Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Fox News Declares Ted Cruz Ineligible To Be POTUS Due To Birth In Canada [American Mother]
birtherreport.com/You Tube ^ | March 9, 2013 | BirtherReportDotCom

Posted on 03/09/2013 8:04:06 AM PST by Cold Case Posse Supporter

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 1,351-1,4001,401-1,4501,451-1,500 ... 1,551-1,578 next last
To: GBA
This possibility has been my hope all along, since it just means that obama is a fraud, which I already knew, but an all American, natural born fraud. I'm good with that.

All I can say is, "Amen!"

If we're voting on it, to me, obama looks much more like Malcolm X than he does anyone else, and if he's bio-dad, that explains things even better than FMD as bio-dad does.

This is a double "Amen" post!

I'm just not sure that Malcolm X had the opportunity that Frank Marshall Davis had. I can't put Malcolm X at the scene of the crime, yet. ;-)

1,401 posted on 03/13/2013 7:44:41 PM PDT by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1399 | View Replies]

To: Tau Food

Legal claims at birth via citizenship by descent are all that matters as far as a father is concerned. Under the law, a bastard child given birth by a married mother is the legal issue of her husband.

That is the case to this very day. How many cases of men being forced to maintain child support for the biological offspring of another man have we heard about in just the past several years?

Quite a few.


1,402 posted on 03/13/2013 7:49:25 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1400 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
Yes, husbands are often by local statute bound to provide for even bastard children born to their wives. Those statutes usually frame that rule in the form of a "conclusive presumption" that the husband is to be treated as the father for purposes of custody and support.

But, those local statutes cannot be used to control the meaning of terms in the Constitution. If some of the Founding Fathers thought that the citizenship of a child's parents was important to NBC status, they meant the real parents. How local governments handled child custody and support issues would have been of no significance in creating Constitutional qualifications for Presidents of the United States.

1,403 posted on 03/13/2013 7:58:39 PM PDT by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1402 | View Replies]

To: Tau Food

Common law provides the understanding of marriage as codified.

Common law also provides the understanding of the term natural born citizen.

Neither are ultimately statutory, but there certainly can be statutory consequences associated with either one.

Nice try, though.


1,404 posted on 03/13/2013 8:05:06 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1403 | View Replies]

To: Tau Food
If true, Malcolm X as bio dad would raise obama's star power in all the right places even more than FMD would.

But either way, that family tree would open any door young obama wanted/needed to have opened and explains all the help he got along the way, plus would draw the Bill Ayers of the world to him like junebugs to a campfire.

He'd be better off with Obama as his last name than the other possibilities and was/is good cover in and of itself for an activist's career in politics, and puts motive to the Obama Sr. deception.

May or may not be true, but comes with the KISS of Occam's razor. (And, would be quite forgivable among those he whose support he depends upon should the truth come out.)

1,405 posted on 03/13/2013 8:09:59 PM PDT by GBA (Here in the Matrix, life is but a dream.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1401 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
Common law also provides the understanding of the term natural born citizen.

What do you understand that sentence to mean?

What is it about your conception of the "common law" that makes you think that, because of the common law, the meaning of the term "natural born citizen" in our national Constitution is dependent upon the rules that some local governments employ to determine child custody and support obligations?

1,406 posted on 03/13/2013 8:12:54 PM PDT by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1404 | View Replies]

To: GBA
I agree with everything you say, including the similarity in appearance, but I don't know if Malcolm X and Stanley Ann Dunham ever had an opportunity to procreate.

However, I think we can show that Frank Marshall Davis had plenty of opportunities. He was right there in Hawaii!

1,407 posted on 03/13/2013 8:16:27 PM PDT by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1405 | View Replies]

To: Tau Food

You’re hanging your hat upon some presumed wide variability of the rights and obligations associated with marriage under the common law? Why is the notion of same-sex marriage so offensive, even to many individuals who really aren’t all that religious? Because it just seems ... wrong. Feels wrong, sounds wrong, it violates the unwritten law. A husband and father is responsible for the welfare of his children, even those apparently not sired by him. How does this ancient assumption, this unwritten rule, vary from actual statute in any significant way? It doesn’t. Statutory law didn’t form or define common law, it’s rather the other way around.


