Posted on 05/03/2010 8:16:27 PM PDT by jbjd
You may not have done any "name calling" on this particular thread, but I'm really sure you don't attempt to ridicule...now do you? I mean, when you began this thing back on post 11 by telling me my post was a "Typical ‘Leo-esque’ reply", that was a complement...right? After-all, you hold Leo in high regard, therefore that certainly wasn't an attempt to belittle, or ridicule. Naw. But hey, when someone calls you a "name", whoa! Now that's something to be ticked off about.
You then go on to state:
"I resent having to redirect so much energy to correcting the error filled hyperbolic rants of others whose insistence they are right is based on how loudly they shout or how many people they can trick into believing they have something legally significant to say."
Really? Was that the part where you "corrected" me regarding the " (student run) law review articles" from 1845? Or, perhaps it was the silly "19th century Congressperson" who reitterated the definition known to the framers? Or where you correct me by saying that the same definition that appears in the dicta of 5 SCOTUS cases is 100% meaningless because it didn't go to the question of the specific case in question (something I pointed out in the post by saying "While there (obviously) isn’t a SCOTUS decision ..."). I mean, they reitterated the very same definition the framers knew...but hey, it's totally meaningless because they really didn't say that, or they really didn't know what they were talking about because the cases themselves didn't go to the very question of POTUS eligibility. Forget the fact that they just so happened to repeat the same definnition. It's historically meaningless. Yup. /s
Good grief dude! Lighten up...or don't start the sh#$ to begin with!
"Now it's my turn to question you.
How can someone born a subject to the crown of her majesty the Queen of England be considered a Natural Born Citizen of the U.S. as intended by the framers, and thus eligible to be our Commander in Chief of the armed forces?"
Is this Stateman's opinion and interpretation not valid or is it just less valid than your coca-mania interpretation of the NBC issue???
Maybe you need to be called out on in bold face writings!!!
That is quiet an elitist statement!!!
If for some reason that you know an election fraud (criminal) has been committed and proved, would all involved in that same procedure not also be enablers to that fraud (crime) and face some stiff consequences???
You can find answers to all your Kenyan/British questions here. Good reading and lessons:
Is this a true statement, or is it misleading. What's your agenda and reasons for defending an usurper in the White House???
BOR also claim he has seen it, hmmm???
Bauer was going for what looked like an objective, independent source, since flackcheck would be assumed to actually check facts. I don't see any reason he would direct the court to look at CoN forms, even if 100 percent valid. The obvious thing to submit would be a hard copy of the COLB since it would be prima facie, self-authenticating evidence. Pointing to a Web site that says it's real instead of showing it to the court is the tipoff that the COLB is fraudulent.
Kathy Hensley delivers the names of candidates for the ballot to the SC election commission, who refuse to accept the list without eligibility Certification so Ms. Hensley scribbles down, everyone is eligible (including BO);
Who's at fault here: Hensley or the SC election commission, and how does this prove fraud?? It might show laziness and a lack of standards, but it's not strong evidence of fraud.
or Boyd Richie swears BO is eligible but refuses citizen requests to produce documents establishing the basis for that Certification, violating TX Open Records law.
This looks somewhat damning, but only if there's a smoking gun that's being hidden. It may simply go back to 'Obama's says he's eligible,' or 'Obama made a birth certificate public, but didn't provide us a physical copy' and then we're basically in the same place we're already at, with more excitement than substance.
How are you going to PROVE he isn't the president without getting Congress to investigate?
edge919, I cannot possibly duplicate here, all of the work spelled out on my blog. But as for discounting the word of Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, 3rd in line of Presidential succession, whose oath to state election officials that BO is Constitutionally eligible for the job got them to print his name on general election ballots, with all of the gravitas this entails; surely, you would not argue, her word BO is for real would hold less sway with the federal court, than a representation by APFC that BO is only a native. (Read IDIOMS! for a full discussion about introducing evidence into the record in a Motion to Dismiss.) And that is the point. The fraud consists of swearing someone is eligible before ascertaining this is true.
