Posted on 06/24/2011 9:38:55 PM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com ...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2735942/posts
Just in case you were wondering. The above thread goes over leftist online games. It seems fogbow.com is a gathering point.
Getting the issue vetted in the courts would be fine by me. I think it would be a wonderful idea. Then we could put the issue behind us.
Just don't be surprised when the courts don't rule in your favor.
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.
Either that, or I've done enough analysis of my own to be convinced that the "experts" brought forth by WorldNutDaily don't have a case.
By the way: Did it ever occur to you that Joseph Farah and Jerome Corsi just might have a personal interest in playing you on this issue? Clue: See the recent article in which they're suing Esquire for $100 million dollars as compensatory damages over what would by anybody's account be the loss of a small percentage of profits from their book sales and advertising, and their reputation.
I don't entirely expect you to understand what I see here. One day you will. Hopefully.
In the meantime, I'm just telling you: You're going to be disappointed.
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.
Ah... I was kind of commenting as if your post had been addressed to me. I understand now that it was really addressed to Nathanael1.
Personally, I'm not sure what to think about Fogbow. I can't speak for the motives are of the people over there, so I'll decline comment, except to note that most of them are probably Obama supporters, and some of them might just be interested in the issue. But that's a guess, I really don't know.
From what I've heard, Nathanael1 has made 1 post at Fogbow. Maybe he's made more by now. I don't know about that, either.
Here are 2 other posters that I think are Fogbow participants:
longbow1969
Jeff Winston
First of all, I don't know that it would be a crime of some sort even if I were, unless you have good knowledge that the people at Fogbow are some kind of conspiracy, and that everyone who participates over there is in on it.
It seems to me that, strictly speaking, you might as well call the birther clan here at FR a conspiracy. I suppose you can paint the Fogbow people as evil, and they can paint you as evil. And maybe they do. I have no idea.
All of that aside, you're wrong. I'm not a participant at Fogbow.
So where does that leave us?
I think it leaves us in agreement that getting the issue settled by the courts would be a good thing.
Except that rereading this post... honestly, I doubt it would really help that much.
At the beginning of this point, I said, "Then we could put the issue behind us."
Rereading this prior to posting, I have my doubts.
What I keep running into is the basic attitude expressed earlier in the thread.
That the goal is to declare Obama ineligible.
Note: It's not to find out the truth (which has been my goal).
It's not to uphold the Constitution (which is also my goal).
It's not even to remove him from office and replace him with someone I can agree with (which is also my goal).
It's to find him ineligible.
No matter what.
No matter whether the facts don't allow us to.
In that case, we'll shout down those who point out that the facts don't allow us to.
No matter whether the Constitution and Supreme Court cases indicate he's eligible or not.
In that case, we'll twist the Supreme Court rulings to make them say what we want them to say. Or at least, we'll willingly believe those who do twist them, and promote their theories far and wide.
And when patriots in our midst point out that that's actually not what the Supreme Court rulings say, instead of considering their words, we'll shout them down again.
Because we're not going to let even the Constitution, the US Supreme Court, or those we would otherwise call our friends stand in our way.
nicely done.
Truth-seeking constitutionalist, that is how I will consider you from now on.
Carry-on seeking the truth - patriot!
I’ve kind of wondered myself lately whether some, at least, have slipped into some kind of temporary insanity.
Here we have FReepers who seem prepared (as far as I can tell) to twist the Constitution, misinterpret Supreme Court cases, lie about, insult and shout down fellow FReepers - now granted, they don’t know that you and I are and others are sincere, and it’s plausible that some of us are not - but they seem prepared to do all of these things just to try and declare Obama ineligible.
I have even honestly wondered, a little bit at least, whether a few might be trolls in our midst just to sow discord. I really don’t believe, at all, that that’s the case, but the thought has, fleetingly at least, occurred to me.
If you’re going to declare Obama ineligible, it won’t even work unless you do it right. And doing it right means that it you don’t have the evidence to do it, then you aren’t able to do it. You need more and better evidence. Because otherwise you’re going against the Constitution and laws of our country.
And for someone to point out that you don’t have the evidence, that someone is your FRIEND.
If you want to declare Obama ineligible, then you’re going to have to come up with the evidence to do so. I understand that it’s frustrating, but I’m telling you (and Longbow is telling you as well, from all I’ve seen) that so far, I haven’t seen it.
Thank you, FRiend. I mean that.
I take it you haven't yet encountered the ones who wish openly for a military coup, to be followed by the execution of most of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches--all in the name of restoring the Constitution, you understand.
