People continue to laugh at the Obama eligibility issue, too.

Let no irony go unsmelted.

Citing Dred Scott in support of any current legal argument will get you immediately laughed out of a courtroom, law school or any place with common sense.

People continue to laugh at the Obama eligibility issue, too. But the saga continues.

-Phil

“Using that reasoning, we should stop not only using the Constitution, per se — because it recognizes slavery — but also the Bible, in that it not only recognizes slavery, but describes exactly how their masters are to treat them.”

If you point out when the Dred Scott case was amended to make it in accord with the Constitution, then I’ll back off.

The Constitution was flawed in tolerating slavery, the 13th and 14th Amendments forever stopped the practice. The 14th Amendment’s definition of citizenship explicitly overruled Dred Scott. Given that Dred Scott is widely believed to be the absolute worst decision in American Supreme Court history, it seems ironic that Benaiah would cite it so often as support for his definition of citizenship.

Citing Dred Scott in support of any current legal argument will get you immediately laughed out of a courtroom, law school or any place with common sense.

I will have to say thank you twice for your service to your country.

Pete

That explains plenty.

More than you could possibly imagine!

Do you know that Obama Sr. filled out the certificate? The mom is usually the one handed the certificate, if she had the baby in an American hospital as you believe.

Do you have children? I have two. Both born in (different) American Hospitals.

In both cases, I filled out the forms. My wife was (as you might imagine) otherwise occupied.

I jumped out of planes. I did not fly them.

That explains plenty.

-Phil

Yes, I can cite a single piece of evidence that shows Zero was not born in Hawaii.

E. g. The Kenyan Registration of Birth, now on line at World Daily Net, which says Barry was born in Mombasa!

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=105764

Wonderful. Now… let’s see you defend it’s authenticity without being ironic?

Now, before you launch into a criticism of this BC, remember that you cannot honestly use any argument against the authenticity of an online jpg, that you reubtted in the case of Obama’s COLB, unless you have personally seen one or the other of these documents.

Well that’s a very good sign. You are at least aware that you cannot defend the authenticity of this BC without being a total hypocrite regarding your own previous criticism of the COLB. You are wise to recognize your vulnerability and go on offense rather then defense. No need though.

I am perfectly willing to forgive you for your unfortunate earlier errors and allow you to take them all back if you so choose.

But as for me, I am not (at this time) going to have a single critical comment regarding this BC. But I can promise you that when I do, my criticisms will bear no similarity to any Birther criticism of the Obama COLB.

Being that you are an ex-Marine Pilot, I expect you to be honest!

Okay. I’ll correct you again since you appear to have missed it last time.. I am not an ex-Marine Pilot. I was not and Air Force Pilot either. Before you end up going through every other branch of the service, I have also never flown in the Navy, Army or Coast Guard either.

I was an artilleryman in the 82d Airborne division. I jumped out of planes. I did not fly them.

Thought so.

Yes, I can cite a single piece of evidence that shows Zero was not born in Hawaii.

E. g. The Kenyan Registration of Birth, now on line at World Daily Net, which says Barry was born in Mombasa!

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=105764

Now, before you launch into a criticism of this BC, remember that you cannot honestly use any argument against the authenticity of an online jpg, that you reubtted in the case of Obama’s COLB, unless you have personally seen one or the other of these documents.

Being that you are an ex-Marine Pilot, I expect you to be honest!

That document is official. It’s certified and embossed by the government of Kenya.

So isn’t it the evidence that some have been asking for? EVIDENCE that he was not born in Hawaii?

If you answer no, then why not? Wouldn’t this digital image be AS real and AS authentic as the digital image of a COLB at FactCheck?

Dueling digital images of supposedly authentic birth certificates!

How do we determine which is real? Why, we let a court of law subpoena any and all documents and also anyone who may have testimony to give under oath concerning the reality of where and when he was born, and to whom.

Interesting date on that Kenyan document. The date places its creation right around the time that Stanley Ann Obama was getting a Hawaiian divorce from Barack Hussein Obama. Right about the time when she may have needed proof of the birth of their son for the Hawaiian court. We do know that the divorce papers referenced one child as issue of that marriage: Barack Hussein Obama II.

The phrase “natural born Citizen” “must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution” [Paragraph 16 of Wong Kim Ark].

The “common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution” is plainly expressed in “Scott v. Sandford”, which quotes Vattel, and explicitly states, “The natives or natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens…”

Suffice it to say, Obahmadinejihad is NOT a “natural born Citizen” of the United States, as his father was a “foreigner”…

Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (U.S. 01/02/1856)

[1] UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

[418] …The natives or natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens…

[420] …to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen, for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Vattel, Book 1, cap. 19, p. 101.

UNITED STATES v. WONG KIM ARK., 18 S. Ct. 456, 169 U.S. 649 (U.S. 03/28/1898)

[1] SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

[16] The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words ["citizen of the United States," and "natural-born citizen of the United States."], either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” In this, as in other respects, it [The Constitution] must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 624, 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. 1 Kent Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States, 91 U.S. 270, 274.