Main Menu

The occasional open thread: grossly inappropriate edition

Put your Obama conspiracy comments (I hope not grossly inappropriate ones) that don’t relate to the current articles here. This thread will close in two weeks.

138 Responses to The occasional open thread: grossly inappropriate edition

  1. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 24, 2016 at 8:15 am #

    “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose any voters, OK?” Trump said to laughter at a rally he held at a Christian college in northwest Iowa. “It’s like, incredible.”

  2. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 24, 2016 at 8:16 am #

    Trump in Sioux center Iowa today:

    “Two lawsuits have been filed against Ted Cruz , but neither have standing.

    I have standing. Should I file?
    I’m thinking of it , but that’s so NASTY! ..I don’t know.”

    Someone should advise him he is the only one who can resolve this issue to its finality.

    — furtive
    Comment at Birther Report

  3. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 24, 2016 at 8:21 am #

    Illinois pharmacist files Cruz ballot challenge in Illinois

    http://www.wnd.com/2016/01/motion-demands-cruz-be-removed-from-illinois-ballot/#C3VrEGZekwMihmYE.99

  4. avatar
    Scientist January 24, 2016 at 8:23 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose any voters, OK?” Trump said to laughter at a rally he held at a Christian college in northwest Iowa. “It’s like, incredible.”

    The sad thing is, he might be right.

  5. avatar
    gorefan January 24, 2016 at 10:44 am #

    I found this to be an equally incredible statement with at this point, no impact on his support.

    “And you know what, there’s a point at which let’s get to be a little establishment; we’ve got to get things done, folks. Okay. Believe me, don’t worry. We’re going to make such great deals. But at a certain point you can’t be so strident, you can’t not get along. We got to get along with people. You know in the old days Ronald Reagan, and I remember it so vividly, I was a young guy, I helped Ronald Reagan, I really like him. …So what happens, Ronald Reagan would get along with Tip O’Neill. And they’d sit down and they’d make great deals for everybody. That’s what the country’s about really isn’t it? You know. I mean we can all be tough and we can be the …but you know at some point we gotta get our country back on track.”

    It’s like he is already pivoting to the center for the general election.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose any voters, OK?” Trump said to laughter at a rally he held at a Christian college in northwest Iowa. “It’s like, incredible.”

  6. avatar
    Dave B. January 24, 2016 at 12:21 pm #

    That balloon is just about one breath short of bursting.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose any voters, OK?” Trump said to laughter at a rally he held at a Christian college in northwest Iowa. “It’s like, incredible.”

  7. avatar
    bob January 24, 2016 at 3:03 pm #

    Back in 2008, Joyce filed an amicus brief in support of Berg’s cert. petition.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Illinois pharmacist files Cruz ballot challenge in Illinois

    http://www.wnd.com/2016/01/motion-demands-cruz-be-removed-from-illinois-ballot/#C3VrEGZekwMihmYE.99

  8. avatar
    J.D. Sue January 24, 2016 at 5:59 pm #

    Doc, don’t know if you’ve seen this, but it reminds me of your article months ago about how birthers are authoritarians.

    http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/donald-trump-2016-authoritarian-213533

  9. avatar
    justlw January 24, 2016 at 11:20 pm #

    I hope everyone’s watching the X-Files special. It’s ripping the lid off of everything.

  10. avatar
    Notorial Dissent January 25, 2016 at 4:28 am #

    I don’t remember the quote they are attributing to Tribe at all. Particularly since it contradicts reality as well as the law of the time. So Paige filed an amended brief and may have actually served the parties he is trying to sue or involve in the case.

  11. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 25, 2016 at 8:19 pm #

    Curiously, I met a woman at the Mensa meeting Sunday who was born a US citizen in Canada. I explained what the fuss was over Cruz.

  12. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 25, 2016 at 8:22 pm #

    Yes, that was an interesting article, but not a surprising result insofar as it concluded that authoritarian followers go for Trump. It surprised me a little, and perhaps it shouldn’t have, that none of the other variables seemed to matter.

    J.D. Sue:
    Doc, don’t know if you’ve seen this, but it reminds me of your article months ago about how birthers are authoritarians.

    http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/donald-trump-2016-authoritarian-213533

  13. avatar
    ScottRS January 26, 2016 at 1:02 pm #

    Interesting post on the wonderful Lawyers, Guns and Money blog: Guest post from Mark Field regarding Ted Cruz’s eligibility for the presidency”

    http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2016/01/guest-post-from-mark-field-regarding-ted-cruzs-eligibility-for-the-presidency

  14. avatar
    donna January 26, 2016 at 3:32 pm #

    Sheriff Joe heads to Iowa to endorse Trump

    http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/267069-sheriff-joe-heading-to-iowa-to-endorse-trump

  15. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 26, 2016 at 6:38 pm #

    Well he would, wouldn’t he?

    donna: Sheriff Joe heads to Iowa to endorse Trump

  16. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 26, 2016 at 6:39 pm #

    “Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who endorsed her fellow reality television veteran last week, has also been touted as a potential member of a Trump administration. The two bonded in recent years over pizza and the Barack Obama birth certificate, and Palin even joked about Trump as her potential running mate in an appearance on Saturday Night Live last year.”

    — InsideSources
    http://www.insidesources.com/veepstakes-revisited-possible-trump-sanders-running-mates/

  17. avatar
    Dave B. January 26, 2016 at 6:48 pm #

    Apparently, use of the term “dumbass birthers” sends a comment at the Washington Times into moderation. It’s the kind of thing a person should know.

  18. avatar
    Dave B. January 26, 2016 at 6:52 pm #

    Oh, no no no. She’s going to be soooo disappointed, because once again, the Free Wood Post has the scoop:

    http://www.freewoodpost.com/2016/01/26/trump-announces-running-mate-himself/

    I’m starting to like that site. They seem to know how it’s done.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    “Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who endorsed her fellow reality television veteran last week, has also been touted as a potential member of a Trump administration. The two bonded in recent years over pizza and the Barack Obama birth certificate, and Palin even joked about Trump as her potential running mate in an appearance on Saturday Night Live last year.”

    — InsideSources
    http://www.insidesources.com/veepstakes-revisited-possible-trump-sanders-running-mates/

  19. avatar
    Dave January 26, 2016 at 8:25 pm #

    The birther who’s polling at 35% of Republicans has stated he will not show up for the debate tomorrow because Meghan Kelly will be moderating.

    Trump can’t come out of this looking good — either he shows up, which is backing down, or he doesn’t show up, demonstrating that the guy who says he’s the only one strong enough to face Russia and China somehow can’t face Meghan Kelly.

    And yet, his remarkable Times Square comment seems to be true — his supporters are so stupid that it doesn’t matter how enormous a chasm opens up between Trump’s words and his deeds. It doesn’t even matter if he points this out to their faces.

  20. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) January 27, 2016 at 4:17 am #

    Dave: demonstrating that the guy who says he’s the only one strong enough to face Russia and China somehow can’t face Meghan Kelly

    That won’t lose him the primary (as his followers have thrown FoxNews under the bus long ago), but it surely would guarantee a loss in the general election.
    Hillary’s ads would be all over how she faced the Benghazi committee for 11 hours yet Trump couldn’t face a blond host at his fellow conservatives’ favourite channel.

    This may very well prove to be the moment Trump jumps the shark (like Carson with his disastrous statements about foreign policy which caused him to go from 28 to 10 percent within a week).

  21. avatar
    Dave January 27, 2016 at 11:14 am #

    I won’t be surprised if Trump’s polling stays at 35% no matter what. 35% of Republicans is not that many people — about 10% of voters. I could believe that 10% of voters are brainless bigoted idiots.

  22. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 27, 2016 at 4:07 pm #

    Just a reminder:

    Users who want their own custom avatar may accomplish it in three ways, as detailed in the site User Guide:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/visitor-guide/#contents-avatars

  23. avatar
    Rickey January 27, 2016 at 4:48 pm #

    One of the militia occupiers in Oregon who were arrested yesterday was none other than birther/right-wing radio host. Pete Santilli.

    http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2016/01/27/cincinnatian-peter-santilli-arrested-oregon-standoff/79386528/

    You may recall that Santilli said on his radio show that he wanted to shoot Hillary Clinton in the vagina and watch her suffer a slow, painful death.

  24. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 27, 2016 at 5:04 pm #

    Missed that one, but Santilli interviewed Mike Volin, and suggested that Zullo hop over the White House fence and arrest Obama.

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2014/10/birthers-basket-case/

    Rickey: You may recall that Santilli said on his radio show that he wanted to shoot Hillary Clinton in the vagina and watch her suffer a slow, painful death.

  25. avatar
    bgansel9 January 27, 2016 at 5:56 pm #

    Just for sh**s and giggles, I’d be really interested to know what Nancy R. Owens thinks is in this safe. LOL 😛

    http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/26/pablo-escobar-mansion-locked-safe-found?CMP=fb_gu

  26. avatar
    Rickey January 27, 2016 at 7:55 pm #

    The story about Santilli’s comments about Hillary Clinton are here:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/18/pete-santilli-hillary-clinton_n_3299247.html

  27. avatar
    Dave B. January 27, 2016 at 11:41 pm #

    I thought about that too, but then I remembered that old Arabian proverb–
    It doesn’t stink if you don’t kick it over.

    bgansel9:
    Just for sh**s and giggles, I’d be really interested to know what Nancy R. Owens thinks is in this safe. LOL

    http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/26/pablo-escobar-mansion-locked-safe-found?CMP=fb_gu

  28. avatar
    Rickey January 28, 2016 at 12:46 am #

    bgansel9:
    I’d be really interested to know what Nancy R. Owens thinks is in this safe. LOL

    I’ll lose all faith in her if she doesn’t know the combination.

  29. avatar
    Keith January 28, 2016 at 5:44 pm #

    Dave: The birther who’s polling at 35% of Republicans has stated he will not show up for the debate tomorrow because Meghan Kelly will be moderating.

    That settles that then.

    I won’t be voting for him in Iowa, and I probably won’t vote for him in New Hampshire either.

    So smoke on your pipe and put that in.

  30. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 28, 2016 at 7:04 pm #

    I will not vote for him
    in a house.
    I will not vote for him
    with a mouse.
    I will not vote for him
    here or there.
    I will not vote for him
    anywhere.
    I do not like Donald Trump.
    I do not like him, Doc-I-am.

    Keith: I won’t be voting for him in Iowa, and I probably won’t vote for him in New Hampshire either.

  31. avatar
    charo January 28, 2016 at 8:51 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I will not vote for him
    in a house.
    I will not vote for him
    with a mouse.
    I will not vote for him
    here or there.
    I will not vote for him
    anywhere.
    I do not like Donald Trump.
    I do not like him, Doc-I-am.

    lol But you know how that one turned out. 😉

  32. avatar
    Dave January 28, 2016 at 11:12 pm #

    I think Trump has learned something from Obama: he just won the GOP debate by employing the “empty chair” method.

  33. avatar
    Roald January 29, 2016 at 11:15 am #

    A state judge ordered Atlah Worldwide Church to be sold at a public foreclosure auction after failing to pay creditors more than $1.02 million, court records show.

    The Rev. James Manning said in a phone conversation with DNAinfo New York that the foreclosure was mostly over unpaid water and sewage bills and vowed to fight the order, claiming his church’s tax exempt status means he doesn’t have to pay.

    “I assure you, it’s about a water bill and a tax that can’t be levied against this church,” Manning said. “I think it’s a land grab quite frankly.”

    https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20160128/central-harlem/homophobic-pastors-harlem-church-up-for-public-auction-over-unpaid-debts

    Couldn’t happen to a nicer guy.

  34. avatar
    Dave B. January 29, 2016 at 2:01 pm #

    Somebody haz sadd:

    “The article also mentions the H. Brooke Paige lawsuit in Vermont but links to a highly biased obot site instead of Citizen Wells where the Paige lawsuit was first reported.”

    http://citizenwells.com/tag/msn-quotes-obot-site-instead-of-citizen-wells/

    Poor birfer, can’t get no respect.

  35. avatar
    Rickey January 29, 2016 at 2:26 pm #

    Roald:
    A state judge ordered Atlah Worldwide Church to be sold at a public foreclosure auction after failing to pay creditors more than $1.02 million, court records show.

    The Rev. James Manning said in a phone conversation with DNAinfo New York that the foreclosure was mostly over unpaid water and sewage bills and vowed to fight the order, claiming his church’s tax exempt status means he doesn’t have to pay.

    “I assure you, it’s about a water bill and a tax that can’t be levied against this church,” Manning said. “I think it’s a land grab quite frankly.”

    https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20160128/central-harlem/homophobic-pastors-harlem-church-up-for-public-auction-over-unpaid-debts

    Couldn’t happen to a nicer guy.

    It gets even better. The attorney who filed the Answer for the church in October, 2009, Anthony C. Jones, wasn’t even licensed to practice law at the time. His law license was suspended on 2/5/08 and has never been reinstated. He then was censured on 1/27/09.

    Manning is lying when he says that he didn’t know about the foreclosure action. Anthony Jones is or was an elder in Manning’s church.

  36. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 29, 2016 at 4:29 pm #

    MSN is a news aggregator. The article originated at FactCheck.org. I think they rather defer to me than mess with birthers 😉

    The FCO article links to my article about Voeltz, not Paige.

    Dave B.: “The article also mentions the H. Brooke Paige lawsuit in Vermont but links to a highly biased obot site instead of Citizen Wells where the Paige lawsuit was first reported.”

  37. avatar
    Dave B. January 29, 2016 at 4:44 pm #

    They don’t want to get any on ’em. That’s understandable, especially for those who lack the proper training and protective equipment.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    MSN is a news aggregator. The article originated at FactCheck.org. I think they would rather defer to me than mess with birthers

  38. avatar
    Scientist January 29, 2016 at 4:46 pm #

    Trump calls Cruz An Anchor Baby in Canada http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-ted-cruz-pummeled-debate

    And for the record, Cruz couldn’t get elected dog catcher in Canada, let alone PM. I remember that we once had a discussion here about electing dog catchers and it turns out that Duxbury, Vermont actually does elect one at their Town Meeting. I’ve been there-lovely place at the foot of Mt. Mansfield. I didn’t see the dog catcher.

  39. avatar
    bob January 29, 2016 at 7:43 pm #

    Zullo was on “Freedom Friday” today. Citing the ongoing litigation, Zullo declined to discuss “the investigation.” Instead, Zullo gave his opinion on what he thinks natural-born citizen means (hint: the imaginary “rule” that every other birther also wishes were the law).

  40. avatar
    RanTalbott January 30, 2016 at 2:35 am #

    Scientist: I didn’t see the dog catcher.

    Of course not: anyone who can sneak up on dogs is too stealthy to be spotted by a human 😉

    bob: Citing the ongoing litigation, Zullo declined to discuss “the investigation.”

    Ironic, isn’t it? Many of us hoped that the Melendres case would lead to the unraveling of the scam, but it seems to have prolonged it, instead.

    bob: Instead, Zullo gave his opinion on what he thinks natural-born citizen means

    He and Carl also devoted some time to patting each other on the back, claiming that Zullo’s non-investigation of the non-document had something to do with the fact that people are paying attention to the legal issue Cruz is facing.

    Zullo finds it suspicious that Cruz hasn’t simply taken his case to the Supreme Court himself. It’s obvious that he’s telling the truth about still being in AZ, because there haven’t been any news reports about a sudden jump in the state’s average IQ.

  41. avatar
    Notorial Dissent January 30, 2016 at 2:55 am #

    Maybe even the Kommandant is capable of learning, when to keep his mouth shut, albeit way too late. I think he’s seeing visions of indictments future at this point, as well he should.

  42. avatar
    RanTalbott January 30, 2016 at 3:29 pm #

    gorefan: It’s like he is already pivoting to the center for the general election.

    As I’ve been telling the Trumpistas, that ain’t gonna fly: Nixon got away with it, because he did it before the digital age, when file footage from the primaries was comparatively scarce and hard to get. Now, everything every candidate ever said in the presence of a cellphone is available to come back and haunt him.

    We got a taste of that with Romney’s “47%” and Santorum’s “macaca” moments. This time, it’s going to be much worse: there won’t just be quotes from newspaper articles flashed on the screen as in years past, there’ll be actual video of the candidate making the contradictory statements to cheering crowds. If Trump gets the nomination, one of the major campaign themes will be “Which Trump is the real one?”.

    And it’ll be a double whammy for him: not only will some of his base get turned off by “Trump 2.0”, but the “Trump 1.0” statements will turn off some voters he’s trying to recruit with the new image.

  43. avatar
    Dave B. January 30, 2016 at 3:45 pm #

    That was George Allen.

    RanTalbott: We got a taste of that with Romney’s “47%” and Santorum’s “macaca” moments.

  44. avatar
    Scientist January 30, 2016 at 3:56 pm #

    RanTalbott: “Which Trump is the real one?”.

    Looking at his positions over the years, it’s clear`that there is one constant, a lodestar, a rock of Gibraltar, a beacon. It is that Donald Trump knows that Donald Trump is the greatest human being who ever walked the Earth.

  45. avatar
    Keith January 31, 2016 at 5:59 am #

    RanTalbott: If Trump gets the nomination, one of the major campaign themes will be “Which Trump is the real one?”.

    Anybody remember Mitt Romney’s Etch-A-Sketch remark?

    Donald Trump Admits He Says Horrible Things Just To Keep People Interested In Him

  46. avatar
    Dave B. January 31, 2016 at 9:04 pm #

    Sharon Rondeau figured out she could get a certified copy of Cruz’s mother’s birth certificate from Delaware:

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2016/01/31/the-post-email-obtains-certified-copy-of-ted-cruzs-mothers-birth-certificate/

  47. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 31, 2016 at 9:17 pm #

    So, I wonder which candidate has no brain, and which has no courage?

  48. avatar
    John Reilly February 1, 2016 at 1:13 am #

    RanTalbott: And it’ll be a double whammy for him: not only will some of his base get turned off by “Trump 2.0”, but the “Trump 1.0” statements will turn off some voters he’s trying to recruit with the new image.

    I think it is far worse. If Trump wins (which is not a remote possibility) he will not carry out his promises and offer only excuses. And folks already disaffected by politics (often without reason) will become more disaffected.

  49. avatar
    RanTalbott February 1, 2016 at 3:16 am #

    John Reilly: If Trump wins (which is not a remote possibility) he will not carry out his promises and offer only excuses.

    I’m not sure what you mean by “wins”: I’ll concede, sadly, that getting the GOP nomination is credible, but that would just mean he’d get hammered in the general election campaign. Despite his whining, he’s really having a pretty easy time of it right now, with almost no one pressing him hard for the answers he’s not willing/able to give. I’ve half-joked that the GOP primary has resembled a competition for high school prom king/queen, with Trump’s rhetoric mostly consisting of “I’m cool, and they suck, so vote for me”. If it comes down to one-on-one against Clinton or Sanders, Trump’s lack of suitability for the office is going to shine like a second sun.

    So, I believe he’s not going to have the opportunity to make excuses for anything other than losing the election.

  50. avatar
    Lupin February 1, 2016 at 3:42 am #

    RanTalbott: So, I believe he’s not going to have the opportunity to make excuses for anything other than losing the election.

    I wish I could share your confidence but may I remind you that you’re the country that elected a second-rate western actor with a scandalous past private life, already half-gaga, accusing trees of polluting.

  51. avatar
    Dave B. February 1, 2016 at 4:45 pm #

    Mario’s up and at ’em over at the New American:

    http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/22433-congressional-report-examines-cruzs-natural-born-citizen-status

  52. avatar
    Scientist February 1, 2016 at 5:36 pm #

    Dave B.: Mario’s up and at ’em over at the New American

    Isn’t Mario more of an Old American by now?

  53. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 1, 2016 at 5:58 pm #

    Lupin, I had said before that the citizenship of children of French citizens born overseas was a form of extraterritoriality. I found where I got that from. It was this citation from US v. Wong:

    “children born in a foreign country, of a French father who had not established his domicil there nor given up the intention of returning, were also deemed Frenchmen, as Laurent says, by “a favor, a sort of fiction,” and Calvo, “by a sort of fiction of exterritoriality, considered as born in France, and therefore invested with French nationality.” Pothier Trait des Personnes, pt. 1, tit. 2, sect. 1, nos. 43, 45; Walsh-Serrant v. Walsh-Serrant, (1802) 3 Journal du Palais, 384; S.C., S. Merlin, Jurisprudence, (5th ed.) Domicile, § 13; Prefet du Nord v. Lebeau, (1862) Journal du Palais, 1863, 312 and note; 1 Laurent Droit Civil, no. 321; 2 Calvo Droit International, (5th ed.) § 542; Cockburn on Nationality, 13, 14; Hall’s International Law, (4th ed.) § 68. The general principle of citizenship by birth within French territory prevailed until after the French Revolution, and was affirmed in successive constitutions from the one adopted by the Constituent Assembly in 1791 to that of the French Republic in 1799. Constitutions et Chartes, (ed. 1830) pp. 100, 136, 148, 186.”