Depends on what you mean by "authentic". It is, of course, an authentic PDF. The information in it -- from the place and date of birth to the names, to the attending physician -- is, as far as anyone has proven, authentic (why fake a birth certificate then populate it with true information???). It has been vetted and certified and declared authentic by the Hawaii DOH over and over again -- unless you're going to accuse the HDOH of complicity (THERE'S your conspiracy theory). And all we have to the contrary is this (not-very-)long line of self-styled "experts" trotted out by WND (to paraphrase Dorothy Parker, if all the WND document experts were laid end-to-end -- I wouldn't be surprised), everyone of which has earned a fail. One of Corsi's so-called PDF experts didn't even know what "PDF" stood for.
This Mara Zebest is just the latest example. Corsi and birthers can expound all they want on the ins and outs and ups and downs and sideways of Adobe software. You guys can trot out every Adobe expert in the world. It's all irrelevant. You wanna know why? Because the damn thing wasn't created with Adobe! I repeat for the synapse-impaired: the PDF the White House posted WASN'T CREATED WITH ADOBE. It was created on a Macintosh using Quark.
How do I know? It says so. Load the thing up in any PDF viewer, click on File and go to Properties (in Photoshop it's File/File Info...). Right there: "Producer: MAC OS X 10.6.7 Quartz PDFContext".
So, this Mara Zebest, this Adobe expert with her three-page resume of unimpeachable Adobe credentials, is utterly irrelevant. Worse, it apparently never even occurred to this world's most brilliant Adobe genius to check the file properties before running off on her utterly useless Adobe tangent. That's not just fail -- that's EPIC fail.
It's like trotting out a ballistics expert to expound on bullet trajectories and calibers and rifling patterns and composition when in fact the victim is riddled with stab wounds. And worse, nobody from the prosecution even seems to have noticed that knives are not guns. Somebody, somewhere, is just not firing on all cylinders.
Further, Zebest is NOT an expert in document forgery. She is an expert in Adobe software. The most her expertise can do is to prove that there are "anomalies" in the PDF file inconsistent with the way Adobe software does things (did I mention the White House PDF wasn't created with Adobe?). That's where Zebest's expertise ends, and that's as far as any legitimate Adobe expert with an ounce of self-respect will go. An Adobe expert has no more expertise -- and no more business -- trying to connect the dots from "anomaly" to "forgery", than a ballistics expert has in determining whether a gunshot wound is conclusive of murder.
So now Corsi calls Zebest up, offers to fly her out to DC for this press conference, spring for her hotel room, maybe even drop a bit of cash in her pocket for her trouble, so she can propound on the fakeness of the White House BC. She could have said, "Sorry, no. You need a Quark expert. I specialize in Adobe." She didn't. She accepted the invitation. Now, either she knew it wasn't an Adobe creation or she didn't. If she did, she was dishonest and unscrupulous. If she didn't, she's incompetent, her resume notwithstanding. I don't know which, and I really don't care. Either way, she damned herself before she even stepped up to the microphone.
And then, this Adobe expert -- and I don't doubt her credentials, only her testimony -- gets up and says absolutely nothing new. "Look -- links!", she says. "Layers! Pixelation! Color! That's just not normal." ("Not normal," she means, "for Adobe." Did I mention the file was created in Quark?) I don't care who says it, that kind of silliness was discredited long ago.
Don't believe me. Don't believe her. Do your own research. Go download Adobe Acrobat -- you can get a free trial version from the Adobe website -- turn on OCR and scan your own birth certificate. Links, layers and pixelation out the wazoo. Again, don't take my word for it -- do your own research. I did. I listened to Zebest (and WND's other experts), then attempted to verify their claims and, as far as I could see, their claims didn't verify. Don't scream, "She's an expert! Who are you?" (google "appeal to authority"). Do your own research.
I'm up to a half-dozen now (the subsequent five posts being follow-ups to my original query) and all within a single 36-hour period on the 28th and 29th of this month. That is the sum and total of my participation at Fogbow. So I'm actually a longer and much more active participant here. But apparently there are some around here who interpret the desire to engage contrary opinions as an act of sedition.
Here's my Fogbow profile for anyone to see.
And for the record I have never seen anything whatsoever to suggest Jeff Winston has so much as been to Fogbow, let alone posted there. Looks like a case of birthers eating their own -- or at least fellow conservatives -- and that is not a healthy sign.
One more thing: while you're checking me out at Fogbow, go read the one and only thread I participated in. Note particularly where I was almost immediately set upon by a Fogbower and accused of being a Freeper plant. So much for me being neck-deep on the Fogbow conspiracy; instead, I was almost kicked off the site.
