Trump Leads Everyone In GOP Polls And Will Be The 1st Natural Born Citizen President In 8 Years

[rightwinger]

Hi, this is American patriot Steve McGarrett, a man who loves his white southern Christian heritage and culture. As a true conservative with moral values, I welcome you to another thrilling thread about a serious topic and that is returning a true Article 2 Section 1 natural born Citizen to the White House that we haven't had in 8 years. You see, the founders wanted a true red blooded natural born Citizen, a person born to two U.S. Citizen parents ensuring born sole allegiance and American values to America, so he would protect our sovereignty from foreign AND domestic enemies. What we have in the White House is someone who was born with zero allegiance to this country and someone who has no idea of American values , exceptionalism and heritage. Donald Trump elected president will restore the founders original intent to what they wanted in a president and he will fullfill that roll of qualifying for Article 2 Section 1, a Constitutional natural born Citizen as president, the only office in federal government that requires the highest subset of Citizen.

GOP Poll Trump Leads Everyone. Seriously. - Daniel Doherty

Trump is not a natural born citizen.

He was born in Jamaica. It is on his birth certificate....born in Jamaica Hospital

Yes, Jamaica Hospital in New York.

Yea...right

and you are dumb enough to believe that


Trump is a Jamaican citizen

 

[Skylar]

Hi, this is American patriot Steve McGarrett, a man who loves his white southern Christian heritage and culture. As a true conservative with moral values, I welcome you to another thrilling thread about a serious topic and that is returning a true Article 2 Section 1 natural born Citizen to the White House that we haven't had in 8 years. You see, the founders wanted a true red blooded natural born Citizen, a person born to two U.S. Citizen parents ensuring born sole allegiance and American values to America, so he would protect our sovereignty from foreign AND domestic enemies. What we have in the White House is someone who was born with zero allegiance to this country and someone who has no idea of American values , exceptionalism and heritage. Donald Trump elected president will restore the founders original intent to what they wanted in a president and he will fullfill that roll of qualifying for Article 2 Section 1, a Constitutional natural born Citizen as president, the only office in federal government that requires the highest subset of Citizen.

GOP Poll Trump Leads Everyone. Seriously. - Daniel Doherty

Wong Kim Ark says no such thing. Instead, it finds that a natural born status follows place of birth, even to aliens.

The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King's dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King.

We've done this dance before, Steven. You always, always lose. You always, always run. As you know your argument doesn't hold up.

Shall I make you abandon this thread as you have so many others?

Wong Kim Ark was affirmed only a Citizen based on the 14th Amendment and not a natural born Citizen based on Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 of the Constitution.

The courts don't agree with you.

Judge Malihi then went on to address the claims of plaintiffs Swensson and Powell that Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen because his father was not a US Citizen.

In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court. [Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). … The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. … This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive.

An appeals court doesn't trump federal law. Irrelevant

Show us federal law defining natural born status. You can't. While the judiciary has found that natural born status follows place of birth.

Good luck, Stephen.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

Hi, this is American patriot Steve McGarrett who loves his white southern Christian heritage and culture. As a true conservative with moral values, I welcome you to another thrilling thread about a serious topic and that is returning a true Article 2 Section 1 natural born Citizen to the White House that we haven't had in 8 years. You see, the founders wanted a true red blooded natural born Citizen, a person born to two U.S. Citizen parents ensuring born sole allegiance and American values to America, so he would protect our sovereignty from foreign AND domestic enemies. What we have in the White House is someone who was born with zero allegiance to this country and someone who has no idea of American values and heritage. Donald Trump elected president will restore the founders original intent to what they wanted in a president and he will fullfill that roll of qualifying for Article 2 Section 1, a Constitutional natural born Citizen as president, the only office in federal government that requires the highest subset of Citizen.

GOP Poll Trump Leads Everyone. Seriously. - Daniel Doherty

LOL.....Stevie the racist- Trump supporter- and idiot Birther.

And like clockwork, one of Obama's waterboy pro-homosexual, pro-same sex marriage disciples come to the rescue of their messiah .

Hi, this is American patriot Steve McGarrett, a man who loves his white southern Christian heritage and culture. As a true conservative with moral values, I welcome you to another thrilling thread about a serious topic and that is returning a true Article 2 Section 1 natural born Citizen to the White House that we haven't had in 8 years. You see, the founders wanted a true red blooded natural born Citizen, a person born to two U.S. Citizen parents ensuring born sole allegiance and American values to America, so he would protect our sovereignty from foreign AND domestic enemies. What we have in the White House is someone who was born with zero allegiance to this country and someone who has no idea of American values , exceptionalism and heritage. Donald Trump elected president will restore the founders original intent to what they wanted in a president and he will fullfill that roll of qualifying for Article 2 Section 1, a Constitutional natural born Citizen as president, the only office in federal government that requires the highest subset of Citizen.

GOP Poll Trump Leads Everyone. Seriously. - Daniel Doherty

Wong Kim Ark says no such thing. Instead, it finds that a natural born status follows place of birth, even to aliens.

The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King's dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King.

We've done this dance before, Steven. You always, always lose. You always, always run. As you know your argument doesn't hold up.

Shall I make you abandon this thread as you have so many others?

Wong Kim Ark was affirmed only a Citizen based on the 14th Amendment and not a natural born Citizen based on Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 of the Constitution.

Show me Wong Kim Ark saying this. Because I just quoted the ruling finding that natural born status follows place of birth, even to aliens.

Nowhere in Wong Kim Ark affirms him a 'natural born Citizen'. Nowhere in Wong Kim Ark is the term 'natural born Citizen'. You fail.

Then how, pray tell, could Wong Kim Ark was affirmed only a Citizen based on the 14th Amendment and not a natural born Citizen based on Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 of the Constitution...

....if the term 'natural born citizen' isn't anywhere in the ruling? Enjoy the corner you just painted yourself into.

And I said that the court affirmed that natural born status followed place of birth. Which, of course, they did;

The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King's dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King.

English common law is the lens through which the term 'natural born' should be gleaned, per the courts. And natural born status follows place of birth. Explicitly contrary to your claims that it follows parentage.

You lose again.

Nope. The ruling only affirms Ark a citizen.

 

[Unkotare]

LOL.....Stevie the racist- Trump supporter- and idiot Birther.

And like clockwork, one of Obama's waterboy pro-homosexual, pro-same sex marriage disciples come to the rescue of their messiah .

LOL- Stevie- I never miss the opportunity to point out that you are the face of the Republican Party-

You hate Americans if they are black or Jews or homosexuals or come from Mexico.

You are like Trump- and like Trump- you are a Birther.

Why are you so anti-American?

Why are you so anti-American?

I don't hate any Americans- you hate a large percentage of our population- based purely upon their skin color, or religion, or national origin.

Our nation was founded for free White people. Read the text of the 1790 Naturalization Act.

Our nation is not for cowardly racist weaklings like you.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.

 

[Skylar]

LOL.....Stevie the racist- Trump supporter- and idiot Birther.

And like clockwork, one of Obama's waterboy pro-homosexual, pro-same sex marriage disciples come to the rescue of their messiah .

Wong Kim Ark says no such thing. Instead, it finds that a natural born status follows place of birth, even to aliens.


We've done this dance before, Steven. You always, always lose. You always, always run. As you know your argument doesn't hold up.

Shall I make you abandon this thread as you have so many others?

Wong Kim Ark was affirmed only a Citizen based on the 14th Amendment and not a natural born Citizen based on Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 of the Constitution.

Show me Wong Kim Ark saying this. Because I just quoted the ruling finding that natural born status follows place of birth, even to aliens.

Nowhere in Wong Kim Ark affirms him a 'natural born Citizen'. Nowhere in Wong Kim Ark is the term 'natural born Citizen'. You fail.

Then how, pray tell, could Wong Kim Ark was affirmed only a Citizen based on the 14th Amendment and not a natural born Citizen based on Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 of the Constitution...

....if the term 'natural born citizen' isn't anywhere in the ruling? Enjoy the corner you just painted yourself into.

And I said that the court affirmed that natural born status followed place of birth. Which, of course, they did;

The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King's dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King.