This points to the biggest difference between me and everyone else purporting to be working to ‘expose’ BO’s ineligibility. I am no one’s savior; and my ability to ‘out’ BO is totally dependent on your ability to grasp how our political system works. Citizens sidetracked on the latest court gambit fail to learn that their election laws determine whether candidates whose names appear on the ballot must be eligible for the job. They failed to learn that no SoS is required to vet the candidate for eligibility because they are too busy complaining the courts are unfair/stupid/WUSSIES for not compelling such vetting, cheered on by these legal hucksters. (Not calling any one person a name but rather generalizing about those people who spearhead legal battles which focus on individual tilting at windmills instead of empowering citizens in individual states to utilize their own laws and public officials; and solicit funds for their personal crusades to boot.) Citizens like you tend to ally themselves with one legal practitioner over another regardless of the soundness of the work produced but rather because of a personal like or dislike; and in so doing, effect the very failure of which you complain.
I am not responsible for enforcing the election laws in TX; or researching, drafting, and posting citizen complaints of election fraud for printing and sending by those citizens in TX. I am not responsible for enacting the laws in TX those citizen complaints are attempting to enforce, or for pleading with the TX AG to exercise his discretion to investigate these citizen charges of fraud. I don’t live in TX. But I provided this work for Texans because their unique laws provide the opportunity to resolve this eligibility problem. My efforts have been quite successful; I have exposed those laws, and posted those complaints.
How are you going to PROVE he isn't the president without getting Congress to investigate?
-----------------------------------
A SCOTUS decision showing that he doesn't (& never did) meet the Constitutional requirements for the definition for NBC because a) he doesn't have two citizen parents and b) he was born a subject to the crown of her majesty the Queen of England. i.e., therefore not eligible as intended by the framers.
I'm far more interested in our country's history from the founding era (it's amazing how far we have devolved), than I am of our country's current political process (even though I'm interested in that as well).
At the end of the day, I support all of the eligibility lawyers (& yes, that includes the woefully inexperienced, but courageous Dr. Taitz) as well as the fine military folks such as LTC Lakin who've risked a great deal and others who are trying to get him removed via other (i.e. criminal) avenues.
I don't want to see Barry's NBC eligibility issue becoming precedent setting if it isn't settled.
YOUR requirement for stopping Obama’s fraud is that another President was made to show the document or documents?
Sounds like the idiots on sunday who said Arizona should not have passed the illegal immigration law because the lawsuits with bankrupt them. Forget rule of law.
PAID Progressives like you do not understand that upholding the Constitution is first and foremost for our freedom. Whatever it takes.
If Obama handed his BC to LaBolt and said this is my BC, why would LaBolt say anything different? When he gets caught he will simply say that was what I was told.
No, my requirement is for those who assert fraud to provide some evidence that it has occurred. So far, there is none.
Obama has done more to prove his eligibility to the public than any other president.
This idea that he's been given a pass on eligibility is total myth. On eligibility, he's been held to the same standard as every other president.
Now on matters related to policy, competence and corruption in government, I agree, he's been given a pass and hasn't been held to the same standard as Republican presidents. But that's another issue, upon which I would suggest you spend your time rather than this birther nonsense.
How? Simple. Because there's nothing in the Constitution that says such a person isn't a natural born citizen, provided he is born in the USA and subject to US jurisdiction at the time of birth.
LOL. Good luck with that.
BTW, how's your project on teaching pigs to fly going?
Once again Curiosity, the fact no other president has been asked for his long form has nothing to do with Obama. We are asking for it. He is refusing. There is a reason for that. If we were asking Bush or Clinton they jolly well would show it. Why on earth would someone not want to show their BC? Because they are hiding something. Maybe he had two heads at birth.
Obama’s past is hidden. His family was hidden. His documents were hidden. He has only radical allies and terrorists around him. Things change. We now want him to show his document of birth.
Do you see how that passage you cited from Blackstone about the allegiance of natural born subjects to their monarch doesn't apply to Obama if he was in fact born here?
If Obama was born in Kenya it would be a different story. But if he was born in the US, it's hard to see how he qualifies as a natural born British subject or citizen by Vattel's definition.
It also doesn't show that someone born here to one citizen parent (or two permanent resident parents for that matter) isn't a native or natural born citizen according to Blackstone or the Constitution (taking the 14th Amendment and the court decisions into account).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.