If Obama has no Natural Born Citizenship problem why did Congress try to fix it?

[Ray Keller]

 

http://www.coachisright.com/if-obama-has-no-natural-born-citizenship-problem-why-did-congress-try-to-fix-it/

If Obama has no Natural Born Citizenship problem why did Congress try to fix it?

By Coach Collins, on February 5th, 2012

By Suzanne Eovaldi, staff writer

Congress made eight different attempts to alter our U.S. Constitution concerning the Natural Born Citizenship Clause according to the apocalyptic video documentary done with research by Senior Pastor Carl Gallups proving they knew Barack Obama lacked presidential eligibility prior to the 2008 election! If there was no problem for Obama why would these people do this? There had never been a question of Natural Born Citizenship in our lifetimes! Why fix what wasn’t broken?

The youtube video goes on to reveal a secret, closed door meeting was held with eight Supreme Court Justices just prior to the January 2009 Inauguration that sent our other courts an unspoken message to don’t go there. Plaintiff attorneys with cases were pending at the time were not allowed into this meeting! Only Justice Samuel Allito declined to attend this secret meeting.

Here, as revealed in the Gallups video, are the eight different attempts to amend our Constitution to accommodate Obama’s eligibility questions:

1. On June 11, 2003: House Joint Resolution # 59, introduced by Rep. Vic Snyder (D-AR), failed to obtain a vote; it sought to allow non-natural born U.S. citizens, “but who have been citizens of the U.S. for at least 35 years,” to serve as President or Vice President.

2. On Sept. 3, 2003: Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) introduced HJR#67 which would have lowered to only 20 years the citizen requirement. It, too, failed to make an official vote.

3. On Feb. 25, 2004, Sen. Don Nickles (R-OK) failed in his attempt to deflect this obvious attack on our Constitution by introducing Senate Bill 2128 which failed on merit.

4. On Sept. 15, 2004, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, (R-CA), submitted House Joint Resolution 104 that required only a 20 year citizenship but no NBC status; it subsequently failed.

5. On Jan. 4, 2005, the Conyers HJR 02 failed in its attempt to push through the Rohrabacher 20 year eligibility bill.

6. On Feb. 1, 2005, Rohrabacher submitted a revised version of his 20 year citizenship requirement, (without the NBC stipulation) with HJR 15.

7. On April 14, 2005, Snyder reintroduced HJR # 42, requiring 35 years of being a U.S. citizen. Had this resolution passed, Barack Obama just barely would have been eligible in 2005.

8. On Feb. 28, 2008, Sen. Claire McCaskill, (D-MO) attempted to add language onto SB 2678, Children of the Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act, to again weaken the NBC clause. Co-sponsors of the failed legislation were Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama!. By the way, was not the John McCain eligibility hearing really a head fake to draw attention away from the Democrats’ elephant in the room?

“This is (a) 100 times worse situation (than Watergate); this is a crime against the Constitution and all the people of the U.S. Obama is not who he says he is, ” says Charles Kerckner whose eligibility lawsuit was turned down by our Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, the just announced Birthers Summit in March is taking shape as ordinary citizens continue to push forward against the Code of Silence by our Media and the refusal of redress by our elected officials. Georgia Judge Michael Malihi who was the lone judicial representative giving light to the Obama eligibility question has also run away from the issue with his ruling last Friday.

An Obama contempt of court motion was filed on docket this week for his failure to honor the judge’s order to appear, but Judge Malihi will certainly not enforce it.

Pictures of Obama waving widely to campaign crowds in Las Vegas and Colorado at the time of the Malihi hearing add to surreal nightmare posed by this outrage.

To contact your Congressional Representative use this link: http://www.contactingthecongress.org/

To learn more use these sources :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3aCfR8rmrw

http://giveusliberty1776.blogspot.com/2011/07/congress-knew-obama-was-ineligiblesix.html

http://www.birthersummit.org/register.html/

Have you answered this week’s CiR.com poll?

This day in history Feb 5

1937: Trying a usual sneaky Democrat stunt to subvert the Constitution, Franklin Roosevelt announces his plan to add six stooges to the Supreme Court who would rubber stamp his socialist agenda. It failed because the overwhelming Democrat Congress defeated it out of fear of a backlash. They were right; in 1938 they suffered huge losses at the polls.

The lesson here is that America is a center right country and those who try to force socialism down our throats do so at their own peril.

“Don’t miss our new 3 minute “audiotorial” produced by Without a Helmet: On the Line with Emmett & Wiley. Hear it now by clicking the play button on their logo on the lower right of my homepage!

In this world you may have knowledge or you may have repose, but you may not have both.

What have you done today to deserve to live in America?

[Ed Huntress]

On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 11:40:35 -0700, "Ray Keller" <DESPERATE RIGHTARD
TROLL> wrote:

>
>http://www.coachisright.com/if-obama-has-no-natural-born-citizenship-problem-why-did-congress-try-to-fix-it/
>If Obama has no Natural Born Citizenship problem why did Congress try to fix it?
>By Coach Collins, on February 5th, 2012
>
>By Suzanne Eovaldi, staff writer
>
>Congress made eight different attempts to alter our U.S. Constitution concerning the Natural Born Citizenship Clause according to the apocalyptic video documentary done with research by Senior Pastor Carl Gallups proving they knew Barack Obama lacked presidential eligibility prior to the 2008 election! If there was no problem for Obama why would these people do this? There had never been a question of Natural Born Citizenship in our lifetimes! Why fix what wasn’t broken?

>1. On June 11, 2003: House Joint Resolution # 59
>

>2. On Sept. 3, 2003: Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) introduced HJR#67
>

>3. On Feb. 25, 2004, Sen. Don Nickles (R-OK) failed in his attempt
>

>4. On Sept. 15, 2004, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, (R-CA), submitted House Joint Resolution 104
>

>5. On Jan. 4, 2005, the Conyers HJR 02 failed
>

>6. On Feb. 1, 2005, Rohrabacher submitted a revised version of his 20 year citizenship requirement,
>

>7. On April 14, 2005, Snyder reintroduced HJR # 42,
>

>8. On Feb. 28, 2008, Sen. Claire McCaskill, (D-MO) attempted to add language onto SB 2678, Children of the Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act,

Ray, look at the dates on that proposed legislation, and the
legislation itself in item 8, and then re-read the lead paragraph.

This is why your entire pitch is stupid -- probably neurotic.

>Meanwhile, the just announced Birthers Summit in March is taking shape as ordinary citizens continue to push forward against the Code of Silence by our Media and the refusal of redress by our elected officials. Georgia Judge Michael Malihi who was the lone judicial representative giving light to the Obama eligibility question has also run away from the issue with his ruling last Friday.

Because he followed the law and has more sense than the birthers.

>
>An Obama contempt of court motion was filed on docket this week for his failure to honor the judge’s order to appear, but Judge Malihi will certainly not enforce it.

Of course not. He'd get his ass reamed by a higher court for violating
the separation of powers. As Obama's attorney said, it could be
sanctionable.

>
>Pictures of Obama waving widely to campaign crowds in Las Vegas and Colorado at the time of the Malihi hearing add to surreal nightmare posed by this outrage.

The outrage was the Georgia court not throwing the case out. It has
already been tried.

<snip>

>
>The lesson here is that America is a center right country...

How can the country be "center right" when half is left of center, and
half is right of center? Do you buffoons know what "center" means?

>
>“Don’t miss our new 3 minute “audiotorial” produced by Without a Helmet:

That could be the problem. They should have kept the helmet on; it
could have saved their brains as they pounded their heads against the
wall.

--
Ed Huntress

[dca...@krl.org]

On Feb 5, 2:08 pm, Ed Huntress <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:






>
> >The lesson here is that America is a center right country...
>
> How can the country be "center right" when half is left of center, and
> half is right of center? Do you buffoons know what "center" means?
>

> --
> Ed Huntress

So you are saying the center is the median not the mean? Although
there is some good things about using the Mode as the center.

Dan

[Eddie Haskell]

"Kirby Grant" <KGr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:JgQXq.33787$N_7....@news.usenetserver.com...

>> << Attached file: 14.htm (11,092 bytes) >>
>
> Of course you realize that birthers have lost every argument every time.
> Why
> is that you might act? Well, simply put, losers lose because they are
> losers. They can't win. That is part of their loser nature. If they were
> to
> win even one case then perhaps they woudln't be losers. But they have a
> score of being losers 100% of the time. So I guess that does make them
> perfect losers.
>
> I just wonder what they will be with their lives when President Obama
> leaves
> office in January 2017? Eventually their antics will probably be recorded
> in
> history books, but those books will point out that the birthers were
> losers
> right from the start and remained losers until the end. Losers will always
> be losers.

So Grant, you never did tell us. Why do you favor the cowardly method of
killing high value terrorists with drone strikes instead of capturing and
interrogating them for information the way Bush did? Why don't you care
about all the information that is being lost and will hamper our ability to
fight terrorism in the future? When are you going to thank Bush for making
it possible to get bin Laden and other high value terrorists during Hussein
all the while you screamed bloody murder about the methods that are
benefiting him? Why can't Hussein ever act in the national interest instead
of his own?

"President Obama is taking military action sub rosa instead of fighting
battles. Instead of the cowboy approach of Dubya who blabbed all over the
world that "shock and awe" would be occurring, President Obama quietly has
a
SEAL team sneak into Pakistan and take out Bin Ladin and only when our
personnel are safely out of the country do they say "by the way, we got a
bad guy last night"."

-Kirby Grant, Lauding the killing of high value targets as opposed to
capturing and interrogating them, Thursday, January 26, 2012 3:27 PM.


"High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were
used and provided a deeper understanding" of Al Qaeda.

-Dennis Blair, Obama's own national intelligence director

"As late as 2006, fully half of the government's knowledge about the
structure and activities of Al Qaeda came from those interrogations."

-Michael Hayden, Bush's last CIA director, and former Attorney General
Michael Mukasey

"I know that this program has saved lives. I know we've disrupted plots. I
know this program alone is worth more than [what] the FBI, the [CIA], and
the National Security Agency put together have been able to tell us."

-George Tenet

"Today, I am slack-jawed to read that members claim to have not understood
that the techniques on which they were briefed were to actually be employed;
or that specific techniques such as "waterboarding" were never mentioned. It
must be hard for most Americans of common sense to imagine how a member of
Congress can forget being told about the interrogations of Sept. 11
mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed. In that case, though, perhaps it is not
amnesia but political expedience."

-Porter Goss, former CIA director

"This agency does not do torture. Torture does not work"

-Porter Goss, former CIA director

"From 2002 through 2006 when the use of these techniques ended, the
leadership of the CIA repeatedly reported their activities both to Executive
Branch policymakers and to members of Congress, and received permission to
continue to use the techniques."

-Dennis Blair - National intelligence director under Barak Obama

-Eddie Haskell

[Eddie Haskell]

"Kirby Grant" <KGr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:X2TXq.219445$IC2.1...@news.usenetserver.com...

> So Eddie, you've never told us why you try to change the subject whenever
> you get backed into a corner

Why do you run when I back you into a corner by claiming that I changed the
subject after you said nothing?

> on something where you've been proven to be a
> liar. This thread is about how birthers are losers. You are one of them.
> Changing the subject only confirms that you prefer to be thought of as a
> losers. Be a man. Admit that the birther ideas are totally wrong. Real men
> have have doing this for years. Of course, children are generally exempt,
> and you seem to be in that category - mentally as well as physically.

"So, since our little, bitty Eddie is among the numbers of the birthers"

-Kirby Grant, Saturday, February 04, 2012 12:04 PM

"Cite?"

-Eddie Haskell, Monday, February 06, 2012 8:50 AM

Kirby Grant:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQFEY9RIRJA

-Eddie Haskell

[Delvin Benet]

On 2/6/2012 5:07 AM, Kirby Grant wrote:
> [crapola erased]

Of course, Obama *isn't* a natural born citizen. As Minor v. Happersett
held, a natural born citizen is someone born to parents *BOTH* of whom
are citizens of the country. Obama's Kenyan father was a British
subject at the time of Obama's birth.

