Multiple Obama Birth Certificates Surface In Alabama Eligibility Case

freedom outpost ^ | May 1, 2013 | Tim Brown

[Jeff Winston]

So when a piece of human garbage like Jeff comes on to this site posting volumes of nonsense, I feel nothing but anger that my fellow conservatives do not band together and tell him just how vile and pathetic a thing he is.

Wow. That is simply the BEST ad-hominem screed I've read in a long time. Congratulations! You have a talent, Norm.

I looked for some kind of award to give you, but all I could come up with was this:

Except... in this case, stupid ad-hominem attacks doesn't silence the opposition. It only illustrates the fact that you lost the argument, because the facts aren't on your side.

Let me give you a CLUE, Norm.

If you want to make your case, you have to make it from the FACTS.

I know this is hard for you to grasp, Norm. But maybe you can get it if you try really, really hard.

You claim it takes birth on US soil plus two citizen parents for a person to be a natural born citizen.

I've produced some 30 quotes from the assembled legal authorities of early America (1787 up to 1850) which say it takes no such thing.

These are from such authorities as:

• Father of the Constitution James Madison
• important Founder and Framer Alexander Hamilton (without whom we might very well not have our Constitution)
• our first Congress (which included six signers of the Constitution)
• the Massachusetts State Legislature
• the Duc de la Rochefoucauld (who was a personal friend of Benjamin Franklin)
• prominent Connecticut legal expert Zephaniah Swift
• St. George Tucker (who was one of our very top early legal experts, and who wrote "the most popular reference work for students and practitioners of United States law until the mid-19th century")
• the Marquis de Lafayette (who served under Washington in the Revolutionary War and was a close friend of every one of our first six Presidents [George Washington, James Madison, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Monroe, and John Quincy Adams])
• respected legal scholar and judge Chancellor James Kent
• top Constitutional expert William Rawle (who was extremely close to both Franklin AND Washington, who held meetings with them in the months leading up to the Constitutional Convention, and was in Philadelphia while the Convention was taking place)
• legal legend Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story
• and various other court cases, judgments, and legal authorities including New York Vice Chancellor Lewis Sandford, who analyzed American citizenship exhaustively before asking, "Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution?" and declaring, in answer, "I think not."

You know. All those guys you call "liberals?"

So let me give you a CLUE, Norm. If you want to make an argument, you need to actually... you know, make an argument? You need to produce some actual facts on YOUR side, rather than engage in stupid, idiotic ad-hominem attacks.

Because all the ad-hominem attacks do is illustrate that you've lost the argument.

You can't, of course. Because, as you probably know, people like DiogenesLamp have scraped the ground down to the bare rock trying to come up with stuff to support your claim. And all they've come up with is bullcrap.

I'll give you another clue, Norm. This one is free.

When you scrape the ground as hard as you can to try and find support for your claim, and all you come up with is bullcrap, that's a pretty sure sign that your argument is completely, totally, absolutely wrong.

At that point, the smart people tuck their tails between their legs and slink away. The dumb ones stay attached to their precious bogus theory and just keep digging themselves in deeper and deeper.

[Windflier]

I don't think I ignored your question. I answered it today

Oh, you mean this sidestepping evasion?

"The question presumes to pretend to know what the Founding Fathers "would" do. It's a bogus, BS question, because ANYBODY can claim the Founding Fathers would support their particular mission."

Jeff, that's not an answer. It's a complete rejection, and outright invalidation of the basic premise. Again, you fail, because you can't provide a logical answer without puncturing your entire argument, for which you've invested far too much to turn back now.

Oh yes, Jeff, you most certainly have conceded the argument, whether you openly admit it or not.

This entire discussion rests upon the definition of NBC. One can arbitrarily choose any of several conditions of birth to secure that definition. Logic dictates that those who are tasked with crafting the founding charter for a nation just birthed in the blood of its citizens, would not choose the qualifications for the office of President arbitrarily, but would examine those several conditions of birth, and wisely choose the one most likely to produce a citizen whose loyalty to country and ken is strongest.

