Posted on 11/14/2012 8:14:02 AM PST by DiogenesLamp
A lot of people who were against us "birthers" said the issue was nonsense, and a distraction, and that we should quit wasting time on it because "we have to defeat Barack Obama at the ballot box." As a person who saw how the media swindled us out of the 2008 election, I never took it as a given that we would be ABLE to defeat Obama at the ballot box. Why would the media not do the same thing to us in 2012? Given that the election fraud perpetrated by Democrats had been taken to an entirely new level by this Chicago crew, I saw it as a real danger that winning an election against this guy was no sure thing. (He Cheats)
What I also saw in 2008 was someone who was inexplicably sensitive to issues regarding his birth and citizenship, and who displayed a degree of stubbornness towards it that could only be explained by the possibility that he was hiding something really bad. It was a loose thread sticking out. I had always thought we should pull at that thread and see what unravels, but there were those of you out there (and you know who you are) that were absolutely terrified and/or disdainful of touching this issue, and preferred to rely exclusively on a political campaign to save us from this Communist.
That's a probable comeback.
Another one is: Just ignore the facts. They've been doing that from the very beginning.
They don't even have to comment on it. They can simply wait and repeat the same discredited stuff tomorrow or next week or next month, just as if it was never discredited in the first place. It's what they've been doing so far.
That and accusing anyone who stands up to them of being a "troll."
Hard to make progress when your own side goes to such great efforts to help the enemy stab you in the back.
Don’t pretend you were at any time offering a legitimate challenge to Obama sitting at your keyboard repeating idiotic conspiracy theories on the Internet.
I'm pretty certain you can search my entire posting history and not discover any suggestion from me that any of this was a "conspiracy." I have been pretty adamant that there is no conspiracy, just massive incompetence and idiocy on the part of people who failed to do their jobs. (government officials.)
As for real efforts on my part, I did what I could to get the issue brought to the attention of my state legislators, and we came D@mn close to getting a law passed which would REQUIRE a presidential candidate to submit a certified copy of an ORIGINAL birth certificate.
Unfortunately, the Governor decided the whole issue would be an embarrassment, and so worked behind the scenes calling in favors to get them to let the legislative term expire with no action taken. This is another example of what I mean about getting back-stabbed by your "Allies."
So how did that "ballot box" thing work out for ya? Any better success than "birthers?"
Logic might be useful in an age of reason, but I think that has peaked some time ago, and now we are entering an age of unreason.
I guess you missed the part where I mentioned this was about getting him kicked off the ballot for failing to produce his birth certificate for election officials. I wasn't talking about getting him removed from office, I knew that ship had already sailed.
No, it's hard to make progress when pretty much every claim you make is bs.
As was illustrated just now by my picking one claim pretty much at randon and showing what nonsense it was.
To What paranoid conspiracy theories are you referring? The theory that a State Election official should verify a candidates qualifications for office before allowing them on the ballot? Yup, sheer craziness, that one!
Until then you are BO's best friends, as you foul all efforts against him with your rantings.
Our efforts worked out about as well as Mitt Romneys. We got really close in several states, but one governor vetoed a law, and the other governors worked behind the scenes to torpedo the legislation.
At least Mitt Romney didn't get backstabbed by his own side.
I wish her well, but I will be surprised if she ever has any success at this point.
And I hope you are doing the same.
Well the claim I have been making is that the State Election officials should verify the qualifications of a candidate before placing them on the ballot.
Utter nonsense, isn't it?
Flak/target. Now that Steaming stole the election, more people are going to get interested in who the bastard actually is. Thus this anti-birther activity.
At the moment, I really don't know what you are talking about. I am answering my message thread, and if you've responded to someone else's claim, I haven't yet read it.
I cannot answer for what others may say, I can only answer for myself. Have you shown any of my claims to be nonsense? Not to my knowledge.
You've skimmed over all that led up to that, without regard to what was actually occurring. It was on the basis of documents submitted by South Carolina that demonstrated their citizenship laws extended to Mr. McClure, and by virtue of that he also acquired American citizenship. It required the efforts of A Supreme Court Justice and a Congressman from South Carolina to get James Monroe to write that letter. (After having been shown the proper paperwork.)
You further overlook the fact that Ambassador Armstrong was a Congressman in 1787, and very close in the circles of George Washington. He was no fool, and he would know as well as any man who was meant to have American citizenship because he was one of the members of Congress who voted on it. You also overlook the fact that he was supported in his actions by President James Madison. Had your theory been correct, Ambassador Armstrong would never have Proclaimed James McClure a non-citizen. If your theory had been correct, President James Madison, and Secretary of State James Monroe would have sent word to secure his immediate release.
You are simply failing to look at this issue objectively, preferring to skip over all the detail and get straight to the end without bothering to understand what actually happened.
While we're on the topic, perhaps you have seen this letter from James Monroe when *HE* was ambassador to France, and dealing with the same problem?
A Mr Eldred was lately apprehended at Marseilles and sent here under guard upon a charge of having given intelligence to the British of some movement in the French fleet. Upon inquiry I found he had my passport granted too upon the most substantial documents proving him to be an American citizen; but I likewise found that in truth he was not an American citizen, for although born in America yet he was not there in the course of our revolution but in England, nor had he been there since. From what I hear of him, he is not a person of mischevious disposition nor one who would be apt to commit the offence charged upon him, but yet I do not see how I can officially interfere in his behalf, for when once a principle is departed from, it ceases to be a principle.
If all that is required is birth within the United States, Why does Monroe say that isn't enough in the circumstance of Mr Eldred?
