June 28, 2014 Leave a comment
The Desperation of Dr. Sloppyfartass,
2. My position (and that of the Judicial Branch) is that “natural born citizen” = “born a citizen”.
Translation: I and my “fellow travelers” on the Marxist path denounce the use of the word “natural” as being unnatural in the eligibility clause. It is redundant and superfluous, showing that the founders & framers were much more stupid than I am.
I base my reasoning on the meaning of “natural-born subject” as used in the common law, even though its meaning included ALL subjects, including naturalized.
I am above acknowledging the self-contradiction in the foundation of what “we” (the consensus establishment) believe. I do not have to explain it. YOU simply have to accept it as “reasonable” and true.
“Mario’s crank theories…will never win a court case; What do you think you are going to get out of it?”
Translation: If two candidates for town treasurer are tied in votes, and they decide to settle it with a game of poker, and one of them is winning by cheating; why would you not back the winner for town treasurer?
After all, he “drew” the most winning hands? Why stick with the candidate who lost while playing honestly? Just accept his loss and give the job to the winner (i.e., the cheater, i.e., the unconstitutional President).
“At some point you need to accept that you have lost.”
Translation: Since the powers-that-be, -all of them, are cowards, or accomplices, and have rigged the system on behalf of a candidate guilty of treason against the Constitution, you therefore need to “accept” that having the truth on your side is essentially meaningless and even worthless.
“Try as you might to smear President Obama with baseless allegations,”
Kevin’s brain slipped a gear with the accusation of Mario’s blog being focused on the counterfeit birth certificate, -justifying the “allegation” of criminal fraud, and election fraud to go along with constitutional fraud.
“…you have nothing to show for it but a history of bearing false witness”
Translation: I’ve just accused you of swearing before a judge and jury to things that you know to be false (as forbidden by one of the Ten Commandments), namely that Obama finessed the production of a fake Hawaiian birth certificate because HDoH never issued him one. So basically, you are a liar and a deceiver and a criminal and immoral. That’s all. Now don’t you just want to repent and beg your lord and savior Barackula to forgive you?
“… and a desperate hold on your impotent prejudice against the lawful POTUS.
Translation: Prejudice of all kind is bad. It is bad of the Jews to be prejudiced against Adolph Hitler and their Nazi exterminators.
And by the authority invested in me, Dr. Scientist Fartass, I officially declare that under my perverted version of law, Obumer is the “LAWFUL” POTUS. Yeah, I said it, so it must be so. I am the expert and you are the ignorant novice.
“Not to mention the alienation of friends and family if you are like most birthers.”
Translation: In desperation, I’ll toss in every conceivable psychological lever I can think of to dump a huge guilt trip and emotional burden on you to convince you that, right or wrong, you should only care about outcome. The ends justify the means.
Ignore Truth. What has it ever done for you? Come on over to the Dark Side. It’s great being on the cusp of the first American Socialist Empire! Come and join Emperor Barackula Palantine and learn the ways of the Sith. Learn the ways of Lord Alynski and his Rules for Radicals (dedicated to Lucifer himself!) Power and position will be yours. Or join the Great & Wise Saroman in his alliance with Sauron who only wanted what was best for everyone. Don’t toss that ring of power in the fires of Mordor! Serve Sauron as a faithful Orc and Utopia will not be far away. Banish all doubt from you mind…. submit… submit…. surrender…. surrender… comply and be assimilated.
” If you really care about politics, start working to get the candidate of your choice elected in 2016.”
Translation: I say “if” because this is just an insincere diversion for you, -something that you don’t “really care about”. So why not just drop it? Ok? Pleeeease! Do something else; anything else.
“If all you do is keep whining about President Obama being an evil usurper then the only thing you will get is older and more hateful.”
Translation: All of the founders should have followed that advice regarding King George III and his Parliament, then they would have ended up older and enslaved, instead of becoming “older and more hateful”, to the point of demolishing the entire British-American political relationship.
Hate is bad. Pleeeease stop hating the criminal in the White House! You are a lighthouse beacon that needs to be turned off! We, the subversive Progressive establishment, do NOT want anyone finding their way to the light of Truth. So just shut it down already! We WON! We are the Champions! It doesn’t matter how we won, so stop pointing out the Truth about the Lance Armstrong, Bernie Maddoff, Piltdown Man presidency of our Dear Leader, Barackula Obominus (aka; BAIR-ek o-BAM-a, a fraud through-and-through, -just like his pronunciation of his father’s name.)
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said…
How many ways are your arguments screwed up? Let me count the ways . . .
You try to convince us of your position by appealing to authority (argumentum ad verecundiam). You tell us about the decisions of some lower courts. But you do not share with us the logic or evidence that supports the decision of those courts. The history of positions that we once considered authoritative is riddled with error. Simply because a court makes a decision does not necessarily mean the decision is correct. Even a court will not accept the word of a so-called expert if the expert does not accompany his or her opinion with facts and reason. A court should not expect any less from its own opinions and nor should the public.
Now you attempt to blind us with science, another fallacy. Do you think that informed people are stupid enough to believe you just because you tell us that you are a scientist and use scientific-sounding language? Surrounding your meritless theories with scientific jargon without more means nothing. You arguments still fail on their merits.
And how could I forget how you quote James Madison out of context when you try to pawn off his quote from the 1789 Ramsay-Smith congressional debate as proof that he defined a natural born citizen as merely born in the country.
You also cannot read what is plainly written in Thomas Jefferson’s citizenship laws of 1779.
Or how about how you read into the Fourteenth Amendment and Wong Kim Ark’s holding “natural born citizen” when it is nowhere there to be found.
I also just love your fallacy that Obama must be a natural born citizen because people voted for him, Congress approved it, the Chief Justice swore him in, and he will stay in office for 3 more years.
Now you are on a new kick. You try to prove our argument on the definition of a natural born citizen to be wrong by saying that we hate Obama. You really are a real piece of work!
Slarti opined: …it becomes clear that the 14th Amendment could not have created a class of “naturalized at birth” citizens that did not exist under the Constitution as originally written.”
I’ve come to the realization that anyone who talks about “citizenship” is about as far along in understanding as week # 1 of Citizenship 101. Why? Because there were then TWO separate and unconnected worlds: the world of the State republics and the world of the new Federal government which had no principles imposed on it by the Constitution in regard to American federal citizenship policy.
It was thus totally free to follow Natural Law and reject the British common law that many or most States incorporated in their citizenship clauses and statutes.
So to blabber on about citizenship is nothing other than an exercise in ambiguity unless one states specifically which type of citizenship one is discussing; State or National.
So Slarti’s statement is true but only from the perspective of the States; not from the perspective of the United States Justice Department.
From its perspective, in which alien-born State citizens were not officially recognized as United States citizens, a new class most certainly was created since such State citizens were from thenceforth officially U.S. citizens from birth.
Not naturalized. Not natural born. Just common law citizens.
The stupid belief that it must be either the first or the second requires a perversion of what either “naturalized” means, or a perversion of what “natural born” means.
Slarti opinied: “Furthermore, we know that the vast majority of natural born citizens are 14th Amendment citizens… those born on the soil to citizen parents.”
That could not be more wrong nor more stupid. Natural born citizens existed and would exist without the ratification of the Constitution or the 14th Amendment.
They were the natural, native citizens of America via citizenship by descent in their home colony–republic or commonwealth.
They were natural born citizens when they approved the Declaration of Independence and turned their colonies into republics with full sovereignty and full governments.
“Since the text of the 14th only recognizes two classes of citizens: those born and those naturalized and we know that the former includes most natural born citizens, the existence of a third class is completely unsupported by either the original intent of the Framers of the 14th Amendment or its language.”
You’ve just decapitated your own position by making that true statement. The original intent was solely aimed at freed slaves, NOT alien-born children of fathers subject to a foreign jurisdiction.
The framers specifically stated that subject to the jurisdiction meant subject to the FULL jurisdiction (which includes a citizen’s duty to serve the national defense if called) and NOT subject to the alien father’s home government.
Understand that no baby born then could be born outside of the family nationality which flowed from the family head: the father. They were deemed by the U.S. Justice Department to be whatever their father was; American or foreign; NEVER BOTH!
But that was not the attitude of the States since international sovereignty was not a concern of theirs; they were all about increasing the State population and keeping all members of society equal within some minor residency considerations.
~Here’s my theory about Jay and Hamilton which has the elegance of simplicity and better explains the facts as we know them. Not only did Jay write the letter to George Washington, he also discussed the matter in person with his friend and fellow New Yorker Alexander Hamilton.
In his proposed draft, Hamilton used the layman’s term “born a citizen” rather than the legal term “natural born citizen” used in Jay’s letter. In committee, the lay language was changed to its formal counterpart which had exactly the same meaning. My position (and that of the Judicial Branch) is that “natural born citizen” = “born a citizen”. ~~~
reply: The “layman’s term” “born a citizen” is straight-forward English language. It needs no characterization as non-legal, -as if legal language does not employ plain English language.
“natural born citizen” was not a legal term because it was from outside of the law. It was a socio-politico-anthropological characterization of one born of citizens. Such an identification had no place in law because British and American law enforced the principle of equality for all subjects and citizens, -thus designating some as different by using that term had no place in either nation.
The use of “natural-born subject” in the British system avoided discrimination by applying it to everyone. But in America, the similar but different words were recognized to apply almost to everyone, but not quite. It applied solely to citizens born of citizens.
There was no conceived discrimination that applied on their behalf to the denial of citizens born of aliens. But there was a great honor, a security role, a position of trust that was set aside solely for citizens born of citizens. It was the position that held the power to command all of the military forces of the republic. In some of the State Republics, that position was that of governor. In the nation as a union of republics, that position was that of Command in Chief, and the man who filled it was the President of the United States.
He was made not only the chief executive of the nation but also the Chief military commander. It was vitally important that no man with foreign connections have that power in hand, and thus no one born a foreigner, -and.. no one born a foreigner and also an American, could be entrusted with those offices either.
No natural born citizen has a foreigner for a father, -nor the dual citizenship and dual allegiance that would result from such paternity.
Since there is no role in society designated solely for natural born citizens, the term cannot possibly be considered to be a legal term since no law ever written in American would have used it and applied it to deny rights to anyone born of aliens. Instead, it was pulled out of the sociological realm and planted into the constitutional realm as the distinguishing nature that was required for the office of President, -and no other.
There is a huge unrecognized whole in the floor of the Obama defenders’ doctrine, and it is a paradox that can’t be fixed. It revolves around the proper protocol of keeping one’s principles consistent. As soon as they are seen to be in diametric conflict with themselves, then the falsehood of the doctrine is revealed. Here’s the paradox:
Common law citizens born of aliens are declared to rightfully be included in the meaning of what natural born citizen is on the basis of birth within the U.S.A. The inconsistency is in defining Americans born abroad. They are claimed to also be natural born citizens because they are born as citizens by Congressional statute, and the word “natural” somehow just naturally precedes “born citizen” in the lexiconic meaning that was somehow in everyone’s head and agreed upon though never in writing.
But… by the very same common law, all children born within the realm of the British Crown were deemed to be natural-born subjects. With the insistence that the British term and the American term are identical in meaning and effect, one could not be a natural born subject/citizen of only one of the nations since in Britain they would be such via common law while from the American view, their children born abroad would be natural born citizens via statute or positive law. But it can’t be both.
