Trump Resurrects Birther Issue; A lot Of People Don't Believe Obama Birth Certificate Real

BirtherReport.com ^ | July 8, 2015 | Donald Trump

[Seizethecarp]

Donald Trump sat down with Obama's NBC News' Katy Tur and was asked why people should believe his numbers on illegal immigration when he led the birther movement and sent investigators out to Hawaii to investigate whether Obama was not born here. Watch Tur press Trump over the issue pleading that Obama released his birth certificate.

Trump fired back:

"According to you it's not true. If you believe that, that's fine. ... A lot of people don't agree with you on that..."

[CpnHook]

Compared to the Court of John Marshall, yes.

Nonsequittur. The WKA court (a 19th century court) is not -- by any reasonable classification -- the "modern court," even though there are older courts. You remain an idiot.

John Bingham makes it clear in two distinct quotes what he thinks existing law means, and it is clearly at odds with what *YOU* think it means,

His opinion is not at odds. You just misread him, taking him out of context. Besides, when looking at legislative testimony, the opinions of the draftsmen of the citizenship provisions at issue (in this case, Senators Trumbull (Civil Rights Act) and Howard (14th Amendment) carry the most weight, and they clearly espouse the principle I've argued.

As we saw in the last go-round, Congressmen Wilson (whom you stupidly tried to put in your camp) offered extensive citations to Blackstone and early U.S. writers that "exist law" was jus soli as to the native born. It's fatuous to assert Bingham was disagreeing when he offers no rebuttal to what would (under your assumption) be their contrary opinion. Bingham was in agreement with Wilson, the House's own Judiciary Committee Chair.

CH: Name one instance. I've successfully called your bluff on this a half dozen times in the past. I shall do so again.

DL: No, you talk to yourself in the mirror saying things like "What a good boy I am" and "I am so very very smart!" and other nonsense for which adults have no time to spend.

Yep. Called it. You claim I argue against established facts. I assert you're BS'ing and challenge you to name one instance. Your reply is your typicial silliness.

CH: I think that one of us is going to highlight the other's past failures, by specific reference to specific posts. And the other is going to p*ss and moan a bit more, then retreat.

More like recognize that it is pointless to argue with a fool, and should not be done except for the entertainment it provides. At the moment you are entertaining, but I think that will pass. Only so many times can people see your silly monkey dance before it gets boring.

Yep, called this one, too. You're already doing your posture and dance and trying to find the exit. You know I'm poised to haul out your past fails one by one.

So, hurry, hurry, find that exit.

[TalBlack]

Wow, this is getting more interesting than I’d hoped. Maybe Trump was afraid the repeated bitch-slappings he’s been handing out to “journalists” would wise them up and they’d resort to the default ‘Ignore Him Completely” mode. This will have them rushing in at Trump with renewed vigor.

[John S Mosby]

Because of who is actually his father. Frank Marshal Davis. The ear folds, face and bone structure all match.

[CpnHook]

But let's get back to this point. Do you agree with "Gay" Marriage?

Off topic. Though I will add, as a life-long Catholic (and Catholic Apologist) my church will never sanction gay marriage and I am perfectly comfortable being in that communion.

[captain_dave]

No true Christian would have a moslem name.

[ifinnegan]

I wondered about that also, but I think it is more along the lines of what Responsibility2nd wrote in 40 that it is about divide and conquer and playing mind games.

[DiogenesLamp]

Nonsequittur. The WKA court (a 19th century court) is not -- by any reasonable classification -- the "modern court," even though there are older courts. You remain an idiot.

You may or may not be aware, (given past experience with you, i'm putting you in the "unaware" category) that Wong Kim Ark has been dissected by other lawyers, among them is the Prominent (on this issue) Lawyer Mario Apuzzo. He and others have pointed out how the Wong Court deliberately manipulated citations into supporting their claims when they in fact did not.

Oh, and yes, compared to John Marshall's court, (A Ratifying Delegate working with James Madison to secure passage in Virginia) they are a "modern" court. Idiot.

His opinion is not at odds. You just misread him, taking him out of context.

Now see, this is what I F***ing hate about you. I have beaten other people dogsh*t senseless over this point, but that was years ago, and now, to make the point, I am obligated to find the link before I can beat your sh*t with it as well. Which means that I am going to have to look for it, and wade through a whole lot of crap just to find it again, all so I can use it to smack your silly @$$, and for you to then ignore anyways.

You will perceive any unwillingness to wade through the debates on the 14th amendment and the earlier Civil Rights act of 1866, as a "retreat", instead of what it actually is. A weariness at dealing with ignorant fools who's mouth is bigger than their brains.

So now you've once more reared your ugly head like a boil, and I don't think any thing will suffice but that I beat your f***ing brains out with those two quotes from John Bingham, and make you eat them.

And all this being completely irrelevant to the meaning of "natural born citizen", which was known and understood nearly 100 years prior, and has no actual bearing on "citizenship" for freed slaves.

Idiot.

