Debunking Delusions at the Fogbow

 rabid obamunist “Sam” at the fogbow blog quoting part of my kick at their belief system: “…what am I thinking… ” ~replied: “… is what a delusional moron would think, because Adrian Nash is absolutely irremediably delusionally idiotic.
obama–nation wrote:… “I’ll attempt to restate what I’ve already stated a hundred times before in order to inform you.”

Adrian, why don’t you stop spouting your idiotic garbage, which no-one, no-one except you gives any credence to because they have refuted it repeatedly; and listen to experts for once? Then you might not come across as completely stupid. Stop writing, start reading and you might learn something. People have read your crap, they have refuted it, line by idiotic line, word by idiotic word, hyphen by idiotic hyphen. They have seen it’s crap. Most of us won’t read it again because it’s still crap, re-reading it doesn’t stop it being crap. It’s crap, did I mention that?

Blah blah blah, you did learn one thing from Mario Apuzzo: the idea that repetitive verbiage carries persuasive weight. A mountain of shit smells no better than a shovelful of shit. We’ve read you stuff; it’s wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.

[note: that is six wrongs in a row.  did he type each one individually?  whether yes or no, that is a hell of a lot of resistance to something that is highly threatening to his world, -something that he must stomp on with all of his strength but none of his logic, nor with facts or history.]

He continued: obama–nation wrote: ~Until you read it, you will remain in the ignorance of your misconceptions.

It is a moot question which is larger, your arrogance or your ignorance. No-one on this forum is ignorant. The lawyers here have several advantages over you: they know the law, they’re rational, they listen to arguments, they’re not stupid. They do not have misconceptions. You do. Huge ones.

Here’s the situation summarized for you:

Fact one: the law of citizenship in the USA is settled and agreed by courts, government and academic scholars, everybody who matters.
Fact two: you disagree with all these experts.
Fact three: nobody agrees with you (except perhaps a couple of crazy birthers).
Irrefutable conclusion: you’re wrong.

“Natural born” means “born with that nature”, as in the film title “Natural Born Killers”.  Sticking a hyphen in it or not doesn’t change anything; a hyphen is a little decoration, nothing more. (You disagree? Then you’re wrong.)

So a natural born citizen is one who was born with the nature of being a citizen. That includes everybody who is born in the United States (other than those mentioned by the diplomatic and invading army exception). It includes some other people, who were citizens when they first saw the light of day but on foreign soil. It is that simple. It really is.

Your Seattle/Vancouver conjecture is too ridiculous to waste keystrokes on. That alone indicates that your grip on reality and rationality is very weak.

Stop being an idiot Adrian, grow up, and go and do something useful. The country has enough morons, you don’t need to add to the total.

My Reply:  Sam bloviated: “No-one on this forum is ignorant.” response: Everyone here is ignorant of the things that I’ve uncovered, the dots that I’ve connected, the relationships that I’ve illuminated. That’s why no one has ever attempted to debunk the facts and conclusions that I’ve arrived at regarding the nature of citizenship. All they do is what Mario does, regurgitate their own talking points, ignoring everything that I’ve written.

You all live in a totally insular matrix of misconceptions that have been handed down for two centuries, but particularly the one following WKA. Your matrix looks totally real to you. You are incapable of even considering that it might not be valid or accurate or reflective of the truth. Hence your unshakeable certainty. That certainty is a wall preventing you from even being able to think objectively.

“The lawyers here…know the law, they’re rational, they listen to arguments, they’re not stupid. They do not have misconceptions. You do. Huge ones.”

No one is stupid, but everyone is blind, -blinded by group-think that questions nothing regarding basic assumptions. Many of your basic assumptions are wrong but you have no way to conceive that that could possibly be true.