No child can be the off-spring, -the natural child, of two fathers! And no citizen can be a natural citizen of two nations, otherwise the word “natural” has no meaning in American citizenship law, policy, or doctrine. If that were true, and deliberately so in the founders and framers attitude or view, then they would have done what anyone else would have done and merely used the term “born a citizen” as Alexander Hamilton had suggested.
But they did not stop there because that limited terminology included those men who were alien-born, and the framers wanted no foreign influence anywhere near the power of the Command of the American Army. Thus they had to add the word “natural” in order to make that requirement explicit.
It all comes down to what the word “natural” means, -whether it means what its normal English language meaning conveys, or its meaning is a perverted version of the non-meaning of old British common law which has illogically and deceitfully been misapplied to America.
Just think about the power of resistance to accepting the English language meaning. All of the forces of the alien-born line up against it. And even more powerful, all of the forces of the socialistic and environmental and union-supporting Left are lined-up to denounce the natural meaning that “natural” naturally carries because it clearly delegitimizes the entire presidency of one who was not born as a natural citizen. To all of them “natural logic” is replaced by perverse logic designed to protect their Dear Leader from impeachment or worse; nullification of his entire presidency.
The 14th Amendment makes clear that parentage is irrelevant to the citizenship of the native born.
And there we have the first of many lies to come. Subjection, which is the second requirement of the Amendment, only came through the father, so parentage determined citizenship until the national policy was squashed by the Wong court opinion.
All of the parties in Wong Kim Ark understood any native born citizen such as Mr. Wong or President Obama to be eligible for the presidency as a result of the ruling.
Whether or not that is true is irrelevant to whether or not what they “understood” was actually true or not. If their understanding was actually a false impression and not the truth, then their consensus delusion does not alter anything other than the administration of that delusion as national policy.
Neither the SCOTUS or any other court has ever disputed that understanding since.
No federal court has ever been forced to rule on what the truth of the matter is, so to claim that the delusion must be true simply because it has received no definitive attention is the height of stupidity.
The courts have spoken to say that President Obama is natural born if he was born in Hawai’i.
And the big fat lies just keep coming. What the hell is “the courts”? No national court authority has ever “spoken” such a deluded claim. And worse still, the deceiver knows that is true.
The State of Hawai’i has spoken to say that he was born there.
States do not speak since they do not have mouths. People make statements, whether true or false, governments issue edicts, whether right or wrong. No government official in Hawaii has ever written or spoken with actual authority about Obama’s place of birth. All verbal claims were the lies of individuals speaking as such.
That is shown by the fact that no one from Hawaii has ever made any statement under oath, nor even with their actual signature attached and outside of unexplained quotation marks, in which they claimed in an official capacity that there exists in Hawaiian archives an actual original Hawaiian hospital Certificate of Live Birth for Barack Obama. No one. All the statements were frauds of obfuscation, deflection, ambiguity, feigned exasperation and deceit. And very successfully so, -since they were authored by a very astute lawyer behind the scenes.
The birthers have spoken to make clear that they do not respect the courts or the constitutionally guaranteed full faith and credit of the state of Hawai’i.
The birthers have made it clear that they are not sycophants of crooks, whether he be dog-catcher or President; Nixon or Clinton, or Obama, but are adults who are aware of the deviousness of men in power, and the willingness of them and their flying monkeys to lie to the American people about anything and everything in order to protect and maintain their power and elite status over the People and the States of our republic.
I chose to respect the word of the Judicial Branch and the US Constitution.
You choose to lie, deceive, prevaricate, and pretend. Pretending to be a childishly naive but patriotic American will not inspire us to stand and salute your flag made of the wretched rotting skin of the carcass of the truth that you have skinned and gutted.
Slartibartfast said… here’s what I believe is consistent with the intent of the Framers: At ratification, the only way to be born a citizen was to be born under US jurisdiction-
Fool! The framers had no “intent” whatsoever, you ignoramus. All citizenship was grounded in the sovereign republics which contracted together to form a union and a central government authority. There was, at ratification, no central government “jurisdiction” yet. Nor was there any national “citizenship” either. All citizens were State citizens who were a part of a grandly designed union of shared sovereign jurisdictions.
