Posted on 06/01/2011 9:28:46 AM PDT by Hotlanta Mike
I don’t know how many times I’ve had this dialogue over the past couple of years, but it seems those who make it often pride themselves on their ability to type, regardless of the content of their thoughts. I participate in many discussions in which the Natural Born Citizen requirement of Article II is deceptively convoluted to the point that it is, supposedly, rendered meaningless. However, nothing could be further from the truth. The problem is, if one is not armed with the facts, it might prove difficult for these flawed arguments to be refuted.
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
What does AFAIK mean? Is that some abbreviation system learned on facebook or Twitter? You’re the one trying to get readers to assume things not in evidence, as a means to blunt my assertion that we don’t in fact know whom is barry’s daddy. First you play obamapologetics by asserting that we don’t know his biological male parent, then you try to turn that fail around to assert that no one has ever had to show a marriage cert for proof of their parentage. Defending a scum-sucker like barry the bassturd will do that to ya, don’tchaknow.
When every state, every member of Congress and every court disagrees with your interpretation of the Constitution, then you are probably a nut.
///
simply not a fair statement. how many members of Congress are on record EITHER way?
how many of them, have stated they disagree with my
“interpretation of the Constitution”?
in fact, when Obama HIMSELF signed off on McCain’s eligibility, with other Senators, they were SUPPORTING my interpretation.
...most of them, don’t WANT to know the facts. most of them, don’t know the facts. they haven’t read the research i have, done by the sterling people i named in post #23.
your mention of the “Guam” congressmen, supports my position. there is no lack of cowardice and ignorance in Congress. that is why they are regarded so poorly by 99% of the American People.
(i suppose you believe Weiner, that he was hacked, and doesn’t know if that is his own photo of himself? you expect people like HIM, to defend the Constitution?)
and i listed just a FEW of the many things, that convince me, there IS a conspiracy. just the CT SSN ALONE, is proof.
not to mention Schussel’s clear dissection of the FORGED Selective Service form, the many many missing documents.
(like the SINGLE page missing out of the divorce papers?!?)
and these:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2720608/posts?page=23#23
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=186343
...ignorance of the facts by the majority, does NOT make the minority, “nutjobs”.
remember the scientist who created the theory of continental drift? he was ridiculed by 99% of the world’s scientists, and died a broken man...
and Einstein himself was ridiculed, and told the majority of scientists were against him. he said, it didn’t require a majority. it only require one with facts.
and there ARE definitive facts, that support scrubbing, coverup, and forgery. his OWN autobiography (written by Ayers), has provably wrong facts. his hiding records, like college transcripts, that others like John Kerry and Bush showed, is yet more indication, he is hiding the truth.
the Governor of Hawaii is a clumsy liar. saying he say Obama at “T-ball” age. then later saying he saw him immediately after birth.
you probably don’t believe in evolution either. after all, there is no conclusive proof of that either. just a ton of supporting, interrelated FACTS.
NONE of which you address. like WHY did Obama Sr put on official state dept. documents from 1959 to 1962, his correct age, yet on the COLB and LFBC his age is incorrect, based on those official documents?
...instead, you respond that the congressman who thinks Guam could flip over, disagrees with me... and that makes ME a nutjob ?
Where did the Founders get the idea the 13 Colonies could unite and still maintain their sovereignty? It came from Vattel’s Droit des Gens.
“When every state, every member of Congress and every court disagrees with your interpretation of the Constitution, then you are probably a nut.
///
simply not a fair statement. how many members of Congress are on record EITHER way?”
IN January 2009, every Congressman had the right and obligation to raise an objection to the vote of the Electoral College. They did so in 2000 and in 2004, but NO MEMBER of Congress raised an objection. If a single Senator and a single Representative had objected, the matter would have gone up for debate and vote - but there was no objection. No one agreed with your belief that Obama Sr made Obama Jr ineligible. Your side got 0 out of 535.
Your desire to sweep aside --via ridicule not facts-- the evidence of your president being a fraud, a liar, and ineligible is duly noted almost daily at FR. There is something really fishy about the way you ridicule on the one hand if it is a birther thread, but play at being a Bible believing Christian on another thread. If you were sincere in your Biblical persona, it seems to me anyway that you would not seek to defend a man who has been shown over and over to be a lying fraud, AND you wouldn't go out of your way to ridicule those who are seeking to uphold the Constitution and rule of law regarding the eligibility of the CIC. If I am mistaken in believing this barry bassturd fraud needs to be held accountable for high crimes, then so be it. But your ridicule only exposes your own duplicitous posing.
Just went to the Federalist Papers website, the definitive explanation of what the Constitution is and how its provision were arrived at. By the most prominent author of the Constitution and its three leading advocates.
Very strange. The search term “Vattel” is not found in the FP. Odd, since the Constitution was based on his work.
The term “law of nations” is found four times. Not once does it reference Vattel’s work. It refers to what today we would call “international law.”
The idea of federalism was explored inn depth by the Founders. We have documentation they discussed the Achaean and Aetolian Leagues of ancient Greece, the Delian League (later known as the Athenian Empire when the leading member took over), the Swiss Federation, the Netherlands, and probably other attempts at a federal system.
What we don’t have, very oddly, is any indication they ever discussed Vattel or his notions.
I do not know Mr. Rogers, but I do take issue with your claim that just because one is a Bible-believing Christian one must believe Obama is not a NBC. It is entirely possible to believe Mr. Obama is bad for the country while still believing he was legally elected.
Possibly Mr. Rogers examined the evidence and came to a different conclusion than you did. As I have. I respect your right to your opinion, but I believe it is in error. I ask you to have similar respect for my opinion.
