Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Flake extends his attacks on Trump and the GOP all the way back to the dawn of birtherism
WaPo ^ | August 6, 2017 | Avi Selk

Posted on 08/07/2017 10:18:39 AM PDT by Seizethecarp

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 261-264 next last
WaPo reporter failed to do minimum journalistic investigation that would reveal that a top EU lab and a top HI document examiner declared White House BC a forgery.

How long will it take for AG Sessions and GOP Congress to take action?

http://www.abc15.com/news/region-phoenix-metro/central-phoenix/sheriff-joe-arpaio-to-talk-obama-birth-certificate-investigation

"According to Zullo, the certificate released by the White House in 2011 appears to be a 'created' document that sources an official Hawaiian birth certificate belonging to a Johana Ah'nee."

1 posted on 08/07/2017 10:18:39 AM PDT by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

” all the way back to the dawn of birtherism”
*****************************

funny he would bring that up!!!!!!!!!!/????????????????

;)/;)
**********


2 posted on 08/07/2017 10:21:27 AM PDT by gunnyg ("A Constitution changed from Freedom, can never be restored; Liberty, once lost, is lost forever...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

Let’s sum up what’s about to happen here. Flake will run 3d party to throw the Senate seat to the democrats. He really is a flake and a pig. I despise this bum.


3 posted on 08/07/2017 10:21:52 AM PDT by Williams (Stop tolerating the intolerant.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp
The birth of "birthism" lays directly at the feet of her highness HILDEBEAST's attorney Philip J. Berg.

Google - Pennsylvania’s former deputy attorney general and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton supporter Philip J. Berg has filed a lawsuit in federal court in Pennsylvania accusing presumptive Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama of lying about his U.S. citizenship, which would make him ineligible to be president.

Lawsuit questions Obama’s eligibility for office


4 posted on 08/07/2017 10:22:51 AM PDT by Cheerio (#44, The unknown President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

The Vince Foster “suicide note” was declared a forgery as well. America’s domestic enemies are rarely brought to justice.


5 posted on 08/07/2017 10:22:58 AM PDT by BenLurkin ((The above is not a statement of fact. It is either satire or opinion. Or both.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

What really is “particularly ugly” is that Barack Obama used a phony SS number since he was a teen. The only reason to do so is because YOU CANT GET A REAL ONE.

And no one in the enemedia ever asked about this in 10 years.

WHY DID OBAMA ONLY USE FAKE SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS???

It’s a fair question.


6 posted on 08/07/2017 10:23:28 AM PDT by Yaelle (We have a Crisis of Information in this country. Our enemies hold the megaphone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

Obama’s book said he was born in Kenya. But the real issue is the pos Flake. This is what we have for republicans.


7 posted on 08/07/2017 10:23:56 AM PDT by Williams (Stop tolerating the intolerant.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LucyT; null and void; Cold Case Posse Supporter; Flotsam_Jetsome; circumbendibus; Fantasywriter; ...

Sen. Flake revives Trumps “Birther” claims to sell books...

WaPo fails at journalism again, failing to find Arpaio’s recent presser and vet Arpaio’s two solid sources for his claims that Barry’s BC was forged and came from a specific source.

http://www.abc15.com/news/region-phoenix-metro/central-phoenix/sheriff-joe-arpaio-to-talk-obama-birth-certificate-investigation

“According to Zullo, the certificate released by the White House in 2011 appears to be a ‘created’ document that sources an official Hawaiian birth certificate belonging to a Johana Ah’nee.”


8 posted on 08/07/2017 10:24:40 AM PDT by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

Yeah we really need Flake to run against Trump on stupid issues that the public rejected over a year ago. Flake is an open borders traitor. Period. He will run 3d party and he will support a dem for president. Piss on him.


9 posted on 08/07/2017 10:26:08 AM PDT by Williams (Stop tolerating the intolerant.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

“Birtherism” started when BHO provided published biographic summaries describing him as “born in Kenya”. Either those were true, and he’s not eligible for POTUS, or those were false, confirming him as a high-order liar not worthy of POTUS - either way the question had to be asked.

Alas, he BSed his way thru the issue, and survived 2 terms.


10 posted on 08/07/2017 10:28:23 AM PDT by ctdonath2 (It's not "white privilege", it's "Puritan work ethic". Behavior begets consequences.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

This should bring out a few live ones. Lol.


11 posted on 08/07/2017 10:31:04 AM PDT by pharmacopeia (All will be well and all will be well and every kind of thing shall be well. (Julian of Norwich))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

Maybe someone can explain the job of senator to him. It is not to promote books and attack the president.

Right now the job includes fixing big problems like health care, immigration, and taxes. Being a part of the solutions to those problems won’t help in a quest for being president as much as books and attacks on the president. But fixing those things it a senator’s job. And solutions are less likely when senators spend their time making money on books, promoting themselves, and attacking the president.


12 posted on 08/07/2017 10:33:06 AM PDT by LostPassword
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

With Flake’s “in your face” attitude, he must be planning to switch
to the RAT party.

What else can exp,ain’t this?


13 posted on 08/07/2017 10:33:54 AM PDT by tennmountainman ("Prophet Mountainman" Predicter Of All Things RINO...for a small fee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp
NATURAL LAW, NATURAL RIGHTS AND AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONALISM

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. - Thomas Jefferson

Note the reference to Natural Law in the first sentence of our Declaration of Independence.

It is crystal clear that the Founding Fathers used the Natural Law definition of 'natural born Citizen' when they wrote Article II. By invoking "The Laws of Nature and Nature's God" the 56 signers of the Declaration incorporated a legal standard of freedom into the forms of government that would follow.

President John Quincy Adams, writing in 1839, looked back at the founding period and recognized the true meaning of the Declaration's reliance on the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." He observed that the American people's "charter was the Declaration of Independence. Their rights, the natural rights of mankind. Their government, such as should be instituted by the people, under the solemn mutual pledges of perpetual union, founded on the self-evident truth's proclaimed in the Declaration."

The Constitution, Vattel, and “Natural Born Citizen”: What Our Framers Knew

The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law

The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.

MINOR V. HAPPERSETT IS BINDING PRECEDENT AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEFINITION OF A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

Neither the 14th Amendment nor Wong Kim Ark make one a Natural Born Citizen

The Harvard Law Review Article Taken Apart Piece by Piece and Utterly Destroyed

Citizenship Terms Used in the U.S. Constitution - The 5 Terms Defined & Some Legal Reference to Same

"The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776."....David Ramsay, 1789.

A Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring Character & Privileges of Citizen of U.S.-by David Ramsay-1789

The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)

The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law

Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, Volume 20 - Use of The Law of Nations by the Constitutional Convention

The Biggest Cover-up in American History

Supreme Court cases that cite “natural born Citizen” as one born on U.S. soil to citizen parents:

The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)

Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says: “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)

Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.' Again: 'I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .

Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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 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.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

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 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.

Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939),

Was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child's natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents' origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship "and to return to the United States to assume its duties." Not only did the court rule that she did not lose her native born Citizenship but it upheld the lower courts decision that she is a "natural born Citizen of the United States" because she was born in the USA to two naturalized U.S. Citizens.

But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg 'solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.' The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship."

The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.

Citizenship Terms Used in the U.S. Constitution - The 5 Terms Defined & Some Legal Reference to Same

"The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776."....David Ramsay, 1789.

A Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring Character & Privileges of Citizen of U.S.-by David Ramsay-1789

The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)

The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law

Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, Volume 20 - Use of The Law of Nations by the Constitutional Convention

The Biggest Cover-up in American History

If there is extensive law written that covers election fraud, but it is impossible to enforce, or if a sufficient number of people agree that So-and-So is the President or Pope despite the law, how does that not utterly, completely destroy the entire notion of the Rule of Law itself? As I have said for years with regards to Obama, if you can’t enforce Article II Section 1 Clause 5 of the Constitution, what can you enforce? Can you enforce the border? Can you enforce citizenship? Equal protection? Search and seizure? Right to bear arms? Can you enforce the law against treason? Theft? Murder? Trafficking in body parts? Religious persecution?

Mark Levin Attacks Birthers: Admits He Hasn't Studied Issue; Declares Canadian-Born Cruz Eligible

Not much information exists on why the Third Congress (under the lead of James Madison and the approval of George Washington) deleted "natural born" from the Naturalization Act of 1790 when it passed the Naturalization Act of 1795. There is virtually no information on the subject because they probably realized that the First Congress committed errors when it passed the Naturalization Act of 1790 and did not want to create a record of the errors.

