Vivek Ramaswamy is not legally eligible to be President.

Trevor Sutcliffe on Twitter ^ | February 24, 2023 | Trevor Sutcliffe

[DiogenesLamp]

You need to stop when even joking about dragging people into the street and beating them is an option

When we can't have fair elections, we are on the path to destruction. When people won't even acknowledge that the elections are corrupt, but keep pushing the narrative that we were just outplayed by superior get out the vote tactics, then I don't see any way things are going to get better.

I’ve offered real suggestion after suggestion and you’ve offered nothing but threats of violence if only as a joke and you’ve offered nothing and I’m supposed to be the one needs to wake up

What I offer is this. We need to make the corrupt officials more afraid of the people of America than they are of the Mexican Drug cartels, Chinese money, or the Deep State.

The way to do this is first by *ACKNOWLEDGING* that the elections are corrupt, talk as if it is a serious problem, and make the public aware that the elections are corrupt.

Your suggestions are just offering to play their game, and then you will say "well gee whiz, they just beat us again. We need to *VOTE HARDER*!"

I *ABSOLUTELY* believe the elections in Arizona were utterly corrupt. I believe that judge is either a f***ing idiot, or *HE* is corrupt.

You clearly don't believe this, and the only thing of which I can think for our difference in opinions is that one of us hasn't seen the evidence that the other has.

I like to believe i'm better informed than most, so my guess is that it is *YOU* that either has not seen, or does not grasp the significance of, the evidence that has thus far been presented about corrupt elections in Arizona. (And Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Nevada.)

You are not frightened. You *SHOULD* be frightened. When we can't have fair elections, it won't be long before a real threat of violence against us becomes real.

Are you familiar with what Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn said about the time before he went to the gulag?

Every week it seems as if America is moving closer and closer to Soviet style governance. We are constantly being lied to.

[DiogenesLamp]

The etymology suggests that the word "citizen" was already in use in English before the American (or French) Revolution.

But what did it mean in 18th century Briton? If you think it meant the same thing as it means today, you are very much mistaken. I have been through several pre 1776 English dictionaries, and in that era, the word "citizen" meant "someone who dwells in a city."

Here is one example: A dictionary of the English language. by Samuel Johnson, 1768.

Only one place on earth did it mean a national. (Member of a Nation) That place was Switzerland, which is a nation that began as a Republic when 8 cities joined together around 1300. Their Charte des prêtres (1370)uses the word "Citoyen" in the context of members of a nation.

Having a nation that began as 8 cities joining together to form a Republic, makes it easy to see how the word went from meaning a "city dweller" to member of a republic.

Britons used the word "subject" because they had a monarchy.

So did the French. So did every country in the world *EXCEPT* Switzerland. It was the *ONLY* place that used "Citizen."

Americans wanted to do away with monarchy so they adopted the word "citizen."

Which came from Switzerland, and was constantly used by Vattel. It wasn't used much at all by Blackstone. I looked.

Was it really likely that the Framers threw out their whole inherited system of laws when they adopted one word in place of another?

They threw out a *LOT* of English laws, and the most important one they threw out was the "perpetual allegiance" a man owed the king from having been born on the King's land. They threw out the Feudal system, which made men the property of the King, the same as his livestock.

They kept a lot of English law, but they did not keep anything that conflicted with the natural law foundation upon which they based our system of governance.

Or did they simply replace "subject" with citizen?

This is what the advocates of the English common law theory of "citizenship" would have us believe, but the evidence says "no", and in my opinion, the very best evidence to demonstrate this is the usage of the word "citizen."

I saw one of the videos that Mike Zullo made for Joe Arpaio.

I haven't seen any of them, but I lost confidence in that group a long time ago.

Politicians don't release personal documents unless they have to, so there may be no big secret at all.

Well it is my belief that a guy who went around telling everyone he was from "Kenya" should *HAVE TO* thereafter provide proof that he wasn't a foreign national before any of the secretaries of state should let him on the ballot.

But of course they fell down on their job and refused to do due diligence, and instead merely accepted Nancy Pelosi's word that he was a "natural born citizen."

If you are not familiar with it, I urge you to go read about the "Asch conformity experiments." That, and the "Milgram Authority experiments" explain a lot of what happens in our society.

