Diogenes, thanks for taking the time to provide the treatise on “Alien”. Do you recall the original posting name of “Jeff Winston”? He/she was very active three or four years ago, using the same techniques and many of the same citations. I have the list of citations which were posted by someone who was an attorney working in a firm defending Guantanamo prisoners. For whatever little names mean, the name he used on Scribd was Asian. If I have saved any of the dialogs from 2009 I will send his/her name. I seem to recall that he admitted to living in Arizona or New Mexico, and may have been banned, or his controllers deemed his services unnecessary with the complete evisceration of our media and legal establishment by Obama progressives. But the pattern is too familiar, language and citations too familiar to be incidental.
His posts have been something of an aid to those of us just learning about our legal and Constitutional history because, in spite of his exasperating use of Alinsky’s ridicule, a common legal tactic, his library of obscure citations is an excellent guide through the arguments Obama’s defenders might use if a case were ever allowed to reach discovery. Virtually all of “Winston” issues have popped up during Dr. Conspiracy debates on Apuzzo’s or Donofrio’s sites, and their resolution was a lesson for which we will always owe both Apuzzo and Donofrio. (I initially wondered why Apuzzo or Donofrio would subject themselves to the antagonism which seems a common attribute of the Obama propagandists, but realized that their verbal combat was a useful tool in honing legal arguments.)
For those without the time, and few people have the time or inclination, to research every one of “Winston’s” citations and find the cute sophistry, like a historical “Where’s Waldo”, there is often a simple blatant lie, such as the citation of the statement that the Naturalization Act in the 1st Congress made the foreign born children of citizens natural born. That Act was completely rescinded in 1795, and any mention of natural born citizens erased.
The same technique was used by Obama, Leahy, Obama’s campaign chair Clare McCaskill, Clinton, and others in their second attempt to claim McCain was eligible, Senate Resolution 511 in April 2008. They needed that resolution for talking points after their bill Senate Bill 2678, the ‘‘Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act’’, sponsored by Obama and McCaskill, February 2008, failed to pass (I know you know this but others may not).
The 1st Congress Act was cited in a letter from Obama’s Harvard adviser, Con Law Professor, and member of his campaign committee, Larry Tribe, who was saved from prosecution for his plagiarism in a recent book he claimed to have written by Elena Kagan, then Dean of Harvard Law. It is a cheap trick, but Tribe and Obama knew the media and legislators were already silenced because if Obama couldn’t run, neither could McCain - a quid-pro-quo.
Among other things to look for is any mention of The Venus (though he takes time to subtly undermine John Marshall), Minor v. Happersett, Wong Kim Ark, Perkins v. Elg, or a dozen other supreme court cases. He claims to have information which he never cites undermining John Bingham, the author of the 14th Amendment’s clear statement about the definition of who are natural born, only claiming that the wording was changed. Of course it was changed. There is no use whatsoever of the term “natural born citizen” in the 14th Amendment because its authors were disciplined legal scholars who understood that every word must carry eternal burden of the law upon which our immigration laws would virtually all be based. Before the 14th, there was no constitutional definition of who were citizens, probably because of the necessary battle over citizenship for slaves, which most Northern colonies recognized in their own constitutions and law. Only natural born citizens were referenced because of the importance in protecting the presidency from foreign influence, which explains the wording of Chief Justice Waite’s explanation in Minor v. Happersett. Virginia Minor was a citizen before the 14th Amendment was passed only because she was a natural born citizen, born in Missouri to citizen parents.
We could see Winston as a learning tool, except to the extent the he/she disrupts the dialog and unnecessarily angers people. That is his job. We can assume he is one of those paid to misdirect dialog, though have no way of knowing that. The administrators at FR can probably check his IP address, but there are network tools to generate any number of false and temporary IP address that were used by Robert Bauer’s wife, Anita Dunn, who ran the disinformation program that paid many Obots during the first few years of the Obama regime.
The most obvious “hidden in plain sight” clue of the real issue is that Barry told us all he is, in the language of the 14th Amendment, a “native-born citizen of the U.S.” Barry told us he is a naturalized citizen, since that is what the 14th Amendment does; it provided the foundations for our naturalization laws. Laws can naturalize citizen at birth, but not make them “natural born citizens”, which definition is found in the writings of philosophers of the enlightenment who guided our founders. Barry told us all he was born a subject of the British Commonwealth, based upon his father’s citizenship - ironically a natural born subject of England, because English legal decisions (they have no constitution) leaned toward making more people taxable and draftable, since only descendants of the royal family could be monarch,
Barry was a citizen at birth because he was born on our soil, but not a natural born citizen, since that common-law term was made positive law by Minor v. Happersett. Of course, as Leo Donofrio pointed out the Supreme Court can chose to ignore precedent, but it will moot the wisdom of at least five chief justices, of Thomas Paine and Horace Gray (Wong Kim Ark, in which a native-born Wong Kim was determined not to be natural born, but a citizen, and in which Minor v. Happersett is cited and quoted as the authority on who are natural born.
Often the “Winston”-dominated threads would deteriorate into debates between Obots, which is probably the the objective of clever disinformation. My guess is that with the growing realization by people who know nothing of the eligibility debate, false flags are important again and this discussion might persuade some of the many who know better to take on our corrupt government.
I'd be very surprised if they were not the same person or in the same...what? Pod? Group? Klan? or whatever because of how similar they feel character-wise, and like you point out, using more or less the same material and technique.
An evolution of sorts, like a bad character actor evolving over many seasons or characters, but you still see the actor more than the part.
I used to get pissed, knowing what they're doing and have done, but now that my view of the board is better, I truly feel sorry for that one.