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: 11278
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 # 143.
#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.
Well that's just a plain stupid statement given that it defines federal citizenship.
"Federal" citizenship is also the device used to keep you a slave to the IRS and the Social Insecurity system. Are you sure you want to argue in favor of it? Regardless, the 14th amendment has nothing to do with eligibility for president.
Different argument.
You brought it up. The 14th amendment has nothing to do with presidential eligibility.
If you keep repeating it do you hope that it will morph into the truth? Your argument is in response to the question "What constitutes a 'natural born citizen'?" and your counter claim to the 14th amendment definition of "citizen" is to say that it doesn't apply to...wait for it...the definition of a citizen. Your argument fails the most basic test of logic.
Since you keep bringing up the 14th amendment, here's what the Father of the 14th amendment, John Bingham, had to say about citizenship: Even by Bingham's understanding, Obama's not a natural born citizen.
"Not owing foreign allegience" is a reference to the diplomatic reference in the amedment. Nice try...
Originally, in post 59 of this thread, you stated, "There is no such requirement to be natural born." As you were utterly uninformed about that simple and provable requirement, your opinion is obviously of little worth on this matter. As James Madison said: "History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and its issuance." Oops. Your boy Obama is just another in a line of usurping agents for the Bankster class.
A reference to parentage not the progeny.
Incorrect. You made a simple declarative statement that had no basis in reality.
U.S. v. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
Explain U.S. v. WONG KIM ARK to me. Did it find that Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen? Nope.
Yep and it's inaanity to say that "it" did not.
Again, you're incorrect. The ruling found that Wong Kim Ark was a citizen, not a natural born citizen. The ruling also made a distinction between citizens and natural born citizens. From YOUR link: "Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that 'natural born citizen' applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances; and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay, or other race, were eligible to the presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not." Epic fail on your part.
You're quotiong Fuller's dissent. That would be the side that lost. Epic fail on your part.
I realize it's the minority opinion. My point was to emphasize that even the majority opinion didn't find him to be a natural born citizen. They did find him to be a citizen. The truly ironic thing about this is that the IRS, the most tyrannical part of this usurping government, also trivializes the meaning of the term "natural born citizen" on a regular basis: http://www.irs.gov/irb/2007-14_IRB/ar16.html Congrats. How's the dark side?
It's not an "opinion" it's a dissent. My point was to emphasize that even the majority opinion didn't find him to be a natural born citizen. And that ppoint is incorrect. Read the decision. The USCON establishes two classes of US citizenship...natural born and naturalized.
Here's the majority ruling. There's nothing about 'natural born citizen' in their findings: The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative. The USCON establishes two classes of US citizenship...natural born and naturalized. There's three classes: citizen, natural born citizen and naturalized citizen. Obama was born a citizen, not a natural born citizen as he was born with dual-nationality. That dual-nationality thing is what the Framers were trying to avoid. Were they alive today, they'd start a revolution all over again due to a dual-citizen having been selected by the Banking powers to be President.
There are no replies to Comment # 143. End Trace Mode for Comment # 143.
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?
#78. To: bluegrass (#77)
The 14th amendment has nothing to do with eligibility for president.
#85. To: war (#78)
Well that's just a plain stupid statement given that it defines federal citizenship.
#89. To: bluegrass (#85)
"Federal" citizenship is also the device used to keep you a slave to the IRS and the Social Insecurity system. Are you sure you want to argue in favor of it?
#93. To: war (#89)
Different argument.
#96. To: bluegrass (#93)
You brought it up. The 14th amendment has nothing to do with presidential eligibility.
#97. To: war, randge, James Deffenbach, Jethro Tull, christine, Cynicom (#96)
[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen... http://www.1 4thamendment.us/articles/anchor_babies_unconstitutionality.html
#98. To: bluegrass (#97)
#99. To: war (#98)
#101. To: bluegrass (#99)
Originally, in post 59 of this thread, you stated, "There is no such requirement to be natural born."
#103. To: war (#101)
#115. To: bluegrass (#103)
that had no basis in reality.
#120. To: war (#115)
#123. To: bluegrass (#120)
Did it find that Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen?
#129. To: war (#123)
#131. To: bluegrass (#129)
#134. To: war (#131)
#139. To: bluegrass (#134)
I realize it's the minority opinion.
#143. To: war (#139)
Replies to Comment # 143.