English common law is the lens through which the term 'natural born' should be gleaned, per the courts. And natural born status follows place of birth. Explicitly contrary to your claims that it follows parentage.

You lose again.

Nope. The ruling only affirms Ark a citizen.

Says you. The court on the other hand affirmed that natural born status follows place of birth, even to aliens:

The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King's dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King.

Again, you can ignore that passage. But you can't make us ignore it.

 

[Skylar]

The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.

Then how, pray tell, could Wong Kim Ark was affirmed only a Citizen based on the 14th Amendment and not a natural born Citizen based on Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 of the Constitution...

....if the term 'natural born citizen' isn't anywhere in the ruling? Enjoy the corner you just painted yourself into.

Laughing.....keep backpedaling.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

.

And like clockwork, one of Obama's waterboy pro-homosexual, pro-same sex marriage disciples come to the rescue of their messiah .

LOL- Stevie- I never miss the opportunity to point out that you are the face of the Republican Party-

You hate Americans if they are black or Jews or homosexuals or come from Mexico.

You are like Trump- and like Trump- you are a Birther.

Why are you so anti-American?

Why are you so anti-American?

I don't hate any Americans- you hate a large percentage of our population- based purely upon their skin color, or religion, or national origin.

Our nation was founded for free White people. Read the text of the 1790 Naturalization Act.

Our nation is not for cowardly racist weaklings like you.

And not for slant eyed people either. The founders were precise in their text of the Naturalization Act of 1790, the very first legislation passed by the 1st Congress. Read it and let it soak in:

United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790(1 Stat. 103) provides the first rules to be followed by the United States in the granting of national citizenship. This law limits naturalization to immigrants who are free white persons of good character. It thus excludes American Indians, indentured servants, slaves, free blacks, and Asians.

 

[Skylar]

.

LOL- Stevie- I never miss the opportunity to point out that you are the face of the Republican Party-

You hate Americans if they are black or Jews or homosexuals or come from Mexico.

You are like Trump- and like Trump- you are a Birther.

Why are you so anti-American?

Why are you so anti-American?

I don't hate any Americans- you hate a large percentage of our population- based purely upon their skin color, or religion, or national origin.

Our nation was founded for free White people. Read the text of the 1790 Naturalization Act.

Our nation is not for cowardly racist weaklings like you.

And not for slant eyed people either. The founders were precise in their text of the Naturalization Act of 1790, the very first legislation passed by the 1st Congress. Read it and let it soak in:

United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790(1 Stat. 103) provids the first rules to be followed by the United States in the granting of national citizenship. This law limits naturalization to immigrants who are free white persons of good character. It thus excludes American Indians, indentured servants, slaves, free blacks, and Asians.

And since then we've changed the law. What's your point?

 

[Skylar]

Oh, and speaking of the Naturalization Act of 1790.....they felt it was necessary to create a law that said that children born to two US citizens abroad 'shall be considered natural born'.

Now, if natural born meant the child of two citizens, as you claim.....why the need to explicitly include those children born outside the US to two parents? And why were they only ''considered' natural born citizens?

Easy: Natural born status follows place of birth.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

Oh, and speaking of the Naturalization Act of 1790.....they felt it was necessary to create a law that said that children born to two US citizens abroad 'shall be considered natural born'.

Now, if natural born meant the child of two citizens, as you claim.....why the need to explicitly include those children born outside the US to two parents? And why were they only ''considered' natural born citizens?

Easy: Natural born status follows place of birth.

Everything is self explanatory:

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

Uh

Oh, and speaking of the Naturalization Act of 1790.....they felt it was necessary to create a law that said that children born to two US citizens abroad 'shall be considered natural born'.

Uh, that part was repealed in 1795. They realized they made a mistake.

 

[Skylar]

Oh, and speaking of the Naturalization Act of 1790.....they felt it was necessary to create a law that said that children born to two US citizens abroad 'shall be considered natural born'.

Now, if natural born meant the child of two citizens, as you claim.....why the need to explicitly include those children born outside the US to two parents? And why were they only ''considered' natural born citizens?

Easy: Natural born status follows place of birth.

Everything is self explanatory:

Then explain it. If children are automatically natural born if their parents are citizens, why did the founders create a law that recognized that children born to US citizens outside the US 'shall be considered natural born'?