This is all about misconceptions. If my understanding of reality springs from fundamental errors then you are all property of the government but just don’t realize it yet.
If your understanding is wrong, then your whole world view is skewed regarding what your rights are because in the end, it does boil down to the most fundamental issues of human life. Who owns who?
Do you own the government or does it own you? Who is the sovereign? Is it Government and its arbitrary laws or is it The People who created the government? Your political assumptions put you on the side of the former, -but you don’t know that yet nor understand why.

“Here’s the situation summarized for you:

Fact one: the law of citizenship in the USA is settled and agreed by courts, government and academic scholars, everybody who matters.
Fact two: you disagree with all these experts.
Fact three: nobody agrees with you (except perhaps a couple of crazy birthers).”

That sums it up perfectly. But a juvenile appeal to authority will never assist anyone in discovering what the actual truth is. It’s been pointed out…
“A new idea is first condemned as ridiculous, and then dismissed as trivial, until finally it becomes what everybody knows.” -William James

“a hyphen is a little decoration, nothing more. (You disagree? Then you’re wrong.)”

Well you just flunked English 101, moron. A hyphen is no more insignificant that is a comma or semi-colon or a “decorative” period. It’s time you left your stupid zone and actually read what I wrote. It will convince you as to how ignorant your really are.
Why A Hyphen and an Underline Condemn Obama’s Presidency

“Your Seattle/Vancouver conjecture is too ridiculous to waste keystrokes on. That alone indicates that your grip on reality and rationality is very weak.”

See, you’ve just proven what I said would be the response here. It’s like I’m Psychic!
No one will even attempt to refute its logic or facts, with the exception of the relevant information about the age of consent in Hawaii being 14. Someone actually had something factual to say! But not a single other person has contributed anything, -positive or negative.
You are just one more insignificant coward afraid to enter the arena of disputation.
Your weaselly evasion tactic is evidence that you have nothing. But you are not alone. Nobody else does either. So you have lots of silent company. A company of cowards.

The depth of our cluelessness is seen in your totally accurate statement:
So a natural born citizen is one who was born with the nature of being a citizen.”

Your problem is that you don’t know what your own words mean. You have a view that is a mile wide and a foot deep. You need to go ten feet deep as did the founders.
I’ll enlighten. “born with the nature of being a citizen” is what I’ve been insisting for four years. You don’t believe your own words because you don’t even grasp what they mean. What it does NOT mean is being born with the magnanimous gift of citizenship, -a gift of the native natural members of the nation through their State Constitutions. And eventually through the WKA opinion.

It means that you are born with a certain character that is innate, -pre-determined at conception, and brought to fruition at birth. Such infants are born being Americans by nature, having no other political nature, whereas the infant of aliens is born without citizenship if his mother walks across the border and gives birth on foreign soil.

That is not “being born with the nature of being a citizen”. That is unrelated to Nature. It is 100% law determined.
If birth happens on U.S. soil, then no American nature is connected to such a birth. Legal citizenship attaches, nothing more.

It could be eliminated in the future by repealing the 14th Amendment or rewriting it to say what it originally meant. But there is no law which makes natural Americans into U.S. citizens. None was never needed, will never be needed, and will never be written. It would be the equivalent to making a law that says that your natural children are legally yours.

No government has any moral authority to assume that it has the power to make such a judgement or assertion because that would imply that it could also chose just the opposite if it wanted. The natural rights of mankind argue otherwise.

Re the Vancouver Scenario:

“There is no logic behind a scenario you pulled out of your ass.”

Then debunk it dumb ass. You won’t because you can’t. And you err in depicting it a “a scenario” as if it is not composed of a couple dozen scenarios, -any one of which you are invited to ride in on your white horse of truth and blow to smithereens.

PS, what’s up with the Mario thread? It had no quote nor reply button when I visited it earlier. Is that some sort of ban or something else?