The 50 Secretaries of States had been conditioned to just accept him because he was black, and they would have been attacked mercilessly had they dared to do their job, so of course they chose not to go through that.

[Mervin Milgrim]

Hawaii will issue birth certificates to people *NOT* born in Hawaii. The only requirement is one of their parents must be a Hawaii resident.

So a piece of paper put out by Hawaii that claims Obama was born in Hawaii is not good evidence at all.

This statement makes no sense at all. Obama's COLB states that he was born in Hawaii. If he were born elsewhere, it would say that. Because Hawaii issues birth certificates to those not born in the state means that the Obama COLB is not authentic? That's just nonsense.

The birth certificate Obama released is a ridiculous forgery. There are so many things wrong with it that it is laughable that they thought they should even try that.

More nonsense. Polarik failed to prove that Obama's COLB was a forgery. No one has published a credible report that Obama's COLB was a forgery. And I'm the one who wants to believe what I want to believe?

... you are hopelessly naive about how things really work in this nation, and you are naive about human nature in general.

This is just a nasty personal attack, which I thought was forbidden here on Free Republic. I can see now why so many other Free Republic posters have a problem with you.

Your problem is that Stanley Ann was in Seattle in the latter part of August, and there is no reasonable way for her to get there after his birth. She had to already be in the area.

Triple nonsense. It would not have been impossible at all for Stanley and the baby to fly from Hawaii to Seattle. Perhaps not advisable, but certainly not impossible. That's your problem, not mine.

I never said he was born in Canada. I said the evidence makes it the most likely choice of where he was born.

Oh for goodness sakes, my apologies. I thought when you stated the evidence suggests he was born in Seattle, that you were stating that he was born in Seattle.

...you will simply dismiss any evidence that is not overwhelmingly compelling.

Yes, that's how it works. It's called substantiation.

You just want to look at everything that happens as confirming what you wish to believe.

Yes, I do.

Boy, you certainly are a nasty poster. Your comments generally make no sense and are only supported by conjecture and nothing more.

Any discussion with you is futile.

[DiogenesLamp]

This statement makes no sense at all. Obama's COLB states that he was born in Hawaii. If he were born elsewhere, it would say that.

And you know that it would say this how? How do you know this? Have you ever heard of a state issuing birth certificates to someone who wasn't actually born there?

Well Hawaii does this. If you know that Hawaii will specify on a Hawaiian birth certificate that they were born somewhere else, why wouldn't that result in a birth certificate from somewhere else?

Because Hawaii issues birth certificates to those not born in the state means that the Obama COLB is not authentic?

See how you substitute "not authentic" for the real issue which is "NOT PROOF HE WAS BORN IN HAWAII."

Sure it's "authentic." It's an official state document of Hawaii. What it *IS'NT, is *PROOF* that he was born there.

This is not a hard concept. I'm surprised you are having trouble with it. If Hawaii will issue a birth certificate to someone not actually born in Hawaii, then how can you tell if they were actually born in Hawaii?

More nonsense. Polarik failed to prove that Obama's COLB was a forgery.

I don't know who this "Polarik" is that you keep mentioning. For someone who is pretending to be objective, you certainly know more than the average uninterested objective person.

No one has published a credible report that Obama's COLB was a forgery.

Well firstly I disagree. Secondly, I don't understand a person who has to have *SOMEONE ELSE* tell him what to think. You can look at the flaws in it, and they are myriad, and you can see for yourself that it's a fake cobbled together piece of garbage.

I've read a half dozen articles analyzing it, and they point out some pretty good flaws, like areas where some of the text curves around the page, while other places it doesn't. Different fonts in the same allegedly type written document. I haven't even gotten to the layer nonsense.

You don't see what you don't want to see.

And I'm the one who wants to believe what I want to believe?

That is very much what it seems like.

This is just a nasty personal attack, which I thought was forbidden here on Free Republic.

That is a "nasty personal attack"? You really *are* naive. You must have been sheltered or something. Calling someone "naive" is about as mild and milquetoast as it gets.

I can see now why so many other Free Republic posters have a problem with you.

How would you know that? According to your signup date, you've only been here for like a day or so. Went the rounds did we, and took a survey on what other people thought of me?

Or did people just volunteer that information unbidden?

I do not create my beliefs based on whether other people like them or not. I create my beliefs based on a weighing of evidence and thoughtful analysis.

I am not easily manipulated by peer pressure or what the "majority" supposedly thinks. I think for myself and I urge others to do likewise.

Oh, and for what it's worth, there are plenty of freepers who like me just fine.

Triple nonsense. It would not have been impossible at all for Stanley and the baby to fly from Hawaii to Seattle. Perhaps not advisable, but certainly not impossible.

Back in 2008, some of the freepers here tracked down the flight information for what was available in August of 1961. They found what airlines provided flights between Hawaii and Seattle, and then they looked at the airline's policies on women flying with infants.

They posted images of the actual airline books from that era in which they specified that women with infants less than a month old would not be permitted on the plane because the cabin pressure changes could rupture the infant's eardrums.

Those images are likely still on free republic back in the 2008-2009 era, but finding them will be difficult.

So no, Stanley Ann didn't get on an airplane after August 5th and get to Seattle somehow by August 19th.

The more rational explanation is that she was already there before the baby was born, and likely staying with Aunt Eleanor in Blaine Washington, where her and her husband were living at the time.

Oh for goodness sakes, my apologies. I thought when you stated the evidence suggests he was born in Seattle, that you were stating that he was born in Seattle.

Stanley Ann didn't have a place to live in Seattle unless one of her high school friends wanted to take her in. She had an Aunt Eleanor Belle Dunham Berkebile living in Blaine Washington, which borders White Rock Canada.

The only hospital is across the border in White Rock. There was no hospital in Blaine in 1961.

This is all circumstantial, and it cannot be considered as "proof" beyond a reasonable doubt.

Boy, you certainly are a nasty poster.

Again, you must have grown up in a sheltered environment. You should read some of the hate comments *I* get from time to time.

Your comments generally make no sense and are only supported by conjecture and nothing more.

Even if that is true, and I disagree that it is, my conjecture actually makes a lot more sense than what they tell us in the official narrative.

White girl gets pregnant with black man's child in 1961? Both parents are racists from Kansas. Grandma Dunham worked at a bank her whole life, and her co workers said they never knew she had a grandchild until Barack Obama ran for the Presidency. No pictures of him on her desk, not conversations about him with her coworkers, no usual grandmotherly love and pride.

Barack Obama Sr writes a letter to immigration officials in which he states that He and Stanley Ann had decided to put up the baby for adoption.

Stanley Ann gives birth in a Hawaiian hospital and immediately flies to Seattle to live by herself instead of staying there with her loving family? Where did she get the money? How did she afford to live in Seattle? Did Madelyn Dunham pay for everything?

Why did she leave?

You know what makes more sense? An embarrassing pregnancy gets sent to live with Aunt Eleanor. *THAT* is how things were done in that era.

The baby was to be put up for adoption and Stanley Ann changes her mind. Call mom and tells her that she's keeping him. Mom files the Hawaiian paperwork to make him a citizen, daughter comes back to Hawaii before the year is up. (Which she did.)

Any discussion with you is futile.

Well if I thought you didn't want to talk to me, I don't know if I could bear it.

[MarMema]

I would love that.

[x]

John Adams wrote a very long book, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States. It was a survey of republics throughout history: Athens and other Greek Cities, Rome, Florence, Venice, Holland, Switzerland and others. In one volume he uses the word "citizen" or "citizens" or "citizenship" over 500 times, so I'm going to say that the Founding Fathers were very acquainted with the word and idea of citizens and citizenship and didn't need to learn it from Vattel.

[DiogenesLamp]

John Adams wrote a very long book, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States. It was a survey of republics throughout history: Athens and other Greek Cities, Rome, Florence, Venice, Holland, Switzerland and others. In one volume he uses the word "citizen" or "citizens" or "citizenship" over 500 times, so I'm going to say that the Founding Fathers were very acquainted with the word and idea of citizens and citizenship and didn't need to learn it from Vattel.

You may be quite wrong about that. Back when I was researching this stuff, I learned that John Adams was a member of a debating group in Boston. I forget the name of the group, but I can probably find it again. In any case, they loved the first edition of Vattel they received when it first came available in America, and it quite likely fired their imagination to create the United States. There is a section in it that says a Confederacy should be formed out of a collection of independent states. Nobody else in that era would dare to write such a thing!

