Obama has no natural born right to be President. He is a squatter occupying the White House

A New Dictionary of the English language ^ | 1836 | James Richardson

[Red Steel]

When I attack that line of reasoning, I am the one bringing race into it out of left field?

Amusing!

If you don't believe me that you are reading more into his postings than what is there. BP1 has clarified his position. He is allowed to do that...

right here, in case you missed it:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2620065/posts?page=96#96

[allmendream]

Nothing in that mess of nothing did anything to clarify why he is posting a law dictionary definition to bolster his inane argument that only White descendants of the European settlers of the USA are actually American or why he opined that the founders wanted the Presidency limited to a White person.

But nice to know that you are there in his corner willing to defend his argument that only White people are actually American.

Disgusting.

[rxsid]

HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN?

Saying Vattel had "zero relevance on our constitution" is like saying Blackstone had zero relevance on Colonial America.

[bushpilot1]

“Overheard outside a “Soup Plantation” restaurant/salad bar spoken by one black woman to another.

“I aint going to no place called “Plantation”!”

http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/by:allmendream/index?more=72766129

[allmendream]

Yeah, so?

You think me overhearing that and posting it makes it OK for you to say that only White descendants of the European settlers of the USA are actually American and that the Presidency should be reserved for a White person?

[Red Steel]

But nice to know that you are there in his corner willing to defend his argument that only White people are actually American.

You really are full of you know what. Your argument may convince posters at liberal websites but not here.

[allmendream]

“It is possible the Founders limited the President to the descendents of the White Europeans who formed the country.”

“1926 Bouvier’s Law Dictionary..American is defined..descendents from Europeans who were born in the US.”

You have me convinced that to advance such an argument is ignorant, racist, counterproductive; and feeds into the meme the left has put forward - which before this thread I dismissed - that this birther nonsense is all because 0bama isn't WHITE.

DISGUSTING!

But please, let us keep this thread alive as long as possible! May as well let EVERYONE know what you and your cohorts are and what they believe and are willing to (weakly and tangentially) defend.

[bushpilot1]

You have posted humans are 98% monkey..is this true? Are we 98% monkey..does that mean we are 2% human?

Please clear this up for us.

[allmendream]

Going through all my posts to see if you can find some rope to hang me now?

How about you defend YOUR OWN WORDS, if you are able to.

You have bobbed and weaved and knealed and bobbed, but never actually attempted to explain what you meant.

Probably because you know like I do that if you explained yourself fully and honestly I would be ...... IBTZ!

And no, that is not true that I have said that humans are 98% monkey. But I would expect someone of your limited cognition to surmise such ludicrous idiocy from the unambiguously true statement that our genetic DNA is 98% the same as a chimpanzee (a chimp is not a monkey, simp).

[bushpilot1]

You are telling us the genetic DNA of Obama is 98% chimpanzee.

Is this correct?

[allmendream]

Now now. That is hardly the topic of this thread.

I don't care how much time you spend looking through my old posts instead of explaining what you mean.

Why do you think the founders wanted to limit the Presidency to White people?

Why did you post that only White descendants of Europeans born in the USA are American?

Do you really think Black Americans are not really Americans?

(and no, I am saying that it is a FACT that the genetic DNA of a human and a chimpanzee are 98% the same. You and 0bama are much more than 99% the same in your DNA. Which fact offends you more?)

[Red Steel]

“It is possible the Founders limited the President to the descendents of the White Europeans who formed the country.”

Yes, the Founders thought that way, BUT the 14th Amendment changed citizenship to include former slaves and of all color who could become US citizens. Did you look at Dred Scott 1857 SCOTUS opinion which was overturned by the 14th Amendment as I mentioned before? Here you go again - Wiki got it correct right here for you:

"The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868 as one of the Reconstruction Amendments.

Its Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship that overruled the decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which held that blacks could not be citizens of the United States."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

You have me convinced that to advance such an argument is ignorant, racist, counterproductive; and feeds into the meme the left has put forward - which before this thread I dismissed - that this birther nonsense is all because 0bama isn't WHITE.

