Free Republic 3rd Quarter Fundraising Target: $85,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $68,865
81%  
Woo hoo!! And we're now over 81%!! Less than $17k to go!! Let's git 'er done!! Thank you all very much!!

Posts by Jeff Winston

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Mark Levin Addresses Ted Cruz Eligibility Issue posed by Ridgewood, NJ Man at Book Signing

    08/30/2013 10:29:47 AM PDT · 508 of 586
    Jeff Winston to Jim Robinson; 4Zoltan; Ha Ha Thats Very Logical; Kansas58; Longbow1969; Mr Rogers; ...

    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.

  • Mark Levin Addresses Ted Cruz Eligibility Issue posed by Ridgewood, NJ Man at Book Signing

    08/30/2013 10:15:35 AM PDT · 506 of 586
    Jeff Winston to Jim Robinson

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

  • Mark Levin Addresses Ted Cruz Eligibility Issue posed by Ridgewood, NJ Man at Book Signing

    08/30/2013 10:12:52 AM PDT · 504 of 586
    Jeff Winston to Jim Robinson
    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."

  • Mark Levin Addresses Ted Cruz Eligibility Issue posed by Ridgewood, NJ Man at Book Signing

    08/30/2013 9:56:30 AM PDT · 499 of 586
    Jeff Winston to Jim Robinson; Admin Moderator; DiogenesLamp; 4Zoltan; Cold Case Posse Supporter; ...
    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.

  • Mark Levin Addresses Ted Cruz Eligibility Issue posed by Ridgewood, NJ Man at Book Signing

    08/30/2013 9:12:52 AM PDT · 492 of 586
    Jeff Winston to Uncle Sham; DiogenesLamp
    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.

  • Defense rests in De'Marquise Elkins' murder trial in toddler's slaying

    08/29/2013 9:55:20 PM PDT · 2 of 9
    Jeff Winston to kevcol
    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.

  • Village under siege from marauding monkeys (Thailand)

    08/29/2013 9:13:51 PM PDT · 22 of 25
    Jeff Winston to TexGrill

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

  • Mark Levin Addresses Ted Cruz Eligibility Issue posed by Ridgewood, NJ Man at Book Signing

    08/29/2013 8:19:15 PM PDT · 482 of 586
    Jeff Winston to DiogenesLamp
    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:

  • Woman vandalizes Detroit cell phone store, moons worker after refund dispute (plus video at link)

    08/29/2013 6:49:04 PM PDT · 12 of 40
    Jeff Winston to llevrok

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

  • Mark Levin Addresses Ted Cruz Eligibility Issue posed by Ridgewood, NJ Man at Book Signing

    08/29/2013 6:14:32 PM PDT · 481 of 586
    Jeff Winston to WhiskeyX; DiogenesLamp
    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.

  • N. Korea: Kim Jong-un's Ex-Girlfriend 'Shot by Firing Squad'(sex video scandal)

    08/28/2013 9:35:09 PM PDT · 26 of 59
    Jeff Winston to TigerLikesRooster
  • Mark Levin Addresses Ted Cruz Eligibility Issue posed by Ridgewood, NJ Man at Book Signing

    08/28/2013 8:26:40 PM PDT · 458 of 586
    Jeff Winston to DiogenesLamp

    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.”

  • Mark Levin Addresses Ted Cruz Eligibility Issue posed by Ridgewood, NJ Man at Book Signing

    08/28/2013 8:18:48 PM PDT · 457 of 586
    Jeff Winston to C. Edmund Wright; Servant of the Cross
    I think some of the folks here are just mentally diseased.

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

  • CATO Institute & Daily Caller Declares Foreign-Born Persons Eligible To Be President

    08/28/2013 2:50:31 PM PDT · 187 of 216
    Jeff Winston to BuckeyeTexan
    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."

  • Mark Levin Addresses Ted Cruz Eligibility Issue posed by Ridgewood, NJ Man at Book Signing

    08/28/2013 2:15:30 PM PDT · 423 of 586
    Jeff Winston to Servant of the Cross
    ... 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!

  • CATO Institute & Daily Caller Declares Foreign-Born Persons Eligible To Be President

    08/28/2013 2:00:56 PM PDT · 177 of 216
    Jeff Winston to Rides3
    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.

  • CATO Institute & Daily Caller Declares Foreign-Born Persons Eligible To Be President

    08/28/2013 1:50:38 PM PDT · 173 of 216
    Jeff Winston to BuckeyeTexan
    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.

  • CATO Institute & Daily Caller Declares Foreign-Born Persons Eligible To Be President

    08/28/2013 1:47:36 PM PDT · 172 of 216
    Jeff Winston to Sherman Logan
    You could add Elizabeth I to the list.

    Yes, I could.

  • Mark Levin Addresses Ted Cruz Eligibility Issue posed by Ridgewood, NJ Man at Book Signing

    08/28/2013 1:46:41 PM PDT · 420 of 586
    Jeff Winston to DiogenesLamp
    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.

  • CATO Institute & Daily Caller Declares Foreign-Born Persons Eligible To Be President

    08/28/2013 1:34:54 PM PDT · 169 of 216
    Jeff Winston to MamaTexan
    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.

  • CATO Institute & Daily Caller Declares Foreign-Born Persons Eligible To Be President

    08/28/2013 1:27:12 PM PDT · 168 of 216
    Jeff Winston to Jeff Winston; DiogenesLamp
  • CATO Institute & Daily Caller Declares Foreign-Born Persons Eligible To Be President

    08/28/2013 1:24:26 PM PDT · 167 of 216
    Jeff Winston to DiogenesLamp
    And once more, you are LYING about what Bayard understood that to be. Bayard never contemplated a law proclaiming someone to be a "citizen at birth." Under Bayard's understanding, the ONLY way to be a "citizen at birth" was to be born of an American father.

    Now you come along and assert that the NATURALIZATION LAW which Congress passed in 1934 and that collectively naturalizes anyone born in a foreign country of an American mother means the EXACT SAME THING as Bayard's understanding of "Citizen at birth."

    And this is why we regard you as a habitual liar. You constantly make these equivocations between one thing and another without taking into account the fact that they are very different.

    Let me summarize your point.

    A "citizen at birth" is a very, very different thing from a "citizen at birth."

    And anyone who disagrees with this is a "habitual liar."

    Wow. You got me, dude.

  • CATO Institute & Daily Caller Declares Foreign-Born Persons Eligible To Be President

    08/28/2013 1:20:07 PM PDT · 165 of 216
    Jeff Winston to Rides3

    And the purpose of the restoration statute was to restore to those women the exact kind of citizenship they had had before it was stripped from them.

  • CATO Institute & Daily Caller Declares Foreign-Born Persons Eligible To Be President

    08/28/2013 1:19:17 PM PDT · 164 of 216
    Jeff Winston to Rides3
    “The words “shall be deemed to be a citizen of the United States to the same extent as though her marriage to said alien had taken place on or after September 22, 1922”, as they appeared in the 1936 and 1940 statutes, are prospective and restore the status of native-born or natural-born citizen (whichever existed prior to the loss) as of the date citizenship was reacquired.”

    Native-born citizen (born in U.S.) IS currently broken down into two different sub-classifications: native-born citizen OR natural-born citizen. One OR the other.

    Direct, current proof that NOT all native-born citizens are natural-born citizens.

    No, you're reading it wrong, because you're reading it with your birther glasses on.

    It isn't "direct, current proof that not all native-born citizens are natural-born citizens."

    It's direct, current proof that not all natural-born citizens are native-born citizens.

    If you're a native-born citizen, then you're a natural-born citizen.

    But there are natural born citizens - and Ted Cruz is a great example - who are not native born citizens.

    Native born, generally, refers to persons born in the United States. If you were born in the United States and were born a citizen (i.e., you weren't the child of a foreign ambassador) then you are certainly a natural born citizen.

    If you were born a United States citizen in Canada, because one or both of your parents was a US citizen, then you are a natural born citizen for the purposes of the Constitution and Presidential eligibility. But you are not a "native born" citizen.

  • Chin: Ted Cruz can be president, probably

    08/28/2013 1:14:59 PM PDT · 608 of 611
    Jeff Winston to MamaTexan

    Ah. And now you’re engaging in the time-honored birther tradition of MOVING THE GOAL POSTS.

    You’re the one who made the stupid and false assertion that Dane never said Thomas Jefferson was really a citizen of France. I showed clearly and absolutely that he did.

    Okay, so having been caught in a delusion the scale of Mount Everest, you now try to squirm out of it by claiming that if Dane didn’t use the words “dual citizen,” that somehow justifies your idiocy.

    Afraid not. Dane clearly stated that Jefferson had been naturalized by the French and thereby made a citizen of France. He further emphasized the real nature of that citizenship by noting that if Jefferson went to France, he would enjoy all the privileges there of an adopted (that is, naturalized citizen. Why? Because he WAS a naturalized citizen.)

    Well, as far as dual citizenship goes, if Jefferson was a citizen of the United States, and simultaneously a naturalized citizen of France, what does that make him? It makes him a dual citizen, whether Dane used those specific words or not.

  • Mark Levin Addresses Ted Cruz Eligibility Issue posed by Ridgewood, NJ Man at Book Signing

    08/28/2013 1:07:47 PM PDT · 417 of 586
    Jeff Winston to Servant of the Cross
    Thanks for pinging me.

    Yes, having spent countless hours now digging through history and the law, I find the quote from the CRS to be accurate:

    The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term “natural born” citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth,” either by being born “in” the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship “at birth.” Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an “alien” required to go through the legal process of “naturalization” to become a U.S. citizen.

  • CATO Institute & Daily Caller Declares Foreign-Born Persons Eligible To Be President

    08/28/2013 1:03:52 PM PDT · 162 of 216
    Jeff Winston to Rides3

    I think it’s possible to argue that Greisser was “not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.” I think Bayard was stretching it, but I think it’s possible to at least make that argument.

    But by the intention of those who wrote the 14th Amendment (and I’ve read these debates now) I really don’t think it’s possible for a reasonable, well-informed person to argue that children born in the United States to US citizens or to RESIDENT aliens are “not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”

    And both Obama and Cruz are clearly eligible.

  • CATO Institute & Daily Caller Declares Foreign-Born Persons Eligible To Be President

    08/28/2013 12:57:31 PM PDT · 160 of 216
    Jeff Winston to DiogenesLamp
    You really are a nutcase.

    Here is how [Jeff] lies. He equates "Citizen by birth" without defining the term. According to the Understanding of James Bayard, and According to the Understanding of his son Thomas, The ONLY way to be a "citizen by birth" was to have an American father.

    No, it wasn't, doofus.

    In 1854, John Charles Frémont (note the French accent over the "e" - that's how he spelled it) was the first Republican candidate for President of the United States.

    He ran as the proud son of a Frenchman who had never become a United States citizen, and never intended to. In a 3-way race, he placed a strong 2nd behind James Buchanan.

    And yes, Frémont faced a crop of birthers who viciously attacked him because of his birth.

    Because his father, you see... had not been married to Frémont's mom.

    That was it. Frémont was viciously attacked by birthers... because he was a bastard.

    But no one seems to have given a damn that his father hadn't been a United States citizen at the time Frémont was born.

    Why? Because unlike Griesser, Frémont was born in the United States, to a RESIDENT alien father.

  • CATO Institute & Daily Caller Declares Foreign-Born Persons Eligible To Be President

    08/28/2013 12:32:34 PM PDT · 157 of 216
    Jeff Winston to BuckeyeTexan
    I really, really like Ted Cruz. It bothers me that his citizenship is dependent upon the whims of Congress.

    What State were you born in?

    Unless you were born in one of the thirteen original states, your citizenship is a result of an act of Congress.

    Let's say you were born in California, for example. None of the people of California were United States citizens before an act of Congress made them that way.

    In fact, this covers most of the population of the United States. More than two-thirds of Americans - including everybody born in the State of Texas - were made citizens by an Act of Congress.

  • CATO Institute & Daily Caller Declares Foreign-Born Persons Eligible To Be President

    08/28/2013 12:21:40 PM PDT · 155 of 216
    Jeff Winston to Sherman Logan

    I’ve said all along that assuming he was born in Hawaii, Obama is clearly eligible. I’ve taken a lot of heat for it, but it’s simply the truth. In fact, there’s not a credible Constitutional authority in the country - or in history - who says otherwise.

    Bottom line is, if you want the intent of the Founders and Framers, their intent was that if a person was born a citizen, then he’s eligible to be President.

    As far as the fact that if he had been born in the 1800s Cruz wouldn’t have been born a citizen/ NBC goes... I think you could just as well make the argument that Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton are ineligible to the Presidency because the Founding Fathers didn’t anticipate women being elected; or that Barack Obama and Herman Cain are both ineligible simply because they’re black. After all, the US Supreme Court in 1858 (Scott v. Sandford) described black people as “an inferior class of beings,” and said they couldn’t even be citizens. Well, if black people couldn’t be citizens, then they certainly couldn’t be eligible to the Presidency.

    But our understandings have changed. We have equal rights for people of all races, and that was certainly the right thing to do. We have equal rights for women as well, and women have certainly filled executive roles and done a fine job. When I think of the greatest leaders of England, two names come to mind: Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher.

    So in the end it doesn’t matter that Ted Cruz wouldn’t have been a natural born citizen if he had been born in 1850. He wasn’t. He was born in 1970. And he has been a United States citizen from his very first breath.

    When it comes to eligibility, as the actions of the First Congress and early writings such as those from James Bayard show, that’s all the Founders intended.

  • Mark Levin Addresses Ted Cruz Eligibility Issue posed by Ridgewood, NJ Man at Book Signing

    08/28/2013 12:21:23 PM PDT · 414 of 586
    Jeff Winston to DiogenesLamp

    As you well know, I’m not the liar here.

  • CATO Institute & Daily Caller Declares Foreign-Born Persons Eligible To Be President

    08/28/2013 6:14:29 AM PDT · 102 of 216
    Jeff Winston to Sherman Logan
    At the time of the Constitution, the common law of the states viewed the citizenship of husbands and wives quite differently. In fact, a wife was often considered to automatically take her husband's citizenship upon marriage, since the two were legally considered to be one person under the doctrine of coverture.

    You are correct.

    IOW, there is considerable question whether under constitutional original intent Cruz (and Obama) would have inherited American citizenship from their American mothers under jus sanguinis. I believe Obama was a citizen under jus solis, but Cruz obviously is not.

    You are correct.

    During the 19th and early 20th century Congress passed laws that automatically stripped women of US citizenship when they married a man of foreign citizenship, at least if they resided outside USA.

    You are correct. Actually, some women who were born in the United States and never left the country were stripped of their natural born US citizenship.

    These provisions were repealed in 1922, so it obviously doesn't apply directly to Cruz, but its passage indicates very strongly that as late as 1907 the citizenship status of women, and therefore their ability to pass citizenship to their children via jus sanguinis, was viewed as being changed by marriage to an alien in a way that a man marrying an alien did not affect him or his children. Which implies that inheritance of citizenship from mother as opposed to father would have been viewed differently by the Founders.

    You are correct.

    Now, having acknowledged all of what you said, we need to return to Bayard's original, and main point.

    His main point was that you didn't have to be born in the United States to be a natural born citizen and eligible to be President.

    It was only required, Bayard said, that a person be a CITIZEN BY BIRTH.

    Then he added that this was the case with all children of US citizens who had ever lived in the United States.

    It is also the case with Ted Cruz.

    So it matters not that the criteria for who was a CITIZEN BY BIRTH have changed somewhat from the Founding Era until now. Ted Cruz is every bit as much a CITIZEN BY BIRTH as anyone who was a citizen by birth in Bayard's day.

  • Chin: Ted Cruz can be president, probably

    08/28/2013 5:51:00 AM PDT · 606 of 611
    Jeff Winston to MamaTexan

    Oh... PS... Words (like “was naturalized in France and there made a French citizen”) mean things.

  • Chin: Ted Cruz can be president, probably

    08/28/2013 5:40:07 AM PDT · 605 of 611
    Jeff Winston to MamaTexan
    Congratulations, MamaTexan.

    I think with your last post you have elevated sheer, absolute, black-is-white-and-white-is-black birther denialism to a brand new art form.

    You said:

    Dane never said Jefferson would BE a French citizen, he said he could live AS A French citizen.

    A person could live AS A monkey, Jeff. That person could swing from a tree AS A monkey does, eat fruit, berries and bugs AS A monkey does and sleep in a crook of a tree AS A monkey does………

    but that does not MAKE that person a monkey!

    Except that Nathan Dane said, quite explicitly, IN THE EXACT SAME SENTENCE THAT YOU TWIST AND MISQUOTE, that Thomas Jefferson had already BEEN MADE A FRENCH CITIZEN:

    "So Mr. Jefferson was naturalized in France and there made a French citizen, and had he gone there would have been entitled to all the rights there of an adopted citizen..."

    You have indeed raised birther denialism to a new level.

  • CATO Institute & Daily Caller Declares Foreign-Born Persons Eligible To Be President

    08/28/2013 5:03:23 AM PDT · 99 of 216
    Jeff Winston to Las Vegas Ron
    Except that does not pass the intent of the Founding Fathers.

    Of course it does.

    The First Congress, which with President Washington included almost half the Signers of the Constitution, specified with absolute clarity that people born US citizens abroad - LIKE TED CRUZ - were "to be considered as natural born citizens."

    Since the only legal meaning and implication of a person being a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN was that the person was eligible to be elected President, it is absolutely clear that they intended for such persons to be eligible.

    In 1833, James Bayard - whose grandfather Richard Bassett was one of the 39 Signers of the Constitution and literally our US Senator #1, and whose father was also a Senator known to his peers as "the High Priest of the Constitution," wrote an exposition on the Constitution.

    In that exposition, in the discussion on PRESIDENTIAL ELIGIBILITY, he stated,

    "It is not necessary that a man should be born in this country, to be 'a natural born citizen.' It is only requisite that he should be a citizen by birth, and that is the case with all the children of citizens who have ever resided in this country, though born in a foreign country."

    You couldn't say any more plainly: TED CRUZ IS ELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT.

    Bayard's exposition of the Constitution was read - AND APPROVED - by the Great Chief Justice of the United States, John Marshall, who dominated the Court for close to 40 years starting just a dozen or so years after the Constitution was ratified. Marshall corrected Bayard on a minor point involving Congress' authority to build roads, but said that other than that, he found nothing in Bayard's book that was not, "in my judgment, entirely just."

    His exposition was also read and applauded by the legendary Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, by the famous early legal expert Chancellor James Kent, and other prominent jurists.

    So it is very CLEAR that the Founding Fathers did, in fact, intend for people like Ted Cruz to be eligible to be President.

    I know that you and the other birthers have your theory. But history is not a matter of theory. History is a matter of FACT, and the FACTS of what our early national leaders said and did are solidly and strongly against your birther theory.

  • Mark Levin Addresses Ted Cruz Eligibility Issue posed by Ridgewood, NJ Man at Book Signing

    08/28/2013 4:41:39 AM PDT · 353 of 586
    Jeff Winston to one guy in new jersey
    So the guy gets in my face, and he starts pointing and pointing, and I looked at him and I pointed back, and I cursed, unfortunately, but the, because, uh you know, he was…he was a nutjob.

    That's about the summary of dealing with birthers. I couldn't have said it better myself.

  • Yes, Ted Cruz Can be President

    08/27/2013 11:27:32 AM PDT · 277 of 325
    Jeff Winston to Rides3
    SO glad you quoted Bayard as an expert, Jeff. That should make it so much easier for you to understand that even those born in the U.S. to an ALIEN father, were NOT U.S. citizens by birth:

    U.S. Secretary of State Bayard determined Richard Greisser, though born in Ohio, was NOT born a U.S. citizen because Greisser’s father was an alien, a German subject at the time of Greisser’s birth. Bayard specifically stated that Greisser was at birth ‘SUBJECT TO A FOREIGN POWER,’ therefore NOT “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” within the meaning of the Constitution.

    Your quote has been discussed already, Rides.

    First of all, it's yet another illustration of the complete historical incompetence of birthers. This is the second time birthers have brought up this quote, directly stating (the first time) or implying (the second time) that the quote was from the same person.

    The quote you give wasn't from James Bayard. It was from US Secretary of State THOMAS Bayard, his son, and it was about half a century later.

    Secondly (and more importantly) even THOMAS Bayard never stated that the child born on United States soil of an alien parent WHO LIVED HERE was anything but a natural born US citizen.

    It seems to have been nothing more than an anti-birth-tourism position. If you moved to the United States and had a child here, that child was a natural born US citizen, even if the parents weren't. If you were TEMPORARILY VISITING the United States (according to the policy of Secretary of State Thomas Bayard) and had a child born here during that time, then no. That child, according to T. Bayard, (who was promptly taken back to Germany, by the way) was not a US citizen.

  • Obama administration sees mid-October default deadline

    08/26/2013 9:36:57 PM PDT · 19 of 19
    Jeff Winston to VerySadAmerican

    Yes, I know.

    So was I. :-)

  • How Technology Wrecks the Middle Class

    08/26/2013 8:05:22 PM PDT · 12 of 49
    Jeff Winston to lbryce

    We do now seem to have a technology “problem.” And it is only likely to get worse and worse.

    In spite of my commitment to conservative principles, it’s getting difficult for me to see how we avoid ending up with increasing socialism. When you have machines producing the wealth, and larger and larger numbers of people are out of work because the jobs simply are no longer available, what else can you do but pass laws that tax the owners of the machines, and give paychecks to the unemployed?

    You can of course tax the machines and create meaningless jobs that produce nothing (like additional government bureaucracy). Or, I suppose you could create government jobs for building things like bridges and roads.

    Given the rise of the machines, though, I’m just not quite certain where we go from here.

  • Yes, Ted Cruz Can be President

    08/26/2013 4:15:43 PM PDT · 112 of 325
    Jeff Winston to faithhopecharity

    No, it isn’t. See post 106.

    Birthers come up with some stupid damn THEORY that sounds good, and then proof-text it from history, all the while suppressing the best historical evidence as best they can.

    Sane people don’t start with some theory. Sane people go and look at what history actuallY SAYS.

  • Yes, Ted Cruz Can be President

    08/26/2013 4:13:02 PM PDT · 106 of 325
    Jeff Winston to duffee
    I previously posted this comment and I see nothing here to change my opinion.

    Then let me give you something to change your opinion, at least as far as being "disturbed about citizenship" goes.

    Ted Cruz is Constitutionally eligible to be President - according to the top authorities of the early United States who knew exactly what the Founding Fathers meant by "natural born citizen."

    "It is not necessary that a man should be born in this country, to be 'a natural born citizen.' It is only requisite that he should be a citizen by birth, and that is the case with all the children of citizens who have ever resided in this country, though born in a foreign country."

    - James Bayard, A Brief Exposition of the Constitution of the United States (1833)

    The above quote was part of Bayard's discussion of the qualifications to be President, and Presidential eligibility.

    Bayard's exposition of the Constitution was read and approved by the Great Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Marshall, by the legendary Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, and by the famous Chancellor James Kent, as well as other legal experts of the early United States.

    Bayard himself was the grandson of Richard Bassett, United States Senator #1 and one of the 39 Delegates who Signed the Constitution.

    And Bayard's FATHER (who is also credited with brokering the deal that made Thomas Jefferson our 3rd President)was known to his peers in Congress as "HIGH PRIEST OF THE CONSTITUTION."

    Not one single person ever said that James Bayard was wrong about his understanding of what "natural born citizen" meant.

  • Obama administration sees mid-October default deadline

    08/26/2013 3:59:42 PM PDT · 8 of 19
    Jeff Winston to Ghost of SVR4

    I agree.

  • Yes, Ted Cruz Can be President

    08/26/2013 3:55:28 PM PDT · 94 of 325
    Jeff Winston to Godebert

    There’s not the slightest damn evidence anywhere that the Framers of the Constitution gave Vattel any more credence on the “definition” of citizenship than they did on his views that only the elites and the military should be allowed to keep and bear arms.

  • Yes, Ted Cruz Can be President

    08/26/2013 3:53:35 PM PDT · 92 of 325
    Jeff Winston to faithhopecharity
    Sorry (sincerely sorry) but the good Senator “Ted” Cruz’s daddy was not an American citizen when “Ted” was born.

    It doesn't matter one bit.

    All that is required Constitutionally is that a person be BORN A CITIZEN.

    Anyone who tells you differently is either uninformed, fooled by the con artists, or a liar.

  • Yes, Ted Cruz Can be President

    08/26/2013 3:51:49 PM PDT · 91 of 325
    Jeff Winston to thestob
    just 3 more years of them ...good lord what a nightmare

    If Ted Cruz should be elected, and reelected, 11 years.

    11. More. Years.

  • Yes, Ted Cruz Can be President

    08/26/2013 3:50:35 PM PDT · 89 of 325
    Jeff Winston to Godebert
    "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.

    David Ramsay was a good man and a decent historian, but his views on citizenship were voted down by James Madison and the first House of Representatives, which included half a dozen or so Framers of the Constitution, 36 to 1.

    That's pretty much unanimous.

    So you could hardly find someone LESS representative of the views of the Founders and Framers if you quoted Satan himself.

  • Ted Cruz is going to New Hampshire. Will they like him?

    08/26/2013 3:42:12 PM PDT · 119 of 152
    Jeff Winston to DiogenesLamp
    You keep saying CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN MARSHALL wasn't talking about "natural born citizen" when he quotes Vattel on "natives or indigenes", but you never answer the question as to what sort of citizen he WAS talking about.

    I've answered the question MANY TIMES now, just like I've answered ALL of your bullshit many times now.

    He wasn't talking about any definition of citizenship. That's obvious to anyone who carefully reads the case.

  • Ted Cruz is going to New Hampshire. Will they like him?

    08/26/2013 3:39:04 PM PDT · 118 of 152
    Jeff Winston to DiogenesLamp; Jim Robinson

    This guy is just a flat-out, bald-faced liar.

    His lies have been factually demonstrated and proven to be false again and again and again.

    Why do we have to keep putting up with him here at FreeRepublic?

  • Woman to government: My inability to remember qualifies me as disabled

    08/26/2013 3:37:39 PM PDT · 50 of 50
    Jeff Winston to calex59

    I’ve seen it, but it was a long time ago.

  • Chin: Ted Cruz can be president, probably

    08/26/2013 3:36:44 PM PDT · 602 of 611
    Jeff Winston to DiogenesLamp

    You couldn’t possibly deny reality any more if you were standing on the street corner screaming that the earth is flat.