Main Menu

The occasional open thread: post partisan depression edition

Put your Obama conspiracy comments that don’t relate to the current articles, depressing or not, here while you still have the freedom to do so. This thread will close in two weeks.

304 Responses to The occasional open thread: post partisan depression edition

  1. avatar
    Robert D' Andrea November 20, 2016 at 10:25 am #

    No one ever uses a SCOTUS case “McCreery’s Lessee v Somerville, (1824)” where they stated that daughters of a non US citizen father were native born citizens. Just like Obama’s case. If Obama is a native born citizen he cannot be a natural born citizen. Therefore, he is not eligible, as per our Constitution, to be president.

  2. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG. November 20, 2016 at 11:50 am #

    Someone told me that I have to afford Trump the same respect that conservatives had to show Obama during his presidency, so without missing a beat I prattled off the nastiest, most far-fetched and moronic conspiracy theory I could muster:

    Is the reason Trump has chosen to distance himself from daughter Tiffany, because he did something to her? Look I’m not saying he fathered a child with his own daughter or anything, but some people seem to think that might be the case. I mean look at his youngest son. There’s something not quite right with how that kid looks. And he doesn’t look anything like his supposed mother, but he does have a resemblance to his sister. I am just a concerned American who looks at this new first family, and there’s just something not quite right there, you know?

  3. avatar
    J.D. Sue November 20, 2016 at 12:05 pm #

    Andrew Vrba, PmG.: Is the reason Trump has chosen to distance himself from daughter Tiffany, because he did something to her?

    —-
    And, when it comes to Trump, one really doesn’t even have to make stuff up. I dig the amusement of birfing Trump with conspiracy theories, they all sure deserve it. But the truth of the man is worse. Maybe he abused her or maybe he just neglected her. I figure the bottom line is that Trump doesn’t have complete control over Tiffany yet, and hasn’t figured out how to effectively put her to work for him. Time will tell.

  4. avatar
    Arthur B. November 20, 2016 at 2:54 pm #

    Robert D' Andrea: If Obama is a native born citizen he cannot be a natural born citizen.

    Quite the contrary. If Obama is a native born citizen (and it has been legally determined that he is), he is of necessity a natural born citizen.

  5. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 20, 2016 at 3:03 pm #

    No one? Before saying that you might have typed “Mccreery” into the search box on this blog. You would have come up with this article from 2009:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/02/scotus-agrees-natural-born-citizen-may-have-alien-parent/

    I think, however, your argument is quite fallacious, that native-born citizens are not natural born citizens. For example, the Supreme Court expressed the equivalence of native and natural born in Minor v. Happersett, saying:

    “At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

    You will again see the equivalence in Luria v. United States (1913)

    “Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency. ”

    Senator Lyman Trumball said before Congress in 1872:

    “By the terms of the Constitution he must have been a citizen of the United States for nine years before he could take a seat here, and seven years before he could take a seat in the other House ; and, in order to be President of the United States, a person must be a native-born citizen.”

    Robert D' Andrea:
    No one ever uses a SCOTUS case “McCreery’s Lessee v Somerville, (1824)” where they stated that daughters of a non US citizen father were native born citizens. Just like Obama’s case. If Obama is a native born citizen he cannot be a natural born citizen. Therefore, he is not eligible, as per our Constitution, to be president.

  6. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG. November 20, 2016 at 3:19 pm #

    Robert D' Andrea:
    No one ever uses a SCOTUS case “McCreery’s Lessee v Somerville, (1824)” where they stated that daughters of a non US citizen father were native born citizens. Just like Obama’s case. If Obama is a native born citizen he cannot be a natural born citizen. Therefore, he is not eligible, as per our Constitution, to be president.

    His second term is, for all intents and purposes, over. You lost. Why are you still arguing such a moot point now?

  7. avatar
    Joey November 20, 2016 at 4:24 pm #

    Robert D' Andrea:
    No one ever uses a SCOTUS case “McCreery’s Lessee v Somerville, (1824)” where they stated that daughters of a non US citizen father were native born citizens. Just like Obama’s case. If Obama is a native born citizen he cannot be a natural born citizen. Therefore, he is not eligible, as per our Constitution, to be president.

    The Courts have ruled otherwise in cases specific to Barack Obama. For example:
    Allen v Obama, Arizona Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon: “Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”–Pima County Superior Court, Tuscon, Arizona, March 7, 2012
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/84531299/AZ-2012-03-07-Allen-v-Obama-C20121317-ORDER-Dismissing-Complaint

  8. avatar
    Rickey November 20, 2016 at 4:26 pm #

    Robert D' Andrea:
    If Obama is a native born citizen he cannot be a natural born citizen. Therefore, he is not eligible, as per our Constitution, to be president.

    Black’s Law Dictionary:

    NATIVE (n)

    A natural-born subject or citizen; a denizen by birth ; one who owes his domicile or citizenship to the fact of his birth within the country referred to. The term may also include one born abroad, if his parents were then citizens of the country, and not permanently residing in foreign parts. See U. S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 101) U. S. 049, 18 Sup. Ct 450, 42 L. Ed. 890; New llartlord v. Canaan, 54 Conn. 39, 5 Atl. 300.

  9. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 20, 2016 at 4:26 pm #

    For some reason, I went through my articles from December of 2008. I’m amazed at the volume of material I published that month! I’m also amazed at the number of typos that survived all this time. 😳

    Note: A longstanding problem with locating articles by month has been fixed, so that now you can access articles for a particular month by adding /yyyy/mm/ following obamaconspiracy.org.

  10. avatar
    Pete November 21, 2016 at 12:36 pm #

    Robert D' Andrea:
    No one ever uses a SCOTUS case “McCreery’s Lessee v Somerville, (1824)” where they stated that daughters of a non US citizen father were native born citizens. Just like Obama’s case. If Obama is a native born citizen he cannot be a natural born citizen. Therefore, he is not eligible, as per our Constitution, to be president.

    Good God. I can’t believe people are still making idiotic claims like this. Everyone born in the United States is a native born citizen. So you just claimed that no one born in the United States is eligible to be president.

    Nor can I believe that good people are still wasting their time trying to educate fools.

    Begone. Buzz off. Return to the pit from whence you came.

  11. avatar
    gorefan November 21, 2016 at 12:49 pm #

    Robert D' Andrea:
    No one ever uses a SCOTUS case “McCreery’s Lessee v Somerville, (1824)” where they stated that daughters of a non US citizen father were native born citizens. Just like Obama’s case. If Obama is a native born citizen he cannot be a natural born citizen. Therefore, he is not eligible, as per our Constitution, to be president.

    There are a several quotes from members of the Founding generation who used the terms native born or natural born when discussing the Presidency. For example,

    “That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, where-ever it is capable of being exerted, is to be dreaded more than the plague.” St. George Tucker, 1803.

  12. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 21, 2016 at 4:34 pm #

    So here’s something different. All the photos of Ann Dunham are really photoshopped pictures of Paul McCartney. I guess this is serious–dunno.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIWaaFTY-ks

  13. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 21, 2016 at 5:36 pm #

    Netflix Obama biopic trailer:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7fNPZcgd7k

  14. avatar
    Jack Parsons November 22, 2016 at 12:02 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy, you are a statist. Every word you type here is a rationalization in defense of statism. Your “research” amounts to propaganda in favour of your craving for more and more government and less and less freedom. A damned shame.

  15. avatar
    Pete November 22, 2016 at 1:29 am #

    Um… simply not true.

    Is this a sock puppet for Robert?

    One thing’s for sure. They still haven’t figured out how to make birthers any smarter.

  16. avatar
    Keith November 22, 2016 at 1:51 am #

    Jack Parsons:
    Dr. Conspiracy, you are a statist. Every word you type here is a rationalization in defense of statism. Your “research” amounts to propaganda in favour of your craving for more and more government and less and less freedom. A damned shame.

    Hows that North Carolina Governorship race going? Sounds like a triumph for democracy to me.

  17. avatar
    Lupin November 22, 2016 at 5:25 am #

    Jack Parsons:
    Dr. Conspiracy, you are a statist. Every word you type here is a rationalization in defense of statism. Your “research” amounts to propaganda in favour of your craving for more and more government and less and less freedom. A damned shame.

    And yet, the right-wing appears to favor strong regimes from Hitler’s to Putin’s.

  18. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater November 22, 2016 at 8:05 am #

    Jack Parsons:
    Dr. Conspiracy, you are a statist. Every word you type here is a rationalization in defense of statism. Your “research” amounts to propaganda in favour of your craving for more and more government and less and less freedom. A damned shame.

    You guys throw sound statist to describe anyone not as crazy as you. So much so that the word loses its meaning. Maybe you can be specific and describe how he’s a statist.

  19. avatar
    roadburner November 22, 2016 at 9:57 am #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: You guys throw sound statist to describe anyone not as crazy as you. So much so that the word loses its meaning. Maybe you can be specific and describe how he’s a statist.

    you’ve got about as much chance of him doing that as you’d have getting the average RWNJ to explain how their president is a `socialist’ like they claim

  20. avatar
    Crustacean November 22, 2016 at 12:18 pm #

    From the December issue of Harper’s Index:

    Number of species that scientists have named after Barack Obama: 7
    After the four previous U.S. presidents combined: 2

    Nice, but it doesn’t help dispel the notion among RWNJs that science is leftist propaganda. Donald Trump wants to release all the carbon we’ve got, so maybe they should name the next fish-killing microbe they discover after him.

  21. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 23, 2016 at 6:45 am #

    Do you have any example of my favoring “more and more government and less and less freedom” or are you just making stuff up?

    Jack Parsons:
    Dr. Conspiracy, you are a statist. Every word you type here is a rationalization in defense of statism. Your “research” amounts to propaganda in favour of your craving for more and more government and less and less freedom. A damned shame.

  22. avatar
    J.D. Sue November 23, 2016 at 2:15 pm #

    “I don’t see how the Electoral College can vote for someone to become president who’s going to be in violation of the Constitution on Day 1, and hasn’t assured us he’s not in violation,” [former Bush White House ethics attorney] Painter said. “This is just as important as your birth certificate, more important than your birth certificate, or proof of age or what other requirements there are to become president of the United States.”

    http://www.rawstory.com/2016/11/former-bush-ethics-lawyer-trump-is-going-to-be-in-violation-of-the-constitution-on-day-1/

  23. avatar
    J.D. Sue November 23, 2016 at 2:31 pm #

    Jack Parsons: propaganda in favour


    What type of propaganda do you “favour” in your country?

  24. avatar
    J.D. Sue November 23, 2016 at 2:35 pm #

    Lupin: And yet, the right-wing appears to favor strong regimes from Hitler’s to Putin’s.

    —-
    They think fascism won’t mess with them personally. Again, naivete.

  25. avatar
    trader jack November 23, 2016 at 8:49 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    No one? Before saying that you might have typed “Mccreery” into the search box on this blog. You would have come up with this article from 2009:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/02/scotus-agrees-natural-born-citizen-may-have-alien-parent/

    I think, however, your argument is quite fallacious, that native-born citizens are not natural born citizens. For example, the Supreme Court expressed the equivalence of native and natural born in Minor v. Happersett, saying:

    “At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens , as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

    You will again see the equivalence in Luria v. United States (1913)

    “Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency. ”

    Senator Lyman Trumball said before Congress in 1872:

    “By the terms of the Constitution he must have been a citizen of the United States for nine years before he could take a seat here, and seven years before he could take a seat in the other House ; and, in order to be President of the United States, a person must be a native-born citizen.”

    If you are cognizant of the use of the term “or” you might understand that the usage of “or” indicates that they are different classes of citizens.

    The proper usage , if you want to declare them the same would be to say that they are Native born and Natural Born citizens which indicates they are both at once

  26. avatar
    trader jack November 23, 2016 at 9:15 pm #

    A dog can be a poodle or a Doberman, but they are not the same thing.

    A dog can be a poodle and a Doberman, which indicates the dog is a mix of the two types of animals and shows that the are the same dog

    that might be too deep for most to understand.

    Or closer to the subject, a citizen can be a democrat or a republican. and it makes no difference between the two?

    Or the President can be a liberal or a Nazi,. right?

    But can the president be a liberal and a Nazi?

  27. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 24, 2016 at 8:27 am #

    My apology for miscopying the text from Minor. It actually says “natives, or natural born citizens.” The comma indicates that the second redefines the first.

    trader jack: The proper usage , if you want to declare them the same would be to say that they are Native born and Natural Born citizens which indicates they are both at once

  28. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG. November 24, 2016 at 1:00 pm #

    Orly is supremely disappointed in Trump’s cabinet picks. Hard-right publications aren’t very happy with him either, as he breaks a new promise every day, and he’s not even been sworn in yet. 😀

  29. avatar
    Joey November 24, 2016 at 3:17 pm #

    trader jack: If you arecognizant of the use of the term “or” you might understandthat the usage of “or” indicates that they are different classes of citizens.

    The proper usage , if you want to declare them the same would be to say that they are Nativeborn and Natural Born citizens which indicates they are bothat once

    Which is what the Supreme Court did; it declared that they are both at once:
    Schneider v. Rusk (1964)

    “We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the ‘natural born’ citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, s 1.”
    And when the federal court applied that standard to Barack Obama, it ruled: U.S. District Court Judge John A. Gibney, Jr.: “It is well settled that those born within the United States are natural born citizens.”– Tisdale v. Obama, U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Virginia, January 23, 2012.
    https://www.scribd.com/book/80563782

  30. avatar
    Joey November 24, 2016 at 3:34 pm #

    trader jack:
    A dog can be a poodle or a Doberman, but they are not the same thing.

    A dog can be a poodle and a Doberman, which indicates the dog is a mix of the two types of animals and shows that theare the same dog

    that might be too deep for most to understand.

    Or closer to the subject, a citizen can be a democrat or a republican. and it makes no difference between the two?

    Or the President can be a liberal or a Nazi,. right?

    But can the president be a liberal and a Nazi?

    That would depend on who is doing the defining. For example, from Jonah Goldberg:
    “Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning.” Goldberg argues that fascist movements were and are left-wing.

  31. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 24, 2016 at 5:48 pm #

    I’ve run across these arguments that liberals make fascists. At least for the Nazis one goal was the elimination of weakness, through eugenics, killing the mentally ill, and eliminating the Jews about which they had some crackpot theories. Hitler said in Mein Kampf: “The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel.”

    Liberalism is the antithesis of this view.

    Hitler also had a view of nature: “Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure. ” Table Talk.

    The idea of natural law is one I see more on the right.

    The most telling result is the psychological finding that authoritarians are more right than left.

    Joey: That would depend on who is doing the defining. For example, from Jonah Goldberg:
    “Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning.” Goldberg argues that fascist movements were and are left-wing.

  32. avatar
    Joey November 24, 2016 at 6:20 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I’ve run across these arguments that liberals make fascists. At least for the Nazis one goal was the elimination of weakness, through eugenics, killing the mentally ill, and eliminating the Jews about which they had some crackpot theories. Hitler said in Mein Kampf: “The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel.”

    Liberalism is the antithesis of this view.

    From a right wing point of view, that’s what being pro-choice on abortion represents.

  33. avatar
    trader jack November 25, 2016 at 3:36 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: “At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

    It is just as possible for the clause, separated from the sentence by the commas, was simply an indication that they
    were aware of two classes of citizens that had to be enumerated to determine the eligibility of citizenship.

    A native citizen being one born of an American citizen parent and a non citizen parent, and the natural born being born of two American citizen parents.

    My oldest brother was born a native citizen as my mother was not a citizen at the time of birth, and yet my youngest brother, born of the same parents, was a Natural Born citizen as my mother received citizenship by law when they made wives citizens by marriage to an American citizen in the early 1900s,and I am a natural born citizen by being born overseas to the two American citizens that were my parents.

    My oldest sister was born overseas but at the time of her birth my mother was still a Swedish citizen and so my sister was a citizen by law being born overseas at USA governmental base.

    As I am the last of my family none of it makes any difference, does it?
    1

  34. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 25, 2016 at 10:14 am #

    But that makes no sense because the Court did not work with any two such classes in order to determine eligibility for citizenship. You are not arguing in good faith. You cannot derive meaning from a nonexistent ambiguity.

    trader jack: It is just as possible for the clause, separated from the sentence by the commas, was simply an indication that they
    were aware of two classes of citizens that had to be enumerated to determine the eligibility of citizenship.

  35. avatar
    Reality Check November 25, 2016 at 11:09 am #

    I think it is important to look at the context of the discussion on citizenship in Minor. The questions in the case were first whether women were citizens and if that was the case was the right to suffrage inherent to their citizenship. Virginia Minor (along with her husband) had argued that the right to vote was one privileges and immunities of citizenship protected under the 14th Amendment.

    The opinion first listed all the known ways to citizenship to show that none of them excluded women. The court was not defining who were natural born citizens. The 14th amendment clarified who were citizens of the United States but since Minor was born before the adoption of the 14th the also court examined who were citizens prior to that. The court said that before the 14th the citizens included citizens of the states when the Constitution was ratified, natural born citizens born after the adoption, and naturalized citizens.

    The court quoted the presidential eligibility clause only to show that the Constitution recognized that a class known as natural born citizens existed. It then commented that the natural born citizens or natives were defined under common law and included “all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens”. As written this phrase in no way excludes any child born to only one citizen parent since both children and parents are plural. The court then went on to say that the common law definition of natives or natural born citizen may extend beyond the children born to citizen parents and include all children born under US jurisdiction without regard to parentage. In other words the court went out of its was to show that it was only delineating the paths to citizenship but not defining who were natural born citizens.

    The remainder of the decision addressed the question as to whether the right of suffrage was or ever had been a right of citizenship. The court concluded that states could limit the right if suffrage to males without violating the 14th Amendment or the Constitution in general. It would take an amendment of the Constitution to guarantee women who were citizens the right to vote.

    The question of who were the natural born citizens under common law and the 14th Amendment was left to be settled by subsequent rulings of the court. The question was settled once and for all in the case of US v Wong Kim Ark.

  36. avatar
    Joey November 25, 2016 at 12:52 pm #

    Attorneys representing Barack Obama’s position on natural born citizenship have cited both Minor v Happersett and US v Wong Kim Ark. No court at any level of the judiciary has ever ruled that Barack Obama does not qualify as a natural born citizen.
    Congress, even though being led by Republican majorities, has never challenged Barack Obama’s natural born citizenship or held any hearings on the constitutional definition of the term.

  37. avatar
    Pete November 25, 2016 at 1:59 pm #

    trader jack,

    Let me give you the brief version.

    Natural Born Citizenship for Dummies

    Volume I: Persons Born in the United States

    Virtually anyone born in the United States is both a natural-born citizen and a native citizen. Such a person is eligible, on meeting the other qualifications, to run for President of the United States. It doesn’t matter whether their parents are citizens or not. It doesn’t matter whether their parents are Commies or not. It doesn’t matter whether their parents are intelligent or not.

    The extremely rare exceptions would include children born here of foreign ambassadors and foreign royalty.

    In spite of what you may have read from stupid people and con men on the internet, there’s no doubt about this. This is settled law.

    Volume II: Persons Born Abroad

    While it’s never been ruled upon by the Supreme Court, persons born US citizens abroad are almost certainly also natural born citizens, and eligible to run for President.

    In some sense of the word, they can be therefore be considered “native” citizens. However, the original meaning of the phrase “native citizen” seems to have referred to persons born in the United States.

    A very few authorities dissent from this view. However, given that such authorities are in the EXTREME minority, and given that the Supreme Court is generally reluctant to override the will of the People, if a case were ever to be brought against a person born a US citizen overseas who had been elected President, it’s pretty much unthinkable that the Court would find such a person to be ineligible.

    Here, therefore, is Natural Born Citizenship for Dummies in one single sentence:

    IF A PERSON HAS BEEN BORN A UNITED STATES CITIZEN, WHETHER BY BEING BORN ON US SOIL (whatever the citizenship of his or her parents) OR BY BEING BORN A CITIZEN OVERSEAS TO ONE OR MORE US CITIZEN PARENTS, THAT PERSON IS, CONSTITUTIONALLY SPEAKING, A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, AND ELIGIBLE TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT ON MEETING THE OTHER QUALIFICATIONS.

    This concludes our treatise on Natural Born and Native Citizenship. Feel free to donate $49.95 for this important education, made all the more valuable by the fact that it was succinct.

    You’re welcome.

    My oldest brother was born a native citizen as my mother was not a citizen at the time of birth, and yet my youngest brother, born of the same parents, was a Natural Born citizen as my mother received citizenship by law when they made wives citizens by marriage to an American citizen in the early 1900s,and I am a natural born citizen by being born overseas to the two American citizens that were my parents.

    My oldest sister was born overseas but at the time of her birth my mother was still a Swedish citizen and so my sister was a citizen by law being born overseas at USA governmental base.

    As I am the last of my family none of it makes any difference, does it?

    No, it doesn’t make any difference. But not because you’re the last of your family.

    It doesn’t make a rat’s ass worth of difference, because you, your two brothers, and your sister are, or were, all natural born citizens and Constitutionally eligible to run for President.

  38. avatar
    Joey November 25, 2016 at 3:34 pm #

    Pete:
    trader jack,

    Let me give you the brief version.

    Natural Born Citizenship for Dummies

    Volume I: Persons Born in the United States

    Virtually anyone born in the United States is both a natural-born citizen and a native citizen. Such a person is eligible, on meeting the other qualifications, to run for President of the United States. It doesn’t matter whether their parents are citizens or not. It doesn’t matter whether their parents are Commies or not. It doesn’t matter whether their parents are intelligent or not.

    The extremely rare exceptions would include children born here of foreign ambassadors and foreign royalty.

    In spite of what you may have read from stupid people and con men on the internet, there’s no doubt about this. This is settled law.

    Volume II: Persons Born Abroad

    While it’s never been ruled upon by the Supreme Court, persons born US citizens abroad are almost certainly also natural born citizens, and eligible to run for President.

    In some sense of the word, they can be therefore be considered “native” citizens. However, the original meaning of the phrase “native citizen” seems to have referred to persons born in the United States.

    A very few authorities dissent from this view. However, given that such authorities are in the EXTREME minority, and given that the Supreme Court is generally reluctant to override the will of the People, if a case were ever to be brought against a person born a US citizen overseas who had been elected President, it’s pretty much unthinkable that the Court would find such a person to be ineligible.

    Here, therefore, is Natural Born Citizenship for Dummies in one single sentence:

    IF A PERSON HAS BEEN BORN A UNITED STATES CITIZEN, WHETHER BY BEING BORN ON US SOIL (whatever the citizenship of his or her parents) OR BY BEING BORN A CITIZEN OVERSEAS TO ONE OR MORE US CITIZEN PARENTS, THAT PERSON IS, CONSTITUTIONALLY SPEAKING, A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, AND ELIGIBLE TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT ON MEETING THE OTHER QUALIFICATIONS.

    This concludes our treatise on Natural Born and Native Citizenship. Feel free to donate $49.95 for this important education, made all the more valuable by the fact that it was succinct.

    You’re welcome.

    No, it doesn’t make any difference. But not because you’re the last of your family.

    It doesn’t make a rat’s ass worth of difference, because you, your two brothers, and your sister are, or were, all natural born citizens and Constitutionally eligible to run for President.

    Just ask John McCain who was born in the Panama Canal Zone, Mitt Romney whose father was born in Mexico or Donald Trump whose mother was born in the United Kingdom.

  39. avatar
    trader jack November 25, 2016 at 3:53 pm #

    http://military.findlaw.com/family-employment-housing/military-children-born-abroad.html

    Citizenship

    Many parents of children born abroad want to know if their children are U.S. citizens. The U.S. grants citizenship in one of three ways: naturalization, in which someone becomes a U.S. citizen sometime after birth; birth on U.S. soil; or birth to parents who are U.S. citizens. Contrary to popular belief, military bases are not considered “U.S. soil” for citizenship purposes. Therefore, the only way children born abroad can acquire citizenship at birth is through their parents.

    There are a wide variety of possible family arrangements, and each one has different citizenship implications.

    If the parents are married to each other, the child is a U.S. citizen if:
    Both parents are U.S. citizens, and at least one of the parents lived in the U.S. at some point before the child was born; or
    One parent is a U.S. citizen, and the U.S. citizen parent lived in the U.S. for at least five years prior to the child’s birth, at least two of which were after the age of fourteen. Time spent serving the military or as a military dependent overseas counts as “time spent in the U.S.” for this purpose.

    If the parents are not married to each other, the child is a U.S. citizen if:
    The mother is a U.S. citizen, and spent at least one year in the U.S. prior to the child’s birth; or

    Only the father is a U.S. citizen, and the father lived in the U.S. for at least five years prior to the child’s birth, at least two of which were after the age of fourteen (time spent in the military counts for this purpose). The child’s paternity must be established according to the laws of the resident country or through the father’s written acknowledgment. DNA testing may be required. In addition, the father must agree in writing that he will financially support the child. Citizenship must be applied for before the child reaches 18.

    After the parents have determined that their child is a U.S. citizen, they need to apply for a Consular Report of Birth Abroad at the nearest U.S. consulate. The parents will need to submit an application (PDF), along with documentation proving the parents’ citizenship and the record of the child’s birth from the resident country. The Consular Report of Birth Abroad can be used later as proof of the child’s U.S. citizenship, and may be used to obtain a U.S. passport for the child.

  40. avatar
    trader jack November 25, 2016 at 4:27 pm #

    Quoting Minor vs. Happenstett

    “At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

    Here it is explicit that natural born citizens are born from citizens of the country.

    It distinguishes two citizen parents as being the source of native , or natural-born citizens, and makes no reference otherwise.

  41. avatar
    Joey November 25, 2016 at 7:24 pm #

    trader jack:
    http://military.findlaw.com/family-employment-housing/military-children-born-abroad.html

    Citizenship

    Many parents of children born abroad want to know if their children are U.S. citizens. The U.S. grants citizenship in one of three ways: naturalization, in which someone becomes a U.S. citizen sometime after birth; birth on U.S. soil; or birth to parents who are U.S. citizens. Contrary to popular belief, military bases are not considered “U.S. soil” for citizenship purposes. Therefore, the only way children born abroad can acquire citizenship at birth is through their parents.

    There are a wide variety of possible family arrangements, and each one has different citizenship implications.

    If the parents are married to each other, the child is a U.S. citizen if:
    Both parents are U.S. citizens, and at least one of the parents lived in the U.S. at some point before the child was born; or
    One parent is a U.S. citizen, and the U.S. citizen parent lived in the U.S. for at least five years prior to the child’s birth, at least two of which were after the age of fourteen. Time spent serving the military or as a military dependent overseas counts as “time spent in the U.S.” for this purpose.

    If the parents are not married to each other, the child is a U.S. citizen if:
    The mother is a U.S. citizen, and spent at least one year in the U.S. prior to the child’s birth; or

    Only the father is a U.S. citizen, and the father lived in the U.S. for at least five years prior to the child’s birth, at least two of which were after the age of fourteen (time spent in the military counts for this purpose). The child’s paternity must be established according to the laws of the resident country or through the father’s written acknowledgment. DNA testing may be required. In addition, the father must agree in writing that he will financially support the child. Citizenship must be applied for before the child reaches 18.

    After the parents have determined that their child is a U.S. citizen, they need to apply for a Consular Report of Birth Abroad at the nearest U.S. consulate. The parents will need to submit an application (PDF), along with documentation proving the parents’ citizenship and the record of the child’s birth from the resident country. The Consular Report of Birth Abroad can be used later as proof of the child’s U.S. citizenship, and may be used to obtain a U.S. passport for the child.

    Senate Resolution 511 (2009)
    S.Res. 511 (110th): A resolution recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.
    The text of the bill below is as of Apr 30, 2008 (Resolution Agreed to by Senate).

    IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

    April 10, 2008
    Mrs. McCaskill (for herself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Obama, Mr. Coburn, Mrs. Clinton, and Mr. Webb) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

    April 24, 2008
    Reported by Mr. Leahy, without amendment

    April 30, 2008
    Considered and agreed to

    RESOLUTION

    Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.

    Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a natural born Citizen of the United States;

    Whereas the term natural born Citizen, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;

    Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country’s President;

    Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the natural born Citizen clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term natural born Citizen;

    Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders;

    Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and

    Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it

    That John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born Citizen under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.

  42. avatar
    Joey November 25, 2016 at 7:33 pm #

    trader jack:
    QuotingMinor vs. Happenstett

    “At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

    Here it is explicit that natural born citizens are born from citizens of the country.

    It distinguishes two citizen parents as being the source of native , or natural-born citizens, and makes no reference otherwise.

    Allen v Obama, Arizona Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon: “Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”–Pima County Superior Court, Tuscon, Arizona, March 7, 2012
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/84531299/AZ-2012-03-07-Allen-v-Obama-C20121317-ORDER-Dismissing-Complaint

  43. avatar
    Joey November 25, 2016 at 7:41 pm #

    trader jack:
    QuotingMinor vs. Happenstett

    “At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

    Here it is explicit that natural born citizens are born from citizens of the country.

    It distinguishes two citizen parents as being the source of native , or natural-born citizens, and makes no reference otherwise.

    Purpura & Moran v Obama: New Jersey Administrative Law Judge Jeff S. Masin: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “Natural Born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.” April 10, 2012
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/88936737/2012-04-10-NJ-Purpura-Moran-v-Obama-Initial-Decision-of-ALJ-Masin-Apuzzo

  44. avatar
    Whatever4 November 25, 2016 at 10:05 pm #

    I can’t believe we are still arguing Minor after 8 long years.

  45. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater November 25, 2016 at 10:56 pm #

    Whatever4:
    I can’t believe we are still arguing Minor after 8 long years.

    Jack recycles claims over and over again he’s been corrected on simply because he’s a troll

  46. avatar
    gorefan November 25, 2016 at 11:12 pm #

    I was reading the WND article about upcoming press conference and saw these comment s by Mike Booth

    “Press conference will be held Friday, Dec. 15 at 4:00pm at the Maricopa County Sheriffs Training Center. International press is encouraged to attend, of course, since establishment media will do their best to sabotage the presser. Other attendance will be by invitation and pass only.”

    And

    “Tim, I will be there. It will be livestreamed. We are working on getting as much International media there. I’m working on Japan, imagine that. Seeing Mike Z. on the 3rd. Fred and I meeting up with him and others (possibly the sheriff and wife) to celebrate Trump’s win. Hope to have more details of the presser to share.”

  47. avatar
    Rickey November 25, 2016 at 11:43 pm #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: Jack recycles claims over and over again he’s been corrected on simply because he’s a troll.

    He and Cody Robert Judy have this in common: both are impervious to facts.

  48. avatar
    Pete November 26, 2016 at 2:36 am #

    Same as with everyone who remains a birther.

    trader jack: Many things have been written over many years about Minor v. Happersett and every other case with the slightest possible bearing on the subject.

    I suggest you read them.

    Better yet, I suggest you read the brief summary of natural born citizenship that I wrote above, leave it at that, and go do something more useful with your life. Like collecting bottle caps.

  49. avatar
    Pete November 26, 2016 at 2:39 am #

    Or maybe you could do a vitally important investigation on whether Fidel Castro was constitutionally eligible to be dictator of Cuba. Or whether Jimmy Carter is in reality a Soviet mole who was never activated.

    Or maybe you could trap Bigfoot, or a chupacabra.

  50. avatar
    trader jack November 26, 2016 at 3:38 am #

    I was pointing out that the reliance on minor and happensett was possibly in error by those who believe Minor settled the question.

    Minor specifically state that a native born citizen is one that had two citizen parents.

    Stop using Minor and saying that it says that a citizen was natural born if born in the USA’

    Better go to a scotus case that asserts that a native born citizen is a natural born citizen.

    Or perhaps you don’t understand that when it says that a native born citizen is one with two citizen parents as you must interpret in a way that justifies your position

    Of course Obama is a citizen of some sort!

  51. avatar
    trader jack November 26, 2016 at 4:01 am #

    If all citizens can run for the Senate, then can all Senators run for President? Why not?

  52. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 26, 2016 at 7:29 am #

    No, it doesn’t.

    trader jack:
    Minor specifically state that a native born citizen is one that had two citizen parents.

  53. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 26, 2016 at 7:40 am #

    And a very effective one.

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: Jack recycles claims over and over again he’s been corrected on simply because he’s a troll

  54. avatar
    gorefan November 26, 2016 at 10:28 am #

    trader jack:
    If all citizens can run for the Senate, then can all Senators run for President?Why not?

    No. No matter how you interpreted citizenship, a naturalized citizen is not a natural born citizen. And everyone agrees that a naturalized citizen can be a Senator but not President.

    There is a Supreme Court case that says the only difference between a naturalized citizen and a native born citizen is that the native born can be President.

  55. avatar
    Northland10 November 26, 2016 at 11:00 am #

    trader jack:
    QuotingMinor vs. Happenstett

    “At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

    Here it is explicit that natural born citizens are born from citizens of the country.

    It distinguishes two citizen parents as being the source of native , or natural-born citizens, and makes no reference otherwise.

    The author of that opinion, Chief Justice Waite, administered the oath of office to Chester Arthur. President Arthur’s father was not a citizen. Waite must have forgotten he defined citizenship differently.

  56. avatar
    Joey November 26, 2016 at 1:57 pm #

    Northland10: The author of that opinion, Chief Justice Waite, administered the oath of office to Chester Arthur.President Arthur’s father was not a citizen.Waite must have forgotten he defined citizenship differently.

    Chester Arthur’s father was not a citizen when Chester was born but William Arthur became a naturalized U.S. citizen when his son was 14 years old.

  57. avatar
    gorefan November 26, 2016 at 11:09 pm #

    Arpaio discusses his upcoming press conference.

    http://www.azfamily.com/clip/12919630/one-more-bombshell-before-arpaio-leaves-office

  58. avatar
    Pete November 27, 2016 at 12:37 am #

    trader jack: I was pointing out that the reliance on minor and happensett was possibly in error by those who believe Minor settled the question.

    Nice start, but let me correct that for you.

    The reliance on Minor v. Happersett is DEFINITELY in error by ANYONE who believes Minor settled any kind of complete definition of natural born citizenship.

    Minor specifically state that a native born citizen is one that had two citizen parents.

    No, it didn’t.

  59. avatar
    Pete November 27, 2016 at 12:42 am #

    gorefan:
    Arpaio discusses his upcoming press conference.

    http://www.azfamily.com/clip/12919630/one-more-bombshell-before-arpaio-leaves-office

    This ought to be good for a laugh.

  60. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 27, 2016 at 11:54 am #

    So he says this is new information that came to light 7 months ago.

    gorefan:
    Arpaio discusses his upcoming press conference.

    http://www.azfamily.com/clip/12919630/one-more-bombshell-before-arpaio-leaves-office

  61. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG November 27, 2016 at 11:57 am #

    Pete: This ought to be good for a laugh.

    I predict he’ll fart out something that has already been discredited. Birthers who have already lost hope, will roll their eyes. The ones on the fence will wail “That’s it?! We waited all this time for nothing!”. Lastly, the few like Bruce, who divorced reality some time ago, will declare it the beginning of the end for Obama.

  62. avatar
    trader jack November 27, 2016 at 2:38 pm #

    Pete: Nice start, but let me correct that for you.

    The reliance on Minor v. Happersett is DEFINITELY in error by ANYONE who believes Minor settled any kind of complete definition of natural born citizenship.

    No, it didn’t.

    “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar,

    it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also

    . These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners

    Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”

    Now , to further educate the masses, if possible.

    Please note that the wording “it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also” is so precise that it eliminates from citizens those people born in the USA who were excluded from citizenship by being born to aliens, invading soldiers and diplomatic personnel.as being native or natural-born citizens.
    :

  63. avatar
    Joey November 27, 2016 at 3:22 pm #

    U.S. Senators Born Outside the United States
    The president is constitutionally required to be natural born, but foreign-born Senators need only nine years of U.S. citizenship to qualify for office. Constitutional qualifications to be a Senator are specified in Article I, section 3.

    David Hartley Armstrong(MO) 1877-1879 Canada
    David Baird(NJ) 1918-1919 Ireland
    Edward Baker(OR) 1860-1861 England
    James Burnie Beck(KY) 1877-1890 Scotland
    Judah Philip Benjamin(LA) 1853-1861 Island of St. Croix
    Rudy Boschwitz(MN) 1978-1991 Germany
    Pierce Butler(SC) 1789-1796; 1802-1804 Ireland
    George Washington Campbell(TN) 1811-1814; 1815-1818 Scotland
    Eugene Casserly(CA) 1869-1873 Ireland
    John Conness(CA) 1863-1869 Ireland
    James Couzens(MI) 1922-1936 Canada
    James John Davis(PA) 1930-1945 Wales
    Charles Edward Dudley(NY) 1829-1833 England
    James Graham Fair(NV) 1881-1887 Ireland
    Eligius Fromentin(LA) 1813-1819 France
    Albert Gallatin(PA) not seated Switzerland
    Jacob Harold Gallinger(NH) 1891-1918 Canada
    Frank Robert Gooding(ID) 1921-1928 England
    William Harper(SC) 1826 Antigua
    Sam Hayakawa(CA) 1977-1983 Canada
    Mazie Hirono(HI) 2013-present Japan
    William Hughes(NJ) 1913-1918 Ireland
    James Jackson(GA) 1793-1795; 1801-1806 England
    Magnus Johnson(MN) 1923-1925 Sweden
    Charles William Jones(FL) 1875-1887 Ireland
    John Percival Jones(NV) 1873-1903 England
    Thomas Kearns(UT) 1901-1905 Canada
    Octaviano Larrazolo(NM) 1928-1929 Mexico
    John Laurance(NY) 1796-1800 England
    William Lorimer(IL) 1909-1912 England
    Walter Lowrie(PA) 1819-1825 Scotland
    Stephen Russell Mallory(FL) 1851-1861 Trinidad
    Lee Mantle(MT) 1895-1899 England
    Mel Martinez(FL) 2005-2009 Cuba
    James McMillan(MI) 1889-1902 Canada
    Joseph Hopkins Millard(NE) 1901-1907 Canada
    Robert Morris(PA) 1789-1795 England
    John Moses(ND) 1945 Norway
    James Edward Murray(MT) 1934-1961 Canada
    Knute Nelson(MN) 1895-1923 Norway
    Samuel Danford Nicholson(CO) 1921-1923 Canada
    Samuel Pasco(FL) 1887-1899 England
    William Paterson(NJ) 1789-1790 Ireland
    Thomas M. Patterson(CO) 1901-1907 Ireland
    Alexander Porter(LA) 1833-1837 Ireland
    Edward Vivian Robertson(WY) 1943-1949 Wales
    Carl Schurz(MO) 1869-1875 Germany
    William Joyce Sewell(NJ) 1881-1887; 1895-1901 Ireland
    James Shields(IL) 1849-1855 Ireland (MN) 1858-1859 (MO) 1879
    Joseph Simon(OR) 1898-1903 Germany
    Pierre Soulé(LA) 1847; 1849-1853 France
    Isaac Stephenson(WI) 1907-1915 Canada
    Patrick Joseph Sullivan (WY) 1929-1930 Ireland
    George Sutherland(UT) 1905-1917 England
    Thomas Taggart(IN) 1916 Ireland
    Edward Tiffin(OH) 1807-1809 England
    Robert Ferdinand Wagner(NY) 1927-1949 Germany
    Patrick Walsh(GA) 1894-1895 Ireland
    David Levy Yulee(FL) 1845-1851; 1855-1861 Island of St. Thomas

    Born to American parents abroad
    Michael F. Bennet(CO) 2009-present India
    Charles William Cathcart(IN) 1852-1853 Island of Madeira
    Rafael Edward (Ted) Cruz(TX) 2013-present Canada
    Felix Hebert(RI) 1929-1935 Canada
    John McCain(AZ) 1987- present Panama Canal Zone
    James Willis Nesmith(OR) 1861-1867 Canada
    George Tener Oliver(PA) 1909-1917 Ireland
    Lowell Weicker(CT) 1971-1989 France
    George Peabody Wetmore(RI) 1895-1907; 1908-1913 England

    Born in territories not yet incorporated into the U.S.
    Hiram Bingham(CT) 1924-1933 Kingdom of Hawaii
    Charles Bouligny(LA) 1824-1829 Spanish Louisiana
    Jean Noel Destréhan(LA) 1812 French Louisiana

    http://www.senate.gov/reference/Foreign_born.htm

  64. avatar
    Joey November 27, 2016 at 5:43 pm #

    trader jack: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar,

    it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also

    . These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners

    Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168]parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”

    Now , to further educate the masses, if possible.

    Please note that the wording “it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also” is so precise that it eliminates from citizens those people born in the USA who were excluded from citizenship by being born to aliens, invading soldiers and diplomatic personnel.as being native or natural-born citizens.
    :

    Minor v Happersett explicitedly states that its ruling is not intended to define who is a natural born citizen. “RESORT MUST BE HAD ELSEWHERE TO DETERMINE THAT.”
    “Elsewhere” happened 23 years after Minor when the federal government asked the Supreme Court to rule on: “Are Chinese children born in this country to share with the descendants of the patriots of the American Revolution the exalted qualification of being eligible to the Presidency of the nation, conferred by the Constitution in recognition of the importance and dignity of citizenship by birth?”
    “To hold that Wong Kim Ark is a natural-born citizen within the ruling now quoted, is to ignore the fact that at his birth he became a subject of China by reason of the allegiance of his parents to the Chinese Emperor. That fact is not open to controversy, for the law of China demonstrates its existence. He was therefore born subject to a foreign power; and although born subject to the laws of the United States, in the sense of being entitled to and receiving protection while within the territorial limits of the nation—a right of all aliens—yet he was not born subject to the ‘political jurisdiction’ thereof, and for that reason is not a citizen. The judgment and order appealed from should be reversed, and the respondent remanded to the custody of the collector.”

    The Supreme Court ruled in U.S. v Wong Kim Ark (1898): “An alien parent’s allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, [7 Coke, 6a,] ’strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’
    The Wong ruling also stated:
    “Subject’ and ‘citizen’ are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives; and though the term ‘citizen’ seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, ’subjects,’ for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.’
    and
    …every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

    The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.”

  65. avatar
    gorefan November 27, 2016 at 6:25 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    So he says this is new information that came to light 7 months ago.

    That may be when Zullo first started to talk about using an international forensic expert.

  66. avatar
    Keith November 27, 2016 at 7:42 pm #

    trader jack: Please note that the wording “it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also” is so precise that it eliminates from citizens those people born in the USA who were excluded from citizenship by being born to aliens, invading soldiers and diplomatic personnel.as being native or natural-born citizens.

    You are precisely WRONG.

    The words you quote contain no such precision “that it eliminates from citizens those people born in the USA who were excluded from citizenship by being born to aliens”. In fact the meaning of Chief Justice Waite was precisely the opposite and he made that meaning precisely clear: that there is no such precision one way or the other about the children of aliens at the time of his ruling – only doubt – and your quote even says precisely that:

    Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.

    Read that again:

    “As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”

    There is no precision there about the citizenship status of the children of aliens; there is only doubt. The only certainty is about the citizenship status of the children of other citizens.

    Chief Justice Waite also made it precisely clear why the ruling DID NOT further address those doubts: the question of the children of alien parents WAS NOT BEFORE THE COURT in this case. In the very next sentence after your quote, which you conveniently choose to leave out in order to attempt to mislead, Waite says:

    For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words “all children” are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as “all persons,” and if females are included in the last, they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact, the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.

    Again, read this again: “It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”

    And that is precisely because Miss Minor was the child of citizen parents. You see, the question he is addressing with his journey into the meaning of natural born citizenship here, is whether or not Miss Minor is a citizen at all. Her suit claimed that as a citizen she (and indeed all women) was being denied her Constitutional rights – the right to vote in democratic elections granted to all citizens. So the question was in two parts (a) are women citizens with equal Constitutional rights to men? and if so (b) is there a Constitutional right to vote granted to all citizens.

    To answer part (a) the court did not need to address the question of children of aliens because Miss Minor was not the child of aliens. The Court then answered part (b) with the finding that there was no right to vote, express or implied, granted by the Constitution.

    Minor v Happersett did not turn on the definition of the term “Natural Born Citizen”, did not need to define the term, and made no such attempt to do so. The ruling only had to go far enough to determine whether or not Miss Minor in particular, and women in general, are to be considered citizens.

    Justice Waite’s expressed doubt about the citizenship status of the children of aliens was answered by the Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark case a few decades later.

    This has all been explained to you and your fellow trolls time and time again. Isn’t time to move on to some endeavor that is more satisfying for your well-being?

    Here is some food for thought:

    How Complaining Rewires Your Brain for Negativity

  67. avatar
    trader jack November 27, 2016 at 8:50 pm #

    No, all people born in the us of parents who are citizens are native born, or natural born. Period.

    that is the statement that determines citizens of the USA at the of 1875 according to the Supreme Court.

    Other people thought otherwise, and that problem will be considered at a later date. Period.

    So, at that time, the 14th did not make all born here natural born citizens. it made them citizens.

    The Supreme Court has made no other determination as to whom is a natural born citizen.

  68. avatar
    W. Kevin Vicklund November 27, 2016 at 8:51 pm #

    gorefan: That may be when Zullo first started to talk about using an international forensic expert.

    Yep, sometime in April, as I recall.

  69. avatar
    W. Kevin Vicklund November 27, 2016 at 9:03 pm #

    W. Kevin Vicklund: Yep, sometime in April, as I recall.

    Well, apparently March: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2016/03/zullo-finally-shows-his-evidence/

    Birther math, I guess. Or they got “results” back a month or two after.

  70. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater November 27, 2016 at 9:36 pm #

    gorefan: That may be when Zullo first started to talk about using an international forensic expert.

    I suppose it’ll end up being the 700th such expert zullo called after getting turned down by 699 others. But I’m sure he’ll be of the same caliber as the last handwriting expert whose credentials they’ll inflate.

  71. avatar
    misha November 27, 2016 at 11:26 pm #

    ‘A recipe for scandal’: Trump conflicts of interest point to constitutional crisis

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/27/donald-trump-conflicts-interest-constitutional-crisis

  72. avatar
    gorefan November 27, 2016 at 11:50 pm #

    W. Kevin Vicklund: Yep, sometime in April, as I recall.

    Wouldn’t you love to be able to ask questions at that press conference.

  73. avatar
    Joey November 28, 2016 at 2:41 am #

    gorefan: Wouldn’t you love to be able to ask questions at that press conference.

    Find out who is covering the press conference for the Phoenix New Times newspaper and feed their reporter some questions.

  74. avatar
    Keith November 28, 2016 at 7:56 am #

    Joey: Find out who is covering the press conference for the Phoenix New Times newspaper and feed their reporter some questions.

    I doubt that Mr. Lemons needs any help from us.

    Of course he might have been banned… its the birther way.

  75. avatar
    Reality Check November 28, 2016 at 9:27 am #

    I may second a couple of questions to @morganloewcbs5. I am sure Morgan Loew will be there.

    Keith: I doubt that Mr. Lemons needs any help from us.

    Of course he might have been banned… its the birther way.

  76. avatar
    gorefan November 28, 2016 at 11:05 am #

    Reality Check:
    I may second a couple of questions to @morganloewcbs5. I am sure Morgan Loew will be there.

    The reporter who interviewed Arpaio may be there too.

  77. avatar
    Reality Check November 28, 2016 at 2:16 pm #

    I meant send. Auto-correct on my tablet struck again.

    Reality Check:
    I may second a couple of questions to @morganloewcbs5. I am sure Morgan Loew will be there.

  78. avatar
    Alex November 28, 2016 at 4:18 pm #

    Trump being such an Arpaio fan my bet he wont be able to resist the Twitter and bring back the birthers.

  79. avatar
    Joey November 28, 2016 at 4:25 pm #

    Bad birther…bad!
    Judge’s discipline hearing in February
    The state judicial discipline agency has announced it will hold a hearing in San Diego in February on charges San Diego Superior Court Judge Gary Kreep violated ethics rules.
    The Commission on Judicial Performance said the hearing, open to the public, will be conducted February 6 at the state Fourth District Court of Appeals court room.
    Kreep was charged in October with willful misconduct, conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice and improper action. The complaint details a series of actions, including making inappropriate, crude and sexist remarks to litigants and lawyers, and violations of campaign law when he ran for judge in 2012.
    Kreep has denied the accusations and fired back at the commission, saying it was on a campaign of harassment to run him off the bench. Before he was elected, Kreep was a conservative lawyer and a leader in the “birther” movement that challenged that President Barack Obama was born in the U.S.
    The commission has also appointed a panel of three judges to serve as special masters and preside over the hearing.
    Kreep faces a range of punishment from a private letter of admonishment up to removal from the bench.
    The hearing will act as a kind of trial, with lawyers for the commission and Kreep questioning witnesses and introducing evidence related to the charges.
    At the end the special masters will write a report to the Commission on Judicial Performance, detailing their findings on each of the charges. Each side can respond to that report in writing and can argue the case to the 11 member commission.
    The commission then determines if the charges have been proven and what discipline will be imposed.
    These kinds of hearings are rare. The commission held three out of 1,245 complaints filed in 2015.

  80. avatar
    Pete November 28, 2016 at 4:46 pm #

    trader jack: Please note that the wording “it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also” is so precise that it eliminates from citizens those people born in the USA who were excluded from citizenship by being born to aliens, invading soldiers and diplomatic personnel.as being native or natural-born citizens.

    Oh, God. Can you actually read?

    I’m serious.

    It says that nobody ever had any doubt about the US citizenship of children born in the United States of citizen parents. That’s all the hell it says.

    NOWHERE does it say what you claim.

    You need to go re-enroll, starting in about 4th grade, to study reading.

    A study of logic wouldn’t hurt either.

  81. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG November 28, 2016 at 8:38 pm #

    Alex:
    Trump being such an Arpaio fan my bet he wont be able to resist the Twitter and bring back the birthers.

    I don’t see why he’d bother.
    Trump only does for Trump. Birthers served their purpose to him, hence why he left them twisting in the wind.

  82. avatar
    Rickey November 28, 2016 at 9:13 pm #

    trader jack:

    Please note that the wording “it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also” is so precise that it eliminates from citizens those people born in the USA who were excluded from citizenship by being born to aliens, invading soldiers and diplomatic personnel.as being native or natural-born citizens.

    If that were true, the Supreme Court would never have ruled that Wong Kim Ark was a U.S. citizen, for he indisputably was born in the U.S. to two non-citizen parents. He was never naturalized and the Supreme Court ruled that he was a U.S. citizen by virtue of his birth in the U.S.

    In Chief Justice Fuller’s dissent in the Wong Kim Ark case he never mentions Minor v. Happersett, a strange omission if it was understood that the 1875 case stood for the proposition that children born in the U.S. to aliens were not citizens at birth.

    So once again you are wrong.

  83. avatar
    Pete November 28, 2016 at 11:07 pm #

    I didn’t have the patience to write anything like what Rickey said, but the first paragraph, at least, is exactly correct.

    Fuller actually did mention Minor v Happersett in his dissent, but only in passing, and only to note that “Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 167, remarked that there were doubts which, for the purposes of the case then in hand, it was not necessary to solve.”

    That’s it.

    So the essential point is still correct. If Minor had said what birthers idiotically claim, Fuller would’ve made a big deal of it.

  84. avatar
    Pete November 28, 2016 at 11:10 pm #

    The end is near.

    Less than 8 weeks away.

  85. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG November 28, 2016 at 11:50 pm #

    I went to Smith’s blog for a quick laugh, and was not disappointed. He’s back and he’s got a new target in his sights. Go on and take a lookie , I won’t spoil the surprise. XD

  86. avatar
    Rickey November 28, 2016 at 11:59 pm #

    Pete:
    I didn’t have the patience to write anything like what Rickey said, but the first paragraph, at least, is exactly correct.

    Fuller actually did mention Minor v Happersett in his dissent, but only in passing, and only to note that “Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 167, remarked that there were doubts which, for the purposes of the case then in hand, it was not necessary to solve.”

    That’s it.

    So the essential point is still correct. If Minor had said what birthers idiotically claim, Fuller would’ve made a big deal of it.

    Thanks for the clarification. What I meant to convey is that Justice Fuller did not cite Minor v. Happersett as precedent to support his opinion that Wong Kim Ark was not a U.S. citizen. As you say, he mentioned it only in passing.

    The majority decision also cites Minor v. Happersett, but only to make the point that the common law has to be applied when undefined terms must be interpreted.

  87. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 29, 2016 at 5:59 am #

    So we’re right back where we started, with you misinterpreting that slightly altered statement from the Supreme Court. I am ending the discussion.

    trader jack: No, all people born in the us of parents who are citizens are native born, or natural born. Period.

  88. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 29, 2016 at 6:04 am #

    I’ve been visiting family for the holidays, but when I get back shortly, I’ll put up an article summarizing what we know about the Arizona press conference promises.

  89. avatar
    Pete November 29, 2016 at 10:37 am #

    Rickey: What I meant to convey is that Justice Fuller did not cite Minor v. Happersett as precedent to support his opinion that Wong Kim Ark was not a U.S. citizen.

    That’s true. Justice Fuller, in his dissent, did not cite Minor v. Happersett as any kind of a precedent to support his opinion that Wong Kim Ark was not a US citizen.

    Obviously, if he had considered it any kind of precedent in support of his opinion, he would’ve cited it that way.

    But it doesn’t matter to birfers, because birfers will birf.

  90. avatar
    gorefan November 29, 2016 at 10:38 am #

    Andrew Vrba, PmG:
    I went to Smith’s blog for a quick laugh, and was not disappointed. He’s back and he’s got a new target in his sights. Go on and take a lookie , I won’t spoil the surprise. XD

    California’s birth index lists Ms. Averbuch as the maiden name of the mother of Josef’s two sons.

  91. avatar
    Pete November 29, 2016 at 10:39 am #

    trader jack: No, all people born in the us of parents who are citizens are native born, or natural born. Period.

    This is what I love about birfers. They think they get to define their own reality.

    “The sky is green.”

    “No, it’s blue.”

    “No, it’s green. Because I say it’s green.”

  92. avatar
    Rickey November 29, 2016 at 11:28 am #

    Pete: That’s true. Justice Fuller, in his dissent, did not cite Minor v. Happersett as any kind of a precedent to support his opinion that Wong Kim Ark was not a US citizen.

    Obviously, if he had considered it any kind of precedent in support of his opinion, he would’ve cited it that way.

    If Minor v. Happersett said what Trader Jacks claims it says, the Wong Kim Ark case never would have gotten to the Supreme Court. The District Court most likely would have denied the appeal and SCOTUS most likely would have denied cert.

    And even if Minor v. Happersett DID say what Trader Jacks claims it says, it has been overturned by the Wong Kim Ark decision, which held (with exceptions for foreign diplomats and occupying enemy forces) that a child born in the United States to two non-citizen parents is a U.S. citizen at birth.

  93. avatar
    Arthur B. November 29, 2016 at 12:00 pm #

    Pete: This is what I love about birfers. They think they get to define their own reality.

    “The sky is green.”

    “No, it’s blue.”

    “No, it’s green. Because I say it’s green.”

    Don’t forget “period.” It’s not Officially True till you say “period.”

  94. avatar
    Reality Check November 29, 2016 at 12:43 pm #

    That sounds exactly like one of Apuzzo’s arguments. Just add “l win”.

    Pete: This is what I love about birfers. They think they get to define their own reality.

    “The sky is green.”

    “No, it’s blue.”

    “No, it’s green. Because I say it’s green.”

  95. avatar
    Dave B. November 29, 2016 at 1:44 pm #

    Renowned constitutional scholar and staunch defender of that document Donald Trump says flag-burners should be stripped of their citizenship. Flag-burning is as legal as tax avoidance. Who hurts America more, the pauper who burns a flag or the billionaire who doesn’t pay taxes?

  96. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG. November 29, 2016 at 5:18 pm #

    Dave B.:
    Renowned constitutional scholar and staunch defender of that document Donald Trump says flag-burners should be stripped of their citizenship.Flag-burning is as legal as tax avoidance.Who hurts America more, the pauper who burns a flag or the billionaire who doesn’t pay taxes?

    Trump is so clueless as to how anything works, I doubt he’ll be making any real decisions. It’ll be all the awful people he’s bringing in doing the thinking, he’ll just sign his name in crayon, on whatever comes across his desk.

  97. avatar
    Northland10 November 29, 2016 at 6:25 pm #

    Arthur B.: Don’t forget “period.”It’s not Officially True till you say “period.

    And you have to say, “undeniably proven”.

  98. avatar
    misha November 29, 2016 at 6:29 pm #

    Andrew Vrba, PmG.: It’ll be all the awful people he’s bringing in doing the thinking, he’ll just sign his name in crayon, on whatever comes across his desk.

    Trump’s ‘news’ source: Alien lizards, fluoride mind control and voter fraud

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trumps-news-source-alien-lizards-fluoride-mind-control-and-voter-fraud/2016/11/28/c0326c26-b5a0-11e6-b8df-600bd9d38a02_story.html?postshare=7041480437515986&tid=ss_fb

  99. avatar
    Northland10 November 29, 2016 at 8:05 pm #

    I’m so happy Misha is back.

  100. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 29, 2016 at 8:11 pm #

    Arpaio criminal contempt trial moved to April 4.

    http://www.cbs5az.com/story/33819246/arpaios-criminal-contempt-trial-moved-to-april-4

  101. avatar
    Pete November 30, 2016 at 12:10 am #

    Rickey: If Minor v. Happersett said what Trader Jacks claims it says, the Wong Kim Ark case never would have gotten to the Supreme Court. The District Court most likely would have denied the appeal and SCOTUS most likely would have denied cert.

    Yeah.

    And even if Minor v. Happersett DID say what Trader Jacks claims it says, it has been overturned by the Wong Kim Ark decision, which held (with exceptions for foreign diplomats and occupying enemy forces) that a child born in the United States to two non-citizen parents is a U.S. citizen at birth.

    Yeah.

  102. avatar
    Pete November 30, 2016 at 12:11 am #

    Reality Check: That sounds exactly like one of Apuzzo’s arguments. Just add “l win”.

    “You’ve proven nothing.”

    “I’ve undeniably proven that all of your arguments are totally false.”

    “I win.”

  103. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 30, 2016 at 7:17 am #

    President in name only (PINO). Pence will be pulling the strings as we’re already seeing.

    Andrew Vrba, PmG.: Trump is so clueless as to how anything works, I doubt he’ll be making any real decisions.

  104. avatar
    Curious George November 30, 2016 at 10:29 am #

    Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump
    I will be holding a major news conference in New York City with my children on December 15….

    Wowwwzers! This must be it! Birthers across the country will see great significance in Donald Trump, Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his volunteer, Mike Zullo holding press conferences on the same day! The announcements will be *Universe Shattering* to say the least. Get ready! Vindication is on the way!

  105. avatar
    Pete November 30, 2016 at 10:49 am #

    Curious George: Get ready! Vindication is on the way!

    Hooray! We’ll be driving the Usurper-In-Chief (TM) COMPLETELY OUT OF OFFICE, ANY DAY NOWZ!!!!

  106. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG November 30, 2016 at 11:19 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    President in name only (PINO). Pence will be pulling the strings as we’re already seeing.

    My extended family who voted Trump cringe a little more as each day passes, because everything I’ve been telling them about him is coming true. I think at Christmas I’m just gonna come out and say it “You feel like complete idiot’s yet? Or do you need another month?”

  107. avatar
    roadburner November 30, 2016 at 1:28 pm #

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: My extended family who voted Trump cringe a little more as each day passes, because everything I’ve been telling them about him is coming true. I think at Christmas I’m just gonna come out and say it “You feel like complete idiot’s yet? Or do you need another month?”

    for some it’s sinking in that a supposed `business genius’ who doesn’t even know what a blind trust is could possibly just be a loudmouth behind a Brand name, and that his promises are no better than any other politician in an election year.

  108. avatar
    roadburner November 30, 2016 at 1:31 pm #

    ok, prediction for the arpaio presser….

    “the Obama regime has forced me from office, but we have new evidence and are now running the investigation as a private endevour and will bring him down very soon when all the `t’s have been crossed – please send donations to this paypal address….”

  109. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 30, 2016 at 4:29 pm #

    Donald Trump’s Health Secretary Pick Literally Ran Away From Birther Question

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/tom-price-literally-ran-away-from-birther-question_us_583d8a74e4b0860d61165f84

  110. avatar
    Jack Parsons November 30, 2016 at 4:30 pm #

    Dr. Statist, Obama is not a natural born American due to his foreign father. He remains an usurper. Trump is going to wipe the stain off the map as if it never occurred in the first place. So in the end the law prevails, as it should. All of your tortured logic was for naught. You wasted eight years of your life. You are pathetic.

  111. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 30, 2016 at 4:45 pm #

    A dozen courts have ruled otherwise. That horse is dead–stop beating it.

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/bookmarks/lawsuits/recent-court-rulings-on-presidential-eligibility/

    Jack Parsons: Obama is not a natural born American due to his foreign father. He remains an usurper.

  112. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG. November 30, 2016 at 5:13 pm #

    Jack Parsons:
    Dr. Statist, Obama is not a natural born American due to his foreign father. He remains an usurper. Trump is going to wipe the stain off the map as if it never occurred in the first place. So in the end the law prevails, as it should. All of your tortured logic was for naught. You wasted eight years of your life. You are pathetic.

    Sorry, you lost that war already. Trump conceded that Obama was born in the USA, and is now actively seeking counsel from him. I’d lick the bitter tears off your face, but I don’t wanna catch your stupid.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Internet Archive flees to Canada.

    http://thehill.com/policy/technology/307942-internet-archive-putting-database-in-canada-to-keep-it-from-trump

    They better not go down. Where else am I gonna get my public domain b-movie fix?! Guess I better start downloading MP4s like crazy, just in case.

  113. avatar
    Curious George November 30, 2016 at 5:21 pm #

    Jack Parsons:
    Dr. Statist, Obama is not a natural born American due to his foreign father. He remains an usurper. Trump is going to wipe the stain off the map as if it never occurred in the first place. So in the end the law prevails, as it should. All of your tortured logic was for naught. You wasted eight years of your life. You are pathetic.

    Doc has spent the last 8 years exposing the lunacy of Birthers. I think it was a noble cause. What is pathetic are the brain dead drones who believe everything that they are told by other brain dead drones.

  114. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG. November 30, 2016 at 5:23 pm #

    Smith has moved away from birther matters, and is now focused on “unmasking” who Orly Taitz “really is”, and repeating already debunked garbage like “pizzagate”.

    The few remaining birthers at BR, have disconnected with reality completely. Despite Trump openly disavowing the birther movement, they still think he’s a birther, and that December 15th will be their day of vindication. So Christmas comes 10 days early for those of us who have been laughing at them for the last eight years.

  115. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 30, 2016 at 5:43 pm #

    I’d like to see your argument that I am a statist.

    I actually had to look the term up. Statism: the principle or policy of concentrating extensive economic, political, and related controls in the state at the cost of individual liberty.

    I’m not one that supports extensive economic control by the state. I think states usually do a bad job at controlling economies. What I do support is the state helping to level the playing field. For example, an industry that pollutes the air I breathe should have to pay to use the air.

    I also believe in individual liberty. I note, however, that one’s liberty may restrict another’s liberty, and again there has to be a level playing field.

    So answer me this:

    Donald Trump recently suggested that those who burned the American flag lose their citizenship. Is this a statist suggestion?

    Jack Parsons: Dr. Statist,

  116. avatar
    Dave B. November 30, 2016 at 6:39 pm #

    I love these guys. Tiny film library, though.

    https://publicdomainreview.org/collections/?medium=film

    Andrew Vrba, PmG.: They better not go down. Where else am I gonna get my public domain b-movie fix?!

  117. avatar
    Rickey November 30, 2016 at 6:49 pm #

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: My extended family who voted Trump cringe a little more as each day passes, because everything I’ve been telling them about him is coming true. I think at Christmas I’m just gonna come out and say it “You feel like complete idiot’s yet? Or do you need another month?”

    A friend in Florida who spent the entire campaign posting negative things about Clinton is now going berserk about Trump. Of course he is blaming the DNC and Clinton, not the progressives who decided to vote for a third party candidate or sit the election out.

    Did you see that Trump is considering Sarah Palin for Secretary of Veterans Affairs?

  118. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater November 30, 2016 at 7:04 pm #

    Jack Parsons: Dr. Statist, Obama is not a natural born American due to his foreign father. He remains an usurper.

    Still wondering what Dr. C has written here that makes him a “statist”

  119. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater November 30, 2016 at 7:07 pm #

    Rickey: Did you see that Trump is considering Sarah Palin for Secretary of Veterans Affairs?

    What’s Trump’s rationale here?

  120. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater November 30, 2016 at 7:12 pm #

    Andrew Vrba, PmG.: pizzagate”

    WTF is pizzagate? I had some birther repeat it today in all caps and about a dozen exclamation points.

  121. avatar
    Crustacean November 30, 2016 at 8:17 pm #

    Not sure “Trump” and “rationale” belong in the same sentence, but just to play along, I’d say it’s the same rationale that compelled him to select a Goldman Sachs bankster to run Treasury, and a dishonest, crusading Christian voucher proponent to head the Education Dept. He also has considered a disgraced former general who played fast and loose with classified information for Secretary of State, and science-denying oil moguls – including Rick (Oops!) Perry – for Energy Secretary.

    If there were such a thing as Secretary of the Hen House, I’m sure he’d tap the Big, Bad Wolf.

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: What’s Trump’s rationale here?

  122. avatar
    Northland10 November 30, 2016 at 8:22 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I’d like to see your argument that I am a statist.

    I actually had to look the term up.

    You have already done hundreds of times more research on the meaning of the term than Jack ever will.

  123. avatar
    misha November 30, 2016 at 9:14 pm #

    Jack Parsons: Trump is going to wipe the stain off the map as if it never occurred in the first place.

    President Obama is going to have a presidential library built, and will be studied by historians for centuries as the first black president.

    Jack Parsons: All of your tortured logic was for naught.

    Birther’s tortured logic was for naught. I suggest you study Wong Kim Ark.

    Jack Parsons: You wasted eight years of your life. You are pathetic.

    You and the Birther crowd wasted eight years beating a dead horse, and listening to Alex Jones and filling the coffers of his hysterical advertisers telling people to prepare for the apocalypse. Your crowd are the pathetic ones.

  124. avatar
    misha November 30, 2016 at 9:31 pm #

    Jack Parsons: You are pathetic.

    Trump said Goldman Sachs ‘robbed our working class.’ He just picked a Goldman banker to run the economy.

    Who is pathetic?

    http://usuncut.com/politics/trump-goldman-steven-mnuchin/

  125. avatar
    W. Kevin Vicklund November 30, 2016 at 10:30 pm #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: WTF is pizzagate?I had some birther repeat it today in all caps and about a dozen exclamation points.

    It’s a fake news story invented over Thanksgiving that claims that a pizza place who’s owner supports Clinton and Podesta has eaten at is really a front for pedophiles. Things like the slogan “Pizza. Eat. Drink.” really stand for PEDophile, and nearby businesses have logos that look like logos for alleged pedophile groups if you have cataracts and squint hard. And the owner had all sorts of pictures of children on his social media (in reality, it was pictures that his followers had of their own children). And pizza is a code word for pedophile. And all sorts of even more ridiculous stuff linking it to the Podesta emails. Snopes has a page that goes into depth.

  126. avatar
    Jack Parsons November 30, 2016 at 10:36 pm #

    Dr. Statist, you believe that all roads point to socialism, and that the best course of action for this country is to give in to it. I dare you to deny this. What was Trump’s direct quote on flag burning?

  127. avatar
    Jack Parsons November 30, 2016 at 10:41 pm #

    Misha, 90% of Obama’s campaign and inauguration donations came from Wall Street firms that received billions in bailouts. In other words they gambled on bad loans, lost, and shifted the losses to the U.S. taxpayer. Comment?

  128. avatar
    Jack Parsons November 30, 2016 at 10:55 pm #

    Andrew Vrba, PMS,
    Being born in the US does not make a natural born American.

  129. avatar
    Jack Parsons November 30, 2016 at 10:58 pm #

    Northland 10, Dr. Statist hails from Clemson “University” , and works for government. The federal government funds both those groups, and what it funds in controls, and what it controls it owns. Connect the dots.

  130. avatar
    misha December 1, 2016 at 12:02 am #

    Jack Parsons: Dr. Statist, you believe that all roads point to socialism, and that the best course of action for this country is to give in to it. I dare you to deny this.

    Social Security, unemployment insurance, public transportation, public libraries and Medicare are pure socialism. I dare you to deny this.

    Jack Parsons: the best course of action for this country is to give in to it. I dare you to deny this.

    You are talking to a former kibbutznik. I say it works quite well. I dare you to deny this.

    Jack Parsons: What was Trump’s direct quote on flag burning?

    Constitutionally incorrect. I dare you to say the Supreme Court is wrong.

  131. avatar
    misha December 1, 2016 at 12:07 am #

    Jack Parsons: In other words they gambled on bad loans, lost, and shifted the losses to the U.S. taxpayer. Comment?

    Cheney invented WMDs and engineered an Iraq invasion, so his Halliburton coterie could get their paws on oil, and shifted the losses to the US taxpayer.

  132. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG December 1, 2016 at 12:08 am #

    Jack Parsons:
    Andrew Vrba, PMS,
    Being born in the US does not make a natural born American.

    It does. You lose. Go crawl back to BR. You won’t find a Birther friendly echo chamber here.

  133. avatar
    misha December 1, 2016 at 12:12 am #

    Jack Parsons: Dr. Statist hails from Clemson “University”

    Jack Parsons hails from Trump “University.” Mr. Trump works for the Federal government, and commingles his presidency and his businesses. Connect the dots.

  134. avatar
    misha December 1, 2016 at 12:15 am #

    Jack Parsons: Being born in the US does not make a natural born American.

    The Supreme Court says it does. Crawl back under your rock.

  135. avatar
    misha December 1, 2016 at 12:24 am #

    Jack Parsons: Trump is going to wipe the stain off the map as if it never occurred in the first place.

    The Denialists are going to be a footnote, at most one chapter. Obama is going to have a library of biographies.

    Trump is a stain on the presidency. A real estate developer, who declared bankruptcy several times, and has the attention span of a 12-year-old. He catapulted himself by pandering to bigots. That’s a real stain.

  136. avatar
    misha December 1, 2016 at 12:36 am #

    Northland10: You have already done hundreds of times more research on the meaning of the term than Jack ever will.

    Jack knows jack.

  137. avatar
    Jack Parsons December 1, 2016 at 1:15 am #

    Misha, Are you Dr. Statist’s sychophant? I’ll wait to hear from him in the echo chamber.

  138. avatar
    Jack Parsons December 1, 2016 at 1:19 am #

    Vrba PMS, The Founders’ purpose was to limit foreign influence. There can’t be any more foreign influence than having a foreign father.

  139. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG December 1, 2016 at 1:35 am #

    Jack Parsons:
    Vrba PMS, The Founders’ purpose was to limit foreign influence. There can’t be any more foreign influence than having a foreign father.

    Show me where it says in the Constitution, or in any US law, where it states verbatim, that having a foreign born father disqualifies an American citizen, born on US soil, from holding the office of President. I want it in actual words. I will not settle for hypothetical meanings, or personal interpretation of what you think the founding fathers meant. Gonna save you some time. Don’t quote Vattel to me. He didn’t write our laws. That’s my criteria. Honor it, or don’t correspond with me.

  140. avatar
    misha December 1, 2016 at 1:42 am #

    Jack Parsons: There can’t be any more foreign influence than having a foreign father.

    Or having a foreign wife – Melanija Knavs.

    Ted Cruz’s father was born in Cuba, and fought for Castro’s guerrilla army.

  141. avatar
    misha December 1, 2016 at 1:48 am #

    Jack Parsons: Misha, Are you Dr. Statist’s sychophant?

    You are now reduced to invective. Seems I got under your skin.

    Jack Parsons: I’ll wait to hear from him in the echo chamber.

    I’ll save you some time: (((misha))).

  142. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater December 1, 2016 at 6:54 am #

    Jack Parsons:
    Vrba PMS, The Founders’ purpose was to limit foreign influence. There can’t be any more foreign influence than having a foreign father.

    Um no several founders had foreign fathers. James Madison had duel citizenship as an adult. Jefferson stepped down from Washington’s cabinet to get embroiled in French affairs. Foreign influence would have been a foreign prince coming here and running.

  143. avatar
    Lupin December 1, 2016 at 8:46 am #

    Jack Parsons:
    Vrba PMS, The Founders’ purpose was to limit foreign influence. There can’t be any more foreign influence than having a foreign father.

    Are you truly that ignorant??? Madison was offered, and accepted, French citizenship (the latter with Jefferson’s blessing), then ran for President as a dual-citizen.

    Before you start issuing these kinds of rubbishy statements, you should first study American History.

  144. avatar
    Keith December 1, 2016 at 10:10 am #

    Ah, I see its the ol’ tag team trolling maneuver again. I thought that kinda went out of fashion years ago.

    I’m still convinced there is some kind of underground game where trolls try to score points by somehow disturbing otherwise peaceful discussions.

  145. avatar
    Scientist December 1, 2016 at 10:29 am #

    Jack Parsons:
    Vrba PMS, The Founders’ purpose was to limit foreign influence. There can’t be any more foreign influence than having a foreign father.

    Well try this. Let’s say you had a President who had hotels and golf courses and the like all over the world and he was using US foreign policy as a way to get favors from foreign governments to further his personal business interests? That would seem a pretty blatant case of foreign influence.

    But of course such a scenario could never happen, could it?

  146. avatar
    Scientist December 1, 2016 at 10:31 am #

    Jack Parsons:
    Misha, 90% of Obama’s campaign and inauguration donations came from Wall Street firms that received billions in bailouts. In other words they gambled on bad loans, lost, and shifted the losses to the U.S. taxpayer. Comment?

    Thank goodness Trump isn’t appointing people from Wall Street to all the top economic positions in his administration.

    Wait, what’s that you say? He is? Oh, never mind…

  147. avatar
    Rickey December 1, 2016 at 10:48 am #

    Jack Parsons:
    What was Trump’s direct quote on flag burning?

    You don’t know how to Google?

    Here is what Trump tweeted on Tuesday: “Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag — if they do, there must be consequences — perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!”

  148. avatar
    Rickey December 1, 2016 at 10:56 am #

    Jack Parsons:
    Misha, 90% of Obama’s campaign and inauguration donations came from Wall Street firms that received billions in bailouts. In other words they gambled on bad loans, lost, and shifted the losses to the U.S. taxpayer. Comment?

    TARP was passed while Bush was president. In fact, it was signed into law by Bush on October 3, 2008, a month before Obama was elected and nearly four months before he was inaugurated.

    Apparently ignorance of history is a prerequisite for birthers.

  149. avatar
    Rickey December 1, 2016 at 11:03 am #

    Jack Parsons:

    Being born in the US does not make a natural born American.

    The U.S. District Court ruled that Wong Kim Ark, who was born in California to two Chinese parents, was a natural born citizen, and that ruling was upheld by the Supreme Court.

  150. avatar
    misha December 1, 2016 at 12:39 pm #

    Rickey: Apparently ignorance of history is a prerequisite for birthers.

    Ignorance in general is a prerequisite for birthers.

  151. avatar
    J.D. Sue December 1, 2016 at 1:07 pm #

    misha:
    Rickey: Apparently ignorance of history is a prerequisite for birthers.

    Ignorance in general is a prerequisite for birthers.


    The history of birtherism is a history of ignorance.

  152. avatar
    Jack Parsons December 1, 2016 at 1:29 pm #

    Sychophant Misha, Still waiting for Dr. Statist in this echo chamber. Can he come out?

  153. avatar
    Jack Parsons December 1, 2016 at 1:31 pm #

    Andrew PMS, Let’s start at the very beginning. A very good place to start. What is the purpose of the “natural born clause”?

  154. avatar
    J.D. Sue December 1, 2016 at 1:43 pm #

    Jack Parsons: Andrew PMS, Let’s start at the very beginning. A very good place to start. What is the purpose of the “natural born clause”?

    —-

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/01/natural-born-citizenship-for-dummies/

  155. avatar
    Jack Parsons December 1, 2016 at 1:54 pm #

    A Boy Named Sue, I addressed Andrew PMS. Why are you answering for him? Heads up. I’m asking for his clear answer, not Dr. Statist’s tortured logic, or a “link”.

  156. avatar
    Jack Parsons December 1, 2016 at 2:02 pm #

    The first thing I notice about this site is that it favors the “democratic” side of the paradigm. Basically, if the subject has a “D” for “Democrat” next to his name, then the objective here is to legitimize him , and then find the method for doing that, attempting to maintain a veneer of “research” and “academia” and failing. It’s laughable.

  157. avatar
    J.D. Sue December 1, 2016 at 2:11 pm #

    Jack Parsons: A Boy Named Sue, I addressed Andrew PMS. Why are you answering for him? Heads up. I’m asking for his clear answer, not Dr. Statist’s tortured logic, or a “link”.

    I don’t care what you want.

  158. avatar
    Crustacean December 1, 2016 at 2:25 pm #

    Jack, it’s pretty obvious you’re taking a beating here. It’s probably better that you stop whining about what you imagine others’ motivations to be, and start making a better case for yourself. So far every punch you’ve thrown has failed to land.

    Ask folks here what they think about Obama’s presidency, and you’ll get a wide range of opinions. I personally think he dropped the ball when he failed to shut down the disgrace at Guantanamo Bay. I’m disappointed that he hasn’t shown the courage I’d like to see from him on the Standing Rock situation. And do NOT even get me started on the drone program under Obama. This is not a pro-Democratic Party blog. As Doc has stated, it’s not even a pro-Obama blog – something you’d know if you paid even a modicum of attention.

    Sorry, no one here has some agenda to “legitimize” everyone with a “D” next to their name. But Doc started this blog to debunk those who were (and still are, incredibly), attempting to DE-legitimize his presidency. “Dr. Statist” as you so childishly call him, understands the relevant laws and case history better than you. You’d best start paying attention to the details and educate yourself, or you’re just going to keep on getting whooped here. Facts matter, so if you don’t want to be embarrassed further, you need to up your game – “big league” – and maybe find one or two that support your claims.

    Jack Parsons:
    The first thing I notice about this site is that it favors the “democratic” side of the paradigm.Basically, if the subject has a “D” for “Democrat” next to his name then the objective here is to legitimize him , and then find the method for doing that, attempting maintain a veneer of “research” and “academia”. It’s laughable.

  159. avatar
    misha December 1, 2016 at 2:26 pm #

    J.D. Sue: I don’t care what you want.

    Don’t feed the trolls. “Jack Parsons” is a ממזר. The only appropriate response is

    !װאַקסן זאָלסטו װי אַ ציבעלע מיטן קאָפּ אין דר’ערד

  160. avatar
    Jack Parsons December 1, 2016 at 3:18 pm #

    Crustacean, Hardly. It seems the other way around in this echo chamber, as you are about the seventh person who has responded for another. Dr. Statist is from academia, which is funded and owned by government. He has indicated that he also works for government, that is who pays him. Always follow the money trail. It is in his personal interest to take a statist position.That much is obvious.

  161. avatar
    Scientist December 1, 2016 at 3:26 pm #

    Jack Parsons:
    Andrew PMS, Let’s start at the very beginning. A very good place to start. What is the purpose of the “natural born clause”?

    And if you want to prattle on about “foreign influence” then answer my question about Trump and his business interests overseas. I dare you to tackle that.

    Quite honestly, there isn’t one. There was a vague fear immediately after the Revolution that the people, being used to having a King, would want one and that some European junior royal would offer himself to fill the bill. Somehow, I don’t think Prince Andrew is going to end up President, even without the natural born clause.

  162. avatar
    Scientist December 1, 2016 at 3:29 pm #

    Jack: I dare you to man up and answer my question about the foreign influence represented by Trump’s business interests in Turkey, India, Scotland, Argentina, etc.

    Bet you won’t touch that. Because that’s the REAL foreign influence.

  163. avatar
    Jack Parsons December 1, 2016 at 3:33 pm #

    Scientist the 8th, Trump is a businessman. Business is international. Trump proclaimed “Americanism not Globalism”. Damned right.

  164. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG. December 1, 2016 at 3:36 pm #

    Jack Parsons:
    Andrew PMS, Let’s start at the very beginning. A very good place to start. What is the purpose of the “natural born clause”?

    I asked for very specific answers. You supplied none. We’re done here. You’ve lost the privilege to engage me in discussion. Enjoy your place in the idiot circle, with Nancy and Cody. They too are unable to answer straight shooting questions. If I sound condescending, don’t worry, its on purpose. Now run along, sit at the glue eating table with the rest of the sad sacks.

  165. avatar
    Scientist December 1, 2016 at 3:39 pm #

    Jack Parsons:
    Scientist the 8th, Trump is a businessman. Business is international.

    I see, that renders him immune from the Constitution and conflict of interest laws…He CHOSE to run for office without divesting himself of his business, and particularly foreign assets. You may think it’s OK that a President conduct foreign policy based on getting permits for his hotels. But somehow you are VERY CONCERNED about who someone’s biodad that they saw once in their entire life is.

    All I can say to that is WOW!!!

  166. avatar
    Jack Parsons December 1, 2016 at 3:43 pm #

    Andrew PMS, it seems that you are unable to think for yourself. For the record – what is the purpose of the “natural born clause”? It is always advisable to begin a discussion by defining terms. I am allowing you the opportunity to lead the discussion. The way you choose to answer, or not answer, is telling. The pressure is on.

  167. avatar
    Jack Parsons December 1, 2016 at 3:50 pm #

    Scientist the 8Th(?), No one is immune from the law. We are a republic. Trump is not a politician. He is not a lawyer. He is self funding. He is the first third party candidate to win the presidency. The entire Establishment, both sides, is against him. Are you a collectivist?

  168. avatar
    Scientist December 1, 2016 at 3:51 pm #

    Jack Parsons: For the record – what is the purpose of the “natural born clause”?

    Scientist: Quite honestly, there isn’t one. There was a vague fear immediately after the Revolution that the people, being used to having a King, would want one and that some European junior royal would offer himself to fill the bill. Somehow, I don’t think Prince Andrew is going to end up President, even without the natural born clause.

  169. avatar
    Scientist December 1, 2016 at 3:56 pm #

    Jack Parsons: Scientist the 8Th(?), No one is immune from the law. We are a republic. Trump is not a politician. He is not a lawyer. He is self funding. He is the first third party candidate to win the presidency. The entire Establishment, both sides, is against him. Are you a collectivist?

    He is “self-funding” his business by cashing in on his role as President even before he takes office. The Establishment is his Cabinet-billionaires and multi-millionaires .
    You have been scammed, yet are too dumb to realize it yet..

    I used to collect stamps, but haven’t in many years..

  170. avatar
    Jack Parsons December 1, 2016 at 3:58 pm #

    Scientist the 8th(?), there you go again. I’ll play along. And how would a “natural born clause” prevent Prince Hamlet from becoming president?

  171. avatar
    Jack Parsons December 1, 2016 at 3:59 pm #

    Scientist, the 8Th, The Establishment is set to destroy his agenda. He knows what he is doing.

  172. avatar
    gorefan December 1, 2016 at 4:04 pm #

    Jack Parsons: It is always advisable to begin a discussion by defining terms.

    Whose definition of natural born citizen do you propose we use?

  173. avatar
    Scientist December 1, 2016 at 4:17 pm #

    Jack Parsons:
    Scientist,the 8Th, The Establishment is set to destroy his agenda. He knows what he is doing.

    bwahahahahahahahaha!

    Jack Parsons:
    Scientist the 8th(?), there you go again. I’ll play along. And how would a “natural born clause” prevent Prince Hamlet from becoming president?

    He would be a Danish. I could go for one with coffee right about now.

  174. avatar
    trader jack December 1, 2016 at 4:39 pm #

    I am not Jack Parsons, but I will try to explain natural born citizen to the rest of the group here.
    H
    There were no such things as “citizens” until governments came into being long , long , ago.

    The society consisted of power and non-power groups.

    You were either a leader or a slave, in effect.

    Society arrives with the grouping of leaders into controlling groups, usually royalty , and supporters, with the lords and the serfs.

    That created the subjects so that all of the people born in the area , serfs, became subjects where their children were all subjects to the leading class, similar to slavery.

    And the leading classes decided that all children were part of their country population and were all natural born subjects to the leading classes.

    With the creation of governmental agencies they switched to calling the voting classes ‘citizens’ of the state and maintained the separation of rulers and non rulers, so that when a ruling class child was born they were separated as being natural born class leaders as being born to a leader put them in a different class of people

    In the USA, the same thing happened as not all of the people in the USA were of the proper tribe or class , of residents.

    If you were born of a ruling class leader, legitimate child, you were entitled to live in that class of society.

    So, when the constitution was written the ruling class of society wanted the leader of the country to be of the leading class , and required the child to be born from the leading class of society to be able to be President of the USA and therefore must be born from parents of the leading class of society, namely, the citizens of the country and not from the scrabble of humanity.

    LOL

  175. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 1, 2016 at 4:45 pm #

    Having read the writings of the framers, and a good bit of the notes form the Federal Convention of 1787, I find your remark below laughable.

    trader jack: So, when the constitution was written the ruling class of society wanted the leader of the country to be of the leading class , and required the child to be born from the leading class of society to be able to be President of the USA and therefore must be born from parents of the leading class of society, namely, the citizens of the country and not from the scrabble of humanity.

  176. avatar
    trader jack December 1, 2016 at 4:57 pm #

    An interesting thought,
    If the Muslims are conducting an infiltration of the EU and the USA with the ultimate purpose of overthrowing the present systems of government, and if that is , in effect a war against the government, would the children of said Muslims become American citizens when born in the USA, or would they be citizens because the conquest has not happened at the time of their birth.

    The MUSLIMS, at the present time, if the event was a real event,, would be acting at the behest of a foreign nation, or government, or religion, and , as such, even though not citizens of the USA, would be subject to the laws against overthrow of the government, and could be consider to not be citizens of the USA, and their children might not be able to become citizens for some reason or another.

  177. avatar
    gorefan December 1, 2016 at 5:03 pm #

    Jack Parsons:

    trader jack:

    In 1794/5 Congress debated what would become the Immigration Act of 1795. Congressman Giles proposed an amendment to the Act which required that anyone seek American citizenship, first had to renounce any titles of nobility.

    In the debate over the Giles’ amendment, Congressman Hillhouse of Connecticut gave an example of a nobleman coming to the United States and refusing to renounce his title. Under the Giles’ amendment such a person could not be admitted to US citizenship.

    But what will be the consequences of him not renouncing? Most clearly that he retains and possesses them. A nobleman, then, may come to the United States, marry, purchase lands, and enjoy every other right of a citizen, except of electing and being elected to office. His children, being natural born citizens, will enjoy, by inheritance, his title, and all the rights of his nobility and a privileged order he possessed, an idea which ought not, either explicitly or impliedly, to be admitted.” Annals of Congress, House of Representatives, 3rd Congress 2nd Session, January 2nd, 1795 page 1046

    By what definition of natural born citizen could an alien nobleman’s children be natural born citizens?

  178. avatar
    Crustacean December 1, 2016 at 5:15 pm #

    Jack, I was just trying to help, maybe guide you to a path that would make you look a little less foolish. The owner of this blog doesn’t need anyone – least of all, me – to speak for him. But if you’re going to spread misinformation about him (or any other honorable person), I won’t have it, and I won’t be shy about calling you out.

    You call this an echo chamber, but it’s the blogs pushing your side of the debate that tend to ban folks for simply posting facts exposing how wrong they are. Try offering a counterpoint to the twisted people who frequent Birther Report or Fellowship of the Minds – or any number of right-wing malcontent blogs – and see how long you are allowed to comment there. This is a private blog, and Doc C has no obligation to allow you to post your comments here. In return, you offer nothing but insults to the man who graciously accepts you as his guest.

    Then you say that Dr. C “has indicated that he also works for government, that is who pays him.” Is that a reference to his work on election day? If that’s what you’re talking about, then you are being more than a little disingenuous. I don’t know Dr. C, but my understanding is that he is retired, and in his spare time he volunteers to build homes for people who need a roof over their heads. So yeah, that’s the guy you’re wearing out with your misinformed insults.

    But the biggest insult to the folks here is that you actually think we’re stupid enough to believe your nonsense.

    Jack Parsons:
    Crustacean, Hardly. It seems the other way around in this echo chamber, as you are about the seventh person who has responded for another. Dr. Statist is from academia, which is funded and owned by government. He has indicated that he also works for government, that is who pays him. Always follow the money trail. It is in his personal interest to take a statist position.That much is obvious.

  179. avatar
    trader jack December 1, 2016 at 5:15 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Having read the writings of the framers, and a good bit of the notes form the Federal Convention of 1787, I find your remark below laughable.

    I agree, it does seem laughable, but, is it not true that there were not electors from the lower class of the society and that voting in the separate states of the area was not allowed for some classes of society

    “British settlers did not come to the American colonies with the intention of creating a democratic system, yet by doing so without a land-owning aristocracy they created a broad electorate and a pattern of free and frequent elections that put a premium on voter participation. The colonies offered a much broader franchise than England or indeed any other country. Any property-owner could vote for members of the lower house of the legislature, and in Connecticut and Rhode Island they could even vote for the governor.[16] Legitimacy for a voter meant having an “interest” in society; as the South Carolina legislature said in 1716, “it is necessary and reasonable, that none but such persons will have an interest in the Province should be capable to elect members of the Commons House of Assembly.”[17] Women, children, indentured servants, and slaves were subsumed under the interest of the family head. The main legal criterion for having an “interest” was ownership of property, which was uncommon in Britain, where nineteen out of twenty men were controlled politically by their landlords. London insisted on it for the colonies, telling governors to exclude from the ballot men who were not freeholders—that is, those who did not own land. Nevertheless, land was so widely owned that 50% to 80% of the men were eligible to vote.[18]”

    So, it is reasonable to assume that with those limitations on voting in the 13 Colonies the selection of candidates and the voters at that time were, in fact, the leaders of the society, and not the lower classes of voters.

  180. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater December 1, 2016 at 5:29 pm #

    Jack Parsons: Heads up. I’m asking for his clear answer, not Dr. Statist’s tortured logic, or a “link”.

    Still wondering what makes him a statist?

  181. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater December 1, 2016 at 5:31 pm #

    Jack Parsons:
    Scientist the 8th, Trump is a businessman. Business is international. Trump proclaimed “Americanism not Globalism”. Damned right.

    You didn’t actually answer his question. Americanism not globalism is generic rhetoric considering Trump has been a globalist.

  182. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater December 1, 2016 at 5:33 pm #

    Jack Parsons: Scientist the 8Th(?), No one is immune from the law. We are a republic. Trump is not a politician.

    He became a politician the first time he tried running for office back in 2000. To say he’s not is moronic.

  183. avatar
    misha December 1, 2016 at 6:01 pm #

    Crustacean: in his spare time he volunteers to build homes for people who need a roof over their heads. So yeah, that’s the guy you’re wearing out with your misinformed insults.

    Habitat for Humanity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitat_for_Humanity

    Jimmy Carter also volunteered for Habitat for Humanity. This is what “Jack Parsons” insults with every post. The Denialists are nothing more than sociopaths, Trump and Taitz included.

    Dr. C graciously allows “Parsons” to post here, and gets nothing but invective in return. I do not answer “Parsons”, since that ממזר is here only to troll for turmoil:

    !װאַקסן זאָלסטו װי אַ ציבעלע מיטן קאָפּ אין דר’ערד

  184. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG December 1, 2016 at 6:13 pm #

    Yiddish?

  185. avatar
    misha December 1, 2016 at 6:30 pm #

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: Yiddish?

    Yes

  186. avatar
    Scientist December 1, 2016 at 6:32 pm #

    i just want to know how I became Scientist the 8Th(?) Who were the other 7?

  187. avatar
    Northland10 December 1, 2016 at 6:33 pm #

    Jack Parsons:
    Scientist the 8th(?), there you go again. I’ll play along. And how would a “natural born clause” prevent Prince Hamlet from becoming president

    He was not born a citizen of the US (i.e., born in the US OR born of a US citizen(s))

    He never was in the US.

    Even if he became a naturalized citizen, he would not be natural born.

    He would have been dead before the US existed.

    He is a fictional character.

    They protected against supposed foreign influence by denying the presidency to foreigners who immigrated to the US and naturalized. They also viewed the structure of the electoral college as another protection against improper influence both foreign and domestic. It is that simple.

  188. avatar
    Pete December 1, 2016 at 6:42 pm #

    Jack Parsons: Being born in the US does not make a natural born American.

    Sorry, dumbass. A dozen courts, including the US Supreme Court, have ruled otherwise.

    It’s the law.

    Dumbass.

    PS – Did I mention you’re a dumbass?

  189. avatar
    Scientist December 1, 2016 at 7:06 pm #

    Northland10: They also viewed the structure of the electoral college as another protection against improper influence both foreign and domestic.

    Unfortunately, they were naive about how the Electoral College would operate in a partisan system. They are not going to be a check on the demagogue that the Founders feared.

  190. avatar
    misha December 1, 2016 at 7:17 pm #

    Scientist: i just want to know how I became Scientist the 8Th(?) Who were the other 7?

    It’s all explained here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4OS17lqHiE

  191. avatar
    Northland10 December 1, 2016 at 7:37 pm #

    Scientist: Unfortunately, they were naive about how the Electoral College would operate in a partisan system.They are not going to be a check on the demagogue that the Founders feared.

    Not to mention, communication and information pass to all people much faster then when the EC was first created. They may have been naive about avoiding a partisan system, but there is no way they could have anticipated how things would be different in 200 years.

    It was a idea that fit their time and place and has generally continued much longer than I suspect they would have imagined. They did anticipate that we may want to reconsider it and, if we feel it necessary, replace it.

  192. avatar
    Joey December 1, 2016 at 10:30 pm #

    trader jack:
    I am not Jack Parsons, but I will try toexplain natural born citizen to the rest of the group here.
    H
    There were no such things as “citizens” until governments came into being long , long , ago.

    The society consisted of power and non-power groups.

    You were either a leader or a slave, in effect.

    Society arrives with the grouping of leaders into controlling groups, usually royalty , and supporters, with the lords and the serfs.

    That created the subjects so that all of the people born in the area , serfs, became subjects where their children were all subjects to the leading class, similar to slavery.

    And the leading classes decided that all children were part of their country population and were all naturalborn subjects to the leading classes.

    With the creation of governmental agencies they switched to calling the voting classes ‘citizens’ of the state and maintained the separation of rulers and non rulers, so that when a ruling class child was born they were separated as being natural born class leaders as being born to a leader put them in a different class of people

    In the USA, the same thing happened as not all of the people in the USA were of the proper tribe or class , of residents.

    If you were born of a ruling class leader, legitimate child, you were entitled to live in that class of society.

    So, when the constitution was written the ruling class of society wanted the leader of the country to be of the leading class, and required the child to be born from the leading class of society to be able to be President of the USA and therefore must be born from parents of the leading class of society, namely, the citizens of the country and not from the scrabble of humanity.

    LOL

    Whenever Trader Jack adds “LOL” that means his post is not to be taken seriously.
    While the first six presidents were members of the ruling elite, the 7th president was not.

    Andrew Jackson was born on March 15, 1767. His parents were Scots-Irish colonists Andrew and Elizabeth Hutchinson Jackson, Presbyterians who had emigrated from Ireland two years earlier. Jackson’s father was born in Carrickfergus, County Antrim, in current-day Northern Ireland, around 1738. Jackson’s parents lived in the village of Boneybefore, also in County Antrim. His patrilineal family line originated in Killingswold Grove, Yorkshire, England.

    When they immigrated to North America in 1765, Jackson’s parents probably landed in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Most likely they traveled overland down through the Appalachian Mountains to the Scots-Irish community in the Waxhaws region, straddling the border between North and South Carolina. They brought two children from Ireland, Hugh (born 1763) and Robert (born 1764).

    Jackson’s father died in an accident in February 1767 at the age of 29, three weeks before his son Andrew was born in the Waxhaws area. His exact birth site is unclear because he was born about the time his mother was making a difficult trip home from burying Jackson’s father. The area was so remote that the border between North and South Carolina had not been officially surveyed. In 1824 Jackson wrote a letter saying that he was born at an uncle’s plantation in Lancaster County, South Carolina. But he may have claimed to be a South Carolinian because the state was considering nullification of the Tariff of 1824, which he opposed. In the mid-1850s, second-hand evidence indicated that he may have been born at a different uncle’s home in North Carolina.”

  193. avatar
    Rickey December 1, 2016 at 10:32 pm #

    Jack Parsons:
    . Trump is not a politician. He is not a lawyer. He is self funding.

    Not true. While the final numbers aren’t in, as of October 19 Trump had spent $56.2 million of his own money, mostly on the primaries. As of October 19 he had raised $512.2 million in political contributions from individuals and PACs. Paying for 10% of his campaign expenses is not exactly “self-funding.”

    http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidential-campaign-fundraising/

    He is the first third party candidate to win the presidency.

    When did the Republican Party become a third party?

    Maybe you’re confused because Trump has won a smaller percentage of the popular vote than Romney won in 2012.

  194. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 1, 2016 at 11:00 pm #

    While various colonies limited the franchise to property owners or persons with some particular net worth, neither their immigration history nor their parentage was ever a factor. Your notions about natural born citizenship are a mere fantasy.

    trader jack: So, it is reasonable to assume that with those limitations on voting in the 13 Colonies the selection of candidates and the voters at that time were, in fact, the leaders of the society, and not the lower classes of voters.

  195. avatar
    misha December 1, 2016 at 11:11 pm #

    Jack Parsons: Are you a collectivist?

    I was a kibbutznik, so yes. Kibbutz can be translated as either commune or collective.

    Rabbi Dov Greenberg: The purpose in life is not to win. The purpose in life is to share.

    https://www.facebook.com/rabbidovgreenberg/photos/a.1670433129868973.1073741828.1669771313268488/1830295250549426/?type=3&theater

  196. avatar
    Jack Parsons December 1, 2016 at 11:12 pm #

    There is no question that at the time of his birth (regardless of the location), Obama’s father was not an American citizen — making the “president” the child of a person who at the time of his (the child’s birth) retained legal allegiance to a foreign sovereign, thus disqualifying obama from the presidency.

  197. avatar
    Rickey December 1, 2016 at 11:16 pm #

    Joey: Whenever Trader Jack adds “LOL” that means his post is not to be taken seriously.
    While the first six presidents were members of the ruling elite, the 7th president was not.

    Off the top of my head, presidents who were not members of the ruling elite, in addition to Jackson:

    Van Buren (his father was a farmer and innkeeper in upstate New York)
    Fillmore (his father was a failed farmer)
    Buchanan (his father was an immigrant from Ireland who was a merchant and farmer)
    Lincoln
    Grant (his father was a tanner and farmer)
    Truman (his father was a farmer and livestock dealer)
    Eisenhower (his father was a failed storekeeper, a railroad mechanic, and worked in a creamery)
    Nixon (his family’s farm failed in 1922 and his father ran a grocery store and gas station)
    Ford (his parents separated when he was six days old and his adoptive father was a paint salesman)
    Carter (his father ran a general store)
    Reagan (his father was an itinerant salesman)
    Clinton (his father was a bigamist who died before Clinton’s birth, and his stepfather owned an auto dealership)
    Obama

    Another Trader Jack fail. What a shock!

  198. avatar
    Jack Parsons December 1, 2016 at 11:18 pm #

    Scientist, The U.S. is a republic, not a democracy. There is a law. We are not majority rules. The purpose of the electoral college is protect the smaller states from being dictated to by the larger states in the election of a president. I find it absurd that the very ones who clamor over “minority rights”, such as government funded Dr. Statist, now want to abolish the law in favor of majority rules. Are you for minority rights?

  199. avatar
    Joey December 1, 2016 at 11:18 pm #

    Jack Parsons:
    Scientist the 8Th(?), No one is immune from the law. We are a republic. Trump is not a politician. He is not a lawyer. He is self funding. He is the first third party candidate to win the presidency. The entire Establishment, both sides, is against him. Are you a collectivist?

    Jack Parsons doesn’t seem to realize that Mr. Trump was the REPUBLICAN candidate for president and he has already appointed Reince Prebeus, the leader of the Republican Party to be his Chief of Staff. You can’t get any more “Washington establishment” than the head of the Republican National Committee.

  200. avatar
    gorefan December 1, 2016 at 11:19 pm #

    Jack Parsons:
    There is no question that at the time of his birth (regardless of the location), Obama’s father was not an American citizen — making the “president” the child of a person who at the time of his (the child’s birth) retained legal allegiance to a foreign sovereign, thus disqualifying obama from the presidency.

    Not according to people like Congressman Hillhouse of Connecticut. His example from 1795 shows that children born in the US to alien fathers were natural born citizens.

  201. avatar
    Rickey December 1, 2016 at 11:20 pm #

    Jack Parsons:
    There is no question that at the time of his birth (regardless of the location), Obama’s father was not an American citizen — making the “president” the child of a person who at the time of his (the child’s birth) retained legal allegiance to a foreign sovereign, thus disqualifying obama from the presidency.

    Both of Wong Kim Ark’s parents were not American citizens, yet their son was declared to be a natural born citizen by virtue of his birth in California, a decision which was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1898,

    You need to get up to speed on constitutional law.

  202. avatar
    Jack Parsons December 1, 2016 at 11:23 pm #

    Misha, I believe in individualism. Republican/democrat, right/left, liberal/conservative, etc. are all dumbed down paradigms. It all boils down to individualism vs. collectivism. Individualism is the law. Collectivism is “majority rules”.

  203. avatar
    Jack Parsons December 1, 2016 at 11:31 pm #

    Rickey Apples and Oranges, Wong Ark was not “declared to be a natural born citizen”. He was claimed to be a full citizen because his parents were in the country LEGALLY. Full citizen and “natural born” citizen are mutually exclusive terms.

  204. avatar
    misha December 1, 2016 at 11:35 pm #

    Jack Parsons: Collectivism is “majority rules”.

    Majority rules is what happens in a election, except for the Electoral College. Whoever gets the most votes, wins and the majority then rules.

  205. avatar
    Jack Parsons December 1, 2016 at 11:36 pm #

    Algorefan, A natural born American is born without foreign allegiances. Renouncing those allegiances later in life matters not.

  206. avatar
    Jack Parsons December 1, 2016 at 11:38 pm #

    Commie Misha, Majority rules applies to individual state elections, not a national election.

  207. avatar
    gorefan December 1, 2016 at 11:41 pm #

    Jack Parsons:
    Algorefan, A natural born American is born without foreign allegiances. Renouncing those allegiances later in life matters not.

    That’s your definition which ignores the definition that the Founders gave us.

  208. avatar
    misha December 1, 2016 at 11:42 pm #

    Jack Parsons: Commie Misha, Majority rules applies to individual state elections, not a national election.

    misha: Majority rules is what happens in a election, except for the Electoral College.

  209. avatar
    misha December 1, 2016 at 11:44 pm #

    Jack Parsons: Commie Misha

    “Commie” is not an insult to me. The kibbutzim are the foundation of Israel.

  210. avatar
    Joey December 1, 2016 at 11:46 pm #

    Updated popular vote totals:
    Clinton: 65,180,245
    Trump: 62,662,985

    Clinton has received 2,517,260 more votes than Mr. Trump.

  211. avatar
    Jack Parsons December 1, 2016 at 11:51 pm #

    Commie Misha. the foundation of Israel is conservative. That is why they hate their American counterparts.

  212. avatar
    Jack Parsons December 1, 2016 at 11:55 pm #

    Algorefan. You are a total liar. From the Founders – “That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, wherever it is capable of being exerted, is to be dreaded more than the plague. The admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against; their total exclusion from a station to which foreign nations have been accustomed to attach ideas of sovereign power, sacredness of character, and hereditary right, is a measure of the most consummate policy and wisdom.” Comment?

  213. avatar
    Jack Parsons December 1, 2016 at 11:58 pm #

    Little Rickey, Take your own advice. Wong Ark was declared a full citizen because BOTH of his parents were in the U.S. LEGALLY. Citizen and “natural born” citizen are mutually exclusive terms. You struggle with basic definitions.

  214. avatar
    misha December 1, 2016 at 11:59 pm #

    Jack Parsons: the foundation of Israel is conservative

    David Ben Gurion and Golda Meir were committed socialists. When Meir first went to Palestine, she was a Marxist. They were the polar opposite of conservative.

    They were the founders of Israel. Ben Gurion is Israel’s George Washington.

    Jack Parsons: That is why they hate their American counterparts.

    No, they don’t. I lived there; you never did.

  215. avatar
    gorefan December 2, 2016 at 12:01 am #

    Jack Parsons:
    Algorefan. You are a total liar. From the Founders – “That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, wherever it is capable of being exerted, is to be dreaded more than the plague. The admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against; their total exclusion from a station to which foreign nations have been accustomed to attach ideas of sovereign power, sacredness of character, and hereditary right, is a measure of the most consummate policy and wisdom.” Comment?

    We are talking about the definition of natural born citizen.

    “Therefore every person born within the United States its territories or districts whether the parents are citizens or aliens is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.” William Rawle

    “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” James Madison

  216. avatar
    Jack Parsons December 2, 2016 at 12:03 am #

    Pal Joey, It is impossible for a third party candidate to win an Establishment election. That is why the Republican paradigm first tried to steal the nomination from him, and then the general election. They would love to destroy him to date. Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer. Whatever he has to do to get to the oath of office. After that, the gloves come off.

  217. avatar
    Jack Parsons December 2, 2016 at 12:08 am #

    Algorefan, More bs. The official position of the Madison administration was that persons born in the U.S. to alien parents were not U.S. citizens. This was the ruling concerning James McClure, despite the fact that his parents had been settled in the country for many years prior to his birth. The United States Minister to France, General Armstrong, refused diplomatic protection for McClure by denying he was a citizen of the United States.

  218. avatar
    Jack Parsons December 2, 2016 at 12:12 am #

    Commie Misha, I have been there many times. I know the people. They are conservative, which is why they despise American jews.

  219. avatar
    Rickey December 2, 2016 at 12:21 am #

    Jack Parsons:
    Rickey Apples and Oranges, Wong Ark was not “declared to be a natural born citizen”. He was claimed to be a full citizen because his parents were in the country LEGALLY. Full citizen and “natural born” citizen are mutually exclusive terms.

    You don’t know what you’re talking about. You really should do some real research and read the government’s briefs in the Wong Kim Ark case. The phrase “full citizen” appears nowhere in Justice Gray’s majority opinion, and in fact the District Court in California did specifically rule that Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen of the United States. Indeed, one of the government briefs to SCOTUS pointed out that if Wong Kim Ark were to be declared a citizen, it meant that he was eligible to be president of the United States.

    All you are doing here is putting your ignorance on display.

  220. avatar
    Jack Parsons December 2, 2016 at 12:25 am #

    Little Rickey, Wong Ark was deemed a citizen. Period. If Wong Kim Ark had been a natural-born citizen, the Supreme Court would never have reached the 14th Amendment issue (just as it didn’t reach it in Minor.)

  221. avatar
    gorefan December 2, 2016 at 12:30 am #

    Jack Parsons:
    Algorefan, More bs. The official position of the Madison administration was that persons born in the U.S. to alien parents were not U.S. citizens.This was the ruling concerning James McClure, despite the fact that his parents had been settled in the country for many years prior to his birth.The United States Minister to France, General Armstrong, refused diplomatic protection for McClure by denying he was a citizen of the United States.

    The US minister to London issued McClure a US passport “confessing him to be a native citizen of the U.S.”

    Armstrong had an ulterior motive for having McClure arrested by the French. McClure and US consul Aaron Vale were involved in a land speculation deal involving Florida which would interfere with the US attempts to purchase it.

  222. avatar
    gorefan December 2, 2016 at 12:44 am #

    Jack Parsons:
    Little Rickey, Wong Ark was deemed a citizen. Period. If Wong Kim Ark had been a natural-born citizen, the Supreme Court would never have reached the 14th Amendment issue (just as it didn’t reach it in Minor.)

    That’s not what was understood at the time of the ruling.

    “The common law rule has been finally affirmed by the Supreme Court in the recent case of the United States v Wong Kim Ark. The Supreme Court held that a child born in this country of Chinese parents domiciled here is a citizen of the United States by virtue of the locality of his birth. The whole subject is discussed at length in the opinions of this case. The effect of this decision is to make citizens of the United States, by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment, all persons born in United States of alien parents and permanently domiciled here, except the children of the diplomatic representatives of foreign powers; and therefore, a male child born here of alien Chinese subjects is now eligible to the office of President, altho his parents could not be naturalized under our laws.” William Dameron Guthrie 1898

  223. avatar
    Rickey December 2, 2016 at 12:50 am #

    Jack Parsons:
    Algorefan, More bs. The official position of the Madison administration was that persons born in the U.S. to alien parents were not U.S. citizens.This was the ruling concerning James McClure, despite the fact that his parents had been settled in the country for many years prior to his birth.

    Wrong again. The official position of the Madison administration was set forth by Secretary of State James Monroe in his letter of November 27. 1811 to Joel Barlow, an attorney who was working on McClure’s case in Paris:

    Joel Barlow Esq. Department of State
    Paris Nov. 27, 1811

    Sir
    I have the honor to enclose several affidavits and certificates just handed to me by Mr. Cheves the Representative in Congress from the City of Charleston proving that James McClure now detained in France as a British Prisoner of War was born in Charleston since the Revolution. To these Papers is annexed a Certificate of W[illiam] Johnson Esq. one of the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States before whom the affidavits were taken stating “that agreeable to the laws and usage of the United States, the said affidavits and Certificates are sufficient to establish the fact that James M McClure above named is a Citizen of the United States.” As such he must be considered by this Government. You will therefore interpose your good offices in his behalf and obtain his release from confinement as soon as possible.

    I have [the honor]
    James Monroe

    Nowhere in that letter does Monroe mention the citizenship of McClure’s parents. The only relevant point was that McClure was born in Charleston, and the fact of his birth in the United States was sufficient to make him a citizen at birth.

  224. avatar
    Rickey December 2, 2016 at 12:54 am #

    Jack Parsons:
    Little Rickey, Wong Ark was deemed a citizen. Period. If Wong Kim Ark had been a natural-born citizen, the Supreme Court would never have reached the 14th Amendment issue (just as it didn’t reach it in Minor.)

    As I said, all you are doing is putting your ignorance on display. Try reading some history and constitutional law texts.

  225. avatar
    gorefan December 2, 2016 at 1:02 am #

    Jack Parsons:
    Little Rickey, Wong Ark was deemed a citizen. Period. If Wong Kim Ark had been a natural-born citizen, the Supreme Court would never have reached the 14th Amendment issue (just as it didn’t reach it in Minor.)

    There is also this statement by Alexander Porter Morse,

    Under decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, a child of domiciled Chinese parents, if born in the United States, would seem to be eligible to the office of President and to all the privileges of the Constitution, while the child of American parents and grandparents, born on shipboard or in foreign territory in travel or transit, might be excluded from similar rights and privileges.

    “A natural-born citizen has been defined as one whose citizenship is established by the jurisdiction which the United States already has over the parents of the child, not what is thereafter acquired by choice of residence in this country.”

    “The conclusion is, that the child of citizens of the United States, wherever born, is “a natural-born citizen of the United States,” and, as such, if possessed of the other qualifications, would be eligible for the office of President of the United States.” Alexander Porter Morse, 1903, The Washington Law Reporter Volume 31.

  226. avatar
    misha December 2, 2016 at 1:12 am #

    Jack Parsons: Little Rickey, Wong Ark was deemed a citizen. Period. If Wong Kim Ark had been a natural-born citizen, the Supreme Court would never have reached the 14th Amendment issue

    Rickey: all you are doing is putting your ignorance on display

    Jack Parsons: the foundation of Israel is conservative

    ומוויסנדיק גוי

  227. avatar
    Joey December 2, 2016 at 2:06 am #

    Jack Parsons:
    Commie Misha. the foundation of Israel is conservative. That is why they hate their American counterparts.

    Jack Parsons is unaware of the fact that the nation of Israel gave President Barack Obama its highest civilian award, the Presdential Medal of Distinction.
    http://www.worldjewishdaily.com/obama-highest-honor.php

  228. avatar
    dunstvangeet December 2, 2016 at 2:25 am #

    Jack Parsons:
    Little Rickey, Take your own advice. Wong Ark was declared a full citizen because BOTH of his parents were in the U.S. LEGALLY. Citizen and “natural born” citizen are mutually exclusive terms. You struggle with basic definitions.

    If Citizen and Natural Born Citizen are mutually exclusive terms then the following must be true:

    1. Representatives are required to be “Citizen of the United States”, Senators are required to be “Citizen of the United States”.
    2. President are required to be “Natural Born CItizen of the United States”.

    Therefore, anybody who has served as a Senator, or a Congressman, by definition, is not allowed to serve as President, because they are “Citizens” and not “Natural Born Citizen” (since nobody can be both a “citizen” and a “natural Born Citizen”).

    That also means that the 25th Amendment to the United States is invalid, since nobody can actually serve both as Speaker of the House (or President Pro Tempore of the Senate), and still be eligible to be President.

    It also requires the following Presidents and Vice Presidents to be invalid (because they cannot be both Citizens and Natural Born Citizens)

    Vice President Elect Mike Pence (Representative)
    President Barack Obama (Senator)
    Vice Presdient Joe Biden (Senator)
    Vice President Dick Cheney (Representative)
    Vice President Al Gore (Representative, Senator)
    President George H.W. Bush (Representative)
    Vice President Walter Mondale (Senator)
    President Gerald Ford (Representative)
    President Richard Nixon (Representative)
    President Lyndon B. Johnson (Senator, Representative)
    Vice President Hubert Humphrey (Senator)
    President John F. Kennedy (Senator, Representative)
    President Harry S. Truman (Senator)
    Vice President John N. Garner (Representative)
    Vice President Charles Curtis (Senator, Representative)
    President Warren G. Harding (Senator)
    Vice President James Sherman (Representative)
    Vice President Charles Fairbanks (Senator)
    President William McKinley (Representative)
    Vice President Adlai Stevenson (Representative)
    President Benjamin Harrison (Senator)
    Vice President Levi Morton (Representative)
    Vice President Thomas Hendricks (Senator, Representative)
    President James A. Garfield (Representative)
    President Rutherford B. Hayes (Representative)
    Vice President William Wheeler (Representative)
    Vice President Henry Wilson (Senator)
    Vice President Schuyler Colfax (Representative)
    President Andrew Johnson (Senator)
    President Abraham Lincoln (Representative)
    Vice President Hannibal Hamlin (Senator, Representative)
    Vice President John C. Breckenridge (Senator)

    Need I go back any further?

  229. avatar
    dunstvangeet December 2, 2016 at 2:36 am #

    Jack Parsons:
    Little Rickey, Wong Ark was deemed a citizen. Period. If Wong Kim Ark had been a natural-born citizen, the Supreme Court would never have reached the 14th Amendment issue (just as it didn’t reach it in Minor.)

    This just tells me that you’ve never actually read the Wong Kim Ark decision. It actually declared Wong Kim Ark a citizen by laws that preceded the 14th Amendment, taking it all the way back to English Common Law. They basically said that the 14th Amendment was just declaratory of the laws that were in existance at the time, and had no real effect on citizenship.

    Here’s the logic of the decision, broken down into their paragraphs.

    I. The terms Citizen and Natural Born Citizen are not defined in the Constitution, and as a result, we must go back to the English Common Law to derive their meanings.
    II. English Common Law says that anybody born within the realm is a Natural Born Subject. This translates into Natural Born Citizen.
    III. “The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”
    IV. Some say that Citizenship by descent was the true Common Law, however, this was not so. The common rule in Europe at the time was actually citizenship by soil.
    V. This law continued in the runup to the passing of the 14th Amendment, and continued in law afterwords.
    VI. This law also applied to the Chinese.
    VII. Nothing that Mr. Wong did afterwords would have lost him his citizenship.
    Therefore, Mr. Wong is a citizen.

    Notice Parts I, II, and III: which trace the citizenship law in this country back to English Common Law. Part IV directly refutes your allegations that citizenship by descent actually ruled.

  230. avatar
    Jack Parsons December 2, 2016 at 2:43 am #

    Pal Joey, What the hell does Soetoro have to do with it? Israelis voted for Trump.

  231. avatar
    misha December 2, 2016 at 2:44 am #

    Jack Parsons: Commie Misha

    That’s comrade Misha.

  232. avatar
    Jack Parsons December 2, 2016 at 2:44 am #

    Dear Dunce, in other words you are telling me that Wong Ark could have legally been president in the 19th century?

  233. avatar
    misha December 2, 2016 at 2:52 am #

    Jack Parsons: in other words you are telling me that Wong Ark could have legally been president in the 19th century?

    Yes, he could have been.

  234. avatar
    Joey December 2, 2016 at 3:01 am #

    Jack Parsons:
    Little Rickey, Wong Ark was deemed a citizen. Period. If Wong Kim Ark had been a natural-born citizen, the Supreme Court would never have reached the 14th Amendment issue (just as it didn’t reach it in Minor.)

    When the Supreme Court agrees to hear an appeal the attorneys for both sides submit legal briefs for the Justices to consider. In the federal government’s brief in U.S. v Wong Kim Ark, they asked the Supreme Court to resolve the following: “Are Chinese children born in this country to share with the descendants of the patriots of the American Revolution the exalted qualification of being eligible to the Presidency of the nation, conferred by the Constitution in recognition of the importance and dignity of citizenship by birth?”
    “To hold that Wong Kim Ark is a natural-born citizen within the ruling now quoted, is to ignore the fact that at his birth he became a subject of China by reason of the allegiance of his parents to the Chinese Emperor. That fact is not open to controversy, for the law of China demonstrates its existence. He was therefore born subject to a foreign power; and although born subject to the laws of the United States, in the sense of being entitled to and receiving protection while within the territorial limits of the nation—a right of all aliens—yet be was not born subject to the ‘political jurisdiction’ thereof, and for that reason is not a citizen. The judgment and order appealed from should be reversed, and the respondent remanded to the custody of the collector.”

    And in the Court’s ruling on U.S. v Wong Kim Arkl, the majority opinion stated: [An alien parent’s] “allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, ’strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’
    “Subject’ and ‘citizen’ are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives; and though the term ‘citizen’ seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, ’subjects,’ for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.’
    …every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
    The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.”
    So yes, in 1898 the Supreme Court ruled that Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen and that is why, when addressing the status of Barack Obama, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled: “Based on the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the United States are ‘natural born citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”–Indiana Court of Appeals, November 12, 2009

  235. avatar
    misha December 2, 2016 at 3:05 am #

    Jack Parsons: in other words you are telling me that Wong Ark could have legally been president in the 19th century?

    Rafael Cruz was legally qualified to be president, despite being born in Canada to a Cuban/Canadian citizen father.

    ומוויסנדיק גוי

  236. avatar
    trader jack December 2, 2016 at 3:20 am #

    The subject matter of our historical teaching must be curtailed. The chief value of that teaching is to make the principal lines of historical development understood. The more our historical teaching is limited to this task, the more we may hope that it will turn out subsequently to be of advantage to the individual and, through the individual, to the community as a whole. For history must not be studied merely with a view to knowing what happened in the past but as a guide for the future, and to teach us what policy would be the best to follow for the preservation of our own people. That is the real end; and the teaching of history is only a means to attain this end. But here again the means has superseded the end in our contemporary education. The goal is completely forgotten. Do not reply that a profound study of history demands a detailed knowledge of all these dates because otherwise we could not fix the great lines of development. That task belongs to the professional historians. But the average man is not a professor of history. For him history has only one mission and that is to provide him with such an amount of historical knowledge as is necessary in order to enable him to form an independent opinion on the political affairs of his own country. The man who wants to become a professor of history can devote himself to all the details later on. Naturally he will have to occupy himself even with the smallest details. Of course our present teaching of history is not adequate to all this. Its scope is too vast for the average student and too limited for the student who wishes to be an historical expert

    True? or false?

  237. avatar
    misha December 2, 2016 at 3:33 am #

    Jack Parsons: Israelis voted for Trump.

    That’s because he winks at Settlers stealing Arabs’ land, olive groves and homes.

    It’s because Trump acquiesces to Arabs being kicked around.

  238. avatar
    Rickey December 2, 2016 at 3:55 am #

    Jack Parsons:
    in other words you are telling me that Wong Ark could have legally been president in the 19th century?

    No, he wasn’t old enough to be president in the 19th century. However, he could have been president in 1908, when he reached the age of 35. It’s clear that you have never bothered to read the Wong Kim Ark decision, because in the very first sentence it says that he “was born at San Francisco in 1873.”

  239. avatar
    Dave B. December 2, 2016 at 3:56 am #

    No, he couldn’t have “legally been president in the 19th century. He could’ve legally been president after he reached the age of thirty-five years in 1908, though.
    Golly, I see Rickey was thinking the same thing!

    Jack Parsons: you are telling me that Wong Ark could have legally been president in the 19th century?

  240. avatar
    Jack Parsons December 2, 2016 at 4:28 am #

    Idiots all, Wong Ark was not a natural born American due to his foreign jurisdiction. He was the poster child for someone who did not constitutionally qualify as president. As if some 19th century legislature would deem a chink legally qualified to be president. The constitution is not a living document. It is dead dead dead. Claiming that someone under foreign jurisdiction born to foreign, non-citizen parents is constitutionally eligible to be president is hardly limiting “foreign influence” in our councils. It is the exact opposite.The Founders would never contemplate a celestial as president. That is the original intent.

  241. avatar
    Scientist December 2, 2016 at 5:00 am #

    Jack Parsons: Are you for minority rights?

    Of free speech, freedom of religion, due process, absolutely. But the right to elect leaders-that belongs to the majority. By your logic if me and my cousin Al, decide that I am President, that should happen because we are a minority.

  242. avatar
    Scientist December 2, 2016 at 5:04 am #

    Jack Parsons:
    Pal Joey, It is impossible for a third party candidate to win an Establishment election. That is why the Republican paradigm first tried to steal the nomination from him, and then the general election. They would love to destroy him to date. Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer. Whatever he has to do to get to the oath of office. After that, the gloves come off.

    You are truly gullible. Totally clueless as to how the world works. Bwahahhahahahahahahahaha!

  243. avatar
    Lupin December 2, 2016 at 5:25 am #

    “Jack Parsons” found the time to spew a large number of false, incoherent & otherwise pointless answers to everyone, but utterly failed to respond to my single post of December 1, 2016 at 8:46 am.

    That’s because, on top of being an idiot and a xenophobe, Jack Parsons is also IGNORANT of American history and can only parrots often-debunked false bits of information that he gleaned from kooks.

    That someone so utterly clueless about his own country (presumably) feels entitled to pontificate and lecture others is, frankly, appalling.

  244. avatar
    Lupin December 2, 2016 at 5:28 am #

    Jack Parsons:
    Idiots all, Wong Ark was not a natural born American due to his foreign jurisdiction. He was the poster child for someone who did not constitutionally qualify as president. As if some 19th century legislature would deem a chink legally qualified to be president. The constitution is not a living document. It is dead dead dead. Claiming that someone under foreign jurisdiction born to foreign, non-citizen parents is constitutionally eligible to be president is hardly limiting “foreign influence” in our councils. It is the exact opposite.The Founders would never contemplate a celestial as president. That is the original intent.

    That one is a gem. More offensive, xenophobic and totally ignorant statements from someone who truly knows nothing about US history condensed in a single idiotic rant.

    Ironically, the fact that Drumpf is by far the most potentially foreign-influenced president in all of US history does not seem to faze him. But them again ignoramuses are never fazed by facts.

  245. avatar
    Lupin December 2, 2016 at 5:40 am #

    Folks here know my contention than your unfettered interpretation of your First amendment is at least partly responsible, through hate speech and fake news, for the current situation.

    I found this as food for thought:

    “Greatest Victory of War for Germany!” Fake news, 1916. Four kids busted in San Francisco for selling bogus paper.

    https://twitter.com/GammaCounter/status/804523079049347072/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

    There was a more intelligent time where fake news = fraud = busted.

    On a similar note the French National Assembly on Thursday (despite Catholic Church lobbying efforts) adopted a law that will criminalize online fake news about abortion. Any website carrying material that is deemed to be “deliberately misleading, intimidating and/or exerting psychological or moral pressure” aimed at persuading a mother not to abort her child could face criminal charges, with punishments of two years in prison and a fine of 30,000 euros ($31,800).

    That I think is excellent. Opinion, advocacy, yes. Fake news, no.

    http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/french-lawmakers-debating-bill-criminalize-online-pro-life-advocacy

  246. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 2, 2016 at 6:59 am #

    tl;dr

    trader jack: True? or false?

  247. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 2, 2016 at 7:11 am #

    He wasn’t born under a foreign jurisdiction. Wong Kim Ark was born in the United States.

    The [14th] Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 6a, “strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;” and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, “if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.”

    US v. Wong Kim Ark

    And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King’s obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.

    2 Kent Com. 258, note. (cited in Wong preceding)

    “The term ‘citizen,’ as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term ’subject’ in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people; and he who before was a ’subject of the King’ is now ‘a citizen of the state.” State v. Manuel, 20 N. C. (4 Dev. & B. L.) 20, 26 (1838)

    So there.

    Jack Parsons: Idiots all, Wong Ark was not a natural born American due to his foreign jurisdiction.

  248. avatar
    misha December 2, 2016 at 7:58 am #

    Jack Parsons: would deem a chink

    You should be banned for this racial slur. My wife is from Kaohsiung. I live in Chinatown.

    That is the equivalent of the N word for black people. You are vile and nothing more than vermin. Thanks for showing what is behind your statements. Crawl back under your rock. Disgusting.

    ומוויסנדיק גוי

  249. avatar
    Lupin December 2, 2016 at 8:24 am #

    misha: You should be banned for this racial slur. My wife is from Kaohsiung. I live in Chinatown.

    That is the equivalent of the N word for black people. You are vile and nothing more than vermin. Thanks for showing what is behind your statements. Crawl back under your rock. Disgusting.

    ומוויסנדיק גוי

    Offensive. Racist. Ignorant. Willfully delusional. A sterling example of the right wing.

  250. avatar
    Northland10 December 2, 2016 at 9:04 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    He wasn’t born under a foreign jurisdiction. Wong Kim Ark was born in the United States.

    So there.

    But you’re a statist, so what you say is wrong.

  251. avatar
    Northland10 December 2, 2016 at 9:06 am #

    misha: You should be banned for this racial slur. My wife is from Kaohsiung. I live in Chinatown.

    That is the equivalent of the N word for black people. You are vile and nothing more than vermin. Thanks for showing what is behind your statements. Crawl back under your rock. Disgusting.

    ומוויסנדיק גוי

    I was wondering how long it would take for him to go there.

  252. avatar
    gorefan December 2, 2016 at 10:05 am #

    Northland10: I was wondering how long it would take for him to go there.

    We’ve seen this happen before. Birthers believe it is better to get banned than it is to admit they are wrong.

  253. avatar
    dunstvangeet December 2, 2016 at 10:23 am #

    Jack Parsons:
    Dear Dunce, in other words you are telling me that Wong Ark could have legally been president in the 19th century?

    That’s what the Supreme Court said in 1896, as long as he was over the age of 35 (which apparently he wouldn’t reach until 1908ish) was that Wong Kim Ark was always a citizen under the laws of the United States, because he was born here. Therefore, he was eligible for the Presidency. They only addressed the 14th Amendment to say that it was just declaratory of the law that was already in place, and actually changed nothing. The 14th Amendment did nothing to actually grant people citizenship. They were already citizens since before the Constitution (technically, they also had to be free). It just made sure that States couldn’t use their own laws to try to strip people from citizenship.

    U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark in every way was a direct reversal of Scott v. Sanford.

  254. avatar
    J.D. Sue December 2, 2016 at 1:12 pm #

    Jack Parsons: the foundation of Israel is conservative. That is why they hate their American counterparts.

    —-
    Well I see you are as clueless about the foundation of Israel as you are the foundation of the U.S.

    I expect hate mongers like you have no trouble finding hate mongers wherever you go. But to conclude you “know the people” of Israel is laughable, I don’t care how many times you’ve been there.

  255. avatar
    J.D. Sue December 2, 2016 at 1:14 pm #

    Jack Parsons: The constitution is not a living document. It is dead dead dead.


    I guess this statement says it all.

  256. avatar
    Rickey December 2, 2016 at 1:18 pm #

    misha: You should be banned for this racial slur. My wife is from Kaohsiung. I live in Chinatown.

    I’ve often said that if you give a racist enough time, the racism will rise to the top.

  257. avatar
    Northland10 December 2, 2016 at 1:27 pm #

    J.D. Sue: —-
    Well I see you are as clueless about the foundation of Israel as you are the foundation of the U.S.

    I expect hate mongers like you have no trouble finding hate mongers wherever you go.But to conclude you “know the people” of Israel is laughable, I don’t care how many times you’ve been there.

    I suspect the only Israelis or immigrants from Israel that Jack knows of are ones like Orly.

  258. avatar
    Joey December 2, 2016 at 1:34 pm #

    Jack Parsons:
    Idiots all, Wong Ark was not a natural born American due to his foreign jurisdiction. He was the poster child for someone who did not constitutionally qualify as president. As if some 19th century legislature would deem a chink legally qualified to be president. The constitution is not a living document. It is dead dead dead. Claiming that someone under foreign jurisdiction born to foreign, non-citizen parents is constitutionally eligible to be president is hardly limiting “foreign influence” in our councils. It is the exact opposite.The Founders would never contemplate a celestial as president. That is the original intent.

    And yet the government’s attorneys who argued the Wong Kim Ark case in 1898 acknowledged that if they lost the Supreme Court’s ruling, Wong Kim Ark would be “eligible to the presidency.” They lost. There’s been 118 years to overturn the ruling in Wong. It hasn’t happened. It remains precedential.
    The Founders were prescient enough to design a system of government that allowed future generations to alter their original thinking on any topic via constitutional amendment and future generations ratified the 13th, 14th, 15th, 17th and 19th Amendments which differed from the positions of a majority of the Founders on slavery, voting rights, citizenship, direct election of Senators and women’s suffrage (just to name a few).

  259. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater December 2, 2016 at 1:44 pm #

    Rickey: Van Buren (his father was a farmer and innkeeper in upstate New York)

    Also Van Buren’s native language wasn’t english. Imagine the right nowadays.

  260. avatar
    Joey December 2, 2016 at 1:46 pm #

    trader jack:
    The subject matter of our historical teaching must be curtailed. The chief value of that teaching is to make the principal lines of historical development understood. The more our historical teaching is limited to this task, the more we may hope that it will turn out subsequently to be of advantage to the individual and, through the individual, to the community as a whole. For history must not be studied merely with a view to knowing what happened in the past but as a guide for the future, and to teach us what policy would be the best to follow for the preservation of our own people. That is the real end; and the teaching of history is only a means to attain this end. But here again the means has superseded the end in our contemporary education. The goal is completely forgotten. Do not reply that a profound study of history demands a detailed knowledge of all these dates because otherwise we could not fix the great lines of development. That task belongs to the professional historians. But the average man is not a professor of history. For him history has only one mission and that is to provide him with such an amount of historical knowledge as is necessary in order to enable him to form an independent opinion on the political affairs of his own country. The man who wants to become a professor of history can devote himself to all the details later on. Naturally he will have to occupy himself even with the smallest details. Of course our present teaching of history is not adequate to all this. Its scope is too vast for the average student and too limited for the student who wishes to be an historical expert
    True? or false?

    Neither true nor false, just a personal opinion. I found it to be a rather unenlightened personal opinion since both professional historians and common folk who have an interest in history disagree on interepretations of nearly all historic occurances and I believe that disagreement is just as it should be. There are very few absolutes in the universe.

  261. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater December 2, 2016 at 1:46 pm #

    Jack Parsons: Rickey Apples and Oranges, Wong Ark was not “declared to be a natural born citizen”.

    Read the appellate briefs and the case the government made disputing the district court ruling.

  262. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater December 2, 2016 at 1:52 pm #

    Jack Parsons: ss of character, and hereditary right, is a measure of the most consummate policy and wisdom.”

    How about the full quote: ” The admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against; their total exclusion from a station to which foreign nations have been accustomed to, attach ideas of sovereign power, sacredness of character, and hereditary right, is a measure of the most consummate policy and wisdom. It was by means of foreign connections that the stadtholder of Holland, whose powers at first were probably not equal to those of a president of the United States, became a sovereign hereditary prince before the late revolution in that country. Nor is it with levity that I remark, that the very title of our first magistrate, in some measure exempts us from the danger of those calamities by which European nations are almost perpetually visited. The title of king, prince, emperor, or czar, without the smallest addition to his powers, would have rendered him a member of the fraternity of crowned heads: their common cause has more than once threatened the desolation of Europe. To have added a member to this sacred family in America, would have invited and perpetuated among us all the evils of Pandora’s Box”

    Notice that Tucker is talking about actual foreigners those born elsewhere into say a royal family who then came to America. This has nothing to do with those actually born here.

  263. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater December 2, 2016 at 1:54 pm #

    Jack Parsons: Wong Ark was declared a full citizen because BOTH of his parents were in the U.S. LEGALLY.

    Both of Obama’s parents were in the US Legally at the time of his birth as well. Obama’s mom was born here.

  264. avatar
    J.D. Sue December 2, 2016 at 1:54 pm #

    Jack Parsons: Israelis voted for Trump.

    —-
    I heard he got a whopping 49%.

  265. avatar
    Reality Check December 2, 2016 at 2:00 pm #

    Yes, as one of the leading contemporary Constitutional attorneys William Dameron Guthrie pointed out in an article on the Wong Kim Ark decision:

    The Supreme Court held that a child born in this country of Chinese parents domiciled here is a citizen of the United States by virtue of the locality of his birth. The whole subject is discussed at length in the opinions of this case. The effect of this decision is to make citizens of the United States, by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment, all persons born in United States of alien parents and permanently domiciled here, except the children of the diplomatic representatives of foreign powers; and therefore, a male child born here of alien Chinese subjects is now eligible to the office of President, altho [sic] his parents could not be naturalized under our laws.

    Jack Parsons:
    Dear Dunce, in other words you are telling me that Wong Ark could have legally been president in the 19th century?

  266. avatar
    Joey December 2, 2016 at 2:00 pm #

    Jack Parsons:
    Idiots all, Wong Ark was not a natural born American due to his foreign jurisdiction. He was the poster child for someone who did not constitutionally qualify as president. As if some 19th century legislature would deem a chink legally qualified to be president. The constitution is not a living document. It is dead dead dead. Claiming that someone under foreign jurisdiction born to foreign, non-citizen parents is constitutionally eligible to be president is hardly limiting “foreign influence” in our councils. It is the exact opposite.The Founders would never contemplate a celestial as president. That is the original intent.

    The Founder who was known as “The Father of the Constitution” would disagree with Jack Parsons. James Madison’s position on this subject was as follows: “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.”
    House of Representatives, May 22,1789
    http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_2_2s6.html
    Madison believed that where you were born was more important than who your parents were. His thinking is embodied in the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause.

  267. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater December 2, 2016 at 2:01 pm #

    Jack Parsons: would deem a chink

    And that tells us pretty much all we need to know about you.

  268. avatar
    J.D. Sue December 2, 2016 at 2:05 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: tl;dr

    trader jack: True? or false?

    FYI, trader jack is quoting Mein Kampf.

  269. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater December 2, 2016 at 2:05 pm #

    J.D. Sue: —-
    I heard he got a whopping 49%.

    I’m confused by what he’s actually saying. Is he talking the jewish vote or just those in Israel who are American expats? Because the jewish vote swung for Hillary 71 to 24

  270. avatar
    Crustacean December 2, 2016 at 2:10 pm #

    Here’s an article I read recently that I think you and J.D. Sue and Misha might enjoy. It’s not hard for me to imagine Jack Parsons on one of these tours.

    “My Holy Land Vacation: Touring Israel with 450 Christian Zionists”

    http://harpers.org/archive/2016/07/my-holy-land-vacation/

    (I’ve posted a few articles from Harper’s Magazine here, so for the record: I am not a paid shill for the Harper’s Magazine Foundation, just a fan)

    Northland10: I suspect the only Israelis or immigrants from Israel that Jack knows of are ones like Orly.

  271. avatar
    J.D. Sue December 2, 2016 at 2:19 pm #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: I’m confused by what he’s actually saying. Is he talking the jewish vote or just those in Israel who are American expats? Because the jewish vote swung for Hillary 71 to 24

    —-
    He said Israelis, so I assume he’s talking about American abstentee voters living in Israel.

    And yes, the Jewish vote in general was 3-1 against Trump. Even the conservative Jews were shocked by his utter ignorance about Israel, his antisemitic comments to Republican Jews, and his overall similarity to you know who. And his son-in-law’s criminal family is what we call a shanda fur di goyim, i.e., an embarrassment among the other nations.

  272. avatar
    trader jack December 2, 2016 at 2:19 pm #

    J.D. Sue: —

    FYI, trader jack is quoting Mein Kampf.

    I

    No quotation marks to indicate it was not a direct quote, I read it in 1940 while in school, and it is astounding how many people today use the same ideas in their political discussions.

    I put it there to see if anyone would recognize the ideas.

    I think most people today have never heard of Mein Kampf,

  273. avatar
    Joey December 2, 2016 at 2:22 pm #

    J.D. Sue: —-
    I heard he got a whopping 49%.

    That’s better than the whopping 46% that Donnie got in the US of A.

  274. avatar
    Joey December 2, 2016 at 2:40 pm #

    There aren’t too many conservative religious Israelis who are pleased with Trump’s decisions to invest in the United Arab Emirates rather than in Israel.
    Trump International Golf Club and Resort, Dubai:
    http://www.hoteliermiddleeast.com/20502-billionaire-trump-wants-ryder-cup-in-dubai/
    Or his decision to build a Trump Towers in Istanbul, Turkey rather than in Tel Aviv.
    https://www.propertyturkey.com/real_estate/986-trump-towers-istanbul-luxury-apartments-for-sale

  275. avatar
    Crustacean December 2, 2016 at 2:51 pm #

    I thought I was the first to think of this, but (darn it!) S.E. Cupp beat me to it:

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/01/opinions/trump-romney-romance-setup-cupp/

    Sometimes when I see something that doesn’t seem real, or looks too perfect, I wonder if I’m not in reality lying comatose in a hospital bed somewhere, and this is all just a fever dream. The photo accompanying that article is one of those things. It’s a perfect representation of how my mind would picture someone selling their soul to the Devil. Somebody please, either wake me up or pull the plug. I can’t stands it no more!

  276. avatar
    Rickey December 2, 2016 at 2:53 pm #

    trader jack:
    An interesting thought,
    If the Muslims are conducting an infiltration of the EU and the USA with the ultimate purpose of overthrowing the present systems of government, andif that is , in effect a war against the government, would the children of said Muslims become American citizens when born in the USA, or would they be citizens because the conquest has not happened at the time of their birth.

    The MUSLIMS, at the present time, if the eventwas a real event,,would be acting at the behest of a foreign nation, or government,or religion, and , as such, even though not citizens of the USA, would be subject to the laws against overthrow of the government, and could be consider to not be citizens of the USA, and their children might not be able to become citizens for some reason or another.

    It’s plain to see that you hate the idea of Muslims becoming U.S. citizens.

  277. avatar
    J.D. Sue December 2, 2016 at 2:53 pm #

    Joey: I found it to be a rather unenlightened personal opinion


    good call. traitor jack is quoting Mein Kampf.

  278. avatar
    Joey December 2, 2016 at 3:47 pm #

    Jack Parsons:
    Pal Joey, What the hell does Soetoro have to do with it? Israelis voted for Trump.

    You made a gross over-generalization, to wit: “That is why they hate their American counterparts.”
    The fact that President Barack Hussein Obama, II was awarded Israel’s highest civilian honor disproves your silly statement.

  279. avatar
    Joey December 2, 2016 at 3:48 pm #

    J.D. Sue: —
    good call. traitor jack is quoting Mein Kampf.

    That doesn’t surprise me in the least.

  280. avatar
    Joey December 2, 2016 at 4:01 pm #

    Rickey: Off the top of my head, presidents who were not members of the ruling elite, in addition to Jackson:

    Van Buren (his father was a farmer and innkeeper in upstate New York)
    Fillmore (his father was a failed farmer)
    Buchanan (his father was an immigrant from Ireland who was a merchant and farmer)
    Lincoln
    Grant (his father was a tanner and farmer)
    Truman (his father was a farmer and livestock dealer)
    Eisenhower (his father was a failed storekeeper, a railroad mechanic, and worked in a creamery)
    Nixon (his family’s farm failed in 1922 and his father ran a grocery store and gas station)
    Ford (his parents separated when he was six days old and his adoptive father was a paint salesman)
    Carter (his father ran a general store)
    Reagan (his father was an itinerant salesman)
    Clinton (his father was a bigamist who died before Clinton’s birth, and his stepfather owned an auto dealership)
    Obama

    Another Trader Jack fail. What a shock!

    Don’t forget Andrew Johnson who was iliterate until he taught himself to read. He was raised by a widow single parent mother who worked as a washerwoman and Andrew was an indentured servant in a tailor shop from age 10 until he ran away at age 15.

  281. avatar
    J.D. Sue December 2, 2016 at 4:17 pm #

    Joey: The fact that President Barack Hussein Obama, II was awarded Israel’s highest civilian honor disproves your silly statement.


    The fact that President Obama gave Israel the Iron Dome, which allowed my own family living in Tel Aviv to survive the last war with Hamas, is something that a creep like “Jack Parsons” will never understand.

  282. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG. December 2, 2016 at 4:25 pm #

    Considering that he’s been throwing out racial slurs, I do hope Doc has opted to ban him. I know Doc is very gracious about letting people have a voice here, even incredibly stupid people who are nothing but a nuisance, but there should be a line in the sand.

  283. avatar
    Joey December 2, 2016 at 4:33 pm #

    trader jack:
    An interesting thought,
    If the Muslims are conducting an infiltration of the EU and the USA with the ultimate purpose of overthrowing the present systems of government, andif that is , in effect a war against the government, would the children of said Muslims become American citizens when born in the USA, or would they be citizens because the conquest has not happened at the time of their birth.

    The MUSLIMS, at the present time, if the eventwas a real event,,would be acting at the behest of a foreign nation, or government,or religion, and , as such, even though not citizens of the USA, would be subject to the laws against overthrow of the government, and could be consider to not be citizens of the USA, and their children might not be able to become citizens for some reason or another.

    Under current case law in the United States if a Muslim or a Christian or a Hindu or an atheist has formal diplomatic immunity or is a regular member of a foreign invading military on U.S. soil then they would not be born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and such an individual could be denied Citizen at birth status on a case by case basis.

  284. avatar
    J.D. Sue December 2, 2016 at 6:20 pm #

    Jack Parsons: his foreign jurisdiction


    People don’t have jurisdiction. Governments/courts do. He was born under the U.S.A.’s jurisdiction. Which is the whole point of the case.

  285. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 2, 2016 at 6:26 pm #

    I started reading Jack’s comment and it proved too muddled to continue reading; hence my response “tl:dr.” It was the same reaction I had to Mein Kampf.

    J.D. Sue: good call. traitor jack is quoting Mein Kampf.

  286. avatar
    Rickey December 2, 2016 at 7:06 pm #

    Crustacean:
    Here’s an article I read recently that I think you and J.D. Sue and Misha might enjoy.It’s not hard for me to imagine Jack Parsons on one of these tours.

    “My Holy Land Vacation: Touring Israel with 450 Christian Zionists”

    http://harpers.org/archive/2016/07/my-holy-land-vacation/

    (I’ve posted a few articles from Harper’s Magazine here, so for the record: I am not a paid shill for the Harper’s Magazine Foundation, just a fan)

    Fascinating piece. Thanks for the link.

  287. avatar
    J.D. Sue December 2, 2016 at 7:13 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: “tl:dr.” It was the same reaction I had to Mein Kampf.


    indeed

  288. avatar
    misha December 2, 2016 at 7:46 pm #

    Crustacean: “My Holy Land Vacation: Touring Israel with 450 Christian Zionists”

    http://harpers.org/archive/2016/07/my-holy-land-vacation/

    I read the entire article. Two things stood out: “America’s religious right hasn’t always been enamored of Israel, much less of Jews. Quite a few of the originators of the American Christian fundamentalist movement were unabashed anti-Semites. In 1933, the radio preacher Charles Fuller told his listeners that Jews represented “a wicked and willful rebellion against God”; other early fundamentalist leaders eagerly circulated The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Israel had no friendly harbor in American conservatism for decades; its first real champion in the Oval Office was John F. Kennedy, a Democrat.”

    Kennedy, a Democrat, was the best president for Israel. Golda Meir convinced him to make the States Israel’s patron.

    Dennis Prager, who is Jewish, told the Christian fundamentalists “…they will return to the university already immunized against the most morally upside down of all Western institutions, the university.”

    I never thought I would hear someone Jewish denigrate any type of education. He is either pandering to the lowest common denominator like Trump, or if he really believes that, he is a shonda.

    In any case, that is shameful and vile. He has hung around conservatives so much, that their dislike of education and science has rubbed off on him, thus proving conservatism is backward, hostile to science and celebrates ignorance.

    After reading his words, I had to take a shower.

  289. avatar
    Joey December 2, 2016 at 8:35 pm #

    misha: I read the entire article. Two things stood out: “America’s religious right hasn’t always been enamored of Israel, much less of Jews. Quite a few of the originators of the American Christian fundamentalist movement were unabashed anti-Semites. In 1933, the radio preacher Charles Fuller told his listeners that Jews represented “a wicked and willful rebellion against God”; other early fundamentalist leaders eagerly circulated The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Israel had no friendly harbor in American conservatism for decades; its first real champion in the Oval Office was John F. Kennedy, a Democrat.”

    Kennedy, a Democrat, was the best president for Israel. Golda Meir convinced him to make the States Israel’s patron.

    Dennis Prager, who is Jewish, told the Christian fundamentalists “…they will return to the university already immunized against the most morally upside down of all Western institutions, the university.”

    I never thought I would hear someone Jewish denigrate any type of education. He is either pandering to the lowest common denominator like Trump, or if he really believes that, he is a shonda.

    In any case, that is shameful and vile. He has hung around conservatives so much, that their dislike of education and science has rubbed off on him, thus proving conservatism is backward, hostile to science and celebrates ignorance.

    After reading his words, I had to take a shower.

    Doesn’t Dennis Prager know that Benjamin Netanyahu attended Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard? Boston, that liberal American city doesn’t appear to have damaged the Prime Minister’s conservative leanings.

  290. avatar
    Keith December 2, 2016 at 9:25 pm #

    gorefan: We’ve seen this happen before. Birthers believe it is better to get banned than it is to admit they are wrong.

    That’s how they score points in the “Game of Trolls ™”

  291. avatar
    Keith December 2, 2016 at 9:33 pm #

    J.D. Sue: —

    FYI, trader jack is quoting Mein Kampf.

    I thought I’d seen that dreck somewhere before.

  292. avatar
    Rickey December 2, 2016 at 10:03 pm #

    gorefan: We’ve seen this happen before. Birthers believe it is better to get banned than it is to admit they are wrong.

    You got that right.

    Jack Parsons got several of his facts wrong. He blamed Obama for TARP, when in fact TARP was signed by Bush; he claimed that Trump self-funded his campaign, when in fact Trump paid only about 10% of his campaign expenses; and he claimed that the Madison administration took the position that James McClure was not a U.S. citizen, when in fact the administration’s position was that McClure was a U.S. citizen because he was born in Charleston.

    When his factual errors were pointed out, he never acknowledged it. He’s like the brat who sticks his fingers in his ears and yells, “I can’t hear you!”

  293. avatar
    trader jack December 3, 2016 at 1:48 am #

    You all seem to not understand the background of the U

  294. avatar
    trader jack December 3, 2016 at 2:09 am #

    You all seem to not understand that the power of the upper class is what brought the revolution, and the civil war, in the USA , and the power of the upper class is what is providing the money for the candidates of both parties.

    It is not the victory of the middle class that brought about Trump, it is the power of the belief of the middle class that the only thing that will protect them from the upper class in the Congress , is to bring a non Washington person to the government with the hope that the change of parties would enable them to have a better life under Trump , then would be possible under the democrat’s candidate , HRC, may her name be blessed.

    I don’t think it will make much of a difference,but , perhaps, it will.

    The non-wealthy presidents came about after the creation of the US government, and now we have the wealthy in the Congress and in the President seat,

    As to Muslims, blessed be their names, and let them be citizens by naturalization and the swearing of fealty to the US government under the Koran, be they so desire.

  295. avatar
    J.D. Sue December 3, 2016 at 1:36 pm #

    Crustacean: Here’s an article I read recently that I think you and J.D. Sue and Misha might enjoy. It’s not hard for me to imagine Jack Parsons on one of these tours.

    “My Holy Land Vacation: Touring Israel with 450 Christian Zionists”

    —–

    Thanks, that was an interesting read.

    And it’s too bad. Because in Israel one can hop a regular tour bus and see and learn about amazing stuff. Can’t even legally work as a tour guide in Israel without being an expert in biblical places/events/excavations/flora/fauna/etc.;any real tour should be interesting to people who want to see the holy land. So, it’s too bad that some Christian people are subjecting themselves to contrived tours like the one in the article.

    Though I doubt any regular tour is stopping by Israeli military installations on the border with Gaza. Sheesh! My reaction is: so how much did the Israeli taxpayer have to come up with to pay for that stand-with-Israel-tour’s extra security?

  296. avatar
    trader jack December 3, 2016 at 2:17 pm #

    British settlers did not come to the American colonies with the intention of creating a democratic system, yet by doing so without a land-owning aristocracy they created a broad electorate and a pattern of free and frequent elections that put a premium on voter participation. The colonies offered a much broader franchise than England or indeed any other country. Any property-owner could vote for members of the lower house of the legislature, and in Connecticut and Rhode Island they could even vote for the governor.[16] Legitimacy for a voter meant having an “interest” in society; as the South Carolina legislature said in 1716, “it is necessary and reasonable, that none but such persons will have an interest in the Province should be capable to elect members of the Commons House of Assembly.”[17] Women, children, indentured servants, and slaves were subsumed under the interest of the family head. The main legal criterion for having an “interest” was ownership of property, which was uncommon in Britain, where nineteen out of twenty men were controlled politically by their landlords. London insisted on it for the colonies, telling governors to exclude from the ballot men who were not freeholders—that is, those who did not own land. Nevertheless, land was so widely owned that 50% to 80% of the men were eligible to vote.[18]

    The colonial political culture emphasized deference, so that local notables were the men who ran and were chosen. But sometimes they competed with each other, and had to appeal to the common man for votes. There were no political parties, and would-be legislators formed ad-hoc coalitions of their families, friends, and neighbors. Outside Puritan New England, election day brought in all the men from the countryside to the county seat to make merry, politick, shake hands with the grandees, meet old friends, and hear the speeches—and all the while toasting, eating, treating, tippling, and gambling. They voted by shouting their choice to the clerk, as supporters cheered or booed. Candidate George Washington spent £39 for treats for his supporters. The candidates knew that they had to “swill the planters with bumbo (rum).” Elections were carnivals where all men were equal for one day and traditional restraints relaxed.[19]

    The actual rate of voting ranged from 20% to 40% of all adult white males. The rates were higher in Pennsylvania and New York, where long-standing factions mobilized supporters at a higher rate, based on ethnic and religious groups. New York and Rhode Island developed long-lasting two-faction systems that held together for years at the colony level, but did not reach into local affairs. The factions were based on the personalities of a few leaders and an array of family connections, and had little basis in policy or ideology. Elsewhere the political scene was in a constant whirl, and based on personality rather than long-lived factions or serious disputes on issues.[16]

    Shows the common man could vote for a leader, but seldom was a leader, doesn’t it?

  297. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 3, 2016 at 5:27 pm #

    Not that I can see.

    trader jack: Shows the common man could vote for a leader, but seldom was a leader, doesn’t it?

  298. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 3, 2016 at 5:33 pm #

    Jack Parsons is not banned. He just wandered off.

    gorefan: We’ve seen this happen before. Birthers believe it is better to get banned than it is to admit they are wrong.

  299. avatar
    Rickey December 3, 2016 at 8:41 pm #

    Trader Jack lifts entire passages from Mein Kampf and Wikipedia, without attribution.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteen_Colonies

    Scroll down to the section “Self-Government.”

  300. avatar
    Joey December 3, 2016 at 8:41 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Jack Parsons is not banned. He just wandered off.

    Perhaps Jack had just enough intelligence to glean that he was in way over his head.

  301. avatar
    gorefan December 3, 2016 at 9:45 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Jack Parsons is not banned. He just wandered off.

    His use of a derogatory term for a Chinese person was an attempt to get himself banned.

  302. avatar
    Northland10 December 3, 2016 at 9:53 pm #

    Joey: Perhaps Jack had just enough intelligence to glean that he was in way over his head.

    Maybe he is busy watching the various conference championships in football, because there is definitely no statism or socialism in college football. None at all. None are controlled by the government. It is freedom.

    Or we are just between benders.