# Obama not Constitutionally eligible to be President



## Gaar (Jan 13, 2009)

Libertarian Gail Lightfoot&#8217;s lawsuit against Obama eligibility granted conference by US Supreme Court

Chief Justice John Roberts has sent a full-throated challenge of Barack Obamas presidential eligibility to conference: Lightfoot v. Bowen (SCOTUS docket page). Investigating Obama (I.O.) interviewed Lightfoot lead attorney Orly Taitz at 2:20pm CT today, minutes after she learned of this move.

Taitz believes, This is Chief Justice Roberts telling the Congress the other eight Justices, that there is a problem with this election.

The Lightfoot case has legal standing, due to litigant, Libertarian Gail Lightfoots vice presidential candidacy in California. It also addresses two major issues of legal merit: 1. Obamas failure to provide legally evidentiary documentation of citizenship and American birth and, 2. his United Kingdom citizenship at birth, passed to him by his Kenyan father when that nation was a British colony. (Other current challenges also submit that Obamas apparent status as an Indonesian citizen, as a child, would have caused his American citizenship to be revoked.) This case is therefore considered the strongest yet to be heard by the Supreme Court.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 13, 2009)

Once again Hawaii CERTIFIED he was born there and has a legal Birth Certificate from that STATE. Children can have dual citizenship until majority age. It does not effect their US citizenship.

This case will be thrown out like all the rest.


----------



## roomy (Jan 13, 2009)

I fucking well knew you were going to do this and I don't even know you.


----------



## Gaar (Jan 13, 2009)

roomy said:


> I fucking well knew you were going to do this and I don't even know you.


You said: "you seem to be projecting beyond the remit of reasonability now"

And I was just proving I was not...

http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2...-the-law-of-nations-john-jay-berg-donofrio-k/

Natural Born Citizen
Why Barack Obama must be challenged
US Constitution
&#8220;No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United
States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be
eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be
eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of
thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the
United States.&#8221;

To understand the intent of the founding fathers in using the words
&#8220;natural born citizen&#8221;, to define presidential eligibility, one must
first examine any influential documents and opinions from those
involved in crafting the US Constitution. What is clear and indisputable
is the following:

A naturalized citizen is a citizen by no act of law such as naturalization. 
A child born to US citizens on US soil is a natural born citizen. 
The Naturalization Act of 1790 provided the following: 
&#8220;the children of citizens of the United States that may
be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United
States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens&#8221;


Vattel&#8217;s &#8220;The Law of Nations&#8221;, written in 1758, was a
valuable reference guide for the founding fathers.

&#8220;§ 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by
certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in
its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the
country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and
perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those
children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all
their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what
it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course,
that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the
right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that
of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.
We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they
may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were
born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a
person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a
foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.&#8221;

Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Justice John Jay, on
July 25, 1787, wrote the following to George Washington:

&#8220;Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide
a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration
of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the commander
in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any
but a natural born citizen.&#8221;

The Lightfoot lawsuit in CA states the obvious:

&#8220;This letter shows that the meaning of natural born citizen, is one
without allegiance to any foreign powers, not subject to any foreign
jurisdiction at birth.&#8221;

After the US Constitution was written, further
clarifications can be found

&#8220;All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign
power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the
United States.&#8221;

1866, Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised

&#8220;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.&#8221;

Rep. Bingham on Section 1992 (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

&#8220;Bingham subscribed to the same view as most everyone in Congress at the
time that in order to be born a citizen of the United States one must be
born within the allegiance of the Nation. Bingham had explained that to
be born within the allegiance of the United States the parents, or more
precisely, the father, must not owe allegiance to some other foreign
sovereignty (remember the U.S. abandoned England&#8217;s &#8220;natural allegiance&#8221;
doctrine). This of course, explains why emphasis of not owing allegiance
to anyone else was the affect of being subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States.&#8221; Read more


----------



## Gaar (Jan 13, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Once again Hawaii CERTIFIED he was born there and has a legal Birth Certificate from that STATE. Children can have dual citizenship until majority age. It does not effect their US citizenship.
> 
> This case will be thrown out like all the rest.


It may not affect Citizenship, but it definitely affects Natural Born.


----------



## del (Jan 13, 2009)

Gaar said:


> You said: "you seem to be projecting beyond the remit of reasonability now"
> 
> And I was just proving I was not...
> 
> ...



this is a long way to go for not much. 

the libertarian wingnut has standing, SCOTUS will convene, and she'll have her ass handed to her politely.

thanks for bringing it up though.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 13, 2009)

I notice you ignored all the laws currently ON the books and those leading up to those laws. For one "father" is not the only one that passes citizenship. ANY American citizen passes citizenship to their children including if only one of the Parents is a US Citizen. Further the Country through the Courts have held that ANYONE born INSIDE the US is a Citizen BY Birth. Obama was born in Hawaii, a State with in the US to a US citizen MOTHER.

He meets all the requirements unless you can prove his mother was not who he claims or that after Majority age he formally accepted citizenship in another Country.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 13, 2009)

Gaar said:


> It may not affect Citizenship, but it definitely affects Natural Born.



No it does not. He was born here of an American Citizen, making him a NATURAL BORN Citizen.

Let the Court rule otherwise and I will be in the protests that ruin this country. I do not like Obama, I think he is the wrong man to be President, BUT he LEGALLY got elected and he damn well better be confirmed.


----------



## Gaar (Jan 13, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> I notice you ignored all the laws currently ON the books and those leading up to those laws. For one "father" is not the only one that passes citizenship. ANY American citizen passes citizenship to their children including if only one of the Parents is a US Citizen. Further the Country through the Courts have held that ANYONE born INSIDE the US is a Citizen BY Birth. Obama was born in Hawaii, a State with in the US to a US citizen MOTHER.
> 
> He meets all the requirements unless you can prove his mother was not who he claims or that after Majority age he formally accepted citizenship in another Country.


Yes, that Law makes them a Citizen, even at Birth, but it does not change what Natural Born means...

No Laws can change Nature.


----------



## Gaar (Jan 13, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> No it does not. He was born here of an American Citizen, making him a NATURAL BORN Citizen.
> 
> Let the Court rule otherwise and I will be in the protests that ruin this country. I do not like Obama, I think he is the wrong man to be President, BUT he LEGALLY got elected and he damn well better be confirmed.


His Father was a Citizen of the UK, at his Birth, and that makes him a UK Citizen, at his Birth, that is NOT a Natural Born Citizen.

The Constitution says Born to Citizen(s), in the plural, for a reason.

A Law can change what a Citizen is, but it cannot change what a Natural Born Citizen is, Laws cannot change Nature, our Founding Fathers knew this, and hence their use of the term, it was a very deliberate Act, and used VERY rarely.

And eligibility for the Presidency was the ONLY place they were determined it needed to be.

Imagine that.


----------



## Ravi (Jan 13, 2009)

Gaar said:


> His Father was a Citizen of the UK, at his Birth, and that makes him a UK Citizen, at his Birth, that is NOT a Natural Born Citizen.
> 
> The Constitution says Born to Citizen(s), in the plural, for a reason.


Citizens(s)...written that way it means either/or. It would simply be citizens otherwise.

FAIL!


----------



## roomy (Jan 13, 2009)

Gaar said:


> His Father was a Citizen of the UK, at his Birth, and that makes him a UK Citizen, at his Birth, that is NOT a Natural Born Citizen.
> 
> The Constitution says Born to Citizen(s), in the plural, for a reason.
> 
> A Law can change what a Citizen is, but it cannot change what a Natural Born Citizen is, Laws cannot change Nature, our Founding Fathers knew this, and hence their use of the term, it was a very deliberate Act.



You need to do some research on what constitutes citizenship.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 13, 2009)

Gaar said:


> His Father was a Citizen of the UK, at his Birth, and that makes him a UK Citizen, at his Birth, that is NOT a Natural Born Citizen.
> 
> The Constitution says Born to Citizen(s), in the plural, for a reason.
> 
> A Law can change what a Citizen is, but it cannot change what a Natural Born Citizen is, Laws cannot change Nature.



Your wrong and you will find that Court agrees you are wrong. Natural born means Born of ANY citizen of the Country and it means anyone BORN in the US.


----------



## Gaar (Jan 13, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Citizens(s)...written that way it means either/or. It would simply be citizens otherwise.
> 
> FAIL!



No, you are wrong, you better go read it...


----------



## indago (Jan 13, 2009)

Haven't we done this one already?


----------



## Gaar (Jan 13, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Your wrong and you will find that Court agrees you are wrong. Natural born means Born of ANY citizen of the Country and it means anyone BORN in the US.


No it doesn't, and the SCOTUS has never had to Rule on Natural Born, until now.

All other Rulings were simply on Citizenship at Birth, that is all.

Citizenship at Birth, and Natural Born are two very different things, as I am sure many people are going to find out.

Our Founding Fathers made this quite clear.


----------



## Gaar (Jan 13, 2009)

roomy said:


> You need to do some research on what constitutes citizenship.


Seems you need to do some Research on what constitutes Natural Born.

Soil cannot affect Natural Born.

If 2 Citizens can have a Child Abroad, and it is Natural Born, then Soil can have nothing to do with Natural Born.


----------



## Ravi (Jan 13, 2009)

Who pays for all these goofy suits?


----------



## Againsheila (Jan 13, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Once again Hawaii CERTIFIED he was born there and has a legal Birth Certificate from that STATE. Children can have dual citizenship until majority age. It does not effect their US citizenship.
> 
> This case will be thrown out like all the rest.



Well, I do believe the case will be thrown out but once again, he went to Pakistan at the age of 20 on an Indonesian passport.  This means that after the age of majority inf the USA he willfully gave up his American citizenship as Indonesia doesn't accept duel citizenship.

Doesn't matter,though, we are ruled by the one world order and they don't care about our constitution, to them and in GW Bush's words, it's just a G-D piece of paper.

I'm am torn in two on this matter.  !)  I believe he shouldn't be allowed to be president because he isn't an American citizen and 2) He is the first black to be elected to the presidency and if allowed to serve we will no longer have to listen to the blacks whine about how poorly treated they are in this world.

I guess either way, I win.


----------



## Gaar (Jan 13, 2009)

Againsheila said:


> Well, I do believe the case will be thrown out but once again, he went to Pakistan at the age of 20 on an Indonesian passport.  This means that after the age of majority inf the USA he willfully gave up his American citizenship as Indonesia doesn't accept duel citizenship.
> 
> Doesn't matter,though, we are ruled by the one world order and they don't care about our constitution, to them and in GW Bush's words, it's just a G-D piece of paper.
> 
> ...


I'd rather uphold the Constitution, regardless of the consequences.


----------



## roomy (Jan 13, 2009)

Gaar said:


> Seems you need to do some Research on what constitutes Natural Born.
> 
> Soil cannot affect Natural Born.
> 
> If 2 Citizens can have a Child Abroad, and it is Natural Born, then Soil can have nothing to do with Natural Born.


I like you because you are as daft as a brush


----------



## Ravi (Jan 13, 2009)

I can see it now. The Republican governor of Alaska in jail for high treason.


----------



## Againsheila (Jan 13, 2009)

Gaar said:


> Seems you need to do some Research on what constitutes Natural Born.
> 
> Soil cannot affect Natural Born.
> 
> If 2 Citizens can have a Child Abroad, and it is Natural Born, then Soil can have nothing to do with Natural Born.



And here we go again.  Our rulers make their own rules and follow them however they please.  Number one, Barack Sr was Kenyan, no American.

Number 2, my brother was born on an American Air Force base in Japan and voted and served in the Vietnam war.  When he wanted to bring his wife home from Thailand, suddenly he was told he wasn't an American citizen.  Didn't matter that my father was career Air Force and my mother was native born American, or that he was born on an AMERICAN Air force base in Japan, they just suddenly decided he wasn't an American citizen.  He and I (i was born in England, same situation, different country) both went down to INS to become naturalized citizens.  I have the paperwork.  You should have seen the look on the clerks office when I applied for my passport and showed her my naturalized citizenship papers AND my birth certificate.  It was priceless.

Now my brother probably could have fought the INS but it would have taken years and he didn't want to wait that long for his wife, I don't blame him. 

The truth is that if our government states Obama is a native born citizen, it doesn't matter if he was born in Kenya or on the moon, our government makes those decisions and they have the power to enforce them.  

I believe our government is nearly as corrupt as the Mexican government and do not understand why our citizens haven't revolted yet.


----------



## Gaar (Jan 13, 2009)

roomy said:


> I like you because you are as daft as a brush


Interesting...

You are unable to address the argument, so is it you feel the insult has somehow rebutted my argument?

Because it didn't.


----------



## Abelian Sea (Jan 13, 2009)

Gaar said:


> Yes, that Law makes them a Citizen, even at Birth, but it does not change what Natural Born means...



And what does "natrual born" mean, when it comes to presidential eligibility?

Constitutional Topic: Citizenship

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you're going to be involved in government in the United States, citizenship is a must. To be a Senator or Representative, you must be a citizen of the United States. To be President, not only must you be a citizen, but you must also be natural-born. Aside from participation in government, citizenship is an honor bestowed upon people by the citizenry of the United States when a non-citizen passes the required tests and submits to an oath.

Natural-born citizen

Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?

The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: "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." But even this does not get specific enough. *As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps.*

Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"


Anyone born inside the United States * 
Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe 
Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S. 
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national 
Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year 
Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21 
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time) 
A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
* There is an exception in the law - the person must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.

*Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President.* These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.

Separate sections handle territories that the United States has acquired over time, such as Puerto Rico (8 USC 1402), Alaska (8 USC 1404), Hawaii (8 USC 1405), the U.S. Virgin Islands (8 USC 1406), and Guam (8 USC 1407). Each of these sections confer citizenship on persons living in these territories as of a certain date, and usually confer natural-born status on persons born in those territories after that date. For example, for Puerto Rico, all persons born in Puerto Rico between April 11, 1899, and January 12, 1941, are automatically conferred citizenship as of the date the law was signed by the President (June 27, 1952). Additionally, all persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, are natural-born citizens of the United States. Note that because of when the law was passed, for some, the natural-born status was retroactive.

The law contains one other section of historical note, concerning the Panama Canal Zone and the nation of Panama. In 8 USC 1403, the law states that anyone born in the Canal Zone or in Panama itself, on or after February 26, 1904, to a mother and/or father who is a United States citizen, was "declared" to be a United States citizen. Note that the terms "natural-born" or "citizen at birth" are missing from this section.

In 2008, when Arizona Senator John McCain ran for president on the Republican ticket, some theorized that because McCain was born in the Canal Zone, he was not actually qualified to be president. However, it should be noted that section 1403 was written to apply to a small group of people to whom section 1401 did not apply. McCain is a natural-born citizen under 8 USC 1401(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." Not eveyone agrees that this section includes McCain - but absent a court ruling either way, we must presume citizenship.



> No Laws can change Nature.



True, but Nature doesn't always have anything to do with Law, even if the laws use the term "natural."

Laws and court rulings _can_ change the meaning of "natrual born citizen" in the context of Law - which is what matters here.

But hey, we'll see soon, won't we?


----------



## roomy (Jan 13, 2009)

Gaar said:


> Interesting...
> 
> You are unable to address the argument, so is it you feel the insult has somehow rebutted my argument?
> 
> Because it didn't.




School taught you fuck all so I stand no chance.


----------



## Gaar (Jan 13, 2009)

Ok, so you defined Citizen, so what?

When our Founding Fathers wanted to discuss Natural Born, they explicitly state it.

Why do you suppose they said 2 Citizens have a Natural Born Citizen Abroad, and didn't simply say it was a Citizen?

Because they wanted us to understand it took 2 Citizens to make a Natural Born Citizen, and all else are simply Citizens.


----------



## Gaar (Jan 13, 2009)

roomy said:


> School taught you fuck all so I stand no chance.


As long as you don't even make an attempt you don't...

So you must not feel yourself capable, or what?


----------



## roomy (Jan 13, 2009)

Gaar said:


> As long as you don't even make an attempt you don't...
> 
> So you must not feel yourself capable, or what?




Can I take my rep back for your one acceptable normal post that I inadvertantly repped?


----------



## Gaar (Jan 13, 2009)

roomy said:


> Can I take my rep back for your one acceptable normal post that I inadvertantly repped?


Sure, have at it...

I see you are still unable though, rep or not.

Imagine that.


----------



## roomy (Jan 13, 2009)

Gaar said:


> Sure, have at it...
> 
> I see you are still unable though, rep or not.
> 
> Imagine that.



Keep the rep, I was joking, infact I am going to rep you everyday for a week and if I forget remind me.

You are wrong about citizenship though, but hang onto that straw or you may drown.


----------



## Gaar (Jan 13, 2009)

roomy said:


> Keep the rep, I was joking, infact I am going to rep you everyday for a week and if I forget remind me.
> 
> You are wrong about citizenship though, but hang onto that straw or you may drown.


So tell me where I am wrong?


----------



## roomy (Jan 13, 2009)

Gaar said:


> So tell me where I am wrong?



Tell me why you are right.


----------



## Gaar (Jan 13, 2009)

roomy said:


> Tell me why you are right.


I cited the pertinent information already.

In a Nutshell, they say 2 Citizens make a Natural Born Citizen, regardless of where in the World it is Born, so Soil can have nothing to do with Natural Born.

So it takes 2 Citizens to make a Natural Born Citizen, and Obama's Father was not a Citizen.


----------



## Abelian Sea (Jan 13, 2009)

Gaar said:


> Ok, so you defined Citizen, so what?
> 
> When our Founding Fathers wanted to discuss Natural Born, they explicitly state it.
> 
> ...



So... what does it mean to be Natural Born Citizen?

The current legal precedent seems to be that it means being a citizen at birth. 

As you can see from that list, you don't actually need both of your parents to be citizens for this to be the case. Whether or not this would have been the case at the end of the eighteenth century will not, I imagine, have much bearing on this present-day case.


----------



## Gaar (Jan 13, 2009)

Abelian Sea said:


> So... what does it mean to be Natural Born Citizen?
> 
> The current legal precedent seems to be that it means being a citizen at birth.



Show me where Legal precedent says that.

It doesn't, because they haven't had to Rule on it before.

You are simply saying that is what YOU believe it to mean.

But they haven't addressed Natural Born in the SCOTUS, before this, because they haven't had to...


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 13, 2009)

Againsheila said:


> And here we go again.  Our rulers make their own rules and follow them however they please.  Number one, Barack Sr was Kenyan, no American.
> 
> Number 2, my brother was born on an American Air Force base in Japan and voted and served in the Vietnam war.  When he wanted to bring his wife home from Thailand, suddenly he was told he wasn't an American citizen.  Didn't matter that my father was career Air Force and my mother was native born American, or that he was born on an AMERICAN Air force base in Japan, they just suddenly decided he wasn't an American citizen.  He and I (i was born in England, same situation, different country) both went down to INS to become naturalized citizens.  I have the paperwork.  You should have seen the look on the clerks office when I applied for my passport and showed her my naturalized citizenship papers AND my birth certificate.  It was priceless.
> 
> ...



We already went over this you dumb shit, petition that, it is not correct nor legal, you are BOTH US citizens by birth. I have my son's certificate of A US Citizen born abroad to PROVE it. Wallow all you want in pity and do nothing, it suits you.


