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

[Steve_McGarrett]

The 1790 act was a naturalization act. How could a naturalization act make anyone an Article II "natural born Citizen?" After all, a "natural born Citizen" was made by nature at the time of birth and could not be so made by any law of man. Finally, allowing a child born on foreign soil to be President would have invited conflict with the foreign nation on whose soil the child was born. For example, Great Britain adhered to the concept of perpetual natural allegiance. Just imagine the Framers allowing a child born in Great Britain to two U.S. citizen parents (a perpetual natural born subject under English common law) after the adoption of the Constitution (post Article II grandfather time period) to be President and Commander in Chief of the United States. Also, “natural born Citizen” status, having a uniform definition under the laws of nations, could not be made to depend on the laws of the foreign country in which the child would be born to U.S. citizen parents. Congress realized their errors in passing the 1790 Act and corrected it in 1795. As for Titus not citing any sources, he probably wasn't asked by the interviewer. But he was obviously sought out for his expertise on the original intent of the founders framing the Constitution and presidential clause. As for Wong Kim Ark, he was never affirmed a Article 2 Section 1 natural born Citizen but rather a Citizen.

 

[Skylar]

The 1790 act was a naturalization act. How could a naturalization act make anyone an Article II "natural born Citizen?"

You tell me.... here's the passage, directly from the Act:

And the children of citizen of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States shall be considered as natural born citizens.

Naturalization Act of 1790
A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates 1774 - 1875

If the children of US citizens were already natural born no matter where they were born as you claim, why then did the Founders have to pass the 1790 law before those children born to US citizens outside the US were considered natural born citizens?

Its a simple question. You simply can't answer it. And it utterly obliterates your spanky new theory that a natural born citizen is only someone whose parents were citizens. Which, of course, neither the law nor the courts have ever recognized as the definition of 'natural born citizen'.

After all, a "natural born Citizen" was made by nature at the time of birth and could not be so made by any law of man.

So says Mr. Titus. But not the founders, the constitution, or English Common Law. Remember, Mr. Titus doesn't create any law, nor any legal definition. Making what he believes natural born to mean irrelevant.

Its what the law and the founders thought natural born meant that is relevant.

Finally, allowing a child born on foreign soil to be President would have invited conflict with the foreign nation on whose soil the child was born.

Laughing...so the founders were WRONG? And those born on foreign soil WEREN'T natural born?

You're literally arguing that you know more about what the founders meant by natural born than the founders did. Which is absurd. You're nobody. You citing yourself means nothing.

For example, Great Britain adhered to the concept of perpetual natural allegiance.

You mean those who were born under the king's authority had allegiance to the king and were thus 'natural born' subjects? You just confirmed my argument about English Common Law using place as defining natural born status.

With English Common Law being the basis of the founder's entire system of laws. Its where they drew their terminology from. Its the legal tradition they were trained in.

Why then would the founders use different definitions for basic legal terms than the English did? It makes no sense. Nor is there any evidence to support such a position. Nor any plausible place they could have pulled a definition from other than English Common Law.

Also, “natural born Citizen” status, having a uniform definition under the laws of nations, could not be made to depend on the laws of the foreign country in which the child would be born to U.S. citizen parents.

The Law of Nations had no mention of 'natural born' anything until the 1790s. The constitution was written in the 1780s. And in our universe, cause precedes effect. It doesn't follow it. Your explanation is a physical impossibility.

English Common Law, the law in which most of the founders were already schooled, does precede the constitution. And by your own admission, it follows place of birth as establishing natural born status. This was the source of the founder's understanding of the term.

Not 'The Law of Nations'.

Congress realized their errors in passing the 1790 Act and corrected it in 1795.

Says you. All they did was revoke natural born status to those born outside the US. Which obliterates your spanky new claim that natural born citizenship is only from two parents. Its obviously linked to where you're born.

The founders contradicted you. Twice.

As for Titus not citing any sources, he probably wasn't asked by the interviewer. But he was obviously sought out for his expertise on the original intent of the founders framing the Constitution and presidential clause. As for Wong Kim Ark, he was never affirmed a Article 2 Section 1 natural born Citizen but rather a Citizen.

Its a youtube video. If you have evidence to back it, present it. But making up a story pulled sideways out of your ass as an awkward justification why Titus offers NOTHING to back anything he's said doesn't change the fact that Titus offered NOTHING to back anything he's said.

Where history, the USSC, the State of Hawaii and the Founders themselves contradict him.

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know....................McCain was born in Panama to U.S. citizens who were serving abroad in the military.

 

[Skylar]

You know....................McCain was born in Panama to U.S. citizens who were serving abroad in the military.

Shhh. You'll make his head pop right off.

 

[whitehall]

Dontcha love the way the mainstream media defends democrats? Bill Clinton was too busy to attend Easter Sunday services so Hillary and Chelsea went alone while Monica delivered pizza to the W.H. I guess Barry Hussein can't find a pastor that hates America as much as Rev. Wright.

 

[Skylar]

Dontcha love the way the mainstream media defends democrats? Bill Clinton was too busy to attend Easter Sunday services so Hillary and Chelsea went alone while Monica delivered pizza to the W.H. I guess Barry Hussein can't find a pastor that hates America as much as Rev. Wright.

Or...he's busy. Just like GW.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

But it wasn't 'materialists' who started this side topic- it was you- with this claim:

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

And you were challenged to prove those figures- which of course is impossible to do.

What I pointed out to you then- and will point out again is that at best the Christians who make this argument(it is always Christians, never Muslims or Jews) is maybe that Christians murdered fewer millions than Atheists murdered.

And shouting the motto "Christians are great because we murder fewer millions" is hardly something to brag about.

 

[Syriusly]

Dontcha love the way the mainstream media defends democrats? Bill Clinton was too busy to attend Easter Sunday services so Hillary and Chelsea went alone while Monica delivered pizza to the W.H. I guess Barry Hussein can't find a pastor that hates America as much as Rev. Wright.

Just pointing out that Reagan went to church less often than Obama.

I guess Ronnie couldn't find a pastor that hates America as much as Rush Limbaugh does.

 

[Syriusly]

'. As for Fukino, she lacked the credentialed knowledge of Constitutional/citizenship case laws to form her opinion that Obama was a natural born American citizen. .

Director Fukino has the knowledge that all Americans have regarding presidential eligibility- we all know that anyone born in the United States, other than the children of diplomats, is natural born.

Birthers want people to believe that NBC is some super Sekrit term that everyone else doesn't understand.

We all understand it just fine.

Which is why the people voted for Barack Obama, the electoral college elected him and Congress confirmed him- twice.

Chief Justice Roberts swore him in three times.

Birthers think all of those people are either stupid- or corrupt.

 

[Syriusly]

. As for Wong Kim Ark, he was never affirmed a Article 2 Section 1 natural born Citizen but rather a Citizen.

Courts disagree with you- as does everyone else.

Ankeny v. Daniels.
Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are "natural born Citizens" for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.

 

[Syriusly]

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".

Ah the batshit craziness of Keys.....now mixed with out and out lies.

 

[Syriusly]

Herb Titus Credentials:

Mr. Titus taught constitutional law, common law, and other subjects for nearly 30 years at five different American Bar Association approved law schools. From 1986 to 1993, he served as the founding Dean of the College of Law and Government in Virginia Beach, Virginia. Prior to his academic career, he served as a Trial Attorney and a Special Assistant United States Attorney with the United States Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. and Kansas City, Missouri. Today he is engaged in a general practice with a concentration in constitutional strategy, litigation, and appeals.

Mr. Titus holds the J.D. degree (cum laude) from Harvard and the B.S. degree in Political Science from the University of Oregon from which he graduated Phi Beta Kappa. He is admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the United States Court of Claims, and the United States Courts of Appeals for the Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, District of Columbia and Federal Circuits. His constitutional practice has taken him into federal district courts in Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Montana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Wyoming, and the District of Columbia and the state courts of Idaho, Texas and North Dakota.


Now show me in comparison the Constitutional/case law credentials of former HI Director of Health Chiyome Fukino that makes her more knowledgeable about past U.S. Citizenship laws and the true intent behind the framing of the presidential clause in the eyes of the founders. And while your at it add director Lorretta Fuddy's credentials too.

And Mr. Titus presented no evidence. Not a single law, not a single legal precedent, not a single piece of common law, not a single quote of any founder. Nothing.

He offered us his personal opinion...and opinion that has never been affirmed by the USSC.

Worse, his opinion has been contradicted by the Founders, State of Hawaii and history. As we've already had a US president who had a foreign national father: Chester Arthur. Who was born in the US to an American mother and an Irish father. Yet his eligibility was never questioned until a rumor that he wasn't born in the US surfaced. As the people of Arthur's age knew what the founders knew: natural born status follows place of birth.

You have the USSC, the Founders, the State of Hawaii and US history on one side of the issue. And Mr. Titus on the other.

Mr. Titus loses.

And by the way, the Naturalization Act of 1790 was repealed 5 years later making it moot.

On the contrary, its immediately relevant in demonstrating what the founders understood 'natural born' to be. As the Naturalization act of 1790 was passed only 2 years after the constitution was ratified.

If, as Mr. Titus claims, natural born status followed parentage alone, why then did the founders have to EXTEND natural born status to children born to US parents outside the US before they could be considered natural born citizens? Wouldn't they already have been natural born, per Mr. Titus' argument?

If, however, as English common law dictates and the USSC has cited, natural born status follows PLACE of birth, then the 1790 law makes perfect sense. As those born outside the US wouldn't have been natural born citizens. So such status would have to be extended to them.

And surely you realize that your definition of 'natural born' changed. You've been arguing that natural born status is only those born in the US to two US parents. And suddenly, you've abandoned the 'born in the US' part entirely.

I take it your original definition wasn't working out too well for you. I wonder what your definition will change to next.

What are your credentials in practicing Constitutional law or citizenship law that makes your opinion trump Herb Titus's well established credentials and opinion based on years of practicing constitutional law? Still waiting on you to post Chiyome Fukino and Loretta Fuddy's credentials compared to Constitutional scholar Herb Titus.

Herb Titus has an 'informed opinion'- and no authority.

Dr. Fukino, at the time she made that statement, was the authority.

And her conclusion has since been agreed upon by numerous courts- starting with Ankeny v. Daniel.

Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are "natural born Citizens" for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.

And the American people, the Electoral College, Congress and Chief Justice Roberts have all confirmed that they agree twice now.

Why do Birthers think that they know the super sekrit definition of Natural Born Citizen?

A definition that they didn't invent until Barack Obama was running for President.

 

[Dot Com]

Elaborate? Complicated?

The claim, is simply the result of the facts, wherein a guy whose own Senate Web page claimed he was naturalized citizen, born in Kenya, who then ran for the Office of the Presidency of the US... but failed to produce a valid US Birth certificate, which only came up because the US Constitution requires a President to be a Natural Born Citizen of the US, which is to say a person born to TWO US CITIZENS... (the natural status of which is: US Citizen) and after much public angst, there came two pitifully fraudulent Birth certs.

Which a duly sworn investigation by a duly elected law enforcement agency found to be laughably fraudulent.

It's about as straight forward as anything political gets...

ummm..... I'm going to have to ask for a link there kiddo.

 

[Syriusly]

Elaborate? Complicated?

The claim, is simply the result of the facts, wherein a guy whose own Senate Web page claimed he was naturalized citizen, born in Kenya, who then ran for the Office of the Presidency of the US... but failed to produce a valid US Birth certificate, which only came up because the US Constitution requires a President to be a Natural Born Citizen of the US, which is to say a person born to TWO US CITIZENS... (the natural status of which is: US Citizen) and after much public angst, there came two pitifully fraudulent Birth certs.

Which a duly sworn investigation by a duly elected law enforcement agency found to be laughably fraudulent.

It's about as straight forward as anything political gets...

ummm..... I'm going to have to ask for a link there kid.

Don't confuse birthers by asking them to provide evidence for their claims.

It makes them even whinier than normal.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

Herb Titus Credentials:

Mr. Titus taught constitutional law, common law, and other subjects for nearly 30 years at five different American Bar Association approved law schools. From 1986 to 1993, he served as the founding Dean of the College of Law and Government in Virginia Beach, Virginia. Prior to his academic career, he served as a Trial Attorney and a Special Assistant United States Attorney with the United States Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. and Kansas City, Missouri. Today he is engaged in a general practice with a concentration in constitutional strategy, litigation, and appeals.

Mr. Titus holds the J.D. degree (cum laude) from Harvard and the B.S. degree in Political Science from the University of Oregon from which he graduated Phi Beta Kappa. He is admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the United States Court of Claims, and the United States Courts of Appeals for the Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, District of Columbia and Federal Circuits. His constitutional practice has taken him into federal district courts in Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Montana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Wyoming, and the District of Columbia and the state courts of Idaho, Texas and North Dakota.


Now show me in comparison the Constitutional/case law credentials of former HI Director of Health Chiyome Fukino that makes her more knowledgeable about past U.S. Citizenship laws and the true intent behind the framing of the presidential clause in the eyes of the founders. And while your at it add director Lorretta Fuddy's credentials too.

And Mr. Titus presented no evidence. Not a single law, not a single legal precedent, not a single piece of common law, not a single quote of any founder. Nothing.

He offered us his personal opinion...and opinion that has never been affirmed by the USSC.

Worse, his opinion has been contradicted by the Founders, State of Hawaii and history. As we've already had a US president who had a foreign national father: Chester Arthur. Who was born in the US to an American mother and an Irish father. Yet his eligibility was never questioned until a rumor that he wasn't born in the US surfaced. As the people of Arthur's age knew what the founders knew: natural born status follows place of birth.

You have the USSC, the Founders, the State of Hawaii and US history on one side of the issue. And Mr. Titus on the other.

Mr. Titus loses.

And by the way, the Naturalization Act of 1790 was repealed 5 years later making it moot.

On the contrary, its immediately relevant in demonstrating what the founders understood 'natural born' to be. As the Naturalization act of 1790 was passed only 2 years after the constitution was ratified.

If, as Mr. Titus claims, natural born status followed parentage alone, why then did the founders have to EXTEND natural born status to children born to US parents outside the US before they could be considered natural born citizens? Wouldn't they already have been natural born, per Mr. Titus' argument?

If, however, as English common law dictates and the USSC has cited, natural born status follows PLACE of birth, then the 1790 law makes perfect sense. As those born outside the US wouldn't have been natural born citizens. So such status would have to be extended to them.

And surely you realize that your definition of 'natural born' changed. You've been arguing that natural born status is only those born in the US to two US parents. And suddenly, you've abandoned the 'born in the US' part entirely.

I take it your original definition wasn't working out too well for you. I wonder what your definition will change to next.

What are your credentials in practicing Constitutional law or citizenship law that makes your opinion trump Herb Titus's well established credentials and opinion based on years of practicing constitutional law? Still waiting on you to post Chiyome Fukino and Loretta Fuddy's credentials compared to Constitutional scholar Herb Titus.

Herb Titus has an 'informed opinion'- and no authority.

Dr. Fukino, at the time she made that statement, was the authority.

And her conclusion has since been agreed upon by numerous courts- starting with Ankeny v. Daniel.

Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are "natural born Citizens" for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.

And the American people, the Electoral College, Congress and Chief Justice Roberts have all confirmed that they agree twice now.

Why do Birthers think that they know the super sekrit definition of Natural Born Citizen?

A definition that they didn't invent until Barack Obama was running for President.

Ankeny didn't deal with presidential eligibility. The 3 judge panel got it wrong. Wong Kim Ark was never affirmed a natural born citizen under Article 2 Section 1.

 

[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?

But it wasn't 'materialists' who started this side topic- it was you- with this claim:

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

And you were challenged to prove those figures- which of course is impossible to do.