You insist that the Framers chose a lesser grade of citizenship as the qualification bar for the office of President, even though they expressed the necessity of setting the highest possible bar for that office in their private letters.

Why, after fighting a bloody war that saw thousands of their countrymen give their lives and treasure, would they then be so lax as to leave the door open for someone with divided loyalties to one day assume the most powerful office in the land?

It's illogical, Jeff. It fails the horse sense test. And you have once again failed the intellectual honesty test by refusing to answer my simple question.

[Windflier]

Explain the 3 birth certificates Jeff and help us put an end to the racist monster in the White House. Unless you WANT him there....

Normie, I asked JW Fogblower what he thought about the three birth certificates some posts back, and he replied with a haughty harrumph.

Like all liberals, when the facts expose his side's corruption, he gets angry and spits at the question and the questioner. Typical lib reaction, and yet another evasion on his part.

Your last question to him hangs in the air ... how will he reply? I don't believe I've ever seen him express any sort of solidarity with the conservative view of The Usurper. I personally believe that Jeff works for Obama, and is loathe to say anything negative about him. It's why he defends his right to sit on the throne.

[Jeff Winston]

Jeff, that's not an answer. It's a complete rejection, and outright invalidation of the basic premise.

That's correct, Windflier.

Your basic premise is all wrong.

Your basic premise is that whatever WE think the Founders OUGHT to have done, why, that must be what they DID do.

You think that we can sit here, 225 years later, in a world that is completely different from them, not knowing those people personally, and not understanding their situation, and say, "This is what I would do. Therefore, that's what THEY did."

But that's not how history and law work.

History isn't based on what you or I would do. It's based on what our FOUNDING FATHERS and other historical figures ACTUALLY DID.

And the law isn't based on what you or I personally would do, either. It's based on what others did, who put in place the laws that we now have.

I wouldn't pass Obamacare. I wouldn't pass bills that keep spending, spending, spending. I wouldn't have passed "Cash for Clunkers," or any of a zillion other things this administration and our folks in Congress have done.

But the fact that I disagree with the laws that have been passed doesn't mean they don't exist.

We are talking about REALITY here. And the REALITY is that the Founding Fathers simply didn't adopt the definition that YOU personally think is the "right" one.

They just didn't. That's a matter of history, and of law.

You can only know what history is by looking at the FACTS of what actually happened, what people said and did. History isn't a theoretical exercise, where you get to come up with a theory, and then proclaim it true.

History is a matter of historical fact.

And virtually every historical source, and virtually every source of legal authority, says that your precious theory (that it takes birth on US soil plus two citizen parents in order for a person to be a natural born citizen) is all, completely, totally, absolutely, unequivocally wrong.

Yes, there are a few - a VERY few - voices of dissent. David Ramsay. Samuel Roberts. And a few others.

But in every case, they are either less authoritative than far better sources who completely contradict them, or were actually negated by sources who overruled them, or both.

So it comes down to this: Do you respect the Founding Fathers, or not? Do you respect our history, or not? Do you respect our laws, or not?

So far, for a lot of birthers here, the answer has been clear: "No. We don't respect any of those things. We don't respect the Founding Fathers. We don't respect our history. We don't respect our laws. Not really. Oh, we'll SAY we do. But we don't."

Because if you did, then you would show it.

[Norm Lenhart]

These idiots need “I reject the premise” tattooed on their foreheads. Because Out of the last 10 people I have backed into a corner hard, most of them have ‘rejected the premise’ in almost all of their replies.

Windy, they are so utterly devoid of skill and conscience that they no longer even try to argue. They just repeat the lib script. Soon they will reject the premise of the Constitution entirely.

Hell I had one lib tell me in all serious that 1+1 does not have to equal two if he feels it should be something else. And he was serious. Because we all make our own reality. and then ranted about quantum physics to ‘prove’ it.

[Jeff Winston]

Why, after fighting a bloody war that saw thousands of their countrymen give their lives and treasure, would they then be so lax as to leave the door open for someone with divided loyalties to one day assume the most powerful office in the land?

Oh, and this is a valid question. But it has a very simple answer.

They simply didn't believe that people who had been born Americans, and who had been Americans their entire lives, had any significant "divided loyalties" worth messing with.

In fact, when they were discussing the qualifications for members of Congress, James Madison (you know, the Father of the Constitution) said that he wasn't in favor of making candidates for Congress be citizens for a long period of time, because it would give a "tincture of illiberality" to our Constitution.

Well, it's Congress who actually passes our laws. And there were some (doubtless you would have been in this camp) who argued that ALL of our Congressmen should be limited to natural-born-citizens only.

James Madison, the Father of our Constitution, argued against that. And he, and others who took his views, prevailed.

Benjamin Franklin "did not completely oppose citizenship for a number of years, but, like Madison, 'should be very sorry to see any thing like illiberality inserted in the Constitution.'"

Madison was even against putting ANY citizenship requirement for Congressmen in the Constitution. He wasn't opposed to having a requirement, but he thought that Congress could take care of that, and that the Constitution wasn't the proper place to put such a requirement.

So you are really opposing James Madison, and Benjamin Franklin, and most of our other Framers. That's who you're opposing. Not me.

What does that make you? It doesn't make you a supporter of our Founders and our Framers. Because if you were, you wouldn't be arguing so hard against them.

[Jeff Winston]

Normie, I asked JW Fogblower what he thought about the three birth certificates some posts back, and he replied with a haughty harrumph.

I replied that if you think you can make that case, then make it. Make it in a court of law.

I personally think the idea is cracked. Looks to me like the latest certificate is the exact same thing, only reproduced from a cheap photocopier that picked up the safety feature, when an earlier, better scanning process did not.

But hey, if you can get a court to believe you that there are different birth certificates there, go for it.

[Windflier]

...when they were discussing the qualifications for members of Congress, James Madison (you know, the Father of the Constitution) said that he wasn't in favor of making candidates for Congress be citizens for a long period of time, because it would give a "tincture of illiberality" to our Constitution.

Jeff, as you well know, the Framers set the bar for members of Congress lower than those for the office of President, which is the ONLY office which has the Natural Born Citizen requirement.

Your post is non-sequitur to the conversation.

[Jeff Winston]

Jeff, as you well know, the Framers set the bar for members of Congress lower than those for the office of President, which is the ONLY office which has the Natural Born Citizen requirement.

But by YOUR argument... well, it's the members of Congress who actually make our laws.

Wouldn't we want those who MAKE OUR LAWS to have the highest form of allegiance possible to our nation? Would we want those who MAKE OUR LAWS to have any kind of divided allegiance with some other country?

Wouldn't we want them to only be born on US soil of citizen parents?

So certainly, the Founding Fathers must have passed some requirement that only people who were born on US soil to US citizen parents could be elected members of Congress.

But they didn't.

[Jeff Winston]

In fact, to give you an idea that the Founding Fathers and the Framers and their entire generation was not as uptight about the issue as you imagine, three of our first four Presidents were dual citizens with France.

WHILE serving as President of the United States.

[Jeff Winston]

You know, if you want to argue in favor of a Constitutional amendment, it’s possible you might get further. A little bit further, at least. Because I think you can rationally argue that your position is “advisable.”

But that’s not what this discussion is about. This discussion is about HISTORY and LAW. It is about what the Founding Fathers DID, and what the law IS.

And that’s clear. They made no such requirement as you claim they did.

[Rides3]

You're referring to the "honorary" citizenship France bestowed upon them. It's not quite the same. It's like a college granting an "honorary" degree to a commencement speaker. It's not a legitimate credential. More on the illegitimacy of "honorary" degrees here:
http://aaar.assembly.ca.gov/sites/aaar.assembly.ca.gov/files/reports/NCSL%20Diploma%20Mill%20Legislation.pdf

If they had actually naturalized as French citizens, you would have a point. But they didn't, so you don't.

[Jeff Winston]

It all boils down to this.

I’m for the Constitution and the rule of law. And for reality. You aren’t.

Oh, you might SAY you are. But you aren’t. Not really.

