Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
First things first .... YOU don't get to tell ME what I'm saying ... this really does define what an *&^% you are. What a preposterous, absurd, self serving fraud it is for you to take the liberty to decide what someone else has said.
No. But I do get to correct you when your reading comprehension fails, when you lie, when you get it completely wrong, and when you frantically try to change the subject as you are doing here.
I offered to quote Wong Kim Ark again, and you called it "nonsense" in response. That you now realize you were hopelessly confused is your problem not mine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
So, anyone with 4th grade reading skills can clearly see that I was questioning the validity of Ankeny vs Daniels, calling it's decision "nonsense", to include it's use of Wong Kim Ark as case law supporting it's conclusions.
That's just idiotic. When I quote Wong Kim Ark, I am not quoting Ankeny. When I offer to quote Wong Kim Ark again, I am still not quoting Ankeny. So when you call what I quoted "nonsense," you were not calling Ankeny nonsense.
Please... try to keep up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
The case (Wong Kim Ark) did no such thing, and it's a bald faced lie to make such a statement that is provably incorrect. The Wong Kim Ark argument focused on "jus soli" as opposed to "jus sanguinis" and it's applicability to citizenship as defined under the 14th Amendment, which makes to reference to or even uses the term "Natural Born Citizen".
Wrong. Let me quote again the relevant section that you have consistently run away from.
Quote:
It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.
You will note of course that this has nothing to do with the 14th Amendment, but speaks of what "continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established." So your assertions above are simply and objectively wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
The basic assumption is that the 14th Amendment's inferences to only two classes of citizens ... "citizen" and "naturalized citizen" automatically defines the 14th amemndment term "citizen" as synonymous with "Natural Born Citizen" without actually saying so directly.
Your reading comprehension again proves to be completely nonexistent. Those are not the two classes of citizen recognized by the Constitution and the 14th amendment. The two classes of citizen are born citizens and naturalized citizens. The generic category of "citizen" is not a different class, it is the superset that contains both.
To fail to understand this elementary concept is inexcusable.
I continue to snip the rest of your pointless blather since we have already established that it is founded on errant ignorance. The bottom line is that we see in the quotation above what the definition of natural born citizen actually is, as determined by SCOTUS and more than 500 years of Anglo-English common law. Based upon it (and the later Ankeny case) more than a dozen cases have just this year been decided that explicitly declare Barack Obama a natural born citizen, and fully eligible for the position he holds.
You don't know much about British history ... do you?
Says a Texan to an African born and raised in Africa under colonial (and other) rule.
Please if you think a yank and in particular a Texan, has the knowledge of what actually went on since the 50's here, you are sorely mistaken,
You can rewrite your own history in Texas nut you sure as hell cannot do it for Africa and the Brit Colonies.
Blacks were never conferred any citizenship to the crown. Subject and citizen are not the same.
To be registered as a Brit citizen, your father had to at least be a Brit citizen. Ergo, I could not get citizenship to qualify for a passport which only citizens can get, born or naturalised even though my birth certificate clearly states I was born in the British empire on what was ess Brit soil at the time.
Obama's father had neither a Brit mother or father, he was at best no more than a paid slave in those days. The Brits called them kaffirs.
This was the flag I was born under
The Australian flag
The New Zealand Flag
The flag of the union of South Africa
The Kenyan Flag (British East Africa)
See a pattern?
Most of these were deemed protectorates of the British Empire. That is what colonisation was all about.
But remain in your delusion, it is probably warmer and safer there.
And guy continues to embarrass himself. yes, please keep on posting the same lies as before without realizing that to the sane on this board, you're nothing but another Anti-obama nutcase that will buy into any lie that is posted about Obama.
120+ cases and Birthers have won how many?
And you think we are living in fantasy land?
My opinion on the Wong Kim Ark case is quite similar in rationale as the dissenting members of the Supreme Court in that case, which was decided long before even Obama's father was born, so it has nothing to do with Obama ... it's about the law to which Obama is not immune.
The only nutcases around here are the nitwits that think Obama and his gaggle of criminal conspirators is above the law.
Says a Texan to an African born and raised in Africa under colonial (and other) rule.
Please if you think a yank and in particular a Texan, has the knowledge of what actually went on since the 50's here, you are sorely mistaken,
You can rewrite your own history in Texas nut you sure as hell cannot do it for Africa and the Brit Colonies.
Blacks were never conferred any citizenship to the crown. Subject and citizen are not the same.
To be registered as a Brit citizen, your father had to at least be a Brit citizen. Ergo, I could not get citizenship to qualify for a passport which only citizens can get, born or naturalised even though my birth certificate clearly states I was born in the British empire on what was ess Brit soil at the time.
Obama's father had neither a Brit mother or father, he was at best no more than a paid slave in those days. The Brits called them kaffirs.
You know something wise guy? The level of cognitive dissonance in your post here is quite sad.
Your statement that I highlighted in bold is EXACTLY what I have been contending in every one of my posts!!!
Stop thinking and reasoning in circles and you might not be so bloody dizzy. If as you claim that one's father at least had to be a Brit in order for his children to be recognized as a legitimate Brit ... then the SAME would need to apply to Obama's father as it pertains to Obama being a US Citizen!! All you are insisting upon here is that Obama cannot be a US citizen by your standards ... making him nothing more than Kenyan citizen-quasi-status less-British subject, and not a true British Citizen or a true US Citizen, due to his father being a Kenyan!
Thanks for your support, even if you are too clueless to realize you're providing it.
My opinion on the Wong Kim Ark case is quite similar in rationale as the dissenting members of the Supreme Court in that case, which was decided long before even Obama's father was born, so it has nothing to do with Obama ... it's about the law to which Obama is not immune.
You do realize that the dissenting opinion is a record of the argument that lost. Right?
I think the reason Obama is uncomfortable with releasing his college papers , he probably said he was a foreign student born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia. Not that it is the truth... Obama probably lied about being foreign born.
I think the reason Obama is uncomfortable with releasing his college papers , he probably said he was a foreign student born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia. Not that it is the truth... Obama probably lied about being foreign born.
If your posts weren't so amusing and wild, I'd put them on ignore.
That is a distinct possibility. Like Warren wanting preference for being a Native American. In any case, there is obviously something in those records Obama is hiding.
if he had been enrolled at either occidental or columbia as a foreign student that would have followed thru his transcripts to harvard.
as for the birther belief that he was enrolled as "barry soetoro" that got shot down by brietbart's recent find of public records of columbia graduates:
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