It can be reasonably argued that Congress realized that under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress is given the power to make uniform laws on naturalization and that this power did not include the power to decide who is included or excluded from being a presidential Article II "natural born Citizen." While Congress has passed throughout United States history many statutes declaring who shall be considered nationals and citizens of the United States at birth and thereby exempting such persons from having to be naturalized under naturalization laws, at no time except by way of the short-lived "natural born" phrase in Naturalization Act of 1790 did it ever declare these persons to be "natural born Citizens."

The uniform definition of "natural born Citizen" was already provided by the law of nations and was already settled. The Framers therefore saw no need nor did they give Congress the power to tinker with that definition. Believing that Congress was highly vulnerable to foreign influence and intrigue, the Framers, who wanted to keep such influence out of the presidency, did not trust Congress when it came to who would be President, and would not have given Congress the power to decide who shall be President by allowing it to define what an Article II "natural born Citizen " is.

Additionally, the 1790 act was a naturalization act. How could a naturalization act make anyone an Article II "natural born Citizen?" After all, a "natural born Citizen" was made by nature at the time of birth and could not be so made by any law of man.

Natural Born Citizen Through the Eyes of Early Congresses

Harvard Law Review Article FAILS to Establish Ted Cruz as Natural Born Citizen

Watch: Mark Levin declares Ted Cruz a "Naturalized Citizen"

Mark Levin Attacks Birthers: Admits He Hasn't Studied Issue; Declares Canadian-Born Cruz Eligible

The settled law of the land is that the US President must be a natural born citizen, and that to be a natural born citizen, you must have been born in the United States to parents both of whom were US citizens when you were born.

You may disagree with the goal of the Constitutional Convention, and/or with the means they chose to achieve it. But it's not a technicality, not an anachronism no longer relevant in modern times, nor is it racist. Especially in modern times, it enables persons of any race or ethnic heritage to become President. And it's what the Constitution requires.

You may also disagree with binding precedent regarding the meaning of "natural born citizen" as established in Minor. But in our system, the Constitution, and the Supreme Court's interpretation of it, are the "supreme law of the land." And if one faction gets to disregard the Constitution and/or the Supreme Court because they disagree, then that sets a precedent where all other factions can do the same.

Any Argument Against the Natural Law Definition of "Natural Born Citizen" Can easily be Defeated Here

14 posted on 08/07/2017 10:35:47 AM PDT by Godebert (CRUZ: Born in a foreign land to a foreign father.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

BTW, Hillary and “Sid Vicious” started the birther movement.


15 posted on 08/07/2017 10:37:41 AM PDT by Jane Austen (Neo-cons are liberal Democrats who love illegal aliens and war.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

Flake and McCain are two sides of a counterfeit coin.


16 posted on 08/07/2017 10:37:46 AM PDT by EnglishOnly (Fight all out to win OR get out now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

BTW, Hillary and “Sid Vicious” started the birther movement.


17 posted on 08/07/2017 10:37:50 AM PDT by Jane Austen (Neo-cons are liberal Democrats who love illegal aliens and war.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tennmountainman

His popularity is 18%. He is selling out and will run as a 3d party spoiler or dem. This guy is a creep. I know what I’m about to say is a wild hunch, but I think half these politicians are closet perverts who are blackmailed or want to upend society.


18 posted on 08/07/2017 10:38:39 AM PDT by Williams (Stop tolerating the intolerant.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: tennmountainman

Flake is at 18% aporoval right now. If he switches parties that will go lower. Republicans will despise him. Democrats, otoh, like ‘maverick,’ Republicans who stab their own party in the back. When it comes to Democrats per se, they while always prefer the real deal to some hack party-jumper—one whose usefulness as a maverick just went up in smoke.


19 posted on 08/07/2017 10:40:22 AM PDT by Fantasywriter (Any attempt to do forensic work using Inernet artifacts is fraught with pitfalls. JoeProbono)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Williams

McMullen ran as a spoiler candidate. Didn’t work out so well.


20 posted on 08/07/2017 10:41:58 AM PDT by Fantasywriter (Any attempt to do forensic work using Inernet artifacts is fraught with pitfalls. JoeProbono)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 261-264 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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