Its the 1790 Naturalization Act. You've already acknowledged it exists. There's no point in ignoring it now.

And why would a child born to 2 US parents outside the US only be 'considered' natural born?

Only one explanation works: Natural born status follows place of birth. The Founders had to extend it to children born outside the US.

 

[Skylar]

Uh

Oh, and speaking of the Naturalization Act of 1790.....they felt it was necessary to create a law that said that children born to two US citizens abroad 'shall be considered natural born'.

Uh, that part was repealed in 1795. They realized they made a mistake.

And the laws regarding 'free whites' has long since been repealed. If any portion of the 1790 Naturalization Act that is no longer in effect is irrelevant.......then why are you quoting it?

 

[rdean]

Born? Or hatched?

 

[rightwinger]

Trump is ineligible to be POTUS until he provides a valid birth certificate that shows he was not born in Jamaica

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

Uh

Oh, and speaking of the Naturalization Act of 1790.....they felt it was necessary to create a law that said that children born to two US citizens abroad 'shall be considered natural born'.

Uh, that part was repealed in 1795. They realized they made a mistake.

And the laws regarding 'free whites' has long since been repealed.

Not according to Jew Mark Levin.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Hi, this is American patriot Steve McGarrett who loves his white southern Christian heritage and culture. As a true conservative with moral values, I welcome you to another thrilling thread about a serious topic and that is returning a true Article 2 Section 1 natural born Citizen to the White House that we haven't had in 8 years. You see, the founders wanted a true red blooded natural born Citizen, a person born to two U.S. Citizen parents ensuring born sole allegiance and American values to America, so he would protect our sovereignty from foreign AND domestic enemies. What we have in the White House is someone who was born with zero allegiance to this country and someone who has no idea of American values and heritage. Donald Trump elected president will restore the founders original intent to what they wanted in a president and he will fullfill that roll of qualifying for Article 2 Section 1, a Constitutional natural born Citizen as president, the only office in federal government that requires the highest subset of Citizen.

GOP Poll Trump Leads Everyone. Seriously. - Daniel Doherty

LOL.....Stevie the racist- Trump supporter- and idiot Birther.

Like my governor said, the people who support Trump say more about Trump than Trump says about Trump.

Trump is now at 81% disapproval among Hispanics. That ultimately guarantees that he can't be president, no matter what.

 

[bendog]

Hi, this is American patriot Steve McGarrett who loves his white southern Christian heritage and culture. As a true conservative with moral values, I welcome you to another thrilling thread about a serious topic and that is returning a true Article 2 Section 1 natural born Citizen to the White House that we haven't had in 8 years. You see, the founders wanted a true red blooded natural born Citizen, a person born to two U.S. Citizen parents ensuring born sole allegiance and American values to America, so he would protect our sovereignty from foreign AND domestic enemies. What we have in the White House is someone who was born with zero allegiance to this country and someone who has no idea of American values and heritage. Donald Trump elected president will restore the founders original intent to what they wanted in a president and he will fullfill that roll of qualifying for Article 2 Section 1, a Constitutional natural born Citizen as president, the only office in federal government that requires the highest subset of Citizen.

GOP Poll Trump Leads Everyone. Seriously. - Daniel Doherty

LOL.....Stevie the racist- Trump supporter- and idiot Birther.

Like my governor said, the people who support Trump say more about Trump than Trump says about Trump.

Trump is now at 81% disapproval among Hispanics. That ultimately guarantees that he can't be president, no matter what.

I too don't see how he can win a general election, because along with latinos, and lesser so blacks, the key demographic is white women, and I don't see his bombastic nature playing well.

 

[Syriusly]

Oh, and speaking of the Naturalization Act of 1790.....they felt it was necessary to create a law that said that children born to two US citizens abroad 'shall be considered natural born'.

Now, if natural born meant the child of two citizens, as you claim.....why the need to explicitly include those children born outside the US to two parents? And why were they only ''considered' natural born citizens?

Easy: Natural born status follows place of birth.

Everything is self explanatory:

The courts disagree with your batshit crazy theory


In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court. [Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). … The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. … This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive.