See other Editorial Articles
Title: Is lucysmom As Gullible and Naive as her posts indicate? Could it be possible?
Source:
LP
URL Source: http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=257643#C32
Published: Mar 3, 2009
Author: me
Post Date: 2009-03-03 16:27:49 by James Deffenbach
Keywords: None
Views: 11761
Comments: 261
There is a bit of hypocrisy going on here. This kind of abuse of the court system is rightly condemned by conservatives when the target of the suits are corporations but now applauded when the target is an individual. Any looney tune can file a suit and issue a subpoena requesting any personal information he desires (you don't even need a lawyer to do it) and the target is forced to respond. It could even happen to you. IMHO, there is something obscene about demanding the scope of personal information that these suits are after. The "birthers" demand the right to poke through the details of Obama's early life longing for anything to use against him. They are using the court system to harass and hound while wrapping them selves in the noble cloak of patriotism. They make the word dirty. lucysmom posted on 2009-03-03 10:40:46 ET Reply Trace
Poster Comment: The "birthers" are merely asking for actual PROOF that Obama is in fact an AMERICAN. His long form birth certificate, which could be produced at almost no cost, could confirm that he is or prove that he is not. Why is he and the DNC spending huge sums of money to keep it hidden if it actually proves that he is a citizen? I suspect that it proves the opposite for there would be no other reason not to disclose it.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 100.
#7. To: James Deffenbach (#0)
The Savage brought this topic up this evening. He has a hard on about it and just won't quit. Thought that he had dropped this after the mis-Inauguration, but I really think that he's serious about his non- native birth. He spent a lot of time drawing parallels between O and Mussolini, and had the megaphone out (OBAMA HAS CREATED THE MOST CORRUPT ADMINISTRATION IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES). He also said tonight that 'Bama will create his own brownshirts, and that he and Emanuel will create a Reichtags fire offering them the opportunity to round up dissidents. Savage made a point of saying that you can bet your bottom dollar on it.
He has a hard on about it and just won't quit. Thought that he had dropped this after the mis- Inauguration, but I really think that he's serious about his non- native birth... Obama isn't eligible to be prez for one reason alone: he's not a natural born citizen due to his father's Kenyan/British citzenship. Anyone like Savage or Corsi that injects the "he wasn't born on American soil" is throwing a needless diversion into the mix. Philip Berg pushed the 'was he born in Hawaii?' case and utterly ignored Obama's dual citizenship. Berg, Savage and Corsi are all old-school Zionists that would love to bury any speculation about dual citizenship.
If he was born in Kenya, as his Kenyan grandmother and some of his other relatives there claim, that alone would disqualify him because his mother could not have passed on her American citizenship to him under the law as it existed at that time. Here is a "birth certificate" that is just as good as the one they Photoshopped and claimed that it proved he was born in Hawaii.
I believe that he was born in Hawaii. That being said, his father's foreign citizenship immediately makes him ineligible to be president as a natural born citizen is someone born on American soil of two citizen parents. Obama doesn't fit the bill and he knows it.
There is no such requirement to be natural born. Children born on US soil of non-citizen immigrants are natural born.
I can only assume ignorance or trollery on your part. Either way, you're incorrect. You know full well that of two requirements to be president, one of them is that he be a natural born citzen. Children born on US soil of non-citizen immigrants are natural born. Natural born citizens, according to the understanding of the men that wrote the Constitution, are those people born on US soil of two US citizen parents. That ain't Barack.
Nope. I am 100% correct. You cannot distinguish between a person born in the US of immigrants versus those born of native born or naturalized. The plain language of the 14th mendment states what? All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. It does not separate those who are born in to classes of citizens based upon simple parentage. Obama was born in Hawaii...he was not the child of a diplomat and therefore immune from US law.
The 14th amendment has nothing to do with eligibility for president. That eligibility is stated in Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution.
Feel free to show where in Article II your specific definition of "natural born" is found. Thanks.
It wasn't defined because ALL of the Framers knew what a natural born citizen was based upon their common legal education. Their point of reference was Vattel's legal work cited above. As Justice Scalia cited Vattel in a recent 2nd Amendment ruling just two years ago (see footnote 10), Vattel is still considered an authoritative legal source.
Can yuou cite the debate at Annapolis in which this requirement was put into operation?
#102. To: war (#100)
Try Philly instead. It predated Annapolis: "One important reason why the delegates chose to meet in Carpenters Hall, was that the building also housed the Library Company of Philadelphia. The librarian reported that Vattel was one of the main sources consulted by the delegates during the First Continental Congress, which met from Sept. 5 to Oct. 26, 1774. Charles W.F. Dumas, an ardent supporter of the American cause, printed an edition of The Law of Nations in 1774, with his own notes illustrating how the book applied to the American situation. In 1770, Dumas had met Franklin in Holland, and was one of Franklin's key collaborators in his European diplomacy. He sent three copies to Franklin, instructing him to send one to Harvard University, and to put one in the Philadelphia library. Franklin sent Dumas a letter, Dec. 9, 1775, thanking him for the gift. Franklin stated, "I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept, has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting ... ." link But tell us again how there is no Constitutional requirement that a president has to be natural born citizen. That's your best gag yet.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#21. To: randge, James Deffenbach (#7)
(Edited)
The Savage brought this topic up this evening.
#30. To: bluegrass (#21)
#31. To: James Deffenbach (#30)
#59. To: bluegrass (#31)
That being said, his father's foreign citizenship immediately makes him ineligible to be president as a natural born citizen is someone born on American soil of two citizen parents. Obama doesn't fit the bill and he knows it.
#71. To: war, Jethro Tull, James Deffenbach, randge (#59)
There is no such requirement to be natural born.
#75. To: bluegrass (#71)
Either way, you're incorrect.
#77. To: war (#75)
The plain language of the 14th mendment states what?
#79. To: bluegrass (#77)
That eligibility is stated in Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution.
#90. To: war (#79)
Feel free to show where in Article II your specific definition of "natural born" is found.
#100. To: bluegrass (#90)
It wasn't defined because ALL of the Framers knew what a natural born citizen was based upon their common legal education.
Replies to Comment # 100.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 100.