1,408 posted on 03/13/2013 8:22:27 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1406 | View Replies]

To: Tau Food

In around June of 2008, Barry’s campaign announced that the children of his father (clever lawyerly language) were governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 (The 1948 BNA) and concluded that under that act Barry would have been a UK subject at birth. But that was true only if Barry was illegitimate, which under UK Kenyan colonial law he wasn’t due to an existing Kenyan marriage to Kezia.

The campaign got this declaration out there AFTER McCain had been declared NBC in a non-binding resolution and AFTER Barry had locked up the Dem nomination and it would have brought howls of racism if Barry’s eligibility had been challenged in June 2008. But they wanted to make sure it was out there so no one could later clam that they hid it.


1,409 posted on 03/13/2013 8:48:21 PM PDT by Seizethecarp (Defend aircraft from "runway kill zone" mini-drone helicopter swarm attacks: www.runwaykillzone.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1400 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
You’re hanging your hat upon some presumed wide variability of the rights and obligations associated with marriage under the common law?

No. I'm trying to remind you that the term "common law" refers to judge-made law that developed over centuries one case at a time. Much of our contract, tort and property law was developed one case at a time by judges, and decisions in one case were ordinarily treated as precedent for the resolution of subsequent cases that could not be distinguished by some important different fact. Those opinions were in writing and the important principles in those cases formed the body of what we call the "common law."

When legislatures want to alter, "improve" or supplement this case-made common law, they pass statutes. When a statute conflicts with the common law, a court is to interpret and apply the statute instead of the common law.

Our Constitution is not part of the common law. It was not the creation of judges or courts. Our Constitution provides the basic framework for our political, legislative and judicial institutions. Whenever there is a conflict, it takes precedence over all statutes and common law. A local government cannot control the meaning of the terms of the Constitution by adopting a local rule, whether that rule is created by a local legislature (statute) or by a local court (common law).

I think you will have a very difficult time finding any evidence that any of our Founding Fathers thought that a child born in the United States could only be a "natural born citizen" if:

1) Both of his parents were citizens of the United States at the time of the child's birth; and

2) In order to determine which man (real father or mother's husband) should be treated as the father for determining NBC status, we would all be bound by the local rule that was in effect in the locality where the child was born.

If there were Founding Fathers who believed that the citizenship of both parents was determinative of NBC status for a child born in the United States, I believe that they would have felt that the citizenship of the real father was the important factor. National citizenship is inherently a national issue. Whether a child born in the United States is or is not a NBC at birth should be determined with reference to a national standard and NBC status should not depend upon which county or state the birth occurred.

1,410 posted on 03/13/2013 8:52:54 PM PDT by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1408 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp
Okay, but Obama also says that Obama, Sr; was his father. Do you think he witnessed his conception? He might be just regurgitating what others told him. He might be plain lying.

I maintain he might be the child of Frank Marshall Davis!

The British wanted no part of that bugger, or his progeny.

1,411 posted on 03/13/2013 8:56:36 PM PDT by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1409 | View Replies]

To: Tau Food

What is a common law marriage, Tau Food?


1,412 posted on 03/13/2013 8:57:42 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1410 | View Replies]

To: Tau Food
Consult a legal dictionary pertaining to common law marriage, and you'll likely find:

The American colonies rejected the requirement of a religious ceremony but retained the custom of a ceremony, religious or otherwise. The ancient Roman concept of marriage by agreement and cohabitation was adopted by early American courts as valid under the Common Law.

1,413 posted on 03/13/2013 9:07:00 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1410 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry; Tau Food

“In Smith v. Alabama, Mr. Justice Matthews, delivering the judgment of the court, said:

There is no common law of the United States, in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England as adopted by the several States each for itself, applied as its local law, and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes. . . . There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.”


1,414 posted on 03/13/2013 9:12:17 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (America is becoming California, and California is becoming Detroit. Detroit is already hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1404 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
Historically, a "common law marriage" was a marriage that was created by agreement of the parties, often without even a formal ceremony, and not licensed by the government. That may not be a perfect definition, but it will be pretty close. Many (and perhaps all) states no longer recognize them. Nowadays, if two folks just "shack up" together, I don't know of any state that will treat them as married even if both had convinced themselves that they were "married" in the eyes of God, etc. Big government has created another monopoly for itself.

The Common Law is a much different thing. It is a description of the body of judge-made law that was developed over hundreds of years in Great Britain and subsequently in the United States. I described it more fully in the prior post.

1,415 posted on 03/13/2013 9:13:01 PM PDT by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1412 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

Can you provide a quote in English common law that says: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens ... these were natives or natural-born citizens (or subjects)??


1,416 posted on 03/13/2013 9:18:56 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1414 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
"... in the sense of a national customary law."

Read it again, Mr. Rogers. Now, what might this mean? That the common law as arose in the early nation was of necessity formed via colonial governments, much like the inconvenient existence of colonial citizens, not subjects, early and persistently in so many colonies not initially chartered by England?

Much like common law marriage by agreement and cohabitation, not blessed by the Church Of England as required by the English common law, was recognized as legally valid in all the colonies?

1,417 posted on 03/13/2013 9:23:53 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1414 | View Replies]

To: Tau Food
Many (and perhaps all) states no longer recognize them

Fourteen still do if I'm not mistaken.

You persist in defining common law by statute, when statute was defined by common law in the various instances under discussion. That was in essence my initial statement with which you disagreed, in error.

1,418 posted on 03/13/2013 9:29:25 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1415 | View Replies]

To: edge919

“Can you provide a quote in English common law...”

If you would read the WKA decision, you would get plenty.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html


1,419 posted on 03/13/2013 9:29:41 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (America is becoming California, and California is becoming Detroit. Detroit is already hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1416 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
You're right that there is no national common law as such. Our judge-made tort, property, contract, etc. law was developed in state courts because the federal government felt that those areas of law were state matters. Sometimes, federal courts have had to apply (and at times develop) the common law of a state where jurisdiction rests on diversity of citizenship. Thus, for example, if a resident of Nevada, while driving in California, negligently injures a California resident and the California resident sues the Nevada resident in a federal court, that court will apply California law (statutory and common law) in resolving the case.

And, yes, common law principles can be properly considered in interpreting provisions of the Constitution. If a particular term in the Constitution has been unambiguously and precisely defined by courts in developing the common law, then it might be reasonable to assume that those who used that same term in the Constitution intended that same meaning when they used that word in the Constitution. But, in interpreting the Constitution, a judge who cares about "original intent" would be searching for the intent of the framers and not for the prior intent of some judge making common law. The fact that the framers used the same word or term that had previously been used by some judge creating our common law does not necessarily mean that the framers intended that same meaning.

1,420 posted on 03/13/2013 9:32:03 PM PDT by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1414 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
If you would read the WKA decision, you would get plenty.

Are you really that dishonest?? Don't edit the question down. I've read WKA and I've schooled you dozens of times on it.

Now, answer MY question and ALL of MY question. Where is the quote in English common law that says: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens ... these were natives or natural-born citizens (or subjects)??

1,421 posted on 03/13/2013 9:32:22 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1419 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry

“That the common law as arose in the early nation was of necessity formed via colonial governments...”

His point was that in interpreting the US Constitution, which is NOT part of common law, the legal terms used by the lawyers who wrote the Constitution and ratified it were legal terms found in English common law.

And realistically, there IS a national common law, which is why the US Supreme Court decisions matter. If we had no national common law, the US Supreme Court would be a fairly trivial part of government.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law


1,422 posted on 03/13/2013 9:34:32 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (America is becoming California, and California is becoming Detroit. Detroit is already hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1417 | View Replies]

To: edge919

You are trying to quote Vattel, when you need to read WKA - which you refuse to do, since you are incapable of reading a single sentence with comprehension, and the WKA decision has PAGES of sentences.

And when you quote Vattel, you don’t quote Vattel. You are quoting a translation made in 1797, and a bad translation at that.


1,423 posted on 03/13/2013 9:37:05 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (America is becoming California, and California is becoming Detroit. Detroit is already hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1421 | View Replies]

To: Tau Food

“The fact that the framers used the same word or term that had previously been used by some judge creating our common law does not necessarily mean that the framers intended that same meaning.”

In the absence of any contrary reasonable interpretation, it would.

Natural born citizen/subject HAD a well known meaning at the time the US Constitution was written and ratified. That well known and accepted meaning, found in English common law, IS the meaning, unless someone can provide evidence that it was not.


1,424 posted on 03/13/2013 9:40:01 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (America is becoming California, and California is becoming Detroit. Detroit is already hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1420 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
You are trying to quote Vattel, when you need to read WKA - which you refuse to do, since you are incapable of reading a single sentence with comprehension, and the WKA decision has PAGES of sentences.

Says this person who edited my question down to a handful of words. I didn't "try" to quote Vattel. I gave a quote of the Supreme Court in BOTH WKA and Minor which was the original source, that said "at common-law" "all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens" ... these are the natives, or natural-born citizens. So where does it say that in ENGLISH common law??

1,425 posted on 03/13/2013 9:42:01 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1423 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
You persist in defining common law by statute,

Boy, if you read my prior posts (see, e.g., post 1410) I have tried very hard to explain that the common law (judge-made law) and statutory law (legislature-made law) are two completely separate things

Once again, the common law is the body of judge-made law created one case at at time. Judges created rules to decide cases when there wasn't any statute that governed the question. They did this over hundreds of years. For example, somewhere back in time Mr. X took Mr. Y to court and asked the court to enforce Mr. Y's promise to give $ 10.00 to Mr. X. Mr. Y points out that he had just promised to give Mr. X the $ 10.00 as a gift and that Mr. X never promised to give anything in return. Should the court enforce this promise to make a gift? There is no controlling statute passed by the legislature and so the court has to decide. Well,the court had to create a rule and at some point in the development of our common law, the courts devised the rule that the courts won't ordinarily enforce a mere promise to make a gift because the promisor "received no consideration in exchange." That kind of opinion was in writing and the next time a similar case came before the court, it would be decided the same way. In that manner, a common law contract rule was born. Someday, down the road, two other parties show up with a similar, but somehow different case (a new wrinkle), One of the parties says apply the old rule. One of the parties says that the difference in the facts warrants a new and different rule. If the court creates a new rule (maybe as an exception to the old rule), the new rule also becomes part of the common law. And, over time the common law grew and changed.

Statutes are created by legislatures. If a statute changes the common law, the court will thereafter be required to apply the statutory law rather than the old common law rule it would otherwise have applied.

So, the common law and statutory law are both law, but they have different sources (courts vs. legislatures).

1,426 posted on 03/13/2013 9:50:48 PM PDT by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1418 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
The English Common Law did not entirely form the common law of the colonies, and formed very little of it in some colonies, which common law was carried over in part or in full into Statehood under the Articles, Mr. Rogers.

Had the Framers intended to require a natural-born subject as President they were well familiar with that actual term in full and would have used that term. Otherwise “citizen” joins “natural” and is rendered yet another linguistic distinction without a difference, an unusual circumstance given the renowned rigor and economy with words of the Framers.

I've provided several examples this evening of colonial common law being formed, by consent of the governed, upon laws, customary or otherwise, from the Roman Republic. The specific language employed by numerous courts pertaining to the term natural-born citizen is in many instances drawn directly from or an accurate paraphrase of Vattel, no matter how frequently or how often that source is derided.

Therefore, the Common Law upon which elements of our Constitution is based is clearly not that of England. I'd go so far as to state that the only place it exists is in the Bill Of Rights.