  54. avatar
    Daniel February 1, 2016 at 6:43 pm #

    Anyone remember Manning? THe harlem Pastor (in)famous-ish for holding the trial that convicted Obama of treason and accomplished…….. absolutely nothing?

    Looks like he’s got himself some financial troubles. A Judge has ordered his church property sold at auction, and, sweet irony that it is, an organization for LGBT youth wants to buy it.

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/dispatches/2016/02/01/harlem-hate-church-could-become-lgbt-youth-center/#sthash.rddO471U.gbpl&st_refDomain=www.facebook.com&st_refQuery=/

  55. avatar
    Lupin February 2, 2016 at 3:05 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Lupin, I had said before that the citizenship of children of French citizens born overseas was a form of extraterritoriality. I found where I got that from. It was this citation from US v. Wong:

    “children born in a foreign country, of a French father who had not established his domicil there nor given up the intention of returning, were also deemed Frenchmen, as Laurent says, by “a favor, a sort of fiction,” and Calvo, “by a sort of fiction of exterritoriality, considered as born in France, and therefore invested with French nationality.” Pothier Trait des Personnes, pt. 1, tit. 2, sect. 1, nos. 43, 45; Walsh-Serrant v. Walsh-Serrant, (1802) 3 Journal du Palais, 384; S.C., S. Merlin, Jurisprudence, (5th ed.) Domicile, § 13; Prefet du Nord v. Lebeau, (1862) Journal du Palais, 1863, 312 and note; 1 Laurent Droit Civil, no. 321; 2 Calvo Droit International, (5th ed.) § 542; Cockburn on Nationality, 13, 14; Hall’s International Law, (4th ed.) § 68. The general principle of citizenship by birth within French territory prevailed until after the French Revolution, and was affirmed in successive constitutions from the one adopted by the Constituent Assembly in 1791 to that of the French Republic in 1799. Constitutions et Chartes, (ed. 1830) pp. 100, 136, 148, 186.”

    To be honest, it seems to me a rather tortured interpretation of a basic jus sanguinis principle as established in the Napoleonic Code.

    Children born of a French father in another country (let’s say, the US) would have inherited their French citizenship from their father irrespective of the place of birth or the father’s intention or not to ever return to France under the Napoleonic Code.

    Clearly, paperwork would have had to be filled at the local French Consulate/Embassy in order to register the birth under French law, but ultimately the child would have been granted French citizenship.

    Maybe looking at it from purely a jus soli angle, that’s what they mean by a fiction of extraterritoriality, but in all honesty I don’t quite see how one should equate a basic jus sanguinis concept (through the father) with the notion of “some fiction of extraterritoriality”.

    The reverse was far more complicated: a child born of foreign parents of French soil MAY have obtained French citizenship if he/she applied for it but it was not automatic.

  56. avatar
    Dave B. February 2, 2016 at 1:47 pm #

    Okay, David Farrar’s on a roll over at the New American:

    “By placing a comma between the words “natives — which, by the way is actually “naturals”, not natives —
    “naturals, or natural born citizens, the author is saying, “I am saying “naturals”, but a more precise meaning is “indigious” peoples, those who live in the land of their births and that of their anchestors, i.e. natual born citizens.”

    http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/22433-congressional-report-examines-cruzs-natural-born-citizen-status#comment-2492071298

  57. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 2, 2016 at 5:13 pm #

    My only concern with this question is whether my memory is just making stuff up or not. I have no “skin in the game” otherwise.

    Lupin: To be honest, it seems to me a rather tortured interpretation of a basic jus sanguinis principle as established in the Napoleonic Code.

  58. avatar
    Arthur B. February 2, 2016 at 5:15 pm #

    Doc, I see you’re participating in the New American thread with David Farrar.

    I would like to nominate this, from him, for a Quote of the Day:

    “My claim against Judge Malihi was that he was way in over his head.”

  59. avatar
    Dave February 2, 2016 at 7:13 pm #

    It’s interesting to see how the birther candidate manages expectations: he does it after the fact: “The media has not covered my long-shot great finish in Iowa fairly.”

  60. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 2, 2016 at 7:40 pm #

    Oh, the other birther candidate.

    Dave: It’s interesting to see how the birther candidate

  61. avatar
    Daniel February 2, 2016 at 7:55 pm #

    Anyone know how Cody Robert Judy did in the Iowa Caucuses?

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

  62. avatar
    Dave B. February 2, 2016 at 9:03 pm #

    He’s come up with so many over there.

    Arthur B.:
    Doc, I see you’re participating in the New American thread with David Farrar.

    I would like to nominate this, from him, for a Quote of the Day:

    “My claim against Judge Malihi was that he was way in over his head.”

  63. avatar
    Dave February 2, 2016 at 10:33 pm #

    I don’t think the media covered his long-shot finish either, but at least he’s not whining about it.

    Daniel:
    Anyone know how Cody Robert Judy did in the Iowa Caucuses?

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

  64. avatar
    Rickey February 2, 2016 at 10:42 pm #

    Daniel:
    Anyone know how Cody Robert Judy did in the Iowa Caucuses?

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

    It’s difficult to decipher what’s going on inside of Judy’s head, but it appears that he believes that some of the uncommitted county delegates were somehow supporting him. Even if that were the case, the country delegates don’t really count. It is the “Candidate State Delegate Equivalents” which actually matter.

  65. avatar
    RanTalbott February 3, 2016 at 3:27 am #

    Dave: “The media has not covered my long-shot great finish in Iowa fairly.”

    Would that be the “great finish” where he turned a 4.7% lead in the final RCP average into a 3.3% loss in the actual voting?

    It wasn’t exactly a “great finish” for me, who’s been saying from the beginning (as have some of the professional pundits) that his support in telephone polls wouldn’t hold up when people got serious about voting, because he still exceeded my expectations. But it looks like I had the basic idea right 😉

  66. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater February 3, 2016 at 8:06 am #

    bgansel9:
    Just for sh**s and giggles, I’d be really interested to know what Nancy R. Owens thinks is in this safe. LOL

    http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/26/pablo-escobar-mansion-locked-safe-found?CMP=fb_gu

    When did the town of clewiston get renamed Miami Beach?

  67. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater February 3, 2016 at 8:11 am #

    Arthur B.:
    Doc, I see you’re participating in the New American thread with David Farrar.

    I would like to nominate this, from him, for a Quote of the Day:

    “My claim against Judge Malihi was that he was way in over his head.”

    At least he finally gave me an answer about not filing a case against Romney despite promising to. It only took months of prodding him on different websites

  68. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 3, 2016 at 8:13 am #

    I was reminded of a tongue twister about a skunk, in which I’ll substitute Trump.

    The Trump went on the stump.
    The Trump thunk the stump stunk.
    But the stump thunk the Trump stunk.

    RanTalbott: It wasn’t exactly a “great finish” for me,

  69. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 3, 2016 at 8:22 am #

    Yup.

    Arthur B.: I would like to nominate this, from him, for a Quote of the Day:

  70. avatar
    Hermitian February 3, 2016 at 11:28 am #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater February 3, 2016 at 9:19 am (Quote) #

    Hermitian: As an Engineer, I prefer to base my opinions on hard facts.

    You mean like when you claimed that Brietbart was killed by a CIA heart attack gun, or a starbucks employee watering the sidewalk, or an electrified street plate or a jagged street lamp of doom?

    Breitbart suddenly collapsed and died in the perfect spot for a assassination, directly beneath a street lamp and standing in the middle of an unmarked street light construction zone. In fact he had just stepped onto a HIGH VOLTAGE STREET LIGHT ACCESS COVER PLATE which was incompletely installed, There were no warning signs for this Electrical hazard.

    The spot where he fell was within 10 feet of the darkened entrance alcove of the Brentwood Starbucks. Anyone standing in the alcove would be in total darkness while Breitbart was in the direct light of the street light.

    There was no on-scene investigation of his death by the LA police or the coroner.

  71. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 3, 2016 at 12:26 pm #

    I’m using the hashtag #soreloser for Donald Trump’s latest claims that Cruz stole the Iowa vote.

  72. avatar
    roadburner February 3, 2016 at 1:04 pm #

    Hermitian: Breitbart suddenly collapsed and died in the perfect spot for a assassination, directly beneath a street lamp and standing in the middle of an unmarked street light construction zone.In fact he had just stepped onto a HIGH VOLTAGE STREET LIGHT ACCESS COVER PLATE which was incompletely installed,There were no warning signs for this Electrical hazard.

    The spot where he fell was within 10 feet of the darkened entrance alcove of the Brentwood Starbucks.Anyone standing in the alcove would be in total darkness while Breitbart was in the direct light of the street light.

    There was no on-scene investigation of his death by the LA police or the coroner.

    i don’t suppose that being overweight, and according to close friend bill whittle (go on, call him a liberal) had a serious heart attack months earlier had anything to do with it?

    no, it had to be colonel plum in the library with the heart attack gun

    tell you what, write NOROM on a piece of paper, hold it on your chest and look in the mirror, and you’ll find the solution to this conspiracy!

  73. avatar
    Dave B. February 3, 2016 at 1:14 pm #

    I should learn from your example and avoid the tautology “failed birther litigant.”

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Yup.

  74. avatar
    Rickey February 3, 2016 at 1:18 pm #

    “Less than 48 hours after an Iowa caucus defeat, Donald Trump is calling for a do-over. The New York business man accused the Ted Cruz campaign of fraudulent activities during the Iowa caucuses, after controversial voter mailers and reports that Cruz staffers lied to caucus goers by indicating Dr. Ben Carson was dropping out in order to gain votes for Cruz. Cruz has since called for the firing of those people and apologized.”

    http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-hits-cruz-fraud-calls-do-over-iowa-n510431

  75. avatar
    Hermitian February 3, 2016 at 1:58 pm #

    roadburner February 3, 2016 at 1:04 pm (Quote) #

    Hermitian: Breitbart suddenly collapsed and died in the perfect spot for a assassination, directly beneath a street lamp and standing in the middle of an unmarked street light construction zone.In fact he had just stepped onto a HIGH VOLTAGE STREET LIGHT ACCESS COVER PLATE which was incompletely installed,There were no warning signs for this Electrical hazard.

    The spot where he fell was within 10 feet of the darkened entrance alcove of the Brentwood Starbucks.Anyone standing in the alcove would be in total darkness while Breitbart was in the direct light of the street light.

    There was no on-scene investigation of his death by the LA police or the coroner.

    i don’t suppose that being overweight, and according to close friend bill whittle (go on, call him a liberal) had a serious heart attack months earlier had anything to do with it?

    no, it had to be colonel plum in the library with the heart attack gun

    tell you what, write NOROM on a piece of paper, hold it on your chest and look in the mirror, and you’ll find the solution to this conspiracy!

    The incident you referred to happened the previous year when Breitbart checked into UCLA Emergency with chest pains and shortness of breath. He was admitted for tests lasting several days. He was attended by some of the world’s top Cardiologists. They released him with the recommendation to lose some weight.

    Following his death the autopsy uncovered a congenital hearth condition (Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy).

    The Coroner’s office reported that Breitbart was admitted to UCLA for several days in 2011 for tests under the care of the world class Cardiologists at UCLA. The coroner did not echo any diagnosis made by the UCLA heart experts.

    The diagnosis of Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy is an easily diagnosed heart condition especially an advanced case like the Coroner claims that Breitbart had. The diagnosis is preliminarily made via ultrasound followed by a CT scan.

    Nevertheless, the autopsy report mentions no prior diagnosis of HCT or any medical records obtained from UCLA and reviewed by the Coroner or any consultation between the coroner and Breitbart’s cardiologists. This disconnect is suspicious.

  76. avatar
    Nancy R Owens February 3, 2016 at 4:07 pm #

    The polls clearly had Trump leading and all of a sudden that lead disappears? Yeah, something’s not right.

    Trump2016

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I’m using the hashtag #soreloser for Donald Trump’s latest claims that Cruz stole the Iowa vote.

  77. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater February 3, 2016 at 7:38 pm #

    Hermitian: There was no on-scene investigation of his death by the LA police or the coroner.

    Are you sure it wasn’t the Romulans?

  78. avatar
    Rickey February 3, 2016 at 9:14 pm #

    Hermitian:

    The spot where he fell was within 10 feet of the darkened entrance alcove of the Brentwood Starbucks.Anyone standing in the alcove would be in total darkness while Breitbart was in the direct light of the street light.

    That is incorrect. Breitbart collapsed outside the Brentwood Restaurant & Lounge at 148 S. Barrington Avenue, which is located at the corner of S. Barrington Avenue and Sunset Boulevard. There is no Starbucks on S. Barrington Avenue or on Sunset Boulevard.

    There was no on-scene investigation of his death by the LA police or the coroner.

    Why would there be an on-scene investigation? There was no sign of foul play. He collapsed on the sidewalk, 911 was called, and an ambulance was dispatched.

  79. avatar
    Hermitian February 3, 2016 at 10:03 pm #

    Rickey February 3, 2016 at 9:14 pm (Quote) #

    Hermitian:

    The spot where he fell was within 10 feet of the darkened entrance alcove of the Brentwood Starbucks.Anyone standing in the alcove would be in total darkness while Breitbart was in the direct light of the street light.

    That is incorrect. Breitbart collapsed outside the Brentwood Restaurant & Lounge at 148 S. Barrington Avenue, which is located at the corner of S. Barrington Avenue and Sunset Boulevard. There is no Starbucks on S. Barrington Avenue or on Sunset Boulevard.

    There was no on-scene investigation of his death by the LA police or the coroner.

    Why would there be an on-scene investigation? There was no sign of foul play. He collapsed on the sidewalk, 911 was called, and an ambulance was dispatched.

    Breitbart collapsed just outside the Starbucks on the corner of S. Barrington Ave. and Barrington Ct. He had just departed the Brentwood Restaurant and Lounge which is diagonally across the street. The lounge is not on the corner but rather Café Brentwood and Saketini are. These two are on the corner of S. Barrington Ave. and S. Barrington Pl. The address for Starbucks is:

    Brentwood Village, 11700 Barrington Ct, Los Angeles, CA 90049.

  80. avatar
    justlw February 3, 2016 at 11:46 pm #

    It strikes me that if you were to develop a list of people who were Enemies of the Evul Usurpin’ State in 2011, Andrew Breitbart would be pretty low on the Putinizer List. Yet he’s the one they went after?

  81. avatar
    Dave February 3, 2016 at 11:54 pm #

    Can we hope that Trump will sue to change the Iowa caucus results?

    Can we hope he will be represented by Klayman?

  82. avatar
    Keith February 4, 2016 at 1:33 am #

    Has anyone ever seen CRJ and Kenley Noltensmeier in the same room at the same time?

    I only ask because I noticed that KN started out using [brackets] instead of ‘quote’ marks in his/her/its posts and that reminded me of a certain terrorist about whom we all know.

    Just curious.

  83. avatar
    Keith February 4, 2016 at 1:35 am #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: It only took months of prodding him on different websites

    If by “months” you mean “years”, then yeah.

  84. avatar
    Keith February 4, 2016 at 1:42 am #

    Rickey:
    “Less than 48 hours after an Iowa caucus defeat, Donald Trump is calling for a do-over. The New York business man accused the Ted Cruz campaign of fraudulent activities during the Iowa caucuses, after controversial voter mailers and reports that Cruz staffers lied to caucus goers by indicating Dr. Ben Carson was dropping out in order to gain votes for Cruz. Cruz has since called for the firing of those people and apologized.”

    http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-hits-cruz-fraud-calls-do-over-iowa-n510431

    I think this message from Cruz to Trump is appropriate about now… http://americandigest.org/sidelines/l_shaped_on_48288d6d29cad.jpg.pagespeed.ce.jpg

    Edit: (at least it will be when I figure out how to link to it).
    Edit 2: (yea, I think)

  85. avatar
    Hermitian February 4, 2016 at 9:24 am #

    justlw February 3, 2016 at 11:46 pm (Quote) #

    It strikes me that if you were to develop a list of people who were Enemies of the Evul Usurpin’ State in 2011, Andrew Breitbart would be pretty low on the Putinizer List. Yet he’s the one they went after?

    Maybe because he promised to finally vet Obama before the election?

    http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/05/breitbart-legacy-lives-on-in-relaunched-websites-final-column/

    Breitbart was also credited with the exposure of Congressman Weiner’s sexting.

  86. avatar
    justlw February 4, 2016 at 6:52 pm #

    Hermitian: Maybe because he promised to finally vet Obama before the election?

    Well, sure. He was going to rip the lid off that thing — you know, that amazing thing — that no other reporter, oppo researcher, or enemy government had found out yet, because only he could uncover amazing stories with global impact like…

    … the exposure of Congressman Weiner’s sexting.

    “Exposure”, heh heh. I see what you did there.

    Breitbart’s trademark hard-hitting, investigative journalism in this case seems to boil down to:

    1. Idiot horndog congressman posts a picture of his junk on giant social media site.

    2. Someone screenshots the post and sends it to Breitbart.

    I think this qualifies more as “self-exposure” (callback!) on Weiner’s part rather than as “contributing factor to why the US government up and killed them a journalist.”

  87. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 4, 2016 at 7:20 pm #

    Lots of answers to the question at Quora:

    https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-craziest-accusation-made-against-President-Obama

  88. avatar
    justlw February 4, 2016 at 7:43 pm #

    Wow… and they still missed a bunch! What about his “hip-hop barbecue”? What about the golf?? All that golf?! What about the $200 kajillion trip to India?

  89. avatar
    Hermitian February 4, 2016 at 7:47 pm #

    justlw February 4, 2016 at 6:52 pm (Quote) #

    Hermitian: Maybe because he promised to finally vet Obama before the election?

    Well, sure. He was going to rip the lid off that thing — you know, that amazing thing — that no other reporter, oppo researcher, or enemy government had found out yet, because only he could uncover amazing stories with global impact like…

    … the exposure of Congressman Weiner’s sexting.

    “Exposure”, heh heh. I see what you did there.

    Breitbart’s trademark hard-hitting, investigative journalism in this case seems to boil down to:

    1. Idiot horndog congressman posts a picture of his junk on giant social media site.

    2. Someone screenshots the post and sends it to Breitbart.

    I think this qualifies more as “self-exposure” (callback!) on Weiner’s part rather than as “contributing factor to why the US government up and killed them a journalist.”

    The “Exposure” was unintended. I totally missed it.

    So if you are interested in what went down at Starbucks then go here:

    http://www.crimefilenews.com/2012/03/eyewitness-speaks-out-about-andrew.html

    As he lay dead on the sidewalk Breitbart was flat on his back with his head next to the base of the streetlight pole and his feet were extended out under the newspaper vending box. His body thus lay across the unguarded high voltage cover plate. Note the moat of asphalt surrounding the incompletely installed cover plate that if full of water from the Starbuck cleaning crew hosing the sidewalk would present an electrical hazard. The raised edges of the cover plate constitutes an unguarded tripping hazard. I contacted CAL OSHA but they weren’t interested.

    Be sure and watch the Paul Huebl’s video interview of an eye witnesses.

    I made a couple of comments way down at the bottom of Huebl’s web page.

  90. avatar
    Rickey February 4, 2016 at 10:00 pm #

    Hermitian: Breitbart collapsed just outside the Starbucks on the corner of S. Barrington Ave. and Barrington Ct.He had just departed the Brentwood Restaurant and Lounge which is diagonally across the street.The lounge is not on the corner but rather Café Brentwood and Saketini are.These two are on the corner of S. Barrington Ave. and S. Barrington Pl.The address for Starbucks is:

    Brentwood Village, 11700 Barrington Ct, Los Angeles, CA 90049.

    The autopsy report says that he collapsed at 148 S. Barrington Avenue.

    Where is the alcove which you claim was hiding a killer from sight?

  91. avatar
    Hermitian February 5, 2016 at 6:14 am #

    Rickey February 4, 2016 at 10:00 pm (Quote) #

    Hermitian: Breitbart collapsed just outside the Starbucks on the corner of S. Barrington Ave. and Barrington Ct.He had just departed the Brentwood Restaurant and Lounge which is diagonally across the street.The lounge is not on the corner but rather Café Brentwood and Saketini are.These two are on the corner of S. Barrington Ave. and S. Barrington Pl.The address for Starbucks is:

    Brentwood Village, 11700 Barrington Ct, Los Angeles, CA 90049
    .
    The autopsy report says that he collapsed at 148 S. Barrington Avenue.

    They lied. The police report stated that he died on the sidewalk just outside of his house. But his home is 1.4 miles from the spot where he died, (across the 405 in Westwood). At the time that he collapsed, he was walking in the opposite direction from his home (toward the parking lot on the other side of the entrance to Starbucks and across Barrington Ct). He likely was walking toward his parked car.

    Where is the alcove which you claim was hiding a killer from sight?

    Go here:

    https://www.google.com/maps/place/11700+Barrington+Ct,+Los+Angeles,+CA+90049/@34.064474,-118.4715148,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x80c2bcbb64bfb903:0xe4316872bd966d8f

    The alcove is shown in the picture at the left of the page. The street light pole and newspaper vending machine where Breitbart collapsed and died (on the spot) are just past the alcove. In the distance and across the street is the Brentwood Restaurant and Lounge. Breitbart’s body lay flat on his back with his head at the base of the street light pole and his feet extended underneath the newspaper vending machine.

    If you want a different view of the entrance, then click on the bottom image on the left of the page to go to “Google street view”. Then move the “arrow inside the circle” to your desired vantage point on the street and left click the mouse. You can also “zoom in” or “zoom out”. Click on the + or – on the right side of the screen. Click on the curved white arrows (also on the right edge) to rotate the view left or right. Drag the mouse up or down to tilt the view up or down. If you like, you can walk the view down to the Brentwood Restaurant and Lounge. Just move the “arrow inside the circle” down the street to the point at the entrance of the “Lounge” and left click and then rotate left.

    Unfortunately, Google re-shot the street view scene outside Starbucks in 2015 and the view of the spot where Breitbart died is now blocked by an illegally parked Black SUV.

  92. avatar
    Hermitian February 5, 2016 at 6:29 am #

    Rickey

    The autopsy report says that he collapsed at 148 S. Barrington Avenue.

    The entrance to Brentwood Restaurant and Lounge is here:

    https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0645488,-118.4690468,3a,75y,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sTPtTCDZBt18AAAQZSFFFvA!2e0!3e2!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1

    If you want to go inside then place the cursor on the door opening and left click. Then repeat as desired. You can look around the last room that Breitbart visited. I don’t see any commendatory plaque. But they really need to embed it in the sidewalk outside Starbucks in the “sidewalk hall of fame”.

  93. avatar
    Hermitian February 5, 2016 at 6:59 am #

    Rickey

    Here’s a close-up view of the alcove and sidewalk outside of Starbucks:

    https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0646743,-118.4695795,3a,30y,161.7h,79.7t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sMYv031Ue7Jhl38o-7UrRog!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

  94. avatar
    Hermitian February 5, 2016 at 7:11 pm #

    roadburner February 3, 2016 at 1:04 pm (Quote) #

    Hermitian: Breitbart suddenly collapsed and died in the perfect spot for a assassination, directly beneath a street lamp and standing in the middle of an unmarked street light construction zone.In fact he had just stepped onto a HIGH VOLTAGE STREET LIGHT ACCESS COVER PLATE which was incompletely installed,There were no warning signs for this Electrical hazard.

    The spot where he fell was within 10 feet of the darkened entrance alcove of the Brentwood Starbucks.Anyone standing in the alcove would be in total darkness while Breitbart was in the direct light of the street light.

    There was no on-scene investigation of his death by the LA police or the coroner.

    i don’t suppose that being overweight, and according to close friend bill whittle (go on, call him a liberal) had a serious heart attack months earlier had anything to do with it?

    No because what you claim never happened.

    According to an interview of Breitbart’s wife, conducted by the Coroner’s Investigator shortly after his death, Breitbart had reported to the UCLA ER a year before with shortness of breath. He was admitted for several days for tests. He was diagnosed with congestive hearth failure which at his age is generally a chronic condition. He was released to home. He began exercising and dieting.

  95. avatar
    Dave B. February 5, 2016 at 7:43 pm #

    Tribe/Balkin debate over Cruz eligibility:
    http://www.telegram.com/article/20160205/NEWS/160209483

  96. avatar
    Nancy R Owens February 5, 2016 at 8:10 pm #

    Pablo had a lot of properties. His roots are in Clewiston, however. And, yes, he most certainly hid money everywhere. He did it in case the cops, who were protecting him, decided to arrest him instead.

    What’s in it is most likely money, gold, and diamonds.

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: When did the town of clewiston get renamed Miami Beach?

  97. avatar
    Daniel February 6, 2016 at 12:40 am #

    OK and where do the purple polkadot unicorns factor into this?

  98. avatar
    Hermitian February 6, 2016 at 12:36 pm #

    This one is in the “small world” category.


    Kevin Smith’s Daughter Recounts ‘Very, Very Scary’ Encounter With Fake Uber Drivers

    .
    By ABC NEWS
    22 hours ago

    Good Morning America

    https://gma.yahoo.com/kevin-smiths-daughter-recounts-very-very-scary-encounter-184633306–abc-news-topstories.html#

    That Starbucks in Brentwood is in the news this morning. Pause the video when Starbucks pops up. These “faux Uber” guys were trolling for helpless 16-year-olds females. And their target pickup zone was the Brentwood Starbucks.

    So you can see what the scene would look like at night.

    Except that the inside lights are on in the video whereas they would have been turned off (after closing) when Breitbart stepped up on the curb.

  99. avatar
    Kenley Noltensmeier February 6, 2016 at 1:51 pm #

    How convenient it was to stop allowing comments before I could refute the absurd claims on the page I was commenting on. I will put my response here which is about the claim that George Washington was a natural born citizen.

    Keith:So did that first 20 years of work for Acme go for naught? Did it not happen? Do you deserve that Gold Watch or not?

    What do you think I’ve been saying? His time of residency carried over, NOT the citizenship which he never had until the declaration of independence. This is why, in your story, the watch wouldn’t say ‘Acme’, it would say ‘United Autoparts’… yet it would also say “25 years” even though he wasn’t part of them for that long. His time there was carried over just like every other job in the real world where this happens.

    Again, in order to be a natural born CITIZEN you have to be BORN as a CITIZEN of THAT society/civilization. That’s like saying Native Americans and Slaves became natural born when they were finally recognized as citizens. Were they native (natural born) to the land? YES. Were they natural born citizens? NO.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Guess again. What you describe is exactly the situation of Congressman Smith, who was born in Charleston and was in Europe during the Revolution. When he returned he was elected to Congress. The challenge to him was that he had returned too recently to be a citizen long enough to meet the requirement for a Congressman. Congress rejected that position, with Madison in the lead making the argument that Smith was a citizen from birth.

    Let’s see–agree with the guy who is the principal author of the Constitution, or a crackpot on the Internet? This is not a hard question.

    It is not exactly the situation of Mr. Smith. First, The requirement the defining requirement that Washington met was that of RESIDENCY. Mr. Smith was said not to have been a citizen for the number of years required of him. The difference between the two is that Washington had to remain there to meet the requirements whereas Mr. Smith just had to maintain his citizen status for whatever amount of time was expected of him.

    It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general, place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will, therefore, be unnecessary to investigate any other. Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony.

    This reasoning will hold good, unless it is supposed that the separation which took place between these States and Great Britain, not only dissolved the union between those countries, but dissolved the union among the citizens themselves: that the original compact, which made them altogether one society, being dissolved, they could not fall into pieces, each part making an independent society; but must individually revert into a state of nature; but I do not conceive that this was, of necessity, to be the case; I believe such a revolution did not absolutely take place. But in supposing that this was the case, lies the error of the memorialist. I conceive the colonies remained as a political society, detached from their former connexion with another society, without dissolving into a state of nature; but capable of substituting a new form of Government in the place of the old one, which they had, for special considerations, abolished. Suppose the State of South Carolina should think proper to revise her constitution, abolish that which now exists, and establish another form of Government: surely this would not dissolve the social compact. It would not throw them back into a state of nature. It would not dissolve the union between the individual members of that society. It would leave them in perfect society, changing only the mode of action, which they are always at liberty to arrange.

    As noted above the “the original compact, which made them altogether one society,” did not cease the moment they became a part of the United States. “The colonies remained as a political society.” To think that something such as their citizenship was stripped of them at that point but all other ties remained is absurd.

    If it be said, that very inconvenient circumstances would result from this principle, that it would constitute all those persons who are natives of America, but who took part against the revolution, citizens of the United States, I would beg leave to observe, that we are deciding a question of right, unmixed with the question of expediency, and must, therefore, pay a proper attention to this principle.

    Here he recognizes those born there as natives of America which is precisely what I have been saying. He then also contends that, by the ruling of this case, there is a chance that it may also constitute those, also natives of America, who were against the revolution as citizens of the United States. Notice that he just classifies them as citizens.

    So far as we can judge by the laws of Carolina, and the practice and decision of that State, the principles I have adduced are supported; and I must own, that I feel myself at liberty to decide, that Mr. Smith was a citizen at the declaration of independence, a citizen at the time of his election, and, consequently, entitled to a seat in this Legislature.

    Though he was out of the country his citizenship of Carolina remained. And as such it was changed to United States citizenship upon the Declaration of Independence which continued to hold true from the time of his return and thereafter. This is also evidenced here:

    Mr. Smith was, on the declaration of independence, a citizen of the United States; and unless it appears that he has forfeited his right, by some neglect or overt act, he had continued a citizen until the day of his election to a seat in this House.

    Notice that it’s very clear they they only recognized him as “citizen of the United States” at the time of the Declaration of Independence. There is nothing to suggest that he was a citizen (of the United States) before this point, nor has it ever been suggested by anyone to anyone. This is also evidenced here:

    He cannot be a citizen by birth or inheritance, for he was born in 1758, in South Carolina, while a British colony; and his parents were both dead many years before the declaration of independence; his birthright and inheritance can, therefore, be no other than that of a British subject; for no man can be born a citizen of a Government which did not exist at the time of his being born; nor can parents leave to their children any other political character than that which they themselves possessed.”

    He cannot be a natural born citizen. This does not disprove or go against the mode of which he obtained citizenship status within the United States. He was a citizen of South Carolina and remained as such. And just like everyone else who remained a citizen there who also didn’t forfeit that right “by some neglect or overt act”, he became a United States citizen.

  100. avatar
    Kenley Noltensmeier February 6, 2016 at 2:02 pm #

    Dave B.
    And then there’s the Charming Betsy, in which Jarred Shattuck, who “was born in Connecticut before the American Revolution,” is described by Chief Justice Marshall– veteran of the Revolution and personal friend of George Washington– as having been “born in the United States.”

    Rickey: The only logical conclusion is that the Founders regarded citizens who were born in the colonies as having been born in the United States.

    Thanks for proving my point. Did he say born a CITIZEN of the United States or born in the United States AS A CITIZEN? Nope.

  101. avatar
    Rickey February 6, 2016 at 2:18 pm #

    Hermitian:

    Here’s a close-up view of the alcove and sidewalk outside of Starbucks:

    That doesn’t change the fact that the autopsy report says that Breitbart collapsed outside of 148 S. Barrington Avenue, not outside of 11700 Barrington Court.

    The fact of the matter is that Breitbart had a history of heart problems and he died of heart failure. You evidence-free conspiracy theorists act as if that has never happened before.

  102. avatar
    Dave B. February 6, 2016 at 3:02 pm #

    I keep telling you birthers– don’t try to implicate me in your fantasies.

    Kenley Noltensmeier: Thanks for proving my point. Did he say born a CITIZEN of the United States or born in the United States AS A CITIZEN? Nope.

  103. avatar
    Dave B. February 6, 2016 at 3:06 pm #

    Yes, you’ve uncovered one of the most diabolical aspects of our plot: long in advance, Doc set a two-week limit on each post just so you would be thwarted from leaving a comment exactly where you wanted to.

    Kenley Noltensmeier: How convenient it was to stop allowing comments before I could refute the absurd claims on the page I was commenting on.

  104. avatar
    Kenley Noltensmeier February 6, 2016 at 3:23 pm #

    Dave B.:
    I keep telling you birthers– don’t try to implicate me in your fantasies.

    Like the fantasy that I just proved you wrong on?

  105. avatar
    Hermitian February 6, 2016 at 3:35 pm #

    Rickey February 6, 2016 at 2:18 pm (Quote) #

    Hermitian:

    Here’s a close-up view of the alcove and sidewalk outside of Starbucks:

    That doesn’t change the fact that the autopsy report says that Breitbart collapsed outside of 148 S. Barrington Avenue, not outside of 11700 Barrington Court.

    The fact of the matter is that Breitbart had a history of heart problems and he died of heart failure. You evidence-free conspiracy theorists act as if that has never happened before.

    Except that an ex-Chicago cop and his “on-the-spot” interview of an eyewitness both say you are wrong. Also his still shots of the death scene are irrefutable. Huebl also sold his original video to TMZ who proceeded to bury it. TMZ doesn’t pay good money just to bury faux videos that they buy from ex-Chicago cops. Huebl’s first still shot is the very spot where Breitbart collapsed and died. Huebl’s witness Chris Lasseter was standing on the curb where Breitbart stepped up onto just before he collapsed “like a sack of bricks” and died. Watch the witness interview video. Lasseter was the second witness to reach Breitbart prone on the sidewalk. The first witness to reach him was never identified.

    http://www.crimefilenews.com/2012/03/eyewitness-speaks-out-about-andrew.html

    So where are your death scene videos and still shots?

    Huebl’s reports have not been refuted since he put them up on his web in March 2012.

    You can always check with TMZ to verify Huebl’s account of the incident.

  106. avatar
    Scientist February 6, 2016 at 3:59 pm #

    Kenley Noltensmeier: That’s like saying Native Americans and Slaves became natural born when they were finally recognized as citizens. Were they native (natural born) to the land? YES. Were they natural born citizens? NO.

    They were natural born-100%. A freed slave who was 35 or older could have run for President in the 1868 election as could any member of a First Nation from the time his tribe accepted citizenship. The fact that you wouldn’t have voted for them doesn’t change that.

    The same would be true of those born in territory that the US subsequently acquired-the Louisiana Purchase, land ceded from Mexico, Alaska, Hawaii.

  107. avatar
    Rickey February 6, 2016 at 4:27 pm #

    Hermitian: .Also his still shots of the death scene are irrefutable.

    Irrefutable? They were taken in broad daylight, long after Breitbart collapsed, and prove nothing. I’m at a loss as to what you think they prove.

    So where are your death scene videos and still shots?

    None were taken because there was nothing suspicious about Breitbart’s death.

  108. avatar
    Rickey February 6, 2016 at 4:30 pm #

    Kenley Noltensmeier: Like the fantasy that I just proved you wrong on?

    I believe that he is referring to your fantasy that you have proven anyone wrong.

  109. avatar
    Kenley Noltensmeier February 6, 2016 at 4:35 pm #

    Rickey: I believe that he is referring to your fantasy that you have proven anyone wrong.

    I haven’t. Until now it’s been more of the same nonsense where I say something and then you all say the same thing with a little added “natural born citizen” flare added to it with absolutely no proof pointing to the added flare. I haven’t even been commented on my very last statement yet lol. Either you’re choosing to ignore it or you didn’t see it… In that case scroll up on this page.

  110. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 6, 2016 at 4:54 pm #

    So, exactly when do YOU say that Congressman Smith became a citizen? And if you do not say it was at birth, then how could he have met the requirement of being a citizen for 7 years since he had not resided in the United States for 7 years after the Revolution?

    You seem to be unwilling to look at the details of the issue.

    Kenley Noltensmeier: It is not exactly the situation of Mr. Smith. First, The requirement the defining requirement that Washington met was that of RESIDENCY. Mr. Smith was said not to have been a citizen for the number of years required of him. The difference between the two is that Washington had to remain there to meet the requirements whereas Mr. Smith just had to maintain his citizen status for whatever amount of time was expected of him.

  111. avatar
    Kenley Noltensmeier February 6, 2016 at 5:38 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    So, exactly when do YOU say that Congressman Smith became a citizen? And if you do not say it was at birth, then how could he have met the requirement of being a citizen for 7 years since he had not resided in the United States for 7 years after the Revolution?

    You seem to be unwilling to look at the details of the issue.

    You seem to not understand the details.

    He became a citizen of the United States the day that they said he did. The day that everyone else and his property that he was tied to was established as being part of the United States.

    His property was in Carolina, his money in the treasury, assisting to carry on the war. The declaration of independence affected him as much, though at Geneva, as it did those in Carolina; his happiness, that of his dearest connexions, his property, were deeply interested in it: his fate was so closely connected with that of Carolina, that any revolution in Carolina was a revolution to him. Though a minor, as soon as he heard of the independence of America, he considered himself an American citizen.

    And just like many before him that did the same and were put into similar positions…

    If a person could not become a citizen of a country without residing in it, what should be said of those gentlemen who had been in Europe during the war, and were now in high office in America? Several of them went to Europe before the war, were there at the declaration of independence, and did not return to America till after the war, or about the close of it. When did their citizenship commence? According to the petitioner, they could not become citizens of America until they returned to America, and took an oath of allegiance to the States; but Congress employed them in offices of great confidence, before they had returned to America, or taken such oath. Congress, therefore, considered them citizens, by virtue of the revolution.

    You know as well as I do that you don’t cease to exist as a citizen when you leave the country. Especially one who does so for the reasons that he did.

    Was it to be supposed, he asked, that when a man sent his son into another country for his education and improvement, the son was thereby to lose any political benefits which might, during such temporary absence, accrue to his country? If his father had lived a few years longer, would there have arisen any question on this subject? Would he not, though absent, have acquired, according to the petitioner’s own positions, a right of citizenship? And should his death, at such an early period, not be deemed a sufficient misfortune for him, without using that as a pretence for making him an alien? Those who represented him in Carolina as his guardians, who were in loco parentis, were residents in Carolina at the declaration of independence.

  112. avatar
    Hermitian February 6, 2016 at 6:47 pm #

    Rickey February 6, 2016 at 4:27 pm (Quote) #

    Hermitian: .Also his still shots of the death scene are irrefutable.

    Irrefutable? They were taken in broad daylight, long after Breitbart collapsed, and prove nothing. I’m at a loss as to what you think they prove.

    So where are your death scene videos and still shots?

    None were taken because there was nothing suspicious about Breitbart’s death.

    Huebl’s still shots were the first (and only) taken of the death scene. He reported these on March 02, 2012 the morning that Breitbart died. Coroner personnel did not visit the scene. No evidence was found or collected regarding this case.

    Huebl’s reports prove that Breitbart did not collapse where the authorities reported that he did. His photograph proves that Breitbart fell into an unbarricaded and unmarked street light electrical construction zone on top of a street light pull box cover plate. He fell onto the sidewalk approximately 10 feet from the front entrance to Starbucks in Brentwood. The place where he collapsed is 1.4 miles from his home in Westwood.

  113. avatar
    Pete February 6, 2016 at 7:00 pm #

    Kenley Noltensmeier: He became a citizen of the United States the day that they said he did. The day that everyone else and his property that he was tied to was established as being part of the United States.

    Nonsense.

    It’s the same old birther nonsense. You, like every other birther, distort history and law as much as you need to in order to proof-text your desired conclusion.

    Smith was born a subject of the Colony of South Carolina. His primary civic allegiance was to the Colony of South Carolina, and he held a secondary allegiance to the Crown.

    When the Colony of South Carolina declared independence, as James Madison plainly stated, that did not dissolve the relationship of its people with that entity, although the entity itself changed from being a Colony to being a free State.

    Smith therefore became, at that moment, a subject of the State of South Carolina.

    When subjects stopped being called subjects, and began to be called citizens instead, Smith, at that moment, became known as a citizen of South Carolina. But his relationship to South Carolina did not significantly change. It’s not that his relationship was ever dissolved and then reformed anew, his relationship continued continuously from the moment of his birth. Its nature may have changed very slightly, if you buy the idea that there’s any definable difference between “subject” and “citizen.” But the relationship established at birth continued without interruption.

    When it was decided that citizenship of any one State meant one was also a citizen of the union of States, Smith, and many others, began to be called “citizens of the United States.” But from the establishment of the United States, it was a union of existing States more than an overarching national identity. Citizenship of the United States was defined by the States, and if one had been a natural born subject of any of the Colonies, then one was automatically a natural born citizen of the United States. It took a massive, years-long Civil War close to 100 years later to establish the supremacy of the United States government over the individual States.

    In related news, the grandfather clause for Presidential eligibility was never used. It might have been, if Alexander Hamilton had not been killed in a duel. But every President ever elected to the office has been a natural born citizen of the United States. No President ever qualified solely on the basis of having been merely “a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution.”

    George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and so on… they were all natural born citizens.

    And so was Smith.

  114. avatar
    Hermitian February 6, 2016 at 7:52 pm #

    roadburner February 3, 2016 at 1:04 pm (Quote) #

    Hermitian: Breitbart suddenly collapsed and died in the perfect spot for a assassination, directly beneath a street lamp and standing in the middle of an unmarked street light construction zone.In fact he had just stepped onto a HIGH VOLTAGE STREET LIGHT ACCESS COVER PLATE which was incompletely installed,There were no warning signs for this Electrical hazard.

    The spot where he fell was within 10 feet of the darkened entrance alcove of the Brentwood Starbucks. Anyone standing in the alcove would be in total darkness while Breitbart was in the direct light of the street light.

    There was no on-scene investigation of his death by the LA police or the coroner.

    i don’t suppose that being overweight, and according to close friend bill whittle (go on, call him a liberal) had a serious heart attack months earlier had anything to do with it?

    I re-watched the PJ media video in which Whittle made his remarks about Breitbart’s heart attack. He mentioned this twice, first beginning at 1min 30 sec and again beginning at 11 min 15 sec.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=RA2YIQr1XM4#!

    When he first mentioned it he stated that Breitbart had “had a serious heart attack many months ago. He also connected this event to an outing with Breitbart at a barbeque restaurant two days before his attack.

    When he mentioned it the second time he stated that Breitbart had “had a serious heart attack several months ago”. So he changed his statement from “many months” to “several months” in a time span of approximately 10 minutes.

    He called Breitbart a friend but they were not as close as some other friends.

    But according to Breitbart’s wife, he had had a spell of shortness of breath a year before his death which was diagnosed as congestive heart failure by UCLA staff.

    At end of this video is a link to Bill Whittle’s “Afterburner” video on Breitbart’s death.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95-C8uPez50&feature=iv&src_vid=RA2YIQr1XM4&annotation_id=annotation_920353

    In this video Whittle recounts the outing with Breitbart at a barbeque restaurant in Burbank. He stated that it happened “about a year ago” and “the very next day Breitbart had a serious heart attack”.

    Bill Whittle is not a doctor but UCLA has some of the world’s best Cardiologists.

  115. avatar
    Kenley Noltensmeier February 6, 2016 at 8:27 pm #

    Oh wow, okay lol… I knew you would refuse to believe what I said in spite of the evidence I put forth, but I at least expected you to cite factual evidence why it’s not true… similar to what I did to suggest that it is true. This is nothing new of course, it’s been like this many times throughout this discussion. Your opinion holds true over evidence that suggests otherwise.

    I also didn’t expect you to go so far with it so as to suggest that the creation of the grandfather clause was pointless, but just as you try to justify that they were all seen to be Natural Born citizens because all of them were born there, I can just as easily say that they weren’t and that the grandfather clause is why they were able to become President… There’s absolutely no evidence to suggest otherwise. And if someone who was outside of the country during the the Declaration of Independence can retain their status from the time that they left til when they came back and be recognized no different than someone who stayed and became a citizen during the Declaration of Independence who’s to say that residency wasn’t carried over? You… with the complete lack of evidence that you have?

    I just love how these things can be made up on a whim out of desperation just to make it seem like you know what you’re talking about. Until today there was no mention that they all were Natural Born citizens. It just so happened that one day Dr. Conspiracy was thinking “Hey wait, how could Washington have been President if no one had been a citizen for 14 years… He must have been a Natural Born citizen.” Such rubbish. I’m sure before this revelation of his he, yourself and other members of your crew, had believed that he must have met the residency requirement.

    So let’s just completely ignore the fact that what I cited proved otherwise. Let’s ignore that fact that David Ramsay himself, someone you would say is a natural born citizen (of the United States), said that you “cannot be a citizen by birth or inheritance” if you were born before the Declaration of Independence let alone within a British colony. And that “no man can be born a citizen of a Government which did not exist at the time of his being born; nor can parents leave to their children any other political character than that which they themselves possessed.” For a man who’s supposed to be a Natural Born citizen, he sure doesn’t consider himself as one by what he said. Oh, but we can’t listen to David Ramsay, “He’s crazy” you’ll say. Yeah, keep telling yourself that.

    It was also Ramsay who said that one could only become a citizen of the Unites States by one of the following modes: “1st, By birth or inheritance. 2dly, By having been a party to the late revolution. 3dly, By taking an oath of fidelity to some of the States. 4thly, By tacit consent. 5thly, By adoption.” One could easily discern from this that one’s involvement in the United States could have started before the Declaration of Independence by “having been a party to the late revolution”. It may have not been created then, but you were still contributing to its creation.

    To further add, he also conceded “that birth and residence in this country, before the revolution, could not confer citizenship on Americans who were absent when independence was declared…” further suggesting that past residency would have contributed… It still remained impossible to be a natural born citizen (of the United States).

  116. avatar
    Rickey February 6, 2016 at 8:35 pm #

    Kenley Noltensmeier: I haven’t. Until now it’s been more of the same nonsense where I say something and then you all say the same thing with a little added “natural born citizen” flare added to it with absolutely no proof pointing to the added flare. I haven’t even been commented on my very last statement yet lol. Either you’re choosing to ignore it or you didn’t see it… In that case scroll up on this page.

    Oh, I’ve read your screeds. I’ve read your claim that the so-called “grandfather clause” is what made Washington eligible to be President, even though Justice Story made it clear in 1833 that the clause was inserted into the Constitution to make some American citizens who were born in foreign countries eligible. George Washington was not born in a foreign country, so the clause did not apply to him or any subsequent President.

    I also pointed out that there were suspicions that Hamilton was responsible for the “grandfather clause” because he wanted to be eligible for the presidency. But if that clause was necessary for Washington, Adams, Jefferson, etc., why would anyone suspect that Hamilton was the person behind it? If your interpretation of the clause is correct, without it no one would have been eligible to be president until 1811.

    You, on the other hand, cite no authority. You claim to have seen notes and transcripts of the debates on the Constitution but refuse to provide sources. You try to prove your point by citing the entirely irrelevant Inglis case (Inglis could have claimed U.S. citizenship but he never tried to – it was his heirs who tried to claim that he was a citizen).

    And you still haven’t given a coherent explanation of how Washington could have met the 14-year United States residency requirement when he was sworn into office less than 13 years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence, unless the Founders considered the colonies to have been part of the United States. Indeed, George Clinton of New York, writing in 1788, wrote of “persons…such as were citizens on or before the fourth day of July, 1776…” (Debate on the Constitution, Vol. II, The Library of America, p. 541)

    George Washington was a natural-born citizen. As Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote in 2011, “All of our Presidents have, to date, been born in the 50 states.”

  117. avatar
    Rickey February 6, 2016 at 8:48 pm #

    Kenley Noltensmeier:
    And if someone who was outside of the country during the the Declaration of Independence can retain their status from the time that they left til when they came back and be recognized no different than someone who stayed and became a citizen during the Declaration of Independence who’s to say that residency wasn’t carried over?

    No one is suggesting that someone who was born here and was out of the country during the Revolution could return at any time and be declared a citizen. They had to return as soon as practicable after the signing of the Treaty of Paris, demonstrate that they had not adhered to the British government during their absence, and that they had the intention to adhere to the United States government.

  118. avatar
    Rickey February 6, 2016 at 9:08 pm #

    This is a good time to quote one of Doc C’s posts from four years ago regarding the case of William Loughton Smith:

    The question was not whether Smith was a citizen, but how long he had been a citizen. The Constitution requires that Representatives must have been citizens for 7 years. It is impossible to determine how long he was a citizen without determining when he became a citizen, and when he became a citizen relies on the defining event (i.e. HOW).

    Mr. Smith only returned to the United States 5 years before being elected to Congress. So either he was a citizen BEFORE he set foot in the United States, or he was not eligible to serve as a Representative. The House decided he was eligible.

    That is, either Mr. Smith was a natural born citizen (a citizen from birth) through the accession of South Carolina into the United States, or he was a naturalized citizen who couldn’t have been eligible yet for a seat in the House.

    Thus, Smith could not have been a citizen for 7 years when he was elected to the House unless his citizenship was retroactive. If he was naturalized, he was a citizen for only five years. If he was not naturalized, he was a citizen from birth. There is no in between in his case.

  119. avatar
    Scientist February 6, 2016 at 9:31 pm #

    Kenley Noltensmeier: Oh wow, okay lol… I knew you would refuse to believe what I said in spite of the evidence I put forth,

    Given your record there is no reason anyone should believe what you say.

    But let me ask why you think arguing that Washington wasn’t a natural born citizen in any way helps your case regarding Cruz or Rubio or anyone else. Washington was not born a US citizen-no fault of his the country didn’t exist. Rubio and Cruz were. So even if you could prove Washington wasn’t a natural born citizen, which you can’t, its impact on anyone today who is a citizen at birth would be zero, because the facts and circumstances are different.

    You have expended enormous effort on something that does absolutely nothing to achieve the result you seek. But hey, knock yourself out…

  120. avatar
    Kenley Noltensmeier February 6, 2016 at 9:33 pm #

    Again with ignoring what I’ve said. How can someone be so dense?

    He met the requirement because he had been a resident for 14 years… Plain and simple. No smoke and mirrors and no fancy business. Washington was born in Virginia… His residency there didn’t change. It didn’t start over once it and 12 other colonies stood together and announced themselves united as free independent states. They all still remained separate, with their own laws… Even the Declaration of Independence states that that the Thirteen Colonies were independent states. So I will say it again. No one was a natural born citizen of the united states… they would’ve had been born a citizen of the united states. They weren’t… They were born subjects to the crown. Some of them left and some of them stayed and fought for their independence.

    Here you had 13 separate colonies, soon to establish themselves as independent states, united in one cause to achieve their independence from Britain.

    In the Congressional declaration dated September 9, 1776, the delegates wrote, “That in all continental commissions, and other instruments, where, heretofore, the words ‘United Colonies’ have been used, the stile be altered for the future to the “United States.”

    A resolution by Richard Henry Lee, which had been presented to Congress on June 7 and approved on July 2, 1776, issued the resolve, “That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States….”

    To repeat, yet again, Washington was born in Virginia as a British subject… Not a natural born citizen of something that hadn’t existed. His time there, along with all the other things he did leading up to the Declaration of Independence, contributed to his residency there. When Virginia, and 12 other colonies, announced their independence they stripped themselves from the British Empire and they became 13 sovereign states… they called themselves, together, the United States, but they still retained their identity as independent states. Washington met the residency requirements because he had been a resident of Virginia since his birth and Virginia just so happens to be one of the United States..

  121. avatar
    dunstvangeet February 6, 2016 at 9:41 pm #

    It doesn’t require you to be a Resident of Virginia. It requires you to be a resident of the United States, which according to your own logic, didn’t exist 14 years before Washington was sworn in. So, if one cannot be a natural born citizen of a state that didn’t exist when he was born, then he also can’t be a resident for 14 years, when the place (“United States”) wasn’t actually around back then.

    Nice try. Your logic still trips you up.

  122. avatar
    Kenley Noltensmeier February 6, 2016 at 9:42 pm #

    Rickey:
    This is a good time to quote one of Doc C’s posts from four years ago regarding the case of William Loughton Smith:

    The question was not whether Smith was a citizen, but how long he had been a citizen. The Constitution requires that Representatives must have been citizens for 7 years. It is impossible to determine how long he was a citizen without determining when he became a citizen, and when he became a citizen relies on the defining event (i.e. HOW).

    Mr. Smith only returned to the United States 5 years before being elected to Congress. So either he was a citizen BEFORE he set foot in the United States, or he was not eligible to serve as a Representative. The House decided he was eligible.

    That is, either Mr. Smith was a natural born citizen (a citizen from birth) through the accession of South Carolina into the United States, or he was a naturalized citizen who couldn’t have been eligible yet for a seat in the House.

    Thus, Smith could not have been a citizen for 7 years when he was elected to the House unless his citizenship was retroactive. If he was naturalized, he was a citizen for only five years. If he was not naturalized, he was a citizen from birth. There is no in between in his case.

    Maybe you missed that part when they said he became a citizen at the same time everyone else did. They did, like you said, find no reason to believe he adhered to the British government during their absence. He wasn’t naturalized, he was found to be a citizen. Not because of his birth… he wasn’t born after the creation of the United States to become one by birth… he was a citizen for the same reason everyone else became citizens.

  123. avatar
    Kenley Noltensmeier February 6, 2016 at 9:44 pm #

    dunstvangeet:
    It doesn’t require you to be a Resident of Virginia.It requires you to be a resident of the United States, which according to your own logic, didn’t exist 14 years before Washington was sworn in.So, if one cannot be a natural born citizen of a state that didn’t exist when he was born, then he also can’t be a resident for 14 years, when the place (“United States”) wasn’t actually around back then.

    Nice try.Your logic still trips you up.

    Is Virginia not a State that is part of the United States? Geez, where do you people come from? Hur dur! *rasp*

  124. avatar
    Kenley Noltensmeier February 6, 2016 at 9:51 pm #

    The United Colonies became the United States… they are one and the same. If you live in a town called Granite City for 20 years at which point it was renamed to Rock City and then you continued living there for 5 years Would you say you’ve only been a resident of Rock City for 5 years?

  125. avatar
    Kenley Noltensmeier February 6, 2016 at 9:58 pm #

    It’s funny cause this same analogy was used against me to somehow prove that someone would be seen as a natural born citizen (of the United States), even though you couldn’t be a citizen of something that doesn’t exist, but when it comes to residence you think it doesn’t apply… pure comedy. You can’t make this shit up.

  126. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 6, 2016 at 10:00 pm #

    No, I would say that I had been a resident of Rock City for 25 years, just as Washington would have said he was a natural born citizen of Virginia, and therefore a natural born citizen of the United States.

    Kenley Noltensmeier:
    The United Colonies became the United States… they are one and the same. If you live in a town called Granite City for 20 years at which point it was renamed to Rock City and then you continued living there for 5 years Would you say you’ve only been a resident of Rock City for 5 years?

  127. avatar
    Kenley Noltensmeier February 6, 2016 at 10:08 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    No, I would say that I had been a resident of Rock City for 25 years, just as Washington would have said he was a natural born citizen of Virginia, AND THEREFORE A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES.

    I see what you did there. What part of being natural born citizen do you not understand? The place in which you’re born or the citizenship of which you’re born with? The citizenship you had at the moment of birth cannot change. Just like the place of your birth, your citizenship at the time of birth cannot be changed. Period.

    I proposed the question earlier. Maybe you ignored it or just didn’t see it. When the Native Americans and Slaves became citizens did they become natural born citizens? Nope, they were said to be naturalized… they were given that citizenship. Natural Born Citizenship cannot be given, it is obtained at birth and at birth only.

  128. avatar
    Dave B. February 6, 2016 at 10:21 pm #

    So when was the citizenship of former slaves and other native-born persons of African descent effective from?

    Kenley Noltensmeier: When the Native Americans and Slaves became citizens did they become natural born citizens? Nope, they were said to be naturalized… they were given that citizenship. Natural Born Citizenship cannot be given, it is obtained at birth and at birth only.

  129. avatar
    Kenley Noltensmeier February 6, 2016 at 10:21 pm #

    You can be Native born, as seen by the Native Americans and Slaves that were born here, but they didn’t have citizenship because we didn’t recognize them as citizens. It’s not something that you can just take and call your own regardless of where you’re born. It’s up to the society or civilization to determine who is to be a citizen. I can’t go find an aboriginal tribe in the middle of the Amazon and have a baby and expect them to take it as one of their own lol, it has to be accepted or something must be established before hand stating that “People or children who are to accepted as on of our own people”.

  130. avatar
    Kenley Noltensmeier February 6, 2016 at 10:26 pm #

    Dave B.:
    So when was the citizenship of former slaves and other native-born persons of African descent effective from?

    From the moment they are told “Here. You’re a citizen.” or “Based on our findings, we find that you have been a citizen since ‘Insert Date Here'” I shouldn’t have to tell you this.

  131. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 6, 2016 at 10:28 pm #

    Madison argued that “birth is a criterion of allegiance.” He said that allegiance to the community is primary, and that allegiance to a sovereign is secondary. He said:

    What was the situation of the people of America, when the dissolution of their took place by the declaration of independence? I conceive that every person who owed this primary allegiance to the particular community in which he was born, retained his right of birth as a member of a new community; that he was consequently absolved from secondary allegiance he had owed to the sovereign. If he were not a minor, he became bound by his own act as a member of the society who separated with him from a submission to a foreign country. If he were a minor consent was involved in the decision of that society to which he belonged by the ties of nature. What was the allegiance as a citizen of Carolina he owed to the King of Great Britain? He owed his allegiance to him as a king of society to which as a society he owed his primary allegiance. When that society separate from Great Britain he was bound by that act and his allegiance transferred to that society, or the sovereign which that society should set up; because it was through his membership of the society of South Carolina that he owed allegiance to Great Britain.

    You may quote Madison who said that Smith was (not “became”) a citizen at the Declaration of Independence; however, his argument shows that Smith was a natural born citizen of South Carolina, and that status never changed. If he is a natural born citizen of South Carolina, then he must be a natural born citizen of the United States, because at the start, national citizenship was state citizenship.

    Kenley Noltensmeier: Maybe you missed that part when they said he became a citizen at the same time everyone else did. They did, like you said, find no reason to believe he adhered to the British government during their absence. He wasn’t naturalized, he was found to be a citizen. Not because of his birth… he wasn’t born after the creation of the United States to become one by birth… he was a citizen for the same reason everyone else became citizens.

  132. avatar
    Keith February 6, 2016 at 10:29 pm #

    Kenley Noltensmeier: I proposed the question earlier. Maybe you ignored it or just didn’t see it. When the Native Americans and Slaves became citizens did they become natural born citizens?

    YES and NO.

    They did not BECOME natural born citizens. They were ALWAYS natural born citizens.

    They were natural born citizens because of the circumstances of their birth and the reasoning is exactly the same as the reasoning for George Washington.

    When the First Nations citizens of which you speak were born, the ‘government’ under which whose jurisdiction they adhered to, e.g. their tribal nation, was not considered part of the United States. The same as Virginia in say 1770 and the same as Arizona in 1900. When those jurisdictions became part of the United States, their natural born citizens CONTINUED their natural born citizenship. They did not ‘become; natural born citizens, they always were natural born citizens.

    The slavery issue is similar, but nuanced. Although slaves (born in the USA) were, from the moment of birth natural born citizens, that citizenship was suppressed by the condition of their servitude. When that condition was removed, the actuality of their natural born citizenship was reasserted, Scott v Sandford notwithstanding as demonstrated by the Constitutional amendment the American people had to put in place to correct that racist ruling.

  133. avatar
    Keith February 6, 2016 at 10:34 pm #

    Kenley Noltensmeier: From the moment they are told “Here. You’re a citizen.” or “Based on our findings, we find that you have been a citizen since ‘Insert Date Here’” I shouldn’t have to tell you this.

    There are exactly TWO possible values for your ‘Insert Date Here’ placeholder.

    1) Your birthday

    2) The day you took the naturalization oath.

    I shouldn’t have to tell you that.

  134. avatar
    Kenley Noltensmeier February 6, 2016 at 10:37 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Madison argued that “birth is a criterion of allegiance.” He said that allegiance to the community is primary, and that allegiance to a sovereign is secondary. He said:

    You may quote Madison who said that Smith was (not “became”) a citizen at the Declaration of Independence; however, his argument shows that Smith was a natural born citizen of South Carolina, and that status never changed. If he is a natural born citizen of South Carolina, then he must be a natural born citizen of the United States, because at the start, national citizenship was state citizenship.

    ” I conceive that every person who owed this primary allegiance to the particular community in which he was born, retained his right of birth as a member of a new community” – Right, as in he was a natural born subject of the Britain Empire. In other words… The Empire of Britain retained his birthright when he joined a new community. If you’re gonna bold parts of a sentence… you should bold everything that it consists of.

    “If he were a minor consent was involved in the decision of that society to which he belonged by the ties of nature.” – Again, you gotta consider the whole sentence lol. Consent was needed from the Empire of Britain to join a new community cause he was a minor and not old enough to make decisions on his own.

  135. avatar
    Kenley Noltensmeier February 6, 2016 at 10:40 pm #

    Keith: YES and NO.

    They did not BECOME natural born citizens. They were ALWAYS natural born citizens.

    They were natural born citizens because of the circumstances of their birth and the reasoning is exactly the same as the reasoning for George Washington.

    When the First Nations citizens of which you speak were born, the ‘government’ under which whose jurisdiction they adhered to, e.g. their tribal nation, was not considered part of the United States. The same as Virginia in say 1770 and the same as Arizona in 1900. When those jurisdictions became part of the United States, their natural born citizens CONTINUED their natural born citizenship. They did not ‘become; natural born citizens, they always were natural born citizens.

    The slavery issue is similar, but nuanced. Although slaves (born in the USA) were, from the moment of birth natural born citizens, that citizenship was suppressed by the condition of their servitude. When that condition was removed, the actuality of their natural born citizenship was reasserted, Scott v Sandford notwithstanding as demonstrated by the Constitutional amendment the American people had to put in place to correct that racist ruling.

    *facepalm* How fricking hard is it to understand lol.. They WERE NOT BORN CITIZENS they are Natural born inhabitants or Native Born YES, but NOT natural born citizens. Jesus, it’s like talking to a wall.

  136. avatar
    Kenley Noltensmeier February 6, 2016 at 10:42 pm #

    Keith: There are exactly TWO possible values for your ‘Insert Date Here’ placeholder.

    1) Your birthday

    2) The day you took the naturalization oath.

    I shouldn’t have to tell you that.

    3. The date citizenship was created.

    Not in the case of Mr. Smith. He was found to be citizen upon the Declaration of Independence just like everyone else.

  137. avatar
    Dave B. February 6, 2016 at 11:01 pm #

    Which was…when?

    Kenley Noltensmeier: From the moment they are told “Here. You’re a citizen.” or “Based on our findings, we find that you have been a citizen since ‘Insert Date Here’” I shouldn’t have to tell you this.