I note that MR has been around FR for almost a decade.
MR with his constant ridicule seems to have skipped your attention. Different opinions I can tolerate, even welcome because debate furthers knowledge. Ridicule is the device of alinsyesque scoundrels.
MR with his constant ridicule seems to have skipped your attention. Different opinions I can tolerate, even welcome because debate furthers knowledge. Ridicule is the device of alinskyesque scoundrels.
perhaps your mind is clouded..and does not want to see..I can cite numerous references.
Go to google books..type Vattel Constitution.
Vattel gave the Founders the justification to have their revolution..they quoted Vattel in their pamphlets.
You believe someone wanted to challenge Obama’s eligibility, and Cheney stopped them - and no one noticed? You realize complaints are made in writing...so what happened? Has any of the 535 members of Congress ever suggested in any way that they were not allowed to make an objection?
50 states. 535 Congressmen. Every court. All agree that Obama Sr does not make Obama Jr ineligible. But you would have us believe that MHGinTN knows more about the law and the Constitution than all those fools. You would have us believe a bad translation of Vattel made 10 years after the Constitution was written is what the Founders were thinking of - now THAT is a conspiracy! Don’t tell me, let me guess - Dr Who was in on it, and did the time travel?
Exhibit A ... thank you so much for proving my popint regarding ridicule. But I’m curious: does you continued ridicule of selected freepers make you a big man in certain cliques?
Exhibit A ... thank you so much for proving my point regarding ridicule. But I’m curious: does you continued ridicule of selected freepers make you a big man in certain cliques?
Question: Why wasn’t natural born citizen explained in the body of the Constitution?
Answer (at least, my answer): Because it was such a simple concept that even an 18th century 6 year old understood it. So here’s my explaination of a natural born citizen that even a 6 year old could understand (much thanks to Denzel Washington in the movie, Philadelphia). It’s called the 3 scoops of vanilla ice cream explaination:
You have 3 scoops of vanilla ice cream. One scoop represents the citizen father, one scoop represents the citizen mother (of the same country) and the 3rd scoop represents the baby born IN the same country that the parents (plural) are citizens of. Mix all 3 scoops together and what flavor do you get? You get vanilla....naturally. If one of those scoops was a different flavor, say chocolate or strawberry, when you mixed them together you woud get something....unatural. It’s as easy as that so I guess that means that a 6 year old in the 1700’s was smarter than a 21st century adult (kudos to the liberal educational system).
But let’s not kid ourselves. Congress knows what a natural born citizen is. Both sides of the aisle have tried to pass laws to change it’s meaning without resorting to the amendment process. 2 months before SR511 was passed, the same cast of characters (Leahy, McCaskill, barky, Hillary, Coburn, Webb) tried to pass a bill ( S.2678 ) in order to help McCain. It didn’t pass so they migrated to a phoney senate resolution which meant nothing but was intended to decieve the electorate. It passed 99-0 but it was a lie. McCain was never born on the base (Coco Solo). He was born in a civilian hospital in Colon. They also lied when they mentioned the 1st Congress’s statute on natural born citizens without noting that that statute was recinded 5 years later to reflect citizen instead. They knew that the voting public for the most part is not well informed, so they took advantage of their ignorance. (By the way, even if McCain was born on Coco Solo, 7FAM 1113 states that: contrary to popular belief, U.S. military instalations overseas are NOT U.S. soil).
Both sides of the Senate produced this sham and allowed an ineligible John McCain to continue to run. The down side was that when barky became the standard bearer, Republicans couldn’t say a thing cause they lied for McCain (and still haven’t to this day). Even Hillary got slammed by barky and couldn’t challenge him so she sent one of her “people” to do it. One of the 1st if not THE 1st lawsuit to challenge barky came from Phillip Berg (a Hillary supporter....what a coincidence). The house got caught up in it at the electoral college certification vote on 8 Jan. Now, everyone’s in on it.
So... why are we in this mess now? 2 reasons: McCain’s vanity and Republican stupidity. I think that if McCain wasn’t involved, then Republican opposition to barky would have been much stronger. (Lay with dogs...you get fleas,eh?)
It’s my opinion that Republicans will not speak up (and they haven’t so far) because barky is just waiting to implicate them in McCain’s eligibility vote from SR 511 and of course, play the race card. It’s up to us to out these criminals, both R and D. Some of these rascals have migrated to the tea party for cover (Demint and Bachman to name two)
IN January 2009, every Congressman had the right and obligation to raise an objection to the vote of the Electoral College. They did so in 2000 and in 2004, but NO MEMBER of Congress raised an objection. If a single Senator and a single Representative had objected, the matter would have gone up for debate and vote - but there was no objection. No one agreed with your belief that Obama Sr made Obama Jr ineligible. Your side got 0 out of 535.
Dazed and confused?
Dick Cheney failed to ask WHETHER there were any objections, which was his Constitutional duty to do so...
So why wasn’t he mentioned, or cited, or quoted in the Federalist Papers?
Even once?
Mr. Rogers’ Neighborhood = Alinsky’s Playground
Ah, yes...that Obamabot Dick Cheney.
Objections are submitted in writing. If there are none, then it doesn’t need to be brought up. The idea that there were objections, but Cheney refused to allow them and then the objectors just said, “OK” is stupid. Not silly, just stupid.
As part of the formality of the ceremony, Cheney is to orally ask whether there any objections. kind of like at a wedding there is usually the formality where the priest asks whether there is anyone who will state why the bride and groom should not be joined in matrimony...you want a written formal objection submitted prior to the wedding?
Stupid is as stupid does Bozo...Mr Rogers.
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.