Posted on 10/29/2013 9:02:51 AM PDT by txrangerette
Cruz said in an interview with Fusion that because his mother is an American citizen he is a citizen as well.
"I was a U.S. Citizen by birth and beyond that I'm going to leave it to others to worry about...legal consequences", he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
But all that was before your privacy laws protected people like Ayres, right?
Would it have been possible for anyone to lock down their past in the ‘first hundred years’ - as zero has done?
3. Identifying those who are trolls on the subject instead of searchers.
***Simple enough. Where were those trolls in 2008 when this was a real constitutional issue? Who among that group is engaged in painting constitutional conservatives as “stupid” or “Morons” or “trolls”, etc. Cruz himself doesn’t even say he’s NBC, so by extension, those hypercritical FReepers are calling Cruz a troll.
One interesting development is to see JimRob himself using the term “Troll” in the same way that lj and I were using it in 2008 for Issue-Specific-Trolls, in particular CoLB trolls. JimRob used to just look up the FReeper’s signup date, say that so&so has been with us for 4 or 5 years, so he’s not a troll. He doesn’t do that any more, zotting 5 year members without a backwards glance.
COINTELPRO Techniques for dilution, misdirection and control of a internet forum. (Trolling 101)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2165967/posts
Fri 16 Jan 2009 12:36:53 PM PST · by Sidebar Moderator · 262 replies · 11,135+ views
E-Mail and Freepers
Thanks to many FReepers who have sent us this information. Apparently, this is floating around the Internet now. It is a guide to trolling. While it may or may not be fake in its origins, we do see these techniques all the time and felt it would be good to share with everyone. ______________________________________________________ COINTELPRO Techniques for dilution, misdirection and control of a internet forum.. There are several techniques for the control and manipulation of a internet forum no matter what, or who is on it. We will go over each technique and demonstrate that only a minimal number of...
Yes. Chester A. Arthur. As has been discussed on Certifigate threads.
You’re right, the succession would go to the VP-Elect and then to the other pres candidate if the VP-elect failed to “qualify”.
Thank you for your CONCERN.
***The founding fathers were concerned that someone whose loyalty was divided would arise to the presidency. It appears you would label them as CONCERN trolls.
Surely you’re aware that this freak zer0bama has divided loyalty? Where were you when the constitutional issue was significant with respect to the communist?
So, according ti to your post, Rafael Sr was subject to the US draft in 1967. I assume then that 1970 would have been too soon for Rafael Sr to have been naturalized in Canada. That makes the argument for Ted's eligibility stronger.
I gather that all the doubt about Chester Arthur was his year of birth and place of birth. Who his parents were was known.
Unlike zero, whose pedigree and history is unknown.
It’s rude. We need a ruling.
***That’s an incredible understatement. The SCOTUS basically ushered in and empirical presidency by abrogating their responsibility. It was no less than the end of the constitutional republic. Far, far more than just “rude”.
Even worse than SCOTUS, Congress abrogated their responsibility. This should have been debated and voted on in Congress when counting the electoral votes in 2009.
So, according ti to your post, Rafael Sr was subject to the US draft in 1967.
************
He was 28 years old when he registered. So I think he was beyond the age limit they
were calling. Now why he didn’t register prior to age 28 is another question.
It may have been something to do with his status/Cuban linkage, I don’t know.
Arthur was lying about his birth date so he could get past the fact he was naturalized, IIRC.
There’s even a keyword for this guy
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/chesterarthur/index
What IF the assumption is always that a candidate IS eligible until proven NOT to be.
Where is it stated that the candidate must be vetted by the SCOTUS before he/she is nominated?
Seems the nominated candidate is eligible until such time as you show up on the steps of the supreme court waving his naturalization documents, in other words.
But those court cases didn’t go up through Congress, they came up through the judiciary branch.
I believe that is the case, and furthermore, those who show up on the court steps are not granted “standing”.
Under such a set of rules, the guvernator could become president.
As I tried to explain, as an Australian I’m bound to misinterpret certain issues, I’m the foreigner here. None the less, I cannot see where the candidate’s qualifications for NBC status are required to be vetted by ANY authority, according to the constitution.
All I see is Nancy Pelosi signing off on his eligibility, on two sets of documents with different wording.
While, at the same time, the MSM devoted itself entirely to the question of McCain’s birthplace.
But it is Congress' primary responsibility to vet these things when certifying the election. That no one Senator & Congressman objected damns them...
Arthur lied about the date his father was naturalized.
And I bet he's not hiding who his parents are/were, where he was born, when his birthday was, or who paid for his education. He would have a perfectly genuine birth certificate from his home country, written in Austrian - so if you voted for him, you would know you were voting for a foreigner.
(little bit of sarc.from a fellow Austrian by birth.)
And a PS.
Someone like Nancy couldn’t sign off on the Austrian being eligible, could she now? We all know where HE came from.
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.