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

[Where_r_my_Keys]

... the challenge was to prove Obama told his publisher he was born in Kenya...

... still waiting for that proof.

LOL!

No you're not...

The proof that obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya, is in the published document from his publisher, which reports what obama told his publisher. That the statement remained uncorrected for YEARS... is merely further evidence toward the substantiation of that proof.

As I said: 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.

 

[Faun]

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.

It's a manufactured piece of paper created by an Obama shill working in the Hawaiian government.

Its a legal document generated by the State of Hawaii that's prima facie evidence in any court of law.

Your imagination isn't. Try again.

Generated, not the original source document signed by the doctor. ie. a fabrication.

Nope, you're still wrong. Hawaii says it an official document of birth and can serves as evidence in a court of law...

This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding/ [HRS 338-13(b), 338-19]​

 

[Skylar]

Nope, try harder. The state of Hawaii says that form is an official document of birth and they certified its contents.

You're speaking of Hawaii... the state which legally issues Birth Certificates to children born in foreign countries?

Birth certificates that indicate the child was born in Hawaii? Citing a Hawaiian Hospital? With a Hawaiian Doctor's signature as a witness to the birth?

Show me, don't tell me. But we both know you can't back up any claim that the State of Hawaii issued birth certificates for foreign born children that indicated the child was born in Hawaii.

So the only real question is what hapless excuse are you going to give us this time?

Sadly, that doesn't mean dick in terms of the facts regarding obama's birth.

Says you citing you. And you're nobody. While a COLB is still serves as prima facie evidence in any court of law.

You insisting you know better because you say you do......vs Prima Facie evidence has the same winner every time. Not you.

 

[dcraelin]

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.​

Says you, citing you. You're offering us your opinion.

And contradicting your opinion is the Founders themselves in the Naturalization Act of 1790.......in the very first session of congress. Where they *extended* natural born citizenship to people you insisted already had it. If the children of 2 US citizens born abroad already had natural born citizenship, Congress wouldn't have had to extend it to them in 1790.

Obliterating your argument.

With United States v. Wong Kim Ark citing English Common law which used place of birth to define natural born status, even if both parents were aliens.

Obliterating your argument again.

With the dictionary indicating that natural born means native born........tied to place of birth. Not parentage.

Obliterating your argument yet again.

How do you deal with the objective evidence that simply destroys your entire argument? You ignore it, restate your opinion....and then bizarrely insist that your subjective opinion is objective evidence. Citing yourself.

Subjective isn't objective, Keyes. Its why you always lose.

you obliterate your own argument you dunce.,...you say " Congress wouldn't have had to extend it to them in 1790." If the definition you claim was supposed to exist prior to this law within the Constitution then ALSO they would not have had to clarify it.

Also, why didnt they just say what they did in Congress in the constitution if it was that close in time.

REGARDLESS no mere law can change the Constitution.

 

[Faun]

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.

Nope, try harder. The state of Hawaii says that form is an official document of birth and they certified its contents.

You have anything other than hallucinations to counter it?

The State isn't a person. A person, a shill of Obama's, in the state government said that. Where is the original document.

You know Alvin Onaka is Hawaii's state Registrar, right? Do you know what that means, birther?

 

[Rexx Taylor]

and he was once married ? to what? a tazmainian devil?

 

[Skylar]

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.

You're completely insane. Not only do you ascribe a quote to me I did not post -- you make a claim you cannot prove.

Had I challenged you to post an image of the pamphlet in question, you would have done quite well by posting it. But of course, that wasn't the challenge now , was it? Instead, the challenge was to prove Obama told his publisher he was born in Kenya...

... still waiting for that proof.

The proof that obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya, is in the published document from his publisher, which reports what obama told his publisher.

And who says that the published document reports what Obama told his publisher?

You do. Citing yourself. And you have no idea what you're talking about.

Miriam Goderich however actually worked at that literary agency and actually edited the document in question. And she destroys your entire argument:

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.

www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/booklet.asp

So why would I ignore Miriam Goderich, the world's leading expert on the content of that pamphlet....and instead believe you, citing yourself.

Remember.....you have no idea what you're talking about. She does.

 

[Skylar]

obama told her he was born in Kenya at some point.

Great, yet even more delusions from one of the forum's most whacked out posters.

Face reality -- you have no proof other than the hallucinations in your hypocritical conservative brain that Obama told her he was born in Kenya.

Provide his college records, the proof would be in there showing he claimed special privileges for being from a minority country. Hiding the proof is not the same thing as it not being there.

So with your switch to his college records, can we take that as a complete abandonment of your 'Obama was born in Kenya' horseshit?

 

[sealybobo]

Lol I hope they run with it. Let republicans have taste of their bullshit for a change.

I'm not going to have to worry about it or waste too much time thinking about it because he won't be the nominee. He's a tea bagging religious nut. Let the GOP nominate him.

It's going to be rubio. It's just too soon he wants to fly below the radar. This whole things a song and dance. The only thing not planned is trump. But they'll eliminate him sooner or later. Trump knows he's only in it to play a role just like carli and Ben.

