Posted on 02/18/2016 5:51:48 AM PST by GregNH
Obama ran for the Senate in 2004. You're claiming that a bio produced by a literary agent 13 years earlier constitutes "campaign literature?"
That's one mighty long campaign. It pre-dates Obama's campaign for Senate, and it even pre-dates the campaign for Senate by the person who held that Senatorial seat before Obama.
You are WAY off the mark here.
The assertion was that literature issued during Obama's Senate campaign made the "born in Kenya" claim. The Acton & Dystel pamphlet in 1991 doesn't constitute campaign literature for a senate race to be held 13 years in the future.
No.
Revocation of a U.S. Passport due to fraudulent misrepresentations of material fact is unrelated to the expatriation ruled upon by the U.S. Supreme Court and remains very much in effect today.
And your statement here shows why your first sentence quoted above is wrong: I was recognizing this very distinction and conflating nothing. It is possible to have a passport revoked without thereby also having one's citizenship revoked. These involve potentially differing standards.
“Obama ran for the Senate in 2004. You’re claiming that a bio produced by a literary agent 13 years earlier constitutes “campaign literature?”
“That’s one mighty long campaign. It pre-dates Obama’s campaign for Senate, and it even pre-dates the campaign for Senate by the person who held that Senatorial seat before Obama.”
LOL, I figured you would attempt to claim the publications were not campaign literature, but that argument won’t work either. Obama and his campaign used his purported autobiographies throughout his political campaigns before and after his 2008 Presidential campaign, and these promotional publications were promoting his autobiographies, his earlier political campaigns, and more right up to 2007, when the last of them were published. Since they promoted the sales of his autobiographies and the autobiographies were indeed a part of his Senate and Presidential campaigns, they are in fact a part of the publications used in the political campaigns.
“You are WAY off the mark here”
First, you denied the quotes, existed. Then you denied they existed as campaign literature. Next, you’ll be denying the autobiographies promoted by the promotional literature with the quotes were being used as campaign literature. Give it up and be honest enough to admit Obama used the quotation saying he was born in Kenya.
“And your statement here shows why your first sentence quoted above is wrong: I was recognizing this very distinction and conflating nothing. It is possible to have a passport revoked without thereby also having one’s citizenship revoked. These involve potentially differing standards.”
You’re wrong again. The revocation of the U.S. Passport does not revoke U.S. citizenship, but the falsification or concealment of relevant facts used to fraudulently obtain a a subsequently revoked U.S. Passport may result in the revocation of U.S. citizenship “Even if the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) fails to recognize any lies or ommissions at first. . . .”
Can Your U.S. Citizenship Be Revoked?
http://immigration.findlaw.com/citizenship/can-your-u-s-citizenship-be-revoked-.html
Well, duh, of course. The agency bio and the Senate campaign are separated by 13 years, and there's no evidence I've seen the former was distributed or reproduced as part of the latter.
but that argument won't work either. Obama and his campaign used his purported autobiographies throughout his political campaigns before and after his 2008 Presidential campaign,
And your evidence to support this claim is where? Here's the crux of the matter. "Smokin Joe" contended the image(s) of the senate campaign literature saying "born in Kenya" has been posted here repeatedly. I'm saying that recollection is a false one. So far neither he nor you have sustantiated the assertion. (And it was his assertion; why you're trying to defend it isn't clear.)
Since they promoted the sales of his autobiographies and the autobiographies were indeed a part of his Senate and Presidential campaigns, they are in fact a part of the publications used in the political campaigns.
So this is the best you can do? No copy of actual senate campaign material claiming "born in Kenya?" Nor even a sample of campaign literature referring back to the agency blurb? You just make some vague reference back to some "autobiographies" out there somewhere that you simply assume were used somehow, someway?
This is false memory born of conflating a 1991 agency piece with a 2004 election campaign. That's my point.
First, you denied the quotes, existed.
Neither you nor Joe had quoted anything. There was nothing given for me to deny. I said there was no 2004 senate campaign material claiming "born in Kenya." I wasn't denying the 1991 agency piece.
Then you denied they existed as campaign literature.
Yep. And I still am. And you and Joe are have offered nothing concrete to refute my denial.
Next, you'll be denying the autobiographies promoted by the promotional literature with the quotes were being used as campaign literature.
"Autobiographies?" Plural? Other than "Dreams," what autobiography are you saying existed in 2004?
And "Dreams" itself says nothing about being born in Kenya. (That's a significant omission, is it not, given your assertion that Obama was promoting some "born in Kenya" life narrative?) The book dust jacket makes no reference either. So even if "Dreams" was referenced in the 2004 campaign, you can't claim that's automatically a reference to the agency bio, which was issued separate from the book and went solely to some book publishers.
Give it up and be honest enough to admit Obama used the quotation saying he was born in Kenya.
If he used it, then you ought to be able to demonstrate explicitly where and how he used it. So far, you're just hand waving.
Yes. "May" (or "could"). This is the needed modification of your initial statement:
"In the event he acquired his U.S. Passport by fraudulent misrepresentations, it can be revoked and his U.S. citizenship would become invalidated, regardless of claims about naturalized versus natural born citizenship."
"May" (it's possible) versus "would" (the one follows automatically from the other).
Maybe you just weren't being careful the first time, but the distinction is significant.
If you are an illegal Mexican immigrant, you may be deported. Millions of Mexican illegal aliens have not been deported, and millions of Mexican illegal aliens have been granted amnesty and U.S. citizenship in blanket naturalizations by Congress. That fact still does not change the reality that they were not U.S. citizens before the amnesty and blanket naturalizations. The problem is our government has been so utterly corrupt for so very long the legitimate U.S. citizens no longer distinguish between lawful and unlawful conduct or between right and wrong, and then they wonder why the nation is in the trouble it is today.
True. Though I've not heard of many illegals who have obtained U.S. passports from the State Dept. We were talking about actual passports issued that are later revoked. The topic is migrating.
Kagan doesn't have to recuse on immigration issues, and Ginsberg doesn't have to recuse on gay marriage issues, but Republicans have to recuse.
-PJ
“True. Though I’ve not heard of many illegals who have obtained U.S. passports from the State Dept. We were talking about actual passports issued that are later revoked. The topic is migrating.”
I gave you an example of how laws regarding immigration and naturalization are being violated millions of times with impunity and the illegal immigrants are still being granted naturalized U.S. citizenship, and that is an example of how the law may fail to be enforced in their cases and in the cases of Ted Cruz and Barack Hussein Obama. Also, just because the law is so frequently violated and abused is no reason to conclude it should not be enforced in the future, even when the enforcement is against Cruz and/or Obama.
I’m getting ready for the caucus in the morning, so good night.
NBC bump
I believe that there is litigation under way in state courts, although two have been dismissed on technicalities unrelated to the merits. We have not heard for a while about others,not yet dismissed, that are scheduled to be heard in state courts.
No suits were brought about the eligibility of the great fraud in the Oval Office until after he was elected, which resulted in their all being dismissed for lack of Article III standing. There are suits about Cruz’ presidential eligibility that were brought at the state electoral board level under ballot access laws and state’s resident’s right of objection to placement on the ballot. That is different from the situation of the Great Pretender. Further, what guarantee is there that the Hildebeast or Bernie commie would not bring a suit at the general election stage? The general election opponent would have standing during the general election process. Neither Democrat would be as reluctant as nice guy Romney or possibly himself vulnerable McCain, who relied on a Senate resolution.
Go sign a petition begging Donald Trump to sue Ted Cruz on eligibility. I guarantee that if he sues you trumpettes won’t like the outcome.Exactly. If Trump really believes that, he has a duty to the country and to the Constitution to file a lawsuit.
That’s why he is NOT suing
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.