The Kenyan Certificate of Birth submitted for authentication in suit

[MitchellJD1969]

Originally Posted by tailsupcom

i have somehow stumbled into a "far-right-extremist" propaganda thread. backing.....out......slooooowlyyy.....

Well dont let the door hit you in the butt on the way out. Go check the Daily Kos or Democrat Underground for some good leftwing extremist propoganda.

[Silver Fox]

Originally Posted by MitchellJD1969

Silver Fox
Brass Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,523

Re: So, Are we Dancing Around this issue?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by MPLisa
Wow! Succumbed to typical modern military political correctness garbage much?

No, I'm quite against political correctness and say what I damn well please, but I think what you said stereotypes a lot of people. How do you define "radical Islam"? Would you say the same thing about "radical Mormons"?
__________________


You rebut the birther view here and it wouldnt suprise me if you consider them radicals or extremists, but in another thread you cry about a guy has doubts about radical islam. Just kinda inconsistant.

Yeah, look at what I said. I asked her to define radical Islam. That in no way means I'm defending extremists or trying to prevent them for being tried as criminals. I was asking someone to clarify what constituted radical Islam as they appeared to be bunching all Muslims together as the bad guys, which they are not.

I don't consider birther's extremists, people with crack pot opinions yes, extremists no.


So no, there's absolutely nothing inconsistent in that viewpoint at all.

[DAG48]

U.S. Supreme Court

ELK v. WILKINS, 112 U.S. 94 (1884)

112 U.S. 94
ELK
v.
WILKINS.
November 3, 1884


.....,

"Chief Justice TANEY, in the passage cited for the plaintiff [112 U.S. 94, 101] from his opinion in Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 404, did not affirm or imply that either the Indian tribes, or individual members of those tribes, had the right, beyond other foreigners, to become citizens of their own will, without being naturalized by the United States. His words were: 'They' (the Indian tribes) 'may without doubt, like the subjects of any foreign government, be naturalized by the authority of congress, and become citizens of a state, and of the United States; and if an individual should leave his nation or tribe, and take up his abode among the white population, he would be entitled to all the rights and privileges which would belong to an emigrant from any other foreign people.' But an emigrant from any foreign state cannot become a citizen of the United States without a formal renunciation of his old allegiance, and an acceptance by the United States of that renunciation through such form of naturalization as may be required law.

The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the constitution, by which '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;' and 'the congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.' Const. art. 2, 1; art. 1, 8. By the thirteenth amendment of the constitution slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the fourteenth amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this court, as to the citizenship of free negroes, (Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393; ) and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 73; Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303 , 306.

This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared [112 U.S. 94, 102] to be citizens are 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.' The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards, except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts; or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired. Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indiana tribes, (an alien though dependent power,) although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more 'born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' within the meaning of the first section of the fourteenth amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States, of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations."


"It is also worthy of remark that the language used, about the same time, by the very congress which framed the fourteenth amendment, in the first section of the civil rights act of April 9, 1866, declaring who shall be citizens of the United States, is 'all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed.' 14 St. 27; Rev. St. 1992."

Source:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...l=112&invol=94

14th Amendment Information:

http://www.14thamendment.us/birthrig...al_intent.html

Is it lawful for a Dual Citizen to be President of the U.S. States?

[Silver Fox]

Dude. STOP SPAMMING IT. YOU DON'T HAVE TO POST THE SAME SHIT IN EVERY SINGLE THREAD.

[DAG48]

Originally Posted by Silver Fox

Dude. STOP SPAMMING IT. YOU DON'T HAVE TO POST THE SAME SHIT IN EVERY SINGLE THREAD.

It's relevant in all three. You asked for me to post sources, the Supreme Court seems like a fairly good source. