MINOR V. HAPPERSETT IS BINDING PRECEDENT AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEFINITION (NBC).

Natural Born Citizen (blog) ^ | June 24, 2011 | Leo Donofrio

[Seizethecarp]

Since my last report, many people have asked why the definition in Minor v. Happersett of a “natural-born citizen” (as a person born in the US to parents who are citizens) is binding legal precedent. The answer is in the Court’s holding that Virginia Minor was a US citizen…because she was born in the US to parents who were citizens. That part of the actual holding is listed in the official syallbus of the case.

And furthermore, Minor was the first case to hold that women are equal citizens to men. To this day, that case is still cited as the first US Supreme Court decision which recognized that women were, in fact, citizens. It is still precedent for that determination. Google [ "minor v happersett" "women are citizens" ] and review the results. A multitude of articles discuss the holding of Minor – that women are US citizens.

[Jeff Winston]

Well, it seems clear to me, then, that 63 personal attacks in 5 days is fine by Jim.

It appears that you and your buddies have the license to do as much bullying as you like.

[philman_36]

...and whining by the poster

Stop digging!

[TigersEye]

Thanks for the update, philman.

[bushpilot1]

This thread has been pulled.

Pulled on 06/29/2011 5:46:22 AM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:

Too much bs and whining by the poster

[Nathanael1]

We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution's Article II language is immaterial.

The only thing immaterial is your inability to read English. What the court in Ankeny said was it's immaterial that WKA did not specifically call him a "natural born citizen" in those exact words. Even the dissent in WKA agreed that the ruling made Wang eligible to be president.

I hope they fired your English teacher.

[Jeff Winston]

I was merely noting that your Sun Tzu philosophy seems to have some merit. Not the kind of thing I’m going to use, but it’s not without effect.

[Rona Badger]

What motivates you to post on all these LFCOLB threads?

It doesn't appear to be motivated. Comments from JW and others like her/him are deterrents. Their strategy is to continually try to suck us into their arguments that we never seem to be able to win. It ends up with stubbornness and results in worthless communication.

As much as I like FR, I believe that we will need to carry on our conversations in our private rooms. Let them have this place; we can find another where they are not welcome. If they break in there, we can move again. Even though we were here first it is much easier for us to leave them here jerking around with themselves thinking they have won something. I am tired of these snarky ruses, such as intentionally asking Freepers to prove that the NBC issue was not brought up at some seemingly important point in time so they can laugh while we busy ourselves doing that.

Surrender means giving up and coming over to the winning side. Right now, they are not winning or they wouldn't bother nitpicking us on this issue so earnestly. To move and gain a fresh start is a winning strategy. Many of us are already doing work that is not shared on these public threads.

I know that the best way to win an argument is to go for an entirely different goal, and they use this technique on us all of the time. I have a focus: Declaring the President as ineligible to hold office. No matter what that looks like or how it comes about or what the dire consequences are, that will remain my goal. People can’t punch themselves in the face for too long, and if they are left here to ultimately punch each other, even better. Oh, but once we leave it won't matter as they have lots of their own goals including supporting candidates for the next elections, debt reduction and other important ambitions. Great! We need them to do just that. We don't want to distract them.

Until we have a Constitutional amendment to the contrary, to be POTUS means having two citizen parents at the time of your birth on US soil. No, John McCain was not eligible and I've said that before. Go back and look through my posts and while you are at it, also read where I talk about my high school civics class. Enjoy!

[Jeff Winston]

Their strategy is to continually try to suck us into their arguments that we never seem to be able to win.

Did it ever occur to you that you're never able to win the arguments because "JW" and others like him might actually be correct?

How could we defeat your arguments time after time if your arguments are right? Are we really that much smarter than you are?

According to everything I hear, I'm an idiot.

So how can idiots defeat your arguments again and again and again?

How is it that the ONLY way you can "beat the trolls" is through personal attacks?

Please think about that for a while.

I have a focus: Declaring the President as ineligible to hold office. No matter what that looks like or how it comes about or what the dire consequences are, that will remain my goal.

BINGO.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner.

Right there, you have identified the source of the entire problem.

You and every other hard birther on this thread and every other thread seems to have the exact same goal.

And that goal is to declare Obama as ineligible to hold office.

That was never my main goal.

My main goal was to find out the truth.

And then the goal after that was to a) remove him from office if it could be shown he was ineligible, or b) to vote him out if it couldn't.

The reason you're beating your head against the wall is because you have the wrong goal.

Unless you can come up with something a LOT better than anything that's shown up on this forum since the long form birth certificate was released, having as your goal "to declare Obama as ineligible to hold office" is going to lead you to certain defeat.

If you can come up with something a lot better than what you have, then please do it.

Please notice: I am telling you exactly how you can remove Obama as being ineligible from office.

But if you can't come up with something a lot better than what you now have, you're never going to be able to remove him, and it's not because the system is broken.

If you can't come up with anything better and still want to contine in your Quixotic quest, by all means do so. But be aware that some in your midst are waving their arms and telling you: you're headed for a cliff. Or if not a cliff, at least a wall. And if not a wall, then at least down a road that leads nowhere.

Just please, don't drag our next conservative President, and our next conservative Congress, down with you.

[Red Steel]

I know you're still patting yourself on the back for having discovered my one-and-only Fogbow post,but tell me, while you were over there trying to work your way through all the big words without moving your lips, then dashing frantically back here to show off your prowess in being able to hold down the Ctrl key while simultaneously typing V

Frantically? I'm not the one who found your postings at FogButt you dim bulb. And you posted only a "one-and-only Fogbow post" at Marxist land? You have more than one Fogbow post you dim bulb. You seem not to be able to count past one.

From one of your FogBlower postings:

YOU: "Greetings, all. I'm a bit new here -- sent over by Dr. Conspiracy. This is my first post."

Sent over by Dr. CON? LoL. You live on leftist, Communist websites.

I'd say, "Do the math", but I know subtracting 28 from 21 requires more fingers and toes than you've probably got (and your dog's tired of you borrowing his), so in order to avoid putting undo stress on those two synapses of yours I'll put two and two together for you: compared to my tenure on Fogbow, I'm already an old hand here at FR.

Do the math by counting your postings at FoGButt. Two of my synapses work much better than what is all in your dull brain.

You're a turkey. You have already proved you're a fool and who works for Dr. CONspiracy. BTW, Dr. CON is nothing butt a zot here.

Yeah, but then you think Obama's BC is a fake,

It's every bit a fraud like you.

so your judgment and six bits'll just about buy you a paper down at the newstand, where you can read all about how Obama's still president, all the efforts of that formidable intellect known as Red Steel notwithstanding.

Tic toc tic toc... OBot, Obama will go down in history as a CONman.

[STARWISE]

Found this frighteningly revealing.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The serial bully is a convincing, practised liar and when called to account, will make up anything spontaneously to fit their needs at that moment

has a Jekyll and Hyde nature - is vile, vicious and vindictive in private, but innocent and charming in front of witnesses; no-one can (or wants to) believe this individual has a vindictive nature - only the current target of the serial bully’s aggression sees both sides;

whilst the Jekyll side is described as “charming” and convincing enough to deceive personnel, management and a tribunal, the Hyde side is frequently described as “evil”; Hyde is the real person, Jekyll is an act;

excels at deception and should never be underestimated in their capacity to deceive’

uses excessive charm and is always plausible and convincing when peers, superiors or others are present (charm can be used to deceive as well as to cover for lack of empathy);

is glib, shallow and superficial with plenty of fine words and lots of form - but there’s no substance;

is possessed of an exceptional verbal facility and will outmanoeuvre most people in verbal interaction, especially at times of conflict;

is often described as smooth, slippery, slimy, ingratiating, fawning, toadying, obsequious, sycophantic;

relies on mimicry, repetition and regurgitation to convince others that he or she is both a “normal” human being and a tough dynamic manager, as in extolling the virtues of the latest management fads and pouring forth the accompanying jargon;