Because if you were, you wouldn’t keep pushing a theory that doesn’t match up with our history, doesn’t match up with our laws, and doesn’t match up with reality.

And your position is not a conservative position. It’s a liberal one. It’s a position that says, “the Constitution means what I damn well say it means.” It’s a position that doesn’t respect the Constitution as our Founding Fathers and Framers wrote and enacted it.

Conservatives don’t go rewriting the Constitution, unless they use the PROCESS that our Founding Fathers gave us.

[Rides3]

More on "honorary" citizenship:

"Honorary citizenship does not carry with it the rights and privileges of ordinary citizenship, and such status does not confer any special entry, travel or immigration benefits upon the honoree or the honoree’s relatives and dependants. It also does not impose additional duties or responsibilities, in the United States or internationally, on the honoree. It is a strictly symbolic act. No oath is required."

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86761.pdf

Please tell me you aren't stupid enough to believe that "honorary" citizenship is in fact real.

[Fantasywriter]

“Obama’s not as bright as they give him credit for. But he’s not as dumb as Biden.”

Oh really. Then you shouldn’t have any trouble finding a video of Biden adding up the number of states & arriving at a total of 59 or 60. Link?

So where’s the link of Biden claiming HI is located in Asia? Bonus if you can find Biden confused on the geo-political location of his own supposedly place of birth.

Surely you can provide a link to Biden confused over the date of his own birth. Obama publically announced he was born toward the end of the third wk in July. Where’s the vid of Biden being off on his own B-day by nearly 2 wks?

Here’s the Genius in Chief getting lost on his own teleprompter:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jt5dY3vVoZ0

Got a similar one for Biden? [No; stand up Chuck won’t do it; I’m looking for a vid where Biden can’t speak w’out a teleprompter.]

Here’s another classic:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDJSVPAx8xc

If you can find a similar one, w Biden suggesting treating an asthmatic child w a breathalyzer, by all means post the link.

Call this one, “lost, confused & clueless w’out teleprompter”:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6jwnot0tCs

Got anything to compare w that for Biden?

Got a quote where Biden talks about “my Muslim faith”? [So which is it; is Obama a Muslim, or is he too stupid to know which faith he embraces???]

Link to where Obama signed & dated an official record, & was off on the day by 3 yrs. [Hint: Obama did it in England.]

Link to where Biden doesn’t even know the age of his own child.

There’s so much more. Like how they speak ‘Austrian’ in Austria, & “Arabic” in Iran. & how he claimed a tornado killed “10,000” people, wiping out an entire town, & the “intercontinental railroad” etc. etc. But for sheer stupidity, perhaps you can come up w Biden outdoing this:

“The Middle East is obviously an issue that has plagued the region for centuries.” —Tampa, Fla., Jan. 28, 2010

Take your time to find quotes of Biden sounding this bag-of-hammers stupid; I’ll wait.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jt5dY3vVoZ0

[Jeff Winston]

Lol!

Okay, you’ve made your point.

Oh, by the way: You forgot the incident in which Obama spoke about the “Navy corpseman.” :-D

[Fantasywriter]

Disagree w you re: corpse man. Obama hates the USA, the military, & Marines in particular. “Corpse man” was his in-your-face diss to a group of Americans he particularly despises. (Fits right in w his snarky, immature, middle-finger mentality. He is a petty, nasty man; Biden wd be a vast improvement.)

[Jeff Winston]

You could be right. I agree that he shows signs of having a petty, nasty, juvenile temperament.

And he obviously believes his own press.

Personally, I still attribute it to an utter ignorance of our military, combined with an overrated intellect that doesn’t bother to check out the correct pronunciation of the word, and a lack of any real need to do so, since the same media that crucified Bush for such gaffes gives Obama a pass on all of them.

But, I could be wrong. You could be right about that.

[Fantasywriter]

It’s part of a pattern. Obama’s puerile malignancy gets off on insulting people he despises by mispronouncing things related to them. Example: Palin was mayor of Wasilla. Obama pronounced it Wasilly. Yes, he’s that childish, IQ-challenged & graceless.