I don't have time at the moment, but look up the young lawyer's social club that John Adams belonged to back in 1773 or so.

Adams was exposed to Vattel very early in his career.

[kiryandil]

This is just a nasty personal attack, which I thought was forbidden here on Free Republic.

Odd that you know that this is a BIG DEAL on Free Republic - the day after you were "born on" Free Republic...

You wrote, in your post #397: I found "Polarik"'s reports, posted here many years ago, to be amateurish and borderline incoherent.

You've been "lurking" for fifteen or more years?

Pull the other one. You haz a smell.

Wonder why it's so important to beat up on freeper DiogenesLamp? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...

[Jane Long]

This is just a nasty personal attack, which I thought was forbidden here on Free Republic. I can see now why so many other Free Republic posters have a problem with you.

---

O, rly, Merv??

Welcome to FR.

What was your previous FR name…. Mr I know the FR Rules and Posters on Day Two, n00b?

Hmmmmm?

[x]

The Founders knew ancient history. They knew about citizens in Athens and Rome. They also knew English law through Blackstone, as all lawyers in the colonies had. If they had wanted “natural born” to mean something different from what it had meant for generations of colonists, they would have used more precise language to spell it out.

Australia does have a requirement that no one can sit in parliament who is a dual citizen. This causes trouble because so many Australians are eligible for British citizenship through their parents or grandparents. The current prime minister’s father was Italian from Italy. He got around the requirement by claiming that his parents weren’t married and there is no father listed on his birth certificate. No word on whether the birth certificate is fake.

[DiogenesLamp]

Odd that you know that this is a BIG DEAL on Free Republic - the day after you were "born on" Free Republic...

Pull the other one. You haz a smell.

Precisely what I was thinking.

[DiogenesLamp]

If they had wanted “natural born” to mean something different from what it had meant for generations of colonists, they would have used more precise language to spell it out.

They did. They used the word "citizen", which was common in Switzerland, but not so much in England.

In England they used the word "subject."

That's the common law word you know. They didn't use it.

Implies they didn't use the common law on the issue of "citizen."

[kiryandil]

Jane also pointed out this:

Mer-tread Mil-tread wrote: "I can see now why so many other Free Republic posters have a problem with you."

He knows this after a whole 36 hours on the forum...

[DiogenesLamp]

He knows this after a whole 36 hours on the forum...

Yeah, I noticed that comment too. I even asked "him" about it.

Wouldn't surprise me if Mervin is Squeeky Fromme. She was a loon I argued with years ago before she got zotted.

I find it odd that this person joins Free Republic and makes an immediate bee-line for a thread about Natural Born Citizen and Obama's Birth Certificate.

I've been arguing with some other people on another thread and her name comes up from time to time.

The style of writing is different though, so either she's doing a good job hiding her usual style, or it's someone else.

I've always thought you could recognize someone by their writing style.

[kiryandil]

I find it odd that this person joins Free Republic and makes an immediate bee-line for a thread about Natural Born Citizen and Obama's Birth Certificate.

And then starts immediately misrepresenting your comments...

[Bikkuri]

Welcome Back NotWokeOrCommie... That was quick! You even had this account made a couple of hours before you were zotted (gotta be prepared, aye!).
One of the giveaways this time was that you hit the ground (forum) running.. using HTML in your first post. Not to mention that you are an Obunghole supporter...









*** H/T to Allegra & kiryandil ***

[Bikkuri]

Oh.. and on the same thread we all got to know you better BEFORE you were zotted.. 😉

[Bikkuri]

Oh crud.. sorry, I messed up. H/T to you too!! I guess I was so excited catching him, my wires got crossed 😜💢✌️

[Bikkuri]

"I've always thought you could recognize someone by their writing style."

Lol.. you can. That is even discussed on this very thread a couple of hundred posts ago 😉

[Allegra]

Well, heeeyy, NotWokeOrCommie, you sure got back here in a hurry, didn’t you? The scorch mark you left a couple of days ago hasn’t even stopped smoldering and here you are! You missed us, didn’t you?