1,427 posted on 03/13/2013 9:54:28 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1422 | View Replies]

To: edge919

You edit your quotes to make them mean something they do not. Minor specifically refused to explore the limits of the meaning of NBC. The quote in WKA came here:

“That neither Mr. Justice Miller nor any of the justices who took part in the decision of The Slaughterhouse Cases understood the court to be committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is manifest from a unanimous judgment of the Court, delivered but two years later, while all those judges but Chief Justice Chase were still on the bench, in which Chief Justice Waite said: “Allegiance and protection are, in this connection” (that is, in relation to citizenship),

reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other: allegiance for protection, and protection for allegiance. . . . At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of [p680] parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class, there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.

Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 166-168. The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, although not entitled to vote, the right to the elective franchise not being essential to citizenship.”

So they obviously are NOT trying to limit NBC to those born of citizen parents - all the more so since half the decision discusses why that is NOT true.

Minor screwed it up, because they were opining on a subject not at issue, and thus they took a bad translation of Vattel made in 1797, and called it common law. They screwed up BECAUSE it was ‘ober dictum’

As the WKA decision also noted:

“In weighing a remark uttered under such circumstances [the Slaughterhouse case], it is well to bear in mind the often quoted words of Chief Justice Marshall:

It is a maxim not to be disregarded that general expressions in every opinion are to be taken in connection with the case in which those expressions are used. If they go beyond the case, they may be respected, but ought not to control the judgment in a subsequent suit when the very point is presented for decision. The reason of this maxim is obvious. The question actually before the court is investigated with care, and considered in its full extent. Other principles which may serve to illustrate it are considered in their relation to the case decided, but their possible bearing on all other cases is seldom completely investigated.”


1,428 posted on 03/13/2013 9:55:40 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (America is becoming California, and California is becoming Detroit. Detroit is already hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1425 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry

“Therefore, the Common Law upon which elements of our Constitution is based is clearly not that of England.”

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

FWIW, that was also argued, and rejected, in WKA. The legal language of the Constitution is of English common law, because the lawyers doing the writing were steeped in English common law.

If you want to pull in a definition from someplace else, you need to show THAT definition was the one the writers had in mind. And it is a pretty safe bet that the writers of the Constitution, in 1787, were NOT thinking about a bad translation of Vattel made 10 years LATER!


1,429 posted on 03/13/2013 9:59:07 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (America is becoming California, and California is becoming Detroit. Detroit is already hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1427 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
Natural born citizen/subject HAD a well known meaning at the time the US Constitution was written and ratified. That well known and accepted meaning, found in English common law, IS the meaning, unless someone can provide evidence that it was not.

Well, I can't argue with that because I really have no idea how definite or unambiguous that term was at the time our Constitution was written. But, assuming all of the Founding Fathers had an absolutely clear and uniform opinion as to the meaning of the term "natural born citizen," then I would agree that they probably intended it to have the same meaning in the Constitution. That's a huge assumption, however, and it should be remembered that that "clear and uniform" opinion as to the term is just a means of determining their intent. The truth is that many (probably most) of the framers never gave much thought to the precise meaning of a term like "natural born citizen." They had much bigger fish to fry, like what to do about slavery, and how to institutionally protect smaller states from larger states.

1,430 posted on 03/13/2013 10:01:07 PM PDT by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1424 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
You edit your quotes to make them mean something they do not.

Again, so says the person who edited out half of the original question I asked.

Minor specifically refused to explore the limits of the meaning of NBC.

Sorry, but this simply is not true. It gave the full limits of the meaning of NBC. What it did not explore were the limits of how birth citizenship could be defined. But again, this all extraneous because you're ducking the question. The Minor court equated birth to citizen parents with "common-law," so ONE more time, where does it say this in ENGLISH common law. Focus on the actual question.

1,431 posted on 03/13/2013 10:01:13 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1428 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

Your misapprehension of WKA verges upon legend, Mr. Rogers.

You have a nice evening, and do try to keep it civil.


1,432 posted on 03/13/2013 10:04:39 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1429 | View Replies]

To: edge919

“The Minor court equated birth to citizen parents with “common-law,” so ONE more time, where does it say this in ENGLISH common law.”

It does NOT say that in English common law. Minor screwed it up, which is what happens when judges start making throw-away comments.