----------



## jillian (Jan 13, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> We already went over this you dumb shit, petition that, it is not correct nor legal, you are BOTH US citizens by birth. I have my son's certificate of A US Citizen born abroad to PROVE it. Wallow all you want in pity and do nothing, it suits you.



Is she still talking about this? 

like talking to a post.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 13, 2009)

Gaar said:


> I cited the pertinent information already.
> 
> In a Nutshell, they say 2 Citizens make a Natural Born Citizen, regardless of where in the World it is Born, so Soil can have nothing to do with Natural Born.
> 
> So it takes 2 Citizens to make a Natural Born Citizen, and Obama's Father was not a Citizen.



It does NOT say that. Quote for us Directly from the Constitution where that is said. Go ahead, I will wait.


----------



## Ravi (Jan 13, 2009)

Yes, Drool, I mean Gaaaarrrrrrrrr, post your constitutional proof.


----------



## Gaar (Jan 13, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> We already went over this you dumb shit, petition that, it is not correct nor legal, you are BOTH US citizens by birth. I have my son's certificate of A US Citizen born abroad to PROVE it. Wallow all you want in pity and do nothing, it suits you.


So?

Being Born a Citizen and being Born Natural Born are two different things...

It is not my fault you don't understand the difference, is it?


----------



## Gaar (Jan 13, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Yes, Drool, I mean Gaaaarrrrrrrrr, post your constitutional proof.


Look where the ONLY two times Natural Born is mentioned in the Constitution and in our first Immigration Law...


----------



## Gaar (Jan 13, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> It does NOT say that. Quote for us Directly from the Constitution where that is said. Go ahead, I will wait.



The Constitution says Natural Born for the Presidency.  The first Immigration Act defines it quite clearly...


Naturalization Act of 1790 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens".

=======================

Obviously when they wanted someone to be a Natural Born Citizen, they said so, and didn't just call them a Citizen.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 13, 2009)

Gaar said:


> Naturalization Act of 1790 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> "the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens".



That is a law. I ask for a Constitutional provision. The LAW has changed many times since then and your law does not require both parents to be US Citizens either.

Come on provide us the claimed Constitutional provision you keep saying exists.

Fom your source.



> The Act also establishes the United States citizenship of children of citizens, born abroad, without the need for naturalization, "the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens".



The quoted portion does not stipulate that both parents must be American citizens. So try again even on the LAW you provided.


----------



## Gaar (Jan 13, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> That is a law. I ask for a Constitutional provision. The LAW has changed many times since then and your law does not require both parents to be US Citizens either.
> 
> Come on provide us the claimed Constitutional provision you keep saying exists.
> 
> ...



No where in the Law do they change Natural Born.  Again, when they wanted to address it, they did specifically, as I have shown.

It is never addressed again.

And it is a Law that is basically describing what it takes to be Natural Born.

No other Law does that.

So we have precedent, that is never overturned.


----------



## Gaar (Jan 13, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> The quoted portion does not stipulate that both parents must be American citizens. So try again even on the LAW you provided.



Sure it does, Citizen is plural.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 13, 2009)

Gaar said:


> Sure it does, Citizen is plural.



Are you really that stupid? The word used in that sentence does NOT mean BOTH parents. Go ahead and try the sentence with just citizen. If they meant both they would have STATED BOTH.

And again I am waiting for the Constitutional quote that supports your claim, all you have is a law that has been superceded many times. hell it was changed just 5 years after it was approved.


----------



## del (Jan 13, 2009)

Gaar said:


> Ok, so you defined Citizen, so what?
> 
> When our Founding Fathers wanted to discuss Natural Born, they explicitly state it.
> 
> ...



how long have you been an idiot?


----------



## Truthspeaker (Jan 13, 2009)

I didn't read the earlier posts, so forgive me if I am repeating something someone else said. But Obama is very creepy.

He dances around issues with the best of them. He has obviously concealed his birth certificate, and now he wants to promote the lawyer that helped murder Terri Schiavo. Terri Schiavo&#8217;s Brother Responds after Obama Appoints Lawyer Who Helped Kill Terri to High Position. That is very scary. to say that a husband has the right to kill her because "she wouldn't want to live this way." or "I don't want to see her suffer anymore." is sickening. Even more so after we learn that Michael Schiavo cheated on his incapacitated wife and was having another relationship with some chick. Of course he wanted to pull the plug and starve her to death. He wanted to move on. If it was my sister he wanted to kill, I would have shot him first and gone to jail rather than watch someone murder her.
Hitler made similar excuses when euthanizing handicapped or old people.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Jan 13, 2009)

Gaar said:


> Sure it does, Citizen is plural.



See the singular definition of "Citizen" citizen - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary


----------



## Gaar (Jan 13, 2009)

del said:


> how long have you been an idiot?


I believe the Idiot to be the one who can't address the point and instead simply calls others names...

Hey, that would be you.


----------



## Gaar (Jan 13, 2009)

truthspeaker said:


> see The Singular Definition Of "citizen" citizen - Definition From The Merriam-webster Online Dictionary


Ok?


----------



## Gaar (Jan 13, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Are you really that stupid? The word used in that sentence does NOT mean BOTH parents. Go ahead and try the sentence with just citizen. If they meant both they would have STATED BOTH.
> 
> And again I am waiting for the Constitutional quote that supports your claim, all you have is a law that has been superceded many times. hell it was changed just 5 years after it was approved.


No, if they had meant one they would have simply said Citizen.


----------



## Gaar (Jan 13, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> And again I am waiting for the Constitutional quote that supports your claim, all you have is a law that has been superceded many times. hell it was changed just 5 years after it was approved.



No where do they attempt to change Natural Born, since they know they cannot.

Again, there was a reason they used the Term.


----------



## Gaar (Jan 13, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Are you really that stupid? The word used in that sentence does NOT mean BOTH parents. Go ahead and try the sentence with just citizen. If they meant both they would have STATED BOTH.



They did.

Since plural is more than one, and it only takes two...

And you are calling someone else stupid?


----------



## Truthspeaker (Jan 13, 2009)

I posted the definition of citizen because you said it was plural. It is not.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 13, 2009)

Gaar said:


> No, if they had meant one they would have simply said Citizen.



The Plural use is to cover all citizens you retard. The sentence makes no sense other wise. Did you not in fact argue that Male citizens could father children with non citizens and they would still be Natural Born? Keep your stories straight. And learn how to coprehend what you read. 

By the way I AM STILL WAITING for that Constitutional quote you claimed stipulated natural born.

We can go look at the current laws which supercede you 1790 law, well in fact it was superceded in 1795 as matter of fact. You haven't a leg to stand on.


----------



## bk1983 (Jan 14, 2009)

Gaar said:


> Ok, so you defined Citizen, so what?
> 
> When our Founding Fathers wanted to discuss Natural Born, they explicitly state it.
> 
> ...



Even though it is clear you have no clue what you are talking about, may I remind you that Obama was not born abroad, he was born in Hawaii the 50th state. Which gives him natural born citizenship by jus soli(right of soil) and jus sanguinis(right of blood)

The argument is dead, it is time to stop reaching..

Even if he was born abroad..



> A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) INA provided the citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.


----------



## elvis (Jan 14, 2009)

While we're at it, where was Barack Obama on September 11, 2001?  Was he in New York?  Does he have an alabi?  Does he have training in explosives?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 14, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> While we're at it, where was Barack Obama on September 11, 2001?  Was he in New York?  Does he have an alabi?  Does he have training in explosives?



EOTS will be along to remind you the people that run the Government are all really controlled by his imaginary friends.


----------



## elvis (Jan 14, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> EOTS will be along to remind you the people that run the Government are all really controlled by his imaginary friends.



Oh I'm sure.  illuminati or something.


----------



## bk1983 (Jan 14, 2009)

del said:


> how long have you been an idiot?



He seems to be a "natural born idiot"


----------



## Gaar (Jan 14, 2009)

Truthspeaker said:


> I posted the definition of citizen because you said it was plural. It is not.


When you put an "s" on it it is, as they did in the first Immigration Law...


----------



## Gaar (Jan 14, 2009)

bk1983 said:


> Even though it is clear you have no clue what you are talking about, may I remind you that Obama was not born abroad, he was born in Hawaii the 50th state. Which gives him natural born citizenship by jus soli(right of soil) and jus sanguinis(right of blood)
> 
> The argument is dead, it is time to stop reaching..
> 
> Even if he was born abroad..


You are wrong...

When they talk about Natural Born, they use the term "Citizens" for a reason.

The other makes them Citizens, but Laws cannot change what Natural Born is.


----------



## Gaar (Jan 14, 2009)

bk1983 said:


> He seems to be a "natural born idiot"


The Idiots are the one's that can't understand something so simple.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 14, 2009)

Gaar said:


> You are wrong...
> 
> When they talk about Natural Born, they use the term "Citizens" for a reason.
> 
> The other makes them Citizens, but Laws cannot change what Natural Born is.



Once again I ask you to provide the Constitutional quote that DEFINES Natural Born. There is NONE. It is determined by law. And by COMMON Sense. If you are born of a US citizen you are a NATURAL born citizen of the USA. No matter where in the world you were born. And if you were born IN the United States you are a Natural Born citizen. Even if your parents are not citizens.

In this case not only was Obama born of a US Citizen but he was BORN INSIDE the US. He is a NATURAL BORN US Citizen.

Do me a favor and stop making me defend Obama.


----------



## bk1983 (Jan 14, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> *Once again I ask you to provide the Constitutional quote that DEFINES Natural Born. *There is NONE. It is determined by law. And by COMMON Sense. If you are born of a US citizen you are a NATURAL born citizen of the USA. No matter where in the world you were born. And if you were born IN the United States you are a Natural Born citizen. Even if your parents are not citizens.
> 
> In this case not only was Obama born of a US Citizen but he was BORN INSIDE the US. He is a NATURAL BORN US Citizen.
> 
> Do me a favor and stop making me defend Obama.



He can't do it, the law is clear. Obama is a NATURAL BORN citizen by jus soli and jus sanguinis. His mother and his birth in Hawaii gives him the natural born status either way.


----------



## bk1983 (Jan 14, 2009)

Gaar said:


> The Idiots are the one's that can't understand something so simple.



Which is why the idiot label fits you perfectly..


----------



## Care4all (Jan 14, 2009)

Gaar said:


> You are wrong...
> 
> When they talk about Natural Born, they use the term "Citizens" for a reason.
> 
> The other makes them Citizens, but Laws cannot change what Natural Born is.



illegal immigrants that bear children on our soil, on USA soil....bear NATURAL BORN citizens of the USA....YES, even with parents that are NOT citizens of the US and not here legally, and these children can become our President some day as NATURAL BORN citizens.....

BUT YOU are saying that Obama, born in the State of Hawaii, delivered by an American born citizen, is NOT a Natural Born Citizen because he had a father with British citizenship, and CAN NOT be President?

IT IS YOU that does not understand.....take a deep breath and use YOUR OWN logic, instead of what someone is telling you, what to think....please.

*ALSO

All Children born to any American citizen in the Military, while stationed overseas, NOT on USA soil, and not necessarily with both parents being US citizens, are born as NATURAL BORN  US citizens and with those rights to be able to run for president.

BUT YOU say that Obama, born in Hawaii, to a US citizen, is not a natural born citizen because his father has British citizenship?

Care


----------



## Againsheila (Jan 14, 2009)

Care4all said:


> illegal immigrants that bear children on our soil, on USA soil....bear NATURAL BORN citizens of the USA....YES, even with parents that are NOT citizens of the US and not here legally, and these children can become our President some day as NATURAL BORN citizens.....
> 
> BUT YOU are saying that Obama, born in the State of Hawaii, delivered by an American born citizen, is NOT a Natural Born Citizen because he had a father with British citizenship, and CAN NOT be President?
> 
> ...



I take issue with children of illegals born in this country being citizens let alone natural born citizens.  I do not understand how anyone can interpret an amendment that specifically denies citizenship to children born to LEGAL diplomats as providing citizenship to children born to illegal aliens.

As for children born to American citizens in the military while stationed overseas, I have the naturalization papers to prove that the law is at the discretion of immigration officials.


----------



## YWN666 (Jan 14, 2009)

*Oh, geez, are you people STILL arguing about this???*


----------



## Gaar (Jan 14, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Once again I ask you to provide the Constitutional quote that DEFINES Natural Born. There is NONE.



Sure there is, they just put it in the first Immigration Bill, which is the ONLY PLACE they chose to address it directly.

Imagine that.

Your failure to understand something so simple is not my problem.


----------



## Gaar (Jan 14, 2009)

bk1983 said:


> Which is why the idiot label fits you perfectly..


I guess that makes George Washington and John Jay, as well as ALL of our Founding Fathers Idiots as well...

Sorry, I take those guys at their word, long before I take you at yours.


----------



## Gaar (Jan 14, 2009)

Againsheila said:


> I take issue with children of illegals born in this country being citizens let alone natural born citizens.  I do not understand how anyone can interpret an amendment that specifically denies citizenship to children born to LEGAL diplomats as providing citizenship to children born to illegal aliens.
> 
> As for children born to American citizens in the military while stationed overseas, I have the naturalization papers to prove that the law is at the discretion of immigration officials.


They can't and are not...

They are in fact Citizens, by Law, but it seems many here think a Law can change Nature.

Not sure where such Idiots come up with such crap?


----------



## Gaar (Jan 14, 2009)

Care4all said:


> illegal immigrants that bear children on our soil, on USA soil....bear NATURAL BORN citizens of the USA....YES, even with parents that are NOT citizens of the US and not here legally, and these children can become our President some day as NATURAL BORN citizens.....



No they don't.

They create "Citizens", that is all.

No where does the Law say Natural Born, as it does in every other place they refer to such a thing.

A Law cannot change Nature, and our Founding Fathers understood this, and hence the Language.


----------



## Ravi (Jan 14, 2009)

Gaar said:


> They can't and are not...
> 
> They are in fact Citizens, by Law, but it seems many here think a Law can change Nature.
> 
> Not sure where such Idiots come up with such crap?


Let's see. Even this statement of yours is pretty retarded. Every one is natural born. Not everyone is a citizen. The law doesn't attempt to change nature, it attempts to define citizen...which isn't a law of nature.

You are amusing, I'll give you that.


----------



## Gaar (Jan 14, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Let's see. Even this statement of yours is pretty retarded. Every one is natural born. Not everyone is a citizen. The law doesn't attempt to change nature, it attempts to define citizen...which isn't a law of nature.
> 
> You are amusing, I'll give you that.


Natural Born refering to the Heritage passed along by your Parents, regardless of where you are Born, just like the first Immigration Bill says.


----------



## Ravi (Jan 14, 2009)

Gaar said:


> Natural Born refering to the Heritage passed along by your Parents, regardless of where you are Born, just like the first Immigration Bill says.


Liar.


----------



## jillian (Jan 14, 2009)

Gaar said:


> Natural Born refering to the Heritage passed along by your Parents, regardless of where you are Born, just like the first Immigration Bill says.



I really hate when people pretend they understand a law when they don't have a clue. There isn't a constitutional scholar or immigration attorney who would even come close to agreeing with you.

So, my advice? GET A GRIP... take your conspiracy theories and play them where there are stupid people who might believe them... 

but anyone with half a brain knows that you're just wasting a lot of bandwidth.

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.


----------



## bk1983 (Jan 14, 2009)

Gaar said:


> Natural Born refering to the Heritage passed along by your Parents, regardless of where you are Born, just like the first Immigration Bill says.



Wow, you definitely have stupid on lock. 

Once again, all you present is BS, please post any proof you have. I have a multitude of sources clearly defining the law and what is defined as natural born. But I do feel like being entertained


----------



## Gaar (Jan 15, 2009)

jillian said:


> I really hate when people pretend they understand a law when they don't have a clue. There isn't a constitutional scholar or immigration attorney who would even come close to agreeing with you.
> 
> So, my advice? GET A GRIP... take your conspiracy theories and play them where there are stupid people who might believe them...
> 
> ...


You can be deemed, by Law, to be a Citizen but that does NOT constitute Natural Born...

The Government itself states just that.

Seems some don't understand such simple things, and need to attack the person making the argument rather than the argument itself.

If the Government admits it, I am not sure why others don't?

Natural born citizen of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But, according to the U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual, "the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes."[4]

It is thought the origin of the natural born citizen clause can be traced to a letter of July 25, 1787, from John Jay (who was born in New York) to George Washington (who was born in Virginia), presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention. John Jay wrote: "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen."[5] There was no debate, and this qualification for the office of the Presidency was introduced by the drafting Committee of Eleven, and then adopted without discussion by the Constitutional Convention.


----------



## Gaar (Jan 15, 2009)

bk1983 said:


> Wow, you definitely have stupid on lock.
> 
> Once again, all you present is BS, please post any proof you have. I have a multitude of sources clearly defining the law and what is defined as natural born. But I do feel like being entertained


The Government even admits it...

Not sure why you don't?


----------



## Care4all (Jan 15, 2009)

Gaar said:


> You can be deemed, by Law, to be a Citizen but that does NOT constitute Natural Born...
> 
> The Government itself states just that.
> 
> ...



and the rest?  history or precedence doesn't stop with one quote does it?  or without knowing the circumstances surrounding it....?

that's taking things out of context imo.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 15, 2009)

Care4all said:


> and the rest?  history or precedence doesn't stop with one quote does it?  or without knowing the circumstances surrounding it....?
> 
> that's taking things out of context imo.


its immaterial, since Obama was born in Hawaii as certified by the STATE of Hawaii


----------



## elvis (Jan 15, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> its immaterial, since Obama was born in Hawaii as certified by the STATE of Hawaii



You've gotta be getting worn out by this shit.


----------



## Care4all (Jan 15, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> its immaterial, since Obama was born in Hawaii as certified by the STATE of Hawaii



i know....!

this particular case is being heard...because the person filing was a candidate of some sort it said....so, since that gives it merit...the SC needs to review it i suppose?


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 15, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> You've gotta be getting worn out by this shit.


its moronic for these guys to keep claiming this same thing over and over


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 15, 2009)

Care4all said:


> i know....!
> 
> this particular case is being heard...because the person filing was a candidate of some sort it said....so, since that gives it merit...the SC needs to review it i suppose?


i hope they do finally hear it, and throw it out with extreme prejudice and fine the plaintiffs all court costs for wasting the courts time


----------



## bk1983 (Jan 15, 2009)

> Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"
> 
> * Anyone born inside the United States *
> 
> Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.



The fact Obama was born in Hawaii, which became the 50th state in 1959 ends all argument.


----------



## elvis (Jan 15, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> its moronic for these guys to keep claiming this same thing over and over



they're like little chrisses.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 15, 2009)

Gaar said:


> No they don't.
> 
> They create "Citizens", that is all.
> 
> ...



And yet all you can provide for the definition of Natural Born is a law. Go figure.


----------



## Article 15 (Jan 15, 2009)

What hole do these people crawl out of and will they slither back there Tuesday afternoon?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 15, 2009)

Article 15 said:


> What hole do these people crawl out of and will they slither back there Tuesday afternoon?



