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: 2275
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
Comments (1-166) not displayed.
.
.
.
#167. To: war (#166)
What I am promoting is the truth that he has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep his LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE HIDDEN. That is the same bc that us lowly peons have to provide if we want something like a passport. But your hero doesn't have to show one to prove he is eligible to hold the highest office the country has to offer? If he truly is an American citizen and he was actually born in Hawaii why wouldn't he produce the long form bc? Would YOU spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep yours hidden if there was some controversy about where you were born and you were running for a public office? And why is he spending all that money if he has nothing to hide? Do you remember the sob talking about "transparency"? Your hero is just another politician and isn't worth the air he is taking up. I have asked you over and over why your hero won't produce that long form birth certificate, why he spends all that money to keep it hidden. One more non responsive, bs post from you and you can talk to yourself as far as I am concerned.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Who are you to tell me my status? You didn't even know that there was a natural born clause in the Constitution.
I WAS REFERRING To PARENTAGE.
I'm the euridite.
Document even one cent. Thanks...
#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. There is no such requirement to be natural born. Children born on US soil of non-citizen immigrants are natural born. war posted on 2009-03-04 21:23:53 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
THIS is from the article that was posted on LP, an article favorable to your hero. The White House regards the claims as an irritant and is not responding to questions about them, but lawyers for the Democratic National Committee and Mr Obama himself have spent considerable time and money combating a steady supply of lawsuits at every court level up to the Supreme Court. The exact cost to Mr Obama himself is not known. WHY would they spend "considerable time and money" fighting the production of the document which would either prove he was born in Hawaii or prove that he wasn't? It would take almost no time and very little money to end the controversy, yet your hero refuses to do that. How much is "considerable time and money"? You should know since you claim to be rich. Would it be, in your opinion, far more than the cost of producing the damned document? Or is that beyond your limited ability to grasp? This will be my last post to you since you are non responsive and always answer with bs. Adios.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. It's the principle of the thing.
... now with Solium™!
Indeed.
By his parentage, Bracko isn't eligible to be president. That's the point. As you're so euridite, maybe you're just too smart for me.
Yes, he's the reaching-downer-to-the-downtrodden or something. But he has an odd way of showing it here to us poor slobs. Would this be a good time to call attention to jewish dualism vs. celtic trios?
... now with Solium™!
It always is. And never about the money or power--ALWAYS THE PRINCIPLE.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Seriously, were you butt raped by a gang of feral priests when you were young ??? No I wasn't an alter boy.
Yes would have sufficed.
Amyone who believes that that there is nothing wrong with someone would spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to hide a document which he could easily produce for less than a hundred, and which would prove that he was actually born in this country (if he was), ain't all there. Your hundreds of thousands of dollars figure is pulled out of your ass. And he released his certificate of live birth and the fruit cakes are still coming out of the wood work.
You need to learn something and learn it quickly. He didn't release a "certificate of live birth". He released a "certification of live birth". See at the top of the page? It says, in plain English, "certification of live birth": According to the State of Hawaii, what he released isn't enough to even prove that he's a native of Hawaii: The primary documents used to show you are of age and a qualified native Hawaiian are: In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL. the fruit cakes are still coming out of the wood work. The fruitcakes are the ones that can't accept the simple reality that Obama has NEVER released his Certificate of Live Birth but merely his Certification of Live Birth, two entirely different animals under Hawaiian law.
The White House regards the claims as an irritant and is not responding to questions about them, but lawyers for the Democratic National Committee and Mr Obama himself have spent considerable time and money combating a steady supply of lawsuits at every court level up to the Supreme Court. The exact cost to Mr Obama himself is not known. You are, or seem to be, retarded. Exactly what would constitute "considerable time and money" for someone who has access to millions of dollars? And a Hawaii COLB doesn't mean a lot but then maybe you don't know that. It doesn't list a lot of information that is contained on the long form birth certificate. And anyone can Photoshop just about any document which is what it appears they did with even the limited pos they foisted off on gullible people like you.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. C'mon..that was funny...
It's hard to tell funny from serious anymore. I checked this morning. Obama's still not eligible to be president.
And your point is incorrect. What LAW of the US says that a "natural born" citizen is one of two US citizens? Not what philosophy. Not what some guy blogs about 16thh century philosophy but what LAW? The actual LAW of the US is that there are two classes of citizens: NATURAL BORN or NATURALIZED. Period.
I checked again this morning. He IS POTUS.
Show me the relevant data from the era when the US Constitution was written that defined a natural born citizen. Now show me when that definition changed in our era. The actual LAW of the US is that there are two classes of citizens: NATURAL BORN or NATURALIZED Show me the law. I see three types of citizens in the Constitution.
So Bush was also a legit prez in your mind?
he was elected under the procedures set forth in the USCON, i.e., the Electoral College, and which the SCOTUS made painfully clear that my vote and your vote not only mean squar but that we don't have a right to vote for POTUS anyway..
It's easy. Jus sanguinis applies only when a child is born overseas and only then in determining US citizenship. The flaw in your [il]logic is that the US recognizes British jus sanguinis citizenship over its own law. The US, in fact, does not. The US could care less if the chil;d of a non-diplomat has a right to dual citizenship. US citizenship cannot be "watered down" via jus sanguinis if a child is born jus soli. The US does not bifurcate children born on its soil as "ciziten" and "natural born" citizen. And you do not see "three types". You see the estblishment of two. Natural born post-bellum and citizen ab initio bellum.
My point exactly. Thanks for playing and I hope you enjoy the Obamatoon.
INA: ACT 301 - NATIONALS AND CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AT BIRTH Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401] The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof; (b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property; (c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person; (d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States; (e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person; (f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States; ``snip~ Show me where the above law distinguishes between "citizen": and "natural born" citizen. Thanks in advance.
Wha...huh? I'd love to call thatg circular reasoning but I see no reasoning apparent.
Some things are just none of your business unless the person wishes to tell you. lucysmom posted on 2009-03-03 16:03:16 ET Reply Trace lucysmom is delusional. That's my contribution to this thread.
_________________________________________________________________________ The bar for you exists in a perpetually low state anyway.
There is none thus the 14th amendment.
From your first site. Note the plural: By birth, either within the territory of the United States or to U.S. citizen parents.... BTW, as an aside, there's a legal distinction between citizen and subject. British rules regarding natural born subjects don't follow into natural born citizen for one very good reason: subjects never become king.
You mean minus the common understanding of the day? If true, why hasn't this been an issue before? I know I'm not natural born and I've known it my whole life.
And she is an Obamabot but I guess that might go along with being delusional.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Yea...there are instances when a child is born in circumstances outside of the first clause above, i.e., non jus oli, so if that be the case then citizenship might only be ocnferred if both parents are citizens. Obama was born within the territory of the US so it doesn't matter.
Common understanding of the day being similar to pre-quickening abortion being legal as a common understanding of the day as well? That asked...still doesn't matter. There is no constitutional common law.
Oops. British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): "Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.”
United States v. Rhodes, 27 Fed. Cas. 785 (1866). ”All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well..…since as before the Revolution." There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are in theory born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons. 2 Kent, Comm. 1; Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 1; 1 Bl. Comm. 366; Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sand. Ch. 583.”
You don't know what you think you know. You were just shown the law. You were just shown that there is no legal distinction made between "citizen at birth" and "natural born citizen". Henceforth, if and should should you choose to continue to promote that canard then you are doing so from a position of knowing the truth yet willfully choosing to contravene it.
Comments (208 - 261) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Lord Acton
#168. To: war (#165)
I made no such claim.
#169. To: war (#163)
You're natural born.
#170. To: bluegrass (#168)
#171. To: bluegrass (#169)
Who are you to tell me my status?
#172. To: James Deffenbach (#167)
What I am promoting is the truth that he has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars
#173. To: bluegrass (#169)
#174. To: war (#172)
Lord Acton
#175. To: James Deffenbach (#152)
If he was actually born in Hawaii why wouldn't he just produce that instead of going to all that expense?
#176. To: war, Prefrontal Vortex (#171)
I'm the euridite.
#177. To: war (#170)
I WAS REFERRING To PARENTAGE.
#178. To: bluegrass (#176)
Indeed.
#179. To: Prefrontal Vortex (#175)
It's the principle of the thing.
Lord Acton
#180. To: Prefrontal Vortex (#178)
Would this be a good time to call attention to jewish dualism vs. celtic trios?
#181. To: Rotara (#24)
#182. To: IndieTX (#32)
#183. To: James Deffenbach (#28)
#184. To: Rhino369 (#183)
(Edited)
he released his certificate of live birth...
Applying for Hawaiian Home Lands
#185. To: Rhino369 (#183)
THIS is from the article that was posted on LP, an article favorable to your hero.
Lord Acton
#186. To: bluegrass (#176)
#187. To: war (#186)
#188. To: bluegrass (#177)
By his parentage, Bracko isn't eligible to be president. That's the point.
#189. To: bluegrass (#187)
I checked this morning. Obama's still not eligible to be president.
#190. To: war (#188)
What LAW of the US says that a "natural born" citizen is one of two US citizens?
#191. To: war (#189)
He IS POTUS.
#192. To: bluegrass (#191)
So Bush was also a legit prez in your mind?
#193. To: bluegrass (#190)
Show me the law. I see three types of citizens in the Constitution.
#194. To: war (#192)
which the SCOTUS made painfully clear that my vote and your vote not only mean squar but that we don't have a right to vote for POTUS anyway..
#195. To: bluegrass (#190)
#196. To: bluegrass (#194)
#197. To: James Deffenbach (#0)
I believe that Obama advocates transparency in government, not in revealing personal information to all comers.
"This man is Jesus,” shouted one man, spilling his Guinness as Barack Obama began his inaugural address. “When will he come to Kenya to save us?”
-Schweizerische Schuetzenzeitung (Swiss Shooting Federation) April, 1941
#198. To: X-15 (#197)
#199. To: bluegrass (#190)
Show me the relevant data from the era when the US Constitution was written that defined a natural born citizen
#200. To: war (#193)
Citizenship is one of the most coveted gifts that the U.S. government can bestow, and the most important immigration benefit that USCIS can grant. Most people become U.S. citizens in one of two ways:
#201. To: war (#199)
There is none...
#202. To: X-15 (#197)
lucysmom is delusional. That's my contribution to this thread.
Lord Acton
#203. To: bluegrass (#200)
By birth, either within the territory of the United States or to U.S. citizen parents....
#204. To: bluegrass (#201)
You mean minus the common understanding of the day?
#205. To: war (#204)
#206. To: war (#204)
#207. To: bluegrass (#201)
I know I'm not natural born and I've known it my whole life.
.
.
.