1,433 posted on 03/13/2013 10:29:42 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (America is becoming California, and California is becoming Detroit. Detroit is already hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1431 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry

“Your misapprehension of WKA verges upon legend, Mr. Rogers.”

Feel free to point out my errors. If you can.


1,434 posted on 03/13/2013 10:31:08 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (America is becoming California, and California is becoming Detroit. Detroit is already hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1432 | View Replies]

To: Tau Food
I maintain he might be the child of Frank Marshall Davis!

I like it the more I think about it, just for how it can explain some of what I can't make sense of now.

If obama is the son of either FMD or Malcolm X, but has merely been fraudulently using a different last name for whatever reason(s), that’s not just forgivable from several points of view, that adds quite a bit to his street cred and this theory gives the GOPe reasons to go along with not calling him on all the fraud he might have committed by claiming, using and defending that identity.

Think about it. Being the son of either man, obama would scare old schoolers for the same reasons either man scared them back in the day, which is the same reason it would enhance his cred now with a wide segment of the left's most ideological new schoolers, and that would scare old schoolers all over again!

Not only that, the real twist is, it wouldn’t be the demonrats who ran a Constitutionally ineligible candidate, it's the republicans with Panamanian born McCain! The party of Nixon runs ineligible McCain!

Their war hero Admiral’s son was ready to cash in his turn to run for the White House, just like Dole did, and had to be made whole.

So, the club got together and signed and passed whatever that was that they all agreed made McCain a NBC.

And Obama keeps his secret and his fraud goes away.

Plus, he gets obamacare and his judges and whatever else he’s wanted, including F&F not being a career ender. .

From then on, what can the republicans do other than push hard against NBC ever becoming an issue? Easy enough. Back to business as usual.

If this is true, the only saving’s grace for us is that Obama really isn’t his father’s son. Instead, he’s just your average garden variety choom gang stoner, more or less that family’s better version of a Jesse Jackson Jr.

And he’s pulled it off. He’s slick enough and can give good oratory with the decent speech writers and those ever present teleprompters. Whatever talents he has, whomever he inherited them from, they’ve been more than enough.

Especially with whatever dirt he’s got on the GOPe…the party of Nixon who ran an unConstitutional candidate for POTUS. No wonder they keep "birthers" quiet.

That was fun. As theories go, I like it.

1,435 posted on 03/13/2013 10:53:30 PM PDT by GBA (Here in the Matrix, life is but a dream.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1411 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry; Mr Rogers; Tau Food

I know Mr. Rodgers is aware of this but it may be worth sharing it with RegulatorCountry and Tau Food in case they are not.

Between 1785 and 1791 the Massachusetts legislature passed a series of naturalization acts (prior to the Constitution and for a period after it was adopted, states continued to naturalize citizens). These Massachusetts acts all have the same basic format and language. And they all did the same thing - they naturalized foreigners as citizens of Massachusetts. What’s interesting about them is their language. They start by saying that so-and-so has taken the required oath and fullfilled the requirements and is therefore deemed to be a “natural born” - and that’s where it gets interesting because sometimes they “citizen” and sometimes they say “subject”.

Here are several examples:

February, 1785, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING NICHOLAS ROUSSELET AND GEORGE SMITH.”in which it was declared that Nicholas Rousselet and George Smith “shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.”

March, 1787, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING WILLIAM MARTIN AND OTHERS.” in which it was declared that William Martin and Others, ”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”

October, 1787, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING BARTHOLOMY DE GREGOIRE, AND MARIA THERESA, HIS WIFE, AND THEIR CHILDREN.” in which it was declared that Bartholomy de Gregoire, and Maria Theresa, his wife, their children, ”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.”

November, 1788, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING ELISHA BOURN, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Elisha Bourn and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, & entitled to all the liberties, privileges & immunities of natural born Citizens.”

In March, 1790, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JOHN JARVIS, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED” in which it was declared that John Jarvis and others, “shall be deemed adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”


1,436 posted on 03/13/2013 11:02:42 PM PDT by 4Zoltan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1427 | View Replies]

To: GBA
It also explains why McCain ran such a pitiful race. He didn't want to win.