Estiveo » Fri Jun 13, 2014

Allow me to answer your last question Mr. Nash; you have been confined to the part of the forum known as FEMA Camp 7 1/2. This is the only place you are allowed to post and only Fogbow members who choose to engage with you can see what you post.
This avoids irritating (!) the members who are more interested in kitty videos, recipes and laughing at Orly Taitz and think tank at Birther Report.  ~Foggy said: You’re confined to an area where there are only 186 people signed up to read and respond to your posts.  You’re welcome to post whatever you want here, and I guarantee there will be plenty of replies in response. You can start new threads in the FEMA camp, too.  You’re in FEMA Camp 7½, which can only be seen by you and 186 other members here (out of 600+) who voluntarily signed up to visit. This is where I put birthers and trolls, because some of our members grew really tired of reading the same old debunked nonsense that you and your fellow birthers posted repeatedly over the years. Although I will admit, Vancouver is a new one.
So that explains it.  I couldn’t figure out what the limitation was caused by.  Now I know that my thoughts and words are too damn dangerous to them and need to be quarantined out of sight of those with an open mind who might be looking for truthful answers and not just propaganda supporting their socialist community organizer and his ideology.
That is proof of the fact that what I’ve shared is too darn reasonable and makes too much sense.  It’s Kryptonite to their marvelous marxist in chief.  It’s like religion in an atheist dictatorship.  Like the facts of nature in an evolution course.  Like Galileo in the Roman Catholic Church’s defense of its cosmic view.  It must be restricted and isolated least it become contagious and spread.  They say that when you are getting the most flak then you know that you are directly over the target and your bombs are then most dangerous to the enemy.

A. R. Nash: Barack Obama was born in Vancouver, B. C.

Postby Suranis » Fri Jun 13, 2014

response: Everyone here is ignorant of the things that I’ve uncovered, the dots that I’ve connected, the relationships that I’ve illuminated. That’s why no one has ever attempted to debunk the facts and conclusions that I’ve arrived at regarding the nature of citizenship.

Yes, you certainly have “a beautiful mind.” See the movie. It perfectly illustrates the dangers in seeing patterns from random things that are not really connected.

And people just debunk all the facts that you lie about to reach the dots that you make your Rorshach conclusions about. So the patterns you are seeing are patterns from points that don’t really exist. So all that you are left with is stuff you cannot comprehend. Which apparently is everything.

Stanley Ann Dunham was not in Seattle when you say she was. [for that claim he is able to offer zero substantiation, yet feels compelled to make it anyway in order to protect the obaminator anyway he can.]
Her family did not disown her for having a black baby, and in fact your Presidents grandparents by all accounts loved the kid and took care of him for a large part of his life, which would be a strange reaction for people who were horrified at what the neighbors might think about having a black baby in the family.
[I never said anything about them disowning their only child.  But I assume I said something about their being shocked and probably dreading the unapproving attitudes of friends, neighbors and associates.  Remember; 1961!]
No-one mentioned Adoption, except maybe in passing as an option that was rejected.
[both claims are unproven and unprovable.  Just the opposite is more likely than not.  Fear is the only explanation for making unsubstantiated claims on behalf of a sitting President.]
And Canada would not be any more open to black babies than the US,
[As I state in the scenario, she likely avoided mentioning the racial situation with her unborn after not finding a single white couple (nor Black) in Washington State willing to adopt a mulatto baby.  He last “Hail Mary” hope was that a couple would be taken with the baby regardless of race after seeing it, whereas they might make a firm choice to not even consider such a child if told upfront.]
-nor would having the baby in Canada and flying to the US immediately make any sense.
[Since when does expense considerations mean nothing?  If her mother was with her, as is highly likely and normal, then the cost of their stay in Vancouver would have been influential in her mother’s choice to return home to Hawaii sooner rather than later.  She needed to return to work, her husband needed to see his daughter and baby, and the child’s father might have been a factor as well.]
And the Age of consent in Hawaii was 14 so BHO Senior would not have been terrified of landing in jail for statutory rape, not that that would have been an issue for a 17 year old no matter where you were in the US.
[I have not seen any verification that the age of consent in Hawaii was 14 in 1961.  I’ll treat that claim as unestablished.  I’m not saying it is likely or unlikely.  Just unsubstantiated.  In that era Jerry Lee Lewis married his 13 year old cousin (who happened to be more mature that he)  and that fact wreaked his British tour when it became public.]
Sam added: If your arguments are so persuasive, find us either one judge, one respectable legal scholar, one immigration expert who agrees with you. Nobody agrees with you. You should understand that that suggests with almost 100% certainty that you are WRONG.
Foggy said: A rule I learned long, long ago is that in any argument, the guy who loses his temper first is the LOSER.
Suranis, Nash wrote: “Only so many hours in a day. I haven’t even fully read it yet.”   Is it any wonder we consider you a fool?
It wouldn’t be if you yourself were a fool, which you are. You have no comprehension as to how much material and webpages and edit pages are open on my computer at the same time (enough to cause by browser to freeze), nor how far ranging in time and content is the material that I’ve been researching, and which no one else has ever even thought to examine.
And then, fool, there is life in the real world and its pressing needs, not to mention illness for the last few days. So how tiny is your little imagination that none of those possibilities could occur to you?
You wrote that my position is:
1. The new government created a new term, NBC
2. The new government had no recognizable legal origins
3. Therefore the new term NBC can mean whatever I want it to.I see I can’t have an intelligent conversation with you since you invented out of nothing three views that I have never embraced nor communicated. You imagination is running in over-drive or you are stupidly presumptuous.1. How could the new government invent nbc when the term already existed but the government did not when it was employed?2. How could the government have no legal origins when the Constitution, that created it, was legally adopted?

