Pawlenty: Obama was born in the USA

posted at 10:55 am on March 29, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

On Morning Joe today, Mika Brzezinski asked Tim Pawlenty to assess the strength of one of his potential rivals, Donald Trump, and the former Minnesota governor tried at first to remain positive, calling Trump “talented” and “interesting.” When it came time to assess Trump’s apparent platform of birth certificates, Pawlenty was decidedly less positive:

Tim Pawlenty says Donald Trump needs to get off the birther circuit.

In an interview on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, the former Minnesota governor said there are more serious concerns to weigh.

“I, for one, do not believe we should be raising that issue,” Pawlenty said. “I think President Obama was born in the United States.”

Whatever momentary interest there was in this subject should have been abandoned long ago, preferably when Obama released the certification of his birth from Hawaii, or when the contemporaneous birth announcements were discovered by Hillary Clinton’s oppo researchers, or when the state of Hawaii twice declared the certification accurate.  The same is true for the cottage industry that has surfaced over whether Obama had a ghost writer for his memoirs. Those kind of questions might arguably have resonated when Obama was an unknown, but clearly they didn’t.  Voters chose Obama anyway in 2008, and those “strategies” are far less likely to succeed four years later.

Obama’s two-plus years in office provide plenty of reasons to oppose a second term.  Serious candidates should be focused on serious issues.  Trump is obviously not serious, but is doing a near-parody in an attempt to grab as much of the limelight as possible.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 5 6 7 8

<blockquoteAslans Girl on March 30, 2011 at 5:36 PM

He met the burden of proof, birther opinions notwithstanding.

-imnotkiddingu

rukiddingme on March 30, 2011 at 5:44 PM

rukiddingme on March 30, 2011 at 5:44 PM

Pray tell, oh knowing one, HOW?

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on March 30, 2011 at 5:53 PM

Whew, this thread really picked up since I was here last night! You guys are on fire! Dr. M, Stayright, Diogenes, etc. I’m coming back to read every post later, so much good stuff!

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on March 30, 2011 at 5:54 PM

The D@mn thing ate my response. (probably too long, Or too many links) Fortunately I saved it so i’ll post it in sections.

DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 5:56 PM

He is espousing his opinion on allegiance. It refutes your opinion, thus you dismiss him. Naturally.

Not at all. I am saying that his (as stated in this instance) is the minority opinion among the founders. I think First Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Jay’s Opinion trumps his.

(The next part is REALLY big and has LOT’s of Links. Hopefully it won’t jam up.)

DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 5:58 PM

(by the way, the “Law of Nations” (the source of the “Natural Born Citizen” definition) was CITED during the Constitutional Convention. It was a well read reference book by the founders.)

How did the definition of natural born that first appeared in the English version of ‘Law of Nations’ in 1797 get used as the definition of natural born in the 1787 Constitution?

OMG! You caught me in a clever conundrum! (No you didn’t.) Little boy, if you are going to argue with me, you need to bring you A-Game. Here is where I spank you.

The founders did NOT use the English edition. They used the Original French edition. (The founders spoke French.) Here are a few links so that you may educate yourself. (Not that I think you will.)

Here is Benjamin Franklin Thanking Dumas for sending him the French copies.

http://puzo1.wordpress.com/2010/04/27/benjamin-franklin-in-1775-thanks-charles-dumas-of-the-netherlands-for-sending-him-3-more-copies-of-the-newest-edition-of-vattels-law-of-nations/

DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 6:00 PM

Franklin used the French version as a code book for communicating with his spies in Europe.

http://www.h4.dion.ne.jp/~room4me/america/franklin.htm

DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 6:01 PM

Jefferson used the French Version to write the Declaration of Independence.

http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/05/03/jefferson-used-vattels-the-law-of-nations-to-write-our-founding-documents/

DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 6:02 PM

Pray tell, oh knowing one, HOW?

Here.

Aslans Girl on March 30, 2011 at 5:54 PM

You would be better informed by reading the Constitution, the provided SCOTUS case, and the provided New York case.

They tend to carry more weight than birther opinions.

rukiddingme on March 30, 2011 at 6:02 PM

The book was CITED during the Constitutional convention.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2499410/posts

DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 6:04 PM

George Washington Forgot to return his copy to the New York LIbrary in 1789.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/booksblog/2010/may/20/george-washington-library-book

All of the above was done with the FRENCH version!


You’ve been pwned M***** F*****!

DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 6:05 PM

DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 5:58 PM

Wrap all your evidence up neatly and send it Fed-Ex hand deliver run it to SCOTUS. The conservative leaning court is certainly sympathetic to your argument.

Or not.

rukiddingme on March 30, 2011 at 6:05 PM

The existence of some sort of record in a state’s files is not proof of Jus Soli. An AFFIDAVIT is proof of Jus Soli.
DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 3:07 PM

Well then, refute the 14th Amendment, the provided SCOTUS case, and the provided State of New York case.

No need to refute the 14th. Even Accepting YOUR version doesn’t change the fact that a “Record” is not an affidavit by a witness. It is a notation by a clerk that someone ELSE witnessed the event.

Having done that, prove that Dr Fukino is lying, prove he was not born in Hawaii, and prove that his name was changed at the direction of adoption proceedings in Indonesia.

Wrap all your evidence above up neatly and send it Fed-Ex to SCOTUS. The conservative leaning court is certainly sympathetic to your argument.

Or not.

rukiddingme on March 30, 2011 at 4:42 PM

This problem is NOT going to be solved by SCOTUS. They are quaking in their boots for fear of having to deal with it. It will be resolved by Americans becoming aware of, and denouncing the Fraud. That’s what *I’m* doing. Educating people, including yourself. I bet you don’t ever pull that “English Version” sh*t on anyone else again!

DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 6:06 PM

You make a very good point about “burden of proof”. I’ve seen on previous “birther” threads where “birthers” are told that the burden is on them since we are the ones making the accusations. However it was Obama, by the very act of running for POTUS, who put the burden of proof on himself. Because anyone who runs has to be eligible, therefore, O was claiming by running, that he was. Burden is on his shoulders to prove to us the voters that he indeed is. Thanks for this, Dr.M!

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on March 30, 2011 at 5:36 PM

Obam provided his birth certificate/COLB. He has put it out on the internet for anyone’s inspeciton. The Governent produced document even states “This copy serves as prima facie evidence”. In law, once a person has provide prim facie evidence, the burden of evidence typically shifts to the other side to either a) disprove the prima facie evidence; or b) provide some evidence in support of their position.
Obam has provided prima facie proof of his birth in Hawaii. The burden then shifts to the Birthers to disprove this evidence or provide some other stronger proof contrary to this fact. Approximately 3 years after Obama came forward with his proofs, the birthers have failed to come up with anything.

New_Jersey_Buckeye on March 30, 2011 at 6:09 PM

DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 4:58 PM

Wrap all your evidence up neatly and send it Fed-Ex hand deliver it to SCOTUS. The conservative leaning court is certainly sympathetic to your argument.

Or not.

rukiddingme on March 30, 2011 at 5:05 PM

What, the job is too much for YOU to handle. I understand. :)

DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 6:09 PM

What, the job is too much for YOU to handle. I understand. :)

DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 6:09 PM

Apparently it is too much for YOU to handle. Run to SCOTUS. Now!!!!

The future of the republic is counting on you!!!!!!!!

rukiddingme on March 30, 2011 at 6:12 PM

rukiddingme on March 30, 2011 at 6:02 PM

You’re using that flimsy short-form copy only given in digital form to KOS? Please tell me you ARE kidding this time ;)

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on March 30, 2011 at 6:17 PM

Remember how we made fun of and condemned Barack Obama for bowing to the Saudi King? We said that true Americans do not bow to kings. Well by refusing to question Obama’s natural born status, or lack of same, by refusing to even question why Obama will not/can not even produce a simple American Birth Certificate, and has gone to such extreme lengths not to be required to, these people are, de facto, bowing, and bowing very deep, to Obama as if he were a king, and therefor, to my mind, they are not true Americans. This includes not only Pawlenty, but also Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity and all off them combined make less of a man than is Donald Trump.

Heckle on March 30, 2011 at 6:20 PM

And finally, you conclude that those here that disagree with you must not be Americans.