[DiogenesLamp]

Didn't take as long as I thought it might. Here's one.

John Bingham is not amused with you.

John Bingham (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862)).

Who are natural-born citizens but those born within the Republic? Those born within the Republic, whether black or white, are citizens by birth — natural born citizens. There is no such word as white in your constitution. Citizenship, therefore does not depend upon complexion any more than it depends upon the rights of election or of office. All from other lands, who by the terms of your laws and compliance with their provisions become naturalized, and are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens.

[DiogenesLamp]

And here is another.

Again, John Bingham is not amused with you.

John Bingham, (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866)).

"I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen; but sir, I may be allowed to say further, that I deny that the Congress of the United States ever had the power or color of power to say that any man born within the jurisdiction of the United States not owing foreign allegiance, is not and shall not be a citizen of the United States. Citizenship is his birthright, and neither the Congress nor the States can justly or lawfully take it away from him. "

[DiogenesLamp]

Okay, I give you a point for that.

[DiogenesLamp]

Obama's was issued in 2011. Not surprisingly, it looks more pristine.

Well, except for the cut and paste Frankenstein monster aspect of it.

[GrandJediMasterYoda]

Whhoooooa my God!! Has this ever been put on a Freep thread? Holy smoke!!! I actually have this program on my Mac, I’m going to try just what he is saying. This mind blowing if this is for real. I know exactly what he is talking about when it comes to layers.

[GrandJediMasterYoda]

OH MY GOD IT’S TRUE!!! I just downloaded it right from Whitehouse.gov, opened it in Adobe Illustrator and it’s right there, all the layers came up and sure enough, shut some off and you can see where they faked it! This is HUGE !! Why is nobody talking about this?

[CpnHook]

John Bingham is not amused with you.

That's funny. I can hear him calling to you, saying "Hey, DumbDumb, those portions are where I was talking about the specific problem of INDIANS!"

But you, true to form, ducked my point about how the opinions of the draftsmen of the language at issue take precedence. Sen. Jacob Howard drafted the "born . . . in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction" language. Let us consult his views:

"A citizen of the United States is held by the courts to be a person who was born within the limits of the United States and subject to their laws..... They became such in virtue of national law, or rather of natural law which recognizes persons born within the jurisdiction of every country as being subjects or citizens of that country. Such persons were, therefore, citizens of the United States, as were born in the country or were made such by naturalization; and the Constitution declares that they are entitled, as citizens, to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States." Sen. Howard, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 2765 (1866).

Notice? By virtue of "natural law" all persons born within the jurisdiction of a country are "subjects or citizens." As I've pointed out to you previously, this leave no question that Howard is applying the same "existing law" jus soli under both England and the U.S.

And what about Sen. Trumbull, draftsman of the corresponding Civil Rights Act citizenship clause:

"I understand that under the naturalization laws the children who are born here of parents who have not been naturalized are citizens. Is not the child born in this country of German parents a citizen?" Sen. Trumbull, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 497 (1866).

"I am afraid that we have got very few citizens in some of the counties of good old Pennsylvania if the children born of German parents are not citizens."' Sen. Trumbull, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. 498 (1866)

"I have already said that in my opinion birth entitles a person to citizenship, that every free-born person in this land is, by virtue of being born here, a citizen of the United States, and that the bill now under consideration is but declaratory of what the law now is." Sen. Trumbull, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st session. 600 (1866)

Yep, the "natural born citizen" rule was jus soli as to the native born for Sen. Trumbull, too. And over in the House of Representatives, Judiciary Committee Chairman Wilson states:

"It is in vain we look into the Constitution of the United States for a definition of the term "citizen." It speaks of citizens, but in no express terms defines what it means by it. We must depend upon the general law relating to subject and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead to a conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural born citizen of such States, except it may be that children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments are native born citizens of the United States. Thus it is expressed by a writer on the Constitution of the United States: "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." Rawle on the Constitution, pg. 86."

Rawle, Blackstone. Is Bingham saying anything contrary? Not when understood in context. And if there was any confusion in his mind on this point, shortly after he shows clear alignment with his colleagues:

"Who does not know that every person born within the limits of the Republic is, in the language of the Constitution, a natural-born citizen." Rep. Bingham, Cong. Globe, 40th Cong, 2nd Sess, p. 2212 (1869)"

So once again your selective sampling and out-of-context citations are easily unmasked. But let's answer Cong. Bingham. "Who does not know? DiogenesLamp!!!"

[TigersEye]

I have personally posted it a dozen times or more. It has been posted by others far more than that. Thanks for confirming it with your own software.

That kid was 18 when he made those videos. Think of how many hundreds of computer savvy adults have known about this all along. Especially including many who work for MSM broadcasting companies.

The MSM knows that 0bama is a phony. They know better than anyone. They are an enemy of the people.

[nascarnation]

The MSM knows that 0bama is a phony

How much would the Chinese hackers charge us for Baraq's dossier? I assume he's got background check info in the database?