[Delvin Benet]

On 2/6/2012 8:17 AM, Kirby Grant wrote:
> [...]

>
> So Eddie, you've never told us why you try to change the subject whenever

> you get backed into a corner on something where you've been proven to be a

> liar. This thread is about how birthers are losers.

No, the thread originally was about why all the frantic congressional
effort to "fix" things for Barry Soetoro if there isn't an actual issue
regarding his birth.

In fact, due to the status of Barry's Kenyan born father as a British
subject at the time of Barry's birth, Barry is not a natural born citizen.

[Sid9]

"Delvin Benet" <DB@nbc.nýt> wrote in message
news:xcidna28S60pl63S...@giganews.com...

This thread is proof positive that Republicans have nothing to use in
campaigning against Obama

[Delvin Benet]

On 2/6/2012 9:21 AM, Deucalion wrote:

> Mc Cain wasn't born in the Panama Canal Zone and Romney's father was a
> Mexican citizen.

You mean Mc Cain *was* born in the Canal Zone. However, he was born to
two American citizen parents, and he was a citizen at birth.

George Romney was born in Mexico, but he was an American citizen.

[Ed Huntress]

On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 09:15:31 -0800, Delvin Benet <DB@nbc.nýt> wrote:

>On 2/6/2012 8:17 AM, Kirby Grant wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>> So Eddie, you've never told us why you try to change the subject whenever
>> you get backed into a corner on something where you've been proven to be a
>> liar. This thread is about how birthers are losers.
>
>No, the thread originally was about why all the frantic congressional
>effort to "fix" things for Barry Soetoro if there isn't an actual issue
>regarding his birth.

No, it was a faud. Most of that proposed legislation was submitted
before 2005. Several were initiated by Republicans, as you would have
noted if you actually read them.

They were trying to get Ahhhhnold, then the Republicans' favorite
Austrian on the ballot, not Obama.

And the one submitted in 2008 was about children of military employees
and soldiers. That was intended to clear the way for John McCain, who
had a bigger problem of eligibility than Obama.

So the thread started with a series of lies.

>
>In fact, due to the status of Barry's Kenyan born father as a British
>subject at the time of Barry's birth, Barry is not a natural born citizen.

That's the opinion of ignorant birthers. It's not true at all. If you
think it's in the 14th Amendment, as many birthers do, that's because
you haven't looked into the international law they're supposedly
referring to. Obama's father was "under the jurisdiction" of the
United States while he was in the United States. See Supreme Court
cases US v. Wong Kim Ark and Plyler v. Doe.

Start over. Read those stupid birther claims with skepticism. If you
need help with any of it, there are a few people here who can help you
understand it.

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 09:12:59 -0800, Delvin Benet <DB@nbc.nýt> wrote:

>On 2/6/2012 5:07 AM, Kirby Grant wrote:
>> [crapola erased]
>
>Of course, Obama *isn't* a natural born citizen. As Minor v. Happersett
>held, a natural born citizen is someone born to parents *BOTH* of whom
>are citizens of the country.

You did not read Minor v. Happersett, or you don't understand the
meaning of "obiter dicta." Which is it?

Every time the birthers bring up Minor, the courts throw out the case.
Why do you suppose that is? See paragraph above.

> Obama's Kenyan father was a British
>subject at the time of Obama's birth.

It doesn't matter.

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

Maybe. Tribe and Olson gave an informal, bipartisan legal opinion that
he is, but it never got to court. Actually, there were lawsuits about
it but they, too, never were heard by a court.

So McCaskill rammed a nonbinding agreement through the Senate so
McCain would have at least that backing. But it wasn't a
constitutional decision. It wasn't even legislation.

The question still has not been decided by the courts.

>
>George Romney was born in Mexico, but he was an American citizen.

No, he was not. His parents had dual citizenship, but he was a Mexican
citizen.

If the case had ever come to court, it would have been decided for the
first time. But it never got to court, so the question of whether he
acquired US citizenship by being born to dual-citizenship parents has
never been decided. Unlike Obama, and unlike Wong Kim Ark, Romney was
not born in the United States.

You've really sucked up a lot of Kool-Aid, Delvin.

--
Ed Huntress

[Delvin Benet]

On 2/6/2012 9:38 AM, Kirby Grant wrote:

> That argument has been decided a long time ago. By virtue of being born in a
> state of the United States, a person is a natural born citizen regardless of
> the citizenship of his/her parents.

Nope - that establishes a *native* born citizen, which is not the same
thing as a natural born citizen. The whole idea of natural born
citizenship is to eliminate all question of conflicted allegiance.
*Both* of a person's parents must be citizens - even if naturalized - in
order for a person to be natural born.

Read Minor v. Happersett before running your yap. The holding on
natural born citizenship gives legal definition to the term.

[George Plimpton]

On 2/6/2012 9:40 AM, Kirby Grant wrote:
> On 6-Feb-2012, Deucalion<som...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
>> X-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2012 17:21:38 UTC (s03-b25.iad)

>>
>> On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 09:12:59 -0800, Delvin Benet<DB@nbc.nýt> wrote:
>>

>> Mc Cain wasn't born in the Panama Canal Zone and Romney's father was a

>> Mexican citizen. Romney even played up that fact in the Florida
>> debates. Yet, the you don't hear a peep out of the birthers about
>> that fact. Now, what is the real reason that birthers are so
>> selective about who enforcement of their law that isn't a law? It
>> isn't because he is a black Democrat is it?
>
> Isn't the answer to that something along the lines that Romney and McCain
> are both Republicans and white whereas President Obama is a Democrat and
> black?

The raw bigotry of the leftist jumps front and center yet again.

[CanopyCo]

Because they were trying to get Arnold in, but they failed so they ran
Obama instead.
;-)

Couldn’t you find a more creditable source for your idiocy then this.

A better question that you idiots should ask is if Obama wasn’t
qualified to run, why did the Republican government in charge allow
him to run in the first place?

Idiot.

[Delvin Benet]

On 2/6/2012 9:41 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 09:12:59 -0800, Delvin Benet<DB@nbc.nýt> wrote:
>
>> On 2/6/2012 5:07 AM, Kirby Grant wrote:
>>> [crapola erased]
>>
>> Of course, Obama *isn't* a natural born citizen. As Minor v. Happersett
>> held, a natural born citizen is someone born to parents *BOTH* of whom
>> are citizens of the country.
>
> You did not read Minor v. Happersett, or you don't understand the
> meaning of "obiter dicta." Which is it?

Neither. It is not obiter dicta, you fuckwit - it is *holding*. A
subsequent decision, Ex Parte Lockwood, *explicitly* acknowledges that
Happersett's language on citizenship is holding, not dicta.

You don't know what constitutes holding and what is dicta. In fact, you
don't know your ass from your face.

[Eddie Haskell]

"Kirby Grant" <KGr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:aeUXq.163915$624....@news.usenetserver.com...

>
> On 6-Feb-2012, Delvin Benet <DB@nbc.nýt> wrote:
>

> Yet, incredibly, stupid people just plain like to be stupid people and
> continue with this grand stupidity just because they are stupid people.

As pristine an example of projection as yet seen in the annals of man.

Eddie Haskell: At any rate, you obviously believe that he [Hussein] was born
in the US.

Kirby Grant: I don't believe that at all. I know that he was born in Hawaii.

-Monday, December 12, 2011 3:31 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Rav9ijyyZk

-Eddie Haskell

[Ed Huntress]

On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 10:04:08 -0800, Delvin Benet <DB@nbc.nýt> wrote:

>On 2/6/2012 9:38 AM, Kirby Grant wrote:
>> On 6-Feb-2012, Delvin Benet<DB@nbc.nýt> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/6/2012 8:17 AM, Kirby Grant wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> So Eddie, you've never told us why you try to change the subject
>>>> whenever
>>>> you get backed into a corner on something where you've been proven to be
>>>> a
>>>> liar. This thread is about how birthers are losers.
>>>
>>> No, the thread originally was about why all the frantic congressional
>>> effort to "fix" things for Barry Soetoro if there isn't an actual issue
>>> regarding his birth.
>>>
>>> In fact, due to the status of Barry's Kenyan born father as a British
>>> subject at the time of Barry's birth, Barry is not a natural born citizen.
>>
>> That argument has been decided a long time ago. By virtue of being born in a
>> state of the United States, a person is a natural born citizen regardless of
>> the citizenship of his/her parents.
>
>Nope - that establishes a *native* born citizen, which is not the same
>thing as a natural born citizen.

Nope. Two courts -- the Indiana Court of Appeals, and the Georgia
administrative court that just heard the case over the past two weeks,
have decided it IS the same thing.

No court ruling has contradicted it, so the birthers are on the short
end of that legal stick, as they are with the others.

> The whole idea of natural born
>citizenship is to eliminate all question of conflicted allegiance.
>*Both* of a person's parents must be citizens - even if naturalized - in
>order for a person to be natural born.

Nope. See the references in the Indiana ruling (Ankeny v. Daniels -
2011) and in US v. Wong Kim Ark (USSC - 1898). The preponderance of
evidence is that, at the time the Constitution was written, the common
law understanding of "natural born" included anyone born within a
jursdiction, including the United States.

>
>Read Minor v. Happersett before running your yap.

Here's the part of Minor that you probably haven't read, because the
birthers generally snip it out:

"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."

It did not bear on the case, which was about the right to vote, not
about the qualifications to be president. When a court makes a
statement that doesn't bear on the case at hand, it's called obiter
dicta. You can look that one up.

But the Court itself said it wasn't deciding the issue. So it barely
qualifies even as obiter dicta. The Court did not consider the issue
at all.

To state that there's never been a question about citizens born in the
US of US-citizen parents is almost a tautology In other words, "no
shit, Sherlock."

> The holding on
>natural born citizenship gives legal definition to the term.

Nope. It only states one condition that qualifies, and then it states
that it won't decide about other conditions. For example, they never
even brought up situations like those of George Romney or John McCain.

--
Ed Huntress

[Eddie Haskell]

"Kirby Grant" <KGr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:kgUXq.43705$4k3....@news.usenetserver.com...

>
> On 6-Feb-2012, Deucalion <som...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
>> X-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2012 17:21:38 UTC (s03-b25.iad)
>>

>> Mc Cain wasn't born in the Panama Canal Zone and Romney's father was a
>> Mexican citizen. Romney even played up that fact in the Florida
>> debates. Yet, the you don't hear a peep out of the birthers about
>> that fact. Now, what is the real reason that birthers are so
>> selective about who enforcement of their law that isn't a law? It
>> isn't because he is a black Democrat is it?
>
> Isn't the answer to that something along the lines that Romney and McCain
> are both Republicans and white whereas President Obama is a Democrat and

> black? Ultimately that's the real reason for the controversy. Republicans
> would never raise the issue of eligiblity for their own candidates.

That's because McCain and Romney are Americans while Hussein is an racist
anti-American Keynesian.

White man's greed runs a world in need.

Goddamn America.

-Eddie Haskell

[Eddie Haskell]

"Kirby Grant" <KGr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:aeUXq.163915$624....@news.usenetserver.com...

>
> On 6-Feb-2012, Delvin Benet <DB@nbc.nýt> wrote:
>

> Yet, incredibly, stupid people just plain like to be stupid people and
> continue with this grand stupidity just because they are stupid people.

Kirby Grant commenting on Hussein's right to comment on how military
operations are performed:

"People who have never served have no right at all to comment on how
military operations are performed."

-Kirby Grant, Thursday, January 26, 2012 3:27 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Rav9ijyyZk

-Eddie Haskell

[Eddie Haskell]

"George Plimpton" <geo...@si.not> wrote in message
news:Zt6dnbqlb83Di63S...@giganews.com...

