Damn Obama for upholding the Constitution!

Absolutely. I have no question about Obama’s citizenship.”

Better questions would be: Do you KNOW that Obama was born in this country? If so, HOW do you know?

About Congress and the Ft. Hood terror attack: It is time for Congress to flex its muscles. If they threaten to use the power of the pursestrings, they WILL get full and complete answers out of the intelligence community as well as the White House. Time to pull rank, on behalf of We the People.

Posted on lundi 16 novembre 2009 21:19:54 by MelSmith

In his first television appearance since quitting CNN last Wednesday, Lou Dobbs is set to appear on Monday night’s edition of The O’Reilly Factor on Fox News. Dobbs has been widely tipped with a move to the News Corp owned network, or its sister station, the Fox Business Network, however no official word has come from either the Dobbs camp or the Fox News camp as yet. Back in the summer, O’Reilly publicly defended Dobbs on the subjects which is thought to have hastened his departure from CNN, and infact was due to appear on Bill O’Reilly’s show, only to back out at the last minute. It is thought that CNN forced Dobb’s hand on the matter back in August.

Is the birther movement bad for the Republican party?

I don’t think its a reflection of the Republican party. I think that people trying to connect the two are exaggerating and trying to make a point.

Do you think President Obama was born in this country?

Absolutely. I have no question about Obama’s citizenship.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-goodman/qa-bill-frist-healthcare_b_353280.html

A natural born subject of Great Britain is not the same thing as a natural born citizen of the United States.

Actually, Wong Kim Ark claims BS on that statement too:

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.

Emphasis in tht eoriginal.

Georgetown JD you might actually want to read the law

______________________

tminu, I have read the law. I have been doing so since 1980. And I understand the law — something you obviously do not, I will not reiterate the fine legal arguments that Black Lion, dunstvangeet, sise and others have laid out, and which you stubbornly refuse to accept. Their statements of the law are correct, and your torqued rationalizations are incorrect. That is why your arguments will never prevail in a court.

Georgetown JD you might actually want to read the law

______________________

tminu, I have read the law. I have been doing so since 1980. And I understand the law — something you obviously do not, I will not reiterate the fine legal arguments that Black Lion, dunstvangeet and others have laid out, and which you refuse to accept. Their statements of the law are correct, and your torqued rationalizations are incorrect. That is why your arguments will never prevail in a court.

Anybody born in England was a natural born subject. That same rule was in effect under the Constitution. Anybody born in the US is a natural born citizen.
________________________________________________________________
Q,tminu is being intentionally obtuse and burying his head in the sand. Everyone else knows what the ruling said in WKA and what was reaffirmed in the Indiana ruling. It is very specific. Timinu has decided to ignore this and pretend that the court did not say what it said. We can all read and see that the court was very specific about natural born being defined from English Common law. If he decides to ignore that and make stuff up to support his wrong point of view, then there isn’t much else one can do. Remember he has to refuse to accept the ruling because if he does the entire birther house of cards will fall…

Is someone going to rise to the challenge of broaching this Jewish aspect of Obama or just go on ranting like surrender-monkeys about issues they know nothing about ?

http://www.youtube.com/user/DorjePawo

“All persons born in the alliegance of the United States are Natural Born Citizens”. You notice that U.S. v. Rhodes directly relates that to Natural Born Subject, a term from English Common Law, which was already very defined. You trying to redefine it doesn’t make it so.

You just don’t get it. You’ve lost this case. You lost it 160 years ago with Lynch v. Clarke. You lost it 140 years ago with U.S. v. Rhodes. You lost it 111 years ago with U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. And you lost it a few days ago with Ankeny v. Daniels.

You had absolutely no chance of winning this case. And trying to redefine terms that are widely known will not make your case.

Lion, just where in your delusory thinking do you find WKA says a native-born child of an alien is a natural born citizen, when in fact it does not?

It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore 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.

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.

Anybody born in England was a natural born subject. That same rule was in effect under the Constitution. Anybody born in the US is a natural born citizen.

“Duh”