Why does your theory have these holes in it?
Yeah, like a year and a half later. Why the delay? Were it so cut and dried as YOU seem to think, there should have been no delay. H3ll, he shouldn't have even been arrested in the first place! It was on the basis of what Ambassador Armstrong said (that James McClure was NOT an American citizen) that caused him to be arrested in the first place! (Bear in Mind, Ambassador Armstrong had SEEN James McClure's birth certificate.)
So how did Ambassador Armstrong make such a mistake, and how did both Monroe and Madison let it go on so long? Why does it take a year and a half, plus the intervention of a Congressman and a Supreme Court Justice, for everyone to figure out what you think is obvious?
Make these facts fit into your theory please.
You have a copy of this letter? I would certainly like to see it. I know of no letter that says any such thing.
You mock us, and then you say something this stupid? No one is saying that. What we have been consistently saying is that the parents must be CITIZENS. They don't have to be born on US Soil, they can be foreign, but they have to have foresworn allegiance to their old nation, and swear it to their new one.
No, that is NOT “dealing with the same problem.”
That letter (assuming it’s genuine, and at this point I don’t trust a birther for one second) was written in 1795, 19 years after the American Revolution, regarding someone who had been born in America BEFORE THE REVOLUTION.
At the time of the Revolution, those who had been born in America BEFORE THE REVOLUTION (and EVERYONE born in America BEFORE THE REVOLUTION had originally been born a British subject) were divided up into two groups: Those who were going to remain subjects of Britain, and those who were going to be citizens of the new United States.
Having had the OPTION to be either British or American, it was clear, NINETEEN YEARS LATER, that a COLONIES-BORN person who had been in England at the time of the American Revolution, and who had remained in England for the NINETEEN YEARS SINCE THEN, was NOT a United States citizen, because he had elected NOT to be a United States citizen.
Actually, I’m glad you made this defense, because it’s a good example of the fundamental bias or dishonesty of birthers. You produce a situation that is completely different from the one at hand, and claim it’s exactly the same. But it’s obvious that it isn’t. It’s completely different.
As far as Ambassador Armstrong goes... it’s too bad that you go on about him, because it is only an example of you publicly making a fool of yourself yet again.
This is yet another great example of the quality of birther work. They used to say “good enough for government work.” I recommend that phrase be updated. It ought to be “good enough for birther work.”
You claim that I:
“...overlook the fact that Ambassador Armstrong was a Congressman in 1787, and very close in the circles of George Washington. He was no fool, and he would know as well as any man who was meant to have American citizenship because he was one of the members of Congress who voted on it. You also overlook the fact that he was supported in his actions by President James Madison.”
General John Armstrong was indeed a Congressman in 1787, and he was a friend of George Washington.
General John Armstrong SENIOR.
The General John Armstrong who made the initial decision regarding James McClure was General John Armstrong JUNIOR, the son of the aforementioned Congressman and friend of George Washington.
JUNIOR is known in history for having been someone who questioned the authority of General Washington, who evoked distrust in those around them, who gained only tepid support, and who had such great judgment that even after it became clear that the British intended to invade the capital of the United States, he made absolutely no move to defend the city of Washington, DC, leading to the only instance in the entire history of the United States in which our capital city was invaded and the White House itself was sacked and burned.
As you might imagine, his resignation followed shortly thereafter.
As for Madison supporting him, I might have missed it, but so far I see no evidence of any such thing. In fact, the Madison administration directly overruled Armstrong’s sterling judgment.
Oh, and by the way: In 1776, when the American Revolution took place, John Armstrong JUNIOR was about 18 years old.
By the way, JUNIOR “suffered from a reputation of indolence” (that is, LAZINESS). Rather interesting. The writer of the 1811 letter tells us, “Gen. Armstrong would not interfere in [McClure’s] behalf.”
But then, why should the guy who couldn’t be bothered to save the city of Washinton, DC, exert himself to save James McClure?
By the way, with that I am going to bow out and let you have the last word. Yes, I’ve no doubt you’ll do your best to paint myself and anybody else who doesn’t believe your birther bs as a traitor, a troll, and the spawn of Satan himself.
I simply don’t want to spend my weekend, or even another minute of it, arguing with birthers. It’s just not worth my time.
For anyone who wants the truth, there’s plenty of information out there. This isn’t the first time birther arguments have been taken apart, and it sure won’t be the last.
As for me, I’m going to go and have a nice weekend.
Typing in all caps, with bolded letters and colored fonts won’t strengthen your incorrect argument. Nothing in what you quoted said that place of birth made McClure a citizen. Instead it cited applicable laws. If what you and other Obots believed were true, then there would have been no need for the 14th amendment ... and further, the Wong Kim Ark case wouldn’t have had to cite page after page of English common law trying to build a justification for declaring Ark to be a citizen (note: he was NEVER declared a natural-born citizen). Had McClure been born in England, he couldn’t have been a U.S. citizen. They had to establish birth on U.S. soil AND then look at the applicable laws (which is what your own quote says) to see if he was a citizen. The Treaty of 1783 applies here because McClure’s father naturalized and became loyal to the U.S. Had he stayed loyal to the crown, McClure, even if born on U.S. soil would have been recognized as a British subject. This principle was affirmed in Shanks v. Dupont and Inglis v. Sailor’s Snug Harbor.
We could keep arguing this, but you'll only keep denying it. Not only did the government letter state explicitly that McClure was a citizen by reason of his PLACE OF BIRTH, that's the ONLY reason they gave for his citizenship.
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.