Hussein is a the light-skinned Negro with no Negro dialect, but a few years
ago the guy would have been getting us a cup of coffee.

-Eddie Haskell

[Josh]

On 2/6/2012 1:04 PM, Delvin Benet wrote:
> On 2/6/2012 9:38 AM, Kirby Grant wrote:

Not according to:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/80417613/Farrar-Welden-Swensson-Powell-v-Obama-Judge-Malihi-Final-Decision-Georgia-Ballot-Challenge-2-3-2012

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf

[Delvin Benet]

On 2/6/2012 9:57 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 09:31:41 -0800, Delvin Benet<DB@nbc.nýt> wrote:
>
>> On 2/6/2012 9:21 AM, Deucalion wrote:
>>> On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 09:12:59 -0800, Delvin Benet<DB@nbc.nýt> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/6/2012 5:07 AM, Kirby Grant wrote:
>>>>> [crapola erased]
>>>>
>>>> Of course, Obama *isn't* a natural born citizen. As Minor v. Happersett
>>>> held, a natural born citizen is someone born to parents *BOTH* of whom
>>>> are citizens of the country. Obama's Kenyan father was a British
>>>> subject at the time of Obama's birth.
>>>
>>> Mc Cain wasn't born in the Panama Canal Zone and Romney's father was a
>>> Mexican citizen.
>>
>> You mean Mc Cain *was* born in the Canal Zone. However, he was born to
>> two American citizen parents, and he was a citizen at birth.
>
> Maybe.

No "maybe" about it. Under the citizenship law in effect at the time,
children born abroad to American citizens who had resided in the US were
citizens at birth. Both McCain's parents were American citizens born in
the US and had resided in the US as adults. McCain was born a citizen.

>>
>> George Romney was born in Mexico, but he was an American citizen.
>
> No, he was not. His parents had dual citizenship, but he was a Mexican
> citizen.

George Romney was in exactly the same situation as McCain, and was born
a citizen. His parents both were born in the US, and resided in the US
prior to relocating to Mexico. They never relinquished their American
citizenship, and they never acquired Mexican citizenship. As a child
born abroad to American citizen parents who were entitled to pass on
their citizenship to their children, George Romney was born a US
citizen. You are wrong, and don't know what you're talking about.

[Delvin Benet]

On 2/6/2012 10:31 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 10:04:08 -0800, Delvin Benet<DB@nbc.nýt> wrote:
>
>> On 2/6/2012 9:38 AM, Kirby Grant wrote:
>>> On 6-Feb-2012, Delvin Benet<DB@nbc.nýt> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/6/2012 8:17 AM, Kirby Grant wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>> So Eddie, you've never told us why you try to change the subject
>>>>> whenever
>>>>> you get backed into a corner on something where you've been proven to be
>>>>> a
>>>>> liar. This thread is about how birthers are losers.
>>>>
>>>> No, the thread originally was about why all the frantic congressional
>>>> effort to "fix" things for Barry Soetoro if there isn't an actual issue
>>>> regarding his birth.
>>>>
>>>> In fact, due to the status of Barry's Kenyan born father as a British
>>>> subject at the time of Barry's birth, Barry is not a natural born citizen.
>>>
>>> That argument has been decided a long time ago. By virtue of being born in a
>>> state of the United States, a person is a natural born citizen regardless of
>>> the citizenship of his/her parents.
>>
>> Nope - that establishes a *native* born citizen, which is not the same
>> thing as a natural born citizen.
>
> Nope. Two courts -- the Indiana Court of Appeals, and the Georgia
> administrative court that just heard the case over the past two weeks,
> have decided it IS the same thing.

State courts, not making a binding decision on the US Constitution.
Cute, eddie.

>> The whole idea of natural born
>> citizenship is to eliminate all question of conflicted allegiance.
>> *Both* of a person's parents must be citizens - even if naturalized - in
>> order for a person to be natural born.
>
> Nope.

Yep.

>> Read Minor v. Happersett before running your yap.
>
> Here's the part of Minor that you probably haven't read, because the
> birthers generally snip it out:
>
> "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 [*plural*] within the jurisdiction

> are themselves citizens."
>
> It did not bear on the case

It *absolutely* bore on the case, you fucking Marxist cretin. Minor was
suing on the basis that she was a citizen and therefore entitled to
vote. In order to make a ruling that being a citizen did not, /per se/,
confer an inherent right to vote under the Constitution, *first* the
court had to hold - *hold* - that she was a citizen. The court's
writing on citizenship is holding, you fucking charlatan.

[George Plimpton]

Uh-oh - now Kirby is going to call you a racist.

[Eddie Haskell]

"George Plimpton" <geo...@si.not> wrote in message

news:m-WdnXwRXYFMvq3S...@giganews.com...

And post two or three paragraphs saying nothing.

-Eddie Haskell

[Ed Huntress]

On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 10:28:42 -0800, Delvin Benet <DB@nbc.nýt> wrote:

>On 2/6/2012 9:41 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>> On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 09:12:59 -0800, Delvin Benet<DB@nbc.nýt> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/6/2012 5:07 AM, Kirby Grant wrote:
>>>> [crapola erased]
>>>
>>> Of course, Obama *isn't* a natural born citizen. As Minor v. Happersett
>>> held, a natural born citizen is someone born to parents *BOTH* of whom
>>> are citizens of the country.
>>
>> You did not read Minor v. Happersett, or you don't understand the
>> meaning of "obiter dicta." Which is it?
>
>Neither. It is not obiter dicta, you fuckwit - it is *holding*.

Oh, Jesus. Save yourself some embarrassment, find a legal dictionary,
ande look up "holding" and "obiter dicta."

A holding is "That part of the written opinion of a court in which the
law is specifically applied to the facts of the instant controversy..A
holding is distinguishable from dicta, which is language in the
opinion relating some observation or example that may be illustrative,
but which is not part of the court's judgment in the case."

"The instant controversy," was about the voting eligibility of
Virginia Minor -- her citizenship, not her eligibility to run for
president.

The dicta is the Court's comment about "natural-born," of which the
Court said: "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."

That means that the Court's comments about natural-born do not bear on
the case, and therefor are dicta.

> A
>subsequent decision, Ex Parte Lockwood, *explicitly* acknowledges that
>Happersett's language on citizenship is holding, not dicta.

Yes, on CITIZENSHIP. Not on eligibility to be president.

>
>You don't know what constitutes holding and what is dicta. In fact, you
>don't know your ass from your face.

You're trying to b.s. the wrong guy, Delvin. But if you're going to be
insulting, keep it up.

'Been reading Donofrio, have you? <g>

--
Ed Huntress

[Delvin Benet]

On 2/6/2012 11:13 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 10:28:42 -0800, Delvin Benet<DB@nbc.nýt> wrote:
>
>> On 2/6/2012 9:41 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>> On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 09:12:59 -0800, Delvin Benet<DB@nbc.nýt> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/6/2012 5:07 AM, Kirby Grant wrote:
>>>>> [crapola erased]
>>>>
>>>> Of course, Obama *isn't* a natural born citizen. As Minor v. Happersett
>>>> held, a natural born citizen is someone born to parents *BOTH* of whom
>>>> are citizens of the country.
>>>
>>> You did not read Minor v. Happersett, or you don't understand the
>>> meaning of "obiter dicta." Which is it?
>>
>> Neither. It is not obiter dicta, you fuckwit - it is *holding*.
>
> Oh, Jesus. Save yourself some embarrassment, find a legal dictionary,
> ande look up "holding" and "obiter dicta."

Go fuck yourself, non-lawyer eddie - you don't lecture me about the law.

> A holding is "That part of the written opinion of a court in which the
> law is specifically applied to the facts of the instant controversy..A
> holding is distinguishable from dicta, which is language in the
> opinion relating some observation or example that may be illustrative,
> but which is not part of the court's judgment in the case."
>
> "The instant controversy," was about the voting eligibility of
> Virginia Minor -- her citizenship, not her eligibility to run for
> president.

Jesus fucking christ, eddie: the case wasn't about presidential
eligibility, but it *was*, in part, about citizenship, and presidential
eligibility *also* is based on the nature of the putative candidate's
citizenship.

>> A
>> subsequent decision, Ex Parte Lockwood, *explicitly* acknowledges that
>> Happersett's language on citizenship is holding, not dicta.
>
> Yes, on CITIZENSHIP. Not on eligibility to be president.

eddie, you stupid cunt - you said that Happersett's statements on
citizenship were dicta. Now you're admitting they were holding. Which
is it, eddie?

They were holding, eddie. They gave legal meaning to the term "natural
born citizen." Nice concession, eddie, you fucking chump.

This is all pertinent now because it is an article of faith among
Obamaphiles that "natural born citizen" is undefined. It *isn't*
undefined, eddie - the court stated the definition in Happersett, and
subsequent decisions, including Ex Parte Lockwood and Wong Kim Ark,
*RECOGNIZED* that it was holding.

>> You don't know what constitutes holding and what is dicta. In fact, you
>> don't know your ass from your face.
>
> You're trying to b.s. the wrong guy,

No, non-lawyer eddie, I'm not trying to b.s. anyone.

[Ed Huntress]

That's right, not binding. But likely to be cited if the case should
ever go higher.

Meantime, you have NOTHING on your side. No other cases, no precedent
-- nada. You don't even have the dicta in Minor, because the Court
said it wasn't deciding that issue.

The Indiana case was well-reasoned. It won't go away, Delvin.

>
>
>>> The whole idea of natural born
>>> citizenship is to eliminate all question of conflicted allegiance.
>>> *Both* of a person's parents must be citizens - even if naturalized - in
>>> order for a person to be natural born.
>>
>> Nope.
>
>Yep.

Cites?

>
>
>>> Read Minor v. Happersett before running your yap.
>>
>> Here's the part of Minor that you probably haven't read, because the
>> birthers generally snip it out:
>>
>> "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 [*plural*] within the jurisdiction
>> are themselves citizens."
>>
>> It did not bear on the case
>
>It *absolutely* bore on the case, you fucking Marxist cretin. Minor was
>suing on the basis that she was a citizen and therefore entitled to
>vote. In order to make a ruling that being a citizen did not, /per se/,
>confer an inherent right to vote under the Constitution, *first* the
>court had to hold - *hold* - that she was a citizen. The court's
>writing on citizenship is holding, you fucking charlatan.

Ah, the Court decided she was a citizen. It explicitly said that it
was not deciding the question of "natural born." See above.

If you won't even read the plain English of Minor v. Happersett, we
aren't gonig to get very far here. You're locked into some kind of
selective-attention syndrome.

--
Ed Huntress

[Delvin Benet]

Right.

> Meantime, you have NOTHING on your side. No other cases, no precedent
> -- nada.

That's wrong, of course. There is the precedent of Happersett, and
several subsequent decisions acknowledging it as such.

You fucking moron: what it said it wasn't resolving was the doubts
about the *basic* citizenship of children born to aliens. It did *not*
explicitly say that it wasn't deciding the question of "natural born."
You're really not a very inventive liar, eddie. Are you ever going to
stop lying, eddie? You really should stop, because you blow at it.

> If you won't even read the plain English of Minor v. Happersett

I did, non-lawyer left-wing polemicist eddie.

Why don't you just come out of the closet, eddie, and give up on that
risible claim that you're a "Republican" and not an ardent left-winger?