He knew there was a good chance he would get nailed for ineligibility by a very hostile press out for blood after 8 years of Bush.

He had to lose...or rather, he didn't want to win and didn't.

But not all bad, as a side benefit for the GOPe, they lucked into taking out a rising star early in her trajectory, before she could do to them nationally what she did to them locally in Alaska.

1,437 posted on 03/13/2013 11:13:48 PM PDT by GBA (Here in the Matrix, life is but a dream.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1435 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
I will say this, though: I do like the tone of the desperation of your attacks against me.

You imagine it, just as you do your facts.

1,438 posted on 03/13/2013 11:59:25 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 860 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
You imagine it, just as you do your facts.

Hard to imagine facts that are entirely verifiable.

Nice try, though.

1,439 posted on 03/14/2013 12:19:59 AM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1438 | View Replies]

To: 4Zoltan

I actually started to add that to my list of indications from early America as to what natural born citizen means.

I think I will.


1,440 posted on 03/14/2013 12:21:58 AM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1436 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
No, I wasn't. You took my post, which was not 100% literal, just a tiny bit too literally.

Oh. You mean you're still as dumb as you were in the beginning.

Do you know what's a far bigger fallacy? Your bogus little appeal to authority, where you pose as an expert by throwing out terms like "argumentum ad populum."

What? You didn't know about it? I'm not an expert, you are just ignorant. The reason so many fallacies have Latin names is because stupid people have been using them since the Roman Empire, and given your penchant for the use of fallacies, I dares say this sorry state of affairs will continue indefinitely. Learn what you are talking about!

There, now you can be an "expert" too. Feel better?

As can be seen by the idiotic claims you've previously made, you're no expert.

Yes, the guy that doesn't even know about fallacies, is making another one. It's Argumentum ad ignorantiam.

I refer to such stupid claims as putting forth David Ramsay as a "better" expert than William Rawle.

He is. I even made you walk back your claim that he was not a British trained loyalist.

As trying to use Thomas Jefferson's Virginia citizenship law, which was straight jus soli, in favor of your claim.

All you proved with that is your inability to read and/or comprehend.

As trying to quote James Madison, who said PLACE OF BIRTH was THE MOST CERTAIN CRITERION and WHAT APPLIES IN THE UNITED STATES, as some argument in favor of your claim that it takes BOTH place of birth and parentage.

I believe Madison said that as well, right before the quote that gives you orgasms.

It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion;

As trying to claim that a law passed 13 years after a court case was a response to that court case.

None sequitur. Apart from the fact that you don't know when that law was enacted, (and no, the printing of that book does not accurately reflect when the law went into effect.) The law may very well have been a response to that court case. It certainly OVERTURNED that court case. Of that there can be no doubt. Do you know what else it did? It made your argument that "place" is the only criteria into a lie.

As saying that "natural born subject" is unrelated to "natural born citizen" when no one ever stated the two were unrelated, and it's clear that we replaced the word "subject" for the word "citizen" at the exact same time in history that we replaced "natural born subject" with "natural born citizen."

Straw man tactic. You misstate what I have said, and then criticize your own misstatement. Jeff, I Imagine you think you are an intelligent fellow, but in reality you are a pompous fool who is so enamored of his own brilliance that you believe your own opinions have the power to warp reality. You are a legend in your own mind.

I am an Electronics Engineer. This is the sort of thing *I* do for a living.

What do *YOU* do for a living? Something tells me you are in the kiddie pool when it comes to real intelligence.

1,441 posted on 03/14/2013 12:35:04 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 870 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
What? You didn't know about it? I'm not an expert, you are just ignorant.

You're a freaking idiot.

Of course I know about logical fallacies. And yes, I know the Latin names for them as well.

You display your own breathtaking ignorance by assuming you know what you're talking about - in regard to me, and in regard to quite a few other things as well.