Well not to encourage them but after 8 years we still hear the Liberals claim Bush was a draft Dodgers and that he had favoritism in the Guard, all with out a shred of evidence except a forged document.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 15, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Well not to encourage them but after 8 years we still hear the Liberals claim Bush was a draft Dodgers and that he had favoritism in the Guard, all with out a shred of evidence except a forged document.



Actually, reading Kitty Kelly's book on the Bush trbe. He abosolutely, without a shadow of a doubt was given favourtism. In fact, in his OWN WORDS IN THE BOOK he says as much.Go figure...


----------



## del (Jan 15, 2009)

Dr Grump said:


> Actually, reading Kitty Kelly's book on the Bush trbe. He abosolutely, without a shadow of a doubt was given favourtism. In fact, in his OWN WORDS IN THE BOOK he says as much.Go figure...



kitty kelly?



i take it danielle steele was busy. 

kitty  kelly


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 15, 2009)

del said:


> kitty kelly?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



1) She has never been sued.
2) She has extensive notes at the back of her book.
3) I know people try and dis her because they think she is a lightweight, however having read A Berg's Pulitzer bio on Lindburgh, I can categorically say that his notes are nowhere near as extensive as hers.
4) Before dissing her, read the book. If you can find out where she is wrong and prove it, be my guest...


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 15, 2009)

Dr Grump said:


> 1) She has never been sued.
> 2) She has extensive notes at the back of her book.
> 3) I know people try and dis her because they think she is a lightweight, however having read A Berg's Pulitzer bio on Lindburgh, I can categorically say that his notes are nowhere near as extensive as hers.
> 4) Before dissing her, read the book. If you can find out where she is wrong and prove it, be my guest...


to sue, you would need to prove damages, and since so few actually take her seriously, there would be no damage
LOL


----------



## Gaar (Jan 15, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> And yet all you can provide for the definition of Natural Born is a law. Go figure.


A Law where they simply explain what it means, and do not attempt to change it through Legislation.

It seems they understood that they could not do such a thing.

Seems some here lack that understanding...

George Washington was even party to this "Legislation".

Are you saying George was wrong?


----------



## Gaar (Jan 15, 2009)

Article 15 said:


> What hole do these people crawl out of and will they slither back there Tuesday afternoon?


Being Sworn in will not make him any more Eligible...


----------



## jillian (Jan 15, 2009)

Gaar said:


> Being Sworn in will not make him any more Eligible...



why are you refusing to understand the law on this?

are you retarded or just intentionally trolling?


----------



## Dante (Jan 15, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Once again Hawaii CERTIFIED he was born there and has a legal Birth Certificate from that STATE. Children can have dual citizenship until majority age. It does not effect their US citizenship.
> 
> This case will be thrown out like all the rest.



needs repeating


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 15, 2009)

jillian said:


> why are you refusing to understand the law on this?
> 
> are you retarded or just intentionally trolling?



He is delusional. He will be making this claim for every day Obama is President. Much like you all kept claim Bush was a retard, a monkey or was a draft Dodger.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 15, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> He is delusional. He will be making this claim for every day Obama is President. Much like you all kept claim Bush was a retard, a monkey or was a draft Dodger.


yep, pretty much


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 15, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> to sue, you would need to prove damages, and since so few actually take her seriously, there would be no damage
> LOL



Only because people smear her. Her research is pretty thorough. I have noticed the odd slant on her part by using emotive words in the negative, but that aside, her FACTS are hard to dispute...


----------



## jillian (Jan 15, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> He is delusional. He will be making this claim for every day Obama is President. Much like you all kept claim Bush was a retard, a monkey or was a draft Dodger.



Can you ever just agree with people?

Or does every thread have to rehash your complaints?


----------



## del (Jan 15, 2009)

Dr Grump said:


> 1) She has never been sued.
> 2) She has extensive notes at the back of her book.
> 3) I know people try and dis her because they think she is a lightweight, however having read A Berg's Pulitzer bio on Lindburgh, I can categorically say that his notes are nowhere near as extensive as hers.
> 4) Before dissing her, read the book. If you can find out where she is wrong and prove it, be my guest...



sorry, doc, in my book she's a joke. has been for years. no hard feelings


----------



## Dante (Jan 15, 2009)

He held both U.S. and Kenyan citizenship as a child, but lost his Kenyan citizenship automatically on his 21st birthday.



> *He held both U.S. and Kenyan citizenship as a child, but lost his Kenyan citizenship automatically on his 21st birthday.*
> 
> The Rocky Mountain News did in fact run an online article asserting that Barack Obama holds both American and Kenyan citizenship. The article was incorrect, and the paper removed the item from the article and ran a correction. The paper's editor, John Temple, formally apologized for the error in an Aug. 15, 2007, column. Neither the correction nor the apology has prevented the column from circulating across the Internet as part of the latest set of baseless rumors that Obama is ineligible to run for president.
> 
> ...



FACTCHECK.ORG


----------



## Dante (Jan 15, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> yep, pretty much



are you two guys saying that entering and serving in the Texas Air National Guard is not _teh_ equivalent of dodging _teh_ draft?


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 15, 2009)

Dr Grump said:


> Only because people smear her. Her research is pretty thorough. I have noticed the odd slant on her part by using emotive words in the negative, but that aside, her FACTS are hard to dispute...


ok, if she is being smeared, how come she isnt sueing those who smear her?

same reason, she couldnt prove damages because she has NO CREDIBILITY


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 15, 2009)

DevNell said:


> are you two guys saying that entering and serving in the Texas Air National Guard is not _teh_ equivalent of dodging _teh_ draft?


no, it wasnt
he served
unless you also want to say joining the naval reserve, air force reserve are also dodging the draft


----------



## Dante (Jan 15, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> no, it wasnt
> he served
> unless you also want to say joining the naval reserve, air force reserve are also dodging the draft





sarcasm without a emoticon can slip by people.

maybe sarcasm is the wrong word here...but...you of all people should've gotten the mockery.


----------



## Gaar (Jan 15, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> He is delusional. He will be making this claim for every day Obama is President. Much like you all kept claim Bush was a retard, a monkey or was a draft Dodger.


It has NEVER been addressed, in the context in which it was written.

This will be its first Test.

If all of the people who believe he is eligible believe it so strongly, why do they have such a problem with it being addressed by the very Authority that is supposed to address such Issues?

One would think that everyone would relish watching our System WORK, instead of simply trying to dismiss the Subject out of hand...


----------



## Ravi (Jan 15, 2009)

gaaarrrr


----------



## Dante (Jan 15, 2009)

Gaar said:


> It has NEVER been addressed, in the context in which it was written.
> 
> This will be its first Test.
> 
> ...



nonsense is often dismissed out of hand. maybe in conference another dismissal will be in order.


----------



## Gaar (Jan 15, 2009)

DevNell said:


> nonsense is often dismissed out of hand. maybe in conference another dismissal will be in order.


And yet I have noted the citations of our Founding Fathers.

Are you saying you believe their opinions to be nonsense?


----------



## Dante (Jan 15, 2009)

Gaar said:


> Taitz believes, &#8220;This is Chief Justice Roberts telling the Congress&#8230; the other eight Justices, that there is a problem with this election.&#8221;





:shadow:



> Dr. Orly Taitz DDS, counsel for&#65533;Lightfoot v. Bowen, has had her stay application denied by Associate Justice Kennedy:
> 
> Dec 17 2008 	Application (08A524) denied by Justice Kennedy.
> 
> ...


Lightfoot v. Bowen: Denied by Justice Kennedy, Resubmitted to Chief Justice Roberts


----------



## Dante (Jan 15, 2009)

> Chief Justice John Roberts and all of the associate justices &#8211; with the exception of Justice Samuel Alito &#8211; attended an hour-long meeting with President-elect Barack Obama and Vice President-elect Joe Biden this afternoon.
> 
> No explanation for the absence of Alito, who was in court this morning for arguments.
> 
> ...


hmmm...

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/01/14/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4722284.shtml


----------



## Dante (Jan 15, 2009)

Gaar said:


> And yet I have noted the citations of our Founding Fathers.
> 
> Are you saying you believe their opinions to be nonsense?



it's called a circle jerk.

Obama is a citizen of the USA. Obama is a *natural {fixed from naturalized}* citizen of the USA. 

Obama will legally be sworn in as President of the United States of America on January 20th, 2008. 

nothing you do or say will change any of the above.


----------



## Dante (Jan 15, 2009)

> Naturalization is the acquisition of citizenship or nationality by somebody who was not a citizen or national of that country when he or she was born.


Naturalization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> NATURALIZED CITIZEN - One who, being born an alien, has lawfully become a citizen of the United States Under the constitution and laws.
> 
> He has all the rights of a natural born citizen, except that of being eligible as president or vice-president of the United States. In foreign countries he has a right to be treated as such, and will be so considered even in the country of his birth, at least for most purposes.


http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/n039.htm


----------



## Gaar (Jan 15, 2009)

DevNell said:


> it's called a circle jerk.
> 
> Obama is a citizen of the USA. Obama is a naturalized citizen of the USA.
> 
> ...


I haven't said it would stop him.

But that doesn't make him any more eligible.

And the Suits will go on, until it is addressed.


----------



## Gaar (Jan 15, 2009)

DevNell said:


> Naturalization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


There is a difference between Naturalized and Natural Born.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 15, 2009)

DevNell said:


> it's called a circle jerk.
> 
> Obama is a citizen of the USA. Obama is a *natural born* citizen of the USA.
> 
> ...


 fixed

to be naturalized means he wanst born one, but was later made one


----------



## Dante (Jan 15, 2009)

> Standing in eligibility challenges
> 
> Three United States District Courts have ruled that private citizens do not have standing to challenge the eligibility of candidates to appear on a presidential election ballot: Robinson v. Bowen, 567 F. Supp. 2d 1144 (N.D. Cal. 2008); Hollander v. McCain, 2008WL2853250 (D.N.H. 2008); Berg v. Obama, 08-04083 (E.D. Pa. 2008)[17].
> 
> I*n dicta in each of these cases, it was also opined that if the plaintiffs did have standing, the likelihood of success on the merits (which is part of the legal test for the issuance of a preliminary injunction) would be low.* The opinion in one of the cases also cited to a statutory method,[18] by which the eligibility of the President-elect to take office may be challenged in Congress.





> *A small minority of people outside mainstream legal thought[3] dispute whether the foreign-born children of U.S. citizens are natural born citizens.[19]*
> 
> A minority view interprets the Constitution as meaning that a person either is born in the United States or is a naturalized citizen.[20] According to this view, in order to be a "natural born citizen," a person must be born in the United States, or possibly an incorporated territory; otherwise, they are a citizen "by law" and are therefore a "statutory citizen," (not necessarily, however, a naturalized citizen, which implies a pre-existing foreign citizenship).[19]


Natural born citizen of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Dante (Jan 15, 2009)

Gaar said:


> I haven't said it would stop him.
> 
> But that doesn't make him any more eligible.
> 
> And the Suits will go on, until it is addressed.



So you are saying people who are ineligible get sworn into the Office of the President of the United States of America?



> *Presidential candidates whose eligibility was questioned*
> 
> While every President and Vice President to date (as of 2008) is widely believed to have been a citizen at the adoption of the Constitution in 1789, or else born in the United States, there have been some presidential candidates who were either born or suspected of having been born outside the U.S. states.[21] T*his does not necessarily mean that they were ineligible, only that there was some controversy (usually minor) about their eligibility, which may have been resolved in favor of eligibility.*[22]
> 
> ...


----------



## Gaar (Jan 15, 2009)

DevNell said:


> Natural born citizen of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Not being able to challenge a "Candidate" and challenging a sitting President are two very different things.


----------



## Dante (Jan 15, 2009)

Gaar said:


> There is a difference between Naturalized and Natural Born.



yes.


and it people like you who keep insinuating that Obama is at best a naturalized citizen of the USA and therefore ineligible for the office of the Presidency


----------



## Dante (Jan 15, 2009)

Gaar said:


> Not being able to challenge a "Candidate" and challenging a sitting President are two very different things.



you can state the obvious all day long and it will add nothing.

Obama is a natural born citizen and people keep asking him to prove it. No proof will suffice. If the courts ever did hear the case(s) and the end result were to favor my position it would not shut you up.

You have a conspiracy based on a conclusion in search of a false premise or two. You are convinced Obama or his family and the state of Hawaii have lied about the circumstances of his birth. Nothing will change that view. No evidence will dissuade you because you somehow know the 'truth'


----------



## Gaar (Jan 15, 2009)

DevNell said:


> So you are saying people who are ineligible get sworn into the Office of the President of the United States of America?


Obviously they can be...

There were several non-Citizens on the Presidential Ballot in many States.

Had any one of them Won, do you suppose we would be checking?


----------



## Gaar (Jan 15, 2009)

DevNell said:


> you can state the obvious all day long and it will add nothing.
> 
> Obama is a natural born citizen and people keep asking him to prove it. No proof will suffice. If the courts ever did hear the case(s) and the end result were to favor my position it would not shut you up.
> 
> You have a conspiracy based on a conclusion in search of a false premise or two. You are convinced Obama or his family and the state of Hawaii have lied about the circumstances of his birth. Nothing will change that view. No evidence will dissuade you because you somehow know the 'truth'


It is not up to Obama to "prove".

He either is or he is not, because of the conditions present when he was Born.

His Father was NOT a Citizen, so he is NOT Natural Born, period.


----------



## Dante (Jan 15, 2009)

indago said:


> Haven't we done this one already?


----------



## Dante (Jan 15, 2009)

Gaar said:


> Obviously they can be...
> 
> There were several non-Citizens on the Presidential Ballot in many States.
> 
> Had any one of them Won, do you suppose we would be checking?



getting on a state ballot and winning and being sworn in are entirely different things. lots of fringe weirdos on state ballots


----------



## Dante (Jan 15, 2009)

Gaar said:


> It is not up to Obama to "prove".
> 
> He either is or he is not, because of the conditions present when he was Born.
> 
> His Father was NOT a Citizen, so he is NOT Natural Born, period.



I was correct. No proof will suffice because you already have the truth.

Why bother?



> It is generally agreed [1] that these constitutional provisions mean anyone born on American soil to parents who are U.S. citizens is a &#8220;natural born citizen&#8221; eligible to someday become president or vice-president,..
> 
> 
> ...*whereas anyone whose citizenship is acquired after birth as a result of naturalization "process or procedure" is not a "natural born citizen"* and is therefore ineligible for those two positions.[2]
> ...



*so you are saying Obama is a naturalized citizen.  prove it.*


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 15, 2009)

Gaar said:


> It is not up to Obama to "prove".
> 
> He either is or he is not, because of the conditions present when he was Born.
> 
> His Father was NOT a Citizen, so he is NOT Natural Born, period.


dude, the STATE of Hawaii says he was born there
thus, he(Obama) is a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN


----------



## Dante (Jan 15, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> dude, the STATE of Hawaii says he was born there
> thus, he(Obama) is a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN




and all the below quote is from his post...



> The Lightfoot lawsuit in CA states the obvious:
> 
> &#8220;This letter shows that the meaning of natural born citizen, is one
> without allegiance to any foreign powers, not subject to any foreign
> ...




it all hinges on the idea that Obama is a naturalized citizen who at one time had allegiance to a foreign power.

make him answer....what foreign power and when was Obama naturalized...there has to be documentation that Obama was naturalized.

until he answers both---why bother with the circle jerk? 
\
where is ravi when you need a circle master?


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 15, 2009)

DevNell said:


> and all the below quote is from his post...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


LOL i think shes posting something moronic somewhere else


----------



## Care4all (Jan 15, 2009)

Gaar said:


> It is not up to Obama to "prove".
> 
> He either is or he is not, because of the conditions present when he was Born.
> 
> His Father was NOT a Citizen, so he is NOT Natural Born, period.



My Dear Gaar,

I mentioned earlier, that you were taking things out of context and that you needed to read FURTHER through the wiki quote you have used....but i can see that you did not and now i know where you have become confused and why you think that Obama is not a citizen due to his british citizen father....but, as mentioned, you are wrong.

Here is why:

The phrase you used about loyalty to another nation was regarding people here on Diplomatic status from another nation, or on a Diplomatic Duty, with a job to do...These people have loyalty to another Nation and are here on behalf of their Nation, and even if they break the law here, we can not even prosecute them because they have what is known as Diplomatic Status....their loyalty is to their Nation and their Nation has ruling protection over them....through agreement with us.

The same goes with our Diplomats overseas working for us, and with CIA agents that are not undercover on official status, and other civilians serving us for some diplomatic matter...

ALSO, the Supreme Court RULED on this already...they had a case where this was challenged and the Supreme court, along with letters from our founding fathers, showed that this stipulation was specifically about Diplomats and NOT civilians here....

If you would continue to read the link from wiki that you posted earlier, it lists the SC rulings that relate to Natural Born citizens...

So, you have assumed incorrectly.

Care


----------



## Gaar (Jan 15, 2009)

I do not simply use any "wiki quote", please....

Natural Born Citizen Chart

The term natural born citizen was first codified in writing in colonial reference books in 1758 in the legal reference book Law of Nations.  That legal reference book was used by John Jay, who later went on to become the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.  Jay had the clause inserted into the Constitution via a letter he wrote to George Washington, the leader of the Constitutional Convention.  Jay was considered the outstanding legal scholar of his time and he was the one is responsible for inserting that term into the US Constitution, derived from the Law of Nations.  See this chart as to which type of citizenship a person holds based on the facts as to WHERE he was born and WHO WERE BOTH HIS PARENTS, based on the Constitution and prior court rulings.

Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms that understanding and the construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:

" ... 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 [plural, meaning two] not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen..." (America Must Know)

John Jay wrote: "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and reasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen."

U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark's importance is that it is the first case decided by the Supreme Court that attempts to explain the meaning of "natural born citizen" under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.  Natural born citizen is similiar to the meaning of what a natural born subject is under Common Law in England.  That is one of the reasons why the framers specifically included a grandfather clause (natural born Citizen OR a Citizen of the United States, at the time of adoption of this Constitution).  The founding fathers knew that in order to be president, they had to grandfather themselves in because they were British subjects.  If they didn't, they could not be President of the U.S.  The holding in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark states that Wong Kim Ark is a native born citizen.  If you look at the fact of Wong Kim Ark being born in San Francisco, CA, of Chinese parents, that holding is correct.

In Wong Kim Ark, the court thoroughly discussed &#8220;natural born citizen&#8221;. And in doing so, Justice Gray quoted directly from the holding in a prior Supreme Court case, Minor v. Happersett. The following passage is a quote from Minor as quoted by Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark:

&#8221; &#8216;At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.  These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.  Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents.  As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.  For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts.  It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.&#8217; Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168.&#8221;

Perkins v. Elg's importance is that it actually gives examples of what a Citizen of the U.S. is; what a native born American Citizen is; and what a natural born citizen of the U.S. is.  A natural born citizen is a person who is born of two U.S. citizen parents AND born in the mainland of U.S.

An attorney, who practices in Missouri and the federal courts system and is also an accountant, observes that two plus two equals four (2+2 = 4).  There is no dispute in that.   Also, the similar logic applies with the meaning of what a natural born citizen of the U.S. is.  To be one as defined under U.S. Supreme Court case law and the English Common Law adopted by the U.S., you have to be born of two U.S. citizen parents AND born in the U.S. mainland.

Congress for 26 times has tried to change the meaning of natural born citizen as early as the 1790 Nationality Act and 26 times the bill has been defeated, repealed or ruled unconstitutional.  The meaning of what natural born citizen is what it is.  Regardless of what people in the mainstream media and in our federal government try to do, they still can't change the fact of the meaning of what a natural born citizen is.  What is occurring right now is straight up a coup de'tat seeking to destroy the Constitution as we know it.


----------



## jillian (Jan 15, 2009)

bummer you don't have a legit source

again why are you ignoring the lawyers and judges on this subject. are you being intentionally obtuse or just a troll?


----------



## bk1983 (Jan 15, 2009)

Gaar said:


> I do not simply use any "wiki quote", please....
> 
> Natural Born Citizen Chart
> 
> ...



So according to your argument, Martin Van Buren was the first legitimate president? I ask this, because no president prior fits your criteria for 'natural born'


----------



## Gaar (Jan 15, 2009)

bk1983 said:


> So according to your argument, Martin Van Buren was the first legitimate president? I ask this, because no president prior fits your criteria for 'natural born'


Why do you suppose they gave themself an exception, for those who were simply "Citizens" when the Document was ratified?


----------



## Gaar (Jan 15, 2009)

jillian said:


> bummer you don't have a legit source
> 
> again why are you ignoring the lawyers and judges on this subject. are you being intentionally obtuse or just a troll?


Care to address ANY of the argument, or just be a Troll?


----------



## jillian (Jan 15, 2009)

Gaar said:


> Care to address ANY of the argument, or just be a Troll?



Sorry snookie, you're the troll. And many of us have already responded to your  nonsense. You've refused to acknowledge that you don't have a leg to stand on here.

You're making it up as you go along. You know you are. Hence my asking if you're being intentionally obtuse.  But I'm afraid I don't try to engage in discussion with attention seekers who know they're trolling. Frankly, I'm amazed that anyone is wasting their time trying to educate you.


----------



## Care4all (Jan 15, 2009)

Gaar said:


> I do not simply use any "wiki quote", please....
> 
> Natural Born Citizen Chart
> 
> ...



So mccain was NOT ELIGIBLE to run for the presidency because he was NOT born in the USA?  Nor Romney's father who was born in Mexico, was not eligible to run for the USA presidency either?  There are a number of cases over the years where what you have posted, would have ruled alot them out too, but they were not ruled out....why do you think that is....?

I think we had a vp that was born in paris....but from 2 american parents....?

Care


----------



## Gaar (Jan 15, 2009)

Care4all said:


> So mccain was NOT ELIGIBLE to run for the presidency because he was NOT born in the USA?  Nor Romney's father who was born in Mexico, was not eligible to run for the USA presidency either?  There are a number of cases over the years where what you have posted, would have ruled alot them out too, but they were not ruled out....why do you think that is....?
> 
> I think we had a vp that was born in paris....but from 2 american parents....?
> 
> Care


That's why they later clarified and said any 2 Citizens anywhere...

The 2 Citizens part has never changed, yet soil has.

Imagine that.


----------



## Dante (Jan 15, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> DevNell said:
> 
> 
> > and all the below quote is from his post...
> ...


just has to see this post.  lol


----------



## Dante (Jan 15, 2009)

Gaar said:


> That's why they later clarified and said any 2 Citizens anywhere...
> 
> The 2 Citizens part has never changed, yet soil has.
> 
> Imagine that.



so where you come from _clarification amounts to conspiracy_?

it's unfair to trolls everywhere to lump you in with them.

you're just a nut.

:shadow:


----------



## Gaar (Jan 15, 2009)

jillian said:


> Sorry snookie, you're the troll. And many of us have already responded to your  nonsense. You've refused to acknowledge that you don't have a leg to stand on here.
> 
> You're making it up as you go along. You know you are. Hence my asking if you're being intentionally obtuse.  But I'm afraid I don't try to engage in discussion with attention seekers who know they're trolling. Frankly, I'm amazed that anyone is wasting their time trying to educate you.


You are the one doing nothing but insulting and not addressing ANY of the argument...

Otherwise known as an Ad Hominem attack.

Imagine that.


----------



## Gaar (Jan 15, 2009)

DevNell said:


> so where you come from _clarification amounts to conspiracy_?
> 
> it's unfair to trolls everywhere to lump you in with them.
> 
> ...


Who said anything about conspiracy?

Those are your words, not mine.


----------



## Gaar (Jan 15, 2009)

DevNell said:


> and all the below quote is from his post...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Has nothing to do with Naturalized...

You can be a Citizen at Birth and NOT be Natural Born.


----------



## Care4all (Jan 15, 2009)

Gaar said:


> That's why they later clarified and said any 2 Citizens anywhere...
> 
> The 2 Citizens part has never changed, yet soil has.
> 
> Imagine that.



_United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898): In this case, the majority of the Court held that a child born in U.S. territory to parents who were subjects of the emperor of China but who had 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 was a U.S. Citizen. *The Court stated that: "The constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words [citizen and natural born citizen], either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.'''*_


The Constitution says BORN or Naturalized....Naturalized citizens are people  that were born in another country to foreign parents like my Italian mother, who then married my father and then applied for her citizenship, or like my Italian grandparents who once living here, applied and got their us citizenship...

so, you are either BORN a citizen, or have been naturalized a citizen according to the constitution, no?  Are you saying that there is a third option for someone like John McCain, that was not in the Constitution?

Explain this ruling:

_Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939): The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that Marie Elizabeth Elg, who was born in the United States of Swedish parents naturalized in the United States, had not lost her birthright U.S. citizenship because of her removal during minority to Sweden and was entitled to all the rights and privileges of that U.S. citizenship. In this case, *the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the decree that declared Elg "to be a natural born citizen of the United States*." _


Care


----------



## bk1983 (Jan 15, 2009)

gaar said:


> has Nothing To Do With Naturalized...
> 
> *you Can Be A Citizen At Birth And Not Be Natural Born*.



Wrong!!


----------



## Care4all (Jan 15, 2009)

if you are a citizen at birth, then you are a natural born citizen....(even if born in a foreign country, like mccain.....this is precedence...or how it has evolved in definition.)

if you are not a citizen at birth but a citizen of another country, but become a citizen later on down the road, then you are a naturalized citizen.

here is the law:

_§ 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

 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; 
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person 
(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or 
(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and 
(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States. _


----------



## Dante (Jan 15, 2009)

Gaar said:


> Who said anything about conspiracy?
> 
> Those are your words, not mine.



of course you infer such a thing. how else can you explain everyone going along with what to you is obviously an unconstitutional thing? if there is no conspiracy are you saying everyone but you and a few certified lunatics is stupid?


----------



## Dante (Jan 15, 2009)

Gaar said:


> Has nothing to do with Naturalized...
> 
> You can be a Citizen at Birth and NOT be Natural Born.



you are being disingenuous.


----------



## Gaar (Jan 16, 2009)

DevNell said:


> of course you infer such a thing. how else can you explain everyone going along with what to you is obviously an unconstitutional thing? if there is no conspiracy are you saying everyone but you and a few certified lunatics is stupid?


Perhaps not stupid...

But ignorant of our History, and the intent of our Founding Fathers.

That's why we have the SCOTUS, so that people who have the time to Learn such things do, and then they can Rule on them, in the context for which it was written.

So imagine how much all of YOUR OPINIONS mean to me, since none of you can address the History and intent of our Founding Fathers, and such things will in fact have to be considered by those entrusted with the Duty.


----------



## Gaar (Jan 16, 2009)

DevNell said:


> you are being disingenuous.


Vattel: The Law of Nations: Book I

§ 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

§ 213. Inhabitants.
The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners, who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound to the society by their residence, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside in it; and they are obliged to defend it, because it grants them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the law or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united to the society without participating in all its advantages. Their children follow the condition of their fathers; and, as the state has given to these the right of perpetual residence, their right passes to their posterity.

§ 214. Naturalization.(58)
A nation, or the sovereign who represents it, may grant to a foreigner the quality of citizen, by admitting him into the body of the political society. This is called naturalization. There are some states in which the sovereign cannot grant to a foreigner all the rights of citizens, &#8212; for example, that of holding public offices &#8212; and where, consequently, he has the power of granting only an imperfect naturalization. It is here a regulation of the fundamental law, which limits the power of the prince. In other states, as in England and Poland, the prince cannot naturalize a single person, without the concurrence of the nation, represented by its deputies. Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.

§ 215. Children of citizens born in a foreign country.
It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed.(59) By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say "of itself," for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise. But I suppose that the father has not entirely quitted his country in order to settle elsewhere. If he has fixed his abode in a foreign country, he is become a member of another society, at least as a perpetual inhabitant; and his children will be members of it also.

§ 216. Children born at sea.
As to children born at sea, if they are born in those parts of it that are possessed by their nation, they are born in the country: if it is on the open sea, there is no reason to make a distinction between them and those who are born in the country; for, naturally, it is our extraction, not the place of our birth, that gives us rights: and if the children are born in a vessel belonging to the nation, they may be reputed born in its territories; for, it is natural to consider the vessels of a nation as parts of its territory, especially when they sail upon a free sea, since the state retains its jurisdiction over those vessels. And as, according to the commonly received custom, this jurisdiction is preserved over the vessels, even in parts of the sea subject to a foreign dominion, all the children born in the vessels of a nation are considered as born in its territory. For the same reason, those born in a foreign vessel are reputed born in a foreign country, unless their birth took place in a port belonging to their own nation; for, the port is more particularly a part of the territory; and the mother, though at that moment on board a foreign vessel, is not on that account out of the country. I suppose that she and her husband have not quitted their native country to settle elsewhere.

§ 217. Children born in the armies of the state.
For the same reasons also, children born out of the country, in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court, are reputed born in the country; for a citizen who is absent with his family, on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.

--------------------------------

"Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner."

So again, you can be Born a Citizen, but not be Natural Born but rather a "Naturalized Citizen" by Birth.


----------



## Dante (Jan 16, 2009)

the problem with semi-educated arguments is that they are useless.

What the individual Founding Fathers wanted is irrelevant in many ways. I do know they left the Constitution open to changes for whatever future generations wanted. A stale and conservative interpretation is hardly what most of them desired or wanted for future generations. 

Many of the semi-educated arguments you use (believe it or not, I've heard them before) are sophomoric at best. Many of the arguments used stem from writings of individual FFs (Founding Fathers) and those arguments may have fell on deaf ears when the final documents were voted on. Just because an individual no matter how influential to our Constitution had an opinion on something does not make that opinion the last word.

Intent? The only intent I ever argue seriously about was the intent to make a free nation of free people who had the freedom to decide their own fate and not have their fate dictated by old men long dead, the ages, or a god.

 Ignorant of our History I am not, and sophomoric and academic about it I am not, but sadly I am well read enough to have heard your arguments before.

You are disingenuous and full of shit on a lot of IT.



Gaar said:


> Perhaps not stupid...
> 
> But ignorant of our History, and the intent of our Founding Fathers.
> 
> ...



The SCOTUS will rule on things brought before them. I love the law and fear the courts and loathe justice for she is blind in her awesome power to do good and harm. Like war there are fools who worship at the altar of blind justice without a clue to the fearsome awesomeness of her power. (not bad on the fly, eh?)


----------



## Dante (Jan 16, 2009)

Gaar said:


> Vattel: The Law of Nations: Book I
> 
> § 212. Citizens and nat...



you remind me of a first semester grad student who thinks they are a teacher and that the world is waiting on their every brilliant word. 

you should try talking to people instead of at them. the difference between us is I know what I am doing.


----------



## Gaar (Jan 16, 2009)

DevNell said:


> you remind me of a first semester grad student who thinks they are a teacher and that the world is waiting on their every brilliant word.
> 
> you should try talking to people instead of at them. the difference between us is I know what I am doing.


So you say...

As yet another is unable to address the History as well as how the decisions others have cited here do not say what they say they do and NONE of them have addressed the Issue in the manner for which it was written, as this will.

Fortunately for me, such decisions are not yours to make.

I will wait for the SCOTUS, thank you.

The question to you and those like you is:  What will you do if they find your ignorant ass is in fact wrong, and your supposed superior intellect gets tossed right out the window along with your pompous attitude?

Because they, unlike you, are going to have to address the arguments made, eventually, and Rule on the Constitution, and not what you and a bunch of others believe the Constitution may or may not have "become"...

Like I said in the beginning,  There is a reason they used that Language.  You want to change that, change it, but until you do it is the Law of the land, period.


----------



## Dante (Jan 16, 2009)

Gaar said:


> So you say...
> 
> As yet another is unable to address the History as well as how the decisions others have cited here do not say what they say they do and NONE of them have addressed the Issue in the manner for which it was written, as this will.
> 
> ...



your inferiority complex is embarrassing to be around. 

no arguments have been made. the fukin' thing is supposed to be brought up in conference. do you know how few things come out of conference for a hearing? 

you keep mentioning History as if the mantra _History...History...History.._.makes you sound informed. It doesn't. It makes you sound like an idiot. You have very little to argue with except a few hair brained ideas that all apart if you open one of your eyes. 

Fortunately for you? why? Are you suffering from delusions of grandeur? Do you think you matter in the great scheme of things? You're not even a pimple on the ass of SCOTUS let alone fortunate when they fart.


----------



## Gaar (Jan 16, 2009)

DevNell said:


> your inferiority complex is embarrassing to be around.
> 
> no arguments have been made. the fukin' thing is supposed to be brought up in conference. do you know how few things come out of conference for a hearing?
> 
> ...


And yet more tripe without addressing anything in the argument...

And you have the nerve to ask if I am for real?

Don't like the discussion?

Don't participate.

Quite simple really.

But now I will have to ignore your ignorant ass, unless and until you are able to make a cogent point that is worthy of a response.

Your continued Ad Hominem attacks are not.


----------



## Dante (Jan 16, 2009)

Gaar said:


> And yet more tripe without addressing anything in the argument...
> 
> And you have the nerve to ask if I am for real?
> 
> ...



*"Your continued Ad Hominem attacks are not."*  funny. you said just about the same thing to others within a few posts of being new here.

is that your pat answer before you run away to troll again?


I've read your posts. I have your number: (*0*)


----------



## Gaar (Jan 16, 2009)

DevNell said:


> *"Your continued Ad Hominem attacks are not."*  funny. you said just about the same thing to others within a few posts of being new here.
> 
> is that your pat answer before you run away to troll again?
> 
> ...


For the Record Troll, I did not put the Obama not Eligible Thread in the Conspiracy Section, one of the ignorant Moderators moved it there so they could make sure the Debate was signified to be a Conspiracy, in their ignorant little minds...

So please.

Your continued ignorance is not my problem.


----------



## Dante (Jan 16, 2009)

Gaar said:


> For the Record Troll, I did not put the Obama not Eligible Thread in the Conspiracy Section, one of the ignorant Moderators moved it there so they could make sure the Debate was signified to be a Conspiracy, in their ignorant little minds...
> 
> So please.
> 
> Your continued ignorance is not my problem.





how does it feel to dance?


----------



## Dante (Jan 16, 2009)

Gaar said:


> Libertarian Gail Lightfoot&#8217;s lawsuit against Obama eligibility granted conference by US Supreme Court
> 
> Chief Justice John Roberts has sent a full-throated challenge of Barack Obama&#8217;s presidential eligibility to conference: Lightfoot v. Bowen (SCOTUS docket page). Investigating Obama (I.O.) interviewed Lightfoot lead attorney Orly Taitz at 2:20pm CT today, minutes after she learned of this move.
> 
> Taitz believes, &#8220;This is Chief Justice Roberts telling the Congress&#8230; the other eight Justices, that there is a problem with this election.&#8221;



*yawn*



> The Lightfoot case has legal standing, due to litigant, Libertarian Gail Lightfoot&#8217;s vice presidential candidacy in California.



*true*

---



> It also addresses two major issues of legal merit: *1. Obama&#8217;s failure to provide legally evidentiary documentation of citizenship and American birth and,* 2. his United Kingdom citizenship at birth, passed to him by his Kenyan father when that nation was a British colony. (Other current challenges also submit that Obama&#8217;s apparent status as an Indonesian citizen, as a child, would have caused his American citizenship to be revoked.) This case is therefore considered the strongest yet to be heard by the Supreme Court.



*false. no judgment has been made as to the legal merit of any accusation listed above. *

*1)Obama has not failed to do what you say. Who has he failed to provide documents to? who exactly?*

2) His citizenship as a child?


 the other current challenges? to what? are they current?

strongest what yet to be heard? have any arguments been heard yet?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 16, 2009)

Couple of links for ya.

Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship by a Child Born Abroad

United States nationality law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pretty damn clear.


----------



## Gaar (Jan 16, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Couple of links for ya.
> 
> Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship by a Child Born Abroad
> 
> ...


Funny...

None of that says anything about Natural Born.

Guess they didn't see fit to change that part.


----------



## Gaar (Jan 16, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Couple of links for ya.
> 
> Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship by a Child Born Abroad
> 
> ...


If you are a Dual Citizen, at Birth, you CANNOT be Natural Born to EITHER Country, and Obama has admitted he was a Dual Citizen at Birth...

From YOUR Link...

Dual citizenship

Based on the U.S. Department of State regulation on dual citizenship (7 FAM 1162), the Supreme Court of the United States has stated that dual citizenship is a "status long recognized in the law" and that "a person may have and exercise rights of nationality in two countries and be subject to the responsibilities of both. The mere fact he asserts the rights of one citizenship does not without more mean that he renounces the other," (Kawakita v. U.S., 343 U.S. 717) (1952). In Schneider v. Rusk 377 U.S. 163 (1964), the US Supreme Court ruled that a naturalized U.S. citizen has the right to return to his native country and to resume his former citizenship, and also to remain a U.S. citizen even if he never returns to the United States.

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) neither defines dual citizenship nor takes a position for it or against it. There has been no prohibition against dual citizenship, but some provisions of the INA and earlier U.S. nationality laws were designed to reduce situations in which dual citizenship exists. Although naturalizing citizens are required to undertake an oath renouncing previous allegiances, the oath has never been enforced to require the actual termination of original citizenship.[15]

Although the U.S. Government does not endorse dual citizenship as a matter of policy, it recognizes the existence of dual citizenship and completely tolerates the maintenance of multiple citizenship by U.S. citizens. In the past, claims of other countries on dual-national U.S. citizens sometimes placed them in situations where their obligations to one country were in conflict with the laws of the other. However, as fewer countries require military service and most base other obligations, such as the payment of taxes, on residence and not citizenship, these conflicts have become less frequent. As a result, there has been a dramatic increase in recent years in the number of people who maintain U.S. citizenship in other countries.


----------



## Care4all (Jan 16, 2009)

Gaar said:


> Vattel: The Law of Nations: Book I
> 
> § 212. Citizens and natives.
> The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
> ...



Women did not even have the right to vote back then and THINGS HAVE CHANGED gaar,  

the Constitution, which NEVER DEFINED Natural born citizen OR Naturalized Citizen, left this definition up to the Congress...

And Congress has writen statute on this...once again, Here it is....



> § 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
> 
> The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
> 
> ...



ALL of these cases, describe natural born citizens....citizens AT BIRTH....

The constitution itself, mentions "born or naturalized", there was not third option of "Statuatory" citizen.