What I pointed out to you then- and will point out again is that at best the Christians who make this argument(it is always Christians, never Muslims or Jews) is maybe that Christians murdered fewer millions than Atheists murdered.

And shouting the motto "Christians are great because we murder fewer millions" is hardly something to brag about.

You didn't understand my post at all. I seriously overestimated your acumen.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

It's because there's no room for him to put his prayer rug down.


obama my muslim faith - YouTube


Love the comment section.
Obama Doesn t Attend Church So As Not to Distract Others Says Advisor - Breitbart

I always laugh when the Left says that any opposition to Obama is because he's black.

But in your case, I believe it.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

But it wasn't 'materialists' who started this side topic- it was you- with this claim:

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

And you were challenged to prove those figures- which of course is impossible to do.

What I pointed out to you then- and will point out again is that at best the Christians who make this argument(it is always Christians, never Muslims or Jews) is maybe that Christians murdered fewer millions than Atheists murdered.

And shouting the motto "Christians are great because we murder fewer millions" is hardly something to brag about.

You didn't understand my post at all. I seriously overestimated your acumen.

Oh I understood it just fine- you were attacking atheists and were called out on your BS, so now you are doing the denial dance.

 

[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.

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?

But it wasn't 'materialists' who started this side topic- it was you- with this claim:

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

And you were challenged to prove those figures- which of course is impossible to do.

What I pointed out to you then- and will point out again is that at best the Christians who make this argument(it is always Christians, never Muslims or Jews) is maybe that Christians murdered fewer millions than Atheists murdered.

And shouting the motto "Christians are great because we murder fewer millions" is hardly something to brag about.

You didn't understand my post at all. I seriously overestimated your acumen.

Oh I understood it just fine- you were attacking atheists and were called out on your BS, so now you are doing the denial dance.

No you didn't understand it. Read it again. If you still don't grasp that I'm demonstrating how the false narrative of the enemies of faith works against them, I can't help you. I can only dumb it down so far.

 

[Syriusly]

Herb Titus Credentials:

Mr. Titus taught constitutional law, common law, and other subjects for nearly 30 years at five different American Bar Association approved law schools. From 1986 to 1993, he served as the founding Dean of the College of Law and Government in Virginia Beach, Virginia. Prior to his academic career, he served as a Trial Attorney and a Special Assistant United States Attorney with the United States Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. and Kansas City, Missouri. Today he is engaged in a general practice with a concentration in constitutional strategy, litigation, and appeals.

Mr. Titus holds the J.D. degree (cum laude) from Harvard and the B.S. degree in Political Science from the University of Oregon from which he graduated Phi Beta Kappa. He is admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the United States Court of Claims, and the United States Courts of Appeals for the Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, District of Columbia and Federal Circuits. His constitutional practice has taken him into federal district courts in Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Montana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Wyoming, and the District of Columbia and the state courts of Idaho, Texas and North Dakota.


Now show me in comparison the Constitutional/case law credentials of former HI Director of Health Chiyome Fukino that makes her more knowledgeable about past U.S. Citizenship laws and the true intent behind the framing of the presidential clause in the eyes of the founders. And while your at it add director Lorretta Fuddy's credentials too.

And Mr. Titus presented no evidence. Not a single law, not a single legal precedent, not a single piece of common law, not a single quote of any founder. Nothing.

He offered us his personal opinion...and opinion that has never been affirmed by the USSC.

Worse, his opinion has been contradicted by the Founders, State of Hawaii and history. As we've already had a US president who had a foreign national father: Chester Arthur. Who was born in the US to an American mother and an Irish father. Yet his eligibility was never questioned until a rumor that he wasn't born in the US surfaced. As the people of Arthur's age knew what the founders knew: natural born status follows place of birth.

You have the USSC, the Founders, the State of Hawaii and US history on one side of the issue. And Mr. Titus on the other.

Mr. Titus loses.

And by the way, the Naturalization Act of 1790 was repealed 5 years later making it moot.

On the contrary, its immediately relevant in demonstrating what the founders understood 'natural born' to be. As the Naturalization act of 1790 was passed only 2 years after the constitution was ratified.

If, as Mr. Titus claims, natural born status followed parentage alone, why then did the founders have to EXTEND natural born status to children born to US parents outside the US before they could be considered natural born citizens? Wouldn't they already have been natural born, per Mr. Titus' argument?

If, however, as English common law dictates and the USSC has cited, natural born status follows PLACE of birth, then the 1790 law makes perfect sense. As those born outside the US wouldn't have been natural born citizens. So such status would have to be extended to them.

And surely you realize that your definition of 'natural born' changed. You've been arguing that natural born status is only those born in the US to two US parents. And suddenly, you've abandoned the 'born in the US' part entirely.

I take it your original definition wasn't working out too well for you. I wonder what your definition will change to next.

What are your credentials in practicing Constitutional law or citizenship law that makes your opinion trump Herb Titus's well established credentials and opinion based on years of practicing constitutional law? Still waiting on you to post Chiyome Fukino and Loretta Fuddy's credentials compared to Constitutional scholar Herb Titus.

Herb Titus has an 'informed opinion'- and no authority.

Dr. Fukino, at the time she made that statement, was the authority.

And her conclusion has since been agreed upon by numerous courts- starting with Ankeny v. Daniel.

Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are "natural born Citizens" for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.

And the American people, the Electoral College, Congress and Chief Justice Roberts have all confirmed that they agree twice now.

Why do Birthers think that they know the super sekrit definition of Natural Born Citizen?

A definition that they didn't invent until Barack Obama was running for President.

Ankeny didn't deal with presidential eligibility. The 3 judge panel got it wrong. Wong Kim Ark was never affirmed a natural born citizen under Article 2 Section 1.

Ankeny dealt specifically with Presidential eligibility- the complainents mention eligiblity several times i ntheir complaint.

In their complaint, the Plaintiffs appear to suggest that the Governor has a duty to
determine a person‟s eligibility to become President in issuing the “Certificate of
Ascertainment” “officially appoint[ing] the electors” who cast the State of Indiana‟s
votes in the Electoral College, the body which decides the election for the President of
the United States (“President”). Transcript at 13. Specifically, Plaintiffs appear to argue
that the Governor did not comply with this duty because: (A) neither President Barack
Obama nor Senator John McCain were eligible “to be appointed „Elector in Chief‟ in
violation of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2‟s prohibition that no United States Senator

As usual- you are just lying.

The court going on:

Natural Born Citizen
Second, the Plaintiffs argue that both President Barack Obama and Senator John
McCain are not “natural born Citizens” as required for qualification to be President under
Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 9of the U.S. Constitution, and that therefore because
neither person was constitutionally eligible to become President,

The complainents basically made your bogus Birther claim:

With regard to President Barack Obama, the Plaintiffs posit that
because his father was a citizen of the United Kingdom, President Obama is
constitutionally ineligible to assume the Office of the President.

Then, in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S. Ct. 456 (1898), the United
States Supreme Court confronted the question of “whether a child born in the United
States, of parents of Chinese descent, who at the time of his birth are subject to the
emperor of China . . . becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by
virtue of the first clause of the fourteenth amendment . . . .” 169 U.S. at 653, 18 S. Ct. at
458. We find this case instructive. The Court in Wong Kim Ark reaffirmed Minor in
that the meaning of the words “citizen of the United States” and “natural-born citizen of
the United States” “must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and
history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the constitution.” Id. at 654, 18
S. Ct. at 459. They noted that “[t]he interpretation of the constitution of the United States

Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance
provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the
United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of
the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was]
a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too
were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.”15

And finally noting also:


We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a
“natural born Citizen” using the Constitution‟s Article II language is immaterial. For all but forty-four
people in our nation‟s history (the forty-four Presidents), the dichotomy between who is a natural born
citizen and who is a naturalized citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment is irrelevant. The issue
addressed in Wong Kim Ark was whether Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States on the
basis that he was born in the United States. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 705, 18 S. Ct. at 478.

Like I said Stevie- you just lie.