No idea...
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 ...
Jane Long ~ That’s the exact one I was thinking about. No Christian makes THAT mistake.
EVERYTHING obama does either:
a) Weakens America/AmericansThere are NO counter examples.
b) Distances America's allies
c) Strengthens America's enemies
d) Serves Islam
e) Harms Israel
Or some combination of the above.
His public birth story has him as the son of a British subject.
At best, that means at birth he was a dual citizen, a British subject and an American Citizen.
Even the most casual reading of the requirements of 'natural born citizen' would rule him out. A foreign country had claim to him.
No idea...
Perhaps.
Here's how I imagine the meeting:
Hillary produces proof 0bama was born in Kenya.
Obama shows Hillary proof of a fraction of her felonies.
--------------------------------------------------------
What's the worst that could have happened to 0bama?
He declares that he was always told he was born in Hawaii, and had never been informed of the true circumstances of his birth, apologizes, and then he gracefully steps down and goes back to being a senator.
What's the worst that could happen to Hillary!™?
If 1/10th of the rumors are true, She'd be facing being stripped of all her congressional perks, serious jail time and perhaps even the death penalty.
In this show-down, guess who blinks...
From the top on down first, with intimidation (death, blackmail, etc.), then from the bottom up the food chain with comedy and ridicule, cooked up and fed to the social media by those like Jon Stewart to become a part of the narrative and the nation's gassy internal dialog.
In the beginning when it still had the potential to matter, from the 2008 primary and the first year or so of his first term, whenever the topic came up on local or national radio it was instantly squelched and no major market host would allow it on the air.
If the issue did somehow get past the gate guards, then it was laughed away or ignored.
The few local market hosts I used to listen to who wouldn't be silent and did speak out are all gone. Only the "company people" remain saying what they expect you to hear.
But the actual truth, the historic and Constitutional meaning of NBC, is what Hillary was going to use against obama and his budding crime family. And we know it's true by all that's happened as a result, and no one more than those who were permanently silenced.
From the beginning, members of both parties have colluded to make this happen, and now to make the ugly parts go away.
Like those evil, racist "birthers" who keep peeing in the punchbowl.
If only the conservative led republican GOP would elect Ted Cruz as POTUS...then all would be equally guilty so that all would be innocent.
And so it shall be?
Here and now in 2015, we've all joined with the demonrats and the GOPe to bypass the normal procedures and rewrite yet another national identity defining definition, "natural born citizen", down to the lowest quality possible, the most degraded purity possible, against our own best interests and those of the generations that may follow, even though we already have words for those definitions.
That's how "they" do it, just like they've done with redefining marriage. Or with "illegal alien". Or many, many other examples. That list is long and used to be distinguished. The technique works well and "they" have mastered it.
There's always a bigger picture and, by their fruits, I suspect they follow the original master of such deception, though many don't know it since he's convinced them he doesn't exist!
Boy howdy, won't "they" be surprised!
52% after massive voter fraud.
Well if they say what you claim they do, then it would appear that he does.
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.
Rawle was espousing the jus soli view in his Freedom Cases filed in Pennsylvania courts in the late 1790s, so you are incorrect about this. Rawle also knew fully well that the courts were having none of his jus soli nonsense. That's why he waited till most of these judges were dead before writing his book. (1829)
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.
Demonstrating your ignorance once more. Read up on Jefferson's and Monroe's efforts to stop English subjects from posing as Americans in the run up to the war of 1812.
It was a serious problem for him because Emperor Napoleon was insinuating that the US was deliberately lending aid and support to the British. Seaman's papers were invented in an effort to solve this and the problem of impressment.
Minor nowhere says that a person born of alien parents isn't a natural born citizen.
It says the 14th amendment citizenship is not the equivalent of "natural born citizen." In a case specifically about the 14th amendment, they say:
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.
That one sentence blows your argument to H3ll, let alone the other things they say which just make the rubble bounce.
The House Judiciary Chair provides legal analysis with citations to prior legal authorities. Bingham is up giving a floor speech and doesn't reference anything. The latter is apt to be less precise. (And Bingham can still easily be read harmoniously with Howard, Trumbull, Wilson and the others in the Congress who clearly subscribe to the jus soli view.
You just have to claim Bingham has the better understanding because he's all you have left to argue regarding the 39th Congress.
Oh, btw, given the whole of the 39th Congress was so clearly on the side of jus soli their expressions of "existing law," your point about how Horace Gray supposedly ignored the legislative history to the 39th Congress debates on citizenship is simply, flat-out WRONG! (Crash! Another of your pet theories that goes down in flames).
because i'm not going to read very deep into them.