[Ed Huntress]

On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 10:56:58 -0800, Delvin Benet <DB@nbc.nýt> wrote:

>On 2/6/2012 9:57 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>> On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 09:31:41 -0800, Delvin Benet<DB@nbc.nýt> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/6/2012 9:21 AM, Deucalion wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 09:12:59 -0800, Delvin Benet<DB@nbc.nýt> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2/6/2012 5:07 AM, Kirby Grant wrote:
>>>>>> [crapola erased]
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course, Obama *isn't* a natural born citizen. As Minor v. Happersett
>>>>> held, a natural born citizen is someone born to parents *BOTH* of whom
>>>>> are citizens of the country. Obama's Kenyan father was a British
>>>>> subject at the time of Obama's birth.
>>>>
>>>> Mc Cain wasn't born in the Panama Canal Zone and Romney's father was a
>>>> Mexican citizen.
>>>
>>> You mean Mc Cain *was* born in the Canal Zone. However, he was born to
>>> two American citizen parents, and he was a citizen at birth.
>>
>> Maybe.
>
>No "maybe" about it. Under the citizenship law in effect at the time,
>children born abroad to American citizens who had resided in the US were
>citizens at birth.

No problemo with "citizens at birth." But the birthers generally don't
accept that as being equivalent to "natural born." They've gone to
great lengths to distinguish the two. Of course, they're a little
nuts.

And, as you imply, they lose. The same applies to "native born." Even
Minor v. Happersett equates "native born" with "natural born," and
Wong Kim Ark is precedential on the issue of "native born."

> Both McCain's parents were American citizens born in
>the US and had resided in the US as adults. McCain was born a citizen.
>
>
>>>
>>> George Romney was born in Mexico, but he was an American citizen.
>>
>> No, he was not. His parents had dual citizenship, but he was a Mexican
>> citizen.
>
>George Romney was in exactly the same situation as McCain,

No, he was not. His parents were not in the military, nor in any other
service of the United States.

Romney's camp relied on an act of Congress from 1790, which declared
that such people were "natural-born." He was definitely a citizen of
Mexico, and probably a citizen of the United States. It certainly
would be a key issue in a court case, and the courts probably would
accept his US citizenship. But the act has never been tested on
constitutional grounds.

Personally, although there remains some uncertainty in all of it, I
think that any respectable court would find George Romney, John
McCain, and Barack Obama all eligible under historical understandings
of the term "natural-born."

> and was born
>a citizen. His parents both were born in the US, and resided in the US
>prior to relocating to Mexico. They never relinquished their American
>citizenship, and they never acquired Mexican citizenship. As a child
>born abroad to American citizen parents who were entitled to pass on
>their citizenship to their children, George Romney was born a US
>citizen. You are wrong, and don't know what you're talking about.

I know what I'm talking about, Delvin. What's at issue here is how
much YOU know about what you're talking about.

Calling the dicta in Minor a "holding" is not encouraging. The case
wasn't even about the question of being native-born. So there is no
holding in that regard.

--
Ed Huntress

[Delvin Benet]

> Read every single court decision that has been rendered on this matter. They
> universally say that birthers are wrong and

Cite *any* that address the meaning of natural born citizenship in the
context of Barry Soetoro.

I'll wait.

[Too_Many_Tools]

On Feb 6, 7:07 am, "Kirby Grant" <KGr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On  5-Feb-2012, "Ray Keller" <LEFTARD TROLLS ARE DESPERATE> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >http://www.coachisright.com/if-obama-has-no-natural-born-citizenship-...
> > If Obama has no Natural Born Citizenship problem why did Congress try to
> > fix it?
> > By Coach Collins, on February 5th, 2012
>
> > By Suzanne Eovaldi, staff writer
>
> > Congress made eight different attempts to alter our U.S. Constitution
> > concerning the Natural Born Citizenship Clause according to the
> > apocalyptic video documentary done with research by Senior Pastor Carl
> > Gallups proving they knew Barack Obama lacked presidential eligibility
> > prior to the 2008 election! If there was no problem for Obama why would
> > these people do this? There had never been a question of Natural Born
> > Citizenship in our lifetimes! Why fix what wasn’t broken?
>
> > The youtube video goes on to reveal a secret, closed door meeting was held
> > with eight Supreme Court Justices just prior to the January 2009
> > Inauguration that sent our other courts an unspoken message to don’t go
> > there. Plaintiff attorneys with cases were pending at the time were not
> > allowed into this meeting! Only Justice Samuel Allito declined to attend
> > this secret meeting.
>
> > Here, as revealed in the Gallups video, are the eight different attempts
> > to amend our Constitution to accommodate Obama’s eligibility questions:
>
> > 1. On June 11, 2003: House Joint Resolution # 59, introduced by Rep. Vic
> > Snyder (D-AR), failed to obtain a vote; it sought to allow non-natural
> > born U.S. citizens, “but who have been citizens of the U.S. for at least
> > 35 years,” to serve as President or Vice President.
>
> > 2. On Sept. 3, 2003: Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) introduced HJR#67 which
> > would have lowered to only 20 years the citizen requirement. It, too,
> > failed to make an official vote.
>
> > 3. On Feb. 25, 2004, Sen. Don Nickles (R-OK) failed in his attempt to
> > deflect this obvious attack on our Constitution by introducing Senate Bill
> > 2128 which failed on merit.
>
> > 4. On Sept. 15, 2004, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, (R-CA), submitted House Joint
> > Resolution 104 that required only a 20 year citizenship but no NBC status;
> > it subsequently failed.
>
> > 5. On Jan. 4, 2005, the Conyers HJR 02 failed in its attempt to push
> > through the Rohrabacher 20 year eligibility bill.
>
> > 6. On Feb. 1, 2005, Rohrabacher submitted a revised version of his 20 year
> > citizenship requirement, (without the NBC stipulation) with HJR 15.
>
> > 7. On April 14, 2005, Snyder reintroduced HJR # 42, requiring 35 years of
> > being a U.S. citizen. Had this resolution passed, Barack Obama just barely
> > would have been eligible in 2005.
>
> > 8. On Feb. 28, 2008, Sen. Claire McCaskill, (D-MO) attempted to add
> > language onto SB 2678, Children of the Military Families Natural Born
> > Citizen Act, to again weaken the NBC clause. Co-sponsors of the failed
> > legislation were Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama!. By the way, was not
> > the John McCain eligibility hearing really a head fake to draw attention
> > away from the Democrats’ elephant in the room?
>
> > “This is (a) 100 times worse situation (than Watergate); this is a crime
> > against the Constitution and all the people of the U.S. Obama is not who
> > he says he is, ” says Charles Kerckner whose eligibility lawsuit was
> > turned down by our Supreme Court.
>
> > Meanwhile, the just announced Birthers Summit in March is taking shape as
> > ordinary citizens continue to push forward against the Code of Silence by
> > our Media and the refusal of redress by our elected officials. Georgia
> > Judge Michael Malihi who was the lone judicial representative giving light
> > to the Obama eligibility question has also run away from the issue with
> > his ruling last Friday.
>
> > An Obama contempt of court motion was filed on docket this week for his
> > failure to honor the judge’s order to appear, but Judge Malihi will
> > certainly not enforce it.
>
> > Pictures of Obama waving widely to campaign crowds in Las Vegas and
> > Colorado at the time of the Malihi hearing add to surreal nightmare posed
> > by this outrage.
>
> > To contact your Congressional Representative use this link:
> >http://www.contactingthecongress.org/
>
> > To learn more use these sources :
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3aCfR8rmrw
>
> >http://giveusliberty1776.blogspot.com/2011/07/congress-knew-obama-was...
>
> >http://www.birthersummit.org/register.html/
>
> > Have you answered this week’s CiR.com poll?
>
> > This day in history Feb 5
>
> > 1937: Trying a usual sneaky Democrat stunt to subvert the Constitution,
> > Franklin Roosevelt announces his plan to add six stooges to the Supreme
> > Court who would rubber stamp his socialist agenda. It failed because the
> > overwhelming Democrat Congress defeated it out of fear of a backlash. They
> > were right; in 1938 they suffered huge losses at the polls.
>
> > The lesson here is that America is a center right country and those who
> > try to force socialism down our throats do so at their own peril.
>
> > “Don’t miss our new 3 minute “audiotorial” produced by Without a
> > Helmet: On the Line with Emmett & Wiley. Hear it now by clicking the play
> > button on their logo on the lower right of my homepage!
>
> > In this world you may have knowledge or you may have repose, but you may
> > not have both.
>
> > What have you done today to deserve to live in America?
>
> > << Attached file: 14.htm (11,092 bytes) >>
>
> Of course you realize that birthers have lost every argument every time. Why
> is that you might act? Well, simply put, losers lose because they are
> losers. They can't win. That is part of their loser nature. If they were to
> win even one case then perhaps they woudln't be losers. But they have a
> score of being losers 100% of the time. So I guess that does make them
> perfect losers.
>
> I just wonder what they will be with their lives when President Obama leaves
> office in January 2017? Eventually their antics will probably be recorded in
> history books, but those books will point out that the birthers were losers
> right from the start and remained losers until the end. Losers will always
> be losers.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Well said.

And consider their behavior when Obama is replaced by yet ANOTHER
Democrat in January 2017?

Their heads will EXPLODE!!!

TMT

[George Plimpton]

On 2/6/2012 11:50 AM, Kirby Grant wrote:

> That may be true. I am bigoted against those that are always wrong and
> people like you are always wrong. So it is a justified bigotry.

No, I'm talking about your racism. Everyone who reflexively sees all
opposition to Obama as based in racism is himself deeply and
irremediably racist. You are a racist - a bigot. You think race
matters. That defines you, as it defines all leftists, as racist.

[Eddie Haskell]

"Delvin Benet" <DB@nbc.nýt> wrote in message
news:05ednTKaZrskra3S...@giganews.com...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXGhvoekY44

-Eddie Haskell

[Ed Huntress]

What part of " For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to
solve these doubts." do you not understand? Or do you not understand
what dicta is?

>
>
>>>
>>>>> The whole idea of natural born
>>>>> citizenship is to eliminate all question of conflicted allegiance.
>>>>> *Both* of a person's parents must be citizens - even if naturalized - in
>>>>> order for a person to be natural born.
>>>>
>>>> Nope.
>>>
>>> Yep.
>>
>> Cites?

No cites, eh? Of course not. You're just blowing smoke.

>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Read Minor v. Happersett before running your yap.
>>>>
>>>> Here's the part of Minor that you probably haven't read, because the
>>>> birthers generally snip it out:
>>>>
>>>> "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 [*plural*] within the jurisdiction
>>>> are themselves citizens."
>>>>
>>>> It did not bear on the case
>>>
>>> It *absolutely* bore on the case, you fucking Marxist cretin. Minor was
>>> suing on the basis that she was a citizen and therefore entitled to
>>> vote. In order to make a ruling that being a citizen did not, /per se/,
>>> confer an inherent right to vote under the Constitution, *first* the
>>> court had to hold - *hold* - that she was a citizen. The court's
>>> writing on citizenship is holding, you fucking charlatan.

Ah, you're getting awfully excited there, Delvin. That's probably
because you realize you're holding an empty hand, and you think you
can insult your way out of this.

The Court did indeed deliver a holding on the matter of citizenship.
As the Court said, " It is sufficient for everything we have now to
consider that all children born of citizen parents within the
jurisdiction are themselves citizens." And they decided she was.

As for natural-born, the Court said:

"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."

And they didn't. So their determination on citizenship is a holding
and therefore is precedential; their dicta regarding natural-born,
which the Court said explicitly they would not decide, is not,
therefore, a holding, and is not precedential.

I hope you plan to keep your day job, Delvin.

>> Ah, the Court decided she was a citizen. It explicitly said that it
>> was not deciding the question of "natural born." See above.
>
>You fucking moron: what it said it wasn't resolving was the doubts
>about the *basic* citizenship of children born to aliens. It did *not*
>explicitly say that it wasn't deciding the question of "natural born."

Yes it did. Read the case. The quotes above should be enough, but read
the whole case if you doubt it. You might find it refreshing to read
what you're quoting from for a change.

>You're really not a very inventive liar, eddie. Are you ever going to
>stop lying, eddie? You really should stop, because you blow at it.

As I said, Delvin, you're trying to b.s. the wrong guy. You're
clueless.

