alan grayson threatens lawsuit on citizenship grounds if ted cruz is the gop nominee

[Skylar]

... and if Cruz is elected, HIS Presidency will also be illegitimate.

... and despite believing this, gay_keys says will still vote to put Cruz in office if given the chance.

Yes, folks, there really are low life conservatives like gay_keys who seek to undermine the Constitution in order to find ideological gains.

If not for double standards, these people would have no standards at all.

 

[oreo]

Now let's be honest the Birther's had a fit over Obama--and it turns out he was born in Hawaii which is a state in the United States. Meaning (natural born citizen) & eligible to be POTUS.

Frankly, I have always thought that you had to be (physically) BORN in this country to be eligible to run for the Presidency. Obviously Ted Cruz does not meet that qualification, and I am for it being challenged.

You can't scrutinize between one candidate, simply because he is from the opposing party, and not stand ground on your own parties candidate without looking like a total hypocrite.

 

[Skylar]

And by 'popularity', you mean history?

ROFL!

And it switches from appealing to popularity to the appeal to misleading authority.

As opposed to what...you offering your opinion? Remember, you've never offered us anything but you citing yourself. And you citing you isn't objective evidence.

History is evidence. The Naturalization Act of 1790 is objective evidence. English common law is objective evidence. The Wong Kim Ark ruling is evidence. The dictionary is objective evidence.

And you ignore it all. And cling to your subjective opinion. That's not 'objectivity'. That's ignoring objective evidence in favor of what you want to believe.

(Reader, that people have historically accepted a misnomer, does not establish the misnomer as valid.)

And by 'reader', you mean you talking to yourself? It establishes at least a century of the term 'natural born' in practice. And in explicit contradiction of your claims.

While your claims are backed by nothing. Not history. Not the founders. Not US law. Not the Supreme Court. Not English Common Law. Not the dictionary.

Nothing. Just you....insisting it must be so because you say it is.

 

[Skylar]

Now let's be honest the Birther's had a fit over Obama--and it turns out he was born in Hawaii which is a state in the United States. Meaning (natural born citizen) & eligible to be POTUS.

Frankly, I have always thought that you had to be (physically) BORN in this country to be eligible to run for the Presidency. Obviously Ted Cruz does not meet that qualification, and I am for it being challenged.

You can't scrutinize between one candidate, simply because he is from the opposing party, and not stand ground on your own parties candidate without looking like a total hypocrite.

Oh, not only aren't they scrutinizing Cruz........they're openly supporting him. They have no standards. They believe in nothing save their candidate winning. And they'll ignore their own arguments if that's what's necessary.

As I said, if not for double standards they'd have no standards at all.

 

[Skylar]

Obama didn't pledge to 'fundamentally change the US constitution'.

Am I?

Yup. Watch in the clip below. Obama doesn't even mention the US constitution. You made up your quote.



So much for your imagination.

Can't transform the United States of America, without transforming the US Constitution, or the government adherence to such. (Sweet Fail ya have going here...)

Laughing....so you admit that Obama didn't pledge to 'fundamentally change the US constitution'. As when pressed for the quote from the President....

........you quote yourself as Obama.

Sigh.....sometimes I feel like a grown man kicking a puppy.

All that said... your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

And your tell. Your little white flag to signal that you're ready to run. Right after I caught you making up an imaginary Obama quote, with you providing the evidence to prove you wrong.

This is why you always lose. You keep offering your imagination as objective evidence.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

... and if Cruz is elected, HIS Presidency will also be illegitimate.

... and despite believing this, gay_keys says will still vote to put Cruz in office if given the chance.

Yes, folks, there really are low life conservatives like gay_keys who seek to undermine the Constitution in order to find ideological gains.

Sugar lips... I don't get to drive the train... I don't get to ring the bell... all that's mine that's left to do, is watch the wreck and catch the hell.

I am the only one here defending the Constitution. THE ONLY ONE.

Now... that said, Chester Author didn't injure the US because his old man was born in Ireland.

