Posted on 03/11/2013 12:15:07 PM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
Respected constitutional scholar and lawyer Herb Titus sits down to explain what a true Constitutional Article 2 Section 1 natural born Citizen is. Herb Titus credentials are impeccable when it comes to the matter of Constitutional Law and our founders original intent, especially on the subject of the presidency. Titus gives a clear understandable meaning of why the founders wanted to have a natural born Citizen ONLY for the presidential requirement to hold the executive office of the United States. It is clear after listening to Herb Titus in the two part video that you will understand why Bobby Jindal, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Barack Obama are not constitutionally eligible to hold the office of the presidency.
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
Why haven’t conservatives objected to the total, complete domination of our public school system by liberals? It’s been going on for decades w devastating results. Have you seen any prominent Republican working hard to publicize the problem and change it? Better yet, have you seen the Republican party stand united against this wholesale destruction of young minds?
There are many reasons liberal ideas are allowed to stand. First, the MSM sets out to marginalize, discredit and destroy any prominent Republican/conservative who attempts to thwart liberal domination. In concert w that, however, is the effectiveness of the ‘You’re a racist’ charge. Anyone who challenges Obama is portrayed as a de facto racist of the worst stripe—and the same goes for anyone attempting to ‘discriminate’ against citizens w non-American parents. Since racism/discrimination is the cardinal sin of the age, most aren’t willing to endure that type of onslaught/destruction.
A priori thinking in that article. They beg “birthers” to sit down and shut up or the GOP will never win another POTUS election...because the Founders couldn’t possibly have meant that all of our obviously deserving non-NBC candidates would be ineligible!
So much for defending the Constitution.
*
.
From Sven,to paraphrase:
“You’ll be seeing me on TV discussing the “evidence” around October 2012!!!”
When in October? Which network?
.
80 posted on 10/17/2012 1:45:47 PM PDT by LucyT [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies | Report Abuse
To: LucyT
I live in a rural area with no TV reception ... so,you’ll have to include a youtube video as “... seeing me on TV.”
86 posted on 10/17/2012 2:12:03 PM PDT by SvenMagnussen (Gossip is Satan’s talk radio.)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2946139/replies?c=86
USCIS FOIA/PA Headquarters Office
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services National Records Center, FOIA/PA Office P. O. Box 648010 Lee’s Summit, MO 64064-8010 Live Assistance: 1-800-375-5283 Fax (816) 350-5785 uscis.foia@dhs.gov
Anybody wanna do a FOIA for immigration records for info relating to Jindal, Rubio, Haley, Cruz, or......
0?
:D
The "Natural Born Citizen" clause of Article 11 has no relevance whatsoever to the Wong Kim Ark case. It would have if and only if Mr. Ark sought the presidency or vice presidency. That case was decided solely on the basis of the Fourteenth Amendment. Ark was ruled a citizen at birth; he was not declared a Natural Born Citizen.
Watch the Herb Titus video linked to at the top of this thread. He carefuly explains the difference between Fourteenth Amendment citizenship and Natural Born Citizen.
And, as you can see, I'm on your side regarding this issue.
I've never stated the court found WKA to be a "natural born Citizen."
It would be absurd to suggest such.
Mearly pointed out that part of the contributing factor to finding Mr. Ark a "citizen" was that his parents were permanently domiciled in the U.S. (& "carrying on business").
Something that obviously doesn't apply to Sr. Therefore, Mr. Ark's situation and Barry's are already different (regardless of where Barry may have been born).
Well, you guys tried. You can lead a whore to culture but you can’t make him think.
It’s kind of funny watching him (JW) get it so completely ass-backwards and he can’t see it.
It’s complete and utter blindness to logic.
M v. H
Just no one likes the answer and just ignores it.
DING. DING. DING.
This thread has a winner.
“Do you believe the two citizen parent requirement will ever make a comeback and be enforced in the future, or has it been consigned to the dustbin of history?”
I read the Minor case to read NBC as requiring two citizen parents on US soil.
But not one of the 535 congresspersons objected to Barry’s election when they had the chance after they had been told by Barry that his father was a UK subject when Barry was born. Nor has any court, especially SCOTUS, gone out of its way to take up the issue when given the opportunity.
Justice Thomas said that SCOTUS was “evading” the issue.
I would say that a clear precedent has been set, especially after two elections, with no chance of being reversed by SCOTUS on the two parent issue. All efforts to remove Barry from the ballot failed with state judges citing the idiotic Ankeny case parsing of the Minor case and/or citing to WKA erroneously.
The answer is the same. A lot of people are simply uninformed and others don't care.
rom what I’ve read law students are taught that being born in the US makes you a NBC these days and its been that way for decades at least.
That proves my point about being uninformed. The nation's highest legal authority has never made such a declaration. They were consistent in the exclusive definition that NBC = all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens.
Plus, we have the Indiana Appeals Court that admitted that WKA was NEVER found to be a natural-born citizen in the Ankeny v. Daniels decision and they also admit that Minor did indeed define natural-born citizen. Nothing in their argument that NBC could be applied beyond the Minor definition has a legal precedent behind it.
