Free Republic

Oh. Okay.

I have learned a lot here, an awful lot of it from standing up to people who don’t seem to care a great deal, when push comes to shove, about our Constitution, our laws, or the actual truth.

I have also met some people I would be proud to serve in the conservative cause with ANY day. People who are smart. People who are witty, people are who stand up for conservative principles and the truth, even when it might momentarily seem inconvenient.

People like Mr Rogers. Like 4zoltan, Ha Ha Thats Very Logical, Kansas58, Longbow1969, NeroGermanicus, Tau Food, Servant of the Cross, BuckeyeTexan, Perdogg, and others. I’m sure I’ve forgotten someone.

To DiogenesLamp: I congratulate you. Your ugliness, and your unrelenting propaganda have won. What you couldn’t achieve with the facts, you’ve achieved with your propaganda and personal attacks. Go out and celebrate. At least as far as this poster is concerned, you have successfully drowned out the truth.

Ultimately, you won’t succeed in your quixotic quest to suppress the truth. But go out and celebrate. Today, at least, you and your mob have won.

By the way, I would like to thank you for responding.

If you doubt my conservative convictions, if you don’t like the way I manage my own website you can always post elsewhere! You got some gall there Jeff.

What I don't understand, Jim, is why you allow birthers to go so far across the line as they do, such as repeatedly saying that others deserve an "ass beating."

You are simply a propaganda bullshit artist who has long since gone past the time where someone should have whipped your @$$.

For the past 2 years, DiogenesLamp has subjected others (particularly myself) here to his bullying, ridicule, personal attacks, and outright physical threats.

I have asked for help, again and again, from Jim and the moderators here, and every time they have simply turned a deaf ear.

Once again, DiogenesLamp has stated that I should have my "ass whipped."

Jim, I need to know some things.

1. Are you actually committed to our Constitution and the truth?

Because numerous, numerous false postings by this poster which contradict and twist the words of our early legal experts, our Founders, our history and our law have been patiently and meticulously documented over the past two years. Still he is allowed to freely spin documented BS at this site with absolute impunity. It is certainly not an overstatement to say that almost every word he writes is false propaganda. And I can absolutely 100% document and explain why to you or anyone else who wants to know why.

2. Are you actually committed to the rules you have set out for FreeRepublic?

The debate on this issue has long exceeded the bounds of civility and good taste. Yes, I myself have called others "idiots." When doing so, however, I have generally given a factual reason as to why they are acting in such a way that they deserve such an appellation. And I learned long ago that the management here was not going to stick up for me against the constant insults and slander of the birthers, and that if anyone was going to do so, I would have to do so myself. About the only way to effectively do that, ultimately, has been to fight the fire with fire.

From the very beginning, anyone who disagreed with the birther mob has been falsely labeled an "idiot," a "troll," an "Obot," a "traitor," and worse. We have been slandered and insulted at every turn. This is in spite of the fact that not one Founder or Framer, not one major Constitutional scholar of any note from any point in history, and not one major conservative commentator or legal foundation has ever stated that a person has to be born on US soil of two citizen parents in order to be natural born citizen or eligible to the Presidency, and many of our most authoritative voices in history have directly and absolutely contradicted the birther claim.

This ugliness goes beyond mere name-called and false accusations that those with the historic understanding of the Constitutional term are "liars." DiogenesLamp, early on (about 2 years ago) remarked that if I could be taken out and shot, he would cheer. He has followed this up on multiple occasions with statements that I deserve an "ass beating," or that he would "whip my ass" if he got the chance.

If this is not a blatant abuse of FreeRepublic's posting policies, I don't know what is. And yet my appeals to Jim and the moderators for help have so far been met with nothing but silence.

I cannot help but think that if I had made such physical threats against others, I would have been banned long ago. It seems to me that there is a fondness for birthers here that allows them to get away with things that would not be tolerated for a moment in those of us who actually prefer a sound and honest interpretation of history and law. Perhaps that is a misperception, but based on my long experience that is my perception at this point.

Jim, I am requesting that you enforce your own policies. Why would a poster who repeatedly makes threats to "beat someone else's ass" be tolerated? Why is a poster who has previously said if another member of FreeRepublic could be taken out and shot, that he would cheer, tolerated? Why would such a poster not be banned?

Jim, I am requesting that this poster be removed so that FreeRepublic may return to sanity. I really see no alternative to this, since he has repeatedly demonstrated that he is completely incapable of any civility at all.

This is about my last resort. If DiogenesLamp is allowed to continue his rampage here, then I suppose I will simply be forced, for my part, to leave this place to the crazy people.

I gave a very cogent reason for why people like DiogenesLamp (and you) indicate that you're idiots: Your major claims are completely and absolutely contradicted by an entire Who's Who of our top early US legal experts.

And still you cling to them, instead of clinging to what our Founders actually said and did. That's idiocy, and it's idiocy to a strong degree, my friend.

We have:

• William Rawle, who was pretty much a member of the core Founders' inner circle (because that's basically what Benjamin Franklin's Society for Political Enquiries was). Rawle was absolutely clear that you don't have to have citizen parents in order to be a natural born citizen.
• The First Congress, together with President George Washington. Together these included almost half of the Signers of the Constitution. And they were quite clear that they wanted children born overseas to US parents to be "natural born citizens" and eligible to the Presidency, too.
• James Bayard. Bayard wasn't considered one of our top early legal experts, but his Brief Exposition of the Constitution of the United States was read and approved by those who were. No one seems to have ever said Bayard was wrong about the meaning of natural born citizen. And Bayard was absolutely clear that you didn't have to be born on US soil to be a natural born citizen, you only had to be born a citizen. His Exposition was read and applauded by the Great Chief Justice John Marshall, by the acclaimed Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, by the famous Chancellor James Kent, and other distinguished jurists. Bayard himself was the grandson of Richard Bassett, one of the 39 Signers of the Constitution and our official US Senator #1, the most senior Senator of the First Congress. He was also the son of James Bayard, Sr., who was known to his colleagues in Congress as "the High Priest of the Constitution." So Bayard was certainly in an ideal position to understand what "natural born citizen" meant.
• Vice Chancellor Lewis Sandford, who made a thorough investigation of what citizenship meant in 1844, and concluded that there could be no reasonable doubt that a US-born person without citizen parents would be eligible if elected President.

And although this is some of the clearest and starkest evidence that birthers are wrong, it's really only the beginning. There's plenty more, which has been discussed and presented ad nauseum already.

So this is the difference between you and me, pinhead. The actual evidence very clearly supports what I've said. So clearly, in fact, that it's not at all a stretch to say that DiogenesLamp is broadcasting his idiocy.

You, on the other hand, have no such clear evidence, but feel free to call someone else an idiot just because he disagrees with your own delusional opinion.

A psychology professor from Georgia State University testified about how witnesses are often mistaken while identifying attackers because of stress and police suggestions.

Um... yeah. I'm sure his buddy who fingered De'Marquise as the gunman was "mistaken" too.

For a moment there, I thought this was an article about the latest news from Congress.

And that you keep asserting his opinion is correct even though it has been PROVEN WRONG is what makes of you a liar.

Dane is WRONG. Get it through your F****** head! Stop repeating the LIE that Dane is correct.

Proven wrong? You're an imbecile.

Just because you say something has been "proven wrong" doesn't make it so, pinhead.

It's been idiotically claimed that Dane didn't say Thomas Jefferson had been made a citizen of France. This is what birthers do. They will claim black is white and white is black in their headlong rush to promote their idiotic false claims.

I simply repeated Dane's words. Dane was clearly of the opinion that Thomas Jefferson had indeed been made a naturalized citizen of France, and that that naturalized citizenship was real.

Gosh, that shoots a hole in one of the main birther tenets, doesn't it?

Ah. So that doesn't mean the birthers are wrong. It means NATHAN DANE, KNOWN TO HISTORY AS THE FATHER OF AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE, is wrong.

Along with William Rawle, James Bayard, and other top experts of law from the early United States, of course.

You couldn't announce you were an idiot any more effectively if you donned this shirt:

Sounds like Stupid and Dishonest had a little get-together.

So, are we to understand you do indeed intend to maintain the falsehood and lie that Thomas Jefferson was an actual citizen of France with all of the rights and obligations which entail from such citizenship similarly incumbent upon another person who was born in Metropolitan France with French parents and had never left France?

I never said that Jefferson had the exact same French citizenship status as a person who was born a French citizen. As far as him being an "actual citizen of France," Nathan Dane said he was. Nathan Dane said that Jefferson had been "naturalized in France and there made a French citizen." He further emphasized the bona-fine nature of Jefferson's French citizenship by saying that "had he gone there [he] would have been entitled to all the rights there of an adopted citizen."

Now you can of course say (like the idiot DiogenesLamp says) that Nathan Dane, the distinguished Father of American Jurisprudence, was wrong. It takes a hell of a lot of ignorance and arrogance to do it, but you can do so if you like.

Oh, yeah. Well, Nathan Dane is wrong. William Rawle is wrong. James Bayard is wrong. All those who agreed with James Bayard (including the Great Chief Justice John Marshall) are wrong.

Well, the list of the most brilliant legal experts of the early United States, and the list of historical legal experts, and conservative legal foundations, and present-day judges, and Supreme Court Justices, who are outshined by the stunning brilliance of a bunch of birthers on the internet (who never attended their first law class) just gets longer and longer and longer, doesn't it?

At what point does it start to occur to you imbeciles... Hey, maybe it's not all the great legal luminaries of American history who are wrong? Maybe it's my own damn stupid theory.

Hmmm? Might that idea ever occur to you guys? Just a thought.

Kim Jong Style!

Dane said clearly that Thomas Jefferson had been naturalized and made a French citizen. That was Dane’s opinion, and his reading of the laws.

There’s no denying that, because it’s in black and white.

Unless, of course, you’re an idiot birther.

If you’re an idiot birther, it’s a “lie,” and anyone who points it out is a “liar.”

I think some of the folks here are just mentally diseased.

I couldn't agree more. One or two in particular.