>
>
>
>> If you won't even read the plain English of Minor v. Happersett
>
>I did, non-lawyer left-wing polemicist eddie.

Then you need a checkup.

>
>Why don't you just come out of the closet, eddie, and give up on that
>risible claim that you're a "Republican" and not an ardent left-winger?

You can check my registration with the state of New Jersey if you find
it troubling. It's public information, although I don't know how to
access it. My son's girlfriend found out somehow -- she was an intern
for the RNC -- so it must be available.

--
Ed Huntress

[Eddie Haskell]

"George Plimpton" <geo...@si.not> wrote in message

news:CIadnSmbtPoVr63S...@giganews.com...

And plus, he supports a racist as president of the United States. Can't get
any more racist than that.

Btw, I really enjoyed it when you hosted Mouseterpiece Theater.

"Coates, who said he was testifying before the commission as a whistle
blower and in violation of his Justice supervisor's instructions, said that
there is a "hostile atmosphere" in the civil rights division that did not
"reflect race neutral policies." He said the country's major civil rights
organizations are also biased against race-neutral enforcement."

http://tinyurl.com/3x5ts8o

"In emotional and personal testimony, an ex-Justice official who quit over
the handling of a voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther
Party accused his former employer of instructing attorneys in the civil
rights division to ignore cases that involve black defendants and white
victims. "

http://tinyurl.com/3x8q42h

"Typical white person"

-Hussein

"Judge me by the people with whom I surround myself."

-Hussein

Hussein's associations:

Rev. Wright, whose church Hussein attended and supported financially for
over
20 years:

"Barack knows what it means living in a country and a culture that is
controlled by rich white people."

Rev. Lowery, hand picked by Hussein to deliver the inaugural benediction:

"Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in
the joy of a new beginning, we ask you to help us work for that day when
black will not be asked to get in back, when brown can stick around, when
yellow will be mellow, when the red man can get ahead, man; and when white
will embrace what is right."

Sonia Sotomayor, Hussein's pick for the SC:

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences
would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who
hasn't lived that life."

From Hussein's book:

"White man's greed runs a world in need."

Prof. Gates, anti-white racist who Obama says is a friend of his.

Obama advisor Van Jones:

"Only Suburban White Kids Shoot Up Schools"

"You've never seen a Columbine done by a black child"

"White polluters steered poison into minority communities"

-Eddie Haskell

[Too_Many_Tools]

Why do birthers act like they do?

Because they are crazy racists.

TMT

[Edward A. Falk]

In article <9240j7ld09n2ftnm9...@4ax.com>,

Ed Huntress <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 09:12:59 -0800, Delvin Benet <DB@nbc.nýt> wrote:
>
>>Of course, Obama *isn't* a natural born citizen. As Minor v. Happersett
>>held, a natural born citizen is someone born to parents *BOTH* of whom
>>are citizens of the country.
>

>You did not read Minor v. Happersett, or you don't understand the
>meaning of "obiter dicta." Which is it?
>

>Every time the birthers bring up Minor, the courts throw out the case.
>Why do you suppose that is? See paragraph above.

My understanding is that that case ruled that if you're born in this
country and both your parents are citizens, then you're definitely
a citizen. The court did *not* rule on the opposite case.

In other words, it's sufficient, but not necessary. There's a difference.

Further, it's my understanding that English common law at the time the
constitution was written held that if you were born in the country,
then you were a citizen; period. This is probably why the authors of
the constitution didn't deem it necessary to include the definition in
the document. At any rate, that's how the courts have ruled so far.

--
-Ed Falk, fa...@despams.r.us.com
http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/

[Rightarded Limbecile]

Don't know about "Barry Soetoro" but President Obama's natural born
citizenship is explained here, there is a link to the actual 10 page
decision of the judge here also.

http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insider-jim-galloway/2012/02/03/read-georgia-judge%E2%80%99s-decision-shooting-down-%E2%80%98birther%E2%80%99-challenge-to-barack-obama/

Thanks for playing :)




--
I may be stupid but at least I a Republican.

[Eddie Haskell]

"Rightarded Limbecile" <righ...@gop.com> wrote in message
news:jgpd4v$tgo$1...@dont-email.me...

Doesn't matter where he was born. Hussein is no American. He's a racist
third-world anti-American.

Goddamn America.

-Eddie Haskell

[Eddie Haskell]

"Kirby Grant" <KGr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:tPWXq.57533$o65....@news.usenetserver.com...

> That is not the legal name of anyone that is involved in this. So it
> simply
> wouldn't matter. The only legal name that matters here is Barak Obama. Or
> do
> you just enjoy being incredibly stupid?

You lose again.

-Eddie Haskell

[Eddie Haskell]

"Kirby Grant" <KGr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:DNWXq.205108$xn3.1...@news.usenetserver.com...

>
> On 6-Feb-2012, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>
>> On 2/6/2012 11:50 AM, Kirby Grant wrote:
>> > On 6-Feb-2012, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 2/6/2012 9:40 AM, Kirby Grant wrote:
>> >>> On 6-Feb-2012, Deucalion<som...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> X-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2012 17:21:38 UTC (s03-b25.iad)
>> >>>>

>> >>>> On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 09:12:59 -0800, Delvin Benet<DB@nbc.nýt>

> You just one of many that don't like it because President Obama is black.
> Race does matter to people like you. You use the birther nonsense to avoid
> letting everyone know that you are actually opposed to President Obama due
> to his race.

You support him because he's black and a racist.

That makes you a racist.

[Rightarded Limbecile]

You are a racist moron, who cares what you think?

>
> Goddamn America.

I see you hate America too, feel free to leave.

>
> -Eddie Haskell

[Rightarded Limbecile]

On 02/06/2012 03:35 PM, Eddie Haskell wrote:

President Obama is still president and you are whining about it on
UseNet. Looks like you lose, again :)

[Eddie Haskell]

"Rightarded Limbecile" <righ...@gop.com> wrote in message

news:jgpe4s$359$1...@dont-email.me...

I'm not the one that voted for Hussein, the racist anti-American like you,
now am I?

>> Goddamn America.
>
> I see you hate America too, feel free to leave.

Is there something wrong with that sentament?

Explain.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnlRrxXv-v8

"I can no more disown him [rev. wright] than I can disown the black
community."

-Hussein

[Eddie Haskell]

"Rightarded Limbecile" <righ...@gop.com> wrote in message

news:jgpe7u$359$2...@dont-email.me...

And you are not. Looks like you're an idiot.

Not to mention a racist anti-American.

Goddamn America.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnlRrxXv-v8

"I can no more disown him [rev. wright] than I can disown the black
community."

-Hussein

-Eddie Haskell

[Eddie Haskell]

"Kirby Grant" <KGr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:q%WXq.42854$n96....@news.usenetserver.com...

> Oh itty bitty baby. Is poor little Eddie upset that a court decision says
> he
> is a pathetic little snot?

Ghezz, you get more desperate with each passing day.

Now, when are you going to explain why you think that Hussein has no right
to comment on how military operations are performed?

"People who have never served have no right at all to comment on how
military operations are performed."

-Kirby Grant, Thursday, January 26, 2012 3:27 PM

-Eddie Haskell

[Delvin Benet]

English common law didn't address citizenship; it addressed subjecthood.
The English common law held that if you were born within the realm of
the monarch, you were a subject of the monarch. English common law also
held that that condition was *unbreakable* - if born a subject of the
monarch, always a subject of the monarch.

The American Constitution clearly *broke* with English common law on
this issue, as the Constitution explicitly addresses naturalization.
Under English common law, one could not renounce one's subjecthood to
the monarch and become a subject or citizen of another country.

From the very outset, the Constitution was predicated on the belief
that citizenship was a consensual pact.

[Rightarded Limbecile]

You're not smart enough.

> the racist anti-American like you,
> now am I?

In fact you *are* and anti-American racist. You prove it every time you
whine on UseNet :)

>
>>> Goddamn America.
>>
>> I see you hate America too, feel free to leave.
>
> Is there something wrong with that sentament?

That you are a racist moron and you hate America? That's not a
"sentament" or a sentiment, it is a fact.

>
> Explain.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnlRrxXv-v8
>
> "I can no more disown him [rev. wright] than I can disown the black
> community."
>
> -Hussein
>
>

To rely on youtube for anything factual shows a weakness of mind. You
don't surprise me one bit.

[Rightarded Limbecile]

Hahahaha, YouTube? You lose again, idiot.

[Eddie Haskell]

"Rightarded Limbecile" <righ...@gop.com> wrote in message

news:jgpesv$8ak$1...@dont-email.me...

Too stupid to respond to my whole sentence, huh?

>> the racist anti-American like you,
>> now am I?
>
> In fact you *are* and anti-American racist. You prove it every time you
> whine on UseNet :)

I'm not the one that voted for Hussein, the racist anti-American like you,
now am I?

>>>> Goddamn America.
>>>
>>> I see you hate America too, feel free to leave.
>>
>> Is there something wrong with that sentament?
>
> That you are a racist moron and you hate America? That's not a "sentament"
> or a sentiment, it is a fact.
>
>>
>> Explain.
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnlRrxXv-v8
>>
>> "I can no more disown him [rev. wright] than I can disown the black
>> community."
>>
>> -Hussein
>>
>>
>
> To rely on youtube for anything factual shows a weakness of mind. You
> don't surprise me one bit.

You're reliance on denying reality makes you the perfect democrat.

Now, is there something wrong with the "goddamn America" sentiment?

Explain.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnlRrxXv-v8

"I can no more disown him [rev. wright] than I can disown the black
community."

-Hussein

-Eddie Haskell

[Eddie Haskell]

"Rightarded Limbecile" <righ...@gop.com> wrote in message

news:jgpev5$8ak$2...@dont-email.me...

Yet another desperate attempt to deny the reality of Hussein's anti-American
racist views.

Now, why are you a racist anti-American?

[Too_Many_Tools]

On Feb 6, 12:41 pm, "Eddie Haskell" <wbs...@ssqqoo.com> wrote:
> "George Plimpton" <geo...@si.not> wrote in message
>

> news:Zt6dnbqlb83Di63S...@giganews.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 2/6/2012 9:40 AM, Kirby Grant wrote:

> >> On  6-Feb-2012, Deucalion<some...@nowhere.net>  wrote:
>
> >>> X-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2012 17:21:38 UTC (s03-b25.iad)
>

> >>> On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 09:12:59 -0800, Delvin Benet<D...@nbc.nýt>  wrote:
>
> >>>> On 2/6/2012 5:07 AM, Kirby Grant wrote:
> >>>>> [crapola erased]
>

> >>>> Of course, Obama *isn't* a natural born citizen.  As Minor v.
> >>>> Happersett
> >>>> held, a natural born citizen is someone born to parents *BOTH* of whom

> >>>> are citizens of the country.  Obama's Kenyan father was a British
> >>>> subject at the time of Obama's birth.
>
> >>> Mc Cain wasn't born in the Panama Canal Zone and Romney's father was a
> >>> Mexican citizen.  Romney even played up that fact in the Florida
> >>> debates.  Yet, the you don't hear a peep out of the birthers about
> >>> that fact.  Now, what is the real reason that birthers are so
> >>> selective about who enforcement of their law that isn't a law?  It
> >>> isn't because he is a black Democrat is it?
>
> >> Isn't the answer to that something along the lines that Romney and McCain
> >> are both Republicans and white whereas President Obama is a Democrat and
> >> black?
>
> > The raw bigotry of the leftist jumps front and center yet again.
>

> Hussein is a the light-skinned Negro with no Negro dialect, but a few years
> ago the guy would have been getting us a cup of coffee.
>
> -Eddie Haskell- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Spoken like a racist.

