Posted on 03/02/2011 10:15:41 AM PST by rxsid
Omc—I already knew all about Morphy. (I thought he went nuts later in his shortish life?) Probably the greatest chess genius of all time, while he lasted. Quite the prodigy, wasn’t he? The Mozart of chess.
I used to be a respectable chess player myself. Then I realized it was chess or writing, since time is limited, and I went with the latter.
I don’t think the “players” are fooled, I agree with you, Fantasywriter. They either know he’s lying and is ineligible, or strongly suspect he is.
But truth and the rule of law and honesty and fair play mean nothing, less than nothing, to them. They see those who value honesty, rule of law and fair play as patsies to be destroyed.
I always appreciate any and all pings (from you and others). I read as much as I can.
Water’s getting hot.
It’s not going to stay under wraps forever.
“They see those who value honesty, rule of law and fair play as patsies”
That is so, SO true. They also see anybody who is nice as a rube who deserves whatever con can be pulled on him or her. There are some very nice people on FR. They give others the benefit of the doubt. The Alinky types see that as weakness and stupidity. They lie their butts off, and snicker because they’ve found someone ‘gullible’ enough to believe them.
They are mean, low people. It’s a shame they are allowed to romp roughshod over FR.
The same Republicans that “certified” the fraud to begin with?
“No, the “treaty” is not “just” about or applicable only to land owners.”
Then why does Donofrio himself allude to Article IX? He certainly SEEMS to be resting his argument on the language of Article IX:
“So it is Article IX of the Jay Treaty to which we must now turn our attention:
“It is agreed that British subjects who now hold lands in the territories of the United States, and American citizens who now hold lands in the dominions of His Majesty, shall continue to hold them according to the nature and tenure of their respective estates and titles therein; and may grant, sell or devise the same to whom they please, in like manner as if they were natives and that neither they nor their heirs or assigns shall, so far as may respect the said lands and the legal remedies incident thereto, be regarded as aliens.”
In order to respect Article IX of the Jay Treaty (and other treaties between the US and the United Kingdom), the United States is required – by the supreme law of the land – to respect the status of “British subjects”. In order to respect the legal rights of British subjects, the US must be able to identify them. The only way the US can identify British subjects is by recognizing and giving authority to British nationality law.”
That last paragraph is DEAD WRONG. To respect Article IX does NOT require the U.S. to respect the status of “British subjects.” It only requires us to respect the status of a clearly articulated subset of British subjects, namely those owning land, their heirs or assigns.
I accept the dual citizen argument, but I believe Donofrio is stretching the truth in trying to rely on the Jay Treaty to make his case.
I really like the way you lay out the facts from the blog.
I read it this morning and was left a little confused on the vital points raised.
You display it fact after fact in a way that absolutely gets the point across for us that might have a tad bit of reading comprehension. :)
May I steal some of your layout for my own post with the link to ‘In our face’?
If you say no, I’m going to steal it anyway. :0)
The good ladies are really on top of the legal aspect of the Hawaii (HDOH) headfake.
Thank the Lord for them.
Oh boy, chess. I always wanted to own a beautiful chess set and have it prominently displayed on a gorgeous table. However, I didn’t want anyone to challenge me because I have no idea how to play.
Anyway, isn’t there some way (or maybe it’s already out there) for us to have a Conservative version of *Rules for Radicals*? Or is it because we play by the rules that’s not likely?
It’s actually an excerpt with no changes at all.
Good.
Yeah, those Republicans. Wouldn’t you like to see them subjected to cross-examination by a skilled prosecutor?
-----------------------------------------------------
I know your not being serious, that they would initiate an investigation that would ultimately show THEY were complicit in this...So I won't say grow up Jamese and be real.
Very true. But instead of clarifying or changing the Natural Born Citizen definition, the current group in Washington is doing everything in their power to ignore the issue by belittling Constitutionally-minded citizens and imprisoning a soldier for simply demanding due process.
It is not that we can not change the laws, it is that our federal government refuses to accept there is a problem that has been lingering since the early 1800’s and needs clarified. Once it is clarified, We the People and the federal government can amend it if necessary. This is clearly failing to occur so the process put in place by the framing fathers can not be completed properly.
Another way is that since the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, there have only been two classifications of Americans: born citizens and naturalized citizens and if a person is a Citizen of the United States at Birth as spelled out in the US Code, then they are a natural born citizen as well and if a person is a citizen but not a Citizen of the United States at Birth, then they are a naturalized citizen and therefore cannot qualify as a natural born citizen.
Under this second way to look at the issue, there is no problem, there is no confusion, the issue is settled law.
“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 ONLY TWO: 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 circumstances described 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 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.”–Supreme Court of the United States, US v Wong Kim Ark (1898)
How does one identify a “British” land owner, if one doesn’t respect and acknowledge their laws?
I know your not being serious, that they would initiate an investigation that would ultimately show THEY were complicit in this...So I won’t say grow up Jamese and be real.
james, we can always count on you to misread and misinterpret just about everything you post. You said, “since the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, there have only been two classifications of Americans: born citizens and naturalized citizens ...” which is demonstrably false. Your support citation says “two SOURCES” of citizenship, not two classifications. The two sources are only defined according to the 14th amendment. This is not a comprehensive statement on ALL citizenship in the United States. Gray acknolwedged natural born citizenship as a separate class of citizenship prior to his deliberation on 14th amendment citizenship. It’s really better for you to read but not post here ... at least not until you learn to post competently.
I suggest you post replies to the article posted rather than the voices in your head.
How many votes does the Queen have in the UN, via her many Commonwealth "nations"?
“The Kenyan Wonder Boy in the US” poster on Sarah Obama’s wall in her mud hut.
Feb 6 2008, Mosaic: World news from the Middle East
at 2:40 in the clip. Can you capture?
http://www.politicalarticles.net/blog/tag/siaya/
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.