is unusually skilled in being able to anticipate what people want to hear and then saying it plausibly
cannot be trusted or relied upon;

fails to fulfil commitments;

is emotionally retarded with an arrested level of emotional development; whilst language and intellect may appear to be that of an adult, the bully displays the emotional age of a five-year-old;

is emotionally immature and emotionally untrustworthy;

exhibits unusual and inappropriate attitudes to sexual matters, sexual behaviour and bodily functions; underneath the charming exterior there are often suspicions or hints of sex discrimination and sexual harassment, perhaps also sexual dysfunction, sexual inadequacy, sexual perversion, sexual violence or sexual abuse;

in a relationship, is incapable of initiating or sustaining intimacy;

holds deep prejudices (eg against the opposite gender, people of a different sexual orientation, other cultures and religious beliefs, foreigners, etc - prejudiced people are unvaryingly unimaginative) but goes to great lengths to keep this prejudicial aspect of their personality secret;

is self-opinionated and displays arrogance, audacity, a superior sense of entitlement and sense of invulnerability and untouchability;

has a deep-seated contempt of clients in contrast to his or her professed compassion;

is a control freak and has a compulsive need to control everyone and everything you say, do, think and believe; for example, will launch an immediate personal attack attempting to restrict what you are permitted to say if you start talking knowledgeably about psychopathic personality or antisocial personality disorder in their presence - but aggressively maintains the right to talk (usually unknowledgeably) about anything they choose;

serial bullies despise anyone who enables others to see through their deception and their mask of sanity;

displays a compulsive need to criticise whilst simultaneously refusing to value, praise and acknowledge others, their achievements, or their existence;

shows a lack of joined-up thinking with conversation that doesn’t flow and arguments that don’t hold water;

flits from topic to topic so that you come away feeling you’ve never had a proper conversation;

refuses to be specific and never gives a straight answer
is evasive and has a Houdini-like ability to escape accountability;

undermines and destroys anyone who the bully perceives to be an adversary, a potential threat, or who can see through the bully’s mask;

is adept at creating conflict between those who would otherwise collate incriminating information about them;

is quick to discredit and neutralise anyone who can talk knowledgeably about antisocial or sociopathic behaviors;

may pursue a vindictive vendetta against anyone who dares to held them accountable, perhaps using others’ resources and contemptuous of the damage caused to other people and organisations in pursuance of the vendetta;

is also quick to belittle, undermine, denigrate and discredit anyone who calls, attempts to call, or might call the bully to account;

gains gratification from denying people what they are entitled to;

is highly manipulative, especially of people’s perceptions and emotions (eg guilt);

poisons peoples’ minds by manipulating their perceptions
when called upon to share or address the needs and concerns of others, responds with impatience, irritability and aggression;

is arrogant, haughty, high-handed, and a know-all;

often has an overwhelming, unhealthy and narcissistic attention-seeking need to portray themselves as a wonderful, kind, caring and compassionate person, in contrast to their behaviour and treatment of others;

the bully sees nothing wrong with their behavior and chooses to remain oblivious to the discrepancy between how they like to be seen and how they are seen by others;

is spiritually dead although may loudly profess some religious belief or affiliation;

is mean-spirited, officious, and often unbelievably petty;

is mean, stingy, and financially untrustworthy;

is greedy, selfish, a parasite and an emotional vampire;

is always a taker and never a giver;

is convinced of their superiority and has an overbearing belief in their qualities of leadership but cannot distinguish between leadership (maturity, decisiveness, assertiveness, co-operation, trust, integrity) and bullying (immaturity, impulsiveness, aggression, manipulation, distrust, deceitfulness);

often fraudulently claims qualifications, experience, titles, entitlements or affiliations which are ambiguous, misleading, or bogus;

often misses the semantic meaning of language, misinterprets what is said, sometimes wrongly thinking that comments of a satirical, ironic or general negative nature apply to him or herself;

knows the words but not the song;

is constantly imposing on others a false reality made up of distortion and fabrication;

sometimes displays a seemingly limitless demonic energy especially when engaged in attention-seeking activities or evasion of accountability and is often a committeeaholic or apparent workaholic.

http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/serial.htm

[little jeremiah]

IOW, Obots.

