The occasional open tread: Do not feed the trolls

Posted on March 18, 2015 by Dr. Conspiracy

Please leave your non-trolling comments unrelated to the current articles here. This thread will close in two weeks.

Image found at smallworlds.com.

About Dr. Conspiracy

I'm not a real doctor, but I have a master's degree.
This entry was posted in Open Mike and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

311 Responses to The occasional open tread: Do not feed the trolls

  1. Punchmaster via Mobile says:
    March 18, 2015 at 8:44 am  (Quote)

    Obama was having more fun at the expense of birthers, at some dinner. Needless to say the inmates at Gerbil Report are foaming at the mouth. 🙂

  2. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    March 18, 2015 at 9:43 am  (Quote)

    There is a rather lengthy discussion of Obama’s birth certificate at the Quora web site;

    http://www.quora.com/Is-it-possible-that-Hawaii-state-officials-forged-a-doctors-signature-on-President-Obamas-long-form-birth-certificate

    Interesting site.

  3. Crustacean says:
    March 18, 2015 at 2:53 pm  (Quote)

    I would love to know the real story behind that quote of the day. What combination of pills and liquor breathes life into such a paragraph?

    What the hell does it even mean to be “blocked” by a car dealer? Was Falcon trying to hack into their system so he could get free undercoating or something?

  4. bovril says:
    March 18, 2015 at 3:47 pm  (Quote)

    I imagine bird brain was leeching off some dealerships free WiFi and was downloading a stack of porn that tripped the routers blacklist filters which blocked his onanistic ways

  5. Nancy R Owens says:
    March 18, 2015 at 4:11 pm  (Quote)

    Two out of three of the signatures on Obama’s LONG FORM, I have to remember to specify which form or RC goes nuts, are mine. I signed the first line first. Joe Lee signed the last line second and I signed the second line last.

    Hawaii did not forge any of those signatures.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    There is a rather lengthy discussion of Obama’s birth certificate at the Quora web site;

    http://www.quora.com/Is-it-possible-that-Hawaii-state-officials-forged-a-doctors-signature-on-President-Obamas-long-form-birth-certificate

    Interesting site.

  6. RanTalbott says:
    March 18, 2015 at 6:25 pm  (Quote)

    Spotted at Gerbil Report™. Arpaio offers surrender terms in his contempt battle with the judge:

    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_ARIZONA_SHERIFF_RACIAL_PROFILING?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-03-18-11-52-32
    http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2015/03/arpaio_and_chief_deputy_admit_wrongdoing_in_contempt_case_seek_to_avoid_apr.php

    I wonder whether this means he’ll be cancelling the (lack-of-press) conference for the Sup3r S3kr1t Second (Criminal) Investimagination…

    So do the gerbils. Should be fun to watch them sepculate.

  7. RanTalbott says:
    March 18, 2015 at 6:39 pm  (Quote)

    Crustacean: What the hell does it even mean to be “blocked” by a car dealer?

    My guess would be that they have some sort of public “customer feedback” page, and Birdboy either insulted the staff or tried to hijack it for birfoonery.

  8. Arthur says:
    March 18, 2015 at 8:37 pm  (Quote)

    Rick Santorum was confronted by a sputtering old-lady birther who also suffers from Obama Derangement Syndrome. She became nearly hysterical, accusing Obama of not being a citizen and of being a communist dictator. She added, “Obama tried to blow up a nuke in Charleston a few months ago and the three Admirals and Generals. He has totally destroyed our military. He has fired all the Generals and all the Admirals who said they wouldn’t fire on the American people if they ask ’em to do so if he wanted to take the guns away from ’em.”

    This happened in South Carolina.

    http://jezebel.com/insane-lady-at-rick-santorum-event-obama-tried-to-nuke-1692250532

    You can get the audio at “All In with Chris Hayes” (MSNBC).

    Birthers may be old and stupid, but they’re not dead yet.

  9. faceman says:
    March 18, 2015 at 9:20 pm  (Quote)

    Arthur: Rick Santorum was confronted by a sputtering old-lady birther who also suffers from Obama Derangement Syndrome. She became nearly hysterical, accusing Obama of not being a citizen and of being a communist dictator. She added, “Obama tried to blow up a nuke in Charleston a few months ago and the three Admirals and Generals. He has totally destroyed our military. He has fired all the Generals and all the Admirals who said they wouldn’t fire on the American people if they ask ‘em to do so if he wanted to take the guns away from ‘em.”This happened in South Carolina. http://jezebel.com/insane-lady-at-rick-santorum-event-obama-tried-to-nuke-1692250532You can get the audio at “All In with Chris Hayes” (MSNBC). Birthers may be old and stupid, but they’re not dead yet.

    And yet, Sen Graham of SC said that, if elected president, his first act would be to use the military to force Congress to restore spending cuts to the military.

    http://www.vox.com/2015/3/11/8193751/lindsey-graham-military-coup

  10. Keith says:
    March 18, 2015 at 10:00 pm  (Quote)

    OK, then.

    Not Senator Graham.

    Proto-Military Dictator Graham

  11. Andrew Vrba, PmG says:
    March 18, 2015 at 11:47 pm  (Quote)

    Arthur: Rick Santorum was confronted by a sputtering old-lady birther who also suffers from Obama Derangement Syndrome.

    Gerbil Report is pimping the story as “Retired Teacher unloads on GOP; Communist Dictator Obama not even a citizen”
    Guess they’ve run out of retired judges, dishonorably discharged veterans and ex-cops to parade out. What’s next? Ex-Barber?

  12. Arthur says:
    March 19, 2015 at 9:34 am  (Quote)

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: Guess they’ve run out of retired judges, dishonorably discharged veterans and ex-cops to parade out. What’s next? Ex-Barber?

    I’m just glad she’s retired. The thought of that crazy old lady working with children is terrifying.

  13. bovril says:
    March 19, 2015 at 10:43 am  (Quote)

    Appears to be this person, Doc feel free to remove if this violates yout ToC’s

    https://www.facebook.com/virginia.ellisor

  14. bizzie says:
    March 19, 2015 at 10:58 am  (Quote)

    Off-topic, but have you guys ever seen Louis Gamber’s Facebook page? He openly calls for the POTUS’ execution and brags that he’s been contacted by the Secret Service. He also posts on Gerbil Report. He’s a real piece of work.

  15. Phil says:
    March 19, 2015 at 1:10 pm  (Quote)

    John Reilly March 19, 2015 at 2:40 am (Quote) #

    The federal court in Los Angeles said that the citizenship revoking law was unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court upheld that ruling.

    A deportation proceeding is a civil proceeding. Denaturalization due to avoidance of military service is a criminal proceeding requiring the accused to be afforded the right of due process. SCOTUS held section 401j was unconstitutional because it denied due process rights to the accused in a criminal proceeding.

    In the Mendoza-Martinez case, the Attorney General validated the deportation order issued to Mendoza-Martinez by a Special Investigator with the DoJ in a civil proceeding. Mendoza Martinez appealed the AG’s decision to the Bureau of Immigration Appeals. The BIA dismissed the appeal.

    Mendoza-Martinez filed suit in the District Court seeking a declaration he was a US citizen, section 401j was unconstitutional and all orders of deportation are void in a civil proceeding. The District Court upheld the deportation order. The Circuit court affirmed the District Court’s decision. SCOTUS remanded the case back to the District Court in the light of Trop v. Dulles. Trop was a draft evader who left the country and did not naturalize in a foreign nation. An attempt to denaturalize Trop was found unconstitutional because Trop was denied his due process rights as is required in criminal proceedings. Trop was tried in a courts martial proceeding, but not the District Court.

    On remand, the District Court found section 401j unconstitutional. On direct appeal to SCOTUS, SCOTUS ordered the case back to the District Court to amend the pleadings to include the question of whether or not the AG could deport Mendoza-Martinez after alleging Mendoza-Martinez forfeited his US citizenship in Mexico.

    After a third trial in the District Court, the District Court “held that the Government was not collaterally estopped because the 1947 criminal proceedings entailed no determination of Mendoza-Martinez’ citizenship.”

    In his second amended complaint, Mendoza-Martinez alleged the US government admitted he was a US citizen by charging him and convicting him of draft evasion.

    Justice Goldberg delivering the opinion of the Supreme Court wrote, “Thus, the conviction entailed no actual or necessary finding about Mendoza-Martinez’ citizenship status between September 27, 1944, and November 1, 1946, and the Government was not estopped from denying his citizenship in the present proceedings.”

    Section 401j became effective on September 27, 1944. Mendoza-Martinez departed the US on or about November 2, 1942 which resulted in the loss of his US citizenship before section 401j was in effect.

    This issue is applicable to Obama because a career professional in the State Department advised Sec. Rice, VP Cheney, AG Mukasey, CJ Roberts, Sen. Biden,Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations, Sen. Kerry, Sen. Hagel, and other co-conspirators that cancelling Obama’s CLN would only effect the proof the certificate existed and the fact Obama was denaturalized in 1968. The career professional was given the opportunity to resign or be fired. The career professional was replaced by a zealot who craves affirmation by those in power. Obama’s CLN was cancelled in 2008.

  16. faceman says:
    March 19, 2015 at 7:36 pm  (Quote)

    bovril:
    Appears to be this person, Doc feel free to remove if this violates yout ToC’s

    https://www.facebook.com/virginia.ellisor

    Retired teacher: ‘Oklohoma’? ‘Viet Nan’? ‘Afaganistan’?
    Just what did she teach?

  17. RanTalbott says:
    March 19, 2015 at 7:45 pm  (Quote)

    faceman: Just what did she teach?

    The tragic results of goofing off in school.

    Although I’m not sayin’ that was her intent…

  18. Dave says:
    March 19, 2015 at 9:19 pm  (Quote)

    Came here to post this, but you guys are way ahead of me.

    Worth noting that the event was organized by Frank Gaffney. Perhaps Santorum will learn this is what happens when you agree to speak at the bigot convention.

    Arthur:
    Rick Santorum was confronted by a sputtering old-lady birther who also suffers from Obama Derangement Syndrome.

  19. Bob says:
    March 20, 2015 at 11:27 am  (Quote)

    bizzie:
    Off-topic, but have you guys ever seen Louis Gamber’s Facebook page? He openly calls for the POTUS’ execution and brags that he’s been contacted by the Secret Service. He also posts on Gerbil Report. He’s a real piece of work.

    I reported this miscreant to Facebook and they notified me that they removed his profile.

  20. y_p_w says:
    March 20, 2015 at 2:35 pm  (Quote)

    bizzie:
    Off-topic, but have you guys ever seen Louis Gamber’s Facebook page? He openly calls for the POTUS’ execution and brags that he’s been contacted by the Secret Service. He also posts on Gerbil Report. He’s a real piece of work.

    I thought that almost nothing is off-topic in an open thread.

    In a similar vein, someone submitted a proposed initiative to the State of California.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-03-20/will-kamala-harris-block-an-initiative-proposal-that-legalizes-killing-homosexuals-

    California Attorney General Kamala Harris is facing a legal paradox.

    On the one hand, she must uphold the state law that allows residents to pay $200 and submit initiatives for their possible consideration by the voters. On the other, the one being proposed by Huntington Beach lawyer Matt McLaughlin, which seeks to legalize the killing of homosexuals, is so odious that it makes a mockery of the law itself.

    Dubbed “The Sodomite Suppression Act,” McLaughlin’s proposed initiative would classify homosexuality as “a monstrous evil that Almighty God,” and allows “that any person who willingly touches another person of the same gender for purposes of sexual gratification be put to death by bullets to the head or by any other convenient method.”

    There are calls to have this guy disbarred on the basis of this being an act of moral turpitude.

  21. Nancy R Owens says:
    March 20, 2015 at 4:44 pm  (Quote)

    Hmm…

    Benji Franklin: Wow, I just read today’s AP coverage of this situation, and I think you are correct; Joe’s running scared and the Judge is angry and apparently considering launching a criminal investigation of this matter.

    Read at http://tinyurl.com/ocprl72

    I don’t see how the Birthers can successfully spin Joe’s admission of wrongdoing as trumped up Obama administration charges!

    And I don’t see how Arapio’s cheer leading, voting fan-club of local citizens can insulate him from an honest and brave torch-bearing judge!

    This could be Joe’s serious undoing.

  22. Andrew Vrba, PmG says:
    March 20, 2015 at 5:23 pm  (Quote)

    bovril:
    Appears to be this person, Doc feel free to remove if this violates yout ToC’s

    https://www.facebook.com/virginia.ellisor

    She believes

    faceman: Retired teacher:‘Oklohoma’? ‘Viet Nan’?‘Afaganistan’?
    Just what did she teach?

    She believes in chemtrails to! I’m willing to believe that she’s a former teacher, because they fired her!

    On an unrelated note, Gerbil Report is REALLY circling the drain. They’ve taken to pimping one of Charlie Sheen’s drug addled twitter rants as newsworthy.

  23. ObligedFriend says:
    March 20, 2015 at 7:22 pm  (Quote)

    faceman: Sven:
    -The Constitution gives the Congress the authority to set a uniform rule of naturalization.
    -The president does not ‘issue’ a CLN, and even if he did, he cannot issue a CLN to someone who is not a citizen.
    -The various agencies, even though under the direction of the president, cannot act contrary to laws promulgated by Congress.
    -The CFR, a compilation of various regulations issued by the various agencies to translate the laws of Congress into everyday procedures, is subservient to the USC.
    -The president cannot act contrary to laws promulgated by Congress.
    -The Supreme Court, as interpreter of the Constitution, can find actions of Congress and the President unconstitutional.(Hint: Checks and Balances)

    Really, Sven, have you been so trounced by the truth that you feel the need to resort to a new sockpuppet to try and argue your ridiculous fantasies?

    Naturalization is a Kind. The first Naturalization Act established this rule. Congress is limited by the Constitution to naturalize white settlers only.

    The Founders were very clever. They wanted a homogeneous country.

  24. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    March 20, 2015 at 7:25 pm  (Quote)

    Well, the Los Angeles Times covered the story too:

    http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/gossip/la-et-mg-charlie-sheen-obama-birther-tweet-ncaa-20150319-story.html

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: On an unrelated note, Gerbil Report is REALLY circling the drain. They’ve taken to pimping one of Charlie Sheen’s drug addled twitter rants as newsworthy.

  25. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    March 20, 2015 at 7:27 pm  (Quote)

    Ewww, a Gamecock fan.

    bovril: Appears to be this person, Doc feel free to remove if this violates yout ToC’s

  26. faceman says:
    March 20, 2015 at 8:29 pm  (Quote)

    So let me summarize ‘Sven’:

    -The fact that we asked him to prove MM was deported is actually proof that he was deported, because it’s an admission that we can’t prove he was never deported.

    -The fact that MM died in California is proof that he was deported. Because it proves he had his citizenship stripped under some unspecified law, and that he used his original BC to fraudulently obtain a new Certificate of Citizenship after having received a CLN.

    -This is applicable to Obama because, since he was too young to voluntarily renounce his citizenship and his parents could not do it on his behalf, they hired a lawyer to convince a consular official that it was in ‘the best interest’ of the child.

    -And the Bush administration is complicit in the cover up because he appointed the AG who cancelled Obama’s CLN and Naturalization.

    -And we know all this because some whistleblowers told him that such was standard operating procedure.

    -And he won’t identify these whistleblowers until he can call them as rebuttal witnesses in case Obama denies he ever naturalized.

    -Even though his prior suit was dismissed with prejudice.

    -And lest we forget. ‘Collateral Estoppal!!’

    Did I forget anything?

  27. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    March 20, 2015 at 9:06 pm  (Quote)

    I noticed that the Facebook link to him from BR was DOA.

    Bob: I reported this miscreant to Facebook and they notified me that they removed his profile.

  28. Rickey says:
    March 20, 2015 at 10:57 pm  (Quote)

    faceman:
    So let me summarize ‘Sven’:

    -The fact that we asked him to prove MM was deported is actually proof that he was deported, because it’s an admission that we can’t prove he was never deported.

    -The fact that MM died in California is proof that he was deported.Because it proves he had his citizenship stripped under some unspecified law, and that he used his original BC to fraudulently obtain a new Certificate of Citizenship after having received a CLN.

    -This is applicable to Obama because, since he was too young to voluntarily renounce his citizenship and his parents could not do it on his behalf, they hired a lawyer to convince a consular official that it was in ‘the best interest’ of the child.

    -And the Bush administration is complicit in the cover up because he appointed the AG who cancelled Obama’s CLN and Naturalization.

    -And we know all this because some whistleblowers told him that such was standard operating procedure.

    -And he won’t identify these whistleblowers until he can call them as rebuttal witnesses in case Obama denies he ever naturalized.

    -Even though his prior suit was dismissed with prejudice.

    -And lest we forget.‘Collateral Estoppal!!’

    Did I forget anything?

    Calling him out on his lies and obfuscation is proof that he’s right!

  29. faceman says:
    March 21, 2015 at 6:49 am  (Quote)

    y_p_w: I thought that almost nothing is off-topic in an open thread.In a similar vein, someone submitted a proposed initiative to the State of California.There are calls to have this guy disbarred on the basis of this being an act of moral turpitude.

    According to Wikipedia:

    Capital punishment is a form of punishment in the U.S. state of California. It was declared unconstitutional by a federal judge in California (Jones v. Chappell) on July 16, 2014.[1] The state of California is believed likely to appeal the decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

    Since she has to ‘consider’ it, maybe she could consider it unconstitutional?

  30. Keith says:
    March 21, 2015 at 8:12 am  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Ewww, a Gamecock fan.

    So who is picking your pocket today (or tomorrow) – Wildcats, Razorbacks, or Aztecs?

  31. faceman says:
    March 21, 2015 at 11:38 am  (Quote)

    Phil: Native born persons deported under section 401e had their privileges, immunities and obligations to the US restored in 1967. This would explain how M-M could return to the US after deportation, obtain a SSN, telephone number and live until his death in the US.

    But I thought you said

    Phil: I believe M-M was deported and then moved back to America. He used his status as a native born person to fool anyone who questioned his US citizenship into to thinking he was a US citizen.It’s a flaw in the system. Any native born person who has been issued a CLN in their lifetime can move back to America to use their birth certificate to fool anyone who challenges their current citizenship status.

    Just another case of you changing your story again. You really should see a doctor about those memory problems in order to avoid continually contradicting yourself.

    So, Mario (you don’t mind if I call you Mario, do you?) instead of talking about what you ‘believe’ or what ‘might’ have happened, and instead of cut and pasting entire books all the time, why don’t you simply just cite the law under which M-M was stripped of his citizenship? No stripee, no deportee.

  32. faceman says:
    March 21, 2015 at 12:22 pm  (Quote)

    And what does all this have to do with Obama? Or are you now saying that he was issued a CLN after being tried and convicted (as a 6 year old) under some as yet unspecified law.

    But thank you for conceding that if someone’s CLN is cancelled, then he is restored to his original status as a NBC. Not that Obama was ever issued a CLN except in your delusions; but if he had been, then the Bush appointee, by cancelling his CLN, restored him to NBC status. (Or are you saying that Bush wasn’t a valid president, either?)

  33. Nancy R Owens says:
    March 21, 2015 at 1:47 pm  (Quote)

    I agree.

    The forged birth certificate, which I forged as you all know, is just a hint of the connecting crimes.

    I’ll bet you anything Mia Pope will be the next to go down.

    Adam Walsh….The Undercurrent You Don’t See.

    Benji Franklin: At least BR has quaked behind the scenes. Somebody posted a URL there for the regulars to read an article about Joe’s new problem, and ‘bored in texas’ responded with, “Nice try but be assured this is no impediment to the current case.
    Read more at http://www.birtherreport.com/2015/03/law-professor-and-former-aclj-senior.html#smEPtAezFgQeXZOU.99”

    Odd denial in view of the fact that the BR article referred to champions jus soli for NBC!

  34. Nancy R Owens says:
    March 21, 2015 at 5:02 pm  (Quote)

    Mike Zullo is really Mike Moore from Hendry County, Florida. Mike Volin is really “Sal,” also from Hendry County.

    If Arpaio is who I think he is, which is Sheriff Vaughn, he is most definitely compromised in that he had me, the forger, down on my knees “polishing the old apple” if you catch my drift on his very first day in office as a Hendry County Sheriff.

    Note that he apparently didn’t become Sheriff in Maricopa, AZ until 1993 or so.

    He is not trying to expose Obama’s forged birth certificate. He’s a major part of the conspiracy and will, if prosecuted, be doing some major prison time wearing his own precious pink underwear.

    Now, Mark, why didn’t you ever send that DNA test kit like you promised?

    Are you a part of this conspiracy, too?

    I did call Judge Snow’s office confessing to Obama’s forgery, just to let ya’ll all know.

    Mark McDaniel:
    The thing that concerns me most is that Zullo and Gallups have both claimed, on multiple occasions, that they knew the identity of the forger, and then Sheriff Joe comes out, on multiple occasions, and said that they did not know who did it, and since then we have had no news conference from Zullo. What this suggests to me and my law enforcement contacts, is that Joe has been threatened/compromised, and he is actually trying to communicate that by his bizarre contradictory public statements. The question is, how damn long will the supposed supporters of Team Arpaio take before they actually realize that Joe has been threatened/compromised? And what action will they take? I see nobody at BR even bringing this subject up, which indicates to me what a bunch of losers they are in their Epic Fail Mission

  35. Nancy R Owens says:
    March 21, 2015 at 6:05 pm  (Quote)

    RE: (Taken from Barfing Report since they won’t allow me to post there).

    Note to Doc, how about a thread to accommodate those of us who are banned from BR?

    I don’t know much about copyright. But, if they try to argue it, I don’t see how they can claim copyright when they are deliberately stalling and/or covering up the release of Obama’s true identity and the forger which is me.

    TonyUnplugged @ Birther Report – Revealed: Rare Photos …
    11 minutes ago ¡ 0 replies ¡ +1 points
    Without DNA testing or a certified birth certificate, we may never know the biological parents of the guy in the White House. I don’t know what Zullo has found that is “gut wrenching” and “universe shattering”. Did he have a juvenile police record in Hawaii that hasn’t been released? Would the world be shocked if he committed a violent crime as a teenager? Why don’t any of his high school classmates remember his being locked up. Another dead end. Maybe something happened at Columbia University in NYC. He seems to have been “disappeared” at Columbia University. That may be where the big secret was found and it’s not a matter of him being a foreign-exchange student. Was he hanging out with the Black Panther Party or the Weather Underground in New York City back in 1981 and then whisked away to Pakistan by his CIA handlers to avoid prosecution?

    Response: To start with, the murder of the Hawaiian family whose name Obama is using.

  36. Thrill says:
    March 21, 2015 at 6:49 pm  (Quote)

    H was born in the United States and was taken to Mexico by his parents in 1937.

    He returned to the United States in 1955.

    H was deported in 1956 on the ground that he lost his United States citizenship as a result of voting in Mexican presidential election in 1946.

    In the light of Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967), H’s expatriation and deportation must be considered invalid.

    Wow! Obama needs SCOTUS to find 8 U.S.C.1481(a)(5) unconstitutional.

  37. Dave says:
    March 21, 2015 at 7:08 pm  (Quote)

    8 U.S.C.1481(a)(5) has no apparent relevance to Obama.

    Thrill:
    Wow! Obama needs SCOTUS to find 8 U.S.C.1481(a)(5) unconstitutional.

  38. Rickey says:
    March 21, 2015 at 7:32 pm  (Quote)

    Dave:
    8 U.S.C.1481(a)(5) has no apparent relevance to Obama.

    It looks like Sven is in full sock puppet mode again.

  39. Northland10 says:
    March 21, 2015 at 7:48 pm  (Quote)

    Thrill: H was born in the United States and was taken to Mexico by his parents in 1937.

    Hi Sven.

  40. Northland10 says:
    March 21, 2015 at 7:49 pm  (Quote)

    Rickey: It looks like Sven is in full sock puppet mode again.

    And ignoring another one of my posts, again.

  41. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    March 21, 2015 at 9:35 pm  (Quote)

    Great idea. Don’t you have a web site where you can make one?

    Nancy R Owens: Note to Doc, how about a thread to accommodate those of us who are banned from BR?

  42. Nancy R Owens says:
    March 21, 2015 at 9:49 pm  (Quote)

    Lifted from BirtherReport:

    Jamesssmith @ Birther Report – Revealed: Rare Photos …
    1 hour ago ¡ 0 replies ¡ +1 points
    All sheriff’s are drug dealers and communist manifesto to be set as dirty and that’s a prima facie fact, that I or anyone else can…. easily empirically prove. They all got their stupid asses caught up in the communist manifesto pinch. And right now…. this very minute…. they all look pretty damn stupid, for circumventing the U.S. Constitution. It can also be proven that sheriff arpiehole is drug dealer and a major money launderer…. period. Sheriff arpiehole unfortunately is a blatant complicit collaborating controlled opposition blatant treasonous traitor and that’s a fact…. period.

    Jamesssmith @ Birther Report – Revealed: Rare Photos …
    1 hour ago ¡ 0 replies ¡ +1 points
    If you’re waiting for sheriff arpiehole to help…. you’ll be waiting for a cold day in hell too. I quote sheriff arpiehole; “This man is a menace and he needs to be brought to justice,” Arpaio said. And I say; Mr. arpiehole says a lot of things but most importantly, it’s what he hasn’t said and will never say…. that he’s 100% controlled opposition and a drug dealer….. period…. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/20/1264333/… Life is a school; Why not try taking the curriculum?

    I can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, that sheriff arpiao is a drug dealer and a money launderer that got himself caught up in the same old stale communist manifesto. Where they allowed you ignorant hoodwinked punks on purpose to sell those very same illegal drugs with impunity. The communist infiltrators enact laws to make all drugs illegal, bringing the target country to its knees. And…. so as the communist infiltrators could blackmail you…. just like they are right now.

    If you don’t shut your mouths about the u.n. muslim communist caliphate and takeover of America’s lands and the mass murder of its Christian occupants… you’ll go to jail or worse too. All part of the communist manifesto and the u.n. infiltrators played all you Constitution subjugating punks like a fiddle…. because you’re in fact stupid…. period.

    Why is sheriff arpiehole always harping, at almost every public showing; rambling and emphasizing how he’s head of the one of the biggest filthy dea operations in the country. But that’s a real big inadvertent confession and a problem for sheriff arpiao with his constant dea assertions as the good guys. Doing his duty to keep America safe from drug dealers. Oh really. Well….that’s a bald face lie…. and here’s the billions of dollars in proof proof proof that all sheriff’s are in fact the drug dealing kingpins…. period….. and that’s a probable prima facie fact…. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJ4J2qwWD98

    I quote; As nearly as we can tell, the last American journalist arrested for something he’d written was John Peter Zenger, and that was prior to the American Revolution.

    Before his reign of terror subsided, the Sheriff would become notorious nationally for rounding up immigrants as well as for attacks upon the judiciary.

    “County officials could have curtailed the abuses of the Sheriff years ago,” says Lacey. “Instead, they looked the other way until Arpaio’s excesses moved from Mexicans to magistrates. With these cash grants, we choose to stand with those who resist.”

    Read more: http://www.kpho.com/story/28567797/death-threats-…

  43. RanTalbott says:
    March 21, 2015 at 10:54 pm  (Quote)

    Arthur: Rick Santorum was confronted by a sputtering old-lady birther who also suffers from Obama Derangement Syndrome.

    Over on Gerbil Report, Volin asked for help in contacting her, because “I need her on my team.”.

    So, someone took the opportunity to ask him how many sheriffs has responded to his mailing, and when they were going to take action. He responded with:

    When CDR Kerchner and myself sent out the kits we removed all references to my site. With that said yes we have had a lot of feedback from them. This means the Sheriffs are doing their homework and with a little digging traced them back to me.

    I.e., they got an unsolicited DVD in the mail, googled “obama sheriff kit” to see whether it was known to be a malware vector, and looked at the first result. Which even Zullo could have pulled off.

    I find it amusing that he ducked the “how many” and “when” questions, and didn’t say what kind of “feedback” he got: I wonder how many of them said “I’ve contacted your local sheriff, and told him he needs to keep an eye on you” 😈

  44. Dr. Kenneth Noisewater says:
    March 21, 2015 at 11:44 pm  (Quote)

    Nancy R Owens: I agree.

    The forged birth certificate, which I forged as you all know, is just a hint of the connecting crimes.

    I’ll bet you anything Mia Pope will be the next to go down.

    Adam Walsh….The Undercurrent You Don’t See.

    Neither was forged and you didn’t forged them. Mia Pope is just another Nancy Ruth Owens willing to make up anything. She claims that her father was a mason and a murderer. Maybe you’re related?

  45. Dr. Kenneth Noisewater says:
    March 21, 2015 at 11:45 pm  (Quote)

    Nancy R Owens: Mike Zullo is really Mike Moore from Hendry County, Florida. Mike Volin is really “Sal,” also from Hendry County.

    If Arpaio is who I think he is, which is Sheriff Vaughn, he is most definitely compromised in that he had me, the forger, down on my knees “polishing the old apple” if you catch my drift on his very first day in office as a Hendry County Sheriff.

    Note that he apparently didn’t become Sheriff in Maricopa, AZ until 1993 or so.

    He is not trying to expose Obama’s forged birth certificate. He’s a major part of the conspiracy and will, if prosecuted, be doing some major prison time wearing his own precious pink underwear.

    Now, Mark, why didn’t you ever send that DNA test kit like you promised?

    Are you a part of this conspiracy, too?

    I did call Judge Snow’s office confessing to Obama’s forgery, just to let ya’ll all know.

    None of what you said is true. Volin is Volin, Zullo is Zullo. These other characters you imagined aren’t the same people.

  46. Dr. Kenneth Noisewater says:
    March 21, 2015 at 11:49 pm  (Quote)

    RanTalbott: I find it amusing that he ducked the “how many” and “when” questions, and didn’t say what kind of “feedback” he got: I wonder how many of them said “I’ve contacted your local sheriff, and told him he needs to keep an eye on you”

    He likes to duck questions. He’s not very smart any time you ask him any tough questions he crumbles.

  47. Rickey says:
    March 22, 2015 at 12:27 am  (Quote)

    Pamela Barnett’s SCOTUS petition has been dead filed.

    No. 14-930
    Title:
    Pamela Barnett, Petitioner
    v.
    Alex Padilla, California Secretary of State, et al.
    Docketed: February 2, 2015
    Linked with 14A769
    Lower Ct: Court of Appeal of California, Third Appellate District
    Case Nos.: (C071764)
    Decision Date: August 27, 2014
    Discretionary Court
    Decision Date: October 29, 2014

    ~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Jan 13 2015 Application (14A769) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from January 27, 2014 to March 28, 2014, submitted to Justice Kennedy.
    Jan 16 2015 Application (14A769) denied by Justice Kennedy.
    Jan 27 2015 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due March 4, 2015)
    Feb 11 2015 Waiver of right of respondent Alejandro Padilla as California’s Secretary of State to respond filed.
    Mar 18 2015 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 3, 2015.

  48. Adrien Nash says:
    March 22, 2015 at 1:44 am  (Quote)

    For your enlightenment: Conspiracy Theories and their Credibility; the Fallacy of Primary Veracity, and Canaries in the Coal Mine

    https://americansod.wordpress.com/2015/03/22/conspiracy-theories-and-their-credibility/

    re: why conspiracy theories are not believed and how that benefits conspirators.

  49. faceman says:
    March 22, 2015 at 5:49 am  (Quote)

    Thrill:
    H was born in the United States and was taken to Mexico by his parents in 1937.

    He returned to the United States in 1955.

    H was deported in 1956 on the ground that he lost his United States citizenship as a result of voting in Mexican presidential election in 1946.

    In the light of Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967), H’s expatriation and deportation must be considered invalid.

    Wow! Obama needs SCOTUS to find 8 U.S.C.1481(a)(5) unconstitutional.

    Sockpuppet, what hoes ‘H’ have to do with Obama? Was Obama over the age of 18 in 1968? Did Indonesia let a 6 year old boy vote in an election? Can you find any documentation that Obama was deported?

    Wow! I could have had a V-8!

  50. Lupin says:
    March 22, 2015 at 6:38 am  (Quote)

    A question of law for those who know what they’re talking about. (Sven need not reply.).

    I understand the US is a signatory to the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights which forbids a state to make someone stateless by depriving him of his nationality unless he already has another nationality. (he/she, of course.)

    The reason I bring this up is because of the French jihadists who went to fight for ISIS in Iraq; our National Front would dearly like them to be stripped of their French citizenship, but to the extent that they have not become citizens of another country (Syria, Iraq, whatever), our Government is prevented from doing that by Law.

    I’ll be curious to know what the situation is in the US with respect to stripping one of one’s US citizenship?

  51. Northland10 says:
    March 22, 2015 at 8:06 am  (Quote)

    Lupin: I’ll be curious to know what the situation is in the US with respect to stripping one of one’s US citizenship?

    IANAL, but I would think that Afroyim v. Rusk closes the door on involuntary removal of US citizenship, with possible exception of those born of citizens outside the US as part of Rogers v. Bellei, though the original law involved there was repealed.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afroyim_v._Rusk

  52. faceman says:
    March 22, 2015 at 9:16 am  (Quote)

    IANAL, but it is my understanding that if someone naturalized, and it is later discovered that there was some flaw or fraud in the naturalization process, their citizenship can be taken away. However, that is not so much ‘stripping’ as saying that they should never have been granted citizenship in the first place. Other than that, I know of no other way that a citizen can have their citizenship involuntarily taken away.

  53. faceman says:
    March 22, 2015 at 9:24 am  (Quote)

    And, NO, Sven/Phil/Thrill/Mario, that does not apply to Obama because he did not naturalize. He was, and is, a Natural Born Citizen.

  54. Punchmaster via Mobile says:
    March 22, 2015 at 5:52 pm  (Quote)

    I ain’t a fan of Ted Cruz. I think he’s a jackass, but I love the lamenting his upcoming presidential run announcement is causing at Gerbil Report today.

  55. Joey says:
    March 22, 2015 at 6:07 pm  (Quote)

    faceman:
    IANAL, but it is my understanding that if someone naturalized, and it is later discovered that there was some flaw or fraud in the naturalization process, their citizenship can be taken away.However, that is not so much ‘stripping’ as saying that they should never have been granted citizenship in the first place.Other than that, I know of no other way that a citizen can have their citizenship involuntarily taken away.

    Here’s an excerpt from the statute on Revocation of Naturalization:
    (c) Membership in certain organizations; prima facie evidence
    If a person who shall have been naturalized after December 24, 1952 shall within five years next following such naturalization become a member of or affiliated with any organization, membership in or affiliation with which at the time of naturalization would have precluded such person from naturalization under the provisions of section 1424 of this title, it shall be considered prima facie evidence that such person was not attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States and was not well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States at the time of naturalization, and, in the absence of countervailing evidence, it shall be sufficient in the proper proceeding to authorize the revocation and setting aside of the order admitting such person to citizenship and the cancellation of the certificate of naturalization as having been obtained by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation, and such revocation and setting aside of the order admitting such person to citizenship and such canceling of certificate of naturalization shall be effective as of the original date of the order and certificate, respectively.
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1451

  56. y_p_w says:
    March 22, 2015 at 7:15 pm  (Quote)

    Punchmaster via Mobile:
    I ain’t a fan of Ted Cruz. I think he’s a jackass, but I love the lamenting his upcoming presidential run announcement is causing at Gerbil Report today.

    Heads are exploding as we type away.

  57. Andrew Vrba, PmG says:
    March 22, 2015 at 7:21 pm  (Quote)

    y_p_w: Heads are exploding as we type away.

    Feels good man.

  58. Andrew Vrba, PmG says:
    March 22, 2015 at 8:14 pm  (Quote)

    Oh! And here’s a bonus! Birdboy, fresh off his latest glue-sniffing binge, has declared that Cruz is an “enemy combatant”, and declares that nominating him is illegal.

  59. y_p_w says:
    March 22, 2015 at 11:14 pm  (Quote)

    Surprised this lasted so long without someone asking the question.

    So what’s an “open tread”? All I could find was a definition for staircases without vertical faces.

  61. Adrien Nash says:
    March 23, 2015 at 2:56 am  (Quote)

    faceman:
    IANAL, but it is my understanding that if someone naturalized, and it is later discovered that there was some flaw or fraud in the naturalization process, their citizenship can be taken away.However, that is not so much ‘stripping’ as saying that they should never have been granted citizenship in the first place.Other than that, I know of no other way that a citizen can have their citizenship involuntarily taken away.

    No one in government will touch the subject of de-citizenization or de-naturalization because no one understands the Natural law authority behind doing it. Thus Awlaki was killed while still sporting his supposed US citizenship. But I believe that he was like Hamdi, born of temporary guests and not immigrants and so not really a US citizen by the actual intended meaning of the 14th Amendment.

    When a naturalized citizen has his citizenship nullified due to fraud or incomplete information, it has the same effect on his minor children. they are no longer Americans and can be deport with him or her because the children take after the parents… by blood relationship. Whatever the head is, so is the body. You can’t have a head with a different blood type than the body. Same with nationality in the natural realm of natural law.

  62. Thrill says:
    March 23, 2015 at 5:41 am  (Quote)

    Faceman:

    “IANAL, but it is my understanding that if someone naturalized, and it is later discovered that there was some flaw or fraud in the naturalization process, their citizenship can be taken away. However, that is not so much ‘stripping’ as saying that they should never have been granted citizenship in the first place. Other than that, I know of no other way that a citizen can have their citizenship involuntarily taken away.”

    Good guess, but no. The AG can pursue administrative legal action against a fraudulently obtained certificate of naturalization or certificate of citizenship, but administrative action only effects the validity of the proof of citizenship, i.e. the document is invalid. The individual is still a US citizen.

    The AG may seek an indictment and file charges against the individual. If proven at trial beyond a reasonable doubt that the certificate was fraudulently obtained, then a judge may order the US citizen stripped of their citizenship.

    Permanent injunction against the US government affirmed in 2000.

    The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on July 20, 2000, held that the INS was without the statutory authority to administratively revoke the U.S. citizenship of naturalized
    citizens.

    Gorbach v. Reno, 219 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir.2000).

    Therefore, the INS will not be applying and enforcing its administrative denaturalization regulations and will not be denying U.S. citizenship as a result of these regulations. The INS may still elect to pursue judicial revocation of
    naturalization.

    Obama’s certificate of naturalization was revoked administratively in 2008. He’s still a naturalized citizen because there has not been a judicial action with respect to his citizenship since 1983. But, Obama’s certificate as proof he’s a naturalized citizen was revoked by AG Mukasey.

    After word got around that a senior, career professional at the State Department was told to resign or be fired for resisting the conspiracy to install an ineligible President, the DoJ career professionals followed suit while chanting … “My job is more important than the Constitution … My job is more important than the Constitution …”

  63. RanTalbott says:
    March 23, 2015 at 6:44 am  (Quote)

    y_p_w: So what’s an “open tread”?

    A discussion so disturbing that it scares the “h” out of people.

  64. Dr. Kenneth Noisewater says:
    March 23, 2015 at 8:14 am  (Quote)

    Birther Mia Marie Pope gave a drunken interview with Pete Santilli the other night where she openly attacked the host based on stuff she read on the internet. Birthers in the comments already claiming this is a conspiracy that it wasn’t Mia being interviewed..
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7LPK3rbYsU

  65. Punchmaster via Mobile says:
    March 23, 2015 at 8:42 am  (Quote)

    I’m waiting to see if a single brother goes “Wait a minute, maybe we’re the ones who have it wrong! Maybe the Constitution doesn’t say what we think it does…”, but I ain’t holding my breath.

  66. Nancy R Owens says:
    March 23, 2015 at 1:48 pm  (Quote)

    She’s a communist liar. Obama was NOT raised in Hawaii.

    I’ve heard her a few times before trying to keep people from learning the truth so that Cruz can skate right into the White House just as Pablo planned out decades ago.

    She’s a traitor. I would search through her bank accounts and other financial records because I’m sure she’s not doing this for free.

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater:
    Birther Mia Marie Pope gave a drunken interview with Pete Santilli the other night where she openly attacked the host based on stuff she read on the internet.Birthers in the comments already claiming this is a conspiracy that it wasn’t Mia being interviewed..
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7LPK3rbYsU

  67. bgansel9 says:
    March 23, 2015 at 2:29 pm  (Quote)

    Thrill:

    Obama’s certificate of naturalization was revoked administratively in 2008. He’s still a naturalized citizen because there has not been a judicial action with respect to his citizenship since 1983. But, Obama’s certificate as proof he’s a naturalized citizen was revoked by AG Mukasey.

    Aww, isn’t that cute. Sven go a new moniker.

  68. bgansel9 says:
    March 23, 2015 at 2:33 pm  (Quote)

    I came here hoping that Doc would be covering the Ted Cruz birther implosion today. No? Well, Birther Report has been fun (I usually can’t stand the craziness there, but, today is particularly delightful.) LOL 😛 I have to say I am glad to see they are applying their Obama and Cruz narratives consistently, even if they are consistently wrong.

  69. Arthur says:
    March 23, 2015 at 2:51 pm  (Quote)

    bgansel9: I came here hoping that Doc would be covering the Ted Cruz birther implosion today.

    Me, too.

  70. faceman says:
    March 23, 2015 at 4:45 pm  (Quote)

    Thrill: The AG may seek an indictment and file charges against the individual. If proven at trial beyond a reasonable doubt that the certificate was fraudulently obtained, then a judge may order the US citizen stripped of their citizenship.

    Hate to say it, but we agree. If a person fraudulently naturalized, he can have his citizenship taken away.

    As for the rest of what you said – horsepocky. Obama never naturalized, because he never gave up his citizenship in the first place.

    Even in your alternate reality universe where, as a 6-year old, Obama voluntarily renounced his citizenship in 1968, naturalized in 1983, and had both cancelled in 2008 – Aren’t you the one who says that without a CLN there is no actual loss of citizenship. By cancelling the CLN, Mukasey restored Obama’s status as NBC.

    By the way, how can you revoke ‘proof of citizenship’ while leaving his citizenship intact?

    Pretty pathetic lies on your part.

  71. Mark McDaniel says:
    March 23, 2015 at 9:55 pm  (Quote)

    More importantly, I would like to know if someone here would like to peacefully clean up the childish little mess they made (and allowed to fester here like a bacterial infection) or would they prefer swift, lethal legal action and a nasty Congressional confrontation

  72. Nancy R Owens says:
    March 23, 2015 at 10:09 pm  (Quote)

    I’m a drama queen who missed her “Monica Lewinsky” debut, Mark. I survived Pablo Escobar, Rivi Ayala, and Griselda Blanco.

    Rest assured, I didn’t take Sonny Barger lightly either. Let’s do both the nasty Congressional hearing and cleaning up, Mark.

    The sooner, the better before I unload everything on the Alex Jones show.

    Trump’s waited long enough, wouldn’t you agree?

    Mark McDaniel:
    More importantly, I would like to know if someone here would like to peacefully clean up the childish little mess they made (and allowed to fester here like a bacterial infection) or would they prefer swift, lethal legal action and a nasty Congressional confrontation

  73. Rickey says:
    March 23, 2015 at 10:28 pm  (Quote)

    faceman:

    Even in your alternate reality universe where, as a 6-year old, Obama voluntarily renounced his citizenship in 1968, naturalized in 1983, and had both cancelled in 2008 – Aren’t you the one who says that without a CLN there is no actual loss of citizenship.By cancelling the CLN, Mukasey restored Obama’s status as NBC.

    Sven’s ridiculous theory, as I recall, is that a lawyer was hired to petition for Obama’s renunciation of citizenship while he as a child. Even if such an event could have occurred, it would never hold up to judicial scrutiny. Obama would have just needed to file a declaratory action in Federal Court asking for declaration that he never lost his citizenship because he was incapable to consenting to the renunciation. It would have been a slam dunk.

    None if it ever happened, of course. And we’re still waiting for Sven to provide the video he claims to have of Obama naturalizing with Arnold Schwarzenegger in 1983 – just one of many things which Sven claims that have but never produces.

  74. CarlOrcas says:
    March 23, 2015 at 10:29 pm  (Quote)

    Mark McDaniel:
    More importantly, I would like to know if someone here would like to peacefully clean up the childish little mess they made (and allowed to fester here like a bacterial infection) or would they prefer swift, lethal legal action and a nasty Congressional confrontation

    “Lethal action”? By whom? Against whom?

  75. gorefan says:
    March 23, 2015 at 11:46 pm  (Quote)

    On the Harvard Law Review thread (now closed) Nash makes this statement,

    “I assumed that everyone was long well aware that by the law in effect at the time (the Nat. Act of 1952) his mother had to have lived in the US for five years from the age of 14, but she was about four months too young to have achieved that five years of residency.”

    This is only true in the case of a child born outside the United States. That is the only situation where the parent has a residence requirement. And the only situation were the parent passes US citizenship to their child.

  76. Kate says:
    March 24, 2015 at 12:12 am  (Quote)

    gorefan:
    On the Harvard Law Review thread (now closed) Nash makes this statement,

    “I assumed that everyone was long well aware that by the law in effect at the time (the Nat. Act of 1952) his mother had to have lived in the US for five years from the age of 14, but she was about four months too young to have achieved that five years of residency.”

    This is only true in the case of a child born outside the United States.That is the only situation where the parent has a residence requirement.And the only situation were the parent passes US citizenship to their child.

    Although I don’t think it has ever been spelled out, I also think that situation applies to someone who is residing outside the U.S. on a permanent or semi-permanent basis, not to someone who may be visiting and goes into labor, possibly prematurely. Again, this doesn’t apply to President Obama as it is more than clear that he was born in Hawaii and that his mother didn’t even receive her first passport until July 1965, making a foreign birth an impossible situation.

  77. Kate says:
    March 24, 2015 at 12:20 am  (Quote)

    Nancy R Owens:
    I’m a drama queen who missed her “Monica Lewinsky” debut, Mark. I survived Pablo Escobar, Rivi Ayala, and Griselda Blanco.

    Rest assured, I didn’t take Sonny Barger lightly either. Let’s do both the nasty Congressional hearing and cleaning up, Mark.

    The sooner, the better before I unload everything on the Alex Jones show.

    Trump’s waited long enough, wouldn’t you agree?

    Congress doesn’t waste it’s time with lying attention whores. You’re dreaming if you think you’ll ever appear before Congress spewing your nonsense and lies.

  78. James M says:
    March 24, 2015 at 2:27 am  (Quote)

    gorefan:
    On the Harvard Law Review thread (now closed) Nash makes this statement,

    “I assumed that everyone was long well aware that by the law in effect at the time (the Nat. Act of 1952) his mother had to have lived in the US for five years from the age of 14, but she was about four months too young to have achieved that five years of residency.”

    This is only true in the case of a child born outside the United States.That is the only situation where the parent has a residence requirement.And the only situation were the parent passes US citizenship to their child.

    This is one of the very few truly interesting historical tidbits to come out of the entire birther experience.

    There is no example of an actual application of this law, is there?
    That the law ever produced a child who was a stateless person? Or that a child was ever born abroad to a juvenile US Citizen who was then denied citizenship?

    Birthers loved learning of the 1952 Act because it caused them to instantly forget that Barack Obama was born in the United States. That is how compelling the impossible five year requirement was — it triggered instant ODS amnesia.

    But the rule was never applied to anyone, was it? Is there one single example of a person born under such circumstances who was either denied citizenship or else who was required to Naturalize?

  79. James M says:
    March 24, 2015 at 2:29 am  (Quote)

    Nancy R Owens:
    I’m a drama queen who missed her “Monica Lewinsky” debut, Mark. I survived Pablo Escobar, Rivi Ayala, and Griselda Blanco.

    Rest assured, I didn’t take Sonny Barger lightly either. Let’s do both the nasty Congressional hearing and cleaning up, Mark.

    The sooner, the better before I unload everything on the Alex Jones show.

    Trump’s waited long enough, wouldn’t you agree?

    I forgot what you claimed to possess in the way of verifiable evidence.

    I assume you have it all in order if you are prepared to testify before Congress.

    Are you able to share any of your evidence for us to examine?

  80. James M says:
    March 24, 2015 at 2:32 am  (Quote)

    Arthur: Me, too.

    I am disappointed that in mainstream forums there is a widespread belief being expressed that the birthers are silently accepting Cruz.

    I can’t bring myself to direct them to GR and the dozen of surviving birthers there, fighting amongst themselves.

    I wonder when they will realize that the whole birther “movement” was nothing but a strategy to bring out and settle ALL the questions about NBC in order to clear the way for Ted Cruz’s candidacy, beginning in 2008?

  81. Nancy R Owens says:
    March 24, 2015 at 5:29 am  (Quote)

    Graham is a child rapist who prefers young boys. Just ask his fellow rapist, Bill Clinton. They all fell in line with the white American-murdering Pablo Escobar years ago. Graham doesn’t a damn about our military or America and you can bet your sweet ^#& he’s got the Communist Cuban Cruz’s back one hundred percent.

    faceman: And yet, Sen Graham of SC said that, if elected president, his first act would be to use the military to force Congress to restore spending cuts to the military.

    http://www.vox.com/2015/3/11/8193751/lindsey-graham-military-coup

  82. Nancy R Owens says:
    March 24, 2015 at 5:32 am  (Quote)

    And, he’s right.

    Andrew Vrba, PmG:
    Oh! And here’s a bonus! Birdboy, fresh off his latest glue-sniffing binge, has declared that Cruz is an “enemy combatant”, and declares that nominating him is illegal.

  83. Dr. Kenneth Noisewater says:
    March 24, 2015 at 5:33 am  (Quote)

    James M: Birthers loved learning of the 1952 Act because it caused them to instantly forget that Barack Obama was born in the United States. That is how compelling the impossible five year requirement was — it triggered instant ODS amnesia.

    . well the stupid thing is when birthers cling to that belief then claim Barack Obama Sr and Ann Dunham weren’t actually married. If that’s truly the case then it destroys their argument as the rule changes for unwed mothers so that instead of five years one only needs one year.

  84. Nancy R Owens says:
    March 24, 2015 at 5:45 am  (Quote)

    Against me for certain. He told me so.

    I told him, “Good luck with that.” My family handed me over to the Hendry County Posse years ago in good faith to do their dirty work.

    At that time, no one could foresee the explosion of the cocaine trade and subsequent cocaine wars that followed within a decade of my first mission.

    That’s why they haven’t made any moves to put me behind bars. They’ll just wait until I’m dead and then the great and oh-so-wonderful Mike (Zullo) Moore will come out with his explosive book and the excuse of, “Well, we just weren’t looking for a female serial killer.”

    The truth is, “Well, we just weren’t looking at all because we already knew who it was (Zodiac?).”

    CarlOrcas: “Lethal action”? By whom? Against whom?

  85. Nancy R Owens says:
    March 24, 2015 at 5:53 am  (Quote)

    Monica Lewinsky is a crisis actor. Just ask Volin. He’s the one who secured the blue dress which was from the early eighties. It was a day or so after Graham raped my fourteen year old brother as a threat against me to insure that I wouldn’t talk. I had visited with Bill Clinton who was FBI in Little Rock. Obviously, I never got that help. One more reason why the Feds don’t want this to come to light.

    I said it long ago, “Blacks are nothing but a bump in the road in this game.”

    Pablo Escobar in the early eighties, “Ju give us tirty jers like this. One day we will own jur cuntry.”

    I can hear the Communist Castros laughing hysterically as their King prepares to ascend the American throne.

    Kate: Congress doesn’t waste it’s time with lying attention whores.You’re dreaming if you think you’ll ever appear before Congress spewing your nonsense and lies.

  86. Nancy R Owens says:
    March 24, 2015 at 5:55 am  (Quote)

    Yep. Do you have an investigator?

    James M: I forgot what you claimed to possess in the way of verifiable evidence.

    I assume you have it all in order if you are prepared to testify before Congress.

    Are you able to share any of your evidence for us to examine?

  87. Nancy R Owens says:
    March 24, 2015 at 6:13 am  (Quote)

    More than clear? Did Obama finally release his records? You live in la-la land if you think he grew up in Hawaii.

    Mike ZulloMoore, compromised
    Joe Arpaio, facing prison
    Mike Volin, fired according to Mark McDaniel
    Mia Pope, ?

    Are you next, honey?

    Kate: Although I don’t think it has ever been spelled out, I also think that situation applies to someone who is residing outside the U.S. on a permanent or semi-permanent basis, not to someone who may be visiting and goes into labor, possibly prematurely.Again, this doesn’t apply to President Obama as it is more than clear that he was born in Hawaii and that his mother didn’t even receive her first passport until July 1965, making a foreign birth an impossible situation.

  88. Bovril says:
    March 24, 2015 at 6:16 am  (Quote)

    I quote…….. myself actually….8-)

    “Whenever 2 or 3 birthers shall gather together, 4 or 5 mutually exclusive theories will be aired and fought over”

  89. faceman says:
    March 24, 2015 at 7:29 am  (Quote)

    Adrien says:

    Question: which one makes him eligible to be President? Jus sanguinis or Jus soli? Apuzzo says it must be both. What say you, genius? Jus sanguinis? His mother could not by law convey her citizenship to her child. Flush. Jus soli? What does it have to do with natural citizenship and the right of citizenship by descent which is the “mechanism” by which natural citizenship is conveyed? [see the Nat Act of 1790 and onward.

    Well,I’d have to say that Apuzzo, and you, are wrong. The fact that he was BORN A CITIZEN is what makes him eligible to be President.

    As for the Naturalizaton Act of 1790 (Not that it matters, because it was repealed), Obama didn’t naturalize. He didn’t have to – he was born a citizen, (i.e., natural born citizen)

    You really need to follow along as I repeat one more time:

    14th Amendment, Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

    Talk about dense.

  90. Lupin says:
    March 24, 2015 at 8:14 am  (Quote)

    faceman: Question: which one makes him eligible to be President? Jus sanguinis or Jus soli? Apuzzo says it must be both.

    The problem as we have seen a zillion times is that the ONLY evidence Apuzzo has to support his theory comes from his mistaken interpretation of Vattel, and Vattel never stated what Apuzzo claims he did.

    Nash’s inverted pyramid rests on a falsehood.

  91. Dr. Kenneth Noisewater says:
    March 24, 2015 at 8:21 am  (Quote)

    Nancy R Owens:
    Two out of three of the signatures on Obama’s LONG FORM, I have to remember to specify which form or RC goes nuts, are mine. I signed the first line first. Joe Lee signed the last line second and I signed the second line last.

    Hawaii did not forge any of those signatures.

    Yeah sure Nancy you claimed you did the Ann Dunham signature on the short form despite there not being a signature on it. You lied then just as you are doing now. Lol Joe Lee? You’re seriously claiming Virginia Lee’s signature is really “Joe Lee”. You really just make this stuff up as you go along.

  92. Nancy R Owens says:
    March 24, 2015 at 9:54 am  (Quote)

    When I talked to RC, I did not know the terminology of “long” form and “short” form. Now, I do.

    I signed two out of three lines on the “long” form and typed the “short” form.

    How many times do I have to say it?

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: Yeah sure Nancy you claimed you did the Ann Dunham signature on the short form despite there not being a signature on it.You lied then just as you are doing now.Lol Joe Lee?You’re seriously claiming Virginia Lee’s signature is really “Joe Lee”.You really just make this stuff up as you go along.

  93. Rickey says:
    March 24, 2015 at 9:58 am  (Quote)

    Kate: Congress doesn’t waste it’s time with lying attention whores.You’re dreaming if you think you’ll ever appear before Congress spewing your nonsense and lies.

    Of course Nancy didn’t take Sonny Barger in any way at any time, since he was in Federal lockup at the time she claims to have been with him.

  94. Dr. Kenneth Noisewater says:
    March 24, 2015 at 10:53 am  (Quote)

    Nancy R Owens:
    When I talked to RC, I did not know the terminology of “long” form and “short” form. Now, I do.

    I signed two out of three lines on the “long” form and typed the “short” form.

    How many times do I have to say it?

    You keep making that claim despite you knowing the difference. You claimed you forged the short form and long forms in 1985, despite the short form not existing in 1985. You lied, you got caught on it.

  95. Dr. Kenneth Noisewater says:
    March 24, 2015 at 10:55 am  (Quote)

    Nancy R Owens: More than clear? Did Obama finally release his records? You live in la-la land if you think he grew up in Hawaii.

    Mike ZulloMoore, compromised
    Joe Arpaio, facing prison
    Mike Volin, fired according to Mark McDaniel
    Mia Pope, ?

    Are you next, honey?

    So now you want to blame Mark McDaniel for your claim of firing Mike Volin who never was a police officer and never worked for Joe Arpaio? Obama grew up in Hawaii. You lied. You can’t keep your figures straight. Mike Volin is the same guy a few months ago you had no idea who he was and said you didn’t know him only to change your story.

  96. Dr. Kenneth Noisewater says:
    March 24, 2015 at 10:55 am  (Quote)

    Nancy R Owens:
    Yep. Do you have an investigator?

    Yep so lets see the “evidence”

  97. Dr. Kenneth Noisewater says:
    March 24, 2015 at 10:58 am  (Quote)

    Nancy R Owens: Monica Lewinsky is a crisis actor. Just ask Volin. He’s the one who secured the blue dress which was from the early eighties. It was a day or so after Graham raped my fourteen year old brother as a threat against me to insure that I wouldn’t talk. I had visited with Bill Clinton who was FBI in Little Rock. Obviously, I never got that help. One more reason why the Feds don’t want this to come to light.

    I see you’re taking your playbook from the Sandy Truth Hookers. How exactly was her being involved in the Clinton affair a “crisis act”? Volin never knew lewinsky or Nancy Ruth Owens. Volin wasn’t involved in your conspiracy theories. So wait you’re adding Lindsey Graham to your conspiracy theories? Bill Clinton was FBI? Take your meds.

  98. Nancy R Owens says:
    March 24, 2015 at 12:01 pm  (Quote)

    They’re not going to take a soldier like Sonny Barger and keep him locked up for any length of time, Kate.

    Rickey: Of course Nancy didn’t take Sonny Barger in any way at any time, since he was in Federal lockup at the time she claims to have been with him.

  99. Nancy R Owens says:
    March 24, 2015 at 12:04 pm  (Quote)

    Mike ZulloMoore is compromised.
    Mike Volin has been asked to resign.
    Joe Arpaio is now facing prison.

    You need an investigator before you can present evidence.

    I suppose that’s just too hard for you to understand, isn’t it?

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: te) #
    Nancy R Owens:

  100. Nancy R Owens says:
    March 24, 2015 at 12:06 pm  (Quote)

    Is that what Volin is saying? Hmm….no wonder he was fired.

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: I see you’re taking your playbook from the Sandy Truth Hookers.How exactly was her being involved in the Clinton affair a “crisis act”?Volin never knew lewinsky or Nancy Ruth Owens.Volin wasn’t involved in your conspiracy theories.So wait you’re adding Lindsey Graham to your conspiracy theories?Bill Clinton was FBI?Take your meds.

  101. Kate says:
    March 24, 2015 at 1:51 pm  (Quote)

    Nancy R Owens:
    More than clear? Did Obama finally release his records? You live in la-la land if you think he grew up in Hawaii.

    Mike ZulloMoore, compromised
    Joe Arpaio, facing prison
    Mike Volin, fired according to Mark McDaniel
    Mia Pope, ?

    Are you next, honey?

    There is nobody named Zullo-Moore except in your delusional mind. For the last time, they are two separate people and there is not a damn thing you can do to prove otherwise. Mike Volin-fired? From what? A non-existent position that he never held with the MCCCP? McDaniel sounds as if he’s as nuts as you are when he makes ridiculous accusations or pretends he has the ear of anyone in Congress, let alone the ability to have Congress hold a hearing at which you would testify. You’d be declared incompetent before you ever had a chance to take the stand based on your delusions. They are repeated all over the internet for anyone to read, especially all the people you claim to have killed who are still alive. When they bring Mike Moore in followed by Mike Zullo and have them stand side by side, what will you do, scream your usual nonsense about body doubles? Your mental health status will be more than enough to prevent anyone from ever listening to your nonsense.

    Barack Obama was born in Hawaii in August, 1961 and there’s not a damn thing you can do about it or prove otherwise. He’ll leave office after serving 2 terms in January 2017 and history will treat him kindly as the President who helped to clean up Bush’s mess. You will not be a factor in his life, now or ever, as you’ve never been within 100 feet of the man. Get over yourself, Nancy. Nobody believes you.

  102. Rickey says:
    March 24, 2015 at 1:52 pm  (Quote)

    I wonder how Nancy explains these photos of Obama playing basketball on the Punahou School team. She is probably going to say that she Photoshopped them!

    http://assets.espn.go.com/i/eticket/20090617/photos/etick_g_dchoops20_850.jpg

  103. Nancy R Owens says:
    March 24, 2015 at 1:56 pm  (Quote)

    I forged the short form by typing it. Griselda acquired the blank green form. Where she got it, I don’t know. Was it from Hawaii? She said it was and that she paid fifty dollars for it. Stop wasting your time trying to debunk me. It’s not going to work.

    Is the blank green form enough to prompt Hawaii to own it? I don’t know. Hawaii certainly did not fill out the form and we murdered every member of the Obama family that was ther the day we entered their home. Obama stayed outside in the bushes because a black male would have drawn too much suspicion.

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: You keep making that claim despite you knowing the difference.You claimed you forged the short form and long forms in 1985, despite the short form not existing in 1985.You lied, you got caught on it.

  104. Dr. Kenneth Noisewater says:
    March 24, 2015 at 2:16 pm  (Quote)

    Rickey:
    I wonder how Nancy explains these photos of Obama playing basketball on the Punahou School team. She is probably going to say that she Photoshopped them!

    http://assets.espn.go.com/i/eticket/20090617/photos/etick_g_dchoops20_850.jpg

    Yep like she claims credit for everything else. Obviously it’s sorcery!

  105. Nancy R Owens says:
    March 24, 2015 at 4:42 pm  (Quote)

    Obviously, it’s a conspiracy.

    Give me the name and number of your investigator so that I can set up a meeting with him or her.

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: Yep like she claims credit for everything else.Obviously it’s sorcery!

  107. ObligedFriend says:
    March 24, 2015 at 7:02 pm  (Quote)

    “That at the time of his said birth his mother and father were domciled residents of the United States and had established and enjoyed a permanent domicile” Maxwell Evarts, Brief to Supreme Court, WKA

    The U.S. Supreme Court quoting Vattel’s Law of Nations regarding aliens residing in a country with intention making it permanent place of abode and domicile. Chinese Cases, 149, US 698-724

    Obama’s father was never a permanent resident and Domiciled.

    If WKA’s father was not a permanent resident at his birth…he would not be a citizen. How can Obama be a citizen…he’s not.

  108. bob says:
    March 24, 2015 at 7:28 pm  (Quote)

    As already explained, you are confusing the facts of Wong Kim Ark with its rationale. The U.S. Supreme Court’s rationale did not require Wong Kim Ark’s parents to be domiciled for him to be a citizen.

    Vattel (along with many others) is cited in Fong Yue Ting v. United States (what you call the “Chinese Cases”). So? Unlike Wong Kim Ark or President Obama, Fong Yue Ting was not born in the United States.

    * * *

    You still haven’t provided a citation for that whole Hawaii “Christian name” thing.

  109. Dr. Kenneth Noisewater says:
    March 24, 2015 at 7:33 pm  (Quote)

    Nancy R Owens:
    They’re not going to take a soldier like Sonny Barger and keep him locked up for any length of time, Kate.

    Except that they actually did.

  110. Dr. Kenneth Noisewater says:
    March 24, 2015 at 7:35 pm  (Quote)

    Nancy R Owens:
    Mike ZulloMoore is compromised.
    Mike Volin has been asked to resign.
    Joe Arpaio is now facing prison.

    You need an investigator before you can present evidence.

    I suppose that’s just too hard for you to understand, isn’t it?

    Your sanity is compromised. Zullo and Moore are two different people. Volin never worked for Arpaio nor held any position in any police department.

    Okay I’m an investigator present your “evidence”

  111. Dr. Kenneth Noisewater says:
    March 24, 2015 at 7:35 pm  (Quote)

    Nancy R Owens:
    Is that what Volin is saying? Hmm….no wonder he was fired.

    How could he be fired from a job he never had?

  112. Dr. Kenneth Noisewater says:
    March 24, 2015 at 7:38 pm  (Quote)

    Nancy R Owens: I forged the short form by typing it. Griselda acquired the blank green form. Where she got it, I don’t know. Was it from Hawaii? She said it was and that she paid fifty dollars for it. Stop wasting your time trying to debunk me. It’s not going to work.

    Is the blank green form enough to prompt Hawaii to own it? I don’t know. Hawaii certainly did not fill out the form and we murdered every member of the Obama family that was ther the day we entered their home. Obama stayed outside in the bushes because a black male would have drawn too much suspicion.

    You forged a non-existent short form in 1985 since the short form wasn’t a format that was created until almost 2 decades later. There was no “blank green form” The security paper is something used now for the short form for certified copies. The original you claimed to have forged wouldn’t be on the green security paper. Why would anyone need to debunk you? You debunk yourself by presenting no evidence to support your claims and constantly contradicting yourself. There was no other Obama family in Hawaii….

    Wow racist much? A black person would have drawn too much suspicion? Your true self came back out.

  113. Dr. Kenneth Noisewater says:
    March 24, 2015 at 7:40 pm  (Quote)

    Nancy R Owens:
    Obviously, it’s a conspiracy.

    Give me the name and number of your investigator so that I can set up a meeting with him or her.

    How about your travel to their offices? In order for any investigator to move forward you need to provide proof in good faith which you have yet to do.

  114. Joey says:
    March 24, 2015 at 8:45 pm  (Quote)

    ObligedFriend:
    “That at the time of his said birth his mother and father were domciled residents of the United States and had established and enjoyed a permanent domicile” Maxwell Evarts, Brief to Supreme Court, WKA

    The U.S. Supreme Court quoting Vattel’s Law of Nations regarding aliens residing in a country with intention making it permanent place of abode and domicile. Chinese Cases, 149, US 698-724

    Obama’s father was never a permanent resident and Domiciled.

    If WKA’s father was not a permanent resident at his birth…he would not be a citizen. How can Obama be a citizen…he’s not.

    That’s easy. Barack Hussein Obama, II is a citizen at birth because 8 USC 1401, the law of the land under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution first and foremost defines a Citizen At Birth as a “person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
    President Obama has a valid U.S. Passport and according to Federal law, a passport is PRIMARY EVIDENCE of Citizenship and Identity. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/42/435.407
    No Court and no act of Congress has ever declared the president to be ineligible for the office he holds. At last count there have been nineteen court rulings that explicitedly found Barack Obama to be a natural born citizen, such as this one issued by a federal court in Columbus, Georgia by a George W. Bush appointed federal judge: Rhodes v MacDonald, U.S. District Court Judge Clay D. Land: “A spurious claim questioning the president’s constitutional legitimacy may be protected by the First Amendment, but a Court’s placement of its imprimatur upon a claim that is so lacking in factual support that it is frivolous would undoubtedly disserve the public interest.”—U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, September 16, 2009.

  115. Kate says:
    March 24, 2015 at 9:03 pm  (Quote)

    Nancy R Owens:
    I forged the short form by typing it. Griselda acquired the blank green form. Where she got it, I don’t know. Was it from Hawaii? She said it was and that she paid fifty dollars for it. Stop wasting your time trying to debunk me. It’s not going to work.

    Is the blank green form enough to prompt Hawaii to own it? I don’t know. Hawaii certainly did not fill out the form and we murdered every member of the Obama family that was ther the day we entered their home. Obama stayed outside in the bushes because a black male would have drawn too much suspicion.

    The original birth certificate was on white paper, not a green form. The safety paper was added much later. Just another one of your lies, Nancy. You’ll never get anyone to listen to you. President Obama has proven his place of birth in Hawaii and you’re shit out of luck. The state of Hawaii stands behind the b.c. with the original on file in their record department.

    A new twist to the story? “Obama” accompanied you to Hawaii? You have been saying he never set foot on Hawaii until many years later, if ever. You still haven’t told us why anyone would forge a b.c. from Hawaii when you lived in Florida and could have easily had one from there. There was zero advantage to going to Hawaii despite your ridiculous claims of a professor telling you about a phony Hawaiian law that said you only needed a birth announcement and a family Bible to prove your birth. You always end up contradicting yourself and proving yourself to be nothing but a lying attention whore who is desperate to have people notice her. How desperate you must be for attention that you confess to murdering dozens of people, including children, yet you dare call others garbage?! The only garbage is you for thinking that the claims you make are not repulsive and disgusting. What a twisted, sick mind you must have to make all these phony claims. Get yourself some help, how sad that your family doesn’t give a damn about you and have you committed.

  116. Nancy R Owens says:
    March 24, 2015 at 9:13 pm  (Quote)

    Where the form came from, I don’t know. However, I do recall who helped secure the form and this individual was well of the consequences of failure. I’m sure it’s a real as it gets.

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: You forged a non-existent short form in 1985 since the short form wasn’t a format that was created until almost 2 decades later.There was no “blank green form” The security paper is something used now for the short form for certified copies.The original you claimed to have forged wouldn’t be on the green security paper.Why would anyone need to debunk you?You debunk yourself by presenting no evidence to support your claims and constantly contradicting yourself.There was no other Obama family in Hawaii….

    Wow racist much?A black person would have drawn too much suspicion?Your true self came back out.

  117. y_p_w says:
    March 24, 2015 at 9:18 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: You forged a non-existent short form in 1985 since the short form wasn’t a format that was created until almost 2 decades later.

    I thought that a computer printout abstract form was an option as early as the early 90s. Probably wouldn’t have been the case in 1985. I remember digging up some image of a typed Hawaii abstract BC from the early 70s.

  118. Kate says:
    March 24, 2015 at 9:21 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: Except that they actually did.

    Barger doesn’t know who Nancy Ruth Owens is, let alone the nonsense she’s spewing about him capturing Pablo Escobar and her killing him. She adds all these people to her stories as their names become familiar to her. Notice how she always refers to movies when she talks about things that happened. It’s where she gets her stories. Anyone who was familiar with Griselda Blanco would know that if she wanted you dead, you would have been dead despite the lie about how her half-brother couldn’t kill her. Griselda would have picked up a gun and killed someone herself before letting them just walk away. She was a nasty, evil woman who didn’t give a damn about anyone with no compassion whatsoever. NRO should be happy that she never knew these people because if there were any truth to her stories, she wouldn’t be alive today to tell them.

  119. Nancy R Owens says:
    March 24, 2015 at 9:30 pm  (Quote)

    The original form was green.

    How much do they pay you for this, Kate?

    Kate: The original birth certificate was on white paper, not a green form.The safety paper was added much later.Just another one of your lies, Nancy.You’ll never get anyone to listen to you.President Obama has proven his place of birth in Hawaii and you’re shit out of luck.The state of Hawaii stands behind the b.c. with the original on file in their record department.

    A new twist to the story? “Obama” accompanied you to Hawaii?You have been saying he never set foot on Hawaii until many years later, if ever.You still haven’t told us why anyone would forge a b.c. from Hawaii when you lived in Florida and could have easily had one from there.There was zero advantage to going to Hawaii despite your ridiculous claims of a professor telling you about a phony Hawaiian law that said you only needed a birth announcement and a family Bible to prove your birth. You always end up contradicting yourself and proving yourself to be nothing but a lying attention whore who is desperate to have people notice her.How desperate you must be for attention that you confess to murdering dozens of people, including children, yet you dare call others garbage?!The only garbage is you for thinking that the claims you make are not repulsive and disgusting.What a twisted, sick mind you must have to make all these phony claims.Get yourself some help, how sad that your family doesn’t give a damn about you and have you committed.

  120. RanTalbott says:
    March 24, 2015 at 9:42 pm  (Quote)

    Kate: You’ll never get anyone to listen to you.

    Wrong: not only has she done that, she’s also gotten people to encourage her by responding at a rate that’s getting really annoying.

    I’ve already had to unsubscribe from several threads because of the number of interruptions from gnubiff, announcing that what turns out to be yet another NRO(-related) turd has been dumped in my inbox. And now this one (quite ironically, given its title) gets added to that list.

  121. Dr. Kenneth Noisewater says:
    March 24, 2015 at 10:57 pm  (Quote)

    Nancy R Owens:
    The original form was green.

    How much do they pay you for this, Kate?

    No the original form wasn’t green. The security paper was applied during the certification process. No one pays Kate to make you sound like a lying blithering idiot.

  122. Dr. Kenneth Noisewater says:
    March 24, 2015 at 10:58 pm  (Quote)

    Nancy R Owens:
    Where the form came from, I don’t know. However, I do recall who helped secure the form and this individual was well of the consequences of failure. I’m sure it’s a real as it gets.

    Yes of course you don’t know since you didn’t create it. There was no short form in 1985 not with the green paper. You lied as usual.

  123. Reality Check says:
    March 24, 2015 at 11:08 pm  (Quote)

    He has been asked to quit selling beer?

    Nancy R Owens: Mike Volin has been asked to resign.

  124. Kate says:
    March 25, 2015 at 12:27 am  (Quote)

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: No the original form wasn’t green.The security paper was applied during the certification process.No one pays Kate to make you sound like a lying blithering idiot.

    Do you mean to tell me we’re supposed to be getting paid for these posts? Dr. Ken, have you been holding out on us?

    Nancy, I know you don’t understand this concept but I reply to you because you are doing nothing but spewing lies. Nobody has asked me to do so nor would they. There is no need as birthers are in a very small minority category of their own and are rejected soundly by sane people around this country. I hate attention whores like you and Orly who will do or say anything because you’re lacking so deeply when it comes to the reality of life that you prefer to live a fantasy that everyone else knows is complete nonsense.

  125. Kate says:
    March 25, 2015 at 12:31 am  (Quote)

    RanTalbott: Wrong: not only has she done that, she’s also gotten people to encourage her by responding at a rate that’s getting really annoying.

    I’ve already had to unsubscribe from several threads because of the number of interruptions from gnubiff, announcing that what turns out to be yet another NRO(-related) turd has been dumped in my inbox. And now this one (quite ironically, given its title) gets added to that list.

    There are far more threads here that she has never participated in and probably never even reads because they have nothing to do with her. If you participate on any website forum, you learn to take what you need, read what you like and discard the rest. I’ve seen the same people argue with Sven for a few years about the same old crap over and over again. It’s what you choose to put up with…or not.

  126. y_p_w says:
    March 25, 2015 at 1:18 am  (Quote)

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: Yes of course you don’t know since you didn’t create it.There was no short form in 1985 not with the green paper.You lied as usual.

    I thought that Doc dug up an image of a Hawaii BC printed on banknote style security paper, before they moved to a more generic (but still tamper-evident) basketweave security paper.

  127. Adrien Nash says:
    March 25, 2015 at 1:48 am  (Quote)

    Kate: this doesn’t apply to President Obama as it is more than clear that he was born in Hawaii and that his mother didn’t even receive her first passport until July 1965, making a foreign birth an impossible situation.

    Until 9-11, no passport was needed to cross the Mexican and Canadian borders. Ann D., failing to find any couple to adopt her impending mulatto baby in Seattle, where she was living during the last few months of her pregnancy, had to seek a couple in Vancouver.
    One was located but not told the baby would be a mulatto. The birth there in Vancouver was a disappointment for all since the couple refused the baby, and Ann was then “punished with a baby” as her son so famously put it.

    The naturalization law regarding citizenship from the mother only applied if the birth certificate was discovered to be counterfeit. That could not be allowed to happen because Obama could not benefit from the erroneous delusion that is being invoked on behalf of Senator Cruz and his American mother who WAS old enough to pass her citizenship to her son.

  128. Adrien Nash says:
    March 25, 2015 at 1:57 am  (Quote)

    James M: Birthers loved learning of the 1952 Act because it caused them to instantly forget that Barack Obama was born in the United States. That is how compelling the impossible five year requirement was — it triggered instant ODS amnesia.

    But the rule was never applied to anyone, was it?

    Wow! Talk about missing the point! They loved learning of the requirement because it could be viewed as a smoking gun argument for why a counterfeit birth certificate absolutely had to be produced. Otherwise, unlike McCain and Cruz, Obama Jr. would not be considered an American citizen.
    Also, no such case would be known outside of those with access to CIS files since denial would not be a judicial decision but an administrative one.

  129. Adrien Nash says:
    March 25, 2015 at 2:17 am  (Quote)

    faceman: 14th Amendment, Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

    You are too dumb to realize how dumb you are. You need to learn the facts about “constitutional construction”. For some two hundred years it has been judicially mandatory to give meaning and force to every single word in every constitutional clause. None are superfluous, irrelevant, or to be ignored.

    That makes the word “NATURAL’ just as significant as BORN and CITIZEN.
    You want to live in Flat-Land where the word NATURAL does not exist because in your alternate reality it cannot be allowed to have ANY meaning.
    Well, guess what genius? It meant citizenship by natural association, by blood lineage, by right of descent, by patrilineal political inheritance.

    You ignorantly quote the 14th Amendment “citizens of the United States”. Well, again, genius, let’s quote the Constitution also: No person, except a NATURAL born citizen, OR… a CITIZEN at the time of the adoption of this Constitution…”
    See that?? Open your mind a crack. Yes, “a citizen of the United States” and “a natural born citizen” are fundamentally distinguishable from each other.
    One is citizen-born while the other is foreigner-born.
    Only a citizen-born citizen is eligible to be President and it does not matter where he was born. All that matters is to whom he was born; Americans? or aliens? This is as obvious as the nose on your face. You intuitively know that it is true but it flies in the face of the dogma and ideology that possess you.

  130. Adrien Nash says:
    March 25, 2015 at 2:23 am  (Quote)

    Lupin: The problem as we have seen a zillion times is that the ONLY evidence Apuzzo has to support his theory comes from his mistaken interpretation of Vattel, and Vattel never stated what Apuzzo claims he did.

    Nash’s inverted pyramid rests on a falsehood.

    Are you really that stupid? Are you really unaware that I am the biggest opponent of the Donofripuzzian dogma? I have written perhaps 60-75,000 words at his blog in dispute of his cherished dogma. When will the brain-dead get it that there are not two theories of citizenship but four? 1. Native Birth alone. 2. Descent alone. 3 Both. 4 Either.
    I spread the truth that only 2 is the truth about what “natural” means. And no one is able to find my facts or logic lacking. So what do they all do? Ignore them and name-call. They don’t want to touch the Kryptonite that I try to put in their Kryptonian hands.

  131. Obligedfriend says:
    March 25, 2015 at 2:29 am  (Quote)

    The naturals/natives are the posterity/descendants of the original citizens. It’s really very simple.

    Complain to the Founders they put natural born in the Constitution.

    I’ve 100’s references..natural is a kind.

    Many do not want to know the truth.

    Perhaps I should attempt a book…where shall I begin..

  132. Adrien Nash says:
    March 25, 2015 at 3:33 am  (Quote)

    y_p_w: Congress passed laws to specifically address birth in the Panama Canal Zone to US citizens as well as in Panama itself

    The law was irrelevant to a fundamental unalienable right of all the sovereigns of America, and that is to share their national membership with their progeny without regard to anything except lack of having ever lived in America.
    American citizens occupy the position of a sovereign whose child can be born anywhere and still by royal and still be an heir to the throne. Our inheritance is neither of those but is membership in our nation.

    Our children inherit it if we are sovereigns citizens of the United States. If we are not, then we are subjects of THE STATE. One owns the other because they both can’t be the ultimate boss.

    The authority that Congress exercised in the Panama Canal act was unconstitutional, which was much later made manifest by the Supreme Court beginning with Afroim v Rush. Congress, unlike the almighty Parliament, had no authority to make citizens by fiat, much less natural born citizens. Parliament could make natural-born subjects because its authority was unlimited and it could and did employ legal fiction, creating a pseudo-natural-born subject by legislation.
    Did Congress have such authority? Hell no. All it was authorized to do was make a uniform rule that the State legislatures were obligated to adopt so that naturalization in all of the States would be based on a uniform set of requirements (white, male, free, moral, and two years a resident).

    As a result of the Supreme Court blowing the lid off of the fraud that Congress had perpetrated against naturalized citizens for some 80 years, it began to be recognized that by fundamental American organic law, American citizens were equal regardless of how they became a citizen, with the lone constitutional exception of eligibility for the presidency.

  133. Sam the Centipede says:
    March 25, 2015 at 4:47 am  (Quote)

    Obligedfriend:
    […]
    Perhaps I should attempt a book…where shall I begin..

    Excellent idea! I’m happy to help! The traditional technique when reading a book is to begin at the beginning, go on until you reach the end, then stop. I’m surprised you don’t know this, but as it’s you have been brave enough to admit that this will be your first attempt to read a book, we need to be tolerant.

    Ask an adult to check which way you are holding the book. If you hold it upside-down, you will start reading at the end and it the upside-down words will be difficult to read.

    What will you read? People here are helpful and might be able to advise, but most are not racist, birther trolls, so they generally read more difficult books than your nasty little brain could cope with. Perhaps some have children in kindergarten so know books suitable for your level?

  134. faceman says:
    March 25, 2015 at 5:04 am  (Quote)

    Obligedfriend:
    The naturals/natives are the posterity/descendants of the original citizens. It’s really very simple.

    Complain to the Founders they put natural born in the Constitution.

    I’ve 100’s references..natural is a kind.

    Manydo not want to know the truth.

    Perhaps I should attempt a book…where shall I begin..

    You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion. Just as I am. The difference is that my opinion conforms to accepted legal reality, and yours does not. And we have thousands of references.

    The fact is, Dred Scott notwithstanding, there has not been a single case in over 200 years where the court has held other than that a natural born citizen is one who is a citizen at birth. Dred Scott flat out denied citizenship to blacks, a holding so heinous that we fought a civil war over the issue of slavery, and adopted several amendments, the 14th among them, that ensured the right of citizenship to all persons born in the USA.

    The 14th Amendment identified the two KINDS of citizen: those that are born citizens, and those that are naturalized (born an alien). There is no third kind, where someone is born a citizen but is not a natural born citizen.

    Blacks, and other minorities, have fought long and hard for equal rights. There used to be ‘JIm Crow’ laws that discriminated against blacks. Those laws are no more. The policy of ‘Separate but Equal’ was rejected in Brown v. Board of Education. Johnson’s Civil Rights Act was supposed to put an end to racial inequality once and for all.

    But you want to turn back the clock to a time when a white man was lord, king and master of all he surveyed. That ain’t gonna happen, fella.

    You might was well argue that the earth is flat. I’m sure you could go online and find hundreds of references that say so. I mean, that used to be the ‘natural’ order of things. Galileo was charged with heresy for saying that the Earth revolved around the sun. But we know better, now.

    Complain to your ‘kind’ that the 14th Amendment doesn’t mention ‘kind’ or ‘natural’ or ‘citizen parent.’

    ‘Many do not want to know the truth’? You should know – you’re one of them. There’s none so blind as those with their eyes closed.

  135. Notorial Dissent says:
    March 25, 2015 at 5:31 am  (Quote)

    What should also be pointed out loudly, repeatedly, and hard, is that the 14th only codified what the prior common law had said, excepting the perversity that was Dred Scott, that there were two types of citizenship, natural born as in born within the country, and naturalized by action of law.

  136. Dr. Kenneth Noisewater says:
    March 25, 2015 at 5:35 am  (Quote)

    y_p_w: I thought that Doc dug up an image of a Hawaii BC printed on banknote style security paper, before they moved to a more generic (but still tamper-evident) basketweave security paper.

    Yeah but she’s claiming the current green security paper as something used in 1985

  137. Dr. Kenneth Noisewater says:
    March 25, 2015 at 5:40 am  (Quote)

    Sam the Centipede: Perhaps some have children in kindergarten so know books suitable for your level?

    I suggest See Spot Run as a first book for him

  138. Nancy R Owens says:
    March 25, 2015 at 5:46 am  (Quote)

    One can only hope. Obama is my half brother and it’s certainly unnatural to want to see his downfall and I don’t.

    BUT, if you know what caboose is pushing this train, you’d want to, like me, do everything to stop this.

    I was nice to see the black population get their eight years in. But, that’s all they will get if they don’t put their foot down on Ted Cruz’s neck.

    C’mon Whoopi, rise and shine girl!

    I know these people. I know how they operate and what they think.

    By no stretch of the imagination is Cuba’s Cruz eligible.

    Reagan In. Castro Up.

  139. Nancy R Owens says:
    March 25, 2015 at 6:07 am  (Quote)

    Whose office?

    Give me the number to your investigator. Or, are you just talking out of your *#) as usual, Kenneth?

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: How about your travel to their offices?In order for any investigator to move forward you need to provide proof in good faith which you have yet to do.

  140. Nancy R Owens says:
    March 25, 2015 at 6:18 am  (Quote)

    Oh, trust me, this “life” you call a “fantasy” was anything but.

    Ask any soldier who’s lived through the horrors of war and they will tell you exactly the same.

    Just because this Cocaine War has not been declared does not mean there has never been a war.

    Cuba’s Ted Cruz and the lack of Obama’s bonafides should be screaming “Warning, Danger Ahead” at anybody who’s paying attention to what’s really going on here.

    Thankfully, Mr. Trump appears to be extremely alarmed by what’s taking place here.

    Do NOT think for one second that open borders and allowing all of these illegals in will in any way benefit our nation.

    Adam Walsh….The Undercurrent You Don’t See.

    Kate: Do you mean to tell me we’re supposed to be getting paid for these posts?Dr. Ken, have you been holding out on us?

    Nancy, I know you don’t understand this concept but I reply to you because you are doing nothing but spewing lies.Nobody has asked me to do so nor would they.There is no need as birthers are in a very small minority category of their own and are rejected soundly by sane people around this country.I hate attention whores like you and Orly who will do or say anything because you’re lacking so deeply when it comes to the reality of life that you prefer to live a fantasy that everyone else knows is complete nonsense.

  141. Obligedfriend says:
    March 25, 2015 at 7:33 am  (Quote)

    if you’re natural born then maybe just maybe your born like a natural/native. Who are these naturals I keep harping about?

    A nation/city-state is formed by a single race of people. It begins homogeneous.

    America began homogeneous, along the way it became heterogenous via corrupt politicians and judges.

    The Founders being deep thinkers..decided to keep the President and immigrants their own natural kind.

    The original citizens were the natives/naturals and the newly born naturals were the natural born citizens. The parents must be the same kind as original citizens.

    Naturalization pretty much follows. They must be same natural kind.

    If you read the President eligibility clause it becomes clear. You have the citizens grandfathered and the natural born citizens.

    Natural born is Born from the same stock from generation to generation.

    This has nothing to do with racism, it’s about why the Founders used Natural Born and not born a citizen, why did they use naturalization.

    A kindly King is a Natural King….has there been an UnKind or Unatural English King? What would define an UnNatural-UnKind King?

    There’s an UnKind-UnNatural President. The 14Th Amendment cannot change natural kinds. 14th Amendment citizens are their own kind.

    My followers are growing..on Twitter.

  142. Sam the Centipede says:
    March 25, 2015 at 8:12 am  (Quote)

    Teh Stoopid is really strong with this one. How do we determine who in the present population are the true descendants of the Clovis people of 13 millennia ago? Or can we assume that the native American tribes (the American “Indians”) are true descendants?

    Clearly no European-descended person with any roots in the immigration of the 17th and later centuries could be considered a Natural American according to our moronic troll so WOW!! all the Presidents of the United States have been fraudulent usurpers!! Conspiracy!!

    Do people like OvernuttyFruitcake have to work on becoming that stupid or are they born with almost no functioning gray matter in their brains?

  143. alg says:
    March 25, 2015 at 8:23 am  (Quote)

    “A nation/city-state is formed by a single race of people. It begins homogeneous.”

    This statement, alone exposes “Obligedfriend” as a racist white supremacist. It’s classic Nazi-speak.

    “Natural born is Born from the same stock from generation to generation.”

    Were this statement true, only direct descendants of the founding fathers and their contemporary citizens would be eligible to serve as President – a fleetingly small number of individuals, a large percentage of whom would have to be inbred.

    As for Donald Trump, I don’t think they let carnival barkers become President.

  144. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    March 25, 2015 at 8:37 am  (Quote)

    Whether there is such a judicial principle I do not know, but its application is not a license to make the text say something that it obviously does not intend. One certainly cannot take a two word phase with a recognized meaning and assert that that meaning must be abandoned in favor of the separate meaning of the two words individually–in this case rejecting the phrase “natural born” (both a recognized phrase in the English language and a term of art in law) in favor of separate meanings for “natural” and “born.”

    Adrien Nash: For some two hundred years it has been judicially mandatory to give meaning and force to every single word in every constitutional clause. None are superfluous, irrelevant, or to be ignored.

  145. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    March 25, 2015 at 8:43 am  (Quote)

    And the birth got into the Honolulu Newspapers and the 1961 Hawaii Birth index exactly how in this scenario? Are you going to go all Sven on us?

    Adrien Nash: Ann D., failing to find any couple to adopt her impending mulatto baby in Seattle, where she was living during the last few months of her pregnancy, had to seek a couple in Vancouver.

  146. faceman says:
    March 25, 2015 at 9:01 am  (Quote)

    Obligedfriend:
    if you’re natural born then maybe just maybe your born like a natural/native. Who are these naturals I keep harping about?

    A nation/city-state is formed by a single race of people. It begins homogeneous.

    America began homogeneous, along the way it became heterogenous via corrupt politicians and judges.

    The Founders being deep thinkers..decided to keep the President and immigrants their own natural kind.

    The original citizens were the natives/naturals and the newly born naturals were the natural born citizens.The parents must be the same kind as original citizens.

    Naturalization pretty much follows. They must be same natural kind.

    If you read the President eligibility clause it becomes clear. You have the citizens grandfathered and the natural born citizens.

    Natural born is Born from the same stock from generation to generation.

    This has nothing to do with racism, it’s about why the Founders used Natural Born and not born a citizen, why did they use naturalization.

    A kindly King is a Natural King….has there been an UnKind or Unatural English King? What would define an UnNatural-UnKind King?

    There’s an UnKind-UnNatural President. The 14Th Amendment cannot change natural kinds. 14th Amendment citizens are their own kind.

    My followers are growing..on Twitter.

    Did somebody say something? I could have sworn I heard something, but all I see is a braying jackass.

    I am reminded of a scene in the movie ‘My Cousin Vinny,’ where the prosecutor, in his opening statement, talks about ‘England, where we all come from’ as he stands next to a black woman in the jury box. The look on her face – priceless.

    Kindly King – One who looks out for the welfare of his subjects. As opposed to a tyrant (Think along the lines of Stalin, Mao, or the Khmer Rouge).

    ‘Kind’ can mean lots of things, such as “gentle and compassionate.” Or, as in “You are kind of an idiot.”

    “Your father was a hamster, and your mother smells of elderberry. Now go away or I shall taunt you some more.”

  147. Dr. Kenneth Noisewater says:
    March 25, 2015 at 9:11 am  (Quote)

    Nancy R Owens:
    Whose office?

    Give me the number to your investigator. Or, are you just talking out of your *#) as usual, Kenneth?

    How about you provide good faith proof before I get any serious people involved in your works of fiction?

  148. Dr. Kenneth Noisewater says:
    March 25, 2015 at 9:12 am  (Quote)

    Nancy R Owens: Cuba’s Ted Cruz and the lack of Obama’s bonafides should be screaming “Warning, Danger Ahead” at anybody who’s paying attention to what’s really going on here.

    Cuba’s Ted Cruz? I thought you said he was Adam Walsh?

  149. Dr. Kenneth Noisewater says:
    March 25, 2015 at 9:13 am  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    And the birth got into the Honolulu Newspapers and the 1961 Hawaii Birth index exactly how in this scenario? Are you going to go allSven on us?

    Let’s not forget the INS data

  150. Lupin says:
    March 25, 2015 at 10:15 am  (Quote)

    faceman: Did somebody say something? I could have sworn I heard something, but all I see is a braying jackass.

    I honestly think we’re better off ignoring the imbecile. Or at least not responding to his post.

    The idea that someone who writes in a half-passable English and can’t obviously understand what he reads (leaving aside the repugnant ideology) can actually write a book is laughable.

    I remember one day when I lived in L.A. some guy who sounded OK on the phone and had a local cable access late night TV show wanting to show me the comics he drew for my opinion. It turned out that it was all semi-naked prepubescent boys all drawn (rather badly too) in orange crayon. Why orange, I never found out.

    I got out of it with some vague generalities, trying very hard to not insult or provoke him. Later, I found that he had actually killed someone (in a fit of rage), served his time, etc.and i was so glad I didn’t actually voice my real opinion of his works.

    In this case I am reasonably insulated by the distance (my real id which i disclosed here once isn’t that hard to find), but I’m glad i don’t live in ObligedKlansman’s neighborhood.

  151. ObligedFriend says:
    March 25, 2015 at 10:23 am  (Quote)

    The so called American Indians are not the real natives or Native Americans of the United States.

    The native Americans are guys like Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Andrew Jackson, Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee my ancestors and myself included.

    We are the indigenous, natives naturals, natural born citizens. The Founders never wanted a large populous country.

    They wanted White settlers. Thomas Jefferson said he was a Native American.

    I imagine most of you do not care much for the Founders and my ancestors who fought a bloody rebolution.

    From what I can tell most of you are not really natural born citizens and part of the posterity in the Preamble.

    Jefferson gave a warning about your kind…they will come here and destroy everything we built.

    Jefferson warned about letting some races work in the government and allowing them into society. His words not mine.

    This will not end well.

  152. ObligedFriend says:
    March 25, 2015 at 10:39 am  (Quote)

    I’m the guy figured out why the Founders used natural born..maybe some of you could but your heads are buried very deep in the sand box covering for an illegal president. I imagine it’s beause he gives you something not previously acceptable. He takes care your needs and you guys protect him at all cost.

    I reckon you guys don’t care hes illegal, it certainly shows in your remarks.

  153. Dr. Kenneth Noisewater says:
    March 25, 2015 at 10:43 am  (Quote)

    ObligedFriend:
    I’m the guy figured out why the Founders used natural born..maybe some of you could but your heads are buried very deep in the sand box covering for an illegal president. I imagine it’s beause he gives you something not previously acceptable. He takes care your needs and you guys protect him at all cost.

    I reckon you guys don’t care hes illegal, it certainly shows in your remarks.

    Yes I’m sure you’re “the guy” It’s funny how each birther claims they’re the ones who found the super secret meaning like it’s national treasure or the da vinci code. The president is legally and lawfully the President. There’s nothing illegal about that.

  154. Dr. Kenneth Noisewater says:
    March 25, 2015 at 10:44 am  (Quote)

    Nancy R Owens:
    One can only hope. Obama is my half brother and it’s certainly unnatural to want to see his downfall and I don’t.

    BUT, if you know what caboose is pushing this train, you’d want to, like me, do everything to stop this.

    I was nice to see the black population get their eight years in. But, that’s all they will get if they don’t put their foot down on Ted Cruz’s neck.

    C’mon Whoopi, rise and shine girl!

    I know these people. I know how they operate and what they think.

    By no stretch of the imagination is Cuba’s Cruz eligible.

    Reagan In. Castro Up.

    You’re not related to Obama. Black population get their 8 years in? Again your bigotry shows through.

  155. Dr. Kenneth Noisewater says:
    March 25, 2015 at 10:53 am  (Quote)

    Obligedfriend: America began homogeneous, along the way it became heterogenous via corrupt politicians and judges.

    Along the way? So you missed the part where America was colonized by The English, The Dutch, The French, The Spanish, etc. It was heterogenous from the moment europe started colonizing it.

  156. Dr. Kenneth Noisewater says:
    March 25, 2015 at 11:07 am  (Quote)

    ObligedFriend: The so called American Indians are not the real natives or Native Americans of the United States.

    That’s one of the stupidest things you’ve ever claimed. Take your racist ass elsewhere.

  157. Nancy R Owens says:
    March 25, 2015 at 11:07 am  (Quote)

    Yeah, I thought so. Just one of many who like to bark. But, don’t have a clue how to bite.

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: How about you provide good faith proof before I get any serious people involved in your works of fiction?

  158. Nancy R Owens says:
    March 25, 2015 at 11:13 am  (Quote)

    On the contrary. Griselda was a mastermind when planning a murder. However, when it came time, as it did in Hawaii, to actually make a kill, she tended to fumble.

    LOL

    You know absolutely nothing about Griselda, aka Olivia, other than what you have learned in the movies.

    As for ordering kills, yeah, she racked up quite a list via Rivi Ayala, my current/former? husband, Oscar, myself, and a few others who are American so I won’t be listing them here.

    Kate: Barger doesn’t know who Nancy Ruth Owens is, let alone the nonsense she’s spewing about him capturing Pablo Escobar and her killing him.She adds all these people to her stories as their names become familiar to her.Notice how she always refers to movies when she talks about things that happened.It’s where she gets her stories.Anyone who was familiar with Griselda Blanco would know that if she wanted you dead, you would have been dead despite the lie about how her half-brother couldn’t kill her.Griselda would have picked up a gun and killed someone herself before letting them just walk away.She was a nasty, evil woman who didn’t give a damn about anyone with no compassion whatsoever.NRO should be happy that she never knew these people because if there were any truth to her stories, she wouldn’t be alive today to tell them.

  159. AGROD says:
    March 25, 2015 at 12:16 pm  (Quote)

    What if most likely with ObligedfriendKKK is that his bloodlines are fully of all sort of “nasty” non-white blood. I bet your ancestors even mixed with Blacks!!

  160. Dave B. says:
    March 25, 2015 at 12:48 pm  (Quote)

    Well, you tried. I’ll vote with you on that one.

    Lupin:
    Let’s agree to ignore the imbecile, shall we?

  161. Rickey says:
    March 25, 2015 at 12:55 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: Yes I’m sure you’re “the guy”It’s funny how each birther claims they’re the ones who found the super secret meaning like it’s national treasure or the da vinci code.The president is legally and lawfully the President.There’s nothing illegal about that.

    And here I thought that it was Adrien Nash who had figured it all out. And Jedi Pauly.

    As far as I know, I am the only person in the United States, in over 4 years and 200 eligibility challenges to Obama, who actually understands what a “natural born Citizen” is. – Paul Guthrie aka Jedi Pauly

  162. gorefan says:
    March 25, 2015 at 1:33 pm  (Quote)

    “Natives, irrespective of parentage, are “natural born” citizens, in the sense of the original Constitution’s presidential-eligibility clause.”

    [skip]

    “Thus, the legal system in which the 33 lawyers among the framers had been trained, and under which all of them had grown to manhood, contained important statutory enactments characterizing citizens by parentage both as “natural born subjects” and as “naturalized,” but assimilating them to natives, rather than to other naturalized subjects, in regard to eligibility to office. To the framers in 1787, there would have been no incongruity in suggesting that a citizen by parentage was both “naturalized” and “natural born”; to them, “native” and naturalized” were the mutually exclusive terms, which never overlapped nor applied to the same person, while “natural born” and “naturalized” did overlap in every case, and only in the case of a citizen by parentage. Moreover, there is some indication in the records of their proceedings that their use of the term “natural born” may have been with deliberate intent to qualify citizens by parentage for the Presidency.”

    Cyril C. Means, Jr, Is Presidency Barred to Americans Born Abroad?

    http://natural-borncitizens.com/nbcfiles/Is_Presidency_Barred_Americans_Born_Abroad.pdf

  163. Greenfinches says:
    March 25, 2015 at 1:36 pm  (Quote)

    Adrien Nash: nationality in the natural realm of natural law.

    don’t see how ‘nationality’ has a part for natural law at all! We shallow humans stick to our tribes, yes, but is that ‘natural’???

  164. Crustacean says:
    March 25, 2015 at 2:02 pm  (Quote)

    Au contraire! Mom was a genealogist, and she told me that one of our ancestors was a musician in the Continental Army. I really do care for that ancestor, ObligedFriend. In fact, sometimes, late at night, I see his ghost. Last night he told me that George Washington thinks you are a bugger and an arce-hool (whatever that means).

    Go ahead and laugh that my ancestor carried a fife instead of a musket, but if every soldier in that war had carried a drum, or a fife, or a fiddle instead of a weapon, it wouldn’t have been a “bloody rebolution” – it would’ve been a Bloody Awesome Dance Party (kindly sponsored by Samuel Adams, naturally). Of course, without that bloody rebolution, slavery would have been abolished a lot sooner, and many of you Southerners (I’m presuming you are from the South) would be French citizens today.

    ObligedFriend: I imagine most of you do not care much for the Founders and my ancestors who fought a bloody rebolution.

  165. bookfiend75 says:
    March 25, 2015 at 2:07 pm  (Quote)

    Lupin: I honestly think we’re better off ignoring the imbecile. Or at least not responding to his post.

    The idea that someone who writes in a half-passable English and can’t obviously understand what he reads (leaving aside the repugnant ideology) can actually write a book is laughable.

    After spending some time reading both this blog and BR, I have come to the conclusion that what much of this comes down to is inclusion vs. exclusion. Many of the reasons why posters at BR (and some of the commentators here) don’t want President Obama as POTUS have to do with absurd ideas that make him “different”. “He’s a communist; a marxist; a homosexual; a muslim; a dictator in waiting.” All of these labels are just that; they are labels used by some people to put a word on some unknown fear they can’t describe. Much of that fear comes from the unknown, some of it comes from plain ignorance. Then there are those who see the world in stark terms and cannot allow for opposing or contrary points of view. Since the ones at BR mostly align themselves as Republicans, Pres. Obama, being a Democrat, is automatically suspect and doesn’t love ‘Merica as much as they do, or he isn’t a “real” American. (There are plenty on the far-left as well, but they are generally outside the scope of these discussions.) My main point is that some try to come up with these wild scenarios and strict definitions for NBC to keep from having to accept that with which they do not understand or agree. Instead of honest debate and compromise, they exclude and deride. This then leads to a debate that goes to the “heart” of what we think this country was founded on: are we a country of immigrants who take the best of what the world has to offer and mold it into something unique and powerful; or are we a country of WASPS who need to keep this country from falling into the wrong hands? For myself, most strangers in the world are, as my children put it, friends we haven’t met yet.

  166. faceman says:
    March 25, 2015 at 2:39 pm  (Quote)

    Adrien Nash: You are too dumb to realize how dumb you are.You need to learn the facts about “constitutional construction”. For some two hundred years it has been judicially mandatory to give meaning and force to every single word in every constitutional clause.None are superfluous, irrelevant, or to be ignored.

    That makes the word “NATURAL’ just as significant as BORN and CITIZEN.
    You want to live in Flat-Land where the word NATURAL does not exist because in your alternate reality it cannot be allowed to have ANY meaning.
    Well, guess what genius?It meant citizenship by natural association, by blood lineage, by right of descent, by patrilineal political inheritance.

    You ignorantly quote the 14th Amendment “citizens of the United States”. Well, again, genius, let’s quote the Constitution also: No person, except a NATURAL born citizen, OR… a CITIZEN at the time of the adoption of this Constitution…”
    See that?? Open your mind a crack.Yes, “a citizen of the United States” and “a natural born citizen” are fundamentally distinguishable from each other.
    One is citizen-born while the other is foreigner-born.
    All that matters is to whom he was born; Americans?or aliens?This is as obvious as the nose on your face.You intuitively know that it is true but it flies in the face of the dogma and ideology that possess you.

    Yes, I do quote the 14th amendment. Because, after all it is part of the Constitution. And the 14h amendment says that there are 2 kinds of citizens – those that are born, and those that are naturalized.

    Yes, Article 2 states that ‘none but a NBC, or a citizen at the time…’ That’s because not all the founders were NBC. People like Hamilton and Wilson, the very people who wrote the Constitution, were foreign born and would not have been eligible. People who shed their own blood for American independence were considered worthy to be president, and so an exception was made for them.

    The founders did not think it was ‘natural’ for women to vote (After all, that is what Minor V Happersett was really about), and ‘We, the People’ passed the 19th Amendment to ensure that they could. Are you so ‘dumb’ that you can’t see that the founders were wise enough to give us a way to change what they wrote if we disagreed with them?

    You say: “a citizen of the United States” and “a natural born citizen” are fundamentally distinguishable from each other. Say, rather, that Natural Born Citizen is a subset of Citizen. All NBCs are citizens, but not all citizens are NBC.

    You say: One is citizen-born while the other is foreigner-born. You make my point for me, for the 14th Amendment says ‘All persons born or naturalized…’

    You say: ‘Only a citizen-born citizen is eligible to be President and it does not matter where he was born…..You intuitively know that it is true but it flies in the face of the dogma and ideology that possess you.’ Look in the mirror when you say that.

    Since Obama and Cruz were born citizens, and not foreigners, that makes them eligible to be president.
    ‘

  167. faceman says:
    March 25, 2015 at 3:02 pm  (Quote)

    ObligedFriend: I imagine most of you do not care much for the Founders and my ancestors who fought a bloody rebolution.

    I, on the other hand, on my MOTHER’s side, can only trace my genealogy back to the ’30’s. The 1630’s, that is, and Elder William Wentworth. He had a few bloody battles himself, with the true Native Americans.

  168. Thrill says:
    March 25, 2015 at 3:12 pm  (Quote)

    gorefan March 25, 2015 at 1:33 pm (Quote) #

    Naturalized citizens are barred from eligibility even if the Founders wanted their foreign born children be to be eligible to be President someday. A precedent will have to be overturned to make a foreign born child eligible even if they had US citizen parents.

    Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163, 165 (1964) (“[T]he 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.”); Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9, 22 (1913) (“[A] naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency.”)

    Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, 109 (1884) (holding that a member of an Indian tribe recognized by the United States was not a citizen of the United States pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment because he was not born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States).

    Act of June 2, 1924, Pub. L. No. 68-175, 43 Stat. 253 (codified as amended
    at 8 U.S.C. § 1401(b) (2006)) (conferring citizenship upon all Native Americans so long as they were born inside the territorial limits of the United States).

    United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702–03 (1898) (“A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory; or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.”)

  169. Slartibartfast says:
    March 25, 2015 at 3:21 pm  (Quote)

    Adrien,

    I believe you meant: “…no one is able to find my facts or logic.” Certainly in all of your voluminous writings the logic is nowhere to be found and the facts are few and very far between.

    Adrien Nash: Are you really that stupid?Are you really unaware that I am the biggest opponent of the Donofripuzzian dogma? I have written perhaps 60-75,000 words at his blog in dispute of his cherished dogma.When will the brain-dead get it that there are not two theories of citizenship but four?1. Native Birth alone. 2. Descent alone. 3 Both. 4 Either.

    I spread the truth that only 2 is the truth about what “natural” means. And no one is able to find my facts or logic lacking. So what do they all do?Ignore them and name-call.They don’t want to touch the Kryptonite that I try to put in their Kryptonian hands.

  170. Dave B. says:
    March 25, 2015 at 3:24 pm  (Quote)

    I think it’s helpful if you don’t expect it all to make sense.

    y_p_w: You didn’t think it would be easy did you?

  171. Slartibartfast says:
    March 25, 2015 at 3:26 pm  (Quote)

    Doc,

    You’re just going to get a link to several thousand words of tripe and delusional fantasy (plus copious amounts of misogyny and various other types of bigotry) about a trip to Seattle and then Vancouver to try and give up the baby for adoption that is pulled completely from Mr. Nash’s nether regions and makes even less sense than the rest of his ravings.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    And the birth got into the Honolulu Newspapers and the 1961 Hawaii Birth index exactly how in this scenario? Are you going to go allSven on us?

  172. Sam the Centipede says:
    March 25, 2015 at 3:33 pm  (Quote)

    bookfiend75: After spending some time reading both this blog and BR, I have come to the conclusion that what much of this comes down to is inclusion vs. exclusion.
    […]
    For myself, most strangers in the world are, as my children put it, friends we haven’t met yet.

    I fear that for our white supremacist, OverlynuttyFruitcake, most strangers in the world (and, indeed, most of the population of America) are enemies that he hasn’t vanquished yet.

    It shows something about the tolerant nature of the sane folk that we (well, Doc C.) let racist idiots like OF and insane fantastists like Nancy Ruth Owens post here whereas mild discussions of what the sane world thinks lead to the banhammer in Birther Report and other outposts of birther lunacy. Their world is one of fear and hatred.

  173. Adrien Nash says:
    March 25, 2015 at 4:08 pm  (Quote)

    alg: “Natural born is Born from the same stock from generation to generation.”

    That is ambiguously worded. It is a true statement but not a definitive statement It describes most national members because it is true of most, but it does not claim that others are not natural members without multiple generations of ancestors of the group.

    As for the word “stock”, it is used by the federal government also, in the Census Bureau analysis division, whatever its called. They have tables delineating the origins of all persons listed in the census, and the categories used are “Native stock” and “Foreign stock”.
    I’ve included the image of their table in one of my hundreds of expositions about natural citizenship.

    Guess what? “Foreign stock” includes not only a foreign father, but all of his children regardless of birth place. Thus you have native-born foreign stock and foreign-born foreign stock.
    THAT is reality, and you know what else is? No person of foreign stock is eligible to be President, period!
    Arrest the foreign-stock usurper an throw his butt in the federal pen, with all of his treasonous henchmen.
    Sounds like a sound legal strategy to me…

  174. Adrien Nash says:
    March 25, 2015 at 4:14 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: ObligedFriend: The so called American Indians are not the real natives or Native Americans of the United States.

    That’s one of the stupidest things you’ve ever claimed. Take your racist ass elsewhere.

    It could be true if by “real” he meant “original”. There were peoples in North America before the current tribes arrived. They were known by them as the “Anasazi” Nothing is known about them, who they were or where they came from.

  175. Daniel says:
    March 25, 2015 at 4:24 pm  (Quote)

    ObligedFriend: This will not end well.

    It will end the same way as every birther enterprise ends, in failure after failure, followed by a slow lingering death from sheer boredom.

  176. Joey says:
    March 25, 2015 at 4:35 pm  (Quote)

    The Blacks Who Fought At Valley Forge Of 755 At The Winter Quarters, 13 Died. Desertion Was A Serious Problem, But Few Black Soldiers Deserted. Pay Was Equal For Blacks And Whites. Advancement In Rank Was Not.

    VALLEY FORGE — There were thousands of black men with names such as Nero Free and Cash Africa who served as soldiers in a racially integrated Continental Army during the American Revolution. Several hundred of these, under the command of Gen. George Washington, shared with other troops the hardships of the winter encampment of 1777-78 at Valley Forge.

    “Our records indicate that there were about 755 black soldiers in a total of about 12,000 to 14,000 men,” said Lee Boyle, historian at Valley Forge National Park.

    There were no completely black companies in the 41 regiments that served at Valley Forge. Most of the black soldiers served in regiments from Rhode Island, Connecticut and Massachusetts. They were in combat roles in these units and were on duty in all areas of the camp, from standing guard at Washington’s headquarters to manning positions in the outer defense lines. Black and white soldiers received the same pay, wore the same uniforms and shared the winter hardships of short rations and being sheltered in cold huts.
    [Excerpted]
    http://articles.philly.com/1996-02-18/news/25658498_1_black-soldiers-black-men-encampment

  177. Adrien Nash says:
    March 25, 2015 at 4:38 pm  (Quote)

    ObligedFriend: The so called American Indians are not the real natives or Native Americans of the United States.

    The native Americans are guys like Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Andrew Jackson, Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee my ancestors and myself included.

    We are the indigenous, natives naturals, natural born citizens. The Founders never wanted a large populous country.

    What planet did he beam down from? I ask that instead of a slap down insult which he richly deserved, but then you can’t use reason or fact to counter such a dogmatic doctrinal belief, so insults result in no new reflection.

    He has invented a whole new religion of a sorts, and it requires Anglo-Saxon native-birth. That is like the intelligent Catholics who feel they must adhere to a belief in a geocentric solar system. Something is defective in the logic center.

    His view springs from his southern up-bringing which instilled in him an enormous amount of respect and reverence for staunch patriots, -regardless of their stances on individual liberty and natural rights.
    He is a racial supremacist at heart because he was raised that way. He can’t change himself, but he can appear to be very patriotic by worshipping native-soil.
    Well, native-soil, as in Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, and Communist Russia, does not support unalienable rights and is therefore not even connected to real Americanism.

    Americanism is based on American political philosophy, and requires belief in equal rights and equal worth due to being created from one single couple of whom we are all descendants, -whether by a supreme being or by a coincidental accident of nature.

    Without such an origin, equality is impossible because the law of animal nature is then supreme, and its rule is the survival of the fittest; might makes right, the powerful rightfully dominate the weaker.
    Applied to society, that results in a dictatorship. So the irony is that the deity that agnostics and atheists reject is in fact the very basis of all of their rights because a common origin is the basis of equality. The want to banish a God that made them free anD equal, and move toward a dictatorship of THE STATE under which all rights are dispensed by it and thus no rights are unalienable.

    You think you have a right to be the parent of your own children? YOU DO NOT unless THE STATE grants its permission! Same with free speech, including posing internet comments.

  178. Joey says:
    March 25, 2015 at 5:06 pm  (Quote)

    Barack Obama’s Irish roots traced back to village
    When a 19-year-old cobbler’s son called Falmouth Kearney fled famine-ravaged Ireland for the New World 161 years ago he could never have imagined that his great-great-great grandson would return as US President Barack Obama.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/8528827/Barack-Obamas-Irish-roots-traced-back-to-village.html

  179. Adrien Nash says:
    March 25, 2015 at 5:20 pm  (Quote)

    bookfiend75: a debate that goes to the “heart” of what we think this country was founded on: are we a country of immigrants who take the best of what the world has to offer and mold it into something unique and powerful; or are we a country of WASPS who need to keep this country from falling into the wrong hands? For myself, most strangers in the world are, as my children put it, friends we haven’t met yet.

    I can agree with your sentiments, but you, like everyone else, fail to grasp the context of the problem. It is not one of what is sociologically preferable but what is grounded in the Rule of Law.
    Either you support the rule of law or you support doing what is “best” and ignoring the law. THAT is anti-American because we are founded on the rule of law and not men.

    So what was “the law” when the Constitution was written? It was not what it is today. The difference is illuminated by the case of Virginia Minor and the high court’s discussion regarding her case.

    Today’s Luciferians who equate “citizen” with “natural born citizen” (repeatedly, since they have no other hope of legitimizing their socialist messiah) fail to grasp that per the observation of the court, being a citizen does not confer all the rights of certain other citizens (males).
    Even though Virginia was a natural born citizen she still had no right to vote, nor any right to be President. Why not? Because that was the way that society was structured.

    To change it would have required a constitutional amendment, just as was ratified in order to give women the right to vote and to prohibit the sale of intoxicating liquors.
    It thus can be argued that women have no constitutional right to serve as President since no amendment has been passed to allow that. That is a literal constitutional fact. The amendment that gave them the right to vote gave them no other civic rights, including serving in elected offices in the government.

    In the same vein, being a “citizen” does not mean that one has the right of a natural born citizen to be President.
    Thus in 1875 when the Happersett opinion was written:
    1. Citizen did not equal the right to vote.
    2. Natural born citizen did not equal the right to be President.
    3. Citizen did not equal the right to be President, not then, not now.

    So by strict constitutional construction, which is mandatory, the word “natural” has constitutional significance, and as a result no alien-born person is a natural born citizen, and no female citizen has yet been given the privilege to serve as President.
    We need another constitutional amendment to allow that, as well as another one to allow the alien-born to serve as President.

    How about this new wording: “No person except a born citizen shall be eligible to the office of the President.”? That would work to allow the alien-born to serve. It would be fair and reasonable as long as they were raised in the United States as Americans.

    But alas, that is not yet written nor ratified, so we are left with the restriction against the alien-born foreign-stock citizens. That is too bad because it has implications for the legitimacy of the the current President.

  180. Adrien Nash says:
    March 25, 2015 at 5:32 pm  (Quote)

    Rickey: As far as I know, I am the only person in the United States, in over 4 years and 200 eligibility challenges to Obama, who actually understands what a “natural born Citizen” is. – Paul Guthrie aka Jedi Pauly

    Never heard of him. What has he written, and where is his blog? It sounds like he must disagree with Apuzzo and the boots, which is a giant step in understanding the truth.

  181. Adrien Nash says:
    March 25, 2015 at 5:50 pm  (Quote)

    Slartibartfast: While I doubt many of the Cruz birthers understand the nuances, the position that he is not natural born is a reasonable one unless and until it is contradicted by the courts.

    Cruz would be a natural born citizen of a rare sort if his father became a Canadian citizen after he was born. That is because he would have inherited only the national membership of his mother since the father was a stateless person.

    He was a Cuban sociologically but not politically because the nation of which he had been subject ceased to exist with the collapse of the Batista government. That made him a stateless Cuban which is not really an oxymoron because it combines two different realms.

    He remained stateless when Castro took power because he never returned and became subject to his government and constitution. Thus his son was a United States citizen and no other sort of citizen, -born with no alienage. He was under no foreign government subjection through his father unless his father was Canadian when he was born.

    So we won’t know if he technically is a natural born citizen until we know when his father naturalized. My guess is that it was after he found God and became a follower of Christ when Ted was about three years old.
    The truth of the matter is not determined by the authority of any court but by the facts.

  182. Pete says:
    March 25, 2015 at 7:08 pm  (Quote)

    ObligedFriend: The so called American Indians are not the real natives or Native Americans of the United States.

    The native Americans are guys like Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Andrew Jackson, Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee my ancestors and myself included.

    We are the indigenous, natives naturals, natural born citizens.

    Just wow.

    Harry? Lloyd?

  183. Keith says:
    March 25, 2015 at 7:22 pm  (Quote)

    faceman: I, on the other hand, on my MOTHER’s side, can only trace my genealogy back to the ’30’s.The 1630’s, that is, and Elder William Wentworth.He had a few bloody battles himself, with the true Native Americans.

    I can only go back to around 1820 on my mother’s side, but I can go back to 1072 (possibly further) on my father’s side. The earliest person with my surname to settle in America came on the second wave, but his younger brother was a cabin boy on the Mayflower (he died in Jamaica). My ancestors were on the front lines during several colonial era wars and their hometown was burned to the ground during the war of 1812.

    So there.

  184. Slartibartfast says:
    March 25, 2015 at 8:22 pm  (Quote)

    Adrien,

    Rafael was a natural born Canadian citizen (by Canadian law and precedent dating back to Calvin’s case), a US citizen at birth assuming his mother met the applicable residency requirements and most likely a natural born citizen, although there is no definitive judicial precedent on the matter. This is all in the context of US and Canadian law—the mystical “natural law” that you think your magic sky daddy gave you in no way applies. Nothing in US law applies to Canadian citizenship and vice vera. It is all about what each country decides about its own standards.

    It doesn’t matter what you think or Canada thinks or your sky daddy thinks or Rafael thinks or his papa thinks or the SCOTUS thinks or any other stupid condition you’ve made up out of whole cloth, it just matters WHAT CUBA THINKS.

    If Cuba thought dad was their citizen, then he was. He could, if he chose, claim that citizenship and he could be held to duties of said citizenship if he were to venture into Cuban jurisdiction. Likewise, Cuba decides whether little Rafael was entitled to Cuban citizenship, what, if anything he needed to do to obtain or keep it and when, if ever, that right or option expired.

    That’s it. I don’t know what the Cuban law is (or was), but it is the first, last and only word that matters on the subject and no amount of your inane masturbatory ramblings can change that.

    Adrien Nash: Cruz would be a natural born citizen of a rare sort if his father became a Canadian citizen after he was born.That is because he would have inherited only the national membership of his mother since the father was a stateless person.

    [snipped a bunch of crazy]

  185. Slartibartfast says:
    March 25, 2015 at 8:36 pm  (Quote)

    He writes about the “sacred sperm of citizenship” (a derogatory phrase used by anti-birthers, not his own) and his latest “work” was a piece of performance art where he went to England and asked for asylum (because USRUPER or some such) and was held in a British looney bin for a while until he worked his way through the system and was deported back to the US.

    If you’d like to find his writings, why don’t you try Googling “Paul Guthrie Jedi Pauli” and see what that gets you. Certainly any time you spend away from writing your next insensate exegesis makes the universe a little bit better place.

    Adrien Nash: Never heard of him.What has he written, and where is his blog? It sounds like he must disagree with Apuzzo and the boots, which is a giant step in understanding the truth.

  186. Svill says:
    March 25, 2015 at 10:52 pm  (Quote)

    gorefan March 25, 2015 at 9:39 pm (Quote) #

    Cyril C. Means, Jr, Is Presidency Barred to Americans Born Abroad?

    http://natural-borncitizens.com/nbcfiles/Is_Presidency_Barred_Americans_Born_Abroad.pdf

    Means explains why he believes a candidate like Cruz is eligible. Because he is both natural born and naturalized.”

    I posted a response to the Means article with quotes from “BORN IN THE U.S.A., BUT NOT N ATURAL B ORN : HOW CONGRESSIONAL TERRITORIAL POLICY BARS NATIVE-BORN PUERTO RICANS FROM THE PRESIDENCY” by John R. Hein.

    http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1153&context=jcl

    Doc must have inadvertently put it in moderation.

    Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 167 (1874) (“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.”).

    Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163, 165 (1964) (“[T]he 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.”); Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9, 22 (1913) (“[A] naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency.”).

    Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, 109 (1884) (holding that a member of an Indian tribe recognized by the United States was not a citizen of the United States pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment because he was not born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States). Act of June 2, 1924, Pub. L. No. 68-175, 43 Stat. 253 (codified as amended at 8 U.S.C. § 1401(b) (2006)) (conferring citizenship upon all Native Americans so long as they were born inside the territorial limits of the United States).

    James C. Ho, Unnatural Born Citizens and Acting Presidents, 17 CONST . COMMENT . 575, 579 (2000) (arguing that although McCain was born in the Canal Zone, he is a natural born citizen under the common law).

  187. Rickey says:
    March 25, 2015 at 10:57 pm  (Quote)

    Adrien Nash: Never heard of him.What has he written, and where is his blog? It sounds like he must disagree with Apuzzo and the boots, which is a giant step in understanding the truth.

    As Slartibartfast says, Google is your friend.

  188. Adrien Nash says:
    March 26, 2015 at 1:23 am  (Quote)

    Slartibartfast: It doesn’t matter what you think or Canada thinks or your sky daddy thinks or Rafael thinks or his papa thinks or the SCOTUS thinks or any other stupid condition you’ve made up out of whole cloth, it just matters WHAT CUBA THINKS.

    If Cuba thought dad was their citizen, then he was.

    Wow! You’ve dug a really deep hole with that one and then buried yourself in it. It surely does not matter what you think, or what SCOTUS thinks [What! You really said that! Heresy! All Hail SCOTUS!] You confused due to knowing not a damn thing about Cuban law. And you are lecturing me about it when I’ve read their Constitution over and over?
    It reveals that they have adopted entirely the American position of voluntary self-expatriation as an unalienable right. That is their embrace of the principle of liberty of identity and national association.
    So in your opium hallucinations, how do you misconstrue the Cruz application for asylum in the U.S. as anything other than a clear expression of self-expatriation? But even aside from that, if you had more than three brain cells you would be cognizant of the fact that you cannot be “claimed” by any country in the world and have that claim recognized by the law of nations. Can North Korea claim your children as citizens if they happened to visit their soil? Is what they think all that matters?

    By the law of nations Cruz senior was a man without citizenship because his Cuban citizenship ceased when his government and the nation that it formed vanished. The same thing happened three thousand years ago when the island of Santorini exploded. The nation living on it ceased to exist, physically. It’s citizens who survived while away were no longer its citizens because it didn’t exist. They were stateless.
    If your non-existent wife vanished into thin air, could someone say you are still married to her? There is no more “her”. She no longer exists. Your marriage is over. You are single again. See that? That is what reality looks like. Same with nationality.

    That is the story regarding the Batista Cuba. Its replacement had no authority over either father or son because Sr.’s non-Cuban status pre-dated the existence of the Castro Communist government and its constitution. How dumb do you have to be to not see the facts right in front of your blind face?

    I’ll make it even clear for you. Saddam Hussein’s army invaded Kuwait. The nation of Kuwait fled the country of Kuwait. Did all of those former Kuwaiti citizens become citizens of the new Iraqi Kuwait? What’s that? No answer?

    You think you are really smart but that makes you intellectually sloppy. Over-confidence does that. The sniper spots your lazy ass and takes you out. Better learn to think twice.

  189. Joey says:
    March 26, 2015 at 4:41 am  (Quote)

    Adrien Nash: I can agree with your sentiments, but you, like everyone else, fail to grasp the context of the problem.It is not one of what is sociologically preferable but what is grounded in the Rule of Law.
    Either you support the rule of law or you support doing what is “best” and ignoring the law.THAT is anti-American because we are founded on the rule of law and not men.

    So what was “the law” when the Constitution was written? It was not what it is today. The difference is illuminated by the case of Virginia Minor and the high court’s discussion regarding her case.

    Today’s Luciferians who equate “citizen” with “natural born citizen” (repeatedly, since they have no other hope of legitimizing their socialist messiah) fail to grasp that per the observation of the court, being a citizen does not confer all the rights of certain other citizens (males).
    Even though Virginia was a natural born citizen she still had no right to vote, nor any right to be President. Why not? Because that was the way that society was structured.

    To change it would have required a constitutional amendment, just as was ratified in order to give women the right to vote and to prohibit the sale of intoxicating liquors.
    It thus can be argued that women have no constitutional right to serve as President since no amendment has been passed to allow that. That is a literal constitutional fact.The amendment that gave them the right to vote gave them no other civic rights, including serving in elected offices in the government.

    In the same vein, being a “citizen” does not mean that one has the right of a natural born citizen to be President.
    Thus in 1875 when the Happersett opinion was written:
    1. Citizen did not equal the right to vote.
    2. Natural born citizen did not equal the right to be President.
    3. Citizen did not equal the right to be President, not then, not now.

    So by strict constitutional construction, which is mandatory, the word “natural” has constitutional significance, and as a result no alien-born person is a natural born citizen, and no female citizen has yet been given the privilege to serve as President.
    We need another constitutional amendment to allow that, as well as another one to allow the alien-born to serve as President.

    How about this new wording: “No person except a born citizen shall be eligible to the office of the President.”?That would work to allow the alien-born to serve.It would be fair and reasonable as long as they were raised in the United States as Americans.

    But alas, that is not yet written nor ratified, so we are left with the restriction against the alien-born foreign-stock citizens.That is too bad because it has implications for the legitimacy of the the current President.

    Under “the rule of law” there have been at least nineteen court rulings that Barack Obama is a natural born citizen and no court ruling that he is not a natural born citizen.
    Court rulings finding Barack Obama is a natural born citizen:
    1) Allen v. Obama (Arizona)
    2) Ankeny v. Daniels (Indiana)
    3) Fair v. Obama (Maryland)
    4) Farrar v. Obama (Georgia)
    5) Freeman v. Obama (Illinois)
    6) Galasso v. Obama (New Jersey)
    7) Jackson v. Obama (Illinois)
    8) Jordan v. Obama (Washington)
    9) Judd v. Obama (California)
    10) Kesler v. Obama (Indiana)
    11) Martin v. Obama (Illinois)
    12) Paige v. Obama (Vermont)
    13) Powell v. Obama (Georgia)
    14) Purpura, et. al. v. Obama (New Jersey)
    15) Strunk v. N.Y. State Board of Elections (NY)
    16) Swensson v. Obama (Georgia)
    17) Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia)
    18) Voeltz v. Obama, et. al. (Florida)
    19) Welden v. Obama (Georgia)

  190. Notorial Dissent says:
    March 26, 2015 at 5:19 am  (Quote)

    Gnish Gnash still can’t read. There was nothing in the constitution preventing a NBC woman from becoming president, voting eligibility was left to the states. The constitution was mute on voting as well as gender. A woman could theoretically been elected, she just couldn’t have voted in the election. It wasn’t until the 20th C when the Congress over rode the states with constitutional amendments allowing women the unrestricted vote, and then lowering the voting age. Many of the western states had already beaten them to the punch by that point.

  191. faceman says:
    March 26, 2015 at 8:05 am  (Quote)

    Adrien Nash: I can agree with your sentiments, but you, like everyone else, fail to grasp the context of the problem.It is not one of what is sociologically preferable but what is grounded in the Rule of Law.

    You speak with forked tongue, white man. The right to vote is not mentioned in the Constitution. It was something left to the States. MInor asserted that she was a citizen, and therefore had the right to vote. In light of the 14th Amendment, SCOTUS conceded that she was a citizen, but found nothing in Constitution that gave her the right to vote. That had to wait for the 19th Amendment.

    The right of NBC to be eligible to be president is specifically addressed in the Constitution. Since Minor v Happersett determined that Minor WAS a not just a citizen but a Natural Born Citizen, by Rule of Law, she would have been eligible to be president.

  192. Punchmaster via Mobile says:
    March 26, 2015 at 9:05 am  (Quote)

    Some of the inmates st Gerbil Report are starting to sweat bullets over Shurfjoke’s self-inflicted legal woes.

  193. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    March 26, 2015 at 9:33 am  (Quote)

    A Constitutional amendment was not required to give women the vote. State laws could equally have given women the right to vote. What the 19th Amendment explicitly says is that women cannot be denied the vote on account of their sex, neither by the states nor the federal government. The reasoning in Minor was not that women were not considered voting material by the framers, but rather that the States had historically imposed all sorts of restrictions on voters, including ownership of property.

    There is certainly NOTHING in Minor v. Happersett that remotely suggests that Minor could not server as President.

    Adrien Nash: To change it would have required a constitutional amendment, just as was ratified in order to give women the right to vote

  194. y_p_w says:
    March 26, 2015 at 10:06 am  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    A Constitutional amendment was not required to give women the vote. State laws could equally have given women the right to vote. What the 19th Amendment explicitly says is that women cannot be denied the vote on account of their sex, neither by the states nor the federal government. The reasoning in Minor was not that women were not considered voting material by the framers, but rather that the States had historically imposed all sorts of restrictions on voters, including ownership of property.

    I thought that there was no particular requirement in the Constitution that only citizens can vote. There is a US law that says only US citizens can vote in an election where there are federal offices up for selection, but that’s actually fairly recent (1940’s). That only US citizens vote in any elections is generally a matter of state or local law. There have been calls to allow for voting by any adult in school board elections here in California.

    http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:18%20section:611%20edition:prelim)%20OR%20(granuleid:USC-prelim-title18-section611)&f=treesort&edition=prelim&num=0&jumpTo=true

  195. Nancy R Owens says:
    March 26, 2015 at 12:43 pm  (Quote)

    For the record, I have placed calls and left messages to the following this morning:

    Mario Appuzzo
    Sheriff Arpaio
    Mike Volin
    CIA
    FBI
    Maricopa County Sheriff’s Department

    CIA says they’re “moving on” and putting it behind them.
    Mike Volin provided the number to Maricopa County
    Sheriff Arpaio was out of office and I kept getting rerouted back to the main number everytime I tried to leave a message. Finally, left a message with an unk.
    FBI not interested

  196. Nancy R Owens says:
    March 26, 2015 at 1:08 pm  (Quote)

    Add to that list above:

    Larry Klayman
    A Maricopa County Law Enforcement Officer who says he’ll “drop my number in Mike Zullo’s box.”

    I’ll let ya’ll know if I get any return phone calls.

  197. Dave B. says:
    March 26, 2015 at 1:18 pm  (Quote)

    Comment from one “Doubting Thomas” over at the Freedom Outpost cesspool:
    “In the case of the Usurper Obama – his mother could not confer US citizenship due to her age and Obama, by his own words, was adopted by Lolo Soetoro – thus, making Obama the “natural born child” of Lolo Soetoro.”

  198. Nancy R Owens says:
    March 26, 2015 at 3:42 pm  (Quote)

    By his own words?

    That’s it?

    Dave B.:
    Comment from one “Doubting Thomas” over at the Freedom Outpost cesspool:
    “In the case of the Usurper Obama – his mother could not confer US citizenship due to her age and Obama, by his own words, was adopted by Lolo Soetoro – thus, making Obama the “natural born child” of Lolo Soetoro.”

  199. Dave B. says:
    March 26, 2015 at 8:33 pm  (Quote)

    Okay, this one’s got some QOTD potential:

    blaineiac: “The Founding Fathers intended that a question of “dual loyalty” would never arise. Therefore, the intent was that a Presidential candidate should be born on U.S. soil of two parents who were ALSO born on U.S. soil – not “Naturalized”, having a “green card”, work Visa, or just flat illegal. I know you true believers in “being just a citizen” is OK, but, let’s say, hypothetically, that candidate X was born in the U.S. of an immigrant mother and an anonymous “sperm donor”. X’s mama was born in “Utopiastan”, and X was raised learning Utopiastan’s language, eating its native foods, and knowing all about the culture, history and mores of Utopiastan. Then, one day, he is POTUS, faced with the prospect of going to war with, or making crippling sanctions, on his beloved mothers “Fatherland”. Conflict of interest, d’ya think?”

    http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/03/does-ted-cruz-have-a-natural-born-citizen-issue-when-it-comes-to-his-presidential-bid/#comment-1925280410

    “Then one day, he is POTUS.” I ’bout died.

  200. Rickey says:
    March 26, 2015 at 10:02 pm  (Quote)

    Notorial Dissent:
    Gnish Gnash still can’t read. There was nothing in the constitution preventing a NBC woman from becoming president, voting eligibility was left to the states.The constitution was mute on voting as well as gender. A woman could theoretically been elected, she just couldn’t have voted in the election. It wasn’t until the 20th C when the Congress over rode the states with constitutional amendments allowing women the unrestricted vote, and then lowering the voting age. Many of the western states had already beaten them to the punch by that point.

    Adrien claims that he’s read the Constitution “over and over,” yet he missed that part about voting. Nothing in the Constitution ever limited voting rights. The 19th Amendment was needed because the Constitution didn’t guarantee voting rights.

  201. Dave B. says:
    March 26, 2015 at 10:21 pm  (Quote)

    David Farrar, or someone claiming to be him– and who would claim to be that who is not?– over at Salon:

    “Be that as it may; whenever the Supreme Court has referred to a person as a natural-born citizen, that person was always been born in the United States of U.S. citizen parents.”

    http://www.salon.com/2015/03/26/gops_birther_hypocrisy_exposed_why_conservatives_are_conveniently_mum_on_ted_cruz_partner/#comments

    I’ve asked him for a list.

  202. Notorial Dissent says:
    March 27, 2015 at 12:52 am  (Quote)

    Don’t hold your breath.

    Dave B.:
    David Farrar, or someone claiming to be him– and who would claim to be that who is not?– over at Salon:

    “Be that as it may; whenever the Supreme Court has referred to a person as a natural-born citizen, that person was always been born in the United States of U.S. citizen parents.”

    http://www.salon.com/2015/03/26/gops_birther_hypocrisy_exposed_why_conservatives_are_conveniently_mum_on_ted_cruz_partner/#comments

    I’ve asked him for a list.

  203. Rickey says:
    March 27, 2015 at 2:02 am  (Quote)

    Strunk in esse v. Board of Elections in the City of New York was dismissed on Thursday.

  204. faceman says:
    March 27, 2015 at 4:22 pm  (Quote)

    Dave B.: David Farrar, or someone claiming to be him– and who would claim to be that who is not?– over at Salon:“Be that as it may; whenever the Supreme Court has referred to a person as a natural-born citizen, that person was always been born in the United States of U.S. citizen parents.”http://www.salon.com/2015/03/26/gops_birther_hypocrisy_exposed_why_conservatives_are_conveniently_mum_on_ted_cruz_partner/#commentsI’ve asked him for a list.

    Putting aside for a moment the question of whether or not that is true, so what? How does that make it a requirement? Before Obama, every persone elected president had been white. Every person ever elected president has been male, too. Does that make Hillary Clinton, or Sarah Palin, or Geraldine Ferraro ineligible? There are people out there who hate Hillary as much as they hate Obama, but I haven’t heard anyone say that she isn’t eligible.

  205. Andrew Vrba, PmG says:
    March 27, 2015 at 4:36 pm  (Quote)

    faceman: There are people out there who hate Hillary as much as they hate Obama, but I haven’t heard anyone say that she isn’t eligible.

    The closest I’ve heard was someone making the joke “But she’s already served two terms as President!”

  206. Dave B. says:
    March 27, 2015 at 4:38 pm  (Quote)

    Here you go:
    http://usa-the-republic.com/items%20of%20interest/Declaration_Soveriegnty/Chief%20Justice%20John%20G.%20Roberts%20Jr.%20%5Bprint%5D.pdf
    And generally speaking, here:
    http://natural-borncitizens.com/membershipunderthelaw.html

    I seem to recall Darth Yoda Guthrie raising a specific objection, but I just can’t be bothered to look right now. And Arnash probably hazz a sad over it, too.
    You did say “anyone,” right, and not just anyone sane?

    faceman: Putting aside for a moment the question of whether or not that is true, so what?How does that make it a requirement? Before Obama, every persone elected president had been white.Every person ever elected president has been male, too.Does that make Hillary Clinton, or Sarah Palin, or Geraldine Ferraro ineligible?There are people out there who hate Hillary as much as they hate Obama, but I haven’t heard anyone say that she isn’t eligible.

  207. Dave B. says:
    March 27, 2015 at 4:45 pm  (Quote)

    Well, I can’t get that link right. This should work:

    http://www.usa-the-republic.com/items%20of%20interest/Declaration_Soveriegnty/index.html

    Just click on the “Letter to Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court.”

    Dave B.: Here you go:

  208. Adrien Nash says:
    March 27, 2015 at 5:16 pm  (Quote)

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: faceman: There are people out there who hate Hillary as much as they hate Obama, but I haven’t heard anyone say that she isn’t eligible

    SHE’S NOT ELIGIBLE! Here’s an answer that no one will see coming.
    It’s the first section of a composition that I haven’t finished yet, titled: Why No Female, Black, or Alien-born Citizen is Eligible to be President

    Do you know how many American women voted in favor of the 19th Amendment? The answer is zero. They failed to vote for the constitutional amendment barring voter discrimination based on gender. Why didn’t they vote for it?

    Because they were not allowed. They were forbidden from voting. They were second-class citizens.

    Their citizenship was not full citizenship because their responsibilities were not full responsibilities. So they were, if born of American parents, natural born citizens and yet not eligible to do what the Constitution allowed only for natural born citizens, -which was to serve as the U.S. President.

    So we see a class of citizens, half of the population, who not only were citizens but were natural born citizens and yet still forbidden to serve as President. They were forbidden because they were female-born citizens, i.e., born as females.
    They had civic counter-parts, namely the alien-born citizens.

    They were discriminated against just like the female born citizens, …and the black born citizens. The black-born citizens did not even exist (although perhaps a state or two allowed black State citizenship) because they also were objects of restriction and discrimination.

    So when the framers of the Constitution wrote that: “No person, except a natural born citizen…shall be eligible to the office of the President;” that term did NOT include anyone born female, alien, or black.

    All children of aliens were aliens also under federal law because they did not become Americans under federal law until their father did via the oath of Renunciation and Allegiance.
    In the eyes of Congress, if one was born of an alien then one was an alien also just like the father and family head that was the source of his children’s life and nationality.

    Here is the society result of the words that the framers choose which at that time carried these connotations:
    No person, except a white born citizen,..shall be eligible…
    No person, except a male born citizen,..shall be eligible…
    No person, except a natural born citizen,..shall be eligible…

    Under the Constitution as written and never amendment, no female or black or alien-born citizen is allowed to serve as President.

    THAT’S THE LAW! If you don’t like it then you need to amendment it!

  209. Adrien Nash says:
    March 27, 2015 at 5:42 pm  (Quote)

    Rickey: Notorial Dissent:
    Gnish Gnash still can’t read. There was nothing in the constitution preventing a NBC woman from becoming president, voting eligibility was left to the states.The constitution was mute on voting as well as gender.

    I can’t read?? YOU can’t read because I didn’t say nor imply any such stupid thing. The limitation was not written; it was societal, just as with the civic rights of women. Now get this, and listen closely; to change society required a constitutional amendment. That was why Congress alone could outlaw liquor, -or give women the right to vote. To obtain a right under law, an amendment to the constitution was mandatory.

    A woman could theoretically have been elected, she just couldn’t have voted in the election. It wasn’t until the 20th C when the Congress over rode the states with constitutional amendments allowing women the unrestricted vote, and then lowering the voting age. Many of the western states had already beaten them to the punch by that point.

    Well guess what? NEWS FLASH! The presidency was NOT a States Rights issue. It was a constitutional issue. To change the universal societal norm of the constitution era regarding the presidency required an amendment > I don’t think one has ever been passed on behalf of aliens, the alien-born, women, or blacks.

    Adrien claims that he’s read the Constitution “over and over,” yet he missed that part about voting. Nothing in the Constitution ever limited voting rights. The 19th Amendment was needed because the Constitution didn’t guarantee voting rights.

    Learn how to read. What I said was about the CUBAN constitution. Women weren’t barred from voting by other than rigid societal rules. Such rules, including the prohibition against blacks, women, and the alien-born serving as President required an amendment to either the constitutions of most of the States or of the nation in order to over-ride and smash the grip of entrench patriarchal power and exclusiveness..

  210. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    March 27, 2015 at 5:51 pm  (Quote)

    That’s what Gordon Epperly said in his lawsuit in Alaska. See:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/07/lawsuit-in-alaska-no-blacks-or-women-need-apply/

    Adrien Nash: No person, except a white born citizen,..shall be eligible…
    No person, except a male born citizen,..shall be eligible…
    No person, except a natural born citizen,..shall be eligible…

  211. Dave B. says:
    March 27, 2015 at 8:21 pm  (Quote)

    Well that was an easy call. Like I said, you did say “anyone,” and not just anyone sane?

    Adrien Nash: SHE’S NOT ELIGIBLE!

  212. Andrew Vrba, PmG says:
    March 27, 2015 at 9:36 pm  (Quote)

    Adrien Nash: SHE’S NOT ELIGIBLE!

    Did I ask for your punk ass opinion, nazi-boy? No, I did not.

  213. Dr. Kenneth Noisewater says:
    March 27, 2015 at 9:43 pm  (Quote)

    Adrien Nash: No person, except a white born citizen,..shall be eligible…
    No person, except a male born citizen,..shall be eligible…
    No person, except a natural born citizen,..shall be eligible…

    You forgot land owning male as well which means you couldn’t run.

  214. Rickey says:
    March 27, 2015 at 10:26 pm  (Quote)

    Adrien Nash:

    Learn how to read. What I said was about the CUBAN constitution.Women weren’t barred from voting by other than rigid societal rules. Such rules, including the prohibition against blacks, women, and the alien-born serving as President required an amendment to either the constitutions of most of the States or of the nation in order to over-ride and smash the grip of entrench patriarchal power and exclusiveness..

    Seriously? You want us to believe that you were talking about Cuba when you wrote this?

    Even though Virginia was a natural born citizen she still had no right to vote, nor any right to be President. Why not? Because that was the way that society was structured. To change it would have required a constitutional amendment, just as was ratified in order to give women the right to vote and to prohibit the sale of intoxicating liquors.

    I had no idea that Virginia Minor had a connection with Cuba.

    Of course, you are now lying to cover up your embarrassment.

  215. W. Kevin Vicklund says:
    March 27, 2015 at 10:30 pm  (Quote)

    Adrien Nash: Do you know how many American women voted in favor of the 19th Amendment?

    In January 1918, US Congresswoman Jeanette Rankin (R – Montana) became the first woman to vote in favor of a constitutional amendment to provide women’s suffrage throughout the US. “If I am remembered for no other act,” Rankin said, “I want to be remembered as the only woman who ever voted to give women the right to vote.”

    A large number of women voted for ratifying the amendment, women having the right to vote in a majority of the states by that time.

  216. Slartibartfast says:
    March 27, 2015 at 10:32 pm  (Quote)

    Adrien is lying because he lies like a fish breathes water. It couldn’t be due to embarrassment in any case, since he has no shame.

    Rickey: Of course, you are now lying to cover up your embarrassment.

  217. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    March 27, 2015 at 11:04 pm  (Quote)

    Strunk’s lawsuit was dismissed:

    Last Appearance:
    Appearance Date: 03/26/2015
    Appearance Time:
    On For: Supreme Trial
    Appearance Outcome: Dismissed — Information updated
    Justice: NON-JURY TRIAL READINESS PART
    Part: NON-JURY TRIAL READINESS PART
    Comments:

  218. Andrew Vrba, PmG says:
    March 27, 2015 at 11:14 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Strunk’s lawsuit was dismissed:

    Last Appearance:
    Appearance Date: 03/26/2015
    Appearance Time:
    On For: Supreme Trial
    Appearance Outcome: Dismissed — Information updated
    Justice: NON-JURY TRIAL READINESS PART
    Part: NON-JURY TRIAL READINESS PART
    Comments:

    Six years in, you’d think guys like him would get the message.

  219. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    March 27, 2015 at 11:15 pm  (Quote)

    According to the Wikipedia, New Jersey women could vote between 1790 and 1807 (at which time a male-only suffrage law was passed).

    W. Kevin Vicklund: A large number of women voted for ratifying the amendment, women having the right to vote in a majority of the states by that time.

  220. John Reilly says:
    March 27, 2015 at 11:40 pm  (Quote)

    Mr. Nash is, of course, free to run on a platform that women, Blacks, Black women, and Cubans can’t vote and, if he is elected, he’ll put an end to it.

    I wonder. Cam Condoleeza Rice be on the NCAA football championship selection committee, or is that barred too because the Constitution specifically does not say that she can?

  221. Rickey says:
    March 28, 2015 at 2:40 am  (Quote)

    W. Kevin Vicklund:
    A large number of women voted for ratifying the amendment, women having the right to vote in a majority of the states by that time.

    Yes, prior to the ratification of the 19th Amendment women had been given the right to vote in 27 states. With the exception of Tennessee, all of the southern states held out. and New England (except Maine) also held out. New York gave women the right to vote in 1917, but New Jersey did not.

  222. Rickey says:
    March 28, 2015 at 2:42 am  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    According to the Wikipedia, New Jersey women could vote between 1790 and 1807 (at which time a male-only suffrage law was passed).

    And New Jersey was one of the holdout states which didn’t permit women to vote until the 19th Amendment was ratified.

  223. Dave B. says:
    March 28, 2015 at 2:47 am  (Quote)

    Did any state ratify the 19th Amendment by popular vote?

  224. faceman says:
    March 28, 2015 at 5:38 am  (Quote)

    Dave B.:
    I seem to recall Darth Yoda Guthrie raising a specific objection, but I just can’t be bothered to look right now.And Arnash probably hazz a sad over it, too.
    You did say “anyone,” right, and not just anyone sane?

    After I had posted my comment, I realized that the gang who couldn’t shoot straight would probably chime in. Yeah, anyone sane. Even some insane people who believe in the two citizen parent rule.

  225. W. Kevin Vicklund says:
    March 28, 2015 at 8:05 am  (Quote)

    Dave B.:
    Did any state ratify the 19th Amendment by popular vote?

    Even if not, there were already a number of women in the various state legislatures by that time.

  226. faceman says:
    March 28, 2015 at 9:45 am  (Quote)

    Adrien Nash: Here’s an answer that no one will see coming.

    (yawn)

  227. Andrew Vrba, PmG says:
    March 28, 2015 at 10:38 am  (Quote)

    Ted Cruz has certainly done one thing, he’s made the birther movement entertaining again. Its fun watching vehement Obama birthers backtrack all of the sudden, like WND’s Joseph “A wooly bear fell asleep on my lip!” Farah, who’s apparently putting his support behind Cruz.
    This puts them at odds with the dyed in the wool birthers, who call them “traitors to the republic, blah blah blah!”
    The end result is more of that delicious birther infighting that I can’t get enough of.

  228. Dave B. says:
    March 28, 2015 at 11:12 am  (Quote)

    I figured there must have been. My point is that not that many MEN voted to ratify the amendment.

    W. Kevin Vicklund: Even if not, there were already a number of women in the various state legislatures by that time.

  229. Dave B. says:
    March 28, 2015 at 11:14 am  (Quote)

    You got me there then. You’re no fun at all.

    faceman: After I had posted my comment, I realized that the gang who couldn’t shoot straight would probably chime in.Yeah, anyone sane.Even some insane people who believe in the two citizen parent rule.

  230. Dave B. says:
    March 28, 2015 at 12:59 pm  (Quote)

    Okay okay okay– this is one of the BEST EVER:
    “I remember this very clearly from my time in school. My
    second grade teacher took great glee in crushing my dream of becoming
    president because my father was not a citizen at the time of my birth.
    He explained in great and excruciating detail exactly how I did not
    qualify for that office. That included referencing both the Minor and the Ark cases.”
    http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/03/does-ted-cruz-have-a-natural-born-citizen-issue-when-it-comes-to-his-presidential-bid/#comment-1933073922

  231. J.D. Sue says:
    March 28, 2015 at 3:02 pm  (Quote)

    Dave B.: Okay okay okay– this is one of the BEST EVER:
    “I remember this very clearly from my time in school. My
    second grade teacher took great glee in crushing my dream of becoming
    president because my father was not a citizen at the time of my birth.
    He explained in great and excruciating detail exactly how I did not
    qualify for that office. That included referencing both the Minor and the Ark cases.”

    —-

    Yeah, second graders study Minor and Wong Kim Ark–right after they finish reading “Woodrow, the White House Mouse.”

  232. Northland10 says:
    March 28, 2015 at 3:11 pm  (Quote)

    Adrien Nash: Do you know how many American women voted in favor of the 19th Amendment? The answer is zero. They failed to vote for the constitutional amendment barring voter discrimination based on gender. Why didn’t they vote for it?

    Because they were not allowed. They were forbidden from voting. They were second-class citizens.

    Meet Colorado State Senator Agnes Riddle:

    Later, in 1919, Sen. Riddle introduced a bill to ratify the Federal Women’s Suffrage Amendment during a special session of the Colorado General Assembly. The bill passed both houses unanimously.

    Do you even bother to check to see if your claims have any truth in history?

  233. Joey says:
    March 28, 2015 at 3:59 pm  (Quote)

    While seeking to amend the U.S. Constitution, the women’s suffrage movement also waged a state-by-state campaign. The territory of Wyoming was the first to give women the vote in 1869. Other western states and territories followed.

    States granting women the right to vote prior to the 19th Amendment:
    Wyoming 1890
    Colorado 1893
    Utah 1896
    Idaho 1896
    Washington 1910
    California 1911
    Arizona 1912
    Kansas 1912
    Oregon 1912
    Montana 1914
    Nevada 1914
    New York 1917
    Michigan 1918
    Oklahoma 1918
    South Dakota 1918

    Full Voting Rights for women before 19th Amendment and before statehood
    Territory of Wyoming 1869
    Territory of Utah 1870
    Territory of Washington 1883
    Territory of Montana 1887
    Territory of Alaska 1913

    States where women could vote for President prior to the 19th Amendment
    Illinois 1913
    Nebraska 1917
    Ohio 1917
    Indiana 1917
    North Dakota 1917
    Rhode Island 1917
    Iowa 1919
    Maine 1919
    Minnesota 1919
    Missouri 1919
    Tennessee 1919
    Wisconsin 1919

  234. Rickey says:
    March 28, 2015 at 5:25 pm  (Quote)

    Northland10: Meet Colorado State Senator Agnes Riddle:

    Do you even bother to check to see if your claims have any truth in history?

    As Joey has pointed out, Colorado gave full voting rights to women in 1893.

    Adrien fancies himself an expert on the Constitution, but it appears that he could benefit from a remedial course in American history.

  235. Adrien Nash says:
    March 29, 2015 at 12:21 am  (Quote)

    Well this has all been very educational. Thanks ya’ll for doing the research for me! This teaches us two things: when an opponent is wrong, it will surely be pointed out, but when he is right, that will never be acknowledged, nor even disputed.
    So thanks for all of the confirmation that everything else that I wrote is correct and you agree with it as demonstrated by your pathetic silence, all of which destroys the whole fantasy house of cards that you’ve constructed around yourselves.
    And by the way, if you don’t want your fantasy world completely destroyed before your eyes, be sure to NOT read my destruction of “On the Meaning of Natural born Citizen”; titled appropriately: On the REAL Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen”
    https://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/2015/03/25/on-the-real-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/ It will open your eyes like blind naked mole rats such as yourselves will positively hate. But if you can find any similar errors in it, you can use them to attack me, which is no doubt the best you can hope for since every principle and fundamental fact that I share are rock solid and smash your lies to pieces. Good luck, suckers.

  236. Keith says:
    March 29, 2015 at 2:04 am  (Quote)

    As I understand it, the fact that many States had granted suffrage to women and there was a rising demand for a Constitutional Convention to raise an amendment, caused a fear in Congress that unless they nipped it in the bud by proposing a suffrage amendment of their own, that they may be faced with a ‘runaway convention’.

    If the States call for a Convention, even if the idea is for a single issue, there is NO way to limit the Convention to that single issue. It can do ANYTHING. That has happened once already in our history, in 1787, and Congress didn’t really want that to happen again.

  237. Notorial Dissent says:
    March 29, 2015 at 2:23 am  (Quote)

    It wouldn’t do Adrian any good, he is a congenital liar and would rather make up his “facts” than look one up. Adrian’s big problem is that fact, history, the law, and most of the rest of the universe disagree with him at every point. That and that I think he is constitutional incapable of telling the truth or practicing intellectual honesty or capable of intellect integrity.

  238. faceman says:
    March 29, 2015 at 7:26 am  (Quote)

    Adrien Nash: Do you know how many American women voted in favor of the 19th Amendment? The answer is zero.

    Taking what you say at face value (Knowing its wrong) – That must mean most men voted for it; i.e., society approved.

    Adrien Nash: So they were, if born of American parents, natural born citizens and yet not eligible to do what the Constitution allowed only for natural born citizens

    Wrong on the face of it. How can a natural born citizen not meet the requirement of being a natural born citizen?

    Adrien Nash: The limitation was not written; it was societal, just as with the civic rights of women. Now get this, and listen closely; to change society required a constitutional amendment.

    If, as you say, societal rules are not in the Constitution, then how can you change them with a constitutional amendment? After prohibition was passed, people kept right on drinking.

    True, a hundred years ago, society probably would not have elected Obama. But in 2008, he was elected. “Society” changed, and it didn’t take a constitutional amendment to do it. It’s what I call the difference between being ‘eligible’ and ‘electable.’

    Remember the civil rights movement of the 60’s? The feminist movement? Except for a few Neanderthals and rabid wombats like yourself, most people accept equality. Even those ultra-conservatives in the GOP didn’t object to having a woman on the ballot in 2008. Rather, they were thrilled by it; it energized the base. And it didn’t take a constitutional amendment to do it.

  239. Keith says:
    March 29, 2015 at 7:44 am  (Quote)

    faceman: Except for a few Neanderthals and rabid wombats like yourself, most people accept equality.

    Wombats are a great Australian animal and worthy of the highest respect. Also rabies does not exist in Australia.

    In swell foop you have insulted both Wombats and the Australian Biosecurity and Quarantine Service, not to mention Neanderthals everywhere.

    Sheesh

  240. faceman says:
    March 29, 2015 at 8:25 am  (Quote)

    Keith: Wombats are a great Australian animal and worthy of the highest respect. Also rabies does not exist in Australia.In swell foop you have insulted both Wombats and the Australian Biosecurity and Quarantine Service, not to mention Neanderthals everywhere.Sheesh

    ‘Rabid Wombat’ is a card from the Magic:the Gathering card game. It was originally in the Legends expansion set.

    My sincere apologies. I meant no disrespect to Australia. I thoroughly enjoyed my brief visit many years ago.

  241. W. Kevin Vicklund says:
    March 29, 2015 at 9:01 am  (Quote)

    Adrien Nash:
    Well this has all been very educational.Thanks ya’ll for doing the research for me!This teaches us two things: when an opponent is wrong, it will surely be pointed out, but when he is right, that will never be acknowledged, nor even disputed.

    Repeating a mistake over and over until no one bothers correcting you does not mean you are correct, it means you are stupid.

    There were many things wrong with what you wrote. Correcting only the first does not mean everything else is right. It merely means that you can lie faster than I can find the truth.

  242. Arthur says:
    March 29, 2015 at 10:08 am  (Quote)

    W. Kevin Vicklund: Repeating a mistake over and over until no one bothers correcting you does not mean you are correct, it means you are stupid.

    Indeed.

  243. Adrien Nash says:
    March 29, 2015 at 11:18 am  (Quote)

    In 1875 when the Happersett opinion was written:

    1. Citizen did not equal the right to vote.
    2. Natural born citizen did not equal the right to be President.
    3. Citizen-at-birth did not equal the right to be Commander-in-Chief, not then, not now.

    Let’s engage in a little Q&A thought exercise:

    Q. Were foreign women allowed to serve in the American military?
    A. No, no women, even American, were allowed to serve in the military or attend any military college or officer training course.

    Q. So no women could lead men in combat regardless of being a natural born citizen?
    A. Definitely not. They had no constitutional right to participate in a strictly male sphere.

    Q. So no women could be appointed as General of the Army or Admiral of the Navy?
    A. You can’t appoint someone who does not exist.

    Q. Well how about Secretary of War?
    A. The secretary position was by appointment of the chief executive of the nation, the President, and women not only could not be allowed to direct or lead men in matters of war, they could not lead or direct men in any federal office or position.

    Q. So natural born American females could not serve in the role of Commander-in-Chief either?
    A. Absolutely not! That was totally unthinkable.

    Q. How about alien-born American women? Could they lead all of the military of the United States?
    A. Neither they, nor their alien-born male counterparts, were eligible or had any right to serve as Commander-in-Chief. That position was reserved solely for free, mature, white-born, male-born, natural born Americans who had lived in America for at least 14 years.

    That was the sociological reality, and by strict constitutional construction, which is mandatory, the word “natural” still has constitutional significance, and as a result no alien-born “citizen at birth” is a natural born citizen, so neither they nor female citizens have yet been given the privilege to serve as President.

    We need another constitutional amendment to allow that, as well as to allow the non-white to serve as President.

  244. Adrien Nash says:
    March 29, 2015 at 11:25 am  (Quote)

    W. Kevin Vicklund: There were many things wrong with what you wrote. Correcting only the first does not mean everything else is right. It merely means that you can lie faster than I can find the truth.

    Paaaaaleeeezzze! Put up or shut up! Your silence-as-a-defense-mechanism has grown reeeeeally old and tiresome. The reason you have offered no counter-argument is because you have none but can’t admit it, nor even quote any of the facts I illuminated, because they are all self-evidently all TRUE!

    You have nothing and so you counter with nothing except farts about truthful and accurate comments being “lies”. How ironic! The liar who has nothing calls the truth lies! Hahahahahaha!

  245. Adrien Nash says:
    March 29, 2015 at 11:51 am  (Quote)

    faceman: Even those ultra-conservatives in the GOP didn’t object to having a woman on the ballot in 2008. Rather, they were thrilled by it; it energized the base. And it didn’t take a constitutional amendment to do it.

    It is not a matter of what people want or will accept. People wanted prohibition enacted but could not force it on the nation without an amendment because it destroyed a civil right to drink alcohol. Women being allow to serve as President also destroys something that was fundamental when the Constitution was written, and that was male supremacy. Same with race.
    Just because society has changed does not mean that the meaning of the Constitution has changed along with it. That reflects on the necessity for most of the amendments. The President was sociologically not privileged to serve more than two terms, as was true with Roosevelt. Well guess what? He ignored what was politically correct and ran anyway. Why? The Constitution did not bar it. The flip side of that coin is that which the Constitution did not specially allow and which was barred socially.

    So a conundrum is created when you look at the expanse of history and see that something was not a constitutional right long ago, and required an amendment to become one, or to cancel one, and yet is permissible in today’s world. Children and adults as well must ask what the heck good is the amendment process if everyone ignores it??

    So…. with that being the modern-day reality we are stuck with some very uncomfortable questions, such as: why can’t Congress alone simply pass any law that violates fundamental individual liberty and get away with it? It turns out that it can and has; it passed what’s known as an individual insurance mandate which is totalitarian to the max.

    Being penalized for undesirable behavior is one thing, but to be penalized for non-behavior is unimaginable throughout all of history. So where was the constitutional amendment needed to pass Obamacare? The attitude of the demoncrats in Congress, and to a lesser extent, the RINOs, is that Congress can do anything just as if it now is the equal of Parliament with its unlimited power.

    “Constitution? We don’t need no stinking Constutution!”
    The rule of law has suffered a grievous blow, -not the first and not the last, but the biggest ever.

  246. Arthur B. says:
    March 29, 2015 at 1:55 pm  (Quote)

    Adrien Nash: So thanks for all of the confirmation that everything else that I wrote is correct and you agree with it as demonstrated by your pathetic silence…

    Hey, it’s an indirect confirmation! Butterdezillion would be so proud.

  247. faceman says:
    March 29, 2015 at 3:40 pm  (Quote)

    Adrien Nash: So thanks for all of the confirmation that everything else that I wrote is correct and you agree with it as demonstrated by your pathetic silence,

    Well, since you haven’t refuted a single thing we’ve said, you must agree with it as demonstrated by YOUR pathetic silence.

  248. J.D. Sue says:
    March 29, 2015 at 4:26 pm  (Quote)

    What a relief to have Adrien simply state that natural born citizens who are not white men are not REAL natural born citizens in Adrien’s sense of things.

    It seems that, in his vision, some Natural American Societal Law requires this result; a Societal Law that is naturally embedded between the lines in the Constitution, and any Justice who has ruled otherwise is a useless idiot.

    In his vision, this country belongs to Adrien and his male kin, and everyone else belongs to a lower class and exists at the weary indulgence of the Adrienites. White might makes right. Anything else–e.g. equal protection of the law–represents a depletion of Adrien’s natural rightful inheritance.

    Why he has found it necessary to use thousands of words and rationalizations to make his point is beyond me. I found it tedious and not particularly original.

  249. Adrien Nash says:
    March 29, 2015 at 6:51 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo is the stalwart defender of the Vattelian doctrine of native-birth, while I am his chief antagonist in debunking that dogma. In that quest I just wrote and posted the following at his blog. His mental wheels will be spinning…

    Per Minor v. Happersett in the future:
    ” ‘At common language, the meaning of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born on the Moon of parents who were Earthlings, became themselves, upon their birth, Earthlings also. These were humans or natural-born Earthlings,”

    Ta Da! There you have the “definition” of a natural born Earthling! Justice Wait’s equivalent in the future has thereby so stated.
    A natural born Earthling is one born on the Moon of parents who are Earthlings.

    How is the logic of that claim different in any way from the Nativist-Vattelian-Donofrian doctrine?
    But just to be perfectly analogous:
    “A natural born Earthling is anyone born on Earth of parents who are Earthlings.”

    From the moon-born Earthlings’ perspective, that is a description, -NOT a definition.

    Now let’s restate it but change one pivotal word:
    The term a “natural born Earthling” INCLUDES anyone born on Earth of parents who are Earthlings.

    Notice two things: that version is NOT ambiguous and it does not “define” Earthling. While the ambiguity of “is” can imply in one’s mind an exclusion which the words do not actually convey or denote.
    The TRUE BELIEVER may believe that “is” connotes positive and intentional exclusion of all other persons, but that is just a baseless assumption of the canon of their faith in nativism.

    The words themselves, not issued by anyone with authority over their meaning, cannot be claimed to have intended any unwritten exclusion which is somewhere hidden between the lines.
    This is very elementary logic, folks.

    And to J.D., it appears your grasp of language usage is horribly “inferior” since you blindly ascribed to me the view of the American male population which were the ones in charge of and making all the decisions and bearing most of the responsibility in the founders’ era.
    What you have made clear is your inability to read about history without ascribing the ancient attitudes to the writer whose work you are reading. Talk about killing the messenger. Numbskull.

  250. Arthur says:
    March 29, 2015 at 6:55 pm  (Quote)

    J.D. Sue: Why he has found it necessary to use thousands of words and rationalizations to make his point is beyond me. I found it tedious and not particularly original.

    I agree.

  251. roadburner says:
    March 29, 2015 at 8:49 pm  (Quote)

    Adrien Nash:

    And by the way, if you don’t want your fantasy world completely destroyed before your eyes, be sure to NOT read my destruction of “On the Meaning of Natural born Citizen”; titled appropriately: On the REAL Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen”
    https://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/2015/03/25/on-the-real-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/It will open your eyes like blind naked mole rats such as yourselves will positively hate.

    tell you what, after reading that drivel, maybe you should read something by someone qualified…

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/74176180/Qualifications-for-President-and-the-Natural-Born-Citizenship-Eligibility-Requirement

    checkmate.

  252. Dr. Kenneth Noisewater says:
    March 29, 2015 at 9:38 pm  (Quote)

    Adrien Nash: Well this has all been very educational. Thanks ya’ll for doing the research for me! This teaches us two things: when an opponent is wrong, it will surely be pointed out, but when he is right, that will never be acknowledged, nor even disputed.
    So thanks for all of the confirmation that everything else that I wrote is correct and you agree with it as demonstrated by your pathetic silence, all of which destroys the whole fantasy house of cards that you’ve constructed around yourselves

    Then you obviously don’t know how to read since every single one of your claims were picked apart only to have silence from you. Take for instance your claim that no woman voted for the 19th amendment. So when you’re shown proof that you were wrong you run away as usual.

  253. Lupin says:
    March 30, 2015 at 1:35 am  (Quote)

    Adrien Nash: People wanted prohibition enacted but could not force it on the nation without an amendment because it destroyed a civil right to drink alcohol. Women being allow to serve as President also destroys something that was fundamental when the Constitution was written, and that was male supremacy. Same with race.

    It is rather appalling to see such abysmal tripe being written today at face value. You should be ashamed of yourself. Not only is your proposition utterly stupid, flying against the face of history, but it is deeply offensive. The only silver lining i see is that you’ve finally gotten rid of all the ‘pretty words” and exposed yourself as a loathsome racist.

  254. Dave B. says:
    March 30, 2015 at 1:52 am  (Quote)

    Oh good grief. Oh good grief. Statewide prohibitions? Dry counties? Hellooo? A civil right to drink alcohol? The ignorance, it is strong with this one.

    Adrien Nash: People wanted prohibition enacted but could not force it on the nation without an amendment because it destroyed a civil right to drink alcohol.

  255. Dave B. says:
    March 30, 2015 at 1:57 am  (Quote)

    Yeah, that’s probably the last we’ll ever hear from Mario. Who would’ve thought it would be the mighty arnash who was his undoing?

    Adrien Nash: Mario Apuzzo is the stalwart defender of the Vattelian doctrine of native-birth, while I am his chief antagonist in debunking that dogma.

  256. Dave B. says:
    March 30, 2015 at 2:43 am  (Quote)

    There’s a Harold Gielow from Virginia who’s come up with a “COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGEMENT AND INJUNCTION”; he’s posted it in the Facebook comments for this FO cesspool article, to which I hate to link, but it’s kind of entertaining reading. His complaint, that is:
    http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/03/does-ted-cruz-have-a-natural-born-citizen-issue-when-it-comes-to-his-presidential-bid/?fb_comment_id=fbc_670913566346503_671023549668838_671023549668838#f21c70fb24
    It is a marvel.

  257. J.D. Sue says:
    March 30, 2015 at 3:49 am  (Quote)

    Adrien Nash: And to J.D., it appears your grasp of language usage is horribly “inferior”

    —–

    In light of my purported inferior grasp of language usage, perhaps you can explain why you put the word “inferior” in quotes.

  258. Slartibartfast says:
    March 30, 2015 at 4:03 am  (Quote)

    I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone who could construct almost, but not quite, completely inept (and inapt) analogies like Adrien. I wonder if that is the fundamental flaw in his critical thinking ability that causes the intense and pointless logorrhea that he suffers from.

  259. Notorial Dissent says:
    March 30, 2015 at 6:19 am  (Quote)

    One thing about it, you can count on anything Adrian posts to be totally fact free, totally logorrheaic but fact free. Adrian’s research is simple, he just makes it up as he goes along.

  260. Rickey says:
    March 30, 2015 at 10:01 am  (Quote)

    Adrien has unambiguously come out as both a racist and a misogynist.

    And Barack Obama is still President of the United States.

  261. Dr. Kenneth Noisewater says:
    March 30, 2015 at 11:23 am  (Quote)

    The Guardian revealed that Australia accidentally leaked the passport details of every world leader that attended the G20 summit last year: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/30/personal-details-of-world-leaders-accidentally-revealed-by-g20-organisers

    I expect this to become part of the birther lexicon. You see they were trying to insert Obama into the records!

  262. Notorial Dissent says:
    March 30, 2015 at 12:26 pm  (Quote)

    You forgot historically and sociologically ignorant serial liar.

    Rickey:
    Adrien has unambiguously come out as both a racist and a misogynist.

    And Barack Obama is still President of the United States.

  263. Rickey says:
    March 30, 2015 at 2:19 pm  (Quote)

    Notorial Dissent:
    You forgot historically and sociologically ignorant serial liar.

    That too.

  264. Adrien Nash says:
    March 30, 2015 at 5:02 pm  (Quote)

    The 15th Amendment was passed in 1870 and prohibited discrimination in voting based on race.

    The 19th Amendment was passed in 1920 and prohibited discrimination in voting based on sex. The 26th Amendment was passed in 1971 and prohibited discrimination in voting based on age for those of 18 to 20 years of age.
    The facts we can extrapolate from those dates are that: for 50 years after poor black ex-slave males were granted it, American natural born citizens who were female were not enfranchised with the constitutional protection of the civic right to vote.

    That meant that 11 First Ladies of the United States who held their position during and after 1870 were not provided with any constitutional right to vote, -as was adjudicated in the Minor v. Happersett holding of the Supreme Court.

    That was along a similar line to the Dred Scott Supreme Court holding which found that African-Americans had no constitutional right to be treated as citizens. And, a white American women born in 1850, two decades before Black males were given the right to vote, did not herself possess a constitutional right to vote, (even though her freed male slave could) until she was 70 years old!!!

    So as written, intended, adopted and followed:
    1. No female had a constitutional right to vote.
    2. No Black person had a constitutional right to vote. and…
    3. No person under 21 had a constitutional right to vote.

    Amendments were required for all three classes of “citizens”.
    That inspires the question: Where did the Constitution grant any of those first two unrecognized groups the privilege to serve as Commander-in-Chief?
    Where are the amendments allowing that?

    To be constitutionally recognized as United States citizens, African-Americans needed the passage of the 14th Amendment, and needed the passage of the 15th Amendment to proclaim and protect their right to vote. American women needed the passage of the 19th Amendment, -while quasi-minors needed the 26th.

    That is because all of their situations needed the consent of We, the People since they involved a gross nation-wide significant change to society (just as with Prohibition).
    Ask yourself this question: Does Congress have the authority to pass a law making it legal for aliens to vote in national elections?
    The answer is obviously not because that would require amending the Constitution due to such a right not existing under it.

    Well, as written, intended, ratified, and implemented, no female or Black was acceptable as a candidate qualified to lead men in battle, to direct them in war in any capacity, nor to command them from the highest office of the military. That precluded them from the office of the President since that office was imbued with the authority of the Command-in-Chief of the U.S. Military. And btw, the alien-born were also barred from that office.

    Free while male natural born citizens had no tolerance for such an allowance, and that is why an amendment is still needed to make that allowance constitutional. That was especially true in the South where gender and racial supremacy were very strong.

    African-Americans and free white American women had or obtained the constitutional right to citizenship and voting, and equal protection of the law, but NOT to serve as commanders of white American military men. Under the constitution, that was unthinkable.

    Yet in our politically correct era, everyone simply assumes that amendments are no longer required in order to legalize major societal changes since passing the ERA failed. After that the Constitution was locked up and shoved deep into the basement, -out of sight, out of mind, obsolete, passe, unneeded,… irrelevant.

    We have become a nation under men instead of a nation under law. We are adrift not only without a pair of binoculars, but with a blindfold on. How can this possibly end well?

  265. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    March 30, 2015 at 5:52 pm  (Quote)

    And as written, intended and adopted, no American-born white person over the age 21 was constitutionally enfranchised either. And indeed quite a few American-born white persons over the age of 21 were not legally allowed to vote. Is that not true?

    At the time of the ratification of the Constitution, property requirements for voting were widespread and it is estimated that about one half of adult white males were disenfranchised.

    In North Carolina free blacks could vote until 1835 when a constitutional amendment disenfranchised them.

    That historical fact rather explodes your argument, I think.

    Adrien Nash: So as written, intended, adopted and followed:
    1. No female had a constitutional right to vote.
    2. No Black person had a constitutional right to vote. and…
    3. No person under 21 had a constitutional right to vote.

  266. Adrien Nash` says:
    March 30, 2015 at 6:28 pm  (Quote)

    You’ve validated my point. The right to vote was a State right, not a constitutional right. The privilege to be President was also not a constitutional “right” because elections of the President took place in State elections and by state rules.
    The Constitution was not written with inclusivity in mind but exclusivity. It wasn’t about all who were eligible to serve but about all who were NOT eligible. Those who were not eligible were defined in the written word and in the unwritten social mores, and they strongly excluded all women and Blacks.

    The social mores have changed but that change requires a change to the constitution in order for a new allowance to become constitutional.
    For example, if a really, really popular tall dark and handsome rich European nobleman became a naturalized citizen, why could he not become President after 14 years residency? After all, the people wanted it and didn’t their desire rule the day? Or did the Constitution need to be amended to allow that?

    Yes, it prohibited naturalized citizens after the founders’ era, but what if it was a super wealthy American heiress instead of a Prince? Would it not also have needed to be amended to allow a women to rule over all of the men in the nation? The answer is seen in the women’s “right” to vote. It did not exist at the federal constitutional level.

    An addendum to my previous submission:
    ~And speaking of the South, under natural law and social law in the South, as well as under constitutional law, (theirs being essentially indistinguishable from the original) did a Black transgender homosexual, or a Black butch lesbian have a right to serve as Commander of the Army? How about as President of the Confederacy?

    If you answer “no”, then you need to figure out whether or not the same was true of the United States and its Command-in-Chief position, and its presidency -which existed under an almost identical constitution and in a society similar to the South (except in regard to slavery).

    Did either constitution even imply that such a right existed, or was it well understood by all that such a thing was totally taboo and disallowed? Has the Law of the Land magically changed since it was written? Or does its lack of any such right still mean that no such constitutional right exists today?

    How can it exist when it never came into law via amending the Constitution to make it a protected right?
    Remember, being President is not a right but is a restricted privilege. The restrictions have never been altered. Not those that were written nor those that were unwritten. So constitutional privilege cannot be expanded, -nor exist, if it is not constitutionally allowed or protected, -which means in writing that changes the inflexible, albeit unwritten, status quo under which the Constitution was written.

    So things had to remain unwritten, after all, every husband had to be able to look his wife in the face and not have to confess that he voted to disenfranchise her.

  267. Slartibartfast says:
    March 30, 2015 at 7:03 pm  (Quote)

    Doc,

    His argument is like the proverbial Ford Pinto—it explodes at the slightest touch.

    It boggles my mind that Adrien, like most birthers, seems to have a pathological need not just to be right, but to always have been right even if that requires historical revisionism to accomplish. Adrien said that no women voted for women’s suffrage. That was quickly shown to be completely wrong. At that point, any honest person just says “my bad” and everyone moves on.

    Adrien, on the other hand, has to come up with some taurine dung about how he really meant to say something idiotic about leading men into battle (it had been just fighting in the army until it was pointed out to him that blacks fought in Washington’s army). I think this is because birthers expect others to be as petty, small-minded and dishonest as they themselves would be if the situations were reversed. Mario Apuzzo is constantly playing word games and misrepresenting people in order to manufacture fake “gotchas” which he proceeds to repeat incessantly while ignoring how his interpretations almost debunk themselves. I expect that, in Mario’s position, Adrien would do the exact same thing. Pathetic.

    Dr. Conspiracy: That historical fact rather explodes your argument, I think.

  268. faceman says:
    March 30, 2015 at 7:48 pm  (Quote)

    I think that the proper reading of Minor v Happersett is that there is no constitutional right to vote. FOR ANYONE. It was left up to the individual states to decide whom, amongst their populations, were entitled to vote. If a state said ‘Not women,’ that was legal (prior to the 19th amendment). The 19th Amendment did not ‘give women the right to vote.’ It said that a state could not deny a woman the right to vote just because she was a woman.

    As noted above, many states had already granted women the right to vote prior to the passage of the 19th amendment.

    Similarly, the 15th amendment did not give blacks the right to vote. It said states could not deny blacks the right to vote based on the color of their skin. Many states (led by your ancestors, no doubt) tried to get around the 19th amendment by imposing poll taxes and literacy tests, which would disproportionately affect blacks (especially since they ‘grandfathered’ white people from having to comply with the new restrictions).

    Adrien Nash: That inspires the question: Where did the Constitution grant any of those first two unrecognized groups the privilege to serve as Commander-in-Chief?

    Art 2: “Natural Born Citizen” (who meets age and residency requirements)

  269. donna says:
    March 30, 2015 at 7:53 pm  (Quote)

    Personal details of world leaders accidentally revealed by G20 organisers

    Exclusive: Obama, Putin, Merkel, Cameron, Modi and others kept in the dark after passport numbers and other details were disclosed in Australia’s accidental privacy breach

    “The personal information which has been breached is the name, date of birth, title, position nationality, passport number, visa grant number and visa subclass held relating to 31 international leaders (ie prime ministers, presidents and their equivalents) attending the G20 leaders summit,” the officer wrote.

    Australia’s deputy opposition leader, Tanya Plibersek, called on Tony Abbott to explain why the world leaders were not notified of the breach.

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/30/personal-details-of-world-leaders-accidentally-revealed-by-g20-organisers

  270. J.D. Sue says:
    March 30, 2015 at 8:46 pm  (Quote)

    Adrien Nash`: So things had to remain unwritten, after all, every husband had to be able to look his wife in the face and not have to confess that he voted to disenfranchise her.

    —-

    Ah yes, the “men afraid of their wives” doctrine of constitutional construction.

  271. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    March 30, 2015 at 9:04 pm  (Quote)

    What are the chances of this happening?

    Today I to got a text message. I don’t like getting text messages because I don’t have a text plan and they cost me 20 cents each. So once again I went to the carrier web site to see what a minimal text plan would cost. It turns out that I can get unlimited voice, text, personal hotspot and some other stuff under this new plan and pay $52 a month less! I switched.

    A couple of minutes ago I glanced down at my desk and there saw a fortune cookie message from my last Chinese restaurant visit:

    “Be prepared to modify your plan.”

  272. Rickey says:
    March 30, 2015 at 9:54 pm  (Quote)

    Adrien Nash`:
    The right to vote was a State right, not a constitutional right.The privilege to be President was also not a constitutional “right” because elections of the President took place in State elections and by state rules.
    The Constitution was not written with inclusivity in mind but exclusivity.It wasn’t about all who were eligible to serve but about all who were NOT eligible.Those who were not eligible were defined in the written word and in the unwritten social mores, and they strongly excluded all women and Blacks.

    Of all the inane claims you have made, that is one of the most asinine.

    If, as you claim, it is up to the states to decide if a woman can be president, no Constitutional amendment is needed. The states merely have to decide to let a woman be a candidate, just as women were allowed to vote in 27 states BEFORE the 19th Amendment was ratified.

    There is NOTHING in the Constitution which prohibits a woman from becoming president. Article 2, Section 1 says nothing about gender.

    In fact, since 1872 there have been 30 women who have run for president, and in 1988 Lenora Fulani of the New Alliance Party got on the ballot in all 50 states. That established a precedent which would estop any state which tried to refuse a woman a place on the ballot due to her sex.

    You should crawl back into your hole and play with your Christmas ornaments.

  273. Keith says:
    March 30, 2015 at 11:18 pm  (Quote)

    Adrien Nash: Ask yourself this question: Does Congress have the authority to pass a law making it legal for aliens to vote in national elections?
    The answer is obviously not because that would require amending the Constitution due to such a right not existing under it.

    Yes Gnash, we know. That is an obvious ‘priviledge’ (and duty!) of citizenship – being eligible to vote – in every State that I have ever heard about. So what exactly is your point of asking us to ask ourselves?

    The U.S. CONSTITUTION, before the amendments you name, was SILENT on the subject of voting – it was, AND STILL IS, the responsibility of the various States to establish the rules surrounding who could and could not vote. This can be seen by the example of New Jersey which, for a time, allowed women the vote, then took it away again. What the amendments accomplished was to set bounds on voting discrimination to ensure basic consistency across all States.

    After the 15th, the 19th, and the 26th Amendments, States cannot make CITIZENS ineligible to vote based on race, sex, or age 18 or over. They are still free to set other criteria, like land ownership, gainful employment, or what ever else they think is necessary. Every State makes it a criteria to be a citizen before voting – at no point does the Constitution apply those bounds to non-Citizens – the States, and only the States, have every right to restrict non-Citizens from voting.

    However, attempting to skirt those Constitution injunctions against discrimination by making it difficult, expensive, or downright impossible for genuine citizens who are in those protected classes to meet criteria hypothetically designed to weed out non-citizen voters (a non-existent problem) is, on the face of it unconstitutional and insulting to the intelligence – even one as hard to find as yours.

  274. Keith says:
    March 30, 2015 at 11:29 pm  (Quote)

    Adrien Nash: So as written, intended, adopted and followed:
    1. No female had a constitutional right to vote.
    2. No Black person had a constitutional right to vote. and…
    3. No person under 21 had a constitutional right to vote.

    You miss the point. NO ONE HAS THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO VOTE. – even today. That was the main point in the finding from Minor v Happersett – the Constitution is silent on voting rights – it is an issue granted to the States (see the 10th Amendment) – except that States are now, after amendments 15, 19, and 26 forbidden to discriminate based on race, sex, and minimum age (and not that the 10th also provides that the Constitution can apply limits on the States).

    Even today, States can discriminate against people when it comes to voting, if they so desire. They can discriminate based on citizenship, or criminal records, or lots of things. They just cannot discriminate based on race, sex, or age over 18.

  275. Keith says:
    March 30, 2015 at 11:39 pm  (Quote)

    Adrien Nash: Where did the Constitution grant any of those first two unrecognized groups the privilege to serve as Commander-in-Chief?

    Right here:

    Article II Section1 Paragraph 5:

    No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.

    Notice that the sequence of letters v – o – t – e does not exist in that sentence and that sentence contains 100% of the founders intended eligibility criteria: NBC, age, residency.

    Notably, and fatally for your ‘argument’ (for the lack of a better, polite, word), there is absolutely no requirement that the President, who is also the Commander in Chief of the armed forces, be eligible to vote in any State, nor any particular sex, nor any particular race.

    Remember that Minor v Happersett found that there was NO CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED right to vote. So not only were the First Ladies not necessarily eligible to vote for their husbands (unless their home State allowed them the vote), but their husbands might have hypothetically been barred from voting for themselves.

  276. Keith says:
    March 30, 2015 at 11:51 pm  (Quote)

    Adrien Nash`: The privilege to be President was also not a constitutional “right” because elections of the President took place in State elections and by state rules.

    That is simply not true. The Election of the President takes place under a very specific procedure defined in detail in the Constitution:

    Article II Section 1 Paragraphs 2, 3, and 4:

    Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.

    The electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves. And they shall make a list of all the persons voted for, and of the number of votes for each; which list they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted. The person having the greatest number of votes shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such majority, and have an equal number of votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately choose by ballot one of them for President; and if no person have a majority, then from the five highest on the list the said House shall in like manner choose the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by States, the representation from each state having one vote; A quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. In every case, after the choice of the President, the person having the greatest number of votes of the electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal votes, the Senate shall choose from them by ballot the Vice President.

    The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.

    [Note: this procedure has been amended a couple of times but I think the point is made]

    The Electoral College elects the President. The States only chose the membership of the Electoral College. There is no Constitutionally mandated eligibility for membership of the Electoral College and there is not even a Constitutionally mandated requirement that the State choose their members by an election – the States could draw names out of a hat if they wanted.

    Wouldn’t be nice if those folks most argumentative about “State’s Rights” actually understood what the actual rights and duties of the States were?

  277. Keith says:
    March 30, 2015 at 11:56 pm  (Quote)

    faceman: Art 2: “Natural Born Citizen” (who meets age and residency requirements)

    You beat me and said the same thing I did, but more succinctly. I should read to the bottom before posting to avoid piling on like that.

    But sometimes its fun to pile on.

  278. Keith says:
    March 31, 2015 at 12:06 am  (Quote)

    donna: Australia’s deputy opposition leader, Tanya Plibersek, called on Tony Abbott to explain why the world leaders were not notified of the breach.

    The answer is that the information was actually quite innocuous (what am I going to do with Putin’s passport number and if I want to know what kind of visa he was granted I can work it out from the appropriate Australian government website) and it didn’t leak beyond the person to whom it was mistakenly sent and who reported it immediately and followed through on every request to ensure it got no further. It was deleted completely from the unauthorized computer system and ‘scrubbed’ from any backups if they ever existed. The cause was identified as a completely innocent mistake in the use of email client (Microsoft Outlook) – the sender neglected to check that the “To:” address was correct before sending.

    That does not excuse the lack of honesty in notifying those whose trust was breached, except to say that I can perfectly understand not wanting to have to do the same investigation over and over and over for each Country’s Security Services.

  279. Keith says:
    March 31, 2015 at 12:13 am  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy: I don’t like getting text messages because I don’t have a text plan and they cost me 20 cents each.

    I read that first sentence and thought “what the heck is a text plan”. Then I read on that they were actually charging you a whole lot of money to be able to charge you even more for individual messages. What a deal!

    Personal hotspots are a function of the phone – not the phone carrier – unless you mean they give you a dongle to plug into your lap top when you are out and about. But again, I use my phone to set up a personal WiFi hotspot when I the cafe doesn’t have one.

  280. Keith says:
    March 31, 2015 at 12:20 am  (Quote)

    Rickey: In fact, since 1872 there have been 30 women who have run for president, and in 1988 Lenora Fulani of the New Alliance Party got on the ballot in all 50 states. That established a precedent which would estop any state which tried to refuse a woman a place on the ballot due to her sex.

    Don’t forget that the Vice-President’s requirements are exactly the same as the President’s.

    Geraldine Ferraro was Walter Mondale’s VP running mate in 1984. She was on the ballot in all 50 states and all territories. She got over 37 million votes.

    Not to mention Sarah Palin, of course.

  281. John Reilly says:
    March 31, 2015 at 1:25 am  (Quote)

    As others have noted, there is no Constitutional requirement that the President actually be eligible to vote. Or, if eligible, that you actually vote.

    The 14 years a resident requirement is unclear as to when you need to put in those 14 years. Is it the 14 years before being elected, or does military service supervising D-Day count?

    Eisenhower first voted in 1952. For himself. Actually, for electors pledged to him. If he forgot to vote, it would not have mattered.

    Eisenhower plainly did not reside in the United States for 14 years before 1952.

    Pretty much no one cared.

    And Adrien has yet to respond how Condi Rice can serve on the NCAA football selection committee when it is plain as day that the founders and societal norms in 1776 would not have permitted that. If they knew what football was. Heck, once they knew what football was they would not have let her serve.

  282. Lupin says:
    March 31, 2015 at 2:06 am  (Quote)

    Adrien Nash`: And speaking of the South, under natural law and social law in the South, as well as under constitutional law, (theirs being essentially indistinguishable from the original) did a Black transgender homosexual, or a Black butch lesbian have a right to serve as Commander of the Army? How about as President of the Confederacy?

    You left out animal sex. I know how you folks thrive on animal sex.

    Seriously, are you a complete moron? Because you sure come across as one!

  283. John Reilly says:
    March 31, 2015 at 2:33 am  (Quote)

    Lupin: Seriously, are you a complete moron?

    Come on. No one’s perfect. Especially Adrien.

    And, I might note, that having the confederacy led by white heterosexuals from impeccable families did not work out well for the South. Perhaps another path would have worked better.

  284. Adrien Nash says:
    March 31, 2015 at 3:34 am  (Quote)

    Rickey: If, as you claim, it is up to the states to decide if a woman can be president, no Constitutional amendment is needed.

    I believe that my point was just the opposite. There was no right for the states to allow women to be Commander-in-chief of the United States Army and Navy. That was one of the understood terms of the union of the states when the constitution was ratified.

    To constitutionally change that status quo all congress had to do was pass a bill by 2/3rds vote and get 3/4ths of the States to ratify it, then presto! a new right is established. Otherwise election of a woman to the presidency might be accomplished by not by allowance of the Constitution as and when written.

    Obama was elected extra-constitutionally and never challenged for several very strong reasons.

  285. Lupin says:
    March 31, 2015 at 4:03 am  (Quote)

    John Reilly: Come on. No one’s perfect.Especially Adrien.

    And, I might note, that having the confederacy led by white heterosexuals from impeccable families did not work out well for the South.Perhaps another path would have worked better.

    One of the many problems with Adrian’s (and ObligedKlansman’s) weird “stop the clock” view of history is WHEN do you stop the clock exactly?

    By Roman Law, Adrian’s presumably anglo-saxon ancestors were barbarians, possibly briton slaves in a proper Roman Citizen’s household. Why don’t we go back to that blessed time?

    While I (as a likely descendent of Roman landowners through my provencal forebears) find the notion of keeping Adrian as a slave distasteful, maybe it would give him a better appreciation of the notion of evolving laws.

    Come on, Adian, those silver dishes are not going to polish themselves!

  286. Adrien Nash says:
    March 31, 2015 at 4:08 am  (Quote)

    Keith: Adrien Nash: Where did the Constitution grant any of those first two unrecognized groups the privilege to serve as Commander-in-Chief?

    Right here:

    Article II Section1 Paragraph 5:

    Man are you dense. A fifth-grader could outwit you. The eligibility clause does NOT INCLUDE the word “ALL”!!!
    But if it did, in Keithland, it would have read: “NO PERSON except ALL natural born citizens…” Kind of oxymoronic to combine “NO” with “ALL”, leaping from one extreme of full EXclusion to the opposite extreme of full INclusion.

    The Constitution also does not mention the status of being free, male, Protestant, educated, and heterosexual either. But they were understood to be requirements since the opposites would have been unthinkable for almost all the men of the nation, -and most of the women as well.

    The Constitution did not provide the right to vote nor the right to be President because that office was not obtained nor held by any right other than a valid constitutionally correct election.
    You can argue that the social requirements were not constitutional requirements, but not being allowed to vote or to lead white men in military service were social prohibitions also, and very real ones for women and Blacks. Hence the need for an amendment to provide and ensure a constitutionally protected right.

    The constitutional right to do both of those two things is not qualitatively different from having a constitutionally guaranteed right to serve as President since none of the three were guaranteed in the constitution.
    Being able or socially allowed to serve in all three manners is unrelated to having an unquestionable right to do so. The right has never been obtained because you cannot amend the Constitution by the popularity of social allowance. It takes an actual amendment to do that; thus the concerted effort to pass the ERA for women.

  287. The Magic M (not logged in) says:
    March 31, 2015 at 4:59 am  (Quote)

    Lupin: proper Roman Citizen’s household

    No, good RW Muricans would just slaughter the Romans and claim they are the real Romans and all those Italianards should be thrown before the lions.

    Lupin: Why don’t we go back to that blessed time?

    I want to go even further back, ancient Greece and all its glorious gayness. I bet today’s RW’s would be just… thrilled.

  288. The Magic M (not logged in) says:
    March 31, 2015 at 5:06 am  (Quote)

    Rickey: Article 2, Section 1 says nothing about gender.

    Probably Adrien is just going to point to the fact that the President is constantly addressed as “he” in the Constitution.

    Rickey:
    In fact, since 1872 there have been 30 women who have run for president

    But they still would’ve needed their husband’s permission to do any presidenting while female, I guess.
    “Honey, can I blow up Russia?” – “Not today, woman, I need you to bake me cookies for the company field trip tomorrow. But if you attend to your conjugal duties tonight, I may let you blow up Russia tomorrow. Now get me my beer.”

  289. faceman says:
    March 31, 2015 at 6:46 am  (Quote)

    Keith: You miss the point. NO ONE HAS THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO VOTE. – even today. That was the main point in the finding from Minor v Happersett – the Constitution is silent on voting rights – it is an issue granted to the States (see the 10th Amendment) – except that States are now, after amendments 15, 19, and 26 forbidden to discriminate based on race, sex, and minimum age (and not that the 10th also provides that the Constitution can apply limits on the States).Even today, States can discriminate against people when it comes to voting, if they so desire. They can discriminate based on citizenship, or criminal records, or lots of things. They just cannot discriminate based on race, sex, or age over 18.

    Consider the current debate over Voter ID laws. Some people argue that they disproportionately affect those who vote for a certain party.

    Those laws don’t discriminate against minorities per se, but they do affect low income/minorities/young people more than they affect upper/middle class/elderly whites.

  290. faceman says:
    March 31, 2015 at 7:06 am  (Quote)

    Adrien Nash`: The social mores have changed but that change requires a change to the constitution in order for a new allowance to become constitutional.

    You still haven’t answered my question: If a ‘societal rule’ isn’t in the constitution, then why does changing a ‘societal rule’ require a constitutional amendment?

    And, how does a constitutional amendment affect ‘societal rules?

    If there is no ‘constitutional right to be president,’ then why do women (or blacks, or whatever) require a constitutional amendment to be eligible?

    People kept on drinking even after Prohibition was passed.
    Racists, like yourself, want to deny black people all the rights and privileges of being a citizen.
    Chauvinists, like yourself, consider women ‘second class citizens.’

    Seeing as how Obama WAS elected, and seeing as how Ferraro and Palin were nominated by their respective parties (Gee, something both Democrats and Republicans agree on) it would seem that you do not speak for ‘We the People.’

    A hundred years ago, society would not have elected Obama. Society changed. Obama was elected. And it didn’t take a constitutional amendment to do it.

  291. faceman says:
    March 31, 2015 at 9:46 am  (Quote)

    Consider an individual born in the US to two citizen parents. For the sake of argument I’ll even say that he is a white male. He is without doubt, even in the eyes of Pluto Nash, a natural born citizen and eligible to be president.

    Now assume that this individual, at age 6 months, is taken to China and is raised as a devoted communist and party member. At age 21 he returns to the US where he remains active in the communist party. Upon reaching the age of 40, as the nominee of the Communist Party, he runs for president on a platform of closer ties with China.

    He doesn’t stand a chance of actually being elected (not ‘electable’), but as an NBC, and meeting the age and residency requirements, he is eligible to be president.

    Whether someone like Hillary is ‘electable’ is open to debate, and depends on more than just the fact that she is a woman; but, she is eligible as per the requirements in the constitution. Just as Obama was eligible, and electable.

  292. Notorial Dissent says:
    March 31, 2015 at 10:14 am  (Quote)

    One of the nice things about Adrian, if you can call it that, is that he is consistently and thoroughly WRONG on just about, damn nearly, everything.

    He is specifically wrong in that being President IS a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, as it is specifically spelled out in the constitution as to power, authority, and what we’ve all been arguing about, qualifications, and NOWHERE in any of that does it say that the President has to be male, or a voter, or even elected. Congress has already created one President by confirming the appointment of a replacement Vice-President, and there is no reason to think it won’t happen again. Further there is nothing in the Constitution that the President elected by the Electors even has to have run for the office. There is nothing constitutionally preventing them from voting for someone not even running, still would have to be approve by Congress, but there is NOTHING to prevent it from happening.

    The reason there were no female military officers of any significant rank for what almost 200 years was due to law and Congressionally passed law nothing else. The law was/has changed and we will eventually have a female Joint Chief. We will certainly, and without question have a female Commander in Chief when a woman is inevitably elected President. The Constitution is mute as far as the military is concerned, other than authorizing same. The military and its rules are all creations of Congressional law.

    There are a great many things the Constitution was intentionally, specifically, and obviously mute on, and Adrian consistently and blindly misses them all.

    So once again, Adrian is not only wrong, but dead stupidly and consistently wrong.

  293. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    March 31, 2015 at 10:36 am  (Quote)

    Comment at Birther Report:

    @ObligedFriend

    Take your racist kind-end out of here – we have no place for your kind. (That is, racists idiots.)

    — JeffProv19_9

  294. The Magic M (not logged in) says:
    March 31, 2015 at 10:46 am  (Quote)

    faceman: Now assume that this individual, at age 6 months, is taken to China and is raised as a devoted communist

    Birthers love to forget that the textbook “Manchurian Candidate” was an NBC by their Vattelist standards, a war hero even.

  295. Dr. Kenneth Noisewater says:
    March 31, 2015 at 11:45 am  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Comment at Birther Report:

    @ObligedFriend

    Take your racist kind-end out of here – we have no place for your kind. (That is, racists idiots.)

    — JeffProv19_9

    Thats funny because there is plenty of racist drivel at birther report.

  296. Jim says:
    March 31, 2015 at 12:02 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Comment at Birther Report:
    @ObligedFriend
    Take your racist kind-end out of here – we have no place for your kind. (That is, racists idiots.)
    — JeffProv19_9

    I lose more irony meters this way… 🙁

  297. Lupin says:
    March 31, 2015 at 12:04 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Comment at Birther Report:

    @ObligedFriend

    Take your racist kind-end out of here – we have no place for your kind. (That is, racists idiots.)

    — JeffProv19_9

    While ironic, I think the trigger here is that he really is an imbecile. If he wrote the same tripe but in the style of Birdbrain, they’d give him a pass.

  298. Rickey says:
    March 31, 2015 at 12:23 pm  (Quote)

    Keith:

    Even today, States can discriminate against people when it comes to voting, if they so desire. They can discriminate based on citizenship, or criminal records, or lots of things. They just cannot discriminate based on race, sex, or age over 18.

    Many people believe that convicted felons can never vote, but as you know that’s not the case. In fact, felons in Vermont and Maine can vote while they are incarcerated, and there are only a handful of states which permanently disenfranchise felons.

    I once saw a letter to the editor of the Poughkeepsie Journal from a person who believed that the Constitution banned voting by felons. I believe that is a common misconception.

  299. Rickey says:
    March 31, 2015 at 12:56 pm  (Quote)

    Adrien Nash: I believe that my point was just the opposite.There was no right for the states to allow women to be Commander-in-chief of the United States Army and Navy.That was one of the understood terms of the union of the states when the constitution was ratified.

    On the contrary, there is nothing in the Constitution which prohibits a woman from becoming the Commander in Chief.

    Obama was elected extra-constitutionally and never challenged for several very strong reasons.

    His election was not challenged for one very powerful reason – every member of Congress knew that he was eligible. There is not a single member of Congress who subscribes to your racist and misogynistic fantasies about presidential eligibility.

    In your fevered opinion, is Clarence Thomas eligible to be on the Supreme Court? Was Colin Powell eligible to be Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff?

  300. Rickey says:
    March 31, 2015 at 12:57 pm  (Quote)

    Adrien Nash also is a homophobe, judging from this post on his Facebook page:

    “Where did the Constitution grant transgender Black homosexuals or butch Black lesbians the privilege to serve as Commander-in-Chief?”

  301. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    March 31, 2015 at 1:06 pm  (Quote)

    RamboIke also chipped in, saying:

    Colonial blacks took part in the Boston Massacre and fought in the War for Independence against the British.

    Crispus Attucks, 1/2 black-1/2 indian, killed in the Boston Massacre, was the first American casualty in the American Revolutionary War.

    John Adams said of the Boston Massacre: the “foundation of American independence was laid” on March 5, 1770.

    That makes blacks in America our “Founding Kind”.

    Who knew?

    Lupin: While ironic, I think the trigger here is that he really is an imbecile. If he wrote the same tripe but in the style of Birdbrain, they’d give him a pass

  302. J.D. Sue says:
    March 31, 2015 at 2:32 pm  (Quote)

    Notorial Dissent: There are a great many things the Constitution was intentionally, specifically, and obviously mute on, and Adrian consistently and blindly misses them all.

    —

    The irony is that he completely underestimates the founders.

  303. Dave B. says:
    March 31, 2015 at 5:56 pm  (Quote)

    From a comment by one “Kathryn,” over at the F.O. cesspool:
    “Hawaii isn’t really a part of the U.S. Its physical distance and bad feelings harbored by the indigenous population against our colonization have made it a haven for people who hate this country. It is a state in name only.”
    https://disqus.com/home/discussion/freedomoutpost/obama_was_hand_picked_not_a_natural_born_citizen_congress_knew_it_protected_him/#comment-1937972163

  304. Punchmaster via Mobile says:
    March 31, 2015 at 6:59 pm  (Quote)

    Dave B.:
    From a comment by one “Kathryn,” over at the F.O. cesspool:
    “Hawaii isn’t really a part of the U.S. Its physical distance and bad feelings harbored by the indigenous population against our colonization have made it a haven for people who hate this country. It is a state in name only.”
    https://disqus.com/home/discussion/freedomoutpost/obama_was_hand_picked_not_a_natural_born_citizen_congress_knew_it_protected_him/#comment-1937972163

    The dumbf###ery is strong in that one.

  305. Dave B. says:
    March 31, 2015 at 7:13 pm  (Quote)

    No doubt. I do think, however, that there may be additional factors at play there.

    Punchmaster via Mobile: The dumbf###ery is strong in that one.

  306. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    March 31, 2015 at 7:15 pm  (Quote)

    Tomorrow is April Fool’s Day, and my April Fool’s article (or is it?) is all written and will auto-appear at 8:05 Eastern Daylight Time tomorrow. The catch? It’s password protected, so you can’t read it. You’ll just have to guess what it says (assuming it says anything).

  307. Punchmaster via Mobile says:
    March 31, 2015 at 7:35 pm  (Quote)

    I tend to avoid the internet on April 1st, all together.

  308. Dave B. says:
    March 31, 2015 at 7:40 pm  (Quote)

    It’ll be the sixth anniversary of the “foreign student” hoax. Still fooling birthers after all these years.

    Punchmaster via Mobile:
    I tend to avoid the internet on April 1st, all together.

  309. Keith says:
    March 31, 2015 at 8:40 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Tomorrow is April Fool’s Day, and my April Fool’s article (or is it?) is all written and will auto-appear at 8:05 Eastern Daylight Time tomorrow. The catch? It’s password protected, so you can’t read it. You’ll just have to guess what it says (assuming it says anything).

    Doc, I encourage you to take the pledge.

  310. Keith says:
    March 31, 2015 at 9:02 pm  (Quote)

    John Reilly: As others have noted, there is no Constitutional requirement that the President actually be eligible to vote. Or, if eligible, that you actually vote.

    Not only but also, it is actually UNCONSTITUTIONAL for a State to require that a Presidential candidate be eligible to vote.

    States cannot add eligibility constraints that are not identified in the Constitution. Period.

  311. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    March 31, 2015 at 9:20 pm  (Quote)

    No, or maybe yes. I don’t know what to say.

    Keith: Doc, I encourage you to take the pledge.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.