GOP firebrand Mark Levin proves he's a government agent and controlled opposition

[peach174]

That makes obozo a citizen but not a natural born citizen. THINK

Yes and your point is?
Article. II. Section. 1.
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President

Are you serious? Can't you read?

Yes I can read can you?
Does Obama Really Meet The Constitutional Definition Of A 'Natural Born Citizen?' - Freedom Outpost
The courts decision states: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Does Obama Really Meet The Constitutional Definition Of A 'Natural Born Citizen?' - Freedom Outpost
The courts decision states: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."

" all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves"

So - you have to be born in the country. Thanks for proving my point.

 

[peach174]

Does Obama Really Meet The Constitutional Definition Of A 'Natural Born Citizen?' - Freedom Outpost
The courts decision states: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."

" all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves"

So - you have to be born in the country. Thanks for proving my point.

NO
Because George Washington's parents were citizens of the Virginia Colony, which at that time was a British Colony.
George Washington was born in that British Colony, which means he could not have been President of the United States. If you are right, he could not have been President.

 

[Faun]

Does Obama Really Meet The Constitutional Definition Of A 'Natural Born Citizen?' - Freedom Outpost
The courts decision states: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."

" all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves"

So - you have to be born in the country. Thanks for proving my point.

NO
Because George Washington's parents were citizens of the Virginia Colony, which at that time was a British Colony.
George Washington was born in that British Colony, which means he could not have been President of the United States. If you are right, he could not have been President.

You know the Constitution allows for such exceptions, right?

 

[peach174]

Does Obama Really Meet The Constitutional Definition Of A 'Natural Born Citizen?' - Freedom Outpost
The courts decision states: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."

" all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves"

So - you have to be born in the country. Thanks for proving my point.

NO
Because George Washington's parents were citizens of the Virginia Colony, which at that time was a British Colony.
George Washington was born in that British Colony, which means he could not have been President of the United States. If you are right, he could not have been President.

You know the Constitution allows for such exceptions, right?

That is only one way of looking at it.
All I was doing is citing our history and the courts decision and why the framers had the difference between natural and citizen.
You can't change our history.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

 

[Freewill]

They say a high rise never collapsed because of fire. Yet there has never been buildings hit with fully loaded passenger jets, before or after.

HAHAHA. The lies of you paid govt shills prove your desperation. NO plane hit the 600 foot high skyscraper Bldg 7 and most of america knows it. Not much of anything hit it. So why did it undergo unitary collapse at free fall speed. THINK.

Geez I wish I were a paid shill, where do I apply? Either side I can argue.

Read the following, it is not my opinion.

World Trade Center 7 Report Puts 9/11 Conspiracy Theory to Rest

Ask yourself, when were the explosives planted? Was it before the planes hit the WTC and started the uncontrollable fires in WTC 7? Or was it after? If before how could those placing them be sure they would not be damaged by WTC 1 and 2 falling? If placed after then how in the hell do they do that in a building with fires raging out of control?

One has to have a really dim view of people to think they would plan and orchestrate such a thing.

 

[Skylar]

So how do you explain him calling 911 truthers, kooks?

Because they are kooks.

HAHAHA. You just proved you're a govt agent too.

Laughing! Oh my....by your reckoning you're just surrounded by government agents, my little Truther.

That must be why you keep your tail permanently lodged between those quivering haunches whenever anyone asks you to back up your nonsense about WTC 7.

'Cause of all the 'agents'.

 

[Skylar]

That makes obozo a citizen but not a natural born citizen. THINK

Yes and your point is?
Article. II. Section. 1.
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President

Are you serious? Can't you read?

Yes I can read can you?
Does Obama Really Meet The Constitutional Definition Of A 'Natural Born Citizen?' - Freedom Outpost
The courts decision states: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."

Nope. It was just anyone born in the US. Whether or not their parents were citizens was irrelevant. Per the founders, place of birth was the most certain criteria of allegiance. And what applied in the United States. Brtish Common law from which US law was derived used place of birth as it sole criteria for natural born status. If you were born in the country, under its laws.....then even if your parents were aliens, you were natural born.

 

[Freewill]

That makes obozo a citizen but not a natural born citizen. THINK

Yes and your point is?
Article. II. Section. 1.
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President

Are you serious? Can't you read?

Yes I can read can you?
Does Obama Really Meet The Constitutional Definition Of A 'Natural Born Citizen?' - Freedom Outpost
The courts decision states: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."

Nope. It was just anyone born in the US. Whether or not their parents were citizens was irrelevant. Per the founders, place of birth was the most certain criteria of allegiance. And what applied in the United States. Brtish Common law from which US law was derived used place of birth as it sole criteria for natural born status. If you were born in the country, under its laws.....then even if your parents were aliens, you were natural born.

Nope, not according the Harvard Law. They are saying exactly what I have been saying, if you don't go through the naturalization process, then you are a natural born citizen. That fits with British law and US law.

From Harvard:

On the Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen”

The Constitution directly addresses the minimum qualifications necessary to serve as President. In addition to requiring thirty-five years of age and fourteen years of residency, the Constitution limits the presidency to “a natural born Citizen.”1× All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase “natural born Citizen” has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time. And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States.2×

While some constitutional issues are truly difficult, with framing-era sources either nonexistent or contradictory, here, the relevant materials clearly indicate that a “natural born Citizen” means a citizen from birth with no need to go through naturalization proceedings. The Supreme Court has long recognized that two particularly useful sources in understanding constitutional terms are British common law3× and enactments of the First Congress.4×Both confirm that the original meaning of the phrase “natural born Citizen” includes persons born abroad who are citizens from birth based on the citizenship of a parent.

As to the British practice, laws in force in the 1700s recognized that children born outside of the British Empire to subjects of the Crown were subjects themselves and explicitly used “natural born” to encompass such children.5× These statutes provided that children born abroad to subjects of the British Empire were “natural-born Subjects . . . to all Intents, Constructions, and Purposeswhatsoever.”6× The Framers, of course, would have been intimately familiar with these statutes and the way they used terms like “natural born,” since the statutes were binding law in the colonies before the Revolutionary War. They were also well documented in Blackstone’sCommentaries,7× a text widely circulated and read by the Framers and routinely invoked in interpreting the Constitution.

 

[Skylar]

They say a high rise never collapsed because of fire. Yet there has never been buildings hit with fully loaded passenger jets, before or after.

HAHAHA. The lies of you paid govt shills prove your desperation. NO plane hit the 600 foot high skyscraper Bldg 7 and most of america knows it. Not much of anything hit it. So why did it undergo unitary collapse at free fall speed. THINK.

Geez I wish I were a paid shill, where do I apply? Either side I can argue.

Read the following, it is not my opinion.

World Trade Center 7 Report Puts 9/11 Conspiracy Theory to Rest

Ask yourself, when were the explosives planted? Was it before the planes hit the WTC and started the uncontrollable fires in WTC 7? Or was it after? If before how could those placing them be sure they would not be damaged by WTC 1 and 2 falling? If placed after then how in the hell do they do that in a building with fires raging out of control?

One has to have a really dim view of people to think they would plan and orchestrate such a thing.

Oh, the holes in the WTC 7 truther conspiracy are legion. Starting with the 'no plane hit it' strawman.

No one said a plane hit WTC 7. WTC 1 and 2 hit WTC 7 when they collapsed, ripping chunks out of the building and starting fires that burned uncontrollable. The FDNY put a transit on the building and over a period of hours watched the building slowly buckle, lean, and structurally fail. The FDNY anticipated the collapse of the WTC 7 due to fire hours before it came down, evacuating the area. And they were right.

The entire WTC plaza was searched for bombs only a week before 911 on a bomb threat. This included Port Authority Bomb Squad teams and their bomb sniffing dogs. They found nothing. No bombs, cut girders, nor apparatus of explosives were ever found after the collapse. There was no residue of explosives found in any of the samples taken from the site. And this despite an analysis so precise it was able to detect prescription medication from the WTC pharmacy. Yet....nothing.

The building was on fire. Any explosives would have exploded in the flames. Any detonators, detonated. Any blasting wire or transmiters reduced to bubbling pools of plastic. No building has ever been explosively demolished while ON FIRE for this exact reason. Worse, explosive demolition cuts girders with each explosion. There were bent girders. There were twisted girders. There were deformed girders.

There were no cut girders. And certainly none cut in a manner consistent with explosive demolition.

Worse, explosive demolition is enormously loud. Deafening. Yet the collapse of the WTC 7 initiated in virtual silence. Silent explosives are a physical impossibility. Any explosive power enough to cut a structure girder would move air and create enormous sound. Eliminating bombs as even a possibility yet again.

The 'bomb' theory is just an awful, awful explanation of events.

 

[ninja007]

tired of levin harping on Trump. Hey Mark if you love Cruz so much, why not ENDORSE him already!? He was desperate Friday on his show not mentioning Ted but talking about returning "home" to conservatism, lol.

 

[imawhosure]

That makes obozo a citizen but not a natural born citizen. THINK

Yes and your point is?
Article. II. Section. 1.
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President

Are you serious? Can't you read?

Yes I can read can you?
Does Obama Really Meet The Constitutional Definition Of A 'Natural Born Citizen?' - Freedom Outpost
The courts decision states: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."

Nope. It was just anyone born in the US. Whether or not their parents were citizens was irrelevant. Per the founders, place of birth was the most certain criteria of allegiance. And what applied in the United States. Brtish Common law from which US law was derived used place of birth as it sole criteria for natural born status. If you were born in the country, under its laws.....then even if your parents were aliens, you were natural born.

