[Jeff Winston]

So. DiogenesLamp presents you with a page from Samuel Roberts’ book.

As noted many times, Roberts was an obscure judge in charge of several COUNTIES in Pennsylvania.

He had absolutely no responsibility or authority in regard to national law, which is what determines the meaning of “natural born citizen.”

He was not a recognized Founder and is not known to have been close to any of the major Founders.

Roberts presents absolutely no authority or rationale for his claim that the children of non-citizens aren’t citizens. In other words, it is solely his own opinion, unbacked by any other authority.

He is absolutely contradicted by the more authoritative sources, including William Rawle, who was a member of Benjamin Franklin’s inner circle (the Society for Political Inquiries, which was an arm of the major Founders of the nation.)

This Society met in Franklin’s house in Philadelphia (the city of the Constitutional Convention) in the months leading up to that Convention, to discuss the relevant issues in preparation for the Convention.

As well as being a personal friend of both Franklin and George Washington (the Convention’s President), Rawle gave a presentation on immigration to the Society. He was basically their “expert” or “consultant” on that subject. So he was in a position to know very well what the status of children of immigrants was considered to be.

Aside from that, Rawle was appointed to a national legal position by Washington - United States District Attorney for the State of Pennsylvania. Washington actually asked him to be US Attorney General, but he declined the position.

Rawle was also a major national legal expert who wrote one of the widely-regarded expert legal works on the Constitution. It was used as a textbook in our universities.

And Rawle, in absolute contradiction to little several-counties judge Samuel Roberts, wrote:

“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”

Crystal clear.

Yet DiogenesLamp completely refuses to admit the evidence from Rawle (calling him, I believe, a liar), and claims that Samuel Roberts is the real expert.

THAT is the kind of bullsh*t we’ve seen again and again and again from birthers such as DiogenesLamp.

Another good example is his use of a small treatise written by David Ramsay, whose views on citizenship were voted down a stunning 36-to-1 by our First House of Representatives, including Father of the Constitution James Madison and half a dozen signers of the Constitution.

So his goal is to promote complete bullsh*t. And if someone stands in his way, he will call them names and then threaten them with physical violence.

[DiogenesLamp]

As noted many times, Roberts was an obscure judge in charge of several COUNTIES in Pennsylvania.

Trisham, I want you to note how Jeff had earlier said that we had absolutely NO FACTS on our side, but when presented with one, he immediately attempts to dismiss it as trivial or inconsequential, not at all embarrassed by his previous assertion that there were NO FACTS AT ALL.

Even in his attempt to dismiss the fact which he previously claimed we did not have, he is being dishonest. He attempts to portray it as a trivial work by an Obscure judge in Pennyslvania, but he leaves out a lot of salient details which color it very differently. Here is the front page of the book from which that quote came.

The Book is a compilation of the work done by the Entire Supreme Court of Pennsylvania at the direction of the State Legislature of Pennsylvania. Here is the Act passed by the Pennsylvania legislature ordering the Pennsylvania Supreme court to undertake this task.

Here is the final portion of the letter which those judges sent to the State Legislature of Pennsylvania in which they explained what they had done.

The Book was of extreme importance within the State of Pennsylvania, and was widely used as a reference by all Pennsylvanian courts for decades. It was so popular, they printed a second edition in 1847.

Furthermore, I will point out that The Constitution was Written in Philadelphia, which was at that time the Nation's Capitol, and no body of people knew better what was the meaning of Article II "natural born citizen" than did those delegates and representatives from Pennsylvania. That was the center of the Nation's legal system in 1787, and those Judges of the Supreme court of Pennyslvania were delegates and Representatives.

In addition, Samuel Roberts was trained by William Lewis, who was a member of the Pennsylvania legislature in 1787, and who ought to know very well what was the meaning of the Constitution when it was ratified by Pennsylvania in 1787.

Pennsylvania also included in it's first State Constitution (Ben Franklin was President of the Pennsylvania constitutional convention. ) an acknowledgement that the son of a citizen would automatically be a voter.

I could go on and on about who was who, and who did what in Early Pennsylvania legal history, but the salient point of my response is that Jeff Winston Deliberately, and with malicious intent, attempts to deceive people about the Provenance of this book, and the nature of it's importance in the most Prominent Legal system in Early US History. Philadelphia WAS the most prominent legal system of the United States at this time in our History.

Jeff first attempts to deny the existence of disputing evidence, and when he can no longer deny, attempts to lie about it's origin and it's scope of importance. Again, Jeff is intellectually dishonest, and though i've demonstrated once more that he is deliberately dishonest, the next time the topic comes up, he'll simply repeat his false claims again. (The Book is a nothing, Samuel Roberts is a nobody, the Book was NOT the work of the Entire Supreme court of Pennsylvania. The book is NOT evidence.)

Now it has taken me quite a long time to find all the images and links, but Jeff's lies? They require no effort whatsoever, and that's how he does it. He makes me work to disprove the lies which he tells effortlessly. Jeff has seen this information several times, but he persists in sticking to his propaganda.

Now are you getting a better idea of why a person would get fed up attempting to reason with him?