And Ted Cruz isn't going to injure the US because his old man is a staunch anti-communist, who came to the US to avoid being murdered BY the communists... because of his 'differing opinions' that they have so much tolerance for.

As you and your cult mates have pointed out, for well over a century people have misunderstood or openly rejected the principle designed specifically to protect the office of the Presidency from obama and other subversives like him... as the Framers understood, the office of the Presidency is such that it ONE could be enough to destroy the nation. And obama's track record indicates that they were right... as in all likelihood he has destroyed the United States.

You guys work it out...

You get the nation to impeach obama, reverse his policies, pursue those who inserted him into office and convict them of treason... charge obama with treason, try, convict and execute him... and his cabinet and I'll pull my vote for Cruz, assuming Doc Carson doesn't win the nomination.

Otherwise... its your precedent and you're gonna have to live with the consequences that it brings.

 

[Slyhunter]

The dictionary, the Naturalization Act of 1790, the Wong Kim Ark decision all point in one direction: place of birth.

The Phrase Natural Born Citizen speaks to "THE NATURE OF CITIZENSHIP".

The nature of citizenship is a function of ... (wait for it... ) NATURE.

This is to say that the function of the standard for the office of the US President rests in THE NATURE OF CITIZENSHIP... and decidedly NOT: THE LAW.

Meaning that the Constitution requires that beyond the age requirement, the minimal requirement to hold the office of the President of the United States, the individual must have come to BE a citizen of the United States as a natural consequence of their birth.

This requirement was established so as to preclude divided loyalties common to individuals who are merely citizens by law; such as where a child is born to two individuals of distinct nationalities. The Child may well be the citizen of TWO nations... but in any regard such a child would likely be influenced by the loyalties of the foreign parent to the foreign ideas common to their parents nationality; ideas which are often HOSTILE TO AMERICAN PRINCIPLE.

Thus the PRESIDENT being the Chief Executive, he is tasked with defending the state via its Charter of Principles and to do so through strict adherence to the Charter of Laws.

An individual with loyalties to Foreign Ideas Hostile to those Principles, will likely alter enforcement of the Laws as a means of escaping the responsibilities intrinsic in the principles.

The Standard, set now ell over two centuries hence, reads like PROPHECY... as the failure to adhere to that standard has subjected the United States to PRECISELY what the Standard was designed to prevent.

Now... that standard... was intended to prevent the British and French and their degenerate ideas from infiltrating the US Government.

And in a delicious irony... we have in the above cited would-be 'contributor', a Mouthy British subject, coming to deflect, conflate, obscure and take whatever measures are necessary to separate you, the Reader, from the Principles set under that standard, so as to prevent you from recognizing that it was designed to prevent people like IT, from getting anywhere NEAR the office of the Presidency of the United States.

Again... to Recap: "Natural Born Citizen" is NOT a phrase of law... it does not speak to "THE LAW", it does not count UPON the law, because it stands ABOVE THE LAW... as it sits entirely in NATURE.. and specifically:

THE NATURE of CITIZENSHIP.

Two Citizens join to produce a child... the NATURAL consequence of of that child being BORN... is A CITIZEN.​

And being the conservative hypocrite you are, you'll carelessly toss all of that aside to vote for a candidate you believe does not have the Constitutional authority to head the Executive branch.

Yep, folks, conservatives like this gay_keys loser have no convictions. They stand for nothing other than ideology over country.

Their standards don't actually apply to them. Even their 'precedent' argument is meaningless drivel. As the first president born in the US with only 1 US parent......wasn't Barack Obama.

It was Chester Authur in 1881. Who was born in the US to an American mother and an Irish-Canadian father. Even by their own logic, Obama is eligible. But they ignore their own reasoning, history, reason, the founders, English common law, the Supreme Court, US law, everything......

.......and just make up whatever they like. This they call 'objective'. I call it adorable.

You still haven't proved he wasn't born in Kenya.

You have yet to prove he was born in Kenya. And while 'disprove any batshit I can possibly make up' may be popular among conspiracy theorists, truthers and flat earthers.....its legally meaningless.

As Obama's COLB resolves any legal questions to his place of birth in Hawaii, acting as prima facie evidence in any court of law.

Prima Facie evidence vs. your imagination has the same winner every time: not you.

Obama said he was from Kenya. They published it in that pamphlet in college. Now you have to disprove it.

 

[Slyhunter]

The dictionary, the Naturalization Act of 1790, the Wong Kim Ark decision all point in one direction: place of birth.

The Phrase Natural Born Citizen speaks to "THE NATURE OF CITIZENSHIP".

The nature of citizenship is a function of ... (wait for it... ) NATURE.

This is to say that the function of the standard for the office of the US President rests in THE NATURE OF CITIZENSHIP... and decidedly NOT: THE LAW.

Meaning that the Constitution requires that beyond the age requirement, the minimal requirement to hold the office of the President of the United States, the individual must have come to BE a citizen of the United States as a natural consequence of their birth.

This requirement was established so as to preclude divided loyalties common to individuals who are merely citizens by law; such as where a child is born to two individuals of distinct nationalities. The Child may well be the citizen of TWO nations... but in any regard such a child would likely be influenced by the loyalties of the foreign parent to the foreign ideas common to their parents nationality; ideas which are often HOSTILE TO AMERICAN PRINCIPLE.

Thus the PRESIDENT being the Chief Executive, he is tasked with defending the state via its Charter of Principles and to do so through strict adherence to the Charter of Laws.

An individual with loyalties to Foreign Ideas Hostile to those Principles, will likely alter enforcement of the Laws as a means of escaping the responsibilities intrinsic in the principles.

The Standard, set now ell over two centuries hence, reads like PROPHECY... as the failure to adhere to that standard has subjected the United States to PRECISELY what the Standard was designed to prevent.

Now... that standard... was intended to prevent the British and French and their degenerate ideas from infiltrating the US Government.

And in a delicious irony... we have in the above cited would-be 'contributor', a Mouthy British subject, coming to deflect, conflate, obscure and take whatever measures are necessary to separate you, the Reader, from the Principles set under that standard, so as to prevent you from recognizing that it was designed to prevent people like IT, from getting anywhere NEAR the office of the Presidency of the United States.

Again... to Recap: "Natural Born Citizen" is NOT a phrase of law... it does not speak to "THE LAW", it does not count UPON the law, because it stands ABOVE THE LAW... as it sits entirely in NATURE.. and specifically:

THE NATURE of CITIZENSHIP.

Two Citizens join to produce a child... the NATURAL consequence of of that child being BORN... is A CITIZEN.​

And being the conservative hypocrite you are, you'll carelessly toss all of that aside to vote for a candidate you believe does not have the Constitutional authority to head the Executive branch.

Yep, folks, conservatives like this gay_keys loser have no convictions. They stand for nothing other than ideology over country.

Their standards don't actually apply to them. Even their 'precedent' argument is meaningless drivel. As the first president born in the US with only 1 US parent......wasn't Barack Obama.

It was Chester Authur in 1881. Who was born in the US to an American mother and an Irish-Canadian father. Even by their own logic, Obama is eligible. But they ignore their own reasoning, history, reason, the founders, English common law, the Supreme Court, US law, everything......

.......and just make up whatever they like. This they call 'objective'. I call it adorable.

You still haven't proved he wasn't born in Kenya.

Says he was born in Honolulu...

Wrong form. Where is the one created when he was born? The real one? Not a manufactured copy.

 

[Skylar]

The Phrase Natural Born Citizen speaks to "THE NATURE OF CITIZENSHIP".

The nature of citizenship is a function of ... (wait for it... ) NATURE.

This is to say that the function of the standard for the office of the US President rests in THE NATURE OF CITIZENSHIP... and decidedly NOT: THE LAW.

Meaning that the Constitution requires that beyond the age requirement, the minimal requirement to hold the office of the President of the United States, the individual must have come to BE a citizen of the United States as a natural consequence of their birth.

This requirement was established so as to preclude divided loyalties common to individuals who are merely citizens by law; such as where a child is born to two individuals of distinct nationalities. The Child may well be the citizen of TWO nations... but in any regard such a child would likely be influenced by the loyalties of the foreign parent to the foreign ideas common to their parents nationality; ideas which are often HOSTILE TO AMERICAN PRINCIPLE.

Thus the PRESIDENT being the Chief Executive, he is tasked with defending the state via its Charter of Principles and to do so through strict adherence to the Charter of Laws.

An individual with loyalties to Foreign Ideas Hostile to those Principles, will likely alter enforcement of the Laws as a means of escaping the responsibilities intrinsic in the principles.

The Standard, set now ell over two centuries hence, reads like PROPHECY... as the failure to adhere to that standard has subjected the United States to PRECISELY what the Standard was designed to prevent.

Now... that standard... was intended to prevent the British and French and their degenerate ideas from infiltrating the US Government.

And in a delicious irony... we have in the above cited would-be 'contributor', a Mouthy British subject, coming to deflect, conflate, obscure and take whatever measures are necessary to separate you, the Reader, from the Principles set under that standard, so as to prevent you from recognizing that it was designed to prevent people like IT, from getting anywhere NEAR the office of the Presidency of the United States.

Again... to Recap: "Natural Born Citizen" is NOT a phrase of law... it does not speak to "THE LAW", it does not count UPON the law, because it stands ABOVE THE LAW... as it sits entirely in NATURE.. and specifically:

THE NATURE of CITIZENSHIP.

Two Citizens join to produce a child... the NATURAL consequence of of that child being BORN... is A CITIZEN.​

And being the conservative hypocrite you are, you'll carelessly toss all of that aside to vote for a candidate you believe does not have the Constitutional authority to head the Executive branch.

Yep, folks, conservatives like this gay_keys loser have no convictions. They stand for nothing other than ideology over country.

Their standards don't actually apply to them. Even their 'precedent' argument is meaningless drivel. As the first president born in the US with only 1 US parent......wasn't Barack Obama.

It was Chester Authur in 1881. Who was born in the US to an American mother and an Irish-Canadian father. Even by their own logic, Obama is eligible. But they ignore their own reasoning, history, reason, the founders, English common law, the Supreme Court, US law, everything......

.......and just make up whatever they like. This they call 'objective'. I call it adorable.

You still haven't proved he wasn't born in Kenya.

You have yet to prove he was born in Kenya. And while 'disprove any batshit I can possibly make up' may be popular among conspiracy theorists, truthers and flat earthers.....its legally meaningless.

As Obama's COLB resolves any legal questions to his place of birth in Hawaii, acting as prima facie evidence in any court of law.

Prima Facie evidence vs. your imagination has the same winner every time: not you.

Obama said he was from Kenya. They published it in that pamphlet in college. Now you have to disprove it.

Nope, nope, and nope.

Obama never said he was from Kenya. There was no 'college pamphlet'. And I don't have to disprove any of the nonsense you make up.

While the COLB affirming his birth in Hawaii still stands as prima facie evidence in any court of law. While your imagination is still meaningless gibberish.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Obama didn't pledge to 'fundamentally change the US constitution'.

Am I?

Yup. Watch in the clip below. Obama doesn't even mention the US constitution.

"We are 5 days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America"

Now as was noted earlier: Ya can't 'transform the United States of America', without transforming the US Constitution, and/or the government adherence to such. It all works out the same. (Sweet set of Fails ya have going here...)

All that said... your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[Skylar]

The Phrase Natural Born Citizen speaks to "THE NATURE OF CITIZENSHIP".

The nature of citizenship is a function of ... (wait for it... ) NATURE.

This is to say that the function of the standard for the office of the US President rests in THE NATURE OF CITIZENSHIP... and decidedly NOT: THE LAW.

Meaning that the Constitution requires that beyond the age requirement, the minimal requirement to hold the office of the President of the United States, the individual must have come to BE a citizen of the United States as a natural consequence of their birth.

This requirement was established so as to preclude divided loyalties common to individuals who are merely citizens by law; such as where a child is born to two individuals of distinct nationalities. The Child may well be the citizen of TWO nations... but in any regard such a child would likely be influenced by the loyalties of the foreign parent to the foreign ideas common to their parents nationality; ideas which are often HOSTILE TO AMERICAN PRINCIPLE.

Thus the PRESIDENT being the Chief Executive, he is tasked with defending the state via its Charter of Principles and to do so through strict adherence to the Charter of Laws.

An individual with loyalties to Foreign Ideas Hostile to those Principles, will likely alter enforcement of the Laws as a means of escaping the responsibilities intrinsic in the principles.

The Standard, set now ell over two centuries hence, reads like PROPHECY... as the failure to adhere to that standard has subjected the United States to PRECISELY what the Standard was designed to prevent.

Now... that standard... was intended to prevent the British and French and their degenerate ideas from infiltrating the US Government.

And in a delicious irony... we have in the above cited would-be 'contributor', a Mouthy British subject, coming to deflect, conflate, obscure and take whatever measures are necessary to separate you, the Reader, from the Principles set under that standard, so as to prevent you from recognizing that it was designed to prevent people like IT, from getting anywhere NEAR the office of the Presidency of the United States.

Again... to Recap: "Natural Born Citizen" is NOT a phrase of law... it does not speak to "THE LAW", it does not count UPON the law, because it stands ABOVE THE LAW... as it sits entirely in NATURE.. and specifically:

THE NATURE of CITIZENSHIP.

Two Citizens join to produce a child... the NATURAL consequence of of that child being BORN... is A CITIZEN.​

And being the conservative hypocrite you are, you'll carelessly toss all of that aside to vote for a candidate you believe does not have the Constitutional authority to head the Executive branch.

Yep, folks, conservatives like this gay_keys loser have no convictions. They stand for nothing other than ideology over country.

Their standards don't actually apply to them. Even their 'precedent' argument is meaningless drivel. As the first president born in the US with only 1 US parent......wasn't Barack Obama.

It was Chester Authur in 1881. Who was born in the US to an American mother and an Irish-Canadian father. Even by their own logic, Obama is eligible. But they ignore their own reasoning, history, reason, the founders, English common law, the Supreme Court, US law, everything......

.......and just make up whatever they like. This they call 'objective'. I call it adorable.

You still haven't proved he wasn't born in Kenya.

Says he was born in Honolulu...

Wrong form. Where is the one created when he was born? The real one? Not a manufactured copy.

A COLB is a legal birth certificate and serves as prima facie evidence of the facts of birth in any court proceeding.

Ignore as you will. Your willful ignorance is no more a legal standard than your imagination.

 

[Skylar]

... and if Cruz is elected, HIS Presidency will also be illegitimate.

... and despite believing this, gay_keys says will still vote to put Cruz in office if given the chance.

Yes, folks, there really are low life conservatives like gay_keys who seek to undermine the Constitution in order to find ideological gains.

Sugar lips... I don't get to drive the train... I don't get to ring the bell... all that's mine that's left to do, is watch the wreck and catch the hell.

You do get to control your own behavior. And you are openly supporting what you insist is an illegitimate candidate in defiance of the constitution.

Demonstrating how few fucks you actually have to give on the constitution or a candidate's actual eligibility. You care only if the candidate says what you believe. If he does, you gladly wipe your ass with the constitution by your own standards. If he doesn't, then you have to 'defend the constitution'.

If not for double standards, Sugar Lips.....you'd have no standards at all.

 

[Faun]

... and if Cruz is elected, HIS Presidency will also be illegitimate.

... and despite believing this, gay_keys says will still vote to put Cruz in office if given the chance.

Yes, folks, there really are low life conservatives like gay_keys who seek to undermine the Constitution in order to find ideological gains.

Sugar lips... I don't get to drive the train... I don't get to ring the bell... all that's mine that's left to do, is watch the wreck and catch the hell.

I am the only one here defending the Constitution. THE ONLY ONE.

Now... that said, Chester Author didn't injure the US because his old man was born in Ireland.

And Ted Cruz isn't going to injure the US because his old man is a staunch anti-communist, who came to the US to avoid being murdered BY the communists... because of his 'differing opinions' that they have so much tolerance for.

As you and your cult mates have pointed out, for well over a century people have misunderstood or openly rejected the principle designed specifically to protect the office of the Presidency from obama and other subversives like him... as the Framers understood, the office of the Presidency is such that it ONE could be enough to destroy the nation. And obama's track record indicates that they were right... as in all likelihood he has destroyed the United States.

You guys work it out...

You get the nation to impeach obama, reverse his policies, pursue those who inserted him into office and convict them of treason... charge obama with treason, try, convict and execute him... and his cabinet and I'll pull my vote for Cruz, assuming Doc Carson doesn't win the nomination.

Otherwise... its your precedent and you're gonna have to live with the consequences that it brings.

As always, your delusions are noted. You are not defending the Constitution, you are shitting on it. You have clearly stated your belief that Cruz, in your opinion, is not eligible to be president of the United States. Despite believing that; and despite believing a Cruz presidency would be unconstitutional and illegitimate; you say you will still support a Cruz presidency by giving him your vote.

Can you even spell "hypocrite," lowly conservative?

 

[Skylar]

Obama didn't pledge to 'fundamentally change the US constitution'.

Am I?

Yup. Watch in the clip below. Obama doesn't even mention the US constitution.

"We are 5 days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America"

Now as was noted earlier: Ya can't 'transform the United States of America', without transforming the US Constitution, and/or the government adherence to such. It all works out the same. (Sweet set of Fails ya have going here...)

And for the second time, you admit that your made up quote about Obama 'pledging to fundamentally transform the constitution' doesn't exist. As when pressed to offer us evidence of Obama saying it...

........you quote yourself as Obama.

Um, Sugar Lips......you citing yourself isn't you citing the President. Try again. This time quoting Obama.

All that said... your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

And your first tell. Your little white flag.

That was easy.

 

[Faun]

The Phrase Natural Born Citizen speaks to "THE NATURE OF CITIZENSHIP".

The nature of citizenship is a function of ... (wait for it... ) NATURE.

This is to say that the function of the standard for the office of the US President rests in THE NATURE OF CITIZENSHIP... and decidedly NOT: THE LAW.

Meaning that the Constitution requires that beyond the age requirement, the minimal requirement to hold the office of the President of the United States, the individual must have come to BE a citizen of the United States as a natural consequence of their birth.

This requirement was established so as to preclude divided loyalties common to individuals who are merely citizens by law; such as where a child is born to two individuals of distinct nationalities. The Child may well be the citizen of TWO nations... but in any regard such a child would likely be influenced by the loyalties of the foreign parent to the foreign ideas common to their parents nationality; ideas which are often HOSTILE TO AMERICAN PRINCIPLE.

Thus the PRESIDENT being the Chief Executive, he is tasked with defending the state via its Charter of Principles and to do so through strict adherence to the Charter of Laws.

An individual with loyalties to Foreign Ideas Hostile to those Principles, will likely alter enforcement of the Laws as a means of escaping the responsibilities intrinsic in the principles.

The Standard, set now ell over two centuries hence, reads like PROPHECY... as the failure to adhere to that standard has subjected the United States to PRECISELY what the Standard was designed to prevent.

Now... that standard... was intended to prevent the British and French and their degenerate ideas from infiltrating the US Government.