For the record, I will state that - being generally interested in what’s being talked about regarding Obama eligibility issues - I’ve seen the site. I know I looked at one or two topics over there on one occasion at least. Probably more like two occasions. Not sure. Didn’t contact anyone or post anything.
Someone mentioned something a few days ago about echo chambers. I don’t mind saying that I think it’s healthy to be exposed to different groups of people. Even if you’re really committed to one particular group or philosophy (i.e., FR / conservatism), I think you can serve that particular group or philosophy a bit better if you are familiar with what some other folks are talking about besides just one group you regularly hang out with. If nothing else, being exposed to other groups (even if you forget Fogbow etc. and just talk about other conservative groups) helps give fresh perspective.
Requires registration, so you might want to cut and paste.
Someone -- philman? -- just a day or so ago threw Sun Tzu at me. To paraphrase: the surest path to victory is to know both your enemy and yourself. Apparently, there are some here who think the winning strategy consists in sticking their fingers in their ears and yelling so loudly they can't hear the enemy at their own gate.
As Sun Tzu says, knowing the enemy is the path to strength, not weakness. IMHO, the Freeper who demonstrates he understands and can dialogue with opposing arguments is the one who has credibility. Those who utter "fogbow" as if it's an accusation have none.
Here are the statistics cut-n-pasted from my Fogbow profile. I'm sure someone's going to accuse me of making them up. I suppose I could post a screen shot, but hey, if the White House can produce a phony birth certificate, a screen grab would be a piece of cake, so why bother?
Now, I want to make it perfectly clear I'm not doing this to defend myself. I have absolutely no need whatsoever to justify myself to anyone at FR. I participate at FreeRepublic. I participate (occasionally) at Fogbow. I particpate at Dr. Conspiracy's site. I participate in perhaps a dozen other discussion forums, from Yahoo! groups to YouTube to half a score of sites that are utterly irrelevant to anything or anyone here. I read widely. I engage a wide variety of opinions. I'm proud of that! It makes me a better person.
Frankly, I couldn't care less what my reputation here at FR is -- especially amongst those who are so free with their silly and specious accusations and seem to think WND is the end-all and be-all of political news.
I'm doing this simply to demonstrate that certain individuals in this forum are ready to grasp at the most specious of excuses for their ad hominems. "Hey, look. Nathanael's got a thread over at Fogbow, therefore anything he has to say here is ipso facto a pernicious lie. QED." If participation at FR requires locking myself inside an ideological box and never stepping foot outside to see what anyone else has to say, well, I prefer the open air of dialogue to the stale, recycled atmosphere of a closed mind.
Here's the thread. (I think anyone can view it.) And here are my statistics:
Username: Nathanael
User statistics
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 2:11 pm
Last visited: Fri Jul 01, 2011 3:00 pm
Total posts: 6 (0.00% of all posts / 0.43 posts per day)
Most active forum: Legal Claims by Birthers
(6 Posts / 100.00% of your posts)
Most active topic: Minor v Happersett on Minor's Citizenship
(6 Posts / 100.00% of your posts)
Sorry to break the news to you, Red (may I call you Red?). From Conservative Dr. you gotta turn right to get to CommieTown. It's that way, past Libertarian Lane.
Here are the statistics cut-n-pasted from my Fogbow profile.
I don't doubt that it's your current account/profile under that particular screen name.
Do you know what a "retread" is? You could have 10 different accounts over there for all anyone knows, each under a different screen name. You're a newbie wherever you go, aren't you.
The thought crosses my mind that if you think you need to be in the loop every time 7/10s of your screen name is uttered at FR, then you have serious esteem issues. I don't say you do, I only say the thought has suggested itself.
Note that the conversation was not about you and therefore there was no need to include you in it.
You could have 10 different accounts over there for all anyone knows
Exactly as I predicted. Some people here will reach for any excuse to evade disfavorable evidence. That's exactly why I said posting a screenshot would have been a waste of time. You've prepared all you excuses ahead of time.
The point was about what Sun Tzu said...
No, the point was what you didn't know...Well that just goes to show what else you don't know.
Exactly as I predicted.
Well, not exactly. What you predicted was...I'm sure someone's going to accuse me of making them up. (your statistics)
I didn't accuse you of "making up" your statistics. I merely noted that it's easy to create multiple accounts.
"I don't doubt that it's your current account/profile under that particular screen name."
Nice try anyway.
You've prepared all you excuses ahead of time.
Did you prepare all of your lies ahead of time?
ROFLMAO! Stop! You're killing me! Now philman thinks he's a spelling Nazi!
Sheesh! You just can't make this stuff up!
And isn't it interesting that instead of addressing what I wrote you decided to break off into a divergent tangent.
As I said earlier, Keep on talking. You just make it easier.
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.