New_Jersey_Buckeye on March 30, 2011 at 5:12 PM

I address most of your other points in my response to rukiddingme.

I do NOT conclude they must not be Americans. I just suspect it. It is quite possible that such people as you ARE Americans. We have our Bradley Mannings you know.

Most Americans don’t give a crap about this issue. Most of the ones that do are not terribly passionate about it. The ones that Do care about it, and ARE passionate about tend to be of the type that wants it rectified, or the type that wants to keep it obfuscated.

I suspect that some of the opponents to this issue are Agent Provocateurs, possibly paid, but at the least partisan. There is too much research being done by people who are intentionally trying to obfuscate the issue. You guys are spending far too much time researching this stuff for just a political amateur. (also too much time during hours when most people are working at a JOB. Hey rukidding, are you working at a Job?)

The questions you ask show far too much interest in poking around dusty old words of a long forgotten age, and the fact that you Keep overlooking the more salient parts of it cannot be an accident.

At least that is my suspicion. I am still schooling you people on stuff that you simply can’t respond to well.

Fraud is Not an Article II issue. It is also not a 14th Amendment issue. It is a simple common law issue. You people are not as stupid as you pretend.

Ergo, you people are doing it on purpose. Ergo, political hacks or paid advocates. (or just REALLY obtuse.)

DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 6:20 PM

Wrap all your evidence up neatly and send it Fed-Ex hand deliver run it to SCOTUS. The conservative leaning court is certainly sympathetic to your argument.

Or not.

rukiddingme on March 30, 2011 at 5:20 PM

What is this, a mantra now? Praying won’t help you here. :)

DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 6:22 PM

You’ve been pwned M***** F*****!

DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 6:05 PM

But the phrase “Natural Born Citizen” (or its french equivalent “citoyen de naissance”) does not appear in the original French edition. (as I stated above.)

The phrase in the original french reads : “Les Naturels ou indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays de Parens Citoyens.”

“Les Naturels ou indigènes” does not translate as Natural born citizen. The closest English translation would be “the naturals or indigenous”.

You base your argument on the proposition that the Founders based the phrase “Natural Born Citizen” on this French treatise. Therefore, the definition in the french teatise is what the Founders meant. However, it turns out that natural born citizen doesn’t appear in the available english translation. Nor does natural born citizen (or its french equivalent) appear in the French editions.

Therefore your supposition that phrase “natural born citizens” originated from Vatel is illogical and contrary to the facts at hand. Thus your conclusion that the definition used by vatel is incorrect as he didn’t even use that phrase.

“Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.” Billy Madison

New_Jersey_Buckeye on March 30, 2011 at 6:24 PM

Ad hominems and ‘you must not be American’ is all he has left.

This one has taken birther to a whole new level.

rukiddingme on March 30, 2011 at 5:25 PM

Well are you? I will BELIEVE you if you say so. :)

DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 6:24 PM

It really has. This new “my own birth certificate (which of course, we can’t see) was incorrect, therefore all birth certificates are presumptively incorrect” argument is something new.

crr6 on March 30, 2011 at 5:29 PM

No, silly the fallacy is believing the State dept of vital statistics won’t lie to you. Is that so hard to understand?

You DON’T have to take my word for it. Ask ANY lawyer if an Adopted (Any Adopted child will do.) child’s birth certificate contains information that is NOT TRUE. (Such as who his REAL parents are.)

You know I am right about this. You just can’t STAND IT ! :)

DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 6:27 PM

It really has. This new “my own birth certificate (which of course, we can’t see) was incorrect, therefore all birth certificates are presumptively incorrect” argument is something new.

crr6 on March 30, 2011 at 5:29 PM

Redundant post is redundant.

crr6 on March 30, 2011 at 5:34 PM

As is your argument. (And wrong too!)

DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 6:28 PM

Obam provided his birth certificate/COLB. He has put it out on the internet for anyone’s inspeciton.

New_Jersey_Buckeye

Well I inspected it and it flunked. Not even a Doctor’s name, nor a hospital name. F minus! You are a complete moron.

Heckle on March 30, 2011 at 6:32 PM

<blockquoteAslans Girl on March 30, 2011 at 5:36 PM

He met the burden of proof, birther opinions notwithstanding.

-imnotkiddingu

rukiddingme on March 30, 2011 at 5:44 PM

Nope, he managed to con his way past the doormen, and now he’s partying like a rock star! (Literally! Does the guy ever work? We are probably better off that he does party all the time. When he works it’s a disaster!) He’s still an unwelcome party crasher. We are planning on giving the doormen (state election officials) better instructions this next time around.)

DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 6:32 PM

Pray tell, oh knowing one, HOW?

Here.

Silly rabbit, tricks are for vital statistics officials! A Record is NOT an affidavit.

Aslans Girl on March 30, 2011 at 5:54 PM

You would be better informed by reading the Constitution, the provided SCOTUS case, and the provided New York case.

You started off right, then you went into the toilet. Yes, read the constitution. Don’t pay any attention to decades later court cases. Read what the founders themselves wrote. Read what references they used, then apply common sense.

Why would the founders want an Article II requirement that does nothing useful? Why would they use two terms to mean the same thing when one would do? (Natural Born Citizen vs. “Citizen.” )

They tend to carry more weight than birther opinions.

rukiddingme on March 30, 2011 at 6:02 PM

A fat man carries more weight, but that doesn’t mean he knows what he’s talking about. What my friend rukidding me is trying to do is make you the victim of a fallacy called
“argument from authority.”

It basically means “I’m right, because this muckety muck expert over here agrees with me.”

Do your own research, draw your own conclusions. It bothers me not a bit to disagree with a court on the truth. H3ll, the Supreme court can hardly EVER get a unanimous ruling. Often in times past, the court was WRONG! (Dred Scott Vs. Sanford.)

Nowadays the court is motivated by politics. It was ever thus.

DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 6:43 PM

DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 5:58 PM

Wrap all your evidence up neatly and send it Fed-Ex hand deliver run it to SCOTUS. The conservative leaning court is certainly sympathetic to your argument.

Or not.

rukiddingme on March 30, 2011 at 6:05 PM

OOOOMMMMM…… OOOOOMMMMM….. OOOOOOMMMMMM…..

(I’m meditating. You’ve got your Mantra, I’ve got mine!)

Mine is easier to remember.
:)

DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 6:45 PM

Obam provided his birth certificate/COLB. He has put it out on the internet for anyone’s inspeciton. The Governent produced document even states “This copy serves as prima facie evidence”. In law, once a person has provide prim facie evidence, the burden of evidence typically shifts to the other side to either a) disprove the prima facie evidence; or b) provide some evidence in support of their position.

You mean Bald Facia, as in lie. It is a computer print-out copy of a record entry that may or may not have been modified by court order. Since Stanley Ann Dunham was divorced from Lolo Soetoro, it is the usual practice for the Divorce Judge to grant an amendment to the birth certificate of any minor children in the marriage.

What these guys (and girl) are attempting to do is to use legal jargon to obfuscate the fact that modifiable vital record entries are not actual proof.

Obam has provided prima facie proof of his birth in Hawaii.

He has also provided testimony (in his book) renouncing the evidence of his birth certificaTION.

The burden then shifts to the Birthers to disprove this evidence or provide some other stronger proof contrary to this fact. Approximately 3 years after Obama came forward with his proofs, the birthers have failed to come up with anything.

New_Jersey_Buckeye on March 30, 2011 at 6:09 PM

The attention of the CROWD shifted, the burden didn’t shift. Most people aren’t aware that Birth Certificates can be manipulated by judges into saying things which are not true. If the public knew about this, they wouldn’t have bought into the lie.

But even if you ACCEPT this guy’s reasoning, Obama himself refutes the veracity of his own birth certificate. (in his book.)

Obama testifies AGAINST himself!

DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 6:53 PM

What, the job is too much for YOU to handle. I

understand. :)

DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 6:09 PM

Apparently it is too much for YOU to handle. Run to SCOTUS. Now!!!!

The future of the republic is counting on you!!!!!!!!

rukiddingme on March 30, 2011 at 6:12 PM

Won’t save the republic through the courts. You know what WILL save the Republic? TRUTH. I’m fighting for it, you’re fighting against it.