[little jeremiah]

This idiot is amazing. His comments are like dirty diapers. Even though obots aren’t getting zotted much any more, I would assume that Fogbow members would get ousted at least.

[Red Steel]

Nat the FogBlower fits a few of those descriptions in your post 250.

[Nathanael1]

Did it ever occur to you that you're never able to win the arguments because "JW" and others like him might actually be correct?

No, Jeff. The possibility genuinely never does occur to them. That would require a level of reflection and introspection that is well beyond their comfort level.

There is one undeniable truth that even birthers can't evade: Obama is still in the White House. Having forestalled the obvious explanation -- their argument is weak -- birthers are left spinning elaborate theories of forged birth certificates, fake SSNs, and novel legal theories, all while Occam spins in his grave.

If we out-argue them, it's only because we don't fight fair, using deceit, word-play and disingenuous tricks to sow confusion, and misdirection when none of that works.

If no one in power pays attention, then they spice up their conspiracies with stories of obstructive media, corrupt judiciaries, and secret untouchable leagues lurking behind the halls of power ready to rain down unspeakable (or at least unspoken) destructions on any who get too close to the "truth".

Notice the Newspeak: Retreat is advance. Losing the battle is winning the war. Ignorance is strength. Intelligence is stupidity. If the enemy leaves we've won. If he's still here, we're winning. If our numbers dwindle, it's just an exodus of BINOs (Believers in Name Only); for the true believer, the truth will (eventually) win the day.

Except, it never does.

[Triple]

Thanks for your post.

It makes sense - Godspeed.

[Triple]

Here are some clues for you:

If you think that wanting the issue of Obama’s eligibility vetted in court on the merits is a “conspiracy theory,” then you are out of synchronization with the majority of conservatives.

If you truly think the LFCOLB released by the WH is authentic (after having seen all the expert analysis to the contrary) then you are in denial.

Further - there is a conspiracy involved here - and it has been outed. FOGBOW is that conspiracy, and you and several of the energy sucking wet blankets posting here are part of it.

Here are 2 other posters that I think are Fogbow participants:
longbow1969
Jeff Winston

[Triple]

A few others i think are Fogbow conspiracy participants:
Tex-con-man
Kleon
freedumbxx
allmendream

IMO

[STARWISE]

Donofrio reply:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ed. No case ever came to the US Supreme Court regarding eligibility for POTUS since Minor was decided, so there was no reason for the case to be consulted on natural born citizenship until now.

That doesn’t change the fact that it remains precedent. Furthermore, the Court in WKA did not ignore Minor, they actually followed Minor. I’ll have more on this in my next report. But Gray made a grave error of legal diction in WKA as to Minor…

The Court in Minor specifically stated it was avoiding the 14th Amendment as to citizenship, whereas Gray made it appear as if the Court in Minor was construing the 14th Amendment as to citizenship. Gray’s statement was very wrong.

Gray also cited to the dissent in Dred Scott but failed to mention that the passage he quoted was from the dissent. That is also very wrong. Gray really creeps me out. – leo

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/06/21/us-supreme-court-precedent-states-that-obama-is-not-eligible-to-be-president/

[Longbow1969]

Here are 2 other posters that I think are Fogbow participants: longbow1969...

I'm not sure why you posted this to me or what new conspiracy theories you are dreaming up, but I've seen enough of your gibberish in other threads to know I think your a complete idiot.

Further - there is a conspiracy involved here - and it has been outed. FOGBOW is that conspiracy, and you and several of the energy sucking wet blankets posting here are part of it.

And now your posting lists of Free Republic members you believe are in on some "FOGBOW" conspiracy? Have you completely lost your mind?

[Triple]

maybe I have...