Posted on 07/09/2015 9:51:39 AM PDT by 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..."
(Excerpt) Read more at birtherreport.com ...
Yeah, I was in too much of a hurry. I had dealt with that one back in around March. I forgot to note the date -- 1862 -- which means it has nothing to do with the debates over the later legislation.
You're still lacking a theory of how Bingham could supposedly be at odds with his House Judiciary Chair, who makes the rule absolutely clear:
"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."
It's not enough to quote Bingham. You have to justify how your view of what Bingham is saying could conflict with what others around him were saying, yet apparently no one was concerned about reconciling the difference? When legilators come to vote, whose understanding are they accepting? Howard (draftsman of the citizenship clause), Trumbull (draftsman of the corresponding citizenship clause) and Wilson (who submits extensive authorities to support his jus soli view of "existing law"? Or (your suppose view on) Bingham? You've read on this is incoherent and unexplained. You act like posting large photos of Bingham somehow makes your weak argument stronger.
I submit they are all in agreement, as reflected in the 1869 remark by Bingham.
You want to rely on one (Bingham) when he says a few things that sound good to you. But when I show that that the draftsmen like Howard and Trumbull, and the Chair of the House Judiciary Committee explicity endorse a jus soli view to "natural born citizen," then you shift tack and pretend that "well, those guys don't matter."
You're an idiot talking about both sides of your mouth at the same time. Your inconsistencies make it so much fun to toy with you.
Not at all. I merely point out that he disagrees with you, and that is all I need to do for 1866.
His clarification on the topic just happens to be correct. You, on the other hand, thought they wanted to create anchor babies when they didn't.
(Minor v Happersett also disagrees with you. 1875.)
No great difficulty. Bingham just has a better understanding than does the House Judiciary Chair. (and i'm not going to bother looking at the rest of your message to see who that might be. I'll take your word for it that he agrees with you.)
I'm really not going to spend much effort reading your dreck. I'd advise you to keep your messages short because i'm not going to read very deep into them.
His opinion coincides with other stronger evidence earlier in History, and it's not just him. There are others, but I would have to go hunting for them again, and then verify them myself with the congressional record. Not really worth the trouble, because the debate on how to grant rights to freed slaves really has little to do with "natural born citizens."
It's sufficient that he proves to be the exception to your rule.
I even uploaded it to Photoshop and zoomed way in and you can plainly see parts where they messed with the signature especially with “unham Obama”. How do you like the last video he made, part 3 with the short form. No stamp on it and it has the words “date filed by registrar” that officially weren’t added till after 1977 yet there they are on his BC from 1961. These BCs are as fake as a 3 dollar bill. This country has been getting destroyed by a mofo who shoudn’t even be in office!!!
He should be impeached for putting out that phony document regardless of his real vital statistics. Whatever they may be. Perpetrating a fraud like that is inexcusable.
If the layers truly indicate that the document was artificially constructed, then why do the layers themselves look so machine-created? There are words (not only within the text entered on the form, but within the background text on the form itself) that are split between layers (e.g., the first half of a word is on one layer, the rest on another). For example, the (pre-printed) line “Name of Hospital or Institution (If not in hospital or institution, give street address)” is split among two layers as follows:
one layer contains “N___ _f H______l __ I__________ (If ___ __ h_______ __ ____________ ____ ______ add____)”
another layer contains “_ame o_ _ospita_ or _nstitution ___ not in _ospital or institution, give street ___ress_”
If a human made the layers deliberately, why would they split that sentence (or any of the other words/lines that are so split) across different layers?
If you take a moment to consider the actual content of the actual layers in the document, it is clear that the layers were machine-created anomalies resulting from the scanning/compression process. If a person were to artificially create a document, there is no way it would look like this one.
Well the lid may blow wide open on this yet. This Saturday Trump is meeting with Sheriff Joe so you can just imagine what those 2 will be talking about.
http://www.birtherreport.com/2015/07/dos-sheriff-joe-arpaio-and-donald-trump.html
I suggest that the meeting between the Donald and sheriff Joe has more to do with the legal fiasco the JUDGE created when JOE continued to do his job in opposition to O’s EO!
It fits into the current dialog. Today Governor Jan was speaking out in support of Trump McCANE in opposition. No surprise there
No doubt, but one can only hope that an over-eager reporter will force the “birther” issue. It HAS to happen, IMO. The MSM will not be able to resist because that THINK it makes Trump look BAD and it drives clicks and eyeballs to MSNBC and CNN. FOXNews won’t touch it, of course.
Some day the truth will come out and even if it’s after
0bama leaves office it will destroy the Democrat Party.
It will be a great day!
If any are charged and tried while O or a democrat who replaces him is in office the RAT in charge will pardon all involved.
Patience
It occurred to me that it could be safer for the country if it is all exposed after he has left office. He and the Rats are so lawless now there is no telling what they might do if it happened while he is in power. We know the GOPe is too spineless to oppose them.
Bingham doesn't disagree with the likes of Wilson (his own Judiciary Chair) or Howard or Trumbull (or me).
His clarification on the topic just happens to be correct.
Yes, when Bingham later says --
"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)"--
He's in agreement with Zephaniah Swift (1795), St. George Tucker (1803), James Kent (1825) -- all whom espoused the jus soli view before Wm. Rawle.
You, on the other hand, thought they wanted to create anchor babies when they didn't.
Anchor babies? That concept presupposes a closed-border/illegal-entry world which was utterly unknown to the Framers. I doubt it was in their purview to deny entry to persons wanting to come, be industrious, worship freely, and better their lives. That, after all, was what motivation the Founders or their recent ancestors. Here you again exhibit the fallacy of anachronism and projection.
(Minor v Happersett also disagrees with you. 1875.)
Pure horse crap. Proving once more there isn't a legal case you can't misread. Minor nowhere says that a person born of alien parents isn't a natural born citizen. There was no child of alien parents in the case before them, and the Court explicitly made clear it wasn't addressing that question. With WKA, we arrive at a case involving such a person. That's the relevant case when addressing the case of Obama, Jindal, or Rubio.
“I think the overlooked scandal is his book jacket, which refers to him as being Kenyan born. Just like Fauxcahontas Elizabeth Warren, Barry portrayed himself as being a foreigner...likely gettting ‘cred’ in academic circles, preferential selection to schools, and even scholarship money.”
Here is the interesting thing about Obama’s own literary agency listing him as Kenyan by birth. Obama did not approach this agency to seek representation. The agent initiated the contact, and pitched a book she wanted Obama to write. It was entitled Journies in Black and White, and began with Obama’s Kenyan birth.
Now not only did Obama agree to write this book; he accepted not one but two large advances to write it. The only reason it was never written is because Obama couldn’t even draft a first chapter. He is a hopelessly horrible writer, and highly dysfunctional overall.
In the end Michelle gathered up all Obama’s notes and dumped them on Bill Ayers, who wrote an altogether different book and called it Dreams. (It was evidently Ayers who eliminated the Kenyan birth part of the story. He envisioned that fact causing Obama political trouble down the road.)
The point being, Obama didn’t concoct a Kenyan birth to buff his credentials. Rather, the literary agent approached him in large part DUE to his Kenyan birth, and proposed a book in which Obama’s African origins featured seminally.
If O is removed does anyone thing Biden or
Bournr could handle the anarchy the RATs would try to create
I can’t remember her name off-hand, but the gal who was working on this for Hillary said in a WND interview that Hillary’s plan was to wait until the DNC convention and after the first vote was inconclusive and delegates were no longer bound to vote for Obama bring out the evidence that Obama is not eligible - thus ensuring that Hillary would be the nominee. First Bill Clinton’s good friend, Bill Gwatney, was going to present the petition (or however they do it) to bring up a second vote, releasing the delegates and preparing the stage for Obama’s eligibility to be challenged. Trouble is, within days of agreeing to do this, Bill Gwatney was shot dead by a “random” despondent guy who was then killed by a cop. So then Stephanie Tubbs was going to do it but within a day or so of agreeing to do the job, she had an “aneurysm” (though her family was closed-mouthed about the whole thing). All this happened within the last 2 weeks before the DNC Convention.
I believe it was a day after Tubbs died that Hillary supporter Phil Berg filed his lawsuit challenging Obama’s eligibility. The Hillary people told Bettina Viviano that the Clintons only agreed to ditch the challenge when they were told that Chelsea would be hurt/killed if they didn’t. There is footage that would be incredibly funny if it wasn’t so serious, of Bill Clinton dancing around Obama’s eligibility issue - obviously petrified of it, after somebody put the fear of God into him on that issue. But Viviano says she personallly heard Bill Clinton say that he knows Obama is not eligible.
Many, many crimes were committed to put Obama into our White House and to keep him there, and I cannot respect ANYBODY who refuses to understand that staging a coup through murders, threats, etc is NOT -tee hee - an “embarrassing distraction”. This is the ESSENCE of who Obama is, who owns him, and what they are doing to this nation.
Why does the media ignore the role of Berg? Because the on-air personalities were told in October of 2008 by the heads of their companies that if they or any of their guests dealt with Obama’s ineligibility or his Muslim connections, their careers would be over for sure and their lives and their families’ lives were questionable.
The lengths that Obama’s handlers have gone to, to cover up this issue... are beyond what most people believe possible. Way beyond just political murders - and the audacious moves they made COUNTED on idiots being unwilling to look at evidence. They’re laughing their fool heads off at John Q Public who is so afraid of seeming “conspiratorial” that he refuses to see what’s right in front of his face. When the chips were down and the fate of this nation hung in the balance, the people who mattered caved at the mere threat of being called a - shudder - “birther”. America’s entire system is stuck in junior high. It didn’t even take 30 pieces of silver to get the whole stinkin’ lot to betray this nation to her death. All it took was the threat of somebody saying they “had cooties”.
Unbelievably sad.
How would “any rational educated person” know that, when there is no legally-valid HI birth certificate for Obama, according to HI state registrar Alvin Onaka?
Mr k, seizethecarp
Question, where did you announce that the birth cert was a fake?
Whom are you quoting as having written software?
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.