Replies

And here is one of those Idiot wall of text that Jeff keeps posting, the response to which would take six or seven hours of research and writing. A person could argue one of those cites, but a dozen or more?

And to what point? Once you've taken apart each of his cites, he simply ignores that he has been proven wrong, claims he is right anyway, and posts them all over again!

Take this one for example. Jeff wrote:

The First Congress (1790):

"And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens."

Our very first Congress specified that the overseas-born children of US citizens "shall be considered as natural born Citizens."

Jeff has had his silly ass beaten metaphorically on this a dozen times, yet here he is posting this same misrepresentation, and he SPECIFICALLY truncates out the portion of his quote which CONTRADICTS HIS CLAIM.

And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:

The Naturalization act of 1790, explicitly states that the children of a Foreign Father cannot be a citizen AT ALL, let alone a "natural born citizen."

Jeff also intentionally omits the fact that the words "natural born citizen" were expressly repealed in the Subsequent Naturalization act of 1795. A tacit admission that Congress exceeded it's power of "naturalization" by attempting to confer "natural" citizenship, to which the very act of requiring a law, makes of it non-natural.

Jeff has been rebutted on this point dozens of times, but he keeps posting it as though he hasn't been proven to be deceptive and wrong.

He is like a retard who keeps repeating some inane statement, as if repetition will turn it from false to true.