Sandy is entitled to a personal opinion, but in a court of law, she would have to go against legal precedent set by at least 27 Supreme Court justices who agreed that NBCs are those born in the country to parents who are citizens. Second, Sandy has no legal proof that Obama was born in Hawaii. The only thing that has been "presented" is hearsay from a legal standpoint.
Indeed.
That’s it?
I spoon feed you the information you need to bring down the Commander in Chief of the most powerful nation on the planet and you complain because I delivered it on FR and not youtube.com?
In my defense, I’m not a lawyer. Only recently have I learned evidence, affidavits, testimonials, eye-witness testimony, documents, etc ... are ignored by the Court until an answer is submitted by the defense in a civil suit.
As a non-lawyer, I got sucked into the false narrative evidence must be submitted with the complaint for the complaint to be heard. Not true!. The allegations in the complaint are read by the presiding judge as true until the defendant successfully defends himself/herself from the allegations.
Only recently, I learned evidence, documents, affidavits, and sworn testimonials are ignored by the Court until discovery begins. Discovery doesn’t begin until an answer is filed by the defendant.
Now I understand why OBOTS and ConcernedFreepers are so desperate to discredit the evidence of Obama’s Certificate of Naturalization before an answer is filed. It could be devastating to the defense if they deny Obama is not a usurper, insist a Certificate of Naturalization does not exist and then I’m called as a rebuttal witness to demonstrate Obama naturalized as a U.S. Citizen in 1983.
After Obama and other traitors to the United States go “all in” with their denial, a rebuttal witness is called. It is so risky, I doubt Obama will show up. I doubt Obama will honor a subpoena for his immigration records. If that is the case, the Court’s only option to find all allegations listed in the complaint have merit.
There’s more at http://svenmagnussen.blogspot.com
Mr. Magnussen, You state: “And you think Sheriff Arpaio can’t do anything unless I provide with certified, authenicated documents even though I would be violating the law”
Get the documents authenticated through the Cold Case Posse lead investigator Lt. Mike Zullo. They can have a attestation done to the documents at no charge to you. They will not reveal who you are. You would be doing this country a tremendous patriotic service. Please contact them.
Sven...............turn the evidence over to Lt. Mike Zullo at the Maricopa Country Sheriff’s Department. They will have a attestation done to the documents. Sheriff Arpaio will take action.
Thanks Smokey; much appreciated.
Fwiw, I’ve been trying to understand the dirt-trumps-blood idea from the POV of a true-believer. I’ve made a little progress.
First, it’s a position in which they are highly invested emotionally. They wouldn’t admit this; they present it strictly as a case of historical research admitting of only one conclusion: the Framers intended a dirt-only NBC test, w blood excluded completely.
Talk 5 minutes w any of them, however, and you notice the cool, intellectual conclusion is emotionally charged to a hyper degree. Why?
It can only come down to one factor: the anti-discrimination foundation of modern liberalism. I.e.: discrimination is the only evil in the world. Discriminating against an innocent child—a US citizen by birth—by telling him he is barred for life from seeking the office of POTUS, is a clear cut case of discrimination. What’s more, it’s such a vile form of discrimination, the Framers would never have engaged in it.
From that premise the evidence is made/forced to support the conclusion. Anyone who disagrees is an ignorant and probably not overly bright xenophobic rightwing rube. & that belief runs so deep, it’s doubtful any amount of reason or logic will break through.
Two other factors are at work, however. First, the dirt-only crowd either cannot or will not make this one simple connection: the purposeful destruction Obama is wreaking on America is directly, inextricably related to his self-identification w his Kenyan half. I.e.: Obama is seeking not to remake the USA into a socialist workers paradise [as a liberal such as Hilary! would try to do]; he is extracting revenge against the evil, slave-trading/owning colonialist superpower that only prospered at the expense of Kenya & the rest of Obama’s “true homeland” [according to him, not to me] Africa. They simply cannot connect those dots.
Even more important, however, is point two. Namely, they do not know and do not wish to know the full degree,, breadth & depth of the harm/irreparable damage Obama is inflicting on the country he so viscerally hates. The liberals in the dirt-only crowd are convinced he’s doing good for the country, while the conservatives believe he’s doing limited harm that can and likely will be undone by the next GOP POTUS. The idea that Obama is permanently crippling & purposefully degrading the USA is not a fact they are willing to grasp. Again, they would ascribe such beliefs to unhinged rightwing rubes, while they smugly content themselves w the ‘truth’.
Put all that together, and you see clearly why the argument w them will never be won. It would be like trying to convince Bill Clinton that higher taxes harm the economy. You could get him alone on a dessert island and present facts, figures and historical data for a solid year and not make a dent. Higher-taxes-is-good-for-all is a part of his core ideology that runs too deep to respond to facts, logic or historical evidence. It’s hardwired into him at this point, and he’d likely turn homosexual [zero probability] before abandoning his pro-tax beliefs.
Same w the dirt crowd. They will never accept the idea that innocent little ‘Billy’ w the non-naturalized Italian father should be discriminated against, while America-hating Bill Ayers, w 2 American parents, can run for POTUS to his heart’s content. They just can’t go there, and never will.
Fwiw.
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.