3. ” Therefore…” [Question: How is your “therefore” at all even connected to 1 & 2??? And in what way or form have I ever intimated that the meaning of nbc is other than what the English Language determines?]

You wrote: “It is completely meaningless to say that the new government simply “had a beginning,” because all things have a beginning.”

my reply: It is only meaningless to one incapable of comprehending what is being read. The meaning, as I made perfectly clear, was that the States had a history of nationality assignment. The new central government had no such history since it had no previous existence. It could and did start with a new Natural Law-based slate and ignored the old British, monarchical common law nationality assignment rule based on where one’s mother’s womb was situated during the brief and politically insignificant event of exit from the womb to the world.

They choose blood instead of borders, -the return to the only rule that all natural groups and nations have ever followed. The only ones that have ever deviated were those that became unnatural nations or unnatural groups. (about which I have yet to expounding in any exposition).

As for Rawle’s comment; you ignorantly presume the same error that prompted his remark. What I’m telling you is that that view is false. It is inaccurate. His understanding of what a natural citizens is was incorrect, distorted by his long exposure to British common law and his lack of exposure to American natural principles of natural rights.

“Why do you guys even ASK for authoritative citations to prove obot claims??”

Obviously, you know nothing about me because I oppose asking for authoritative citations since they are irrelevant unless made by those who were founders and framers. Everyone else is far too prone to have been indoctrinated in the still prevailing State common law citizenship convention. But it was not controlling at the federal level. At that level dual nationality was an abomination equal to dual marriages, (bigamy) since it came with inevitable conflicts of jurisdiction and sovereignty.

” ‘Subject’ was never synonymous with natural-born subject.”

That is true if referring to the period before natural-born subject was invented. After it was, with the Calvin case, and its expansion to include not just Scottish born children but even European-born children of immigrants, then it because synonymous with subject. All subjects then were deemed natural-born subjects,-even the naturalized.

“Here are some questions for you to ponder:

According to our Constitution, can you NOT have been “born in the territories,” and still be eligible to be a SENATOR or REPRESENTATIVE?

You meant “and NOT still be eligible…,” not “NOT born in the…”
Congressional eligibility had nothing to do with the location of birth but with the possession of citizenship and age and residency. Every child knows that.

“If you are a random individual inhabiting the United States, how do you know whether you are a citizen? How do you know whether you are eligible to become naturalized?”