I know from past interactions that you're not a deep reader or a deep thinker. (Have you read Wong Kim Ark yet?). I know with you to spoon-feed it to you in small portions.
Blah blah blah. If they cited Rawle, they got it wrong.
No, but thanks.
Massive voter fraud? Look, I have no doubt we have voter fraud going on, but to claim obama won because of massive voter fraud is not true. Obama beat Romney by over 5 million votes. IMHO, Obama won because the Republicans and conservatives could not come together with a unified message. A lot of Republicans did not vote and the way things are looking today we will have the same issue this next election. Just look around here on FR with people claiming if their conservative does not win the primary they will stay home or vote third party.
Oh, I say my Buddhist faith all the time. Or my Zoroastrian faith.
Of course, I have to be corrected by George Staphylococcus all the time.
Your claim here was made before and proved to be wanting.
What "earlier sources" have you adduced? Geo. Washington? He says nada about some supposed "citizen parent" rule. Adams? You tried putting him in your camp based on his having a book by James Otis on his shelf. But this was another major gaffe by you when I showed that the portions of Otis you were highlighting were actually summaries of bits of Calvin's Case!. Adams doesn't help you. Bushrod Washington? Nope, he never claims Vattel supplied the rule of law in the United States. John Marshall? Nope. All you have for him is a dissenting opinion, which doesn't even use the term "natural born citizen" and which in any event is a case about domicile, not citizenship.
So all of these supposed sources don't support you at all.
Oh, there is Judge Samuel Roberts. He does in fact cite to Vattel on the point at issue. But Roberts, as previously noted to you, is an obscure figure, historically and legally speaking. The proof is in the pudding: in the great debates on citizenship in the 19th Century (particularly in the 39th Congress and the SCOTUS), Roberts is nowhere referenced, not even by C.J. Fuller in WKA who was arguing for your same rule!
and it's not just [Bingham]. There are others,
Vattel birthers have those two excerpts from Bingham, and little else. Were there others that even hinted of support (even in the same strain-to-make-him-fit style used with Bingham), those would be brandished about as he is.
because the debate on how to grant rights to freed slaves really has little to do with "natural born citizens."
Horse crap. It has much to do with it, particularly when the Congress debating that issue makes explicit that what they are declaring and codifying is the existing law on birth citizenship!. They are simply recognizing (in light of Dred Scott) that the common law, jus soli rule of "natural born citizen" afforded whites was not extended to blacks and others. The Civil Rights Act citizenship clause remedied that, and the 14th Amendment was enacted to assure that no future Congress could readily undo it.
It's sufficient that he proves to be the exception to your rule
How is that sufficient? Without conceding Bingham is at odds (note again his 1869 comment which is clearly harmonious), his lone voice wouldn't impact my argument when the great weight of Congressional voices support my position. That substantial support for the jus soli view of "existing law" puts the lie to your claim that Horace Gray ignored or misread the legislative history. No, he didn't! He was spot-on. You're the idiot here.
We all know he’ll never be able to do that. We had at least one agitator pretty much up to the 2012 election and then he disappeared. Always running interference, he was.
hehe
bingo
Not to make excuses for him but the M appears to be part of the document.
So it’s A or P.
Who that might be? Man, you are daft.
The House Judiciary Chair was James F. Wilson. He was the guy you tried quoting as supposed support for your view, till I pulled out Wilson's remarks in context to show how you were dishonestly truncating Wilson's remarks. How could you forget that exchange? That was the one where I call you a "dishonest putz." The memory should be clear to you. It is to me.
But this is exemplary of your lack of command of the topic. First, you try quoting Wilson (misleadingly, as noted) without apparently knowing who he was. Then, when he comes up in discussion again, you don't even know or recall he was the House Judiciary Chair. This is the sort of idiocy you get when you just pull stuff from other Birther sites without knowing what the crap you're talking about. Par for the course for you.
I'm really not going to spend much effort reading your dreck.
Of course, it makes it easier to avoid the cognitive dissonance of having to respond substantively to the many points where I dismantle your argument. You've got the ostrich position technique down well, I'll grant you that.
I'd advise you to keep your messages short because i'm not going to read very deep into them.
Yes, I know from experience you're not much of a deep reader or deep thinker. (Have you read Wong Kim Ark in full yet?) So I know to try to spoon-feed this to you in small portions.
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.