TMT

[Too_Many_Tools]

On Feb 6, 2:35 pm, "Eddie Haskell" <wbs...@ssqqoo.com> wrote:
> "Rightarded Limbecile" <right...@gop.com> wrote in message

>
> news:jgpd4v$tgo$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 02/06/2012 02:57 PM, Delvin Benet wrote:
> >> On 2/6/2012 11:47 AM, Kirby Grant wrote:

> >>> On 6-Feb-2012, Delvin Benet<D...@nbc.nýt> wrote:
>
> >>>> On 2/6/2012 9:38 AM, Kirby Grant wrote:

> >http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insider-jim-galloway/2012/02/03/read-g...

>
> > Thanks for playing :)
>
> Doesn't matter where he was born. Hussein is no American. He's a racist
> third-world anti-American.
>
> Goddamn America.
>

> -Eddie Haskell- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Why do you hate America?

TMT

[George Plimpton]

> You just one of many that don't like it because President Obama is black.

Actually, you're wrong - I don't care that he's black.

However, *your* racism is not in dispute: you *like* that he's black -
you think it's "good" that there's a black president, when in fact it is
neither good nor bad - and you, being a thorough-going racist, label
*all* criticism of him as being due to racism, despite having no
evidence of that at all.

> Race does matter to people like you.

Nope. Race doesn't matter to me. I believe race never should matter,
which is why I oppose affirmative action every bit as much as I oppose
state-enacted negative racial discrimination. But *you* believe it
matters. In fact, you not only believe it matters, you believe race is
determining.

You are racist, and a bigot.

[Delvin Benet]

On 2/6/2012 12:34 PM, Kirby Grant wrote:
> On 6-Feb-2012, Delvin Benet<DB@nbc.nýt> wrote:
>
>> On 2/6/2012 11:47 AM, Kirby Grant wrote:
>>> On 6-Feb-2012, Delvin Benet<DB@nbc.nýt> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/6/2012 9:38 AM, Kirby Grant wrote:

> That is not the legal name of anyone that is involved in this.

You can't cite any case. I didn't think you'd be able to cite any
cases. You've lived down to my expectations - nice job.

[Delvin Benet]

The doubts, you lying fuckwit, were *solely* about the citizenship of
children born in the US to aliens.

>>>>>> Read Minor v. Happersett before running your yap.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here's the part of Minor that you probably haven't read, because the
>>>>> birthers generally snip it out:
>>>>>
>>>>> "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 [*plural*] within the jurisdiction
>>>>> are themselves citizens."
>>>>>
>>>>> It did not bear on the case
>>>>
>>>> It *absolutely* bore on the case, you fucking Marxist cretin. Minor was
>>>> suing on the basis that she was a citizen and therefore entitled to
>>>> vote. In order to make a ruling that being a citizen did not, /per se/,
>>>> confer an inherent right to vote under the Constitution, *first* the
>>>> court had to hold - *hold* - that she was a citizen. The court's
>>>> writing on citizenship is holding, you fucking charlatan.
>
> Ah, you're getting awfully excited there, Delvin.

Nice dodge, fuckwitted charlatan (I was only being polite - it wasn't a
good dodge at all.)

> The Court did indeed deliver a holding on the matter of citizenship.

Yes, but earlier you said it was "obiter dicta."

You don't know your ass from your face, non-lawyer charlatan eddie.

>>> Ah, the Court decided she was a citizen. It explicitly said that it
>>> was not deciding the question of "natural born." See above.
>>
>> You fucking moron: what it said it wasn't resolving was the doubts
>> about the *basic* citizenship of children born to aliens. It did *not*
>> explicitly say that it wasn't deciding the question of "natural born."
>
> Yes it did.

No, it didn't. Read the case, fuckwitted non-lawyer charlatan eddie -
or is English not your native tongue?

>> You're really not a very inventive liar, eddie. Are you ever going to
>> stop lying, eddie? You really should stop, because you blow at it.
>
> As I said, Delvin, you're trying to b.s. the wrong guy.

Not trying to b.s. anyone, clueless fuckwitted non-lawyer charlatan eddie.

>>
>>
>>
>>> If you won't even read the plain English of Minor v. Happersett
>>
>> I did, non-lawyer left-wing polemicist eddie.
>
> Then you need a checkup.

Nope. You just need to stop lying, non-lawyer charlatan eddie.

>>
>> Why don't you just come out of the closet, eddie, and give up on that
>> risible claim that you're a "Republican" and not an ardent left-winger?
>
> You can check my registration with the state of New Jersey if

Fucking RINO.

[Rightarded Limbecile]

Because the rest of the sentence was idiotic, like you.

[Eddie Haskell]

"Rightarded Limbecile" <righ...@gop.com> wrote in message

news:jgpiha$sak$1...@dont-email.me...

Still too stupid to respond to my whole sentence, huh?

I win again.

Now, why are you a racist anti-American that supports a racist anti-American
as president?

[Jeff Strickland]

"Delvin Benet" <DB@nbc.nýt> wrote in message
news:xcidnbK8S62Bl63S...@giganews.com...

> On 2/6/2012 5:07 AM, Kirby Grant wrote:
>> [crapola erased]
>
> Of course, Obama *isn't* a natural born citizen. As Minor v. Happersett
> held, a natural born citizen is someone born to parents *BOTH* of whom are

> citizens of the country. Obama's Kenyan father was a British subject at
> the time of Obama's birth.
>


Be careful what you wish for. The only idiot in the Administration more of
an idiot that Obama is Biden.

[Too_Many_Tools]

On Feb 6, 4:04 pm, "Eddie Haskell" <wbs...@ssqqoo.com> wrote:
> "Rightarded Limbecile" <right...@gop.com> wrote in message

>
> news:jgpiha$sak$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 02/06/2012 04:05 PM, Eddie Haskell wrote:

> >> "Rightarded Limbecile"<right...@gop.com>  wrote in message

> >>news:jgpesv$8ak$1...@dont-email.me...
> >>> On 02/06/2012 03:50 PM, Eddie Haskell wrote:

> >>>> "Rightarded Limbecile"<right...@gop.com>   wrote in message

> >>>>news:jgpe4s$359$1...@dont-email.me...
> >>>>> On 02/06/2012 03:35 PM, Eddie Haskell wrote:

> >>>>>> "Rightarded Limbecile"<right...@gop.com>    wrote in message

> >>>>>>news:jgpd4v$tgo$1...@dont-email.me...
> >>>>>>> On 02/06/2012 02:57 PM, Delvin Benet wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 2/6/2012 11:47 AM, Kirby Grant wrote:

> >>>>>>>>> On 6-Feb-2012, Delvin Benet<D...@nbc.nýt>    wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>> On 2/6/2012 9:38 AM, Kirby Grant wrote:

> >>>>>>>http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insider-jim-galloway/2012/02/03/read-g...

>
> >>>>>>> Thanks for playing :)
>
> >>>>>> Doesn't matter where he was born. Hussein is no American. He's a
> >>>>>> racist
> >>>>>> third-world anti-American.
>
> >>>>> You are a racist moron, who cares what you think?
>
> >>>> I'm not the one that voted for Hussein,
>
> >>> You're not smart enough.
>
> >> Too stupid to respond to my whole sentence, huh?
>
> > Because the rest of the sentence was idiotic, like you.
>
> Still too stupid to respond to my whole sentence, huh?
>
> I win again.
>
> Now, why are you a racist anti-American that supports a racist anti-American
> as president?
>
> Explain.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnlRrxXv-v8
>
> "I can no more disown him [rev. wright] than I can disown the black
> community."
>
> -Hussein
>

> -Eddie Haskell- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

But Obama is still President.

And you...well you are a loser who is whining on Usenet while everyone
who voted for Obama is laughing at you.

Laugh...laugh..laugh..

TMT

[pyotr filipivich]

"Jeff Strickland" <crwl...@yahoo.com> on Mon, 6 Feb 2012 15:06:19
-0800 typed in misc.survivalism the following:

But Slow Joe Biden more along the lines of Governor Potetomaine.
--
pyotr filipivich
Watergate didn’t have a body count. Gunwalker has hundreds.

[Ed Huntress]

On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 11:23:36 -0800, Delvin Benet <DB@nbc.nýt> wrote:

>On 2/6/2012 11:13 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>> On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 10:28:42 -0800, Delvin Benet<DB@nbc.nýt> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/6/2012 9:41 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:

>>>> On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 09:12:59 -0800, Delvin Benet<DB@nbc.nýt> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2/6/2012 5:07 AM, Kirby Grant wrote:
>>>>>> [crapola erased]
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course, Obama *isn't* a natural born citizen. As Minor v. Happersett
>>>>> held, a natural born citizen is someone born to parents *BOTH* of whom
>>>>> are citizens of the country.
>>>>

>>>> You did not read Minor v. Happersett, or you don't understand the
>>>> meaning of "obiter dicta." Which is it?
>>>

>>> Neither. It is not obiter dicta, you fuckwit - it is *holding*.
>>
>> Oh, Jesus. Save yourself some embarrassment, find a legal dictionary,
>> ande look up "holding" and "obiter dicta."
>
>Go fuck yourself, non-lawyer eddie - you don't lecture me about the law.

All it takes is a few minutes with a law dictionary, Delvin. You don't
have to pass the bar. d8-)

>
>
>> A holding is "That part of the written opinion of a court in which the
>> law is specifically applied to the facts of the instant controversy..A
>> holding is distinguishable from dicta, which is language in the
>> opinion relating some observation or example that may be illustrative,
>> but which is not part of the court's judgment in the case."
>>
>> "The instant controversy," was about the voting eligibility of
>> Virginia Minor -- her citizenship, not her eligibility to run for
>> president.
>
>Jesus fucking christ, eddie: the case wasn't about presidential
>eligibility....

Correct.

>, but it *was*, in part, about citizenship...

Correct.

>, and presidential
>eligibility *also* is based on the nature of the putative candidate's
>citizenship.

It's about the state of being "natural born." That had nothing to do
with Minor v. Happersett. Virginia Minor wasn't running for president.

Get it?

>
>
>>> A
>>> subsequent decision, Ex Parte Lockwood, *explicitly* acknowledges that
>>> Happersett's language on citizenship is holding, not dicta.
>>
>> Yes, on CITIZENSHIP. Not on eligibility to be president.
>
>eddie, you stupid cunt - you said that Happersett's statements on
>citizenship were dicta. Now you're admitting they were holding. Which
>is it, eddie?

I did not say that the Minor case was not precedential about
citizenship. In fact, I've explicitly said that it was. And the Court
made clear that it didn't matter whether she was born in the US or was
a naturalized citizen. It was her voting rights that were at issue.

It's neither a holding, nor precedential, on the question of who is
"natural-born."

>
>They were holding, eddie. They gave legal meaning to the term "natural
>born citizen." Nice concession, eddie, you fucking chump.

They also said that they weren't deciding about other bases for being
"natural born." They said they weren't deciding that issue, because it
wasn't necessary to decide the case. That makes all of it dicta.

>
>This is all pertinent now because it is an article of faith among
>Obamaphiles that "natural born citizen" is undefined. It *isn't*
>undefined, eddie - the court stated the definition in Happersett....

The Court said no such thing. It stated ONE set of conditions, and
then said it wasn't deciding about the others. No decision, no
holding. Get it?

>, and
>subsequent decisions, including Ex Parte Lockwood

About citizenship, not about natural-born.

> and Wong Kim Ark,
>*RECOGNIZED* that it was holding.

In Wong Kim Ark, the Court decided he was "native born." A decade
earlier, in Minor, the Court said:

"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."

...thus equating "native born" with "natural born." This is part of
the argument made in Wong Kim Ark:

"Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 166-168. The decision in
that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United
States was a citizen of the United States."

Wong Kim Ark referred to Happersett in several places; the one above,
and, importantly, one in which they said that the Court in that
decision referred to British common law. And most of the citation in
Wong Kim Ark developed around this (quote from the case):

"The exceptional and unimportant instances in which birth within the
British dominions does not of itself confer British nationality are
due to the fact that, though at common law nationality or allegiance
in substance depended on the place of a person's birth..."