I know you understand my points. I can see you racking your brains trying to figure out some way of refuting them, but you simply can’t.

You KNOW birth certificates get modified with marriages, divorces and adoptions. Any lawyer can tell you this, so it’s not secret knowledge. As much as you’ve argued this issue, you have certainly verified that it is true.

You are still arguing against it because you MUST. You are simply on the other side.

DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 6:58 PM

“Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

–John Jay (July 25, 1787)

Stayright on March 30, 2011 at 7:11 PM

Arguing with Birthers is like arguing with door knob. Pointless.

Magnus on March 30, 2011 at 7:39 PM

I have to go. It’s been fun kiddies, but obligations beckon. I’ll check back in tomorrow if I can, but before I go I wish to point out one more thing.

Have any of you noticed that “rukiddingme”‘s link is an Adoption agency? What’s up wit dat?

Here’s the link:

http://www.adoptionsbygladney.com/

You would think that if ANYONE knew about Adoption birth certificates, it would BE someone with a link to an Adoption agency! Isn’t this a puzzle that someone with a link to an adoption agency is making such a big deal about something which everyone who has any connection to an adoption agency already knows?

If i’m mistaken, I appologize, but my suspicion is that he has nothing to do with the Adoption agency, and he is using that link as a “False Flag” for his operation. Most people know that Pro-Lifers are Pro-Adoption, so what better way to indicate he’s a conservative than by linking something which everyone is in favor of, but not ostensibly pro-life.
(you know, establish the bonafides so people won’t question his allegiance to the conservative side.)

I could be completely off base here, but i’ve ran into this guy before, (many times) and he is far too vociferous for an ordinary commenter. (Also does too much research to not get it right.)

False Flag? Or just really misguided true believer.

You be the judge.

DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 7:39 PM

Magnus on March 30, 2011 at 7:39 PM

When one has a weak argument, the ad hominens come out. Argue the facts, please.

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on March 30, 2011 at 7:56 PM

Les Naturels ou indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays de Parens Citoyens

You don’t have to be a Frenchie to know that “le pays de Parens Citoyens” means of the country where his parents were citizens, and in Obama’s case, one was a citizen of the United Kingdom.

By the way, it was discovered by attorney Leo D’Onofrio of New Jersey that President Chester A. Arthur’s father was not a citizen of the US at the time of Chester’s birth–making Chester (a white guy, by the way) ineligible for the Presidency. Arthur tried very hard to hide this fact. His father was a citizen of the United Kingdom (Ireland).

Emperor Norton on March 30, 2011 at 8:09 PM

DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 5:15 PM
Notice how you advocate the blatant rejection of Article II requirements?

No. In fact, you said this:

The Founders made the Judgment call that people Born and Raised by American parents would likely show more loyalty to the nation than those who were not.
DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 2:07 PM

I did notice how Adam Gadahn, born on US soil to US Citizen parents, would likely show less loyalty than Pfc. Armando Soriano, who was merely born on US soil.

I also noticed you then follow that with a rant rejecting the 14th Amendment. Prior to that, you dismiss SCOTUS, which by the way, is specifically outlined in Article III.

I have noticed you are a great defender of the Constitution, except when you are not.

rukiddingme on March 30, 2011 at 8:38 PM

Not at all. I am saying that his (as stated in this instance) is the minority opinion among the founders.

The opinion of the James Madison, often called the Father of the Constitution, is in the minority thus irrelevant to the definition of natural born.

Naturally.

I think First Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Jay’s Opinion trumps his.

DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 5:58 PM

I think the Constitution and SCOTUS trump your opinion of John Jay’s opinion.

rukiddingme on March 30, 2011 at 8:39 PM

DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 6:05 PM

Not quite, as no one asserted the Founding Fathers were not versed in Vattel.

You asserted the Founding Fathers used a definition that was written 10 years after the Constitution was ratified.

Now you assert they used the earlier version, written in French, to say natural born, despite the fact the earlier version does not say natural born.

Naturally.

rukiddingme on March 30, 2011 at 8:40 PM

You’re using that flimsy short-form copy only given in digital form to KOS?

No. Look down the page. Photographs.

Please tell me you ARE kidding this time ;)
-Aslan’s Girl
Aslans Girl on March 30, 2011 at 6:17 PM

-imnotkiddingu

rukiddingme on March 30, 2011 at 8:41 PM

DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 7:39 PM
Aslans Girl on March 30, 2011 at 7:56 PM

I just love you. If HA ever has a get-together, I would be honored to meet you.

DrMagnolias on March 30, 2011 at 9:07 PM

Have any of you noticed that “rukiddingme”‘s link is an Adoption agency? What’s up wit dat?

Genius, my children are adopted from this very agency.

Now educate everyone here what the link has to do with our discussion.

You would think that if ANYONE knew about Adoption birth certificates, it would BE someone with a link to an Adoption agency!

I do and I am pro life.

Now educate everyone here what the adoption agency has to do with our discussion.

Isn’t this a puzzle that someone with a link to an adoption agency is making such a big deal about something which everyone who has any connection to an adoption agency already knows?

Everyone knows the original birth certificate is amended in most cases to reflect the adoptive parents.

Now prove his birth certificate was amended by an adoption.

If i’m mistaken, I appologize, but my suspicion is that he has nothing to do with the Adoption agency, and he is using that link as a “False Flag” for his operation. Most people know that Pro-Lifers are Pro-Adoption, so what better way to indicate he’s a conservative than by linking something which everyone is in favor of, but not ostensibly pro-life (you know, establish the bonafides so people won’t question his allegiance to the conservative side.)

You are indeed mistaken. You also failed again in your attempt to use the allegiance card.

I could be completely off base here, but i’ve ran into this guy before, (many times) and he is far too vociferous for an ordinary commenter. (Also does too much research to not get it right.)

False Flag? Or just really misguided true believer.

You be the judge.

DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 7:39 PM

Your conspiracy theories have no bounds.

Naturally.

rukiddingme on March 30, 2011 at 9:09 PM

Chester Arthur.
GO!

Badger40 on March 30, 2011 at 9:31 PM

Emperor Norton on March 30, 2011 at 8:09 PM

Nods to you.

Badger40 on March 30, 2011 at 9:38 PM

Vattel:

§ 114. Freedom of philosophical discussion.
I speak of the freedom of philosophical discussion, which is the soul of the republic of letters. … I know that liberty has its proper bounds — that a wise government ought to have an eye to the press, and not to allow the publication of scandalous productions, which attack morality, government, or the established religion.

More Vattel:

§ 129. Public establishment of religion.
But we should take care not to extend this liberty beyond its just bounds. In religious affairs a citizen has only a right to be free from compulsion, but can by no means claim that of openly doing what he pleases, without regard to the consequences it may produce on society. The establishment of religion by law, and its public exercise, are matters of state, and are necessarily under the jurisdiction of the political authority

Even more Vattel:

§ 122. Right of carrying off women.
… A nation cannot preserve and perpetuate itself, except by propagation. A nation of men has, therefore, a right to procure women, who are absolutely necessary to its preservation; and if its neighbours, who have a redundancy of females, refuse to give some of them in marriage to those men, the latter may justly have recourse to force….

Heh.

rukiddingme on March 30, 2011 at 9:44 PM

I have noticed you are a great defender of the Constitution, except when you are not.

rukiddingme on March 30, 2011 at 8:38 PM

I think the Constitution and SCOTUS trump your opinion of John Jay’s opinion.

rukiddingme on March 30, 2011 at 8:39 PM

What is your opinion of Kelo vs. New London? Which side do you believe correctly interpreted the Constitution in that case? Can you guess why I ask?

btw, do you believe you are a good debater? If so, why?

Bizarro No. 1 on March 30, 2011 at 10:35 PM

Bizarro No. 1 on March 30, 2011 at 10:35 PM

The Kelo decision was a twisting & ba$tardization of the intent of Eminent Domain.
It’s tyrannical. And ridiculous. A strip mall, etc. is not a bridge or a road.
Once you start setting up legal precedents that are usurpations of the Const., you have gone to he!! in a handbasket.
And that is why the states insisted upon including the 10th Amm. Bcs they KNEW the fed would want more power.
And the states have been a bunch of lazy buttheads in not exercising their Amendment power.
It is time for states to start taking back their rights.
It is their DUTY.

Badger40 on March 31, 2011 at 8:39 AM

Badger40 on March 31, 2011 at 8:39 AM

I don’t mind that you answered (I agree with your stance btw), but I still want rukiddingme’s response – rukm doesn’t seem to realize just how badly appeals to authority undermine one’s own position in a debate.

Bizarro No. 1 on March 31, 2011 at 9:07 AM

What is your opinion of Kelo vs. New London?

SCOTUS opinion trumps my opinion of SCOTUS opinion.

Those in disagreement of SCOTUS opinion have two options:

1. Convince SCOTUS to revisit the issue and overturn the previous opinion
2. Amend the Constitution.

Which side do you believe correctly interpreted the Constitution in that case? Can you guess why I ask?
btw, do you believe you are a good debater? If so, why?
Bizarro No. 1 on March 30, 2011 at 10:35 PM

Those are some mighty fine red herrings you have there. You may keep them.

rukiddingme on March 31, 2011 at 9:15 AM

SCOTUS opinion trumps my opinion of SCOTUS opinion.

Those in disagreement of SCOTUS opinion have two options:

1. Convince SCOTUS to revisit the issue and overturn the previous opinion
2. Amend the Constitution.

Since you don’t agree with every USSC decision ever made, what exactly is your point of bringing one into the discussion in order to try to bolster your position, as though it’s somehow definitive, and as though that’s some kind of good argument technique? You are self-servingly using your selected case as a club, and it’s lame.

Which side do you believe correctly interpreted the Constitution in that case? Can you guess why I ask?

btw, do you believe you are a good debater? If so, why?

Bizarro No. 1 on March 30, 2011 at 10:35 PM

Those are some mighty fine red herrings you have there. You may keep them.

rukiddingme on March 31, 2011 at 9:15 AM

“red herrings”? LOL I’d ask you to prove that they are (is your sense of humor good enough to appreciate what I just did? Puhlease, I already know the answer to that! :) ), but we both know you won’t bother because you aren’t interested in the truth as much as you are in ‘winning’ the argument. Yes, I’ve noticed how Anti-Birthers operate!

Never trust people who use coercive tactics in order to try to kill a conversation.

Bizarro No. 1 on March 31, 2011 at 9:57 AM

DiogenesLamp, I want to let you know that I hadn’t read your posts, until now, which I see have a parallel with mine. I just picked up on the same sophistry rukiddingme has been using that you noticed as well! I haven’t meant to step on your toes at all in your conversation with rukm.

I really don’t like smug people who refuse to argue in a completely straightforward manner. Cowards and betas, all of them! :)

Bizarro No. 1 on March 31, 2011 at 10:19 AM

I did notice how Adam Gadahn, born on US soil to US Citizen parents, would likely show less loyalty than Pfc. Armando Soriano, who was merely born on US soil.

If your point is not that Article II should be rejected in this example, then what is your point?

I also noticed you then follow that with a rant rejecting the 14th Amendment. Prior to that, you dismiss SCOTUS, which by the way, is specifically outlined in Article III.

I don’t dispute that SCOTUS has the POWER to dictate their decisions. I dispute the notion that this POWER makes them CORRECT. If you know what the term “Ex Cathedra” means, You will understand that I reject this concept applied to the court.

I have noticed you are a great defender of the Constitution, except when you are not.

rukiddingme on March 30, 2011 at 8:38 PM

I am a great defender of the Constitution in the Same manner that Lincoln was a great defender of the Constitution. As he said (regarding the Dred Scott Decision)

“I swore to Uphold the constitution as *I* understand it, not as Chief Justice Taney Understands it.”

If I argued like you I would now say: ” You aren’t against Abraham Lincoln ARE YOU? Why are you a supporter of SLAVERY? ”

You really ought to stop these childish type tactics. Even IF you are an ideologue or getting paid to do this, you must realize how silly you look when your intellectual dishonesty is pointed out.

DiogenesLamp on March 31, 2011 at 10:30 AM

Not at all. I am saying that his (as stated in this instance) is the minority opinion among the founders.

The opinion of the James Madison, often called the Father of the Constitution, is in the minority thus irrelevant to the definition of natural born.

James Madison is the Father of the Bill of Rights, not the entire Constitution, and you are glossing over the point he was making when he put forth those words. The Issue was whether or not a man who went to Europe BEFORE the Revolution, and as the child of people who were Subjects of King George at that time, somehow became a Citizen of the State of Virginia when independence was declared. It is not ostensibly about American Citizenship as much as it was about Virginian Citizenship. Insofar as all Virginians Automatically BECAME American Citizens AFTER the Revolution, by the Laws of Virginia at that time and place the man qualified. (For Virginia Citizenship first, and American Citizenship as a result.)

James Madison was not Addressing the man’s qualification for President under Article II (which was agreed upon by the Delegates at the US Constitutional Convention.) He was saying the man met the qualifications for being seated in the Virginia State house.

Your use of this example is a dishonest attempt to pull a “Bait and Switch.” You KNOW the issue wasn’t article II qualifications, yet you attempt to present this as a false equivalency. This is why I suspect you are an ideological enemy. You have done too much research to not know the truth, yet you continuously promote obfuscation of the truth, and Your James Madison cite above is a perfect example of this dishonesty.

The Founders would have completely rejected the idea of this man becoming President.

Naturally.

I think First Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Jay’s Opinion trumps his.

DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 5:58 PM

I think the Constitution and SCOTUS trump your opinion of John Jay’s opinion.

rukiddingme on March 30, 2011 at 8:39 PM

I think a man with a gun sets the rules. I don’t think the gun makes him right, it just makes him in charge.

DiogenesLamp on March 31, 2011 at 10:42 AM

DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 6:05 PM

Not quite, as no one asserted the Founding Fathers were not versed in Vattel.

You asserted the Founding Fathers used a definition that was written 10 years after the Constitution was ratified.

Now you assert they used the earlier version, written in French, to say natural born, despite the fact the earlier version does not say natural born.

Naturally.

rukiddingme on March 30, 2011 at 8:40 PM

I guess you are having a hard time understanding that Concepts are expressed using words, and that words are a poor means of conveying them. More than one set of words can be employed to represent the same concept, yet it is the concept which is important, not which words are chosen to convey the concept.

There are people that have for the last century INSISTED on misinterpreting the meaning of “The right of the People to Keep and Bear arms shall not be infringed.” (Your crowd)

The same sort of obfuscation is being pushed nowadays regarding the meaning of Article II “Natural Born Citizen.”

Since French is NOT English, the Founders used English Words. They did not HAVE to use an Exact Literal translation of the French, all they had to do was use the nearest English Equivalent to the concept, Which they did.

Is stuff like this REALLY a mystery to you?

DiogenesLamp on March 31, 2011 at 10:52 AM

You’re using that flimsy short-form copy only given in digital form to KOS?

No. Look down the page. Photographs.

Please tell me you ARE kidding this time ;)
-Aslan’s Girl
Aslans Girl on March 30, 2011 at 6:17 PM

-imnotkiddingu

rukiddingme on March 30, 2011 at 8:41 PM

Why would a photograph of a fake record be any more persuasive than a digital reproduction of a fake record?

We know the record is fake because Obama himself SAID SO in his book.

You just simply are not getting the Fact that your boy has sold you out in his book.

DiogenesLamp on March 31, 2011 at 10:54 AM

DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 7:39 PM
Aslans Girl on March 30, 2011 at 7:56 PM

I just love you. If HA ever has a get-together, I would be honored to meet you.

DrMagnolias on March 30, 2011 at 9:07 PM

Thank you! I would love to meet you as well. I wouldn’t even mind meeting rukiddingme. I would slap both my birth certificates down on the table and listen to him go:

“Uh, ah, errr…. Hmm….”

It’s hard to argue with tangible proof put in front of your face! :) I’d even bring a copy of Obama’s book with the aforementioned quotes highlighted.

DiogenesLamp on March 31, 2011 at 10:57 AM

Have any of you noticed that “rukiddingme”‘s link is an Adoption agency? What’s up wit dat?

Genius, my children are adopted from this very agency.

This makes you doubly dishonest for you know what I am saying is exactly true yet you continue to argue with me about this very thing.

Now educate everyone here what the link has to do with our discussion.

You would think that if ANYONE knew about Adoption birth certificates, it would BE someone with a link to an Adoption agency!

I do and I am pro life.

Now educate everyone here what the adoption agency has to do with our discussion.

Isn’t this a puzzle that someone with a link to an adoption agency is making such a big deal about something which everyone who has any connection to an adoption agency already knows?

Everyone knows the original birth certificate is amended in most cases to reflect the adoptive parents.

So you ADMIT that a birth certificate may or may not reflect the truth. How can it possibly be evidence? How can you possibly ARGUE that it is evidence?

Now prove his birth certificate was amended by an adoption.

I don’t have to prove that it was amended by adoption, I actually just have to prove that it is unreliable as evidence. But i’ll go you one better than that. I can’t prove that it was amended specifically by adoption, but I can prove that it was amended. Barack Obama said so in his book.

He says his mother had no proof that he is Barack Obama Sr.’s son. The CURRENT COLB SAYS that Barack Obama Sr. is his father. ERGO, it must have said something different when he WROTE that, because if what it says now was true back then it WOULD HAVE BEEN PROOF that he was Barack Obama Sr.’s son.

Either he was lying back then, or his COLB was. Either way, it is impeached credibility.

For what it’s worth, I think blogger Butterzillion has managed to prove the Birth Certificate WAS amended just by researching the notations on it and other documents. (But I like my proof better. It has Obama contradicting the veracity of his own COLB!)

If i’m mistaken, I appologize, but my suspicion is that he has nothing to do with the Adoption agency, and he is using that link as a “False Flag” for his operation. Most people know that Pro-Lifers are Pro-Adoption, so what better way to indicate he’s a conservative than by linking something which everyone is in favor of, but not ostensibly pro-life (you know, establish the bonafides so people won’t question his allegiance to the conservative side.)

You are indeed mistaken. You also failed again in your attempt to use the allegiance card.

I could be completely off base here, but i’ve ran into this guy before, (many times) and he is far too vociferous for an ordinary commenter. (Also does too much research to not get it right.)

False Flag? Or just really misguided true believer.

You be the judge.

DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 7:39 PM

Your conspiracy theories have no bounds.

Naturally.

rukiddingme on March 30, 2011 at 9:09 PM

My tendency to consider all angles of something is not a conspiracy theory. Your behavior is an engima. You continuously knock proffered evidence to the ground and refuse to look at it. Your behavior is completely inconsistent with people whom I have always known to be in the Conservative movement. Your techniques of argument are dishonest, and your motives are suspect.

You may be what you say you are, but your behavior is exactly like that of a Liberal Ideologue or a paid advocate. Why (if you are pro-life) would you be standing up for the most Pro-Abortion President in History and likewise the Veracity of the biggest liar that has ever managed to con his way into the White House?

Your actions belie your words. You will forgive me if I mistake you for a “Concern Troll” because that is exactly how you are behaving.

DiogenesLamp on March 31, 2011 at 11:45 AM

Vattel:

§ 114. Freedom of philosophical discussion.
I speak of the freedom of philosophical discussion, which is the soul of the republic of letters. … I know that liberty has its proper bounds — that a wise government ought to have an eye to the press, and not to allow the publication of scandalous productions, which attack morality, government, or the established religion.

More Vattel:

§ 129. Public establishment of religion.
But we should take care not to extend this liberty beyond its just bounds. In religious affairs a citizen has only a right to be free from compulsion, but can by no means claim that of openly doing what he pleases, without regard to the consequences it may produce on society. The establishment of religion by law, and its public exercise, are matters of state, and are necessarily under the jurisdiction of the political authority

Even more Vattel:

§ 122. Right of carrying off women.
… A nation cannot preserve and perpetuate itself, except by propagation. A nation of men has, therefore, a right to procure women, who are absolutely necessary to its preservation; and if its neighbours, who have a redundancy of females, refuse to give some of them in marriage to those men, the latter may justly have recourse to force….

Heh.

rukiddingme on March 30, 2011 at 9:44 PM

This is exactly what I mean. Nobody goes to this level of research without a D@mned good reason. Those who do are agents for one side or the other.

Your quotes are an attempt to refute the “Law of Nations” basis for US Constitutional law, therefore arguing that the English Common law is the basis for the American Constitutional law. Rather than spend a lot of time reasoning with you, i’ll just use a better version of the same sort of attack against you.

Since you Previously liked James Madison’s Opinion so much, here is him refuting this notion for you.

James Madison to George Washington:

“What could the Convention have done? If they had in general terms declared the Common law to be in force, they would have broken in upon the legal Code of every State in the most material points: they wd. have done more, they would have brought over from G.B. a thousand heterogeneous & anti-republican doctrines, and even the ecclesiastical Hierarchy itself, for that is a part of the Common law.”

And another example.

James Madison to Peter S. DuPonceau

That the Constitution is predicated on the existence of the Common Law cannot be questioned; because it borrows therefrom terms which must be explained by Com: Law Authorities; but this no more implies a general adoption or recognition of it, than the use of terms embracing articles of the Civil Law would carry such an implication.

As men, our birth right was from a much higher source, than the Common or any other human law and of much greater extent than is imparted or admitted by the Common law. And as far as it might belong to us as British subjects it must, with its correlative obligations, have expired when we ceased to be such.

Don’t argue with me. Argue with Your previous best buddy James Madison.

DiogenesLamp on March 31, 2011 at 12:03 PM

The Kelo decision was a twisting & ba$tardization of the intent of Eminent Domain.
It’s tyrannical. And ridiculous. A strip mall, etc. is not a bridge or a road.
Once you start setting up legal precedents that are usurpations of the Const., you have gone to he!! in a handbasket.
And that is why the states insisted upon including the 10th Amm. Bcs they KNEW the fed would want more power.
And the states have been a bunch of lazy buttheads in not exercising their Amendment power.
It is time for states to start taking back their rights.
It is their DUTY.

Badger40 on March 31, 2011 at 8:39 AM

The Kelo decision is an example of what I mean when I say the court’s power to enforce it’s decision does not confer “correctness” on it’s pronouncements. The court is completely WRONG in this decision, and I have no heartburn pointing out that the court is WRONG.

I am not going to accept a SCOTUS ruling that asserts that “Water is not wet.” Anyone that does accept wrong rulings is a fool.

DiogenesLamp on March 31, 2011 at 12:06 PM

DiogenesLamp, I want to let you know that I hadn’t read your posts, until now, which I see have a parallel with mine. I just picked up on the same sophistry rukiddingme has been using that you noticed as well! I haven’t meant to step on your toes at all in your conversation with rukm.

I really don’t like smug people who refuse to argue in a completely straightforward manner. Cowards and betas, all of them! :)

Bizarro No. 1 on March 31, 2011 at 10:19 AM

Not at all. I welcome analysis and understanding from any direction. I feel it is our duty to bat down false arguments, and I do so with relish. Your efforts are appreciated as well. We need to retake the field of public opinion and the only way we can accomplish this is by fighting.

We must refute sophistry and false logic in this fight. What is puzzling to me is why so many people purportedly on our side are running interference for the enemy? (Especially in light of such bad reasoning on the other side.)

Good to have you in the fight, and it IS a fight. Shine some light, push back the darkness!

DiogenesLamp on March 31, 2011 at 12:12 PM

DiogenesLamp on March 31, 2011 at 11:45 AM

This person “rukiddingme” is a pure troll.

After I destroyed him in a discussion regarding the right of states to leave the union, he became my personal troll, following me from topic to topic (including this one) trying to “prove” me wrong, regardless of subject. Since this site does not provide an ignore function, I simply ignore this person, since he uses the most dishonest leftist tactics, then decends into silly personal attacks.

I also note, not a single gullible has come up with even a scrap of an explanation of why Soetoro AKA 0bama has a obviously fake social security number.

Rebar on March 31, 2011 at 12:35 PM

This person “rukiddingme” is a pure troll.

After I destroyed him in a discussion regarding the right of states to leave the union, he became my personal troll, following me from topic to topic (including this one) trying to “prove” me wrong, regardless of subject. Since this site does not provide an ignore function, I simply ignore this person, since he uses the most dishonest leftist tactics, then decends into silly personal attacks.

I also note, not a single gullible has come up with even a scrap of an explanation of why Soetoro AKA 0bama has a obviously fake social security number.

Rebar on March 31, 2011 at 12:35 PM

Well, I spanked him pretty hard. Perhaps he will tire of twisting in the wind? :)

But yeah, he looks like a “Concern Troll.”

DiogenesLamp on March 31, 2011 at 2:01 PM

Since you don’t agree with every USSC decision ever made, what exactly is your point of bringing one into the discussion in order to try to bolster your position, as though it’s somehow definitive, and as though that’s some kind of good argument technique?

One does not have to agree with every opinion of SCOTUS to grasp SCOTUS opinion is the law. SCOTUS has ruled on this issue, it is definitive, and it’s quite obvious you don’t agree with the opinion. Convince SCOTUS to revisit the issue and overturn the previous opinion or amend the Constitution.

You are self-servingly using your selected case as a club, and it’s lame.

The club is the most relevant SCOTUS opinion pertaining to this issue.

If it’s a lame club, take that issue up with SCOTUS.

Yes, I’ve noticed how Anti-Birthers operate!

Yes, I’ve noticed how birthers operate!

Never trust people who use coercive tactics in order to try to kill a conversation.
Bizarro No. 1 on March 31, 2011 at 9:57 AM

Okay. I no longer trust you.

rukiddingme on March 31, 2011 at 3:00 PM

If your point is not that Article II should be rejected in this example, then what is your point?

One last time.

You assert natural born equals born on US soil to US citizens. You then assert the natural born definition is found in a book written by a Swiss philosopher. Except the definition that proves your assertion was not written by said Swiss philosopher until after the Constitution was written.

Finally, you assert those born on US soil to US citizens are likely to have more loyalty than one who is merely born on US soil. I gave you an example of the former that has less loyalty than the latter. The end result of your assertion is you have to choose Adam Gadahn over a soldier that died for your right to be a genius.

Now, I have pointed to the definition that exists with the 14th Amendment, SCOTUS, and the provided New York Case. It is now your turn to refute those facts. Calling judges morons and ranting about how you disagree with the 14th Amendment does not count.

Having done that, prove his birth certificate was amended by adoption.

You really ought to stop these childish type tactics. Even IF you are an ideologue or getting paid to do this, you must realize how silly you look when your intellectual dishonesty is pointed out.
DiogenesLamp on March 31, 2011 at 10:30 AM

I was thinking the same thing about you.

rukiddingme on March 31, 2011 at 3:02 PM

James Madison is the Father of the Bill of Rights, not the entire Constitution,

You might want to tell the owner of this web page to fix it.

I think a man with a gun sets the rules. I don’t think the gun makes him right, it just makes him in charge.
DiogenesLamp on March 31, 2011 at 10:42 AM

I think the law sets the rules. The gun helps the man enforce the law.

rukiddingme on March 31, 2011 at 3:03 PM

Is stuff like this REALLY a mystery to you?
DiogenesLamp on March 31, 2011 at 10:52 AM

No. It has become obvious that it is to you.

rukiddingme on March 31, 2011 at 3:03 PM

DiogenesLamp on March 31, 2011 at 10:54 AM

In addition to seeing the birth certificate, you have to touch, smell, and taste it.

Good luck with that.

rukiddingme on March 31, 2011 at 3:04 PM

Don’t argue with me. Argue with Your previous best buddy James Madison.
DiogenesLamp on March 31, 2011 at 12:03 PM

Madison is dead. Not much fun arguing with the dead. You will have to suffice.

rukiddingme on March 31, 2011 at 3:04 PM

This person “rukiddingme” is a pure troll.

This person Rebar is a pure genius and another great defender of the Constitution.

He believes the 14th Amendment is unConstitutional and States have a right to revoke US citizenship.

After I destroyed him in a discussion regarding the right of states to leave the union, he became my personal troll, following me from topic to topic (including this one) trying to “prove” me wrong, regardless of subject.

1. You did not destroy me in this discussion
2. I am not your personal troll
3. You left some trash behind
4. I disposed of some of said trash

Since this site does not provide an ignore function, I simply ignore this person, since he uses the most dishonest leftist tactics, then decends into silly personal attacks.

1.If had an ignore function, I would not see the trash you leave behind.

2.The personal attack came from you first.

I also note, not a single gullible has come up with even a scrap of an explanation of why Soetoro AKA 0bama has a obviously fake social security number.
Rebar on March 31, 2011 at 12:35 PM

I also note not a single birther has come up with even a scrap of an explanation of why he was able to avoid the suspicion of the IRS for 30 plus years when using an obviously real social security number.

rukiddingme on March 31, 2011 at 3:07 PM

Well, I spanked him pretty hard. Perhaps he will tire of twisting in the wind? :)

You missed.

But yeah, he looks like a “Concern Troll.”

DiogenesLamp on March 31, 2011 at 2:01 PM

Thank you! Adios!

rukiddingme on March 31, 2011 at 3:12 PM

One last time.

You assert natural born equals born on US soil to US citizens. You then assert the natural born definition is found in a book written by a Swiss philosopher. Except the definition that proves your assertion was not written by said Swiss philosopher until after the Constitution was written.

(1758) Wrong again fool. Link to prove you’re wrong.

http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/vattel/

Finally, you assert those born on US soil to US citizens are likely to have more loyalty than one who is merely born on US soil. I gave you an example of the former that has less loyalty than the latter. The end result of your assertion is you have to choose Adam Gadahn over a soldier that died for your right to be a genius.

I do not assert such. You have a reading comprehension problem. The founders believed such, and it is normally a safe bet. You put forth exceptions to the rule in an attempt to malign the rule. You demand PERFECTION and denounce “VERY GOOD” because it doesn’t attain PERFECTION.
The Founders applied the best formula that was available.

It *IS* the law until it’s repealed.

Now, I have pointed to the definition that exists with the 14th Amendment, SCOTUS, and the provided New York Case. It is now your turn to refute those facts. Calling judges morons and ranting about how you disagree with the 14th Amendment does not count.

They have been refuted repeatedly, yet here you are mindlessly repeating them again.

The 14th amendment does not repeal Article II. PERIOD. END of SENTENCE.

Article II is still in effect.

Having done that, prove his birth certificate was amended by adoption.

I don’t have to prove his birth certificate was amended by adoption, all I have to prove is that it is false. His own testimony proves that.

Barack SAYs it’s false. Deal with that fact.

DiogenesLamp on March 31, 2011 at 3:51 PM

James Madison is the Father of the Bill of Rights, not the entire Constitution,

You might want to tell the owner of this web page to fix it.

OMG! Someone is WRONG on the internet! Call the National guard! It’s not really a big deal. You ought to be USED to being wrong on the internet. The US Constitution was a collaborative effort between the Delegates of the States. How are you DISCUSSING this issue without KNOWING this? I can see you shoot your mouth off about things you don’t know about, but THAT is ridiculous!

I think a man with a gun sets the rules. I don’t think the gun makes him right, it just makes him in charge.
DiogenesLamp on March 31, 2011 at 10:42 AM

I think the law sets the rules. The gun helps the man enforce the law.

rukiddingme on March 31, 2011 at 3:03 PM

The man with the POWER decides what the law is.

In the Civil War, Lincoln Overrode the Supreme court.

DiogenesLamp on March 31, 2011 at 3:58 PM

Is stuff like this REALLY a mystery to you?
DiogenesLamp on March 31, 2011 at 10:52 AM

No. It has become obvious that it is to you.

rukiddingme on March 31, 2011 at 3:03 PM

No i’m not! You are!

rukiddingme: “No, you are!”

No i’m not!

rukiddingme: ” Yes you are!”

Geeze, grow up!

DiogenesLamp on March 31, 2011 at 4:09 PM

DiogenesLamp on March 31, 2011 at 10:54 AM

In addition to seeing the birth certificate, you have to touch, smell, and taste it.

Good luck with that.

rukiddingme on March 31, 2011 at 3:04 PM

I don’t give a crap about it. I have no belief whatsoever that the printout of the record entry represents anything like the truth.

If Barack Obama himself says that it does not constitute proof, then who am I to argue with his assessment of his own credentials?

DiogenesLamp on March 31, 2011 at 4:13 PM

Don’t argue with me. Argue with Your previous best buddy James Madison.
DiogenesLamp on March 31, 2011 at 12:03 PM

Madison is dead. Not much fun arguing with the dead. You will have to suffice.

rukiddingme on March 31, 2011 at 3:04 PM

You should argue with him. Against a dead guy you might actually have a chance. He won’t fight back! He’ll probably still whip you!

You HAVE NOT answered my question. You are dodging it.

Do your children have FALSE information on their birth certificates?

DiogenesLamp on March 31, 2011 at 4:17 PM

I also note not a single birther has come up with even a scrap of an explanation of why he was able to avoid the suspicion of the IRS for 30 plus years when using an obviously real social security number.

rukiddingme on March 31, 2011 at 3:07 PM

Perhaps it’s because he hasn’t had a REAL JOB in over 30 years, and by the time he got a job of any sort it was in CORRUPT CHICAGO!

Beside the point anyway.

DiogenesLamp on March 31, 2011 at 4:19 PM

Well, I spanked him pretty hard. Perhaps he will tire of twisting in the wind? :)

You missed.

What you mean is “Tis but a scratch.”

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_u1X7-o_qmHY/SrwO3lNkz5I/AAAAAAAAAJ0/84BOHGXDLN4/s400/monty-python-black-knight-.jpg

But yeah, he looks like a “Concern Troll.”

DiogenesLamp on March 31, 2011 at 2:01 PM

Thank you! Adios!

rukiddingme on March 31, 2011 at 3:12 PM

Yeah, right.

Is there false information on your Adopted Children’s birth certificate?

DiogenesLamp on March 31, 2011 at 4:25 PM

To rukidding me.

Do your Adopted children have FALSE information on their Amended birth certificates?

Let’s find out if you have enough guts to tell the truth. I’m betting you will ignore the question as you have previously.

DiogenesLamp on March 31, 2011 at 4:37 PM

DiogenesLamp on March 31, 2011 at 4:37 PM

I’ve been through the same rigmarole with this chump a dozen times. Not only is he willfully ignorant, but he’ll abandon the topic, wait until you post again on another, then start the whole thing over without the least acknowledgment of the previous one.

Not only that, his MO is to wait until the topic is old and people stop looking at it, then post – as if the last word gives him victory somehow. My thought is that he just gets off on wasting peoples time, so I simply ignore him.

Rebar on March 31, 2011 at 4:44 PM

DiogenesLamp on March 31, 2011 at 4:37 PM

I’ve been through the same rigmarole with this chump a dozen times. Not only is he willfully ignorant, but he’ll abandon the topic, wait until you post again on another, then start the whole thing over without the least acknowledgment of the previous one.

Not only that, his MO is to wait until the topic is old and people stop looking at it, then post – as if the last word gives him victory somehow. My thought is that he just gets off on wasting peoples time, so I simply ignore him.

Rebar on March 31, 2011 at 4:44 PM

I am going to ask him the question about his Children’s amended birth certificates every time I see a message from him. He will either answer it, or run and hide.

To paraphrase Monty Python, “And then I shall taunt him again! ”

:)

Anyone with Adopted children knows what I am saying is true. (Birth CertificaTIONS are not PROOF.)

It is the HEIGHT of hypocrisy to KNOW this information, yet continuously deny that it is true.

DiogenesLamp on March 31, 2011 at 4:55 PM

Rebar, is there a website that you frequent? It is worthwhile to pass new bits of information around that get discovered.

DiogenesLamp on March 31, 2011 at 5:02 PM

You mean message boards? I generally post here, once in a while I’ll post at Ace.

Rebar on March 31, 2011 at 5:23 PM

Yeah, I post there too. I have long accused Ace of getting his opinion on this issue from Allahpundit.

DiogenesLamp on March 31, 2011 at 5:36 PM

I have long accused Ace of getting his opinion on this issue from Allahpundit.

DiogenesLamp on March 31, 2011 at 5:36 PM

And I accuse Allahpundit of getting his opinion from Charles Johnson.

Rebar on March 31, 2011 at 5:41 PM

Back to The Thread That Wouldn’t Die. . .

Diogenes, here is a Scribd of a legal complaint related to Obama’s most famous Social Security Number (i.e., 042-68-4425)

The most fascinating part is how the source of some of the information is identified in the complaint [emphasis added]:

3. Intervener received a report and an affidavit from a licensed investigator and former elite Anti Communist Proliferation and Anti Organized Crime unit of the Scotland Yard officer Neil Sankey. Mr. Sankey’s report showed that Barack Hussein Obama (hereinafter ‘Obama’) is linked in the national databases to some 39 different Social Security numbers and multiple addresses. None of these numbers was issued in the state of Hawaii. The number that he used most often since around 1980 and still uses today, while residing in the White House, is a Connecticut Social Security number 042-68-4425. According to Lexis Nexis and Choice Point this number was originally issued to an elderly individual born in 1890, who resided in Connecticut, but this number was later assumed by Obama and used by him from around 1980-1981.”

Emperor Norton on March 31, 2011 at 5:43 PM

(1758) Wrong again fool. Link to prove you’re wrong.

DiogenesLamp on March 31, 2011 at 3:51 PM

An 1883 English translation of the 1758 French Edition is your proof?

OMG! Someone is WRONG on the internet! Call the National guard! It’s not really a big deal. You ought to be USED to being wrong on the internet. The US Constitution was a collaborative effort between the Delegates of the States. How are you DISCUSSING this issue without KNOWING this? I can see you shoot your mouth off about things you don’t know about, but THAT is ridiculous!

Here is the actual 1758 French Edition:
Les Naturels ou indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays de Parens Citoyens.

Google Translation gives:

The natives are natives or those who are native-born citizens of Parens

The 1760 English and 1787 American Editions say:

The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.

Please point to the Constitution where it says native.

Once again, your adoption, my adopted children, nor his father have anything to do with his eligibility. Since the Constitution does not say ‘native’ and you apparently have no facts to support your opinion other than resorting to arguing the nuances of ‘The Father of the Constitution” and presenting an 1883 translation of the 1758 French Edition as your proof, we are done.

See you in the next birther thread!.

rukiddingme on March 31, 2011 at 5:45 PM

What is astonishing to me is that some people automatically stick their fingers in their ears and go “NA NA NA NA NA NA… I’m not LISTENING!” whenever the subject is brought up.

I must say I originally thought the subject was done when those newspaper announcements were found. But after people pointed out that Hawaii will allow birth certificates to be generated for people not even born in the state, I started looking into it more.

The more you look, the more you find out that all is not what it seemed to be.

DiogenesLamp on March 31, 2011 at 5:47 PM

Emperor Norton on March 31, 2011 at 5:43 PM

“We invented all kinds of ways to obtain false identity papers, and got busy building multiple sets of ID for each of us and for every contingency,” writes Bill Ayers of his years in the Weather Underground. “We soon figured out that the deepest and most foolproof ID had a government-issued Social Security card at its heart.”

Rebar on March 31, 2011 at 5:47 PM

Not only that, his MO is to wait until the topic is old and people stop looking at it, then post – as if the last word gives him victory somehow. My thought is that he just gets off on wasting peoples time, so I simply ignore him.

Rebar on March 31, 2011 at 4:44 PM

Projecting your image onto me does not make you me.

rukiddingme on March 31, 2011 at 5:47 PM

The complaint in the same Scribd linked above also says:

14. It is also noteworthy, that Obama’s grandmother Madeline Payne Dunham was known to volunteer at the Oahu Circuit court probate department and had access to Social Security numbers of the recently deceased individuals, whose death may or may not have been reported to the Social Security administration.

Emperor Norton on March 31, 2011 at 5:51 PM

Emperor Norton on March 31, 2011 at 5:43 PM

I am somewhat familiar with the Social Security number issue. At American Digest there is a man claiming his sister HELPED Obama get that Connecticut social security number.

At first I thought the guy was a kook, but when I checked out OTHER information he related, I found out it was true, so now I’m not so sure.

Anyway, If they can finesse proof of eligibility, now that they are in power, they can finesse anything. The reason I don’t mind getting in these “Birth CertificaTION” discussions is because I think this issue is a weak link for him.

I don’t put much stock in that “Ulsterman” fellow,(supposed White House insider) either, but he says the same thing.

Who knows? I say hammer it till something breaks.

DiogenesLamp on March 31, 2011 at 5:57 PM

Here is the actual 1758 French Edition:
Les Naturels ou indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays de Parens Citoyens.

Google Translation gives:

The natives are natives or those who are native-born citizens of Parens

The 1760 English and 1787 American Editions say:

The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.

Please point to the Constitution where it says native.

Once again, your adoption, my adopted children, nor his father have anything to do with his eligibility. Since the Constitution does not say ‘native’ and you apparently have no facts to support your opinion other than resorting to arguing the nuances of ‘The Father of the Constitution” and presenting an 1883 translation of the 1758 French Edition as your proof, we are done.

See you in the next birther thread!.

rukiddingme on March 31, 2011 at 5:45 PM

So you CAN use the internet! So why are you so ignorant then?

By the way, how about answering whether your Adopted Children have FALSE information on their Amended Birth Certificates?

No response? I thought not.

DiogenesLamp on March 31, 2011 at 6:01 PM

Projecting your image onto me does not make you me.

rukiddingme on March 31, 2011 at 5:47 PM

Hey, Answer the question!

Do your adopted children have Amended Birth Certificates?

(You know, like under the entry of “Birth Father” perhaps?)

DiogenesLamp on March 31, 2011 at 6:03 PM

Bravely bold Sir Rukiddingme rode forth from Camelot.
He was not afraid to die, O brave Sir Rukiddingme!
He was not at all afraid to be killed in nasty ways,
Brave, brave, brave, brave Sir Rukiddingme!

He was not in the least bit scared to be mashed into a pulp,
Or to have his eyes gouged out, and his elbows broken;
To have his kneecaps split, and his body burned away;
And his limbs all hacked and mangled, brave Sir Rukiddingme!

His head smashed in and his heart cut out
And his liver removed and his bowels unplugged
And his nostrils raped and his bottom burned off
And his pen–

DiogenesLamp on March 31, 2011 at 6:10 PM

Diogenes is just setting things up so if the President ever does release his long form cert to the public it can be claimed that it is “faked” because he was adopted and has an amended birth certificate. Which is probably why he won’t do it. Not only will they come up with another crackpot conspiracy theory, but even currently they can’t agree on the actual conspiracy, so they will just spiral downward into the abyss of the paranoid.

Maybe Obama is really an alien from outer space and he and his alien race have infiltrated ALL levels of world governments that had the plan all along to get this person to be a US President. And that is why they were able to have a birth announcement planted in newspapers, a fake COLB from Hawaii, Officials stating they have seen his long form and that he was born in Hawaii, why no court will take up their stupid lawsuits, and why he has managed to get away for years and years using fake social security numbers undetected.

Magnus on March 31, 2011 at 6:25 PM

had the plan all along to get this person to be a US President.

Magnus on March 31, 2011 at 6:25 PM

Actually, it’s the opposite.

If they had this grand plan, they would have made him get the court order legally changing his name back to 0bama, then he could have released all of it – birth certificate, transcripts, etc., and he could use his real social security number.

It’s that he assumed the name, and started using it in a felonious manner, that put him in this bind. Although I’m sure he appreciates you carrying his water, the DailyKOS check is on the way.

Rebar on March 31, 2011 at 6:57 PM

Diogenes is just setting things up so if the President ever does release his long form cert to the public it can be claimed that it is “faked” because he was adopted and has an amended birth certificate. Which is probably why he won’t do it. Not only will they come up with another crackpot conspiracy theory, but even currently they can’t agree on the actual conspiracy, so they will just spiral downward into the abyss of the paranoid.

Maybe Obama is really an alien from outer space and he and his alien race have infiltrated ALL levels of world governments that had the plan all along to get this person to be a US President. And that is why they were able to have a birth announcement planted in newspapers, a fake COLB from Hawaii, Officials stating they have seen his long form and that he was born in Hawaii, why no court will take up their stupid lawsuits, and why he has managed to get away for years and years using fake social security numbers undetected.

Magnus on March 31, 2011 at 6:25 PM

Running interference are we?

Listen very closely. I’ve said this several times already, so i’m hoping you pay attention THIS time. (Who am I kidding. You are going to repeat this bullsh*t accusation the very next chance you get.)

I am NOT alleging a conspiracy. It’s just ONE GUY LYING.

Got it? ONE GUY LYING.

Except for you trolls helping him, and he might be paying you. I can’t see anyone being so stupid for real.

DiogenesLamp on March 31, 2011 at 9:21 PM

Sorry, got interrupted. Where was I?

Oh Yeah…

Brave Sir Rukid ran away.
Bravely ran away, away!
When danger reared its ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled.
Yes, brave Sir Rukid turned about
And gallantly he chickened out.
Bravely taking to his feet
He beat a very brave retreat,
Bravest of the brave, Sir Rukid!

I’ve shortened “Rukiddingme” to Rukid. It fits the ballad better. :)

DiogenesLamp on March 31, 2011 at 9:24 PM

One does not have to agree with every opinion of SCOTUS to grasp SCOTUS opinion is the law. SCOTUS has ruled on this issue, it is definitive, and it’s quite obvious you don’t agree with the opinion. Convince SCOTUS to revisit the issue and overturn the previous opinion or amend the Constitution.

You missed my point, I see. When I said “definitive”, I meant it in this sense: having its fixed and final form.

Since it isn’t rationally deniable that the USSC has reversed prior decisions its made more than once, since it isn’t rationally deniable that your own interpretations of the Constitution might be incorrect, since it isn’t rationally deniable that your own opinions of others’ interpretations of the Constitution might be incorrect, and since it isn’t rationally deniable that the interpretation of the Constitution by USSC Justices might be incorrect, using a particular decision you agreed with in order to augment the ‘supremacy’ of your position in a debate, while conversely not accepting that a decision you disagreed with would then be an indictment of your position in another debate, shows extremely poor form.

If you actually care about logic as much as you fancy you do, you’ll humbly absorb the correction, and change your behavior accordingly. As you’ve shown us, you are not willling to do that (well, not yet at least.)

You are self-servingly using your selected case as a club, and it’s lame.

The club is the most relevant SCOTUS opinion pertaining to this issue.

No, the club you’re wielding is your usage of someone who agrees with you, as though the concurrence constitutes conclusive proof, in order to bash someone who doesn’t agree with you. In other words, you’ve been acting like a pompous jerk.

If it’s a lame club, take that issue up with SCOTUS.

You’re being disingenious here, or you were before when you indicated that DiogenesLamp’s understanding of “Natural Born Citizen” was Constitutionally incorrect. So, which one is it?

Yes, I’ve noticed how Anti-Birthers operate!

Yes, I’ve noticed how birthers operate!

You’ve noticed that Birthers aren’t as frightened as Anti-Birthers are when it comes to investigating Obamessiah’s excessively secretive behavior? GREAT!!! :)

Never trust people who use coercive tactics in order to try to kill a conversation.

Bizarro No. 1 on March 31, 2011 at 9:57 AM

Okay. I no longer trust you.

rukiddingme on March 31, 2011 at 3:00 PM

LOL what are you, a 6-year old?

If you refuse to show where I have been unassertive with you after making such a charge against me, it proves that you‘re guilty of your accusation yourself. Refute that! :)

Bizarro No. 1 on April 1, 2011 at 4:02 AM

If you refuse to show where I have been unassertive with you after making such a charge against me, it proves that you‘re guilty of your accusation yourself. Refute that! :) ?
Bizarro No. 1 on April 1, 2011 at 4:02 AM

LOL what are you, a 6-year old?

rukiddingme on April 1, 2011 at 2:19 PM

So you CAN use the internet! So why are you so ignorant then.

Yes, it was used to refute your assertion regarding Vattel’s writings of 1758 and the 1883 translation that you presented as being a 1758 English translation.

Were you being intellectually dishonest or merely ignorant in doing so?

By the way, how about answering whether your Adopted Children have FALSE information on their Amended Birth Certificates?

There is no false information on the amended birth certificates of my children.

No response? I thought not.
DiogenesLamp on March 31, 2011 at 6:01 PM

Now you know you can think and be wrong at the same time.

rukiddingme on April 1, 2011 at 2:20 PM

Comment pages: 1 5 6 7 8