Advisor: Obama Doesn't Attend Church Because It's A Distraction (Yea Right! We Know The Real Reason)

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Show me the expert that indicates that the original vital documents held by Hawaii are fraudulent.

Show me where someone claimed they were? I certainly never made such a claim.

Then the issue is settled. The original vital records are accurate. The LFBC matches the original records. And the LFBC says that Obama was born in Hawaii.

That was easy.

It doesn't matter WHERE A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN OF THE US IS BORN... A natural born citizen of the US is the natural result of being BORN TO TWO US CITIZENS.

Says who? So far its you citing yourself. And you're nobody.

What else have you got?

Says reason... how else would one "BE" a natural born citizen of the US?

"Born in the US" is pretty easy to convey... so clearly THAT was not what was being conveyed when the founders conveyed the requirement for holding the office of President of the US to "Natural Born Citizen of the United States". OKA: A person who's conception is the natural path to citizenship.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Huh.. Nothing there that answers the question.

Notice you don't actually disagree with me. It appears you can be taught.

Well I appreciate the clear and unambiguous demonstration that your subjective needs lead you to read anything you NEED to be present in ANYTHING.

Your argument was irrelevant... and it was dismissed as such. But the dismissal was designed to get you to claim what ya just claimed.

Thanks... Ya did great!

Anyone need anything else?

.

.

.

And with that... she goes BACK TO IGNORE, until she is again positioned to serve good by proving that her reasoning is animated by evil.

TTFN!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

And THAT kids is all there is to THAT!

Simply allow the Left the space to speak... and once they've done so, hold them accountable for what they've said... this is a text forum, thus the usual deflections do not work as they will in oral argument, where denials are basically dependent upon the veracity of the Leftist; which due to their relativist nature, is non-existent; to BE a Leftist... one has to BE a sociopath... delusional; literally suffering from a disordered mind, incapable of sound reason.

Just let 'em speak then require them to support what they say... and without exception: Its GAME OVER!

 

[Skylar]

Says reason... how else would one "BE" a natural born citizen of the US?

By being born a citizen. You're either a citizen at birth (natural born) or a citizen after birth (naturalized). There is no third type. And Obama was clearly a citizen at birth, being born in Hawaii. Both his parents could have been foreign nations, and he'd still have been natural born.

"Born in the US" is pretty easy to convey... so clearly THAT was not what was being conveyed when the founders conveyed the requirement for holding the office of President of the US to "Natural Born Citizen of the United States". OKA: A person who's conception is the natural path to citizenship.

[/quote]

Being born to two citizens is easy to convey. So why didn't the founders do exactly that?

Easy. "Natural born' was a known term in the founders day. They didn't feel the need to define it, anymore than they did 'liberty' or 'property'. The founders were the inheritors of the English legal tradition. And natural born status followed place of birth in English common law, which a plurality of the Founders were well acquainted with.

The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King's dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King.

US v. Wong Kim Ark
United States v. Wong Kim Ark LII Legal Information Institute

Natural born status followed place of birth. Your assumptions that parentage alone established natural born status doesn't make sense. As the founders demonstrated when they created an immigration law that granted natural born status to children born to US parents outside the US.

If natural born status were already conveyed by parentage, that law would have been completely unnecessary. They created it because natural born status followed PLACE of birth. They had to extend it to include parentage for those born outside the US.

Rendering your conclusion that 'reason says' just another illogical, irrational appeal to authority for an argument that couldn't stand on its own merits. Because it didn't make the slightest sense.

 

[Skylar]

Huh.. Nothing there that answers the question.

Notice you don't actually disagree with me. It appears you can be taught.

Well I appreciate the clear and unambiguous demonstration that your subjective needs lead you to read anything you NEED to be present in ANYTHING.

Your argument was irrelevant... and it was dismissed as such. But the dismissal was designed to get you to claim what ya just claimed.

Thanks... Ya did great!

Anyone need anything else?

.

.

.

And with that... she goes BACK TO IGNORE, until she is again positioned to serve good by proving that her reasoning is animated by evil.

TTFN!

Giggling.....so this is the second time you've put me on ignore? For someone who is ignoring me, you're sure following a lot of my posts. Follow this one....and then run from it again.

Your argument was irrelevant... and it was dismissed as such. But the dismissal was designed to get you to claim what ya just claimed.

Oh, my argument was immediately relevant. As demonstrated by the two paragraph polemic where you lamented about 'objective morality' and subjectivity. Exactly the topic I already discussed.

The grand hole in your reasoning being.....you don't have an objective moral system. But a subjective one. As you can use your own moral reasoning to ignore any 'commandment' you don't like. Just like any theist. You can imagine your religion to be anything you wish through the magic of interpretation.