I am frankly shocked to hear that you are supposedly an electronics engineer. Not that I really believe it. It is unfathomable that a real electronics engineer could engage in so many fallacies while pretending to understand logic.

1,442 posted on 03/14/2013 12:40:48 AM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1441 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
That could ACCURATELY be said of every single thing you've ever written on this subject.

Only if the world existed inside your head. Seriously, it takes a rare combination of stupidity and chutzpah to create your own graph, then cite it as proof that you are right.

As for my graph, it is simply a SUMMARY of the HISTORICAL and ACCEPTED meaning of natural born citizen. You know, the one that is adhered to by every significant historical authority, and every conservative constitutional organization there is?

From the world according to Jeff. And there you go again, with that argumentum ad verecundiam/ argumentum ad populum. Do you have a NON-Fallacy argument?

So Jeffy makes up a graphic, and then points to it as evidence he is right. What a childish thing to do.

1,443 posted on 03/14/2013 12:45:16 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 862 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
What do *YOU* do for a living? Something tells me you are in the kiddie pool when it comes to real intelligence.

And what I do for a living is none of your business. It's enough for you to know that I'm plenty bright enough not to be even faintly impressed by a functional idiot who pretends to be an electronic engineer.

1,444 posted on 03/14/2013 12:46:36 AM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1441 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
There was no need for a grandfather clause for Washington. All who were natural born subjects became natural born citizens automatically, with the treaty signed in 1783 although US courts held the date to be 4 July 1776.

Rogers, I normally ignore anything you write, but this statement just jumped out at me as being one of the stupidest things you've said.

George Washington was a natural born subject of His Majesty King George III. To argue that he was a "natural citizen" of a country which wouldn't exist for another 44 years is just asinine.

Care to rephrase that, or are you going to stick with the Time Traveling theory?

1,445 posted on 03/14/2013 12:53:11 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 873 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
WKA was found to be both a NBC and a 14th Amendment citizen, and those two classes were held to be identical.

Someone needs to tell Chief Justice Waite. He claims to have looked at the 14th amendment, and couldn't find that definition in there anywhere.

The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens

Your statement REQUIRES Justice Waite to be an idiot. And this is why I normally just skip over everything you write.

1,446 posted on 03/14/2013 12:58:43 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 876 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
Ah, yes. The sound of someone who refuses to be swayed by any facts or reality, now looking for the exit door.

The same response anyone would have when confronted with a lunatic.

1,447 posted on 03/14/2013 1:00:21 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 881 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
And what I do for a living is none of your business. It's enough for you to know that I'm plenty bright enough not to be even faintly impressed by a functional idiot who pretends to be an electronic engineer.

Well if I was employed at McDonalds, I'd be ashamed to admit it too.

1,448 posted on 03/14/2013 1:08:06 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1444 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
You're a freaking idiot.

My goodness! The brilliance of your comeback has taken my breath away!

Of course I know about logical fallacies. And yes, I know the Latin names for them as well.

Given what you post, I dare say you look up fallacies just to make sure your arguments conform to them.

You display your own breathtaking ignorance by assuming you know what you're talking about - in regard to me, and in regard to quite a few other things as well.

If there is one thing that you are an expert on, it's "breathtaking ignorance."

I am frankly shocked to hear that you are supposedly an electronics engineer. Not that I really believe it. It is unfathomable that a real electronics engineer could engage in so many fallacies while pretending to understand logic.

I am not promulgating fallacies. They just appear as such to you because you lack the wit to comprehend. That helpful link I posted for you ought to help you avoid this kind of misidentification in the future.

1,449 posted on 03/14/2013 1:15:11 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1442 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
Welcome to the party, highball. I have had some real difficulty myself getting birthers to respond to even simple yes or no questions. It's kind of like trying to get maple syrup out of an oak.

Yes, he keeps asking "Have you stopped beating your wife?" sorts of questions, then wonders why no-one feels like answering them. Frankly, it's a real mystery!

1,450 posted on 03/14/2013 1:20:34 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 901 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 1,351-1,4001,401-1,4501,451-1,500 ... 1,551-1,578 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson