Free Republic

Well, I hate to admit it, but I am just dying of curiosity how somebody decides a judge has made a bad decision when they haven’t bothered to read the case the judge based his decision on.

Was there a seance??? Did the candles all blow out??? Were there voices and did the table jump up and down??? Cause that would be kind of trippy.

1. Who says YOU are a conservative??? What do we call people who make up laws to suit their beliefs??? Uh, LIBERALS!!! Like LIBERAL activist judges do. This is what YOU are doing with your Imaginary Two Citizen Parent requirement.

2. Politeness??? Yeah, I can do polite. Problem is that the two citizen parent Birthers here can’t. Disagree with them, and they start calling you names. Two citizen parent Birthers can NOT distinguish any boundary between REALITY and PERSONAL OPINION.

All this stuff is very personal to them, so that when you point out their numerous legal boo-boos they personalize it and think someone is out to get them or something. There is a profound mental disconnect for the two citizen parent Birthers so that “what I think the law should be” becomes “what the law is.” This is why two citizen parent Birthers are sooo RABID.

3. Wanna an example of Number 2 above??? Let’s look at YOUR post here. When I mentioned the Ankeny case in post number 41 above, this is what YOU replied in post number 47. Quoting YOU:

“I’ve been a part of the Birther conversations on Free Republic since Obama’s run for office first sparked them. I have spent hundreds of hours following those conversations, and studying countless references elsewhere. I haven’t read the case you refer to, but I must say that I’m surprised that few have mentioned it, until now.”

That paragraph above is what YOU said. Sooo, YOU have never read the Ankeny decision, and yet when the Georgia Judge hands down his decision, based on the reasoning found in Ankeny, what is YOUR reaction??? Is it to go and actually read the Ankeny decision so that you might understand where Malihi is coming from, to decide whether he is right or wrong??? To decide whether or not he is following the law??? Oh H*LL NO!!!

Instead, YOU do a thread called “Who Is Judge Michael Malihi?,” and fill it up with all sorts of insults against him, without ever once even bothering to actually read the relatively short and easy-to-read Ankeny case.

See. This issue isn’t about the LAW for you and your brethern here. It is some kind of weird psychological thing where you pretend the law is what you want it to be, as opposed to what it is. Then, you plop a “CONSERVATIVE” label on yourself, and set out to preach (lie) to other conservatives here how Rubio and Jindal are not eligible, when you haven’t even read the relatively few cases that apply.

Sooo, I think you need to examine your own motives and behavior and if you do, you might come to the conclusion that what I really am isn’t IMPOLITE. I am far, far worse than that. I am PERCEPTIVE.

I say this hoping you will do the right thing and get off this Imaginary Law stuff.

Well, if you really want to talk about arrogance, I suggest you take a look in the mirror. Tell me what you see when there is this person staring back at you who:

1.Pretends to know the law about natural born citizenship.
2. Is a member of a group that makes up imaginary legal requirements (the two citizen parent stuff)
3. But, when they present their arguments in court gets laughed out of every court in which they are made.
4. Then, try to blame it all on the judges when they lose, refusing to consider the possibility that they are just wrong, and their legal theory a steaming pile of nonsense.
5. Gets laughed at and jeered by conservative lawyers such as Ann Coulter and Mark Levin for their absurd beliefs.
6. Yet, continues to blithely lie to other conservatives about the ineligibility of people like Mark Rubio and Bobby Jindal.
7. And, when somebody points out their insanity and bad behavior to them, tries to intimidate them into silence.

Cause you know what??? That is the person staring back at you in the mirror.

So There!!!

I have watched this or something like it before. It was cleverly put together to fool people who do not understand the issue. The attempts were to permit NATURALIZED citizens to run for the office. People like Arnold Schwarzeneggar. Neither Obama, not Rubio, nor Jinda are NATURALIZED. Therefore, the promoters of this foolishness are attempting to equate "natural born" with "two citizen parents" where there is no evidence such is included in the definition.

However, they slip up on several of the attempts. First, Nichols proposed changes where he does not say anything about two citizen parents. He just "got it wrong" is what the producers say to trap the unwary.

Then, there are two or three attempts wherein NATIVE BORN is equated with NATURAL BORN, which is pretty much the same thing a lot of the courts do. Again, no mention of a requirement for two citizen parents.

So, this video is like cotton candy. Looks big, but mostly air. Here is a video I produced with the help of my BFF Fabia Sheen, Esq., a lawyer. I hope you like it:

Making Swiss Cheese of Vattel

There is NO debate. All you have to do is read the cases. Like the decision that just got handed down in Georgia. And Ankeny is real good. Why debate what the law is, when the judges are coming right out and telling you what the law is, and backing up their decision with quotes from the applicable cases??? That is like debating who won the Super Bowl football thingy. There's no debate. The New York football people won and already had a parade and everything. Same here. The courts are already ruling on this stuff so what is there to debate???

I am not new here. I was a Common Sense Suspicious Birther until April of this year, and even worked with another freeper to produce the youtube video, "Show Me The BirthFAX."

But I have NEVER bought into this two citizen parent lunacy. It is simply NOT the law. I have my own Think Tank, and since last summer, most of my Internet Articles are ones debunking the two citizen parent stuff. (Prior to that it was mostly about discussing Obama's refusal to cough up his long form.)

Here is a good article of mine to work you through your difficulties. This particular Internet Article really irritated Mario Apuzzo, Esq. Tee Hee! Tee Hee!:

A Place To Get The REALLY Right Answers About Natural Born Citizenship

The law is what the law is. If you do not understand what the law is, then simply read the Ankeny v. Governor decision, the second part dealing with natural born citizenship. This case was found “persuasive” a few days ago in Georgia.

The case relies very heavily on the 1898 Wong Kim Ark US Supreme Court Case. it is your right as an American to disagree with the decision, but you are on shaky ground if you provide false and misleading legal advice to others.

The entire two citizen parent theory is Imaginary Law was invented by a guy named Leo Donofrio a few years ago. This is why Jerome Corsi did not mention the silly theory when he wrote Obama Nation in 2008.

Good conservative attorneys, like Mark Levin, use a lot stronger language about this, and I quote him:

“I want you to listen to me on my social sites. Marco Rubio was born in Miami, Florida. He is a natural born United States citizen. And if I get any more of this Birther crap up there. . .this is a warning, and I don’t care who you are, you’re going to be banned. Okay? This is a site I put up for rational people. Marco Rubio was born in Miami, Florida in 1940, excuse me, 1971. He’s 40. There’s no debate. So take that Birther crap somewhere else. Just a warning. . .got it? I’m not into all that crap. You can go somewhere else for that.”

Mark Levin
Sept. 28, 2011

(Mark Reed Levin (born September 21, 1957) is a lawyer, author and the host of American syndicated radio show The Mark Levin Show who served in the Reagan administration. He is president of the Landmark Legal Foundation, has authored bestselling books and contributes commentary to various media outlets such as National Review Online where he is a currently credited author.

Beginning in 1981, Levin served as advisor to several members of President Ronald Reagan’s cabinet, eventually becoming Associate Director of Presidential Personnel and ultimately Chief of Staff to Attorney General Edwin Meese; Levin also served as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education at the U.S. Department of Education, and Deputy Solicitor of the U.S. Department of the Interior.

He practiced law in the private sector and is president of Landmark Legal Foundation, a conservative public interest law firm founded in 1976 and based in Leesburg, Virginia. In 2001, the American Conservative Union awarded Levin its Ronald Reagan Award

Jeeze! What stinks?

The two citizen parent theory???

I think it would be really KEWL if you could do a bio on all the judges who have ruled against the Birthers. That ex-marine guy down in Florida, and the 3 or 4 judges in Indiana, and now the one in Virginia. I hear there is also a new one in Indiana this time around.

Plus, and this is a helpful hint, maybe you could get a jump on this assignment by looking them up as soon as the Birther cases are assigned. Because the odds are these suits are going to wind up as losers because law suits based on Imaginary Law, like the two citizen parent requirement, tend to get tossed out pretty quick.

Personally, I am betting this is going to happen whether the judges are Muslims, Jews, Foot-Washing Baptists, Snake-Handling Pentecostals, Catholics, Wiccans, whatever. We shall see. . .

No problemo. It was a long time ago. Thank you for your kind comments. Some of the people here thought I was just a Obot, and did not realize I was a Common Sense Suspicious Birther up until April 27 when Obama finally coughed up his long form.

I am back off Birther vacay, and have a ton of stuff to write. Oh, and I did you a haiku earlier tonite to your comment at The Birther Think Tank about the Georgia decision:

Warm, the Winter winds
Termites wake in empty chairs
Choking on shellac

The Cajun Curse Remover works:

If you are still uncertain, have a priest bless the grease.

You obviously have not done your research yet. Now quit faking, and goofing off, and go do your homework. LMAO.

I will pay attention to you in a little while. Right now I am busy on a new Internet Article about this silliness and am trying to concentrate sooo it will be good.

Just like a Vattle Birther expecting somebody else to do their homework for them. Well, I am NOT your huckleberry. Sooo, you can just keep asking and I will just keep telling you to do your own research if you are curious. Or better yet, I will just ignore you unless you have something USEFUL to contribute. Which I am NOT holding my breath for.

Why don’t you put some of your world famous Vattle Birther research skills to work and find out??? I’ll give you a hint. The answer won’t be found in France. LMAO!!!

Oh, you are a trip, aren’t you. If you can’t figure that out, it says a lot about why you are a Vattle Birther. LMAO.

Actually, I discovered Vattel was a vampire:

http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2011/10/05/emerich-de-vattel-a-vampire/

Uh, try this link:

http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01.htm

Who did my avatar kill???. She looks sweet and innocent to me

Justia is just one website, and if they screw something up accidentally it isn’t a big deal to me. For starters, I don’t think it was on purpose because Minor v. Happersett is not worth “scrubbing.” If I thought for one second that it was “scrubbed” on purpose, then I would be screaming mad, whether I liked the cases or not.

I take it that your refusal to provide links to any other cases is just proof that you don’t have any other such cases and you’re just blowing smoke. Which, will be proven once again when The Liberty Legal Foundation stuff goes KERPLOOF.

But you and your fellow Vattle Birthers will not see it because you will be too busy blaming the judges.

The 14th Amendment does not make natural born citizens of people born overseas to American citizens. Wong Kim Ark, Section VI:

The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that

all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,

contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case [p703] of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.

Any doubts about foreign born citizens has nothing to do with natural born citizens born inside the country. That issue has been settled.