You're the ignorant one here. the argument is that Obama received his foreign citizenship at birth passed on from his father; and to compound his lack of eligibility if he was born overseas, would be a double-down slam dunk even to the uninitiated. Mommy Ann was not old enough to pass on her US citizenship to Obama via US statute, which is a form of naturalization. This has nothing to do with race or skin color you silly Obot.

DISGUSTING!

That is what your postings are - Disgusting!

But please, let us keep this thread alive as long as possible! May as well let EVERYONE know what you and your cohorts are and what they believe and are willing to (weakly and tangentially) defend.

Again, you are full of that smelly stuff that comes from bowel movements. Your straw man arguments are "weak."

[allmendream]

Strawman argument? You read that somewhere and think it sounded smart so you were going to try it out?

It is not a strawman argument to quote someone and ask them to clarify their views. Get that straight and you might not sound like a poser.

“It is possible the Founders limited the President to the descendants of the White Europeans who formed the country.”

Dred Scott held sway from 1857 to 1868. A decision some 60 years after our founding is NOT the view of our founders. Before Dred Scott free Blacks (and other races) did enjoy citizenship, could own property and vote, and were counted as a full person for purposes of apportionment.

“1926 Bouvier Law Dictionary..American is defined..descendants from Europeans who were born in the US.”

Here the racism argument goes double down, citing a 1926 law dictionary as the final arbiter of who is and who isn't an American.

The argument that the laws of another nation should impact the citizenship status of an American at birth is preposterous and I would venture a guess that in other cases you would think that American law should be sovereign.

If China granted automatic Chinese citizenship at birth to all people of 75% or more Chinese descent - would that make all Americans of Chinese descent ineligible for the Presidency in perpetuity, until China changed its law?

Or are you going with the argument that they are not really Americans anyway according to the law dictionary circa 1929 and not the White descendants of Europeans and not our “Kind”?

[allmendream]

Strawman argument? You read that somewhere and think it sounded smart so you were going to try it out?

It is not a strawman argument to quote someone and ask them to clarify their views. Get that straight and you might not sound like a poser.

“It is possible the Founders limited the President to the descendants of the White Europeans who formed the country.”

Dred Scott held sway from 1857 to 1868. A decision some 60 years after our founding is NOT the view of our founders. Before Dred Scott free Blacks (and other races) did enjoy citizenship, could own property and vote, and were counted as a full person for purposes of apportionment.

“1926 Bouvier Law Dictionary..American is defined..descendants from Europeans who were born in the US.”

Here the racism argument goes double down, citing a 1926 law dictionary as the final arbiter of who is and who isn't an American.

The argument that the laws of another nation should impact the citizenship status of an American at birth is preposterous and I would venture a guess that in other cases you would think that American law should be sovereign.

If China granted automatic Chinese citizenship at birth to all people of 75% or more Chinese descent - would that make all Americans of Chinese descent ineligible for the Presidency in perpetuity, until China changed its law?

Or are you going with the argument that they are not really Americans anyway according to the law dictionary circa 1929 and not the White descendants of Europeans and not our “Kind”?

[Ezekiel]

Obama is no American, because he’s spiritually of the house of bondage, and fancies himself as the head - PharaObama. Moses, leader of the free, he is not. PharaObama is deeply disturbed because his slaves are not slaves. He can oppress them physically to a point, but can’t lock them down in their spirit, because their default nature is of the freeborn. He is deceived because much lawless rabble is willing to serve under his iron fist. Americans are of a different kind: prisoner 41 (Ben Hur reference).

Americans are children of Sarah, born of the freewoman. Those who become tangled in the web of the letter of the Obama eligibility issue, are missing the free and generous teaching from heaven concerning these things, of kinds and kindred and spiritual conditions and birthright blessings. Isaac contrasted with Ishmael; Jacob contrasted with Esav; Joseph contrasted with Reuben. Get to the top of the mountain before the tsunami wooshes away everything in its path.

[Armaggedon]

Obama is a function of the desperation of Satan in end times. His reign of slavery will be washed away in fire and in rain. Worship God in spirit and in truth and the sheep and goats are separated.

[bushpilot1]

Natural born citizens are born in the US from US citizen parents.

This thread and many others have proven Obama is not a natural born citizen.

Some threads have shown Obama was born in Kenya. Threads have shown his birth certificate may be forged.

Threads have provided information Obama is not a citizen; others he has dual citizenship.

Posters have proven Wong Kim Ark is not a natural born citizen.

There will be a new Congress in a few months. There is no doubt some have read these threads.

Enough is enough let the investigations begin. This is what the majority of voters want.

.

[allmendream]

And yet with all those arguments out there YOU decided to go with.....

“It is possible the Founders limited the President to the descendants of the White Europeans who formed the country.”

“1926 Bouvier Law Dictionary..American is defined..descendants from Europeans who were born in the US.”

That is absolutely the bottom of the barrel. The lowest common denominator argument. He is not of our “Kind”, he is not “White” not “European”.

[Red Steel]

Strawman argument? You read that somewhere and think it sounded smart so you were going to try it out?

Yes, a strawman argument. You latch onto wording in dictionary definitions to avoid the real issue. You see the word "white" - OMG racist! You jump to conclusions that stretches credulity. Your false argument is that we are racists. Complete nonsense. You're full of liberal dung.

If China granted automatic Chinese citizenship at birth to all people of 75% or more Chinese descent - would that make all Americans of Chinese descent ineligible for the Presidency in perpetuity, until China changed its law?

Another stupid argument perpetrated by after-Birthers. First of all, that would be Chinese law passed by man - and a naturalization law. And second, if the Chinese descendants were born in the US and who had citizen parents they would be US natural born citizens, and therefore, it would not matter if China passed such a law you stated.

The multi-generational of ethnic and detached "citizens" doesn't wash with the test above.

Or are you going with the argument that they are not really Americans anyway according to the law dictionary circa 1929 and not the White descendants of Europeans and not our “Kind”?

You really are a numskull. I cited you the answers above.

Here is one of them again.

"The argument is that Obama received his foreign citizenship at birth passed on from his father; and to compound his lack of eligibility if he was born overseas, would be a double-down slam dunk even to the uninitiated. Mommy Ann was not old enough to pass on her US citizenship to Obama via US statute, which is a form of naturalization."

The Constitutional argument as I cited has nothing to do with skin color or race.

[allmendream]

Quite a bit more than me latching onto the word “White”; the argument is being advanced that only Whites should be eligible for the Presidency and only the descendants of Europeans born in the USA are actually American.

Nice that you reject such thinking, but by the definitions cited our hypothetical American of Chinese descent born in America of citizen parents and a citizen at birth and (we both agree) a natural born citizen - would not be “White” and thus his election would be contrary to the view by our founders supposedly - and he would not be of our “Kind” according to the asinine argument that to actually be American one must be descended of the Europeans who settled and founded the nation. WOW, the exact argument advanced by your tag team partner!

If a person of Chinese descent is born of American citizen parents in America, a citizen at birth, a natural born citizen - despite having foreign citizenship ALSO at birth - then why the argument about 0bama’s British citizenship at birth through his Kenyan father?

It matters not a bit if by foreign law an American citizen at birth is granted citizenship, it only matters if by American law that they are an American citizen at birth.

If your argument is that 0bama is not a NBC because he didn't have two citizen parents, then why the argument about him having foreign citizenship at birth if you reject the argument that someones status as an American citizen at birth can be swayed at whim by foreign powers?

If British law didn't grant 0bama British citizenship at birth, you would STILL insist that he isn't an NBC because he needed two citizen parents. So why make the argument when it is so transparently false and makes subject instead of sovereign American law?