Posted on 04/27/2010 7:07:50 AM PDT by Menehune56
It’s not only both, it’s all three.
And whatever point you were trying to make is lost. Unless that was the rest of what you were trying to say and someone sang that song on yesterday's episode of American Idol.
If that is what comes into your mind when you hear the name "John Jay", it is a sad commentary on the literacy of the American public in the 21st century indeed.
.... And, it will show if he ever filed as a foreign student, say, Indonesian or Kenyan. That would bring us to whether he was ever naturalized (when and where), which brings the "crazy" ineligibility question, right?
It is. In school, I loved history, particularly US history. In school, John Jay was a guy that went to France and the French tried to extor a bribe from him. It was known as the "XYZ" affair. John Jay returned to the US. The End. He had no more importance than that.
I had always considered myself knowledgeable (what teenager doesn't?). I did well on all of the tests and scored high on my assignments. I had never bothered to consider that I wasn't being taught the whole story or the correct and factual version of the story. I had just figured that we were covering the "most important" aspects. As a child and young adult, I suppose that you never think an adult (particularly an authority figure) would lead you astray. Of course, I always liked to read books. I had read several on WWII and enjoyed the "inside story." in a way it was like knowing something nobody else does.
And then it came to my sophmore-junior years and I started to realize that some things didn't make sense and some things were missing.
I never understood the importance of this until after I graduated. To this day, it irks me when I recall something from school that I now know to be incorrect, or not up to muster. For example, I can remember the paperbacks that were handed out "US and Them: A History of Intolerance in America." I posted on here the other day about one of my teachers that had told us "socialism was the best form of government because everbody worked for the betterment of everyone else."
It is not hard to walk away from 12 years of school knowing little more than George Washington was the first president, Lincoln was the 16th and freed the slaves. FDR was the greatest president. He saved us all from the Great Depression and had everything set to win WWII, but he died and Truman stepped in. We fought in Korea in the 50's... nothing significant to teach about that. And, oh yeah the US used The Gulf of Tonkin incident to go and get us into the Vietnam War where tens of thousands of Americans died; we realized it was bad....The End, no further discussion. The rest is marred by bigotry and corruption.
And this my FRiends is why the missus and I are going to homeschool (I say "going to"... my son is 2 and we go over numbers, letters, colors, saying grace, shapes, etc etc).
it is a sad commentary on the literacy of the American public in the 21st century indeed.
It is. In school, I loved history, particularly US history. In school, John Jay was a guy that went to France and the French tried to extort a bribe from him. It was known as the "XYZ" affair. John Jay returned to the US. The End. He had no more importance than that.
I had always considered myself knowledgeable (what teenager doesn't?). I did well on all of the tests and scored high on my assignments. I had never bothered to consider that I wasn't being taught the whole story or the correct and factual version of the story. I had just figured that we were covering the "most important" aspects. As a child and young adult, I suppose that you never think an adult (particularly an authority figure) would lead you astray. Of course, I always liked to read books. I had read several on WWII and enjoyed the "inside story." In a way it was like knowing something nobody else does.
And then it came to my sophmore-junior years and I started to realize that some things didn't make sense and some things were missing.
I never understood the importance of this until after I graduated. To this day, it irks me when I recall something from school that I now know to be incorrect, or not up to muster. For example, I can remember the paperbacks that were handed out "US and Them: A History of Intolerance in America." I posted on here the other day about one of my teachers that had told us "socialism was the best form of government because everbody worked for the betterment of everyone else."
It is not hard to walk away from 12 years of school knowing little more than George Washington was the first president, Lincoln was the 16th and freed the slaves. FDR was the greatest president. He saved us all from the Great Depression and had everything set to win WWII, but he died and Truman stepped in. We fought in Korea in the 50's... nothing significant to teach about that. And, oh yeah the US used The Gulf of Tonkin incident to go and get us into the Vietnam War where tens of thousands of Americans died; we realized it was bad....The End, no further discussion. The rest is marred by bigotry and corruption.
And this my FRiends is why the missus and I are going to homeschool (I say "going to"... my son is 2 and we go over numbers, letters, colors, saying grace, shapes, etc etc).
Obama didn't return to the USA because he wanted to be retain U.S. citizenship. The story is that he was sent back by his mom for better schooling (who'd turn down Punahou??), although it's probably because he was a wild child or doing poorly in Indonesian schools.
Interestingly, Wong Kim Ark doesn't quite see things the way Perkins v. Elg did - years later. It acknowledged, "neither he nor his parents acting for him ever renounced his allegiance to the United States." It doesn't cite a requirement for a voluntary action because the parents could have acted on behalf of the child and renounce his or her citizenship. Evidently the line of thinking that there must be voluntary expatriation was a 20th century invention. Elg also cites a treaty between Sweden and the United States. Not sure that such a treaty exists with Indonesia. We know it didn't recognize dual citizenship. The question is whether Obama continued to affirmatively use his Indonesian, non-dual citizenship as an adult.