The uneducated know nothing so if you don’t know whether you are an American or not, you need some serious help. And… only the qualified Green Card holders are eligible for naturalization.

“you also wrote “…adopt whatever nationality rule it viewed as best.” What is “it”? The new government? The constitution?”

It refers to the controlling legal authority of the new national government, -that being the Attorney General of the United States. He got to decide what the national government’s nationality policy would be. He decided it would be based on natural law, or that was simply what all of the founders and framers understood to be the new policy of the federal government of the United States of America.

“For you to have an opinion of the Framers’s “views” you must know what they are. And there is no way to know someone’s “view”

They told us what their view was. They told us that the President had to be a citizen, a natural citizen, a natural citizen by birth and not by the fiction of law that deemed all citizens to be natural citizens.

“Can you point me to the writings of the Framers where they convey their “view” that the ancient tradition of “natural law” is the …”new” definition for the contemporary and commonly understood term “natural born”?

You don’t understand what you are asking. There was no such term as “natural born”. It exists in no law dictionary before or during the founders’ era. What did exist was “natural-born” and it was found in none of them as well.
It had no meaning so there was nothing to define. All subjects had come to be labeled as “natural-born subjects” by then. The meaningless term has since been totally abandoned.

Natural means natural. Born means born. English defines them both. It is really that simple. Too simple for the minds indoctrinate in the history of British nationality law. That is why they are all wrong. They can’t get that the nbc term is not a term of legal artifice but normal English words. They are misled by the nbs term, -which is a term of art.

“So EVEN IF the Framers chose natural law as the “best” basis for NBC, by itself even THAT wouldn’t mean anything.”

You lack the proper grasp of the context of the constitutional convention. They were in need of deciding who could and who could not hold the power of the Command in Chief position over the American military. They could not trust anyone with direct foreign attachments with such ultimate power. The person had to be 100% American with only American roots.

Everyone born of citizens and naturalized citizens was born with American roots. The foreign roots of the naturalized had been considered severed by the oath of Allegiance & Renunciation, and new roots grown during the several years of residency.
Thus they were born of citizens and born as citizens, naturally, -not by law but by natural membership via blood connection.

They were not deemed by law nor government nor policy to have been born that way. They actually were born that way in fact. That made them born as natural citizens, or natural born citizens.

It’s kind of like a broken limb with a cast on it. The cast is the artificial British common law rules based on place of birth (probably the consequence of the Norman invasion). Once it was removed, then the natural flesh is revealed, just as how natural relationships could once again be unencumbered by the binding cast of artificial nationality rules.


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 by anything or anyone) What that assumption was based on no one knows but one can speculate it was based on a phone call to the Hawaiian Dept of Health. It would have told him either that they have on file an affidavit signed by the mother that their son was born at home in Honolulu, or told him that they have on file an unsubstantiated affidavit… and his mind choose to not hear the unsubstantiated part.  Either way, he picked up an impression.  But his impression translates to nothing.

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”? And No, I’m too remote from civilization to even think along that line. My research is purely historical and philosophical.
But after the travesty of the Selective Service counterfeit, it’s very doubtful that instead of releasing any fake document, they would simply claim that it is missing, or was legitimately destroyed (like his mother’s, -a lie), or 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? Why do you continue to pretend that you were?  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.  If I tell you that I am a god, will you believe me if I work for the government? Would a government job necessarily make my claim true?  You pretend that it would.

“- 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.  Are you too dumb to grasp how asinine such statements are or are you wise and devious like the biblical lying serpent?

Please, oh wise one, point out in the Wong case where the court was 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.



About arnash
“When you find yourself on the side of the majority, it’s time to pause and reflect.” - Mark Twain - Politicians and diapers - change 'em often, for the same reason. "Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other." Ronald Reagan "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley, Jr. “The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell The people are the masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it. Abraham Lincoln “Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.” - George Orwell “Satan will use a lake of truth to hide a pint of poison”.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: