'Birthers' Nonsense Sets Georgia Up For Ridicule -- Again

Columbus (GA) Ledger-Enquirer ^ | January 27, 2012

[transducer]

We will risk the fairly safe assumption, as this is being written, that Air Force One did not make an appearance at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport sometime Thursday....

You almost have to laugh at this latest chapter in the seemingly endless “birther” saga, because about the only alternatives at this point are tears and/or nausea.

It was embarrassing enough when members of the Georgia legislature -- including, to Columbus’ acute humiliation, two members of the local delegation -- drafted a “Presidential Eligibility Assurance Act” in the last legislative session.

Now Georgians get to enjoy the added spectacle of their secretary of state, Brian Kemp, warning the president (let that sink in -- warning the president) through a White House attorney that failure to appear in a Georgia court would be “at your own peril.”...

Peach Pundit editor Charlie Harper, in a blog published this week in the Savannah Morning News, wrote: “This is a mistake. We are taught from a young age that we will be judged by the company we keep … The birther argument transcends disagreements of policy and politics and spirals into pure nuttery.” How true.

Georgia, no thanks to some judgment-impaired officials and certainly without the consent of the governed, has been slumming in the Orly Taitz nuttery neighborhood way too long. Please, for the sake of the state’s already battered image, let’s just quietly tiptoe out of this putrid political ghetto and back to the daylight side of town before we attract any more ridicule....

[PA Engineer]

We hardly knew ya...

True, but he reminded of the type of dog that you can't stop from chasing parked cars.

[little jeremiah]

You guys do realize there is a reason that Mark Levin completely dismisses you right?

---

No doubt the same reason practically all other “conservative” talk show hosts and news people ignore 0h0m0’s non-eligibilty.

Cowardice.

[Ratman83]

And you might want to get a copy of the United States Constitution.

[douginthearmy]

I also noticed you did not address my point at all. Yeah, I took logic 101 too, bfd. Mark Levin says he will vote for a soup can over Obama so he clearly is not a supporter. He is also a lawyer with considerable credentials (chief of staff for Ed Meese). He can discuss any topic that he chooses and the fact that he completely dismisses the birther issue is relevant.

Tables have tops. We could call these tops, tops of tables. Each table has only one top. Each top only belongs to one table. According to birther logic, each top must have 2 tables.

1 top of table + 1 top of table = tops of tables.

1 child of citizen + 1 child of citizen = children of citizens.

Each citizen child does not require 2 citizen parents any more than each table top requires two tables.

[jcsjcm]

LOL

You beat me to it! Kudos

[Josephat]

1 top of table + 1 top of table = tops of tables.

1 child of citizen + 1 child of citizen = children of citizens.

Each citizen child does not require 2 citizen parents any more than each table top requires two tables.

Come on. You’re kidding, right? No one can be that dense.

[Old Sarge]

[metesky]

I have to start getting up earlier on my day off.

[douginthearmy]

Come on. You’re kidding, right? No one can be that dense.

So are you saying that a table top requires two tables? Obviously a human being has 2 parents but the sentence in question is children of citizen parents to which birthers claim mandates that each child requires 2 citizen parents and that is simply gramatically false.

A of B + A of B = As of Bs.

In set As of Bs, each A may have 1 or more B. There is no mandate that any particular A have more than one B.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

You betcha.

[Josephat]

Try a little common sense. The purpose of the NBC clause was to prevent someone with divided loyalties from becoming president. How is that accomplished by requiring that only one parent be a citizen? It’s not and you know it. Quit trying to muddy the water with your nonsense.

[Ratman83]

It must just be a bad day for Eric, I have seen many posts from him and normally he is level headed. But maybe he just does not like so called Birthers.

[MMaschin]

1 top of table + 1 top of table = tops of tables.
1 child of citizen + 1 child of citizen = children of citizens.
Each citizen child does not require 2 citizen parents any more than each table top requires two tables.


You do know that your argument makes no sense in the context of a legal argument?

When construing a Constitutional term-of-art such as 'natural born Citizen', the court must determine it's intended meaning at the time it was created. That is what the court mean then it says something like this, from the Minor opinion.

At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar

So, legally, if you want to construe what the court ment when it said

all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens

you must do the same.

So, could the court (as I believe your 'logic 101' course has taught you) have ment that only 1 parent had to be a US citizen, and the other could be a citizen of another country? NO

Why not? You can not construe the meaning that way, because it was not possible at the time. At the time, when a women married an alien - and no, I don't want to get into the whole bastard implications with you - she automatically aquired the citizenship of her husband, and consequently lost her US citizenship. So there is no way to construe the phrase "born in a country of parents who were its citizens" to mean anything other than both parents!

[cincinnati65]

How about 1 child of citizen + 1 tabletop = A kid with spindley legs?

[Eric in the Ozarks]

It's a good day, Mr. Misspells.
Any opportunity to call out the confused, disoriented and obviously ill educated is a good day, eh ?

[douginthearmy]

US Citizens are naturalized or natural born.

[bcsco]

Then again, maybe it's a bunch of liberal trolls posting this Birther flapdoodle to make us look bad.

Us? You ain't with us any longer. And for good reason. What you call "crackpottery" is a firmly held belief among many of us here. And the fact that a judge in Georgia agrees, and a suit having been filed in Illinois, adds to the reality of it, dimwit. Well, Newbie, here's to ya. It didn't take ling for you to get your plug pulled. I'll say goodbye in my usual, fun way...

[Ratman83]

Any opportunity to call out the confused, disoriented and obviously ill educated is a good day, eh ?

Well then by that standard it is a great day for me.

Your post #113

Qualifications for the presidency are:

Age 35

Born in the US

Where a candidates parents were born is immaterial.

Actual qualifications for US President

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

You missed the NBC and 14 years as a resident requirement so you prove your poor education.

Your desire to belittle my typing/spelling is childish and reflects your own little mind.

[TheOldLady]

So long, transducer (Posting History)

Hat Tip to Responsibility2nd and editor-surveyor

Retread zer0 troll "tries to sue Admin Mod... and loses" - screaming and dripping flaming tar and feathers ensue




RINOs are bad enough, but you come here defending zer0? ZOT!


Thank you JoeProBono

FReepmail TheOldLady to get ON or OFF the ZOT LIGHTNING ping list.

[MMaschin]

US Citizens are naturalized or natural born

I completely agree.

Naturalized = Made a citizen by some man made law.
Natural born = No man made law required to be a citizen.

What some people don't seem to understand is that you can be naturalized at birth. Therefore you are a citizen at birth, but you are still a naturalized citizen, and not natural born citizen.

If any man made law is required to be considered a citizen of a country - you are a naturalized (statutory) citizen of that country. The only time that there is no law declaring you a citizen, is when you are born in a country, and both of you parents are citizens of that country.

Look at the combinations.
Born of 0 citizen parents in the country.
Born of 1 citizen, and 1 alien out of the country.
Born of 1 citizen, and 1 alien in the country.
Born of 2 citizens, out of the country.
Born of 2 citizens, in the country.

Guess what - that's right - there are statutes covering all the scenarios above - except one! The last one!

Why isn't there one? Because it's not needed. In the last situation you are a citizen under 'natural law' (ie. natural born), and no man made law is required.

Hope this little primer helps clear up any confussion you seem to have.