As well as this previous US Supreme Court case:

"In McCreery v. Somerville, (1824) 9 Wheat. 354, which concerned the
title to land in the State of Maryland, it was assumed that children
born in that State of an alien who was still living, and who had not
been naturalized, were "native-born citizens of the [p662] United
States,"...


>
>
>>> You don't know what constitutes holding and what is dicta. In fact, you
>>> don't know your ass from your face.
>>
>> You're trying to b.s. the wrong guy,
>
>No, non-lawyer eddie, I'm not trying to b.s. anyone.

You're deep enough into insults to be convincing that you are clueless
and frustrated, since (according to some who are counting) 94 attempts
have been made to bring these things to hearing; the courts have
thrown out all but a handful; and they have decided against your
position in every one of those.

It must suck to be so sure of yourself and to have every court,
liberal and conservative, toss your foolish interpretations out on
their ear. Here's a sad summary of how the birthers have infuriated
one court after another with their fraudulent "evidence," their
frivolous claims, and their stupid case-law interpretations, such as
the one you're making here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_presidential_eligibility_litigation

The bottom line it, no one with any understanding of constitutional
law and Supreme Court history believes you -- except some certifiable
loons.

--
Ed Huntress

[Sid9]

"Rightarded Limbecile" <righ...@gop.com> wrote in message

news:jgpd4v$tgo$1...@dont-email.me...
> On 02/06/2012 02:57 PM, Delvin Benet wrote:
>> On 2/6/2012 11:47 AM, Kirby Grant wrote:

>>> On 6-Feb-2012, Delvin Benet<DB@nbc.nýt> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/6/2012 9:38 AM, Kirby Grant wrote:

> http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insider-jim-galloway/2012/02/03/read-georgia-judge%E2%80%99s-decision-shooting-down-%E2%80%98birther%E2%80%99-challenge-to-barack-obama/
>
> Thanks for playing :)
>
>
>
>

> --
> I may be stupid but at least I a Republican.

The revival of this phoenix like subject is a good clue that Obama's
opposition has nothing!

[Too_Many_Tools]

On Feb 6, 6:53 pm, "Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net> wrote:
> "Rightarded Limbecile" <right...@gop.com> wrote in message

>
> news:jgpd4v$tgo$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 02/06/2012 02:57 PM, Delvin Benet wrote:
> >> On 2/6/2012 11:47 AM, Kirby Grant wrote:

> >>> On 6-Feb-2012, Delvin Benet<D...@nbc.nýt> wrote:
>
> >>>> On 2/6/2012 9:38 AM, Kirby Grant wrote:

> >http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insider-jim-galloway/2012/02/03/read-g...

>
> > Thanks for playing :)
>
> > --
> > I may be stupid but at least I a Republican.
>
> The revival of this phoenix like subject is a good clue that Obama's

> opposition has nothing!- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

LOL...you got that right.

I can't wait for Mitt to bring it up during the reelection
campaign..it will bury him.

TMT

[Ed Huntress]

That sounds like Fuller's dissenting opinion in Wong Kim Ark -- the
opinion that lost.

--
Ed Huntress

[Schweik]

Good Lord man! Proof of a nation wide conspiracy to prevent the facts
from becoming known :-)

cheers,

Schweik

[Delvin Benet]

It gave legal meaning to natural born, which all you liars insist is not
defined.

>>>> A
>>>> subsequent decision, Ex Parte Lockwood, *explicitly* acknowledges that
>>>> Happersett's language on citizenship is holding, not dicta.
>>>
>>> Yes, on CITIZENSHIP. Not on eligibility to be president.
>>
>> eddie, you stupid cunt - you said that Happersett's statements on
>> citizenship were dicta. Now you're admitting they were holding. Which
>> is it, eddie?
>
> I did not say that the Minor case was not precedential about
> citizenship.

Yes, you sure did. You said that what it said about citizenship was
obiter dicta. You were wrong.

>>
>> They were holding, eddie. They gave legal meaning to the term "natural
>> born citizen." Nice concession, eddie, you fucking chump.
>
> They also said that they weren't deciding about other bases for being
> "natural born."

No, they didn't say *anything* about "other bases" [where do you get
this shit] at all. They said they weren't saying anything about
*citizenship* of children born to aliens, that's all. In fact, they
were very explicit about that.

>> This is all pertinent now because it is an article of faith among
>> Obamaphiles that "natural born citizen" is undefined. It *isn't*
>> undefined, eddie - the court stated the definition in Happersett....
>
> The Court said no such thing.

The Court said exactly that, eddie.

>> , and
>> subsequent decisions, including Ex Parte Lockwood
>
> About citizenship, not about natural-born.

About natural born, eddie.

>> and Wong Kim Ark,
>> *RECOGNIZED* that it was holding.
>
> In Wong Kim Ark, the Court decided he was "native born." A decade
> earlier, in Minor, the Court said:
>
> "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."
>
> ...thus equating "native born" with "natural born."

No, not "equating" that at all, non-lawyer eddie.

> "Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 166-168. The decision in
> that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United
> States was a citizen of the United States."

Which, of course, had no bearing on the issue before the court in Wong,
one of the most egregiously wrong decisions in the court's history.

>>
>>
>>>> You don't know what constitutes holding and what is dicta. In fact, you
>>>> don't know your ass from your face.
>>>
>>> You're trying to b.s. the wrong guy,
>>
>> No, non-lawyer eddie, I'm not trying to b.s. anyone.
>
> You're deep enough into insults to

Not trying to b.s. anyone, non-lawyer clueless chump eddie.

[Ed Huntress]

Absolutely. It's a Glenn Beck-sized conspiracy. The Tripartite
Commission must be involved in there somewhere. Otherwise, how would
they get all those Republican judges to agree with the liberals? d8-)

It was interesting to read the birthers' statements about the Georgia
administrative court judge, Malihi, before he heard the case
("finally, a judge who's ready to uphold the Constitution!"), and
after ("the participants in the case must file criminal charges
against the judge!")

The birther loons are running out of options. The next court they
appeal to is going to threaten to put them in jail for contempt.

--
Ed Huntress


>
>cheers,
>
>Schweik

[George Plimpton]

Gray and the majority in Wong were substantially the same as the
majority in Plessy v. Ferguson two years earlier, non-lawyer chump
eddie. Is being on the winning side in a bad court necessarily an
indication of sound legal scholarship, non-lawyer chump eddie?

[Delvin Benet]

On 2/6/2012 4:07 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 11:23:36 -0800, Delvin Benet<DB@nbc.nýt> wrote:
>
>> On 2/6/2012 11:13 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:


>>> A holding is "That part of the written opinion of a court in which the
>>> law is specifically applied to the facts of the instant controversy..A
>>> holding is distinguishable from dicta, which is language in the
>>> opinion relating some observation or example that may be illustrative,
>>> but which is not part of the court's judgment in the case."
>>>
>>> "The instant controversy," was about the voting eligibility of
>>> Virginia Minor -- her citizenship, not her eligibility to run for
>>> president.

No, non-lawyer eddie, you idiot. The court held that her voting
eligibility was *not* established by virtue of being a citizen, stupid.
The issue was *not* primarily her citizenship - it was her voting
eligibility, or the *lack* of such despite being a citizen.

The court held that she was a citizen by virtue of being a natural born
citizen, i.e., born to two citizen parents. *Then* the court held that
despite being a citizen - a natural born citizen, not a 14th amendment
citizen - she was not entitled to vote.

>> Jesus fucking christ, eddie: the case wasn't about presidential
>> eligibility....
>
> Correct.
>
>> , but it *was*, in part, about citizenship...
>
> Correct.
>
>> , and presidential
>> eligibility *also* is based on the nature of the putative candidate's
>> citizenship.
>
> It's about the state of being "natural born." That had nothing to do
> with Minor v. Happersett.

It had everything to do with it, non-lawyer eddie: the court held that
Minor was a citizen by virtue of being born to citizen parents. They
identified her as a natural born citizen. They said that's what natural
born citizen means: born in the country to citizen parents, plural. It
was holding. Ex Parte Lockwood (and others) recognize it as such.

> Virginia Minor wasn't running for president.

Irrelevant. The court still gave meaning to the term natural born citizen.

>>
>>>> A
>>>> subsequent decision, Ex Parte Lockwood, *explicitly* acknowledges that
>>>> Happersett's language on citizenship is holding, not dicta.
>>>
>>> Yes, on CITIZENSHIP. Not on eligibility to be president.
>>
>> eddie, you stupid cunt - you said that Happersett's statements on
>> citizenship were dicta. Now you're admitting they were holding. Which
>> is it, eddie?
>
> I did not say that the Minor case was not precedential about
> citizenship. In fact, I've explicitly said that it was.

You explicitly said it was dicta, liar.

> It's neither a holding, nor precedential, on the question of who is
> "natural-born."

It is both, non-lawyer eddie. It was a holding, eddie - it gave legal
definition to natural born citizen. It was precedential, non-lawyer
eddie, because there had been no prior holding on the issue.

>
>>
>> They were holding, eddie. They gave legal meaning to the term "natural
>> born citizen." Nice concession, eddie, you fucking chump.
>
> They also said that they weren't deciding about other bases for being
> "natural born."

No, they didn't say that at all, non-lawyer and liar eddie. They did
not say or imply that there was *any* other base for being a natural
born citizen, lying non-lawyer eddie. What they were doing was
rejecting the 14th amendment as having any applicability to the case at
hand. What they were doing is saying that Minor was a citizen even
without the 14th amendment because she was a natural born citizen, i.e.
born in the country to citizen parents.

>> This is all pertinent now because it is an article of faith among
>> Obamaphiles that "natural born citizen" is undefined. It *isn't*
>> undefined, eddie - the court stated the definition in Happersett....
>
> The Court said no such thing. It stated ONE set of conditions, and
> then said it wasn't deciding about the others. No decision, no
> holding. Get it?
>
>>

>> and subsequent decisions, including Ex Parte Lockwood
>
> About citizenship, not about natural-born.

Ex Parte Lockwood recognized the court's writing in Happersett about
citizenship - *all* of it - as holding, lying non-lawyer eddie. That
means they acknowledged that what the court said in Happersett about
natural born citizenship was holding, and binding.

>> and Wong Kim Ark,
>> *RECOGNIZED* that it was holding.
>
> In Wong Kim Ark, the Court decided he was "native born."

Exactly - something different from natural born, which the court in
Happersett defined as being born in the country to two citizen parents.

> A decade
> earlier, in Minor, the Court said:
>
> "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."
>
> ...thus equating "native born" with "natural born."

Nope - not equating the two at all. If they were equating the two,
lying non-lawyer eddie, they would have written "native born", not
"natives."

You blow at this, eddie.

> "Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 166-168. The decision in
> that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United
> States was a citizen of the United States."

That doesn't go far enough. The decision - part of the holding - was
that she was a natural born citizen.

> Wong Kim Ark referred to Happersett in several places; the one above,
> and, importantly, one in which they said that the Court in that
> decision referred to British common law.

Which is wrong. The expression "common law" - actually, "common-law" -
appears but once in Happersett, and without reference to "British" or
"English." In fact, the Constitution makes a fundamental break with
English (not "British") common law, in that it recognizes that
citizenship can be both acquired and renounced based on acts of the
person. English common law recognized no such possibility of changing
citizenship or subjecthood.

> And most of the citation in
> Wong Kim Ark developed around this (quote from the case):
>
> "The exceptional and unimportant instances in which birth within the
> British dominions does not of itself confer British nationality are
> due to the fact that, though at common law nationality or allegiance
> in substance depended on the place of a person's birth..."
>
> As well as this previous US Supreme Court case:
>
> "In McCreery v. Somerville, (1824) 9 Wheat. 354, which concerned the
> title to land in the State of Maryland, it was assumed that children
> born in that State of an alien who was still living, and who had not
> been naturalized, were "native-born citizens of the [p662] United
> States,"...