 

[Faun]

You do get to control your own behavior.

Yes...

And you are openly supporting what you insist is an illegitimate candidate in defiance of the constitution.

I don't decide who is ineligible to run for office. If I were that guy, we'd be up 9 trillion dollars... having enjoyed high single digit averages in GDP for the last 7 years, with not a single able bodied person on welfare... with full employment.

What I am saying is that the Constitution precludes Cruz from running for President. And the argument I've presented is unscathed.

Sadly, my argument hasn't had any effect on Cruz's eligibility.

Which means it's out of my hands... . And given that aside from Ronaldus Magnus and Doc Carson, Ted Cruz is the finest human being I've ever seen run for the office of the Presidency. And if Doc Carson fails to win the nod, I'll vote for Cruz.

But as I've said... the second you ladies impeach obama... state his illegitimacy... because he was born to a Foreign Father... thus failed to rise to the standard required for office... thus recognizing the principle, establishing the standard going forward and I'll stand right there with ya, salutin' all the way.

Let me know how it goes for ya.

Umm, presidents don't elect themselves. Should Cruz become president, he will do so with the help of hypocritical conservatives such as yourself who believe he isn't eligible for the office, but will support his "illegitimate presidency" with their vote.

I still believe many Conservatives will hold their convictions above their hypocrisy -- but then there are lowly conservatives like yourself who don't care about hypocrisy; winning is all that matters to you, not the Constitution.

 

[Skylar]

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.​

Says you, citing you. You're offering us your opinion.

And contradicting your opinion is the Founders themselves in the Naturalization Act of 1790.......in the very first session of congress. Where they *extended* natural born citizenship to people you insisted already had it. If the children of 2 US citizens born abroad already had natural born citizenship, Congress wouldn't have had to extend it to them in 1790.

Obliterating your argument.

With United States v. Wong Kim Ark citing English Common law which used place of birth to define natural born status, even if both parents were aliens.

Obliterating your argument again.

With the dictionary indicating that natural born means native born........tied to place of birth. Not parentage.

Obliterating your argument yet again.

How do you deal with the objective evidence that simply destroys your entire argument? You ignore it, restate your opinion....and then bizarrely insist that your subjective opinion is objective evidence. Citing yourself.

Subjective isn't objective, Keyes. Its why you always lose.

you obliterate your own argument you dunce.,...you say " Congress wouldn't have had to extend it to them in 1790." If the definition you claim was supposed to exist prior to this law within the Constitution then ALSO they would not have had to clarify it.

Ah, but dolt.....why would they extend natural born status to children born abroad to US parents if the ONLY basis of natural born status was parentage?

Explain it to us.With special emphasis on the phrase 'shall be considered'.

REGARDLESS no mere law can change the Constitution.

The constitution clearly grants Congress authority over naturalization. As demonstrated by this law being part of the 'Naturalization Act of 1790'.

But don't tell us; you know what the founders meant by 'natural born' better than they did, huh?

 

[Skylar]

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.

It's a manufactured piece of paper created by an Obama shill working in the Hawaiian government.

Its a legal document generated by the State of Hawaii that's prima facie evidence in any court of law.

Your imagination isn't. Try again.

Generated, not the original source document signed by the doctor. ie. a fabrication.

Nope, you're still wrong. Hawaii says it an official document of birth and can serves as evidence in a court of law...

This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding/ [HRS 338-13(b), 338-19]​

And 'Kaboom'.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

And would there be unicorns farting glitter in your fantasy?

HEY! That's a beautiful deflection!

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

You ignored the Naturalization Act of 1790

False... and ya dam' well know it's false. I read it, considered it and informed you that "Natural Born Citizen" is a principle of THE NATURE OF CITIZENSHIP... which stands outside of law. Meaning that law is irrelevant to the principle.

Your concession is Duly Noted and Summarily Accepted.

You ignored history

Again you simply revise history, as if this discussion were not entirely advanced IN WRITING.

The history is that the nation has been operating under a misnomer regarding the standard... Meaning that history has not just been WRONG, but HYSTERICALLY WRONG.

Your Concession is Duly Noted and Summarily Accepted.

You ignored the Supreme Court

You've already lost this point in this post...

You ignored the dictionary

The Dictionary, like History, is demonstrably WRONG...

Your concession is Duly Noted and Summarily Accepted.

And backing your claims you have nothing.

Delusion on Parade! It seems to be your singular gift.

Reader, the above litany of failed argument advanced by the degenerate cult, is why fallacious, subjective reasoning should be avoided at all cost. It fails... and it fails every whee its tried, every time its tried, where its tried in the presence of an American.

Remember, the Key to defeating Leftists in debate rest upon two fundamental principles:

1- Find a Leftist
2- Get them to SPEAK!

See how that works?

 

[Faun]

Nope, try harder. The state of Hawaii says that form is an official document of birth and they certified its contents.

You're speaking of Hawaii... the state which legally issues Birth Certificates to children born in foreign countries?

Which means that a Hawaiian Birth cert may well be an official document of birth... which they certify as official.

Sadly, that doesn't mean dick in terms of the facts regarding obama's birth. BUT MAN! If Hawaii did NOT legally issue birth certificates to children born in foreign countries... THAT would have been a great point!

Prove Hawaii puts "Honolulu" as the city of birth for such children born in other countries or I am once again put in the position of having to dismiss your idiocy as the self-delusioned hallucination I've come to expect from you.....

 

[Faun]

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.

It's a manufactured piece of paper created by an Obama shill working in the Hawaiian government.

Its a legal document generated by the State of Hawaii that's prima facie evidence in any court of law.

Your imagination isn't. Try again.

Generated, not the original source document signed by the doctor. ie. a fabrication.

A Certification of Live Birth from the State of Hawaii that is a legal birth certificate and serves as prima facie evidence in any court of law.

And you have........your imagination. Try again.

Just proves he has shills in their governments.
Where is the original document?

Sadly, you prove to be armed with nothing but delusions.

You can't prove his COLB is not authentic...

You can't prove he told his publisher he was born in Kenya...

All you can prove is that you're nothing but another brain-dead birther.

 

[dcraelin]

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.​

Says you, citing you. You're offering us your opinion.

And contradicting your opinion is the Founders themselves in the Naturalization Act of 1790.......in the very first session of congress. Where they *extended* natural born citizenship to people you insisted already had it. If the children of 2 US citizens born abroad already had natural born citizenship, Congress wouldn't have had to extend it to them in 1790.

Obliterating your argument.

With United States v. Wong Kim Ark citing English Common law which used place of birth to define natural born status, even if both parents were aliens.

Obliterating your argument again.

With the dictionary indicating that natural born means native born........tied to place of birth. Not parentage.

Obliterating your argument yet again.

How do you deal with the objective evidence that simply destroys your entire argument? You ignore it, restate your opinion....and then bizarrely insist that your subjective opinion is objective evidence. Citing yourself.

Subjective isn't objective, Keyes. Its why you always lose.

you obliterate your own argument you dunce.,...you say " Congress wouldn't have had to extend it to them in 1790." If the definition you claim was supposed to exist prior to this law within the Constitution then ALSO they would not have had to clarify it.

Ah, but dolt.....why would they extend natural born status to children born abroad to US parents if the ONLY basis of natural born status was parentage?

Explain it to us.With special emphasis on the phrase 'shall be considered'.

REGARDLESS no mere law can change the Constitution.

The constitution clearly grants Congress authority over naturalization. As demonstrated by this law being part of the 'Naturalization Act of 1790'.

But don't tell us; you know what the founders meant by 'natural born' better than they did, huh?

you fat-assed floating imbecile.

your melding my arguments with keys's, but he INCLUDES birth in the US, so that presumably would be why.

and naturalization is different than the requirements to be president.......

 

[Faun]

obama told her he was born in Kenya at some point.

Great, yet even more delusions from one of the forum's most whacked out posters.

Face reality -- you have no proof other than the hallucinations in your hypocritical conservative brain that Obama told her he was born in Kenya.

Provide his college records, the proof would be in there showing he claimed special privileges for being from a minority country. Hiding the proof is not the same thing as it not being there.

Notice how you keep demanding more and more proof when you fail to prove your own claims...

Prove his COLB is not authentic

Prove a "shill" produced it

Prove he told his publisher he was born in Kenya.

All you have are delusions. Why should I entertain even more when you flat out refuse to prove anything you've claimed thus far?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Prove Hawaii puts "Honolulu" as the city of birth for such children born in other countries

I didn't assert what Hawaii puts on its birth certs it legally but fraudulently issues to children born in foreign countries.

or I am once again put in the position of having to dismiss your idiocy as the self-delusioned hallucination I've come to expect from you.....

LOL!

What on earth gave you the impression that I give a single fuck about what you do. Your purpose here is my personal entertainment. The instant you drop below that threshold you go right back to ignore.

 

[Faun]

... the challenge was to prove Obama told his publisher he was born in Kenya...

... still waiting for that proof.

LOL!

No you're not...

The proof that obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya, is in the published document from his publisher, which reports what obama told his publisher. That the statement remained uncorrected for YEARS... is merely further evidence toward the substantiation of that proof.

As I said: 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.

Stop lying. That pamphlet is not evidence that Obama contributed any of it to his publisher. Almost all of it can be found in other newspapers of that time.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Prove his COLB is not authentic

Hawaii has set into its law... the means to issue fraudulent birth certificates. There's nothing authentic about any Hawaiian birth cert.

Meaning that anyone that was needing to pass a fraudulent cert, would be most likely to use Hawaii.

Prove a "shill" produced it

Only shills produce fraudulent docs. They don't exist without shills.

Prove he told his publisher he was born in Kenya.

It's been proven twice... that you refuse to accept that proof is irrelevant.

All you have are delusions.

ROFLMNAO!