I also believe the courts would rule in favor of Cruz’s eligibility. I just wanted you to acknowledge what we both know 7 FAM 1131.6-2 states on the subject. Thank you for doing so.

I actually understand a bit of reticence on the topic. Unlike a number of people, you seem to be a rational person who is swayed by evidence. You just need to have enough evidence.

I myself started out not knowing much about the topic. Now I know a LOT about it. And over the course of gathering more information over the past couple of years, regarding "natural born citizen" in general and Ted Cruz and people in his situation in particular, I have gone from "mmm.... probably eligible, but possibly not," to "most likely eligible," to "almost certainly eligible," to "You know what? Ted Cruz is eligible."

... this is like playing chess with a pigeon ... ___ craps the board, knocks the pieces on the floor, and proceeds to strut around like he’s made a point.

ROTFL! If that wasn't too long to fit, I think I'd make it my tag line!

No. Read the law, Jeff, this time much more carefully:

Yes, I've read it, Rides. Believe me, I've read it very carefully.

And there is absolutely nothing in those laws that in any way says that there exists such a thing as a native born citizen that isn't also a natural born citizen.

I think you need to read it carefully again.

Nope. 7 FAM 1131.6-2 says the courts have not ruled definitively on such a person's eligibility. I won't quote it again because you know the drill.

You are correct that the courts have not ruled definitively on such a person's eligibility.

My point is, whether the courts have ruled on it or not, from the point of view of history, the related law that we do know, and the intention of the Founders, such a person is eligible. And if Cruz runs and a case reaches the Supreme Court, they will rule that he is eligible.

It is in my mind a mere formality that the courts haven't (yet) ruled that a Ted Cruz is eligible.

You could add Elizabeth I to the list.

Yes, I could.

I have caught you lying so many times i've lost count.

Asserting that you've "caught me lying" doesn't make it true.

Let me give you a clue here.

In order to show that I've been "caught lying," you need to actually prove that I said things that weren't true. And really, you need to prove that any such misstatement was deliberate and not simply an error. Like other people, I am human and in 2 years of debating this crap it's possible that once or twice I made a statement that wasn't entirely accurate. I seem to recall that I have once or twice, and that I quickly acknowledged and corrected the error.

One of your FAVORITE lies is "ALL AUTHORITIES IN HISTORY AGREE WITH ME." (Proven wrong, countless times.)

To my recollection, I never said "all authorities in history agree with me." I did say that virtually every significant authority in history who has spoken clearly on the matter disagrees with the birther meme, and I stand by that statement because it is true.

And the fact that you can dredge up very minor authorities like Samuel Roberts, or complete non-authorities like David Ramsay, who MIGHT agree with the birther BS, is not a contradiction of that.

You constantly try to assert that John Bingham agrees with you, when clearly he does not, and it has been proven that he does not.

No, it's never been "proven" that he doesn't. You can't provide any statement from Bingham in which he says a child born in the United States to non-citizen parents is anything other than a natural born citizen, because Bingham never made such a statement. Your point with Bingham depends entirely on your interpretation of the words "not subject to any foreign power." That Bingham didn't intend those words to include a child born to non-citizen, non-ambassador parents is evident when one reads the entire context of those debates, and especially when one notes that Bingham was present on the floor of the House when James Falconer Wilson quoted William Rawle stating absolutely that the child born in America of alien parents is a natural born citizen, and neither he nor any other member of Congress made the slightest objection to that.

You claim Bayard agrees with you, when clearly he does not and it has been proven that he does not.

Bayard says absolutely that you don't have to be born in the United States to be a natural born citizen and eligible to be President. You only have to be a citizen by birth. That's all that's required.

So your claim to the contrary is nothing more than an obvious and absolute clown show. Like all remaining birthers, when the evidence flatly contradicts you, you don't say, "Gee, I might be wrong." Instead, you deny the evidence and claim it says the opposite of what it clearly says.

Keep going. You look like a total fool.

You just recently claimed repeatedly that Thomas Jefferson was a citizen of France, and when THAT was proven wrong, you just kept repeating it anyway.

Nathan Dane said very clearly that Thomas Jefferson had been made a citizen of France. You are now at the point where about all you can do is, upon being given evidence that absolutely contradicts you, flatly and stupidly assert that it doesn't.

Keep going. You look like a fool.

Jeff, why are you still beating the Bayard drum? Particularly since - You KNOW Bayard's writing was not intended for legal purposes , was a historical book for use in 'the education of youths'

I'm not sure what "legal purposes" you want an Exposition of the Constitution of the United States to serve.

As far as the "education of youths" goes, yes, it was used in our colleges and seminaries, and Bayard was pleased that it was.

The question is whether it was accurate. The Great Chief Justice of the United States John Marshall, the acclaimed Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, and the famous Chancellor James Kent, all of whom were among the absolute top legal authorities in the United States, as well as other distinguished legal experts, all attested that it was.

So once again you're doing what birthers do. You have your pet theory, and when the evidence completely and flatly contradicts it, do you say, "Gee, I might be wrong?" No, of course not. Instead, you try to discredit the evidence, even when it stands on the firm ground of having been approved by the most expert authorities of the early United States.