But not natural born. Natural born speaks to the citizenship of the
parents of the putative citizen. Happersett recognizes that, while
excluding the 14th amendment from its reasoning.

>>
>>>> You don't know what constitutes holding and what is dicta. In fact, you
>>>> don't know your ass from your face.
>>>
>>> You're trying to b.s. the wrong guy,
>>
>> No, non-lawyer eddie, I'm not trying to b.s. anyone.
>
> You're deep enough into insults to be

Nice whiff off, lying non-lawyer eddie.

[Too_Many_Tools]

On Feb 6, 7:10 pm, Schweik <goodsoldierschw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 19:07:03 -0500, Ed Huntress
>
>
>
>
>

> <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:

> >On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 11:23:36 -0800, Delvin Benet <D...@nbc.nýt> wrote:
>
> >>On 2/6/2012 11:13 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:

> >>> On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 10:28:42 -0800, Delvin Benet<D...@nbc.nýt>  wrote:
>
> >>>> On 2/6/2012 9:41 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:

> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_presidential_eligibility_li...

>
> >The bottom line it, no one with any understanding of constitutional
> >law and Supreme Court history believes you -- except some certifiable
> >loons.
>
> Good Lord man! Proof of a nation wide conspiracy to prevent the facts
> from becoming known :-)
>
> cheers,
>

> Schweik- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

LOL...yes it boggles one's mind!

TMT

[Ed Huntress]

On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 17:32:03 -0800, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
wrote:

One of the first things that ideologues and self-styled experts do
about cases they don't like is to declate they were "wrongly decided."
You're deep into that pile of stinking laundry, Plimpton.

In contrast, all I do is explain what the courts have actually
decided, and the reasoning behind them. In this case, the first point
is that every current court that has been presented with an Obama
birther argument, including the one about natural-born citizenship,
has rejected it. By your lights, it appears that they're all wrong,
and that you're right.

Further to your claim about being right, while the courts are all
wrong, five of the current Justices have cited Wong's birthright
decision favorably in Miller v. Albright (1997) or one of two other
cases. Stevens wrote the Court's opinion in Miller v. Allbright.
Scalia and Thomas wrote in concurrence: "“The Constitution
‘contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and
naturalization.’ United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702
(1898)."

Even in dissent, Breyer and Ginsburg agreed with the Wong ruling: “I
recognize that, ever since the Civil War, the transmission of American
citizenship from parent to child, jus sanguinis, has played a role
secondary to that of the transmission of citizenship by birthplace,
jus soli." Kennedy agreed with the principle in another case. The only
two sitting Justices who haven't cited Wong in a case of birth
citizenship are Alito and Roberts. However, Alito heard one of the
above cases as a lower-court judge, and decided it the same way,
before he reached the Supreme Court..

Wong has been cited on this issue in case after case at all levels. So
far, after more than 100 years, the precedential case law is that
citizenship is conferred by birth, that citizenship by birth
constitutes being "native-born," and no court has contradicted the
decision that "native-born" is the same thing as "natural-born."

For an amateur Constitutional enthusiast, such as you, Delvin, or me
to start judging the "rightness" of those Supreme Court cases is an
arrogance in which I will not join you. We can reasonably discuss what
the courts have said, and argue about what it means. But when you're
claiming that a case that's been widely accepted by other courts is
wrong, you're not only assuming a mantle to which you're not entitled,
you're also making yourself irrelevant. Your position has lost every
time.

--
Ed Huntress

[PrecisionmachinisT]

"Delvin Benet" <DB@nbc.nýt> wrote in message

news:pvadnekVt5wG1K3S...@giganews.com...
>
> non-lawyer charlatan eddie.
>

Are you a lawyer, Delvin ?

[Delvin Benet]

On 2/6/2012 9:08 PM, Deucalion wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 09:31:41 -0800, Delvin Benet<DB@nbc.nýt> wrote:

>
>> On 2/6/2012 9:21 AM, Deucalion wrote:
>>> On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 09:12:59 -0800, Delvin Benet<DB@nbc.nýt> wrote:
>>>

>>>> On 2/6/2012 5:07 AM, Kirby Grant wrote:
>>>>> [crapola erased]
>>>>

>>>> Of course, Obama *isn't* a natural born citizen. As Minor v. Happersett
>>>> held, a natural born citizen is someone born to parents *BOTH* of whom

>>>> are citizens of the country. Obama's Kenyan father was a British
>>>> subject at the time of Obama's birth.
>>>
>>> Mc Cain wasn't born in the Panama Canal Zone and Romney's father was a
>>> Mexican citizen.
>>

>> You mean Mc Cain *was* born in the Canal Zone. However, he was born to
>> two American citizen parents, and he was a citizen at birth.
>
> Nope. There appears to be a birth record in a Panamanian hospital for
> him.

Irrelevant. His parents were American citizens born and raised in the
US, and under the citizenship law in effect at that time, that made
McCain a citizen at birth.


>>
>> George Romney was born in Mexico, but he was an American citizen.
>
> He was born in Mexico, that makes him a Mexican citizen.

Nope. He might have been born a Mexican national, but not a Mexican
citizen.


> I guess you
> didn't watch the Florida debates where his son was playing up his
> father's Mexican heritage. Obama was born in Hawaii. That makes him
> an American citizen.

It doesn't make Obama a natural born citizen, because his father wasn't
a citizen.

[Delvin Benet]

On 2/6/2012 9:09 PM, Deucalion wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Feb 2012 17:40:26 GMT, "Kirby Grant"<KGr...@yahoo.com>

> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 6-Feb-2012, Deucalion<som...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>>

>>> X-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2012 17:21:38 UTC (s03-b25.iad)

>>>
>>> On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 09:12:59 -0800, Delvin Benet<DB@nbc.nıt> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/6/2012 5:07 AM, Kirby Grant wrote:
>>>>> [crapola erased]
>>>>
>>>> Of course, Obama *isn't* a natural born citizen. As Minor v. Happersett
>>>> held, a natural born citizen is someone born to parents *BOTH* of whom
>>>> are citizens of the country. Obama's Kenyan father was a British
>>>> subject at the time of Obama's birth.
>>>
>>> Mc Cain wasn't born in the Panama Canal Zone and Romney's father was a

>>> Mexican citizen. Romney even played up that fact in the Florida
>>> debates. Yet, the you don't hear a peep out of the birthers about
>>> that fact. Now, what is the real reason that birthers are so
>>> selective about who enforcement of their law that isn't a law? It
>>> isn't because he is a black Democrat is it?
>>
>> Isn't the answer to that something along the lines that Romney and McCain
>> are both Republicans and white whereas President Obama is a Democrat and

>> black? Ultimately that's the real reason for the controversy. Republicans
>> would never raise the issue of eligiblity for their own candidates.
>
> I think that is correct. However, they would never admit it.

You leftists always play the race card, dealt from the bottom of the
deck. Always.

[Ed Huntress]

On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 17:15:25 -0800, Delvin Benet <DB@nbc.nýt> wrote:

You know, Delvin, you've become so insulting that you're just a bore.
We'll cut this off right here.

The bottom line is that your ideas have lost in court every time. You
and the rest of the birthers are a sideshow but there is nothing
lasting and no consequence; when the audience walks out of your tent,
it's all over.

There's a reason you've lost every time, and it's not a conspiracy
that's caused courts across the political spectrum to reject all of
your nonsense. The reason is that you're wrong on the law.

Have fun, and try not to get yourself too worked up about the fact
that you're losing in the courts. It will just make you pop some blood
vessels.

--
Ed Huntress

[Delvin Benet]

On 2/6/2012 11:20 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 17:15:25 -0800, Delvin Benet<DB@nbc.nýt> wrote:
>

> You know, Delvin, [disgraceful whiff-off snipped out of mercy]

Nice one, lying far-left partisan eddie.

[Ed Huntress]

On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 14:26:33 -0800 (PST), "dca...@krl.org"
<dca...@krl.org> wrote:

>On Feb 5, 2:08 pm, Ed Huntress <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> >The lesson here is that America is a center right country...
>>
>> How can the country be "center right" when half is left of center, and
>> half is right of center? Do you buffoons know what "center" means?
>>
>
>> --
>> Ed Huntress
>
>So you are saying the center is the median not the mean? Although
>there is some good things about using the Mode as the center.

Yes, the median is the colloquial idea of what the political "center"
is.

The implication of this "center-right" idea is that the mode is to the
right of the median. But the right has an extreme view of where the
"left" is in American politics, in terms of either median or mean.
They think that the "left" has a very long tail in the left direction.

Not any more. The extreme left is puny, with very few people out at
the fringe, compared to what it used to be. The mode really is right
around the median.

--
Ed Huntress

>
> Dan

[Schweik]

On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 20:29:31 -0500, Ed Huntress

The thing that makes me wonder is why no one comments on the fact that
the democratic party accepted this guy as a viable candidate......
without checking his background? They didn't care enough about winning
the election to ensure that their boy was qualified? Did they run a
bloke that they knew was not qualified?

And more to the point, when it came down to the wire Obama and Mrs.
Clinton were neck and neck and Obama nosed her out coming down the
stretch. If there was a question about Barak's qualification would the
Clinton's have been willing to spend a million, or so to uncover it?


cheers,

Schweik

[Shall not be infringed]

On Feb 7, 1:46 am, Delvin Benet <D...@nbc.nýt> wrote:
> On 2/6/2012 9:09 PM, Deucalion wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 6 Feb 2012 17:40:26 GMT, "Kirby Grant"<KGr...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>

> >> On  6-Feb-2012, Deucalion<some...@nowhere.net>  wrote:
>
> >>> X-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2012 17:21:38 UTC (s03-b25.iad)
>

> >>> On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 09:12:59 -0800, Delvin Benet<D...@nbc.nýt>  wrote:
>
> >>>> On 2/6/2012 5:07 AM, Kirby Grant wrote:
> >>>>> [crapola erased]
>
> >>>> Of course, Obama *isn't* a natural born citizen.  As Minor v. Happersett
> >>>> held, a natural born citizen is someone born to parents *BOTH* of whom
> >>>> are citizens of the country.  Obama's Kenyan father was a British
> >>>> subject at the time of Obama's birth.
>
> >>> Mc Cain wasn't born in the Panama Canal Zone and Romney's father was a
> >>> Mexican citizen.  Romney even played up that fact in the Florida
> >>> debates.  Yet, the you don't hear a peep out of the birthers about
> >>> that fact.  Now, what is the real reason that birthers are so
> >>> selective about who enforcement of their law that isn't a law?  It
> >>> isn't because he is a black Democrat is it?
>
> >> Isn't the answer to that something along the lines that Romney and McCain
> >> are both Republicans and white whereas President Obama is a Democrat and
> >> black? Ultimately that's the real reason for the controversy. Republicans
> >> would never raise the issue of eligiblity for their own candidates.
>
> > I think that is correct.  However, they would never admit it.
>
> You leftists always play the race card, dealt from the bottom of the
> deck.  Always.

Sometimes they do it when they have nothing left. But most of the
time they get it our first.

[Josh]

On 2/7/2012 1:45 AM, Delvin Benet wrote:
> On 2/6/2012 9:08 PM, Deucalion wrote
>
>

>> Obama was born in Hawaii. That makes him
>> an American citizen.
>
> It doesn't make Obama a natural born citizen, because his father wasn't
> a citizen.

You know, you don't get to make up the law.

[SaPeIsMa]

"CanopyCo" <Junk...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:29741500-62ca-4196...@t24g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> Because they were trying to get Arnold in, but they failed so they ran
> Obama instead.
> ;-)
>
> Couldn’t you find a more creditable source for your idiocy then this.
>
> A better question that you idiots should ask is if Obama wasn’t
> qualified to run, why did the Republican government in charge allow
> him to run in the first place?
>

Did it "allow him to run" ?

> Idiot.
>
>

Yes you are