Posted on 01/06/2010 6:30:17 AM PST by SvenMagnussen
Yeah buddy it was posted months ago that Kapiolani was a simple “clinic” in 1961 and certainly did not have the facilities for delivering babies. Go back and check yourself. I saw the article posted here some months ago but didn’t make a note of the newspaper. ANYBODY who will not willing prove who he is or where he came from is FRAUD until HE proves otherwise. CO
Your right. I stand corrected re: full House vs. sub-committee passage on the Nixon impeachment. Thanks!
Forget it jackv - Non-Sequitur doesn’t get anything. He’s swallowed the kool-aid by the gallon and you will never get him to admit he’s wrong. His answers are all assinine. I think ALL of us should STOP ANSWERING THE SITE PESTS. They are here for that very reason. To argue nonsense and to pester. If nobody ever replied to them, they would only have themselves to talk to and would eventualy go back to the underground from which they came. Just a thought. CO
I'm getting bored with this thread.
Regarding the original French version:
""Please note that the correct title of Vattel's Book I, Chapter 19, section 212, is “Of the citizens and naturals”. It is not “Of citizens and natives” as it was originally translated into English. While other translation errors were corrected in reprints, that 1759 translation error was never corrected in reprints. The error was made by translators in London operating under English law, and was mis-translated in error, or was possibly translated to suit their needs to convey a different meaning to Vattel to the English only reader. In French, as a noun, native is rendered as “originaire” or “indigene”, not as “naturel”. For “naturel” to mean native would need to be used as an adjective. In fact when Vattel defines "natural born citizens" in the second sentence of section 212 after defining general or ordinary citizens in the first sentence, you see that he uses the word "indigenes" for natives along with "Les naturels" in that sentence. He used the word "naturels" to emphasize clearly who he was defining as those who were born in the country of two citizens of the country. Also, when we read Vattel, we must understand that Vattel's use of the word "natives" in 1758 is not to be read with modern day various alternative usages of that word. You must read it in the full context of sentence 2 of section 212 to fully understand what Vattel was defining from natural law, i.e., natural born citizenship of a country. "
http://www.thebirthers.org
Translating the french text: "les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parents citoyens"
To English, gives this: "the natural, or indigenous, are those born in the country, parents who are citizens"
To my fellow Patriot, Dear, Obamao considers himself to be black. Factually you are right but his skin is dark and that is what they go by, these days. Look at the myth of Tiger Woods. He had been doin the white little turn coats for over a decade and everybody knew about it but to keep the lie alive, they swept it under the carpet, that is a fact. The same goes with MLK. Some say that he was a communist and some say that he was a philanderer. Will the truth ever come out? No way and that is why they locked up all his records for 75 years; to keep the lie alive. Getting back to Obamao, this is why they have locked up all his records... To keep the lie alive.
To my fellow Patriot, Dear, Obamao considers himself to be black. Factually you are right but his skin is dark and that is what they go by, these days. Look at the myth of Tiger Woods. He had been doin the white little turn coats for over a decade and everybody knew about it but to keep the lie alive, they swept it under the carpet, that is a fact. The same goes with MLK. Some say that he was a communist and some say that he was a philanderer. Will the truth ever come out? No way and that is why they locked up all his records for 75 years; to keep the lie alive. Getting back to Obamao, this is why they have locked up all his records... To keep the lie alive.
Only if I accept your definition of what an ILLEGAL president is. I don't like Obama, I didn't vote for him, but we're stuck with him. But instead of running around in circles chasing asinine theories like you are, I'm doing what I can to make sure he's a one term president.
It's far more fun to hang around here and poke fun at your claptrap instead. Birthers never disappoint.
I said 'maybe'. But obviously you have no problem telling us all what he's thinking.
Few belive your premise.
I know better than to try and convince you hard core Birthers. You are beyond rational discussion.
If not defined in the Constitution, like treason is, then they are defined by law. And the current law does not define natural-born citizen the way you do.
Yes.
In Minor v. Happersett Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court, which included a definition of natural-born citizens based on the common-law...
No, he does not. Chief Justice Waite acknowledges that some do not believe that those born of non-citizen parents are not natural-born citizens. However he does not clarify the situation by saying whether they are right or wrong. He leaves the question unanswered. So there is no defintion, in Happersett or any other decision.
It would seem that if Chief Justice Waite were on this forum he would be called a "birther" for indicating that such a birth as Obama's is fraught with doubt as to his (Obama's)Natural/Native Born status.
No, he would not. Not based on his Happersett decision.
Notice the term "United States" which refers to the country as a whole. All the country. When other nations dealt with the United States or waged war on them, they waged war on the country and not X number of separate entities. Likewise, when the United States dealt with other nations it did so as a single sovereign entity.
Therefore, while an attack [by a foreign power] on DC would rightly be considered an Act of War as it is an assault upon the seat of our governance, it is not Treason for the people, or even several states, to besiege that city. Perhaps Sedition, but that has a different definition.
I believe you are wrong in your conclusion. Regardless, how can one commit treason against D.C. or a single state? If captured, do you say, "I was only fighting those D.C. people. I never shot at anyone from Alabama or Illinois?"
According to the Birthers around here I appear to be a troll.
I am not sure what exactly I am abusing. Have a fine day.
Thats for the reply, you made my point. You repeatedly refer to “natural born subject”. We have no Natural Born Subjects in the United States. Our Laws do not follow the “King’s” Laws we are free citizens not subjects and our laws decide our issues, not English common law which followed monarchs. England still does not have a codified criminal law while the US does.
I hope you take the time to understand the difference between a subject and a citizen, we fought several wars to become and remain free citizens of a Constitutional Republic not a monarchy or fascist government who made their own rules. We the people allow ourselves to be governed only when those we temporarily grant power of government to follow our Constitution and wishes.
You can make all the argument you want and so can I, but the only decision that counts is that of the Supreme Court of the United States. They will have to decide the issue, and your court case and quotes despite your wishes does not.
You may be right. But you can bet that on a few short months they certainly will be as you say. ;-)
I remember reading that we now have the least qualified President in the history of the country elected by the least educated voters who have ever cast ballots.
You can thank the NEA (with their determined and irresponsible MSM enablers) for the gargantuan factual, ethical and jejune blind spot Liberal (and ‘independent’) voters display when considering Presidential candidates.
Ask yourself… if you did NOT even vaguely comprehend history, geography, theology (as a believer, or not), culture, social psychology, economics, politics, civics, the military (its purpose and history), international diplomacy, ethics, individualism (an individual yourself, or not) … and if you had NO concept of personal/private property and NO notion of the meaning of a thing called a ‘man hour’, would “O” look attractive to you. I suggest that he would!!
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.