Posted on 02/01/2012 7:17:02 PM PST by Sallyven
[snip]...Jablonski remained true to his word -- neither he nor Obama showed up for the January 26 hearing. I noted last week that Obama was not scheduled to be anywhere near Atlanta on the date of the hearing, although I had wondered if still, perhaps, Georgia might be on his mind. According to reports in the blogosphere, the president's schedule on the morning of the 26th was open, and according to an unnamed source, Obama watched the live feed of the hearings.
Perhaps Obama, as well as the several mainstream media news outlets I spotted at the hearing, were merely watching in hopes that the "crazy birthers" would really do something...well, crazy. Or unlawful. In fact, though, it was the president himself and his defense team who were the ones defying the rule of law.
The mainstream media, in lockstep with Obama, reported nothing of the events, in a stunning blackout on a truly historic hearing -- one that discussed the eligibility of a sitting president to run for a second term. And more troubling was the fact that the media failed to acknowledge the even more sensational news -- that the president and his defense attorney snubbed an official subpoena.
Today, Attorney Van Irion, on behalf of his client, Georgia resident David Welden, filed a "Motion for Finding of Contempt" with Judge Malihi...
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Too many comments to go through now, but I don’t recall insinuating anything, I was simply looking for the source of a comment, and asked the freeper several times to provide it. I also explained why. Unsourced comments have several times in the past spread like wildfire, and once out there, can’t be pulled back.
In the light of today’s news, just how well is that unsourced comment standing up now?
I'm not the one making claims about the law. You are. In my opinion, there are just two types of citizen--natural born and naturalized (i.e. made natural). Therefore, if you want an example of a Natural Born Citizen losing his citizenship, that would be Bellei, under the terms of the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act.
It looks to me like he was deliberately fed misinformation:
Friday, 3 February 2012 8:12:38 AM · 383 of 622
Obama Exposer to edge919
I just received information that Judge Mahili rejected the White House pdf file of Obama’s long form birth certificate abstract. This should get real interesting.
And no, I am not going to ping him, I did that several times already and there was no reply. If, as I suspect, someone misinformed him, he certainly knows about it by now.
You find that in the same place where Congress is given the power to criminalize the possession of rocks, in the same place where Congress is given the power to define who shall or shall not be a natural citizen (as opposed to a naturalized one,) in the same place where those in the US when the US came into existence were made US citizens by statute or other man-made law—such as a Constitutional provision.
In other words, you don't.
Congress has no power to criminalize the possession of rocks. Because no such power is granted to them in the Constitution.
Congress has no power to define who are citizens naturally, without any need of a naturalization statute, because no such power was granted to Congress in the Constitution. Congress was granted the power to make naturalization rules, but the power to define who are natural citizens was very pointedly not granted.
In fact, that's how the Supreme Court in Minor vs. Happersett was able to rule that Mrs.Minor was citizen without considering any statute, and without considering the 14th Amendment. The fact they could do that that way, by natural law alone, was a key point in the chain of reasoning that justified their principal holding that Mrs. Minor had no right to vote, because women had always been citizens, proving that the privilege of voting was separate and distinct from being a citizen.
Nor will you find anywhere in the Constitution, nor anywhere in any Congressional statute ever passed, that makes or made anyone a US citizen who was here when the United States came into existence. But the country nevertheless had millions of citizens at the instant it came into existence, in spite of there being no man-made law that made them so.
And except for those who became citizens by naturalization, there was no law that made most people born in the US citizens until the 14th Amendment was passed. But they were citizens nonetheless—as the Supreme Court ruled in Minor vs. Happersett.
Thank you. Very powerful idea here.
The "bootstrap" does not exist.
The tank picture was in response to Patton's statement that he had read Rommel's book on desert warfare.
The Constitution?
Many here, including myself, have sworn a formal oath to support and defend the Constitution, against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
I think I'll keep defending that hill. Let those enemies die on it.
Question “Its been noticed you commented the Judge rejected the pdf.
Can you update us please regarding the pdf rejection?”
Answer: I don’t know where that came from, unless they simply took it from my remarks and applied some literary license.
Nevertheless, it is complete understandable why someone would say that.
Judge Malihi at that point, after candidate Obama and his attorney failed to show up at his hearing, probably wouldn’t have accepted candidate Obama’s original birth certificate if it was handed to him by the out stretched hand of Obama, himself, prostrated before Malihi, kissing his feet in abject supplication.”
Ok Let it rest.
Rommel's book was @Infantry Attack
It turns out to be crap. You were right.
Looks like we confused a few with our quotes from movies game. ... Now by dammit, that’s enough!
The Constitution?
Many here, including myself, have sworn a formal oath to support and defend the Constitution, against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
I think I’ll keep defending that hill. Let those enemies die on it.
__________________________
BRAVO!
Apparently you didn't understand my point. The Reason Bellei (a born citizen) lost his citizenship for failure to meet residency requirements was because he was not a "natural born citizen". That there are no laws depriving "natural born citizens" from their citizenship for failure to meet the requirements of their citizenship is because the only requirement for THAT type of citizenship is to be born as a "natural" citizen.
There are no further requirements than that.
A "born citizen" is not the same thing as a "natural born citizen." Rogers v Bellei demonstrates this.
It would seem so, but to what purpose? Perhaps it was just someone seeing evidence of something they wanted to see, and reporting it as though it were a fact.
I'm stealing that.
Shellback I know. Equator, Neptune etc. but Golden Dragon, I've not heard of.. until I looked it up just now. Amazingly I guessed correctly. :) Another line crossing.
Interestingly, our Maritime forces and those of the Brits are not the only nations' militaries to conduct such ceremonies. The Poles do it too.
I think at least a couple of those are real women.. of course with sailors, one never be certain. :)
I wasn't confused, I was just joining in the fun. :)
Which movie is that from?
Our niece and a great niece, who are only about year apart in age, are always posting lyrics to songs, that sound like something going on their lives. Now that's maddening, but I've learned to check. I still love 'em both though.
With DADT done away with it doesn't matter any more. There will be uniform challenges and the whole nine yards before too long.
There really will be "cabin boys".
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.