Nope, not according the Harvard Law. They are saying exactly what I have been saying, if you don't go through the naturalization process, then you are a natural born citizen. That fits with British law and US law.

From Harvard:

On the Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen”

The Constitution directly addresses the minimum qualifications necessary to serve as President. In addition to requiring thirty-five years of age and fourteen years of residency, the Constitution limits the presidency to “a natural born Citizen.”1× All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase “natural born Citizen” has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time. And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States.2×

While some constitutional issues are truly difficult, with framing-era sources either nonexistent or contradictory, here, the relevant materials clearly indicate that a “natural born Citizen” means a citizen from birth with no need to go through naturalization proceedings. The Supreme Court has long recognized that two particularly useful sources in understanding constitutional terms are British common law3× and enactments of the First Congress.4×Both confirm that the original meaning of the phrase “natural born Citizen” includes persons born abroad who are citizens from birth based on the citizenship of a parent.

As to the British practice, laws in force in the 1700s recognized that children born outside of the British Empire to subjects of the Crown were subjects themselves and explicitly used “natural born” to encompass such children.5× These statutes provided that children born abroad to subjects of the British Empire were “natural-born Subjects . . . to all Intents, Constructions, and Purposeswhatsoever.”6× The Framers, of course, would have been intimately familiar with these statutes and the way they used terms like “natural born,” since the statutes were binding law in the colonies before the Revolutionary War. They were also well documented in Blackstone’sCommentaries,7× a text widely circulated and read by the Framers and routinely invoked in interpreting the Constitution.

Don't know how they managed to turn this into a birther thread Free, lol But, they did.

Mark Levin is a radio host with an opinion, just like everyone else. If someone is so enamored with anybody else they agree 100% with them on all points, then leave your spouse and marry your new simpatico friend, lol.

As far as tower 7, or the whole 9/11 attack........which one of you people are privy to classified information.............or..........hacked Hillary Clinton's email to get the real scoop-)

I have absolutely, 100%, no doubt about it CONFIDENCE, that Hillary, Rodham, Clinton....had access to all the classified information on 9/11 when she was secretary of state, along with Obama, Biden, Holder, and everyone else in the inner circle.

Since this supposed "secret squirrel" clandestine, "tower 7" attack was pulled off when a Republican was in office........meaning that the REPUBLICANS would then be totally responsible for it since it was under their watch, when are all of them going to tell us about it and sink the Republicans for the Presidential election, allow the Democrats to retake the Senate with a 66% majority at the very least, and also flip the house?

Get back to us OP author, when you figure that one out, ok-)

 

[Avatar4321]

Sorry mark, but calling Trump a 911 truther will backfire on you .It's been 14 years and everybody knows about building 7 - the smokiest gun in history.

Prison Planet.com » Conservative Host Labels Trump A ‘Radical Kook,’ ‘Close’ To Being A 9/11 Truther

feb 16 2016 Talk show host Mark Levin labeled Trump a “radical kook”:

“But the fact that he attacked George Bush as a commander-in-chief. Not because he disagreed with him. He attacked him as a liar who knew there were not weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and said he was responsible for 9/11 and he was responsible for those towers coming down.” Levin added.

“All the rest aside. All of it aside. I know too many Gold Star families who lost sons over there to hear this 9/11 truther crap, which is pretty close to it. Pretty damn close to it.”

Levin is a shill for Cruz. He has also been misinterpreting the meaning of natural born citizen to make the populous think Cruz is constitutionally eligible. Also it was revealed Levin's girlfriends son works for the Cruz campaign. He's a Jew slimeball.

According to the government web site he is.
Are you the foreign-born child of a parent who becomes a U.S. citizen?

That is for a Citizen, not natural born Citizen.

Did either Cruz or Obama go through immigration naturalization?

Nope. They were natural born citizens.

 

[Avatar4321]

tired of levin harping on Trump. Hey Mark if you love Cruz so much, why not ENDORSE him already!? He was desperate Friday on his show not mentioning Ted but talking about returning "home" to conservatism, lol.

Well stop supporting Trump and choose a constitutionalist and he will stop harping on him. Otherwise get used to it because mark won't shut up the next four years

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Since this supposed "secret squirrel" clandestine, "tower 7" attack was pulled off when a Republican was in office........meaning that the REPUBLICANS would then be totally responsible for it since it was under their watch, when are all of them going to tell us about it and sink the Republicans for the Presidential election, allow the Democrats to retake the Senate with a 66% majority at the very least, and also flip the house?

Both parties work together, you fool. Just like in 1993 when clinton sent tanks in to demolish the Waco church and burned 80 americans alive. The GOP looked the other way. THINK