[CpnHook]

You may or may not be aware, (given past experience with you, i'm putting you in the "unaware" category) that Wong Kim Ark has been dissected by other lawyers, among them is the Prominent (on this issue) Lawyer Mario Apuzzo.

Mario Apuzzo has had his *ss handed to him by me and many, many others on multiple occasions. The ONLY erroneous quote that Gray gives, to my knowledge, is that he cites one concurring opinion in Ingliss and treats it as the majority opinion. Big whooop. Apuzzo is an idiot, and it's no surprise you give him credence.

And no where does John Marshall's court support your view. Or are you here again referring to Marshall's dissenting opinion in a case that didn't involve citizenship and which didn't even use the term "natural born citizen." Oh, right, for sure, that tells us a lot about the Court's views on Article II. You just pile on desperate argument upon desperate argument. Now see, this is what I F***ing hate about you. I have beaten other people dogsh*t senseless over this point, but that was years ago,

Your "victories" exist in your mind only. Or do you want to be reminded how you truncated Cong. Wilson's remarks to make him look like he supported your view when in fact he flatly contradicts what you claim.

Hey, I'm happy to let the Bingham part play out. In my prior post, I've already pre-empted your further attempts to misread Bingham. But, play on. About everything you post is easily dissected.

You will perceive any unwillingness to wade through the debates on the 14th amendment and the earlier Civil Rights act of 1866, as a "retreat", instead of what it actually is. A weariness at dealing with ignorant fools who's mouth is bigger than their brains.

I've put the Howard, Trumbull, and Wilson quotes in front of you before, only to have you brush them aside as if Bingham is the only person you will talk about. Howard and Trumbull are the draftsmen of the key provisions under debate, you lunkhead! You don't have to "wade through them." Just read them.

So, yeah, you're repeated running away without having dealt with much of the material I'm adducing that shows you're a fool is a retreat, a cop-out, a fail. Many terms are applicable.

I don't think any thing will suffice but that I beat your f***ing brains out with those two quotes from John Bingham, and make you eat them.

Right, because you're Johnny One-Note here (oops, make that Johnny Two-Note). You've got two excerpts from Bingham that you think support your view and you keep tossing those out ad nauseum. You think that is "beating me over the head." It's more like "bludgeoning me with idiocy?"

And while you're looking for Bingham quotes to beat me with, but sure to meditate on this one:

"Who does not know that every person born within the limits of the Republic is, in the language of the Constitution, a natural-born citizen." Rep. Bingham, Cong. Globe, 40th Cong, 2nd Sess, p. 2212 (1869)"

[DiogenesLamp]

That's funny. I can hear him calling to you, saying "Hey, DumbDumb, those portions are where I was talking about the specific problem of INDIANS!"

Now you are flailing. In context this is clearly about immigrants and their children, not Indians.

John Bingham (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862)).

Who are natural-born citizens but those born within the Republic? Those born within the Republic, whether black or white, are citizens by birth — natural born citizens. There is no such word as white in your constitution. Citizenship, therefore does not depend upon complexion any more than it depends upon the rights of election or of office. All from other lands, who by the terms of your laws and compliance with their provisions become naturalized, and are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens.

[TigersEye]

I’d contribute to a fund to buy info on 0baMao and Hitlery from the ChiComs (or Putin or Guccifer). It would require a whale of a lot of money to out do the political value to the ChiComs though.

Plus the ChiComs just don’t admit anything. They would go to their graves denying that Chinese people eat rice if it had a face saving aspect to it.

[DiogenesLamp]

Mario Apuzzo has had his *ss handed to him by me and many, many others on multiple occasions.

Not once. He kicks their @$$ over at Dr. Conspiracy every time he goes there.

And no where does John Marshall's court support your view.

In every case he ever dealt with pertaining to this issue.

This one for example.

Hey, I'm happy to let the Bingham part play out. In my prior post, I've already pre-empted your further attempts to misread Bingham.

Really? I must have missed that. What, do you have to have a secret decoder ring to find them or something? My recollection is you tried to dodge the point, but didn't make it.

I've put the Howard, Trumbull, and Wilson quotes in front of you before, only to have you brush them aside as if Bingham is the only person you will talk about. Howard and Trumbull are the draftsmen of the key provisions under debate, you lunkhead! You don't have to "wade through them." Just read them.

I'm not going to rely on what people in 1866 thought about something which was created in 1776, and who had been subjected to Rawle's consequent lying on the issue. I go to the founding era to understand founding era concepts. You want to play in the later half of the 19th century because there you can find people ignorant enough to agree with you, except for Bingham, of course.

This is why I have little patience with you. You are stuck nearly 100 years after the fact, and when many people had forgotten what the words meant. (Apparently not Bingham though.)

"Who does not know that every person born within the limits of the Republic is, in the language of the Constitution, a natural-born citizen." Rep. Bingham, Cong. Globe, 40th Cong, 2nd Sess, p. 2212 (1869)"

Yeah, "of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty." Get it right @$$hole. Bingham wasn't as stupid as you.