Posted on 04/30/2010 7:45:37 PM PDT by Fred Nerks
The statutes do not really apply to those born "in the armies of the nation", per Vattel, "Law Of Nations" vol. I section 217. (5 sections after the 'born in the country of parents who are citizens' section, 212). Those born in the armies or the diplomatic corps are considered "born in the country" becaue the parents never left the country's jurisdiction.
If we are going with Vattel's definition in sectio 212 should we not also go with the exception in section 217?
-----------------------
That's right. Vattel would have deemed McCain a NBC because his parent(s) never left the jurisdiction of the country.
I believe that the framers got their definition/understanding of what a Natural Born Citizen was/is from Vattel. That understanding not only came from section 212, but from 217 as well. Let's not forget that the congress (alone) tried, with the Naturalization Act of 1790, to EXTEND the known definition to those born overseas to citizen parentS (& not necessarily to a diplomat or those in the military).
IMO, the reason McCain (the fall guy) was nominated by the (R)'s was that there was really no chance a Republican was going to win in 2008 and had they put up even a strong candidate, they would have lost regardless but would have been battered and bruised by the state run media in the meantime. They conceded 2008 and instead focused their sights on 2012.
Looks like you win that. The statute to which I had reference was more specific directed to the Canal Zone or to a parent serving in the Canal Zone. Wonder why in the face of the statute you cite, they thought that was necessary.
This isn’t a contest. I don’t want to win anything.
I just want to understand what the true facts of all this crap is.
Cheers . . .
I know. I wasn't complaining. I thought it was a fair shot.
Interesting, non-sequitor is a birther.
Sorry for the confusion, anyone can post on the birther threads as long as they follow forum rules.
From Jim:
This is one of those issues that I am determined to allow both sides free reign. The mods should not do anything to stifle the debate. Let it play out.
Thanks,
Jim
Hardly.
This post looks significant for anyone as adept at hunting certifigate trolls as you are. Our old pal Star Traveler is allowed back onto these threads as long as she doesn’t “stifle debate”.
It seems that the definition of troll as posted by the mods would no longer apply?
COINTELPRO Techniques for dilution, misdirection and control of a internet forum. (Trolling 101)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2165967/posts
I guess “forum rules” can mean different things at different times and in different circumstances. I’ve seen trolls who didn’t use profanity, make personal attacks or post porn or spam, incite violence or make racist comments.
But they were trolls; like ones pushing the “gay” agenda, and some on the eligibility threads who were obviously hirelings.
It is amazing how the lame “arguments” of those who (apparently) are on the side of 0bama’s eligibility (one way or another) have been vivisected, exploded and proved wrong countless times, so I guess they have served a useful function. If irritating as heck.
Simple way to end the conversation:
“What if it was George W. Bush who was not a natural-born citizen and Texas officials were claiming that he was born in Texas and is a natural-born citizen while withholding all of the evidence that proves he is no such thing?”
Would the trolls tell us we can trust whatever Texas officials say about Bush just as they are telling us we can trust whatever Hawaii officials say about Obama?
YEAH, RIGHT!
I just ignore them.
Works for me.
Dr. Polland, apparently you have another segment coming out soon? One in which you will reveal the names of the two people who’s COLB was used to forge Barry’s? In addition, some email exchanges you had with Factcheck.org Director Brooks Jackson, Jess Henig, and Joe Miller in which their story’s differed?
I guess you’ve been hanging out at the P&E. I’m working on a feature article for them in which I will talk about my chat w/ Factcheck.
As for the the COLB owners, one of them works in Hawaii’s Health Department.
Wow. This should shake things up.
Thanks for the ping. Will appreciate future ones too.
http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/05/20/is-factcheck-org-working-with-obama/
Joseph Maine says:
Friday, May 21, 2010 at 3:22 PM
Where did Mr. Polland’s posts/responses go?
—————
Mrs. Rondeau replies: Rather than submitting the information in Comments, he has been encouraged to prepare an editorial or investigative article so that the information is not shared piecemeal, but rather, in a manner which does his research the most benefit.
Joseph Maine says:
Friday, May 21, 2010 at 6:27 PM
Nice. New things are coming out, I presume, as he hinted?
SapphireSunday says:
Sunday, May 23, 2010 at 4:09 PM
I hope that Dr. Polland does write this up for us. I missed seeing his deleted comments; I would like to read them, if he doesn’t send an editorial or article.
—————-
Mrs. Rondeau replies: We have invited Dr. Polland to put all of his thoughts and data together in an editorial or technical analysis.
“We have invited Dr. Polland to put all of his thoughts and data together in an editorial or technical analysis.”
With all due respect, hasn’t Dr. Polland already done that?
ping
Wouldn’t surprise me at all. There’s criminal stuff going on in that office. Kinda explains the behavior I’ve seen out of them.
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.