam?

      • NoFightingInTheWarRoom

        The same as it is in the Bible: death.

        • Don Reno

          “The same as it is in the Bible: death.”

          In Judaism’s Mosaic Law, yes, but what about New Testament Christianity? Jesus Fulfilled the law and thus Christians are not required to follow Mosaic Law.

  • Kirk Kirkpatrick

    “Another thing the Constitution does differentiate between natural born and naturalized citizens”

    The ONLY thing. And this is one thing is not “rights.” Where the Constitution speaks of rights, it says “people” not citizens.

    Why are you guys so traitorous to our country? These opinions are antithetical to everything for which the US was founded.

  • Lawrence

    What this really demonstrates is that many who “pledge their allegiance and true faith” do so just to get into this country. I wonder if they should have to prove their faith and allegiance first.
    Words are cheap. Actions speak louder.

    • NoFightingInTheWarRoom

      How would you suggest they prove their faith? A vast majority of the people who become citizens do so because they love this country and what to be a part of it.

      • Lawrence

        Let’s get creative.

    • RightishLeft

      There are millions of people born here who have no loyalty to this country. Many even openly profess it.

      Also the very definition of loyalty is a subject of contention and trying to establish it would lead us down a very slippery slope. Hitler was a democratically elected leader of Germany, were the Germans who cooperated with Allies being loyal or disloyal to their country ? What about Timothy McVeigh – didn’t he commit his terror act out of a perverse sense of patriotism ?

      We have our laws, and the Constitution, and it clearly states that all citizens shall have equal protection under the law, and that everyone should be charged with the crimes they committed. Breaking the Oath of Citizenship is not, to the best of my knowledge, listed as a specific crime anywhere. Prosecution should (1) be professional (2) respect the Constitution (3) don’t start the sure thing trial by making themselves look like a bunch of fools.

      • Lawrence

        I am not sure about “millions” born here and not having loyalty, but I get your point.

        However those born here do not take an oath to gain citizenship. A violation of that oath by him or anyone else is a violation of the law and should be prosecuted.

  • annette chapel

    i think it is funny all these comments..you all have already charged him and act like he has been convicted and charged if i am correct the only thing he has said thus far is not guilty x7 hmmm yet al you already have him in the death chamber….if the usa does anything right in all the years they will set dzhokhar free!!!!

    • NoFightingInTheWarRoom

      Actually he confessed multiple times, not to mention video and photographs of him placing the bomb directly behind the child who was killed and tons of jihadist writing. If you think he is innocent, you are deluding yourself. But he still deserves a fair trial and a good lawyer. Then he deserves to die.

      • annette chapel

        you heard him confess and if he did then on july 10 2013 he most likley would not have plead not guilty 7 times….his attorneys would have advised against it. i have watched everything possible on his case and have yet to hear his words of confessing sure the media has reported he confessed oh and that boat note it took a month to find (that was a good one) but i have never heard dzhokhar say he is guilty in fact my friend was in the court room that day and sat next to his sisters and they said he never told anyone ever he did it so who you gonna believe…me his sisters and please link me the video that shows dzhokhar tsarnaev actually sitting his backpack down and it blowing up and not the one that shows he has a backpack and then the photoshopped one where it all of a sudden isn’t on his back any longer…i do not think i am deluding myself sure he may get convicted of this crime he didn’t commit just because there are so many closed minds out there just because what he is accused of but i truly believe he is innocent and does not deserve the last year of his life he has had to live

        • NoFightingInTheWarRoom

          You clearly know nothing about the legal system. The reason you haven’t seen any video or evidence personally, is because key evidence is not released to the public before the trial, so as to not prejudice the jury and to keep the evidence fresh. This goes for evidence for the prosecution AND the defense. Who am i going to believe? Not anyone in his family. You don’t think hundreds of convicted murders out there had family members that maintained their innocence? People can easily be blinded by loyalty to their family. Oh and there IS video and photographs of Tamerlan and Dzokhar shooting at police and tossing explosives out of their cars. There is also the Chinese man whose car they hijacked and bragged all about their attack.

          • annette chapel

            Correction they have a blurry video of 2 people throwing something although in the original video that didnt stay up long they ate also yelling tobthe cops we didnt do it we r innocent please stop u no we r innocent but that tape disappeared just like danny the car jacking guy who no ones seen ever whos story is complete bs and who refuses yes refuses to testify against dzhokhar…

          • NoFightingInTheWarRoom

            Maybe no one sees him because he is traumatized and what’s to get back to life? And there is far more than a blurry video. There are pictures and video and hundreds of witnesses. And there is no credible video of them saying they were innocent, just one that was obviously dubbed over using iMovie. If they are innocent, why were they tossing bombs at the police? Why did they have those bombs in the first place? What kind of innocent person just has pipe bombs laying around? Also, why did they have materials to make pressure cooker bombs exactly like the ones used at the Marathon in their Cambridge apartment? Why did Dzokhars friends find bomb making material in his dorm room? You are so deluded.

          • NoFightingInTheWarRoom

            Actually “Danny” has given many interviews, and will absolutely testify if called upon to do so. Where did you hear that he refuses to testify? That’s not true. It just goes to show how wrong the information you are operating on is.

            http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/04/18/carjacking-victim-known-danny-describes-his-life-one-year-after-tsarnaev-encounter/VwMc5rvYC1Ry0NdWnd8peK/story.html

    • Lawrence

      Your comment is more ridiculous than those whom you accuse of already deeming him as guilty.

      How do you know he should be set free? If you truly believe there is no more information than the fact he has only said, “not guilty” then why are you so ready to jump to the conclusion that he should be set free?

      It makes you seem like a bumbling idiot, completely lacking any kind of analysis.

  • NoFightingInTheWarRoom

    Way to lump all Muslims together, when most are completely peaceful people. Its funny that you mention Freedom of Religion, as forcing them do renounce any part of the Quran would be THE EXACT OPPOSITE of Freedom of Religion. There’s plenty of stuff in the Bible that also forbids Freedom of Religion, are we going to have Christian and Jewish immigrants denounce those parts of the Bible as well?

  • NoFightingInTheWarRoom

    ” Now if a person who is born here murders..his targeted victims are not usually all Americans” Really? So in most mass shootings the victims are all multinationals? What are you talking about?

  • NoFightingInTheWarRoom

    He is saying that there is no difference between a natural born citizen and an immigrant citizen, which Constitutionally, is correct.

  • Argentus

    Judge O’Toole is dead wrong in this case. It’s not about drawing a distinction between natural-born and naturalized. It’s about a man’s word being a verbal contract, which is completely enforceable with the full force and effect of the law. Nobody who is born here has to take an oath, because of the law that we established. We also established a law that makes folks becoming citizens pledge their allegiance to our nation before we accept their status as residents. The law is the law is the law. He pledged his solemn word as a man, making a binding verbal contract in return for citizenship. His actions are nothing less than betrayal. He deserves death based on this treason, alone, setting aside every other argument.

  • Lawrence

    Let’s face it, he did not become a citizen and take the oath to carry out these deadly acts in the name of some distorted view Islam.

    He took the oath simply because it’s the only way to get into this country like so many others do.

    • Tradecraft46

      You are morally bankrupt: oaths are supposed to mean something,

      You clearly have no integrity of your word.

      I strong advise the rest of you to regard that when reading anything from this Lawrence.

Most Popular