-in other words, only the native born, excluding the children of foreign diplomats, and the children of our own diplomats born overseas were born citizens.
Again with the failure to recognize the orientation of citizenship being attached to State governments, and not to a national government not yet even established, and which even when established, had no sovereignty over the citizenship policy of the State members of the union except as far as dictating a national uniform rule regarding who would be accepted for naturalization by the States and under what circumstances, -such as length of residency.
Parental citizenship was irrelevant since, in the words of the holding in Wong Kim Ark, “citizenship never descends, in the legal sense, either by the common law or the common naturalization acts”. In other words, the law was exactly what would later be codified by the 14th Amendment.
That is either one of the most devious statements ever made, or one of the most ignorant. Parental citizenship was irrelevant as claimed but only irrelevant to those born of aliens. Their citizenship from birth was a gift of governments which allowed the continuation of the common law policy within whatever States allowed it.
Possibly that was many, possibly even most or all. It is unknown, but what is known is that they constituted only about 2% of the population, so what was magnanimously allowed for them had no relevance to the inherited citizenship of the children of natives of the States. They did not need a law to make them that which they were born as; new members of their father’s country or national family, just as no law was needed to make them members of his own family. Exact same principle; the principle of natural membership.
John Jay didn’t inspire the definition of “natural born citizen” he inspired the eligibility clause. “Natural born” was a legal term that he would have learned when he studied English law and the meaning he intended can only be construed in this context.
Shear ignorance. There was no such term as “natural-born” to be found in any legal dictionary of that entire era, so how could they have “learned” it when it was not a legal term? It had no meaning whatsoever since the words had been bastardized to include everyone. That was so lame that future British governments discarded it altogether. If it was so legitimate, it would still exist.
The authors of the 14th Amendment intended that all those born on the soil (with the usual exceptions) to be considered natural born.
And there you have the heart of the entire deceitful doctrine. To be able to call the alien-born citizens “natural born” (the fictitious term but minus the hyphen needed for its British usage) so that they can be President and not exclusively the citizen-born citizens. Only that is not what the Supreme Court issued an opinion regarding. It only dealt with citizenship alone; not the nature of that citizenship and whether or not it could or should be considered constitutionally eligible for the presidency.
The Congress provided for children born to US citizen parents overseas (at least in some cases) and anyone they made a citizen at birth was also a natural born citizen.
Congress made no one a citizen at birth because Congress, unlike Parliament, was given no authority to naturalize foreigners. Only the courts-of-record had the authority to administer the oath of Allegiance & Renunciation. Not Congress. Such fictional authority has no designated boundaries. By it, Congress could logically make anyone on Earth a U.S. citizen simply by its all-powerful say-so. And what would be the consequence?
Well, U.S. citizens must obey U.S. laws, including paying income taxes, and do so no matter where in the world they live. So why not just make all of the billionaires in the world U.S. citizens and then send them a tax bill? “Well, its really all at the discretion of Congress.” No, it is not! you idiot! Congress is devoid of any such authority, including over American citizens and their children. The States never gave the national government any such power, and thus Congress is not Parliament.
natural born citizen
Birthers often focus on the word “natural”, however, if we consider the nomenclature in which the Founders chose to write the Constitution, all citizens are natural citizens, whether they became so at their birth or were made so by statute later in life. Thus all citizens possess the quality of being natural which is implied in this phrase.
note: The framers did not “choose” the nomenclature. It was the only one they all knew since it had been around long, long, before they were born. But then Slarti made the biggest mistake possible. He individualized the words of the term, -rendering their unitary term-of-artifice meaning null and void. That means that he is presenting them as having separate meanings instead of the equivalent to “natural-born subject” which was purely a term of art meaning in effect simply: “subject”.