Care


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 16, 2009)

Care4all said:


> Women did not even have the right to vote back then and THINGS HAVE CHANGED gaar,
> 
> the Constitution, which NEVER DEFINED Natural born citizen OR Naturalized Citizen, left this definition up to the Congress...
> 
> ...



Do not confuse this poster with facts. They are inconvenient to the Conspiracy theory.

Anyone born INSIDE the US is a citizen and is a NATURAL BORN one. That this person can not provide a shred of evidence to support the claim that the Constitution defines the terms Natural and Naturalized is beyond their seeming ignorance.

In fact the only proof provided for the terms was a 1790 LAW. While this person CONTINUED to argue that some how a superceded law , changed only 5 years after being passed, was some how proof that the Constitution defined Natural Born.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 16, 2009)

Once more for the record.
 I do not think Obama was the right choice for President, I do not like the policies he has said he supports.

However, he was legally elected to the Office and was born to an American Citizen INSIDE the UNITED STATES. He is our President Elect and he damn well better be confirmed as such.

If the Court were to rule otherwise I would be right beside the millions that would protest such a bogus ruling. In fact I would call for Impeachment of any Judges on the Supreme Court that so ruled.  They would have proven to be unfit to be Justices in the Supreme Court.


----------



## Dante (Jan 16, 2009)

Gaar said:


> If you are a Dual Citizen, at Birth, you CANNOT be Natural Born to EITHER Country,


----------



## Gaar (Jan 16, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Do not confuse this poster with facts. They are inconvenient to the Conspiracy theory.
> 
> Anyone born INSIDE the US is a citizen and is a NATURAL BORN one. That this person can not provide a shred of evidence to support the claim that the Constitution defines the terms Natural and Naturalized is beyond their seeming ignorance.
> 
> In fact the only proof provided for the terms was a 1790 LAW. While this person CONTINUED to argue that some how a superceded law , changed only 5 years after being passed, was some how proof that the Constitution defined Natural Born.


The FACT is they do NOT address Natural Born, your ignorance on the matter notwithstanding.

Again, if you Idiots are so sure of yourself, why not just say let the SCOTUS decide and be done with it?

Afraid your ignorant ass may in fact be wrong and you haven't a CLUE what you are talking about?

Why are you all so afraid of having the SCOTUS Rule on this?


----------



## Gaar (Jan 16, 2009)

DevNell said:


>


Vattel: The Law of Nations: Book I

§ 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.


----------



## Gaar (Jan 16, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Once more for the record.
> I do not think Obama was the right choice for President, I do not like the policies he has said he supports.
> 
> However, he was legally elected to the Office and was born to an American Citizen INSIDE the UNITED STATES. He is our President Elect and he damn well better be confirmed as such.
> ...


It is not my fault that YOU don't support the Constitution, as written.

There are those of us who do, and we, like you, will FIGHT to make sure it is upheld.

Right now, that "fight" is happening in our Courts.

I am willing to accept ANY Judgment they make, once they address the Issues and arguments being made, but it seems you are willing to "fight" beyond that, should YOU be found wrong...

Imagine that.

I will say, if it is decided in MY Favor, and you attempt to "fight" that decision, in any way other than the Courts, I will be there to oppose you, I will guarantee you that!


----------



## Gaar (Jan 16, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Once more for the record.
> I do not think Obama was the right choice for President, I do not like the policies he has said he supports.
> 
> However, he was legally elected to the Office and was born to an American Citizen INSIDE the UNITED STATES. He is our President Elect and he damn well better be confirmed as such.
> ...


You are likely one of those who believe our Drug Laws are ok as well...

Not understanding there is NO Constitutional Authority given to the Federal Government to Legislate such things, and that all things not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, to the Fed, goes back to the States and the People.

So we have the Fed making Laws which makes Criminals of people who have commited no Crime, and I am sure you are all for that because it is "The Law".

Sorry, if challenged on its Constitutionality, and the Right to face an accuser for your crime, it would easily be found unConstitutional.

So, am I right?

Do you support the Constitution, or do you support the Government taking the Authority that was never given to them?

This will tell me a lot about what it is you believe and what it is you support about this Country.


----------



## Care4all (Jan 16, 2009)

Gaar said:


> You are likely one of those who believe our Drug Laws are ok as well...
> 
> Not understanding there is NO Constitutional Authority given to the Federal Government to Legislate such things, and that all things not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, to the Fed, goes back to the States and the People.
> 
> ...



No Gaar, that's not how it works....you get the gist of it, but you have left out a very important part...

First, the constitution mentions natural born citizens but does not define it down to the enth degree as with many other provision in the Constitution, the constitution itself, gives this authority to define and give law/statute...to the Congress, what is not mentioned is then given to the states and the people.

As example, the constitution says the President appoints certain positions, Judges, Secretary of state, etc and the Senate is to advise and consent of these appointments of the President.

The constitution itself does not define HOW the Senate should go about advising and consenting.  What the constitution does, is give this power to the Senate itself in its own rule making and procedures of vetting the appointees.  So the laws and statutes and procedures of how the Senate consents is up to the Senate itself, not defined in the Constitution, but constitutional none the less.

Care


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 16, 2009)

Care4all said:


> No Gaar, that's not how it works....you get the gist of it, but you have left out a very important part...
> 
> First, the constitution mentions natural born citizens but does not define it down to the enth degree as with many other provision in the Constitution, the constitution itself, gives this authority to define and give law/statute...to the Congress, what is not mentioned is then given to the states and the people.
> 
> ...


 

actually, it does, a vote, with a simple majority


----------



## Gaar (Jan 16, 2009)

Care4all said:


> Women did not even have the right to vote back then and THINGS HAVE CHANGED gaar,
> 
> the Constitution, which NEVER DEFINED Natural born citizen OR Naturalized Citizen, left this definition up to the Congress...
> 
> ...


No they describe Citizenship, at Birth.

Natural Born is not simplt Legislated Citizenship.

You cannot Legislate Nature.


----------



## Gaar (Jan 16, 2009)

Care4all said:


> No Gaar, that's not how it works....you get the gist of it, but you have left out a very important part...
> 
> First, the constitution mentions natural born citizens but does not define it down to the enth degree as with many other provision in the Constitution, the constitution itself, gives this authority to define and give law/statute...to the Congress, what is not mentioned is then given to the states and the people.
> 
> ...


Advice and Consent is NOT Natural Law...

Legislation can change one and not the other.


----------



## Care4all (Jan 16, 2009)

Gaar said:


> Advice and Consent is NOT Natural Law...
> 
> Legislation can change one and not the other.


Natural Law?  Change Natural Law?  Huh?

What "natural Law" is involved with this Obama case other than the FACT that people born on usa soil, with one usa parent, are naturally citizens of that soil and are "born of that soil"....

Nature can't be taken away....and birth is an act of Nature.  It is YOU who is trying to DEFY NATURE, his birth place?  

And it is you that is denying constitutionally sound LAW, based on some convoluted view of the constitution imo....


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 16, 2009)

Gaar said:


> The FACT is they do NOT address Natural Born, your ignorance on the matter notwithstanding.
> 
> Again, if you Idiots are so sure of yourself, why not just say let the SCOTUS decide and be done with it?
> 
> ...



The Court decides all by itself what to take and what NOT to take. So your little whine is nothing more than sour grapes.

I REPEAT, provide me a quote FROM the Constitution that DEFINES Natural Born. You keep claiming it is in there. Yet all you can produce is a LAW that was changed 5 years later. A law that does not say what you claim to boot.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 16, 2009)

Gaar said:


> No they describe Citizenship, at Birth.
> 
> Natural Born is not simplt Legislated Citizenship.
> 
> You cannot Legislate Nature.



You keep failing to provide any proof the Constitution says anything you have claimed. Come on, provide us that quote from the Constitution.

As for Drug laws, the Federal Government has sole authority to regulate and legislate Interstate commerce or any activity that crosses State lines or Our Borders. Further they have the right to legislate what drugs are and are not legal using the exact same section of the Constitution.  You may want to bone up on what powers the Federal Government has, cause so far you are batting 0.


----------



## Care4all (Jan 16, 2009)

Gaar said:


> No they describe Citizenship, at Birth.
> 
> Natural Born is not simplt Legislated Citizenship.
> 
> You cannot Legislate Nature.



what's the difference between: 

citizenship when born, 

or

citizenship at birth?

There is no difference....how could there be?  

The intent of our founding fathers, and what was going on at the era they wrote it has to be considered as well....

They just went through a Revolution, they certainly did not want anyone with close allegiance and roots to the enemy running the show in their newly formed nation....or anyone in the future that did not have his allegiance to the United States, first and foremost.

People did not fly back and forth between different continents in a matter of hours back then, nor could they forsee this ever being the case in the future.

Women, had no power as individuals, so to say.  They could not vote, they did not work or have professions outside of their homes, farms, own family run business...unless they were a Saloon gal, or a teacher....for the most part.  NO female senators or congressmen till the latter last century and still extremely disproportionately male....

And the idea of single motherhood being perfectly acceptable, and legal was all probably inconceivable at the time, 

let alone a white female american citizen meeting a black nigerian male here legally on a visa attending her college in the United States and her marrying him in the USA and having a child with him in the USA.

ALOT has changed since then, you'd have to agree....?

so the notion that ONLY THE FATHER can pass on citizenship to the child, that you keep quoting, is moot.

care


----------



## Gaar (Jan 17, 2009)

Care4all said:


> Natural Law?  Change Natural Law?  Huh?
> 
> What "natural Law" is involved with this Obama case other than the FACT that people born on usa soil, with one usa parent, are naturally citizens of that soil and are "born of that soil"....
> 
> ...


It takes "Citizens" (plural) to make a Natural Born Citizen.

One Parent simply makes a Citizen Naturalized, at Birth, by Law.


----------



## Gaar (Jan 17, 2009)

Care4all said:


> what's the difference between:
> 
> citizenship when born,
> 
> ...



Because one is given by Heritage (Nature), the other is given by Law (through Legislation).

Laws cannot change Heritage.


----------



## Gaar (Jan 17, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> As for Drug laws, the Federal Government has sole authority to regulate and legislate Interstate commerce or any activity that crosses State lines or Our Borders. Further they have the right to legislate what drugs are and are not legal using the exact same section of the Constitution.  You may want to bone up on what powers the Federal Government has, cause so far you are batting 0.



The Government has the Right to Regulate, not Outlaw.

How do they deal with people who grow Marijuana in their own Home, and consume it there?

Tell me, when did it ever cross any Border?

And you are telling others to "bone up".

Give me a break.

You can't even address the language in the Constitution, and you are going to attempt to tell someone else to bone up?

ROTFLMAO!!!!


----------



## Gaar (Jan 17, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> The Court decides all by itself what to take and what NOT to take. So your little whine is nothing more than sour grapes.
> 
> I REPEAT, provide me a quote FROM the Constitution that DEFINES Natural Born. You keep claiming it is in there. Yet all you can produce is a LAW that was changed 5 years later. A law that does not say what you claim to boot.


Basically, the same men who wrote the Constitution wrote our first Immigration Law.

Your ignorance of this Nations History notwithstanding.


----------



## del (Jan 17, 2009)

Gaar said:


> The Government has the Right to Regulate, not Outlaw.
> 
> How do they deal with people who grow Marijuana in their own Home, and consume it there?
> 
> ...



do the voices in your head sing harmony?


----------



## Gaar (Jan 17, 2009)

del said:


> do the voices in your head sing harmony?


It seems those who can't address a point and who can only insult do...

Imagine that.


----------



## Gaar (Jan 17, 2009)

Vattel is cited some 187 times in SCOTUS Rulings, so far...

Let's see if we can make it one more, eh?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 17, 2009)

Gaar said:


> Because one is given by Heritage (Nature), the other is given by Law (through Legislation).
> 
> Laws cannot change Heritage.



Yet you have not one shred of evidence to support your claim. I keep asking for a quote from the Constitution where in Natural Born is defined. You won't find any, leaving it to the Legislature to define.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 17, 2009)

Gaar said:


> Basically, the same men who wrote the Constitution wrote our first Immigration Law.
> 
> Your ignorance of this Nations History notwithstanding.



LAWS, there you admit it was a LAW. A Law that was changed 5 years later. ANd has been changed MANY times since. The Legislature MAKES Laws. Again since the Constitution does not define the term it is left to the Legislature to do so through, GASP, LAWS.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 17, 2009)

Gaar said:


> The Government has the Right to Regulate, not Outlaw.
> 
> How do they deal with people who grow Marijuana in their own Home, and consume it there?
> 
> ...



Still waiting for you to ever quote the actual Constitution in any manner or form.


----------



## Gaar (Jan 17, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Still waiting for you to ever quote the actual Constitution in any manner or form.


Again, for those obviously slow getting it.

The ONLY 2 times Natural Born is mentioned by our Founding Fathers in the Constitution AND Legislation...

Constitution:

"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President"

First Immigration Law:

"the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens"


----------



## bk1983 (Jan 17, 2009)

Gaar said:


> Again, for those obviously slow getting it.
> 
> The ONLY 2 times Natural Born is mentioned by our Founding Fathers in the Constitution AND Legislation...
> 
> ...



The first immigration law? 

Care to post the first voting laws? Something along the lines of no women..

Keep going, you are making an excellent case..


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 17, 2009)

Gaar said:


> Again, for those obviously slow getting it.
> 
> The ONLY 2 times Natural Born is mentioned by our Founding Fathers in the Constitution AND Legislation...
> 
> ...



So you will now admit that a LAW attempted to define a term in the Constitution that is not defined? And that that law was superceded many many times since 1790?


----------



## Dante (Jan 17, 2009)

bk1983 said:


> The first immigration law?
> 
> Care to post the first voting laws? Something along the lines of no women..
> 
> Keep going, you are making an excellent case..



oh wait...he'll tell you what the intent was of the framers. yep, he'll leave out they wanted future generations to govern themselves. 

heck, he's so conservative on this thing, I think he qualifies as a neo-con-constitutionalist


----------



## HelloDollyLlama (Jan 18, 2009)

DevNell said:


> oh wait...he'll tell you what the intent was of the framers. yep, he'll leave out they wanted future generations to govern themselves.
> 
> heck, he's so conservative on this thing, I think he qualifies as a neo-con-constitutionalist



The Republican members of Congress rejected Gaar's argument in toto. They met to declare Obama president elect, and not one Republican stood up to challenge Obama's eligibility. 

The Republican President has acknowldged that Obama is president elect. So did the Republican Vice President, who personally declared him president elect when the electoral result was ratified. 

The Republican-run Supreme Court has refused to even hear challenges to his eligibility. Several times. 

In other words, the Republican leaders in all three branches of government have rejected Gaar's claims. 

Obama's birth certificate has been declared legitimate by the Republican governor of Hawaii. No serious Republican has taken up Gaar's cause, perhaps because they know their own candidate in 2008 was born in Central America, and therefore ineligible for the presidency. 

No Republican with a 3-digit IQ has endorsed the idiotic notion that someone with a foreign parent can't be president. Because the Constitution says no such thing. 

Even Gaar's own party has overwhelmingly rejected this asinine jihad.


----------



## Gaar (Jan 18, 2009)

HelloDollyLlama said:


> No Republican with a 3-digit IQ has endorsed the idiotic notion that someone with a foreign parent can't be president. Because the Constitution says no such thing.



My IQ has never been tested below 133 (in my youth), and has recently been tested as high as 152, with the mean average over the last decade being in the mid 140's...


----------



## Gaar (Jan 18, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> So you will now admit that a LAW attempted to define a term in the Constitution that is not defined? And that that law was superceded many many times since 1790?


And I say the attempt was merely to explain the meaning, and not an attempt to change it in any manner.


----------



## del (Jan 18, 2009)

Gaar said:


> My IQ has never been tested below 133 (in my youth), and has recently been tested as high as 152, with the mean average over the last decade being in the mid 140's...



i've never seen an IQ score expressed in base 6* before.


*In the base six number system, you would never use the numeral 7.  You 
would only use numerals from 0 to 5. The idea of base six is just like 
the normal base ten system, except that instead of using the digits 0 
to 9, we use digits 0 to 5, and instead of having a ones digit, a tens 
digit, a hundreds digit and so on, we use a ones digit, a sixes digit, 
a thirty-sixes digit, and so on. So in base 6, the number 321 means 1 
one plus 2 sixes plus 3 thirty-sixes, or 121. So to count to 25, we 
would need:
4 sixes and 1 one or 41.





















imagine how high it would be if you pulled your head out of your ass.


----------



## HelloDollyLlama (Jan 18, 2009)

Gaar said:


> My IQ has never been tested below 133 (in my youth), and has recently been tested as high as 152, with the mean average over the last decade being in the mid 140's...



I have seen many logical fallacies before. 

Appeal to Authority.
Appeal to Tradition. 
Appeal to Fear. 
Appeal to Ridicule.
Appeal to Probability. 

I guess we need to add a new one. 

Appeal To Gaar Because He _Claims _, Contrary to Overwhelming Evidence, That He's Smart.


----------



## Dante (Jan 18, 2009)

Gaar said:


> My IQ has never been tested below 133 (in my youth), and has recently been tested as high as 152, with the mean average over the last decade being in the mid 140's...



an eccentric kook?


no wonder


----------



## Gaar (Jan 18, 2009)

del said:


> i've never seen an IQ score expressed in base 6* before.
> 
> 
> *In the base six number system, you would never use the numeral 7.  You
> ...


Most Forums require you cite your Source...

Math Forum - Ask Dr. Math

You're welcome.


----------



## Gaar (Jan 18, 2009)

HelloDollyLlama said:


> I have seen many logical fallacies before.
> 
> Appeal to Authority.
> Appeal to Tradition.
> ...


You were the one who brought IQ into the discussion.

I was simply answering your tripe.


----------



## HelloDollyLlama (Jan 18, 2009)

Gaar said:


> You were the one who brought IQ into the discussion.
> 
> I was simply answering your tripe.



Most forums require you to cite your source. Hmm....

And by the way, self-administered IQ tests don't count.


----------



## Gaar (Jan 18, 2009)

HelloDollyLlama said:


> Most forums require you to cite your source. Hmm....




Yes, when quoting someone verbatim, or using their information you are usually required to cite the Source.

Doesn't surprise me you don't understand that.


----------



## HelloDollyLlama (Jan 18, 2009)

Gaar said:


> Yes, when quoting someone verbatim, or using their information you are usually required to cite the Source.
> 
> Doesn't surprise me you don't understand that.



Yawn. 


I love the internet -- now I can ignore your gibberish on multiple forums.


----------



## del (Jan 18, 2009)

Gaar said:


> Yes, when quoting someone verbatim, or using their information you are usually required to cite the Source.
> 
> Doesn't surprise me you don't understand that.



doesn't surprise me that you need a citation for simple math.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 18, 2009)

del said:


> doesn't surprise me that you need a citation for simple math.


a high IQ doesnt always mean smart
it means they have a higher ability to learn, it doesnt mean they always DO


----------



## KittenKoder (Jan 18, 2009)

Gaar said:


> Yes, when quoting someone verbatim, or using their information you are usually required to cite the Source.
> 
> Doesn't surprise me you don't understand that.



Regardless of which OS you are using, there is a built in calculator, if you can't use your puny brain power for math open that up. As for sources, why not do a search yourself, or is that beyond your abilities as well?


----------



## Gaar (Jan 18, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Regardless of which OS you are using, there is a built in calculator, if you can't use your puny brain power for math open that up. As for sources, why not do a search yourself, or is that beyond your abilities as well?


I was simply pointing out proper protocol...

And, if you had bothered to look, I did in fact supply a Link, for him.

I was just suggesting he do it for himself, next time.


----------



## Gaar (Jan 18, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> a high IQ doesnt always mean smart
> it means they have a higher ability to learn, it doesnt mean they always DO


I was simply pointing out the work was not his own...


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 18, 2009)

Gaar said:


> I was simply pointing out the work was not his own...


well, you arent learning here
Obama was born in Hawaii as certified by the State of Hawaii
that makes him a natural born citizen


----------



## Dante (Jan 18, 2009)

HelloDollyLlama said:


> Most forums require you to cite your source. Hmm....
> 
> And by the way, self-administered IQ tests don't count.



_too fukin' funny and true_.


the internet generation(s) are surely delusional in their belief of what is credible, valid and rational on the www.


----------



## Dante (Jan 18, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> well, you arent learning here
> Obama was born in Hawaii as certified by the State of Hawaii
> that makes him a natural born citizen


_
*ding_


----------



## HelloDollyLlama (Jan 18, 2009)

DevNell said:


> _
> *ding_



And just to make my joy complete, Hawaii has a Republican governor.


----------



## del (Jan 18, 2009)

Gaar said:


> I was simply pointing out the work was not his own...



i didn't think anyone would credit me for _inventing_ base six.
damn


----------



## HelloDollyLlama (Jan 19, 2009)

del said:


> i didn't think anyone would credit me for _inventing_ base six.
> damn



I'm not sure you invented it, but props for finding a novel use for it!


----------



## bk1983 (Jan 19, 2009)

HelloDollyLlama said:


> And just to make my joy complete, Hawaii has a Republican governor.



Gaar doesn't like the facts..


----------



## Knoxy (Jan 19, 2009)

I've seen this Gaar kid over at politicalforum.com riding the same dumb train.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 19, 2009)

del said:


> i didn't think anyone would credit me for _inventing_ base six.
> damn



Yup pretty stupid to ask for a link to a math quote.


----------



## HelloDollyLlama (Jan 19, 2009)

Knoxy said:


> I've seen this Gaar kid over at politicalforum.com riding the same dumb train.



Believe it or not, he is also the head moderator of his own political forum. The posts and posters in there are...just like you'd imagine.


----------



## Gaar (Jan 19, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> well, you arent learning here
> Obama was born in Hawaii as certified by the State of Hawaii
> that makes him a natural born citizen


So you say...


----------



## Gaar (Jan 19, 2009)

DevNell said:


> _too fukin' funny and true_.
> 
> 
> the internet generation(s) are surely delusional in their belief of what is credible, valid and rational on the www.


I take Tests regularly, that are not self-administered...

You?


----------



## del (Jan 19, 2009)

Gaar said:


> So you say...



snappy comeback


----------



## HelloDollyLlama (Jan 19, 2009)

Gaar said:


> So you say...



So the Republican leaders in Congress say, unanimously. 
So the Republican president says.
So the Republican Vice President says. 
So the Republican Supreme Court justices say. 
So the Republican Governor of Hawaii says. 
So the Republican Chief Justice will say, again, tomorrow around lunch time. 


You know that fine line between opinion and delusion?

Look behind you. You crossed it about a hundred miles and 3000 posts back.


----------



## Gaar (Jan 19, 2009)

HelloDollyLlama said:


> So the Republican leaders in Congress say, unanimously.
> So the Republican president says.
> So the Republican Vice President says.
> So the Republican Supreme Court justices say.
> ...


I will wait for the "Authority", on such Subjects, to Rule on the matter, thank you.


----------



## Ravi (Jan 19, 2009)

Gaar said:


> I take Tests regularly, that are not self-administered...
> 
> You?


Why would anyone take tests regularly unless they have some sort of mental disability?


----------



## HelloDollyLlama (Jan 19, 2009)

Gaar said:


> I will wait for the "Authority", on such Subjects, to Rule on the matter, thank you.



So all three branches of the federal government aren't enough authority for you? 

So who is going to come to your rescue? Who is above the U.S. government? The International Court of Justice? The Pope? The Dalai Lama? Oprah? God? The Borg Collective?

There's a reason they took this bullcrap out of the real debate section, and put it in the poo-flinging sandbox section. It has no basis in reality. 


Resistance is futile!


----------



## Gaar (Jan 19, 2009)

HelloDollyLlama said:


> So all three branches of the federal government aren't enough authority for you?
> 
> So who is going to come to your rescue? Who is above the U.S. government? The International Court of Justice? The Pope? The Dalai Lama? Oprah? God? The Borg Collective?
> 
> ...


You have heard of the Supreme Court of the United States, right?

It is they that decide such things.

And these questions have never been decided in the context of the Constitution, and will in fact be the first time such a thing has been questioned.

So again, I believe I will leave the decision up to those it has been entrusted to, and not you.


----------



## Gaar (Jan 19, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Why would anyone take tests regularly unless they have some sort of mental disability?


Home


----------



## del (Jan 19, 2009)

ravi said:


> why Would Anyone Take Tests Regularly Unless They Have Some Sort Of Mental Disability?



ocd


----------



## Ravi (Jan 19, 2009)

Wow, Mensa has really lowered their standards.


----------



## Gaar (Jan 19, 2009)

del said:


> ocd


They must have been desperate for Moderators here, eh?


----------



## Gaar (Jan 19, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Wow, Mensa has really lowered their standards.


Nope, it is still at or above the 98th percentile.


----------



## del (Jan 19, 2009)

Gaar said:


> They must have been desperate for Moderators here, eh?



not as desperate as we are for intelligent posters. 
if you see one, send 'em by and try not to drool on them.
now, i believe you were telling us how smart you are.

pray, carry on.


----------



## HelloDollyLlama (Jan 19, 2009)

Gaar said:


> You have heard of the Supreme Court of the United States, right?
> 
> It is they that decide such things.
> 
> ...



Yet again -- they heard this crap seven times, and rejected it seven times. I know you *think *that the Court's seven rejections of these petitions have nothing to do with the issue that *you *have been yammering about, but that betrays an ignorance of how the Court works. When the Supreme Court hears an issue of this kind, they have full leeway to rule on any side issue connected to the case, if they feel that Consitutional issues are at stake. If your issue had *any *merit, the Court itself would have addressed it when the first seven challenges were raised. They refused to do so. Seven times. 

They are not going to turn down seven chances to address the very issue you raise, and then come back and whomp Obama with it *after *the inauguration. 

It's over. Further indulgence in this fantasy is intellectual masturbation and no more.


----------



## Dante (Jan 19, 2009)

Gaar said:


> I take Tests regularly, that are not self-administered...


  what, pregnancy tests after you've been fucked?


.


> You?



not my type buddy. I gave at the office anyway.


----------



## Dante (Jan 19, 2009)

del said:


> not as desperate as we are for intelligent posters.
> 
> pray, carry on.



Hey, WTF?


----------



## Gaar (Jan 19, 2009)

del said:


> not as desperate as we are for intelligent posters.



I see you really don't fill either position all that well.

Carry on.


----------



## Gaar (Jan 19, 2009)

del said:


> now, i believe you were telling us how smart you are.
> 
> pray, carry on.



No, someone else brought up IQ's...

I simply called them on their tripe, like I am now calling you on your's.

Imagine that.


----------



## Gaar (Jan 19, 2009)

HelloDollyLlama said:


> Yet again -- they heard this crap seven times, and rejected it seven times. I know you *think *that the Court's seven rejections of these petitions have nothing to do with the issue that *you *have been yammering about, but that betrays an ignorance of how the Court works. When the Supreme Court hears an issue of this kind, they have full leeway to rule on any side issue connected to the case, if they feel that Consitutional issues are at stake. If your issue had *any *merit, the Court itself would have addressed it when the first seven challenges were raised. They refused to do so. Seven times.
> 
> They are not going to turn down seven chances to address the very issue you raise, and then come back and whomp Obama with it *after *the inauguration.
> 
> It's over. Further indulgence in this fantasy is intellectual masturbation and no more.


And yet the Suits continue...

Imagine that.


----------



## del (Jan 19, 2009)

Gaar said:


> No, someone else brought up IQ's...
> 
> I simply called them on their tripe, like I am now calling you on your's.
> 
> Imagine that.



easier than imagining that you have an above room temperature IQ;unless it's a walk in cooler.

and it's *yours* 

must not have covered that at the last meeting, huh?

keep going, you're almost amusing.


----------



## Gaar (Jan 19, 2009)

del said:


> easier than imagining that you have an above room temperature IQ;unless it's a walk in cooler.
> 
> and it's *yours*
> 
> ...


Unless and until you can make a cogent point, I guess I will have to ignore your tripe...

Being that you are a Moderator here, I guess it would be too much to ask for YOU to stay on the damn Topic.

No surprise there, I guess.


----------



## del (Jan 19, 2009)

Gaar said:


> Unless and until you can make a cogent point, I guess I will have to ignore your tripe...
> 
> Being that you are a Moderator here, I guess it would be too much to ask for YOU to stay on the damn Topic.
> 
> No surprise there, I guess.



well ,as often happens a thread takes on a life of its own. 
we've gone from the laughable and thoroughly debunked topic that obama is constitutionally unqualified to hold office to the laughable (and much smaller) topic of your "intelligence".

see how that works?


----------



## Gaar (Jan 19, 2009)

Obama Born in Kenya? (New Information) [Update x2] « td blog

Those who have followed this blog know that our working assumption has been that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii.  We have asserted that Obamas legal name and citizenship changed when he was adopted by Lolo Soetoro, and that the birth certificate image published on Obamas campaign website does not reflect current records. You can read the previous articles referenced at the end of this post to catch up on our analysis.

We now wonder if our assumption about Obamas birth place was wrong.

I have received an unverified tip that certified copies of a Kenyan Birth Certificate (BC) for Obama were sent from Kenya, and have been received by three separate individuals. I am told that these documents are certified, with an embossed seal, and display the name of the hospital where Obama was born, as well as witness signatures.

(continued at link provided)


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 19, 2009)

Gaar said:


> So you say...


no, the STATE OF HAWAII says


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 19, 2009)

del said:


> easier than imagining that you have an above room temperature IQ;unless it's a walk in cooler.
> 
> and it's *yours*
> 
> ...


don't confuse IQ with common sense


----------



## HelloDollyLlama (Jan 19, 2009)

Gaar said:


> And yet the Suits continue...
> 
> Imagine that.



Any moron can file a lawsuit. Getting a court to hear it is something else. As your team already learned, the hard way, seven times.


----------



## HelloDollyLlama (Jan 19, 2009)

Gaar said:


> Obama Born in Kenya? (New Information) [Update x2] « td blog
> 
> Those who have followed this blog know that our working assumption has been that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii.  We have asserted that Obamas legal name and citizenship changed when he was adopted by Lolo Soetoro, and that the birth certificate image published on Obamas campaign website does not reflect current records. You can read the previous articles referenced at the end of this post to catch up on our analysis.
> 
> ...



Guess what, Gaar. The few people who haven't left the thread or simply lost consciousness, burst into laughter and walked out at "unverified tip".


----------



## HelloDollyLlama (Jan 19, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> no, the STATE OF HAWAII says



See? You *can *tell a hawk from a handsaw. I'm so proud I could cry. 

Don't you feel like we're masturbation enablers, continuing to humor him with this drivel? I feel like washing my hands....


----------



## Care4all (Jan 19, 2009)

Here's what good I would like to see come out of this whole thing....

A clear procedure on how the requirements for candidates are qualified and met and a method where "we the people" can challenge a contestant's elligibility, whether it be age or naturral born citizenship, with a cut off date, early in the Primaries.


----------



## HelloDollyLlama (Jan 19, 2009)

Care4all said:


> Here's what good I would like to see come out of this whole thing....
> 
> A clear procedure on how the requirements for candidates are qualified and met and a method where "we the people" can challenge a contestant's elligibility, whether it be age or naturral born citizenship, with a cut off date, early in the Primaries.




The thing is, that would need to be sanctioned by the Supreme Court, and the Supremes are notorious for *avoiding *the need to make judgment calls on issues like this, when they don't have to. Just in the last two months, they have had seven chances when they could have grabbed the bull by the balls and said "OKAY, folks, here is what the rules are. Read em and weep." But they didn't. 

But -- and this is important -- I want everyone to remember how asinine Gaar and the gang have been on this issue, and *use exactly the same yardstick later on*. I mean, seriously -- is Obama really a citizen?? Is he loyal to America or Kenya?? Let's remember to *hold the Republicans to their own loyalty standard *next time around. 

For instance:

Piyush Jindal's parents are immigrants from a country with millions of Muslims; he was raised a Hindu until converting in high school (unlike Obama, Jindal really was raised in an Asian religion). Jindal named himself "Bobby" after the Brady Bunch character. Will be be loyal to America or India?

Charlie Crist, a possible GOP presidential candidate, also Americanized his name; he is actually Charles Christodoulos, born to Greek immigrants. Will he be loyal to Greece? And why the name change? Ashamed?

Rudy Giuliani, Italian immigrants. Loyal to Italy?

Sarah Palin has expressed support for Alaskan secession -- would her first loyalty be to the U.S. or Alaska?

Haley Barbour is part Native American. Loyal to the U.S. or to his tribe, which was conquered by the U.S.?

And if McCain runs again -- loyal to the U.S., or to his nation of birth, Panama?

John Huntsman lived extensively in Asia and adopted children from China and India; these children will have dual citizenship. What if we get in a scrape with China during a Huntsman administration? Where would his loyalties lie?

Rick Perry has even more divided loyalties -- his parents were (gasp) Democrats! How can you be loyal to the Democratic party and still be loyal to (sniff) Uhmurka??


The Republicans need to stop and think about how stupid they really want to be about all this.

Because guys like me -- we remember.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 19, 2009)

hellodollyllama said:


> Sarah Palin Has Expressed Support For Alaskan Secession -- Would Her First Loyalty Be To The U.s. Or Alaska?


 Myth


----------



## HelloDollyLlama (Jan 19, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Myth



Fact. She went to their conventions and spoke in support of them. Her husband is a big supporter.


----------



## del (Jan 19, 2009)

HelloDollyLlama said:


> Fact. She went to their conventions and spoke in support of them. Her husband is a big supporter.



are you this stupid in real life?

"The party's chair originally told reporters that Palin had been a member, but the official later retracted that statement. Chairwoman Lynette Clark told the New York Times that false information had been given to her by another member of the party after she first told the Times and others that Palin joined the AIP in 1994. Clark issued an apology on the AIP Web site."

FactCheck.org: Sliming Palin


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 19, 2009)

HelloDollyLlama said:


> Fact. She went to their conventions and spoke in support of them. Her husband is a big supporter.


wrong, MORON

she was never a member of that party and she sent a video taped welcome to their convention as part of her duties as Governor


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 19, 2009)

del said:


> are you this stupid in real life?
> 
> "The party's chair originally told reporters that Palin had been a member, but the official later retracted that statement. Chairwoman Lynette Clark told the New York Times that false information had been given to her by another member of the party after she first told the Times and others that Palin joined the AIP in 1994. Clark issued an apology on the AIP Web site."
> 
> FactCheck.org: Sliming Palin


more proof the Ziegler's poll was right


----------



## xsited1 (Jan 19, 2009)

This just in!


----------



## HelloDollyLlama (Jan 19, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> wrong, MORON
> 
> she was never a member of that party and she sent a video taped welcome to their convention as part of her duties as Governor



Nice try!

I never said she was a member. Straw Man!

And she didn't just send a tape as part of her duties as governor. 

What a pathetic combo -- Straw Man, factual errors and infantile namecalling. All in one post. My eight year old could do better. 

You lose! Better luck next time!


----------



## del (Jan 19, 2009)

HelloDollyLlama said:


> Nice try!
> 
> I never said she was a member. Straw Man!
> 
> ...



let your 8 year old post, then. i'm sure it's better than what we've seen from you.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 19, 2009)

HelloDollyLlama said:


> Nice try!
> 
> I never said she was a member. Straw Man!
> 
> ...


oh bullshit
she never attended
you believe the fucked up lies the media spewed

btw, you are the fuclking moron loser
you are completely wrong in what you claimed and it was PROVEN in this thread


----------



## HelloDollyLlama (Jan 19, 2009)

del said:


> are you this stupid in real life?
> 
> "The party's chair originally told reporters that Palin had been a member, but the official later retracted that statement. Chairwoman Lynette Clark told the New York Times that false information had been given to her by another member of the party after she first told the Times and others that Palin joined the AIP in 1994. Clark issued an apology on the AIP Web site."
> 
> FactCheck.org: Sliming Palin




Hey, two in a row -- the infantile-insult / factual-error combo. 

Nice try! You lose!


----------



## del (Jan 19, 2009)

HelloDollyLlama said:


> Hey, two in a row -- the infantile-insult / factual-error combo.
> 
> Nice try! You lose!



uh, huh. and yet you've posted no facts, just stupid rehashes of previously and widely debunked horseshit.


----------



## HelloDollyLlama (Jan 19, 2009)

del said:


> let your 8 year old post, then. i'm sure it's better than what we've seen from you.



Tsk tsk. All he has is insults. And a moderator too. 


Multiple party members said she was there. If she didn't want that on her resume, she shouldn't have gone. Convincing one party member to lie, to cover up for her, just makes it look worse.


----------



## del (Jan 19, 2009)

del said:


> are you this stupid in real life?
> 
> "The party's chair originally told reporters that Palin had been a member, but the official later retracted that statement. Chairwoman Lynette Clark told the New York Times that false information had been given to her by another member of the party after she first told the Times and others that Palin joined the AIP in 1994. Clark issued an apology on the AIP Web site."
> 
> FactCheck.org: Sliming Palin








HelloDollyLlama said:


> Hey, two in a row -- the infantile-insult / factual-error combo.
> 
> Nice try! You lose!



so i'll put you down as "yes".


----------



## del (Jan 19, 2009)

HelloDollyLlama said:


> Tsk tsk. All he has is insults. And a moderator too.
> 
> 
> Multiple party members said she was there. If she didn't want that on her resume, she shouldn't have gone. Convincing one party member to lie, to cover up for her, just makes it look worse.



zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


----------



## HelloDollyLlama (Jan 19, 2009)

del said:


> so i'll put you down as "yes".



That's not the only source on her attendance. Nice try!


----------



## del (Jan 19, 2009)

HelloDollyLlama said:


> That's not the only source on her attendance. Nice try!



so put up a credible link or fuck off, my little wannabe.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 19, 2009)

HelloDollyLlama said:


> That's not the only source on her attendance. Nice try!


you really are a fucking moron


----------



## HelloDollyLlama (Jan 19, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> oh bullshit
> she never attended
> you believe the fucked up lies the media spewed
> 
> ...



All you have is one source who said she went, and then, under pressure -- surprise! -- changed her story. 

There are other sources who say she was there. 

Here is the UNCUT report from ABC, which has the bit you guys neatly left out, about the other sources. 



Another AIP Official Says Palin Was at 1994 Convention*
September 02, 2008 12:21 PM

An intense "she said"/"she said" emerged Tuesday over whether Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin was ever a member of the Alaskan Independence Party, the third-largest political party in the 49th state. The AIP wants Alaskans to get an opportunity to vote on whether or not they will remain a state, or become a commonwealth, or split off as an independent nation.

Officials of the AIP said Gov. Palin was once a member, but the McCain campaign -- providing what it says is complete voter registration documentation -- says Palin has been according to official records a lifelong Republican. 

A day after making its assertions, on Tuesday evening, AIP chair Lynette Clark acknowledged she was mistaken and that Gov. Palin was never a member.

(Which to be honest seems more in keeping with the ambitious pol. Republicans have a much better track record than the AIP.)

Gail Fenumiai, director of the Alaska Division of Elections, tells ABC News that "Gov. Sarah Palin first registered to vote in the state in May 1982 as a Republican, and she has not changed her party affiliate with the Division of Elections since that time." 

But Fenumiai adds that Palin's husband Todd was a member of the AIP from October 1995 through July 2002, except for a few months in 2000. He is currently undeclared.

As part of their pushback against the charges of Lynette and Dexter Clark of the AIP, the McCain campaign says that Palin did not even attend the AIP convention in Wasilla in 1994.

*But another former AIP official -- Mark Chryson, chairman of the AIP from 1995 to 2002 -- tells ABC News that "Palin was at the convention in 1994. She was there."*

Was she a member? 

Chryson cant say. "She may have been, I do not know," he says. Their records don't go back that far.

"Ask Sarah," he suggests.

I'd love to. But she hasn't exactly been making herself available to the press.

-- jpt

* This post has been updated with the comments of Fenumiai, and again after Clark took back her assertion that Gov. Palin was a member of the AIP.





So I have facts. All you have is a source who lied at least once, infantile insults, and a puny little red card, which demonstrates that you know you can't get on the scoreboard any other way. 

You sure you don't want my daughter to help?

You guys tried a 5-on-1 gang-bang on me yesterday, and I mopped the floor with you. And the same thing happened again tonight. 

Because I do my research honestly, and you don't.

Thank you for playing!

Go ahead, red card me all you want. Try to imagine how little I care. 

Ain't the beer cold!


----------



## HelloDollyLlama (Jan 19, 2009)

del said:


> so put up a credible link or fuck off, my little wannabe.



Is ABC part of the Communist Internationale too?

Your buddy Gunny tried to lead a 5-on-1 gang-fucking of me last night, and got his head handed to him. 

Just like tonight. 

Welcome to the NFL. Wear a cup.


----------



## del (Jan 19, 2009)

HelloDollyLlama said:


> All you have is one source who said she went, and then, under pressure -- surprise! -- changed her story.
> 
> There are other sources who say she was there.
> 
> ...



don't see any links here, wannabe. just more bullshit that's already been debunked.

nice try though. i'll stick with factcheck.org

your house must be a real pig sty if you consider this mopping the floor, and you may want to polish up the old math skills while you're at it too.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 19, 2009)

HelloDollyLlama said:


> Is ABC part of the Communist Internationale too?
> 
> Your buddy Gunny tried to lead a 5-on-1 gang-fucking of me last night, and got his head handed to him.
> 
> ...


gunny kicked your ass
as does almost anyone
you are not capable to do any better
the party says she was not a member, the STATE says she was NEVER registered as a member
she was GOVERNOR at the time she sent the video tape
you show you are a fucking moron by continuing to claim bullshit that never happened and has been PROVEN to have never happened


----------



## del (Jan 19, 2009)

HelloDollyLlama said:


> Is ABC part of the Communist Internationale too?
> 
> Your buddy Gunny tried to lead a 5-on-1 gang-fucking of me last night, and got his head handed to him.
> 
> ...



adjust your meds, sweetheart.


----------



## Modbert (Jan 19, 2009)

[youtube]W5FfJ89rGPc[/youtube]


----------



## Gaar (Jan 19, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> no, the STATE OF HAWAII says


No they don't.

They simply say they have a BC for Obama...

So what?


----------



## Gaar (Jan 19, 2009)

HelloDollyLlama said:


> The Republicans need to stop and think about how stupid they really want to be about all this.
> 
> Because guys like me -- we remember.



You should have thought of that tripe BEFORE you ALLOWED a sitting President to commit Perjury and Obstruction of Justice and you and all your Loony Liberals friends simply let the man walk...

And yes, guys like me, we remember you assholes spitting on the Constitution so "your guy" could remain in power.

I will help do all I can to see that does not happen again...

You and your whiny Liberal friends can bitch and moan about these Suits all you like.

They will continue.


----------



## Gaar (Jan 19, 2009)

del said:


> are you this stupid in real life?



Yep, I am pretty sure he is that stupid in Real Life...

No surprise there.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 19, 2009)

Gaar said:


> No they don't.
> 
> They simply say they have a BC for Obama...
> 
> So what?


that BC, states that he was BORN THERE


----------



## Gaar (Jan 19, 2009)

HelloDollyLlama said:


> Your buddy Gunny tried to lead a 5-on-1 gang-fucking of me last night, and got his head handed to him.
> 
> Just like tonight.
> 
> Welcome to the NFL. Wear a cup.



Reminds me of the Boxer getting his Ass handed to him in a Fight, as after every Round he raises his own hands to attempt to make people watching believe he is Winning...

And at the end of the Fight, with himself barely able to stand and his opponent looking as fresh as the beginning of the Fight, he dances around claiming Victory, as everyone knows it is not going to be his beaten Ass that decides.

Imagine that.


----------



## Gaar (Jan 19, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> that BC, states that he was BORN THERE


So?

Any Mother can walk into a Hospital in Hawaii and ASK for a BC for their Child...

What does that prove?


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 19, 2009)

Gaar said:


> So?
> 
> Any Mother can walk into a Hospital in Hawaii and ASK for a BC for their Child...
> 
> What does that prove?


ok, so seeing the original BC still wouldnt satify you

i see no reason for the State of Hawaii to even attempt to fake this
especially not the current Governor


----------



## Care4all (Jan 19, 2009)

Gaar said:


> So?
> 
> Any Mother can walk into a Hospital in Hawaii and ASK for a BC for their Child...
> 
> What does that prove?



so.... no citizen from hawiai would be a natural born citizen according to you....that's your point, i suppose?


----------



## morpheus (Jan 19, 2009)

Even if he truly wasn't born in Hawaii, he was born _to an American parent_ which automatically renders him an American citizen at birth.  There's a lot of misinformation out there regarding citizenship laws, and the people who came up with this case are making complete fools of themselves.


----------



## bk1983 (Jan 19, 2009)

Gaar said:


> Obama Born in Kenya? (New Information) [Update x2] « td blog
> 
> Those who have followed this blog know that our working assumption has been that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii.  We have asserted that Obamas legal name and citizenship changed when he was adopted by Lolo Soetoro, and that the birth certificate image published on Obamas campaign website does not reflect current records. You can read the previous articles referenced at the end of this post to catch up on our analysis.
> 
> ...



  

Wow, you post some wingnut's blog and we are all supposed to  buy that as gospel? Do you even understand the meaning of 'unverified'? 





> *I am told that these documents are certified*, with an embossed seal, and display the name of the hospital where Obama was born, as well as witness signatures.


----------



## Gaar (Jan 20, 2009)

Care4all said:


> so.... no citizen from hawiai would be a natural born citizen according to you....that's your point, i suppose?


No, just those whose Father was not a Citizen.


----------



## Gaar (Jan 20, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> ok, so seeing the original BC still wouldnt satify you



Why is that?


----------



## Gaar (Jan 20, 2009)

morpheus said:


> Even if he truly wasn't born in Hawaii, he was born _to an American parent_ which automatically renders him an American citizen at birth.  There's a lot of misinformation out there regarding citizenship laws, and the people who came up with this case are making complete fools of themselves.


Yes, a LAW has made him a Citizen at Birth, which means his Birth makes him a Naturalized Citizen, and not Natural Born.

No Law can change Nature, you either are or you are not.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 20, 2009)

Gaar said:


> Why is that?


you seem to think it would be a fake as well

as far as i can tell, there is no document you would trust
if you dont trust the current document that has been shown


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 20, 2009)

Gaar said:


> Yes, a LAW has made him a Citizen at Birth, which means his Birth makes him a Naturalized Citizen, and not Natural Born.
> 
> No Law can change Nature, you either are or you are not.



Look you stupid shit, Natural Born is NOT defined in the Constitution, ANYWHERE. If it is provide us the quote. It is rightly , defined by the Congress. And it has been so defined over the years, you cited a 1790 law which was changed in 1795. We have a much newer current law that STATES any CHILD born on US soil is a Citizen, that means NATURAL BORN. You have been quoted that law at least once in this thread. LEARN to read.


----------



## HelloDollyLlama (Jan 20, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Look you stupid shit, Natural Born is NOT defined in the Constitution, ANYWHERE. If it is provide us the quote. It is rightly , defined by the Congress. And it has been so defined over the years, you cited a 1790 law which was changed in 1795. We have a much newer current law that STATES any CHILD born on US soil is a Citizen, that means NATURAL BORN. You have been quoted that law at least once in this thread. LEARN to read.



Trust me on this. He is just going to go back to the beginning of his "argument" and start again. He has a thread just like it in another forum -- 3000 posts. It's one step away from masturbation. If we ignore him he'll go away.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 20, 2009)

Some more facts.



> Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939): The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that Marie Elizabeth Elg, who was born in the United States of Swedish parents naturalized in the United States, had not lost her birthright U.S. citizenship because of her removal during minority to Sweden and was entitled to all the rights and privileges of that U.S. citizenship. In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the decree that declared Elg "to be a natural born citizen of the United States."



Natural born citizen of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## morpheus (Jan 20, 2009)

Gaar said:


> Yes, a LAW has made him a Citizen at Birth, which means his Birth makes him a Naturalized Citizen, and not Natural Born.
> 
> No Law can change Nature, you either are or you are not.



Citizen at birth = _natural born_

A child born abroad to at least one American parent, upon declaration to the nearest American consulate, will be recognized as a _naturally born citizen_.  There's no such thing as "naturalized at birth"; it doesn't make any sense.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 20, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Some more facts.
> 
> 
> 
> Natural born citizen of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



It is absolutely true.  Obama was not born in America.  And after today, it'll be too late to do anything about it.

Just like we will probably not prosecute GW Bush for war crimes, your side will let this go.  He's a Muslim African and he is your fucking boss.  Deal with it.


----------



## Dante (Jan 20, 2009)

HelloDollyLlama said:


> Trust me on this. He is just going to go back to the beginning of his "argument" and start again. He has a thread just like it in another forum -- 3000 posts. It's one step away from masturbation. If we ignore him he'll go away.



What makes you think RGS isn't enjoying whacking off too?


----------



## Dante (Jan 20, 2009)

RetiredGySgt::::::
Some more facts.

*Quote:*
"Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939): The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that *Marie Elizabeth Elg, who was born in the United States of Swedish parents naturalized in the United States*, had not lost her birthright U.S. citizenship *because of her removal during minority to Sweden* and was entitled to all the rights and privileges of that U.S. citizenship. In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the decree that declared Elg "*to be a natural born citizen of the United States."*"

Natural born citizen of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

----------

*Maybe everyone can repost this every time Gaar makes a comment about Natural Born or Nature.*


----------



## dilloduck (Jan 20, 2009)

DevNell said:


> What makes you think RGS isn't enjoying whacking off too?



Well it's hard to imagine why anyone would whack off if they didn't enjoy it.


----------



## Dante (Jan 20, 2009)

*Andrew Card says today is a Tremendous Occasion!!!*

The Obama family will become America's first family in a few hours. 

Come on people. Today is a G-R-E-A-T day in America!


----------



## jillian (Jan 20, 2009)

Most of us realize that.


----------



## dilloduck (Jan 20, 2009)

jillian said:


> Most of us realize that.



You think Dev is going for a group hug ?


----------



## HelloDollyLlama (Jan 20, 2009)

dilloduck said:


> Well it's hard to imagine why anyone would whack off if they didn't enjoy it.



I'm not sure you people are properly embracing the solemnity of the moment. Tsk tsk.


----------



## Abelian Sea (Jan 20, 2009)

Gaar said:


> Yes, a LAW has made him a Citizen at Birth, which means *his Birth makes him a Naturalized Citizen*, and not Natural Born.



See, to me, that makes it sound like when he was Born, he was, Naturally, a Citizen. And maybe I'm crazy, but that, in turn, makes it sound like he's a Natural Born Citizen.



> No Law can change Nature,



Maybe not, but it _can_ draw the fine lines about what term "natrual born citizen" exactly means in regards to qualifying for the presidency.

It's not like Mother Nature is going to show up and iron out the details and grey areas for us. We have to figure that out for ourselves, through legislation and the courts.

Your claim, if I'm following correctly, is that only one law has addressed this so far, the one in 1790, because the exact phrase "natural born citizen" has not otherwise appeared in laws.

I suspect, however, that the common understanding of the term is that it means "citizen at birth," and that the Court will uphold that interpretation.

But, as you say, we will see...


----------



## Againsheila (Jan 20, 2009)

It's time to kill this thread.  He's our president now, whether we like it or not.  Even if he doesn't qualify, he's already been sworn in and it's too late to do anything about it now.

I just hope he's better than the last several presidents.


----------



## HelloDollyLlama (Jan 20, 2009)

Againsheila said:


> It's time to kill this thread.  He's our president now, whether we like it or not.  Even if he doesn't qualify, he's already been sworn in and it's too late to do anything about it now.
> 
> I just hope he's better than the last several presidents.




Gaar has an identical thread in another forum. 3000 posts. You're just not trying!


----------



## Gaar (Jan 20, 2009)

Againsheila said:


> It's time to kill this thread.  He's our president now, whether we like it or not.  Even if he doesn't qualify, he's already been sworn in and it's too late to do anything about it now.
> 
> I just hope he's better than the last several presidents.


The Suits will continue...

Why kill the Thread?

You are free to not post to it all you like.

You understand that, right?


----------



## Gaar (Jan 20, 2009)

HelloDollyLlama said:


> Gaar has an identical thread in another forum. 3000 posts. You're just not trying!


That's not MY Thread in the other Forum...

You Idiot.


----------



## HelloDollyLlama (Jan 20, 2009)

Gaar said:


> The Suits will continue...
> 
> Why kill the Thread?
> 
> ...



Come on, Gaar, you have a bunch of red-hot Republicans here. Tell them about the dorked up oath! You'll be their hero!


----------



## del (Jan 20, 2009)

Gaar said:


> That's not MY Thread in the other Forum...
> 
> You Idiot.



funny on so many levels.


----------



## Gaar (Jan 20, 2009)

Abelian Sea said:


> See, to me, that makes it sound like when he was Born, he was, Naturally, a Citizen. And maybe I'm crazy, but that, in turn, makes it sound like he's a Natural Born Citizen.



Then you obviously don't understand the difference between Naturalized and Natural Born...

Just like many others here.

Imagine that.


----------



## HelloDollyLlama (Jan 20, 2009)

Gaar said:


> That's not MY Thread in the other Forum...
> 
> You Idiot.



It is sooooooo completely your thread. The people who started it retired and died during the Hoover Administration.


----------



## Gaar (Jan 20, 2009)

del said:


> funny on so many levels.


Simple things for simple minds...


----------



## del (Jan 20, 2009)

Gaar said:


> Simple things for simple minds...



hey, it's your thread, pal. 

run with it.


----------



## Gaar (Jan 20, 2009)

del said:


> hey, it's your thread, pal.
> 
> run with it.


Since you don't seem to ever be able to add to any discussion I have seen, you will have to forgive me if I put you on ignore.

Should you need to contact me for anything, Moderation wise, please feel free to use the Private Message System, since I will be unable to see your tripe any other way, going forward.

Thanks in advance.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 20, 2009)

Gaar said:


> Since you don't seem to ever be able to add to any discussion I have seen, you will have to forgive me if I put you on ignore.
> 
> Should you need to contact me for anything, Moderation wise, please feel free to use the Private Message System, since I will be unable to see your tripe any other way, going forward.
> 
> Thanks in advance.


uh, you fail again

you can not put a mod on ignore


----------



## del (Jan 20, 2009)

Gaar said:


> Since you don't seem to ever be able to add to any discussion I have seen, you will have to forgive me if I put you on ignore.
> 
> Should you need to contact me for anything, Moderation wise, please feel free to use the Private Message System, since I will be unable to see your tripe any other way, going forward.
> 
> Thanks in advance.



wanna bet?


----------



## Gaar (Jan 20, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> uh, you fail again
> 
> you can not put a mod on ignore


That's ok, I can ignore him all the same...


----------



## del (Jan 20, 2009)

Gaar said:


> That's ok, I can ignore him all the same...



truly, you ARE gifted.


----------



## bk1983 (Jan 20, 2009)

Gaar said:


> Since you don't seem to ever be able to add to any discussion I have seen, you will have to forgive me if I put you on ignore.
> 
> Should you need to contact me for anything, Moderation wise, please feel free to use the Private Message System, since I will be unable to see your tripe any other way, going forward.
> 
> Thanks in advance.



Wow, you are on a roll..


----------



## Gaar (Jan 21, 2009)

It is an Issue that NEEDS to be addressed so that we can settle just who is and who is not Eligible to be President...

Let me cite a simple example, for those whose minds can't grasp what it is that is at Issue:

Let's say that Princess Grace (Grace Kelly) had Married Prince Charles and not Prince Rainier III, and that William was her Child.

That would mean that Prince William would not only be Eligible to be President of the United States, but he would also be Heir to the Throne of England.

Anyone here believe our Founding Fathers would have allowed such a thing?

I do not believe they would, and I would like the SCOTUS to address the Issue.


----------



## del (Jan 21, 2009)

Gaar said:


> It is an Issue that NEEDS to be addressed so that we can settle just who is and who is not Eligible to be President...
> 
> Let me cite a simple example, for those whose minds can't grasp what it is that is at Issue:
> 
> ...



you are well and truly fucked. i know you won't read this because of your iron will and peerless self control, but it needs to be said. Grace Kelly? Prince William? please, you're an embarassment.

come in off the balcony and take your meds.


----------



## Ravi (Jan 21, 2009)

That'd be totally awesome. Imagine the good beer we'd get.


----------



## Working Man (Jan 21, 2009)

Rumor has it that he needs to take the oath again, and that Justice Roberts, or somebody who can read, will have to give him the oath. Evidently, the wording mishap in the inauguration has to be fixed legally.

It seems like Roberts tried to pull it off freehand, and Obama cut him slack. But, the purists say the Faithfully word needs to be read, and repeated, in a specific order within the quotes. 35 words total.

More nonsense, but the rules are in place for a reason.


----------



## rayboyusmc (Jan 21, 2009)

Yes, he's a citizen and yes he's the president.

Not to worry.


----------



## DavidS (Jan 21, 2009)

He was the president, but he was not able to fully carry out his duties for the past 36 hours or something. He actually was just re-sworn in.

AP NewsAlert


----------



## DavidS (Jan 21, 2009)

This has actually happened twice before. I don't know if all of the executive orders they signed had to be re-signed, but Obama is actually, 100% now the official POTUS. Roberts even put on his robe for this.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090122/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_oath_do_over


----------



## Gaar (Jan 21, 2009)

DavidS said:


> This has actually happened twice before. I don't know if all of the executive orders they signed had to be re-signed, but Obama is actually, 100% now the official POTUS. Roberts even put on his robe for this.
> 
> Obama takes presidential oath again after stumble - Yahoo! News


According to the Constitution, they becomes President at High noon on the 20th, Oath or not...


----------



## Silence (Jan 21, 2009)

Gaar said:


> It is an Issue that NEEDS to be addressed so that we can settle just who is and who is not Eligible to be President...
> 
> Let me cite a simple example, for those whose minds can't grasp what it is that is at Issue:
> 
> ...



are you really THAT retarded?  Grace Kelly couldn't have married Prince Charles as he was 8 years old when she married....are you one of those pedo freaks who thinks that children should be allowed to marry?


----------



## 007 (Jan 21, 2009)

Againsheila said:


> It's time to kill this thread.  He's our president now, whether we like it or not.  Even if he doesn't qualify, he's already been sworn in and it's too late to do anything about it now.


As much as I *HATE* to hear that, I know it's probably true.



Againsheila said:


> I just hope he's better than the last several presidents.


I have very little faith of that.


----------



## DavidS (Jan 22, 2009)

Silence said:


> are you really THAT retarded?  Grace Kelly couldn't have married Prince Charles as he was 8 years old when she married....are you one of those pedo freaks who thinks that children should be allowed to marry?



Let's not get into THAT again.


----------



## Gaar (Jan 22, 2009)

Silence said:


> are you really THAT retarded?  Grace Kelly couldn't have married Prince Charles as he was 8 years old when she married....are you one of those pedo freaks who thinks that children should be allowed to marry?


Interesting that you cannot address the point...

Make it ANY U.S. Citizen (Female) that Prince Charles Marries, is it ok with you that his Sons would be eligible for the Presidency of the U.S., and do you think that is what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they made the Law?

Simple question.


----------



## Ravi (Jan 22, 2009)

And you want us to believe your in Mensa.


----------



## Gaar (Jan 22, 2009)

Ravi said:


> And you want us to believe your in Mensa.


Personally, I don't care what you believe.


----------



## Care4all (Jan 22, 2009)

Gaar said:


> Interesting that you cannot address the point...
> 
> Make it ANY U.S. Citizen (Female) that Prince Charles Marries, is it ok with you that his Sons would be eligible for the Presidency of the U.S., and do you think that is what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they made the Law?
> 
> Simple question.



Was he living in the united states when his son was born?  Did his son continue to live in the united states without him or did prince charles stay with his son in the usa?  Did Prince charles...rather his son have to give up usa citizenship if he were to become the next king or prince?  Did Prince Charles American wife give up her citizenship to be a Princess of England?

too many unanswered questions to give any kind of difinitive answer........

Care


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 22, 2009)

Ravi said:


> And you want us to believe your in Mensa.


do you really think it's that hard to join MENSA?
all it takes is having an IQ of 131 or higher
and just because you have a high IQ, doesn't mean you actually possess common sense
all it means is you have a higher potential to learn


----------



## Ravi (Jan 22, 2009)

Gaar said:


> Interesting that you cannot address the point...
> 
> Make it ANY U.S. Citizen (Female) that Prince Charles Marries, is it ok with you that his Sons would be eligible for the Presidency of the U.S., and do you think that is what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they made the Law?
> 
> Simple question.


Okay, let's see if you can learn. If Prince Charles has a child that is an American citizen, born in America under the requirements set forth under our laws, then he or she is eligible to run for president. Got it? Now how many years are you going to beat this dead horse?


----------



## bk1983 (Jan 22, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> do you really think it's that hard to join MENSA?
> all it takes is having an IQ of 131 or higher
> and just because you have a high IQ, doesn't mean you actually possess common sense
> *all it means is you have a higher potential to learn*



Well, judging by this thread, I wouldn't rate his "potential to learn" very high..


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 22, 2009)

bk1983 said:


> Well, judging by this thread, I wouldn't rate his "potential to learn" very high..


then you dont understand the meaning of the word "potential"


----------



## Godboy (Jan 22, 2009)

> Personally, I don't care what you believe.



Yes you do.



> do you really think it's that hard to join MENSA?
> all it takes is having an IQ of 131 or higher
> and just because you have a high IQ, doesn't mean you actually possess common sense
> all it means is you have a higher potential to learn



I have a 130 IQ and im a friggin idiot, so you shouldnt expect amazing results from people with high IQs. Having a high IQ just means that you are good at logic puzzles, for the most part. By the way, i believe a 141 IQ is required to be in MENSA, though that number tends to vary depending on where you are looking on the web.


----------



## bk1983 (Jan 22, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> then you dont understand the meaning of the word "potential"



You hear that sound? That was the sound of my post whipping past your head, of course you do have the personality of a door knob.. So I wouldn't expect you to get it..


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 22, 2009)

bk1983 said:


> You hear that sound? That was the sound of my post whipping past your head, of course you do have the personality of a door knob.. So I wouldn't expect you to get it..


you think it does, but it didnt
you failed, like usual


----------



## bk1983 (Jan 22, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> you think it does, but it didnt
> you failed, like usual



Wow, you are pathetic.. Get laid and lighten up..


----------



## Gaar (Jan 23, 2009)

Godboy said:


> By the way, i believe a 141 IQ is required to be in MENSA, though that number tends to vary depending on where you are looking on the web.



The number changes depending on the Test you took.

The basis for the number is top 2 percentile.


----------



## roomy (Jan 23, 2009)

Can anyone explain why some of these so called mensa genius's are some of the stupidest mofos you could ever meet?And why do they take pride in their idiot test scores?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 23, 2009)

roomy said:


> Can anyone explain why some of these so called mensa genius's are some of the stupidest mofos you could ever meet?And why do they take pride in their idiot test scores?



Intelligence is not common sense. Genius tend to be social inept and a lot lack basic common sense. IQ does not measure how much you know either, it measures how well you may be able to learn things. The problem here is that learning may be restricted in some way, to a single or several subjects.


----------



## roomy (Jan 23, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Intelligence is not common sense. Genius tend to be social inept and a lot lack basic common sense. IQ does not measure how much you know either, it measures how well you may be able to learn things. The problem here is that learning may be restricted in some way, to a single or several subjects.



Nope, couldn't understand a word.


----------



## Ravi (Jan 23, 2009)

roomy said:


> Can anyone explain why some of these so called mensa genius's are some of the stupidest mofos you could ever meet?And why do they take pride in their idiot test scores?


Aspergers, prolly.


----------



## Gaar (Jan 23, 2009)

roomy said:


> Can anyone explain why some of these so called mensa genius's are some of the stupidest mofos you could ever meet?And why do they take pride in their idiot test scores?



I didn't bring it up, I was simply replying to the ignorance of another poster...

Much like I am doing right now.

Imagine that.


----------



## Gaar (Jan 23, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Intelligence is not common sense. Genius tend to be social inept and a lot lack basic common sense. IQ does not measure how much you know either, it measures how well you may be able to learn things. The problem here is that learning may be restricted in some way, to a single or several subjects.



So says someone unable to address a simple premise in a discussion he SAYS is idiotic...


----------



## Gaar (Jan 23, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> The problem here is that learning may be restricted in some way, to a single or several subjects.



Scored in the Top 99 Percentile on the ASVAB.

I trust you understand that Test?


----------



## Gaar (Jan 23, 2009)

roomy said:


> Nope, couldn't understand a word.



I am not surprised.

Just as well, he was feeding you a line of Bullshit anyway...


----------



## Gaar (Jan 26, 2009)

The Suit I was hoping to be Heard was Denied today...


----------



## del (Jan 26, 2009)

Gaar said:


> The Suit I was hoping to be Heard was Denied today...



i, for one, am stunned.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 26, 2009)

del said:


> Gaar said:
> 
> 
> > The Suit I was hoping to be Heard was Denied today...
> ...


me too, i mean its not like we had any previous examples


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 27, 2009)

Gaar said:


> The Suit I was hoping to be Heard was Denied today...



And so ONCE again the Supreme Court answers your claims with a response of " This is so lame, even we won't touch it" And of course you will go on about how the Courts have done nothing even though they have done everything properly in response to a nuisance claim. Even sending it all the way to the US Supreme Court.


----------



## Gaar (Jan 27, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Gaar said:
> 
> 
> > The Suit I was hoping to be Heard was Denied today...
> ...



So now you are going to speak for me?

I am in fact dissappointed that they will not Hear the Case.

What interests me is how Idiots, like you, can't answer a simple premise I asserted, but rather rail on as if you are some type of Authority on the matter.

I still believe he is ineligible, but I also accept the Courts decision.

I also hope that someone brings a Case that they will in fact Hear, so the Issue can be addressed directly, for the purpose in which it was intended.

I would simply like the SCOTUS to address the possibility of someone like William not only being eligible for the Presidency, but also would become King of England, had his Mother been a U.S. Citizen.

I notice no one has been able to address that, other than simply dismissing it out of hand.

I like how someone who has supposedly fought for my Right to have such things addressed, would simply like me to shut up and just not care about what I believe to be true about our Constitution.

One would think if someone is so sure of what the Constitution says on the matter, then they wouldn't mind a fair airing of the Issues at hand, in regard to such decisions?!?!?!?!?

Obviously such things are not what YOU fought for...


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 27, 2009)

Gaar said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Gaar said:
> ...



It had a fair airing NUMB NUTS. The 9 Justices and the previous courts all agreed his VALID, LEGAL, BINDING, Birth Certificate took care of the case. No need for anything else.


----------



## Gaar (Jan 27, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> It had a fair airing NUMB NUTS. The 9 Justices and the previous courts all agreed his VALID, LEGAL, BINDING, Birth Certificate took care of the case. No need for anything else.



SHOW ME where they said that...

I'll wait here.

Or do YOU speak for the SCOTUS now?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 27, 2009)

Gaar said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > It had a fair airing NUMB NUTS. The 9 Justices and the previous courts all agreed his VALID, LEGAL, BINDING, Birth Certificate took care of the case. No need for anything else.
> ...



Look you dumb shit, they said it by refusing to hear the case. You had your day. The Courts functioned as required repeatedly. That you do not LIKE the out come is to fucking bad for you. I personally find the abortion decision to be much more important and much worse.


----------



## Gaar (Jan 27, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Look you dumb shit, they said it by refusing to hear the case. You had your day. The Courts functioned as required repeatedly. That you do not LIKE the out come is to fucking bad for you. I personally find the abortion decision to be much more important and much worse.



So they didn't say it...

You are just claiming they did.

I see you like speaking for the SCOTUS.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 27, 2009)

Gaar said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Look you dumb shit, they said it by refusing to hear the case. You had your day. The Courts functioned as required repeatedly. That you do not LIKE the out come is to fucking bad for you. I personally find the abortion decision to be much more important and much worse.
> ...



They sent a pretty clear message to any sane person. You ignorant retards may need a cover sheet though.


----------



## Gaar (Jan 27, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> They sent a pretty clear message to any sane person. You ignorant retards may need a cover sheet though.



Says the guy who can't even address a simple premise of the "Truth" as he believes it to be...

And has to admit that "his" idea of our Constitution means that a King of England can be Eligible to be President of the United States.

I am sure you are proud.

Just as I am sure our Founding Fathers are spinning in their Graves.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 27, 2009)

Gaar said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > They sent a pretty clear message to any sane person. You ignorant retards may need a cover sheet though.
> ...



Your Premise is wrong. First off the Son would have a Title of Prince, which as an American Citizen he could not accept with out Congressional Approval. If he chose to accept the Title of Prince and become in line for King Of England he would then be renouncing his status as a US Citizen and thus be unable to run for President.

One could argue all they want about it, but once the Boy was 18 and willingly accepted, as an adult, the Title of Prince, that act would negate his ability to run for President. He could though renounce the Title of Prince, and not take a place in that line and he would still be able to run for President.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 27, 2009)

> No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.



LII: Constitution

Article 1 Section 9.


----------



## Againsheila (Jan 30, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Gaar said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



As I understand it, they refused to hear the case, that doesn't mean the 9 justices agreed that his case is valid, it means they refused to make ANY decision on the case.


----------



## Care4all (Jan 30, 2009)

Againsheila said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Gaar said:
> ...



And what do you think the Justices did to come down with their decision to not hear it Sheila?  Do you think they did nothing and not look at the evidence leading up to them getting the case and the validity of it?

I think, since they chose to review the case....which maybe 1 in a thousand cases they choose to review, they had to review the case and all that had lead up to them deciding to review the case in the first place, and when they got the case and all the minute details of the case, they decided that the previous courts handled it appropriately and were not going to give the case a hearing before them with attorneys present ecause it was a waste of their time....  if it was a waste of their time, they would have taken the case on....that's how it works with them....at least this is how i understand it sheila...

care


----------



## jillian (Jan 30, 2009)

man, just thank her for her apparent knowledge that supercedes that of the justices of the united states and be done with it.

i mean, after all, what do the nine justices know?


----------



## Gaar (Jan 30, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Your Premise is wrong. First off the Son would have a Title of Prince, which as an American Citizen he could not accept with out Congressional Approval. If he chose to accept the Title of Prince and become in line for King Of England he would then be renouncing his status as a US Citizen and thus be unable to run for President.



Show me where the Law says any such thing...

And now you are trying to tell me we would renounce a person Citizenship if the person themself did not want to lose it?

Again, show me the Law.


----------



## Againsheila (Jan 30, 2009)

Care4all said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



They could have refused to hear the case for any number of reasons, including the fact that if they ruled that he wasn't constitutionally eligible to be president, it would cause an uproar the likes of which this country hasn't seen since the 1860's.

Believe as you wish, refusing to hear the case is the cowards way out.


----------



## Gaar (Jan 30, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> > No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Looks like that says Congress can approve such a thing, right?

It says the U.S. will not grant such a thing, but that Congress could allow someone to do it, right?


----------



## Gaar (Jan 30, 2009)

jillian said:


> man, just thank her for her apparent knowledge that supercedes that of the justices of the united states and be done with it.
> 
> i mean, after all, what do the nine justices know?



What I know is that it doesn't take all 9 Justices to make the decision...

Obviously you and several others here don't understand that.


----------



## Care4all (Jan 30, 2009)

Gaar said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > man, just thank her for her apparent knowledge that supercedes that of the justices of the united states and be done with it.
> ...



So the chief justice is the only one reviewing and making the decisions to take on cases?


----------



## Gaar (Jan 30, 2009)

Care4all said:


> Gaar said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



No.

I believe by the Rules of the Court they have to have 4 say they would Hear the Case.

But I don't profess to know the Rules completely, and there could be Cases that are allowed with less, but I have seen it stated that at least 4 were required to say yes to bring it before the Court.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 30, 2009)

Gaar said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > > No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.
> ...



It is clear, with OUT Congressional Approval one can not hold a title in a foreign Country legally as a US Citizen. Accepting such violates your citizenship. So unless Congress AGREED that a US Citizen could be Prince it won't happen. Accepting such a title would then remove one from the ability to legally run for President.

One can not be both a Prince and a President in the US.


----------



## Gaar (Jan 30, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Gaar said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...




Well, unless the Congress says you can...

By the way:

Bill Gates to get knighted - Engadget

Bill Gates to get knighted
by Peter Rojas, posted Mar 1st 2005 at 4:12PM

 Bill Gates is about to score something money can't buy (and no, it isn't your respect or a back rub from Linus Torvalds): an honorary knighthood. Queen Elizabeth is going to make him a Knight Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire in recognition of his "outstanding contribution to enterprise." You won't have to call him "Sir William" or anything like that (unless that's your thing, that is)only citizens of Britain and the British Commonwealth get that privilege.


----------



## del (Jan 30, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Gaar said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



so grace kelly and prince charles won't be getting married?



tough break for chuck


----------



## Gaar (Jan 30, 2009)

del said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Gaar said:
> ...



I guess an example to some is too hard to grasp if it has no basis in reality...

So let's try one a bit more simple, for the simple minded, shall we?

Let's say William fell in Love with say a Brittany Spears or a Jessica Simpson, got Married and had kids...

You able to draw your tiny little mind around that scenario del?


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 30, 2009)

Gaar said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...


i do believe that would be covered under the constitution
with the area for under jurisdiction


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 31, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Gaar said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...



His idiotic question was already answered, the Constitution covers it.


----------



## Gaar (Jan 31, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Gaar said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...



So?

What if the Child was Born in the U.S.?


----------



## Gaar (Jan 31, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Gaar said:
> ...



Yes it does...

It says, in fact, that it can be done.

Imagine that.


----------



## del (Jan 31, 2009)

Gaar said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



i thought you were ignoring me? let's say that this is perhaps the most stupid thread on the board, hell, in the history of the board and leave it at that, shall we? 

now go study up for your next iq test.



you're starting to give the other dufii a bad name.


----------



## Ravi (Jan 31, 2009)

I'm really getting worried now. What if Ahnold becomes King of Austria?


----------



## del (Jan 31, 2009)

Ravi said:


> I'm really getting worried now. What if Ahnold becomes King of Austria?



what if brittany becomes queen of england?
yikes!


----------



## Gaar (Jan 31, 2009)

Ravi said:


> I'm really getting worried now. What if Ahnold becomes King of Austria?



What if either of you actually had a Brain?

I will note that, instead of making a cogent argument about the Subject, you continue to rail on about this being an idiotic Thread...

Yet here many of you are making your idiotic posts.

I believe that is called Hypocrisy, which would make you a bunch of Hypocrites.

Seems I am able to 'study up' on my deductive reasoning right here on this Board, by pointing out the Hypocrisy shown by many of the posters here, including the Administrators/Moderators of this Forum.

Imagine that.


----------



## del (Jan 31, 2009)

Gaar said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > I'm really getting worried now. What if Ahnold becomes King of Austria?
> ...



it's not hypocrisy to laugh at someone making a spectacle of themselves, but please do carry on. 
oh, improper capitalization is an overcompensation usually made by the poorly educated. i guess that would be you, mensaboi.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 31, 2009)

Gaar said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Gaar said:
> ...


because they would be beholden to another principality, they would not be US Citizens
unless they reject that
the constitution was very clear about that


----------



## Gaar (Feb 1, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> because they would be beholden to another principality, they would not be US Citizens
> unless they reject that
> the constitution was very clear about that



Wasn't that same thing true of Barack Obama?

His Father was a Citizen of the UK, and therefore passed along UK Citizenship, right?


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 1, 2009)

Gaar said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > because they would be beholden to another principality, they would not be US Citizens
> ...


what country sees Obama as royalty?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Feb 1, 2009)

Gaar said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > because they would be beholden to another principality, they would not be US Citizens
> ...



The US does not reject dual citizenship. However as noted, one can NOT have a royal title unless approved by Congress and then it is "honorary" meaning not REAL. One can not be a Prince and able to run for president at the same time. Asked, answered and now getting stupid.


----------



## Gaar (Feb 1, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Gaar said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Funny.

I read it as the U.S. Congress CAN allow it, honorary or not...

Please show me where Congress approved of Bill Gates becoming an Honorary Knight?


----------