A month or two ago there was a troll who called himself Enderwiggens. He was extremely articulate and very good at mixing fiction with fact to mislead others. He was a prolific poster who literally churned out dozens of pages per day. I spent hours researching the fine points of his arguments. I admired his incredible imagination. A lot of what he posted seemed plausible until one looked into the details. Eventually he was banned from the forums largely because of his lying I believe. I was happy to begin with, but later I realized how much he helped the rest of us sharpen our arguments and inspire much more in depth research.
So, as I stated previously, you are dead wrong in nearly everything that you have posted. And again it has all been covered here before on multiple occasions. I don't have the time this morning to try and get you up to speed and provide documentation to back up my points. Neither do many of the other frequent posters on this subject. But fortunately some here this morning seem to have the time to do so. I just want you to know that I have come to appreciate alternative view points even when they are way off base. It helps to keep the rest of us on our toes.
Absolutely FALSE. The CONSTITUTION says NBC required, and the founders knew what it meant. They used the definition of NBC at the time. I’m sure you’re not saying they used the definition concocted some decades later. Are you? LOL
From the Appeals Court’s decision:
“Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by [the US Supreme Court in the case of U.S. v] Wong Kim Ark [1898], we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States natural-born citizens.”—Indiana Court of Appeals, “Ankeny et. al. v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels,” Nov. 12, 2009
As we’ve shown several times, Ankeny’s reasoning was flawed. “Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States natural-born citizens.” At the time of the framing of the Constitution, you couldn’t be both and the father’s allegiance determined that of the child. It’s a great argument Ankeny makes that Obama would be considered a natural born subject, but far from a natural born citizen. That’s what you call the Ankeny of defeat.
Yes, we have found a name for anti birthers....ghosters or even “spooklies” but thats razist!!!
They want the pretend Prx to remain a ghost. A wholely created image of “the good black man who can do no wrong,” hiding incredible blows to freedom.
Obama is not my president and he never will be, not because of his racial characteristics, but because he is a hateful man, an unamerican man, a man who is a nationalist socialist, a man who is a fake, whose agenda is to destroy America. His records are sealed to protect his fellow fascists after he does the dirtiest deeds he can to America.
really? so tell me what definiton was used in the congressional records to define what was meant by Natural Born citizen.? Or perhaps you wish to contest the Supreme court decision in MInor vs. Happensett where it WAS defined as CHILDREN WHO PARENTS ARE U.S. CITIZENS . Please enlighten me with your historical wisdom.
“Two courts have ruled”
Courts are Political machines and the Constitution says what it says.
“From the Appeals Court’s decision:
“Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by [the US Supreme Court in the case of U.S. v] Wong Kim Ark [1898], we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States natural-born citizens.”—Indiana Court of Appeals, “Ankeny et. al. v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels,” Nov. 12, 2009”
This is the definition of TORTURED LOGIC,
Woo..Hoo! Anti-Birthers = After-Birthers, DO NOT = Ghosters!
These people’re concentrating on the BC legalese! They are very happy that the liberal, emasculated courts are shooting the BC lawsuits down, NOT on discovery or proof, but on "standing!"
Well those judges shouldn't be "sitting" on the bench; rather, they should be "standing" some place. I controlled myself not to mention what kind of a structure I think they should be standing at!!
Now, Ghosters are people like me who would like to see "some" other 0kaka records if they EXIST! Specifically, education records to unmask, undress and expose this negative IQ'd POS, a ghost of a POTUS!
So far, nobody joined me in ghosting, but this is something that the After-Birthers are mum about because it's NOT 0b0wa's BC that I'm after.
Just wanted to explain to you where I stand, being a Ghoster and all! LOL!
I call them Gullibles.
Gullibles don’t question Obama’s eligibility. These trusting, naive, innocent folks believe it is crazy, and/or improper to question Obama. The easiest way to identify a Gullible is their complete lack of curiosity and cynicism in the face of the gazillion contradictions that are facts and circumstances of the life of Barack Obama.
Most Gullibles are Obots, as you’d expect, but there are plenty of guys, like O’Reilly and Beck, and blogs like Redstate.com, who are Gullibles also. Almost all of our judges, politicians and journalists are committed Gullibles — especially the journalists. The Gullibles favorite sport is attacking Birthers. The reason Gullibles attack Birthers is because of the Birthers’ skepticism. Birthers don’t buy Obama’s brand of bullshit.
What we have here is one bunch that chuck-a-lugged the Obama brew — and one that says, “hey! wait-a-minute! what’s in that stuff?”
The Gullibles ignore the fact that Obama’s book, “Dreams...,” his life’s narrative, is a myth. In the introduction, Obama acknowledges his use of pseudonyms, composite characters, approximated dialogue and events out of chronological order. Outright lies and omissions are not noted for obvious reasons.
The Gullibles ignore the fact that Michelle Obama said that Senior and Anna were never married. She described Anna as “very young and very single when she had him (Obama).” They also ignore the fact that Michelle has described Kenya as Obama’s “home country.”
The Gullibles ignore the fact that their are dozens of reports of his Kenyan birth from responsible journalists and politicians.
The Gullibles ignore the fact that four qualified examiners have investigated the Certification of Live Birth provided by the Obama Campaign to partisan web sites, and declared the copies that have been referenced by the world to be bogus electronic documents.
The Gullibles ignore the fact that Hawaii’s Department of Health (DOH) has issued obfuscations and contradictions, and has been creatively using their rulebook to prevent the disclosure of Obama’s birth records — except the ones they chose. When that doesn’t work, they change the rules. When that doesn’t work, they build a firewall between the DOH and the public.
The Gullibles ignore the conflicting accounts of Obama’s birthplace, even though Obama, himself, has been quoted as saying he was born in two different hospitals. His sister, Maya, also said, he was born at both Kapiolani Clinic and the Queens Medical Center.
I could go on all day identifying discrepancies in Obama’s story. There are hundreds and hundreds of pages in The Obama File that link to thousands and thousands of pages on the Web, that lay lie to Obama’s narrative, demonstrate how little is KNOWN about this guy, and how dynamic his life story is. It evolves constantly.
Obama, or his people, lay down a scenario. An investigator investigates. The investigator finds the scenario is full of holes, or is an out and out fabrication — and the story evolves — so-and-so misspoke — somebody misremembered — most often though, Obama just ignores it — after all — he won! — this cycle is repeating constantly — remember Rev. Wright, Obama’s racist “mentor” — Obama sat at his feet for 20 years and didn’t hear a thing — the Gullibles went, uh-huh!
There isn’t a week that goes by that another element in the Obama narrative doesn’t change. And there isn’t another week that goes by that something doesn’t disappear from the Web.
Gullibles expend enormous energy attacking Birthers for expecting Obama to simply be straight with the American People — who do have a right to know — and a need to know. Will the real Barack Obama please stand up and present his credentials?
This is like “The Emperors New Clothes” in real life — Obama’s narrative is his suit of clothes, and the Gullibles just love Obama’s ever-changing threads, and they get upset when someone points out Obama is bare-assed naked.
Gullibles have to attack Birthers — they know in their hearts he’s nekked — but he’s their guy.
http://theobamafile.com/_opinion/Gullibles.htm
I think many of them, especially here on FR, are not actually gullible. I think many of them know he’s not eligible but they don’t care.
Does this post of yours come from your free and unencumbered mind or is it bought and paid for with Obama stimulus money???
Thank you very much for your post and your “theobamafile.”
First time I wrote his name as “known!” LOL!
The one question none of them would ever answer is “aren’t you worried or suspicious about the no-records for the POTUS, which makes him a fraud?”
The thin-skinned racist child must be suffering. He intends to throttle our freedoms, one way or the other. People like you and me will soon have a hard time communicating and discussing this plague in the WH.
The 0kaka regime is working on lighting one of the many powder kegs; maybe it’s starting already in Arizona’s illegal alien bill protests. They tried to have some “violence” perpetrated against Pelosi, Lewis, Cleaver and other communists, when they walked with the giant gavel in a bird-flipping mode to the Tea Partiers. Nothing was found to confirm the communists’ lies about being manhandled!
The Reichstag Fire is coming to try to eliminate the Nov ‘10 election, the last peaceful way for We The People to fix our government. They may very well ACORN it or worse, cancel it under the pretext of security or martial law.
0b0z0 will not take ANY descent lying down, dictators never do or did.
The first and most important sign of danger is throttling the Internet, talk radio, and newspapers opposing the regime. When these start happening, president-for-life ain’t far behind.
I like your essay on ‘Gullibles.; I’ve been using other names for these people: faithers, sand heads and paid apologists. Faithers are those who simply take it on faith that the Obama myth is true and that he is what he says he is. Sand Heads are people who don’t want to know the truth and don’t understand the details behind what it means to be a natural born citizen, why the BC is not proven to be legitimate and don’t think Obama should be challenged. The paid apologists are the obots who generally try to use misdirection and taunts to undermine discussions about the issues and/or to further polarize faithers and sand heads.
“Gullibles”, I think you hit the nail on the head! I can’t tell you how much I appreciate your posts, the website and the untold hours that you have devoted to documenting this travesty. You are a true patriot! Thank you! Thank you!
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.