Just like any theist. And you still haven't disagreed with me. Because we both know I'm right. That religion isn't objective. That its subject to society, culture, personal interpretation, personal context and history.

You can ignore these facts. But you can't make us ignore them.

But hey, keep spamming the same reply and ignoring the truck sized holes in your own reasoning. Your rout only proves my point. As we both know I'm right.

 

[Skylar]

And THAT kids is all there is to THAT!

Simply allow the Left the space to speak... and once they've done so, hold them accountable for what they've said... this is a text forum, thus the usual deflections do not work as they will in oral argument, where denials are basically dependent upon the veracity of the Leftist; which due to their relativist nature, is non-existent; to BE a Leftist... one has to BE a sociopath... delusional; literally suffering from a disordered mind, incapable of sound reason.

Just let 'em speak then require them to support what they say... and without exception: Its GAME OVER!

Huh. So when are you going to hold yourself accountable for the claim that Obama's senate website said he was born in kenya and was a naturalized citizen?

Because that was a steaming pile of pure bullshit.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

The expert who the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office asked to confirm their conclusions the long firm birth certificate released on April 27, 2011 was a 100% forgery is a well establishe court recognized forensic document expert named Reed Hayes, from Hawaii. As an expert in forensic handwriting and computer document attestations, he found the document to be forged and submitted a 40 page report detailing all of the fraud committed on the document to the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office CCP lead investigator. That devastating report proving strong evidence the birth document is forged will not be released. I surmise it is most likely being withheld and will be released at the appropriate time when the department concludes their new 2nd criminal investigation stemming from evidence obtained from the Posse.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Dude, anyone whose ever recreated documents starts laughing the minute that look at those things.

It looks like something a child did on their parents laptop.

If I were the CCP, I'd just go directly to the idiots that created the obamacare website. The methodology is eerily similar... "Fuck it until the absolute last minute, then just push it out and be done with it".

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

Says reason... how else would one "BE" a natural born citizen of the US?

By being born a citizen. You're either a citizen at birth (natural born) or a citizen after birth (naturalized). There is no third type. And Obama was clearly a citizen at birth, being born in Hawaii. Both his parents could have been foreign nations, and he'd still have been natural born.

"Born in the US" is pretty easy to convey... so clearly THAT was not what was being conveyed when the founders conveyed the requirement for holding the office of President of the US to "Natural Born Citizen of the United States". OKA: A person who's conception is the natural path to citizenship.

Being born to two citizens is easy to convey. So why didn't the founders do exactly that?

Easy. "Natural born' was a known term in the founders day. They didn't feel the need to define it, anymore than they did 'liberty' or 'property'. The founders were the inheritors of the English legal tradition. And natural born status followed place of birth in English common law, which a plurality of the Founders were well acquainted with.

The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King's dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King.

US v. Wong Kim Ark
United States v. Wong Kim Ark LII Legal Information Institute

Natural born status followed place of birth. Your assumptions that parentage alone established natural born status doesn't make sense. As the founders demonstrated when they created an immigration law that granted natural born status to children born to US parents outside the US.

If natural born status were already conveyed by parentage, that law would have been completely unnecessary. They created it because natural born status followed PLACE of birth. They had to extend it to include parentage for those born outside the US.

Rendering your conclusion that 'reason says' just another illogical, irrational appeal to authority for an argument that couldn't stand on its own merits. Because it didn't make the slightest sense.[/QUOTE]



































Many historians and legal scholars have cited evidence that the term natural born Citizen referred to a higher standard of citizenship than simply “a Citizen,” as the Framers of the Constitution first proposed as a presidential requirement. It was known that the citizenship of the child followed the father. Upon the insistence of John Jay, who later became the first U.S. Supreme Court chief justice, George Washington and the other Founders agreed to insert the requirement of “natural born Citizen” solely for the presidency as a national security blanket because it would ensure sole allegiace to America. Now hear a well established credentialed constitutional scholar/lawyer well versed into the meaning of what a true Article 2 Section 1 natural born Citizen is. Pay close attention for just 6 minutes.


Part 1:


Part 2

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Says reason... how else would one "BE" a natural born citizen of the US?

By being born a citizen. You're either a citizen at birth (natural born) or a citizen after birth (naturalized). There is no third type. And Obama was clearly a citizen at birth, being born in Hawaii. Both his parents could have been foreign nations, and he'd still have been natural born.

"Born in the US" is pretty easy to convey... so clearly THAT was not what was being conveyed when the founders conveyed the requirement for holding the office of President of the US to "Natural Born Citizen of the United States". OKA: A person who's conception is the natural path to citizenship.

Being born to two citizens is easy to convey. So why didn't the founders do exactly that?

Easy. "Natural born' was a known term in the founders day. They didn't feel the need to define it, anymore than they did 'liberty' or 'property'. The founders were the inheritors of the English legal tradition. And natural born status followed place of birth in English common law, which a plurality of the Founders were well acquainted with.

The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King's dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King.

US v. Wong Kim Ark
United States v. Wong Kim Ark LII Legal Information Institute

Natural born status followed place of birth. Your assumptions that parentage alone established natural born status doesn't make sense. As the founders demonstrated when they created an immigration law that granted natural born status to children born to US parents outside the US.

If natural born status were already conveyed by parentage, that law would have been completely unnecessary. They created it because natural born status followed PLACE of birth. They had to extend it to include parentage for those born outside the US.

Rendering your conclusion that 'reason says' just another illogical, irrational appeal to authority for an argument that couldn't stand on its own merits. Because it didn't make the slightest sense.

Many historians and legal scholars have cited evidence that the term natural born Citizen referred to a higher standard of citizenship than simply “a Citizen,” as the Framers of the Constitution first proposed as a presidential requirement. It was known that the citizenship of the child followed the father. Upon the insistence of John Jay, who later became the first U.S. Supreme Court chief justice, George Washington and the other Founders agreed to insert the requirement of “natural born Citizen” solely for the presidency as a national security blanket because it would ensure sole allegiace to America. Now hear a well established credentialed constitutional scholar/lawyer well versed into the meaning of what a true Article 2 Section 1 natural born Citizen is. Pay close attention for just 6 minutes.


Part 1:


Part 2
[/QUOTE]

Excellent demonstration...

When I speak of US Citizens, I often forget that such are not always Americans; meaning that just being a citizen does not determine that one is loyal to the principles that define America, which I agree was the intent of the usage of word 'citizen' at the time of the founding, but which today is never to be assumed, as it less likely than more that a 'US citizen' will even have an understanding of what the defining principles are.

Excellent post!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Part 1:


Part 2

The single best explanation of the phrase itself ("Natural Born Citizen") and the NEED for the President to be such, that I've ever witnessed...

And to hear it in the midst of 'the obama experience' I am sure makes it that much more profound.

A man of divided loyalties... reaping havoc on the US Constitution and the US Culture. Just stunning.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

It looks like all traces of obama's senate webpage have been scrubbed. But I very well recall seeing it during the 08 election.

All I can find tonight is the from Obama's Publisher/Literary Agent, who in his bio stated that obama was born in Kenya.

That would be gone as well, if others had no taken photos... but the rationalization is that it was an error, which went uncorrected for several years and which later ended up on his Senate Website and which when those college records are unsealed, will no doubt show that he received admission through a Foreign Exchange status or some other status oriented around assistance for foreign nationals.

At the end of the day, obama is not legitimate as President of the United States. At best he will forever only rate the lowly status of "Peasantpimp of the Union States".

 

[Syriusly]

Mike Zullo is highly qualified in law enforcement. He worked as a New Jersey police officer and then a private investigator. He has also training by the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office and with other former fully trained police officers, they utilized the full resources of that law enforcement department to investigate the birth certificate finding it a 100% forged document. Their findings puts the statements by the Hawaii Dept of Healths former directors Chiyome Fukino and Loretta Fuddy as not being truthful.

Really- highly qualified?

Exactly what years was he a police officer- and in what town?
Was he ever an detective- or was he a beat cop?
When was the last time he was actually employed as a law enforcement officer?
When has any official representative of the Maricopa County Sheriff's Department ever said that Directors Fukino and Fuddy were not truthful?
And why did Mike Zullo sign a book deal with a Birther- right before starting his investigation?
And has the Maricopa Sheriff's Department turned over its 'findings' to any District Attorney? FBI? Hawaii State police?

If the Maricopa County Sheriff's Department has evidence of any forgery- why is the Sheriff's Department concealing the evidence from the entities that have jurisidiction?

 

[Syriusly]

I am frankly astonished that there is even one person left willing to argue the stale moldy birther issue.

Really?

Is there some reason that such should not be considered? The Constitution does prohibit anyone who is not a natural born citizen from being President and obama is not a natural born citizen... all the Birth Certificate issue represents is that he's also not an honorable human being..

Every American knows that anyone born in the United States is a natural born citizen- and every rational American knows that Obama is eligible- that is why the voters voted for him, the Electoral College elected him, Congress confirmed his election- two times now- and Chief Justice Roberts swore him in three times.

I will trust Chief Justice Roberts over a few malcontent Birthers any day.

 

[Syriusly]

.

I strongly suspect there's a LOT of politicians who go to church for one reason and one reason only: To be seen going to church.

.

Oh I absolutely agree with that.

 

[frigidweirdo]

In the name of Christ? Meaning that such were killed because those who did the killing stated that such was necessary because Christ required it? I would say that such would be limited to the Inquisition, which the best estimates vary between 14,000 and 20,000 over several hundred years. Which is less than half of the 42,000 murdered by the humanist Robespierre in "The Terror" which occurred over the year following the French Revolution: Which was the first known instance of "Terrorism" in the Western Hemisphere and a function of the first communist (humanist) push in the western hemisphere.

Second, and by tediously pedantic definition would be the defensive battles of the Christian world in response to the Islamic Crusades, which killed an estimated 600,000 - 1,000,000 over a period of some 700 years.

Question 2. Do you know how many people were killed by Muslims in the history of the world?

Best estimates are to date... 1,000,000 1.5 million since it's medieval founding.

Now, compare THAT to the 150 MILLION that Humanism (Relativism, Socialism, Leftism) murdered over a period of 30 years in the mid 20th Century ALONE... in periods of PEACETIME... without counting the two world wars caused by the same, which only adds another 15- 20 million including all casualties. the bulk of those being the fascists (Socialist) fighting the Communist (Socialists) .

Of course those figures also do not account for the 300 million pre-born children murdered by humanism... 50 million murdered right here in the United States, by the same perverse 'Humanist" reasoning... .

Ah, you're playing the semantics game, and you STILL can't give me an accurate figure.

However what you are replying to what what saintmichaeldefendthem said which was

Because atheists have killed more people in one century than all other religions combined throughout human history.

It doesn't say atheists killed in the name of atheism. Stalin didn't kill in the name of atheism. I hardly know of any atheists that have killed in the name of atheism, do you know any?
Also it says that religions have killed. Doesn't say in the name of religion, just that they killed. This can clearly be interpreted in many ways.

So what's the point? Or is it just an attempt to make killings look not so bad?

Your figures are still estimates and still ignore all the killings that happened, in say, Latin America or Africa by religious people doing so for religious ideals.

 

[Unkotare]

Can you prove you were born in the US? I doubt you can even prove you even exist. I mean, it's pretty hard. We could all just be a dream, so we can't prove that basic thing....

...dime-store

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Pity a president can't practice whatever faith he wishes, or none at all, rendered impossible by the hyper-partisan nature of the social right and religious fundamentalists.

 

[Papageorgio]

Pity a president can't practice whatever faith he wishes, or none at all, rendered impossible by the hyper-partisan nature of the social right and religious fundamentalists.

Trying to be relevant Clay?

It ain't working.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

In the name of Christ? Meaning that such were killed because those who did the killing stated that such was necessary because Christ required it? I would say that such would be limited to the Inquisition, which the best estimates vary between 14,000 and 20,000 over several hundred years. Which is less than half of the 42,000 murdered by the humanist Robespierre in "The Terror" which occurred over the year following the French Revolution: Which was the first known instance of "Terrorism" in the Western Hemisphere and a function of the first communist (humanist) push in the western hemisphere.

Second, and by tediously pedantic definition would be the defensive battles of the Christian world in response to the Islamic Crusades, which killed an estimated 600,000 - 1,000,000 over a period of some 700 years.

Question 2. Do you know how many people were killed by Muslims in the history of the world?

Best estimates are to date... 1,000,000 1.5 million since it's medieval founding.

Now, compare THAT to the 150 MILLION that Humanism (Relativism, Socialism, Leftism) murdered over a period of 30 years in the mid 20th Century ALONE... in periods of PEACETIME... without counting the two world wars caused by the same, which only adds another 15- 20 million including all casualties. the bulk of those being the fascists (Socialist) fighting the Communist (Socialists) .

Of course those figures also do not account for the 300 million pre-born children murdered by humanism... 50 million murdered right here in the United States, by the same perverse 'Humanist" reasoning... .

Ah, you're playing the semantics game, and you STILL can't give me an accurate figure.

However what you are replying to what what saintmichaeldefendthem said which was

Because atheists have killed more people in one century than all other religions combined throughout human history.

It doesn't say atheists killed in the name of atheism. Stalin didn't kill in the name of atheism. I hardly know of any atheists that have killed in the name of atheism, do you know any?
Also it says that religions have killed. Doesn't say in the name of religion, just that they killed. This can clearly be interpreted in many ways.

So what's the point? Or is it just an attempt to make killings look not so bad?

Your figures are still estimates and still ignore all the killings that happened, in say, Latin America or Africa by religious people doing so for religious ideals.

Very few people are actually killed in the name of a religion, when it comes to that. Wars often have very practical purposes or they don't occur, slaughtering people in the name of a deity stands in line behind a whole host of more pressing matters such as territorial disputes, resource acquisition and protection, defense of allies, or revolutionary freedom fighting. So when the materialists start in with their idiot recitations of all the people killed by religion, I'm just going along with it and demonstrating that if anyone with religion is killing for their faith, then so too must atheists, and that death toll is much, much higher.

Get it now?