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.
birther report is posting today a WND article on how the maricopa county cold case posse has "New Earth-Shattering Developments [that] Will Soon Be Announced".
only one problem...... the article is from 2 months ago. no new "earth shattering developments" from the MCCCP yet ( but the article does say they need more money with a link to donate ).
Yesterday a video was briefly released (and then suddenly scrubbed) by the birthers showing Zullo giving a presentation of his "earth shattering evidence" to a US Congressman. It was the first chance we got to see what Zullo was actually saying to his most important audience; the US Congress.
All he ended up being able to say was stupid birther ****. He did not even try to make a single claim that wasn't birther nonsense debunked long before the Posse was ever even put on the case.
As soon as we pointed that out, the video could not have been pulled faster. But too late... the farce was out of the bag.
I don't think Maskell changed SCOTUS's words materially.
"Physically in" is nowhere near the same as "permanently domiciled in." For example, I can be "physically in" Thailand for 3 weeks while my permanent domicile would still be my U.S. residence listed on my passport.
Likewise, "natural born citizen" and "citizen" are not interchangeable for Constitutional purposes. Congress members can be citizens, but the president has to be a natural born citizen.
If what SCOTUS actually wrote meant what Maskell claims it does, Maskell wouldn't have had to change the words to make his point.
Gray specifically reiterated the question asked of the court when he stated the ruling.
And 23 subsequent courts have used that ruling as precedent to declare Barack Obama a natural born US citizen.
You can't have it both ways IC. Half the time you insist Gray's ruling was correct and we interpret it wrong, and half the time you insist Gray was wrong. Birthers are unique in their ability to be wrong in many different and mutually contradictory ways all at the same time.
"Physically in" is nowhere near the same as "permanently domiciled in." For example, I can be "physically in" Thailand for 3 weeks while my permanent domicile would still be my U.S. residence listed on my passport.
Likewise, "natural born citizen" and "citizen" are not interchangeable for Constitutional purposes. Congress members can be citizens, but the president has to be a natural born citizen.
If what SCOTUS actually wrote meant what Maskell claims it does, Maskell wouldn't have had to change the words to make his point.
Truth will out.
Okay. Please tell us what PERMANENT DOMICILE means to you. Is it signing a lease? Taking out a mortgage? Filling out an address-change form at the post office? How long do you have to live somewhere before you establish that that's where you live?
On the contrary, you've called the use of bolding and underlining to be shrieking.
That's what you have told me when I started following your lead in creative use of font-types on an earlier thread - that I was 'shrieking'.
Sorry, no. Search the thread.
You must be disoriented and confused.
Quote:
That's not truth, that's you picking and choosing those parts of a passage that support your beliefs, while discarding those parts of the exact same passage that undermine your beliefs.
How is it not relevant to quote Trumbull himself stating exactly what the "subject to the jurisdiction" requirement means?
Why are you so afraid to go straight to the source of the requirement on this?
What Trumbull said, recorded in he Congressional Record, isn't a fact?
Prove that those aren't facts.
This is what I mean. I suggest that you are guilty of hubris. You say that it's just facts. I respond, "It's not facts," which any second-grader could tell you the "it" that both you and I referenced was to the word "hubris". Then several posts later, you post the above.
I never said that the 14th Amendment didn't happen, or that Trumbull's remarks about the citizenship of American Indians, recorded in the Congressional Record, didn't happen. But you challenge me as if I did say that.
Once again, YOUR hubris is evidenced by your apparent belief that you and you alone are aware of the facts, that your interpretation and only your interpretation is possible, and that you are in fact infallible. That's hubris.
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.