And in a delicious irony... we have in the above cited would-be 'contributor', a Mouthy British subject, coming to deflect, conflate, obscure and take whatever measures are necessary to separate you, the Reader, from the Principles set under that standard, so as to prevent you from recognizing that it was designed to prevent people like IT, from getting anywhere NEAR the office of the Presidency of the United States.

Again... to Recap: "Natural Born Citizen" is NOT a phrase of law... it does not speak to "THE LAW", it does not count UPON the law, because it stands ABOVE THE LAW... as it sits entirely in NATURE.. and specifically:

THE NATURE of CITIZENSHIP.

Two Citizens join to produce a child... the NATURAL consequence of of that child being BORN... is A CITIZEN.​

And being the conservative hypocrite you are, you'll carelessly toss all of that aside to vote for a candidate you believe does not have the Constitutional authority to head the Executive branch.

Yep, folks, conservatives like this gay_keys loser have no convictions. They stand for nothing other than ideology over country.

Their standards don't actually apply to them. Even their 'precedent' argument is meaningless drivel. As the first president born in the US with only 1 US parent......wasn't Barack Obama.

It was Chester Authur in 1881. Who was born in the US to an American mother and an Irish-Canadian father. Even by their own logic, Obama is eligible. But they ignore their own reasoning, history, reason, the founders, English common law, the Supreme Court, US law, everything......

.......and just make up whatever they like. This they call 'objective'. I call it adorable.

You still haven't proved he wasn't born in Kenya.

You have yet to prove he was born in Kenya. And while 'disprove any batshit I can possibly make up' may be popular among conspiracy theorists, truthers and flat earthers.....its legally meaningless.

As Obama's COLB resolves any legal questions to his place of birth in Hawaii, acting as prima facie evidence in any court of law.

Prima Facie evidence vs. your imagination has the same winner every time: not you.

Obama said he was from Kenya. They published it in that pamphlet in college. Now you have to disprove it.

Prove Obama said that.....

 

[Skylar]

And being the conservative hypocrite you are, you'll carelessly toss all of that aside to vote for a candidate you believe does not have the Constitutional authority to head the Executive branch.

Yep, folks, conservatives like this gay_keys loser have no convictions. They stand for nothing other than ideology over country.

Their standards don't actually apply to them. Even their 'precedent' argument is meaningless drivel. As the first president born in the US with only 1 US parent......wasn't Barack Obama.

It was Chester Authur in 1881. Who was born in the US to an American mother and an Irish-Canadian father. Even by their own logic, Obama is eligible. But they ignore their own reasoning, history, reason, the founders, English common law, the Supreme Court, US law, everything......

.......and just make up whatever they like. This they call 'objective'. I call it adorable.

You still haven't proved he wasn't born in Kenya.

You have yet to prove he was born in Kenya. And while 'disprove any batshit I can possibly make up' may be popular among conspiracy theorists, truthers and flat earthers.....its legally meaningless.

As Obama's COLB resolves any legal questions to his place of birth in Hawaii, acting as prima facie evidence in any court of law.

Prima Facie evidence vs. your imagination has the same winner every time: not you.

Obama said he was from Kenya. They published it in that pamphlet in college. Now you have to disprove it.

Prove Obama said that.....

Sigh......they can't. Its the same shit. Different day.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Nope, nope, and nope.

Obama never said he was from Kenya.

He literally did. Publishers don't GUESS about where their subject was born. It's a BIG NO NO!

obama told her he was born in Kenya at some point. She published it and it remained out there unchecked for YEARS... until it was apparent that he was going to be Peasantpimp. THEN she was told that she 'misremembered'... and like a good soldier, she recanted.

Now... where obama was born is irrelevant. He was educated as a Muslim in a foreign country... he was indoctrinated by a communist in Hawaii by a known subversive to who'd been watched by the FBI for decades; he joined with a convicted terrorists and radical, thoroughly anti-American academics, street agitators and general subversives.

In truth, obama could not have so much as been employed by the US government in any capacity that required a security clearance, had he not been elected by people like you, anti-Americans, degenerates... the dregs. And what ever cabal put him there.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Sigh......they can't. Its the same shit. Different day.

No problem:

Publishers do not just guess about where their subject is born. She was told by obama that he was born in Kenya... and the proof of that is the above photograph of the statement she published as a result of that discussion.

 

[Skylar]

Nope, nope, and nope.

Obama never said he was from Kenya.

He literally did. Publishers don't GUESS about where their subject was born. It's a BIG NO NO!

I don't think 'literally' means what you think it means.

“You’re undoubtedly aware of the brouhaha stirred up by Breitbart about the erroneous statement in a client list Acton & Dystel published in 1991 (for circulation within the publishing industry only) that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. This was nothing more than a fact checking error by me — an agency assistant at the time. There was never any information given to us by Obama in any of his correspondence or other communications suggesting in any way that he was born in Kenya and not Hawaii. I hope you can communicate to your readers that this was a simple mistake and nothing more.”

Promotional Booklet

So you (citing yourself of course) insist that it was Obama. The actual editor of the document in question says the mistake was hers and that Obama never said he was born in Kenya, not Hawaii.

You're 'literally' ignoring objective evidence and making up whatever you'd like. Citing yourself.

Again, Keyes.....you may genuinely believe that any horseshit you make up is objective truth. But its really not. Its just the hopeless degeneration your argument *always* takes: you offering your opinion as objective evidence.

And ignoring all objective evidence to do it.

obama told her he was born in Kenya at some point. She published it and it remained out there unchecked for YEARS... until it was apparent that he was going to be Peasantpimp. THEN she was told that she 'misremembered'... and like a good soldier, she recanted.

She says Obama never told her he was born in Kenya. So who are you citing who claims Obama said he was born in Kenya?

There you citing you. And........

......nothing. No one backs your batshit narrative. Its just you pretending to speak for Miriam Goderich just like you pretend to speak for Obama, just like you pretend to speak for the Founders, the Naturalization Act of 1790, Chester Aurthur, and even the dictionary.

Do you ever have anything other than you citing your imagination?

 

[Slyhunter]

And being the conservative hypocrite you are, you'll carelessly toss all of that aside to vote for a candidate you believe does not have the Constitutional authority to head the Executive branch.

Yep, folks, conservatives like this gay_keys loser have no convictions. They stand for nothing other than ideology over country.

Their standards don't actually apply to them. Even their 'precedent' argument is meaningless drivel. As the first president born in the US with only 1 US parent......wasn't Barack Obama.

It was Chester Authur in 1881. Who was born in the US to an American mother and an Irish-Canadian father. Even by their own logic, Obama is eligible. But they ignore their own reasoning, history, reason, the founders, English common law, the Supreme Court, US law, everything......

.......and just make up whatever they like. This they call 'objective'. I call it adorable.

You still haven't proved he wasn't born in Kenya.

You have yet to prove he was born in Kenya. And while 'disprove any batshit I can possibly make up' may be popular among conspiracy theorists, truthers and flat earthers.....its legally meaningless.

As Obama's COLB resolves any legal questions to his place of birth in Hawaii, acting as prima facie evidence in any court of law.

Prima Facie evidence vs. your imagination has the same winner every time: not you.

Obama said he was from Kenya. They published it in that pamphlet in college. Now you have to disprove it.

Nope, nope, and nope.

Obama never said he was from Kenya. There was no 'college pamphlet'. And I don't have to disprove any of the nonsense you make up.

While the COLB affirming his birth in Hawaii still stands as prima facie evidence in any court of law. While your imagination is still meaningless gibberish.

The one piece of evidence that was not fabricated, and is possibly a production of Obama himself, is from his book publisher. In a minute you will see a video, but for those who have not heard, Obama’s publisher printed a biography of him in 1991 that stated that he was in fact born in Kenya.
The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet: 'Born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii' - Breitbart

Obama’s Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet: ‘Born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii’

You just proved yourself a liar when you said it didn't exist.