Under that term, if equivalent to natural-born citizen, then just as all subjects were natural-born subjects, so also all citizens were natural born citizens, only they weren’t.
But then he goes one step even further from the position of his own heresy by confirming that “all citizens are natural citizens” -like I’ve been preaching day and night for years now. What a mistake for him that admission is!
But he then errs by mischaracterizing what that means. Instead of recognizing it as purely a fiction of law, he characterizes it as essentially literal in the political sense, stating that “all citizens possess the quality of being natural”.
No, they do NOT! They are merely covered by the pretense, -the legal fiction that they are natural citizens. They do not actually possess the real quality of being a natural citizen. Do adopted children actually possess the genes of the adoptive parents who are essentially their “real” parents?]
natural born citizen:
Birthers also like to argue that the Founders choice of “citizen” rather than “subject” reflects some profound philosophical difference which should be inferred here. To address this topic, what better source could there be than the interpretation of the Founder’s original intent by the unanimous SCOTUS in Minor v. Happersett. They said:
~”For convenience it has been found necessary to give a name to this membership. The object is to designate by a title the person and the relation he bears to the nation. For this purpose the words ‘subject,’ ‘inhabitant,’ and ‘citizen’ have been used, and the choice between them is sometimes made to depend upon the form of the government.
Citizen is now more commonly employed, however…, it was adopted by nearly all of the States upon their separation from Great Britain, and was afterwards adopted in the Articles of Confederation and in the Constitution of the United States. When used in this sense it is understood as conveying the idea of membership of a nation, and nothing more.” ~ ~ ~
“nothing more”??? Liberty and self-governance are nothing more than membership? I think the people of Iran would disagree. They supposedly live under a republican form of government and yet are they free? Free to keep and bear arms and throw out their government?
With membership in Britain, did the people have an unchallengeable right to unite together into armed militias? Militias to defend themselves from over-reaching government? A realistic examination of reality shows that citizenship involves quite a bit more than mere membership, although that is certainly where it begins, but not where it ends.
~ ~ ~ ~
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said…
De facto President Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen. Obama’s eligibility supporters therefore look to make him a natural born citizen under some definition. Maskell (whom you follow) invented one. With the Fourteenth Amendment doing his heavy lifting (making Obama a born citizen, assuming he was born in the United States), he then puts forth that all born citizens are natural born citizens, a definition which is asinine on its face. Not having any evidence to support your position, you cannot shake off that both you and Maskell arrive at the bogus definition by a hidden fallacious thought process:
All natural born citizens are born citizens.
Obama is a born citizen.
Therefore Obama is a natural born citizen.
If the Fourteenth Amendment were to be interpreted to mean that a person born in the United States, while not subject to any foreign power, is a citizen of the United States, then it would not have changed existing national law with respect to the policy behind a natural born citizen.
But the way Wong Kim Ark interpreted the amendment, i.e., born in the United State and subject to its laws, the amendment did change existing national law, for it abrogated the Naturalization Act of 1855 which treated children born in the United States to alien parents as aliens and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which treated children born in the United States and “subject to a foreign power” as aliens, and thereby created dual and conflicting allegiances and citizenships in children born in the United States to alien parents who the Wong Kim Ark court took to be citizens of the United States at birth.
To contend that the amendment did not change existing national law under Wong Kim Ark’s interpretation of its “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause is to deny reality which you are so good at doing.
Mario wrote to Slarti: “As far as those lower court rulings, why not defend those decisions by telling us through what historical and legal evidence and reason they arrived at their conclusion.”
He could do that but doing so comes with a built-in snare. He could explain that according to various “authoritative” pundits and judges, the U.S. was still adhering to British common law nationality rules. And by them a “natural-born subject” was anyone who was a subject, ergo, a natural born citizen is anyone who is a citizen.
Only that has a gigantic flaw that everyone can see since it includes what the British included: naturalized citizens, and everyone agrees that in America that was not the case.
So there is no way to avoid an unsolvable paradox or conflict of rules. That is why his ilk promulgate the logic of everyone “born a citizen” being “natural born” but cannot elucidate the principles behind that argument because they contain a huge and fatal flaw.
Slartibartfast said…A member of the Fogbow answered all of Mario’s questions so I thought I would let Mario know that the matter has been put to rest.1. How many Americans with U.S. passports went to Pakistan, like Obama, in 1981? 1932. What function (job category) did these Americans have before entering the country? [DON'T BOTHER READING; IT IS ALL FICTION YET DECEITFULLY PRESENTED AS FACT. HOW CORRUPT IS THAT?]
Writer (8), retired (27), student (19), journalist (6), photojournalist (3), management consultant (5), anthropologist (1), engineer (12), diplomat (23), geologist (3), educator (8), religious missionary (22), medical doctor (7), human rights activist (3), other (46) 3. What was the purpose of their trip there? Tourism (53), business (129), just passing through (11)4. How long did they stay there?
Slarti wrote: -the State Department recognized President Obama as a citizen (a FOIA request for information on Obama Sr. indicated that he had a US citizen son),… that President Obama was entitled to a US passport.
Your ignorance and presumption know no bounds. The information you cite was a hand-written comment by a field agent in Hawaii who merely repeated what he assumed to be true based on assumed birth in Hawaii, -unproven to him by anything or anyone, but relayed by a clerk in the Hawaiian Dept. of Health who examined the affidavit filed out by his mother which attested (falsely) to his birth at home in Honolulu, which was assumed to be truthful.
But to acquire a U.S. passport requires submission of a State birth certificate, which he lacked. The passport dept did not call the old field agent to ask him what his impression was, because it was irrelevant.
Nothing but a birth certificate (or perhaps something equivalent if there is such a thing) would serve to get a passport.
“Have you ever looked for verification of a single fact once you realized how to use it to smear President Obama?”
How can facts “smear” a criminal? Are defendants in court being “smeared”?
But after the travesty of the Selective Service card counterfeit, it’s very doubtful that instead of releasing another fake document, (a passport record) they would simply claim that it is missing, or was legitimately destroyed (a lie), or perhaps they’d get a better counterfeiter and make the job perfect. Most likely they’d simply say that no such request was ever presented, -thus no record.
“it is clear from the argument from the State of California in the lower court… (that if Mr. Wong was a citizen, he would be eligible for the presidency),”
When were you born, yesterday? Nothing is made clear simply because some unaware person makes an unsubstantiatable erroneous claim.
All that is “clear”, fool, is that he thought his impression was accurate and thus stated it, ignorantly. Impressions and opinions do not translate to TRUTH.
“- there is absolutely no basis in Wong Kim Ark to show that Mr. Wong was found not to be a natural born citizen and substantial evidence to the contrary.”
Wow! It’s also true that he was NOT found to not be a horse’s ass, unlike someone I know.
Please, oh wise one, where in the Wong case was the court called on to rule on whether or not Wong was a natural born citizen???
And here I ignorantly thought they were considering whether or not he was even a citizen at all. Thanks! for setting me back on the right track, -lame-brain.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said…Mr. Nash,Your last comment to Slartibartfast is right on the money.Immigration does not do anything without a valid and verifiable birth certificate. I went through all of Barack Obama Sr. (father)’s immigration file. There is therein not a shred of evidence of any birth certificate for Barack Obama Jr. (our de facto president) ever being filed with immigration.
There is no copy of any birth certificate, no indication that there ever was one, or even the slightest comment referring to one. That is unbelievable given that Obama Sr. wanted to extend his student visa and having a child born in the U.S. would have been a good basis to extend it. He would have had to present a valid birth certificate to prove the birth of that son.
In the immigration file there are also documents in which Obama Sr. does not even acknowledge having a son with Ann Dunham. ~ ~ ~
~and the lies about the Dear Leader just go on, and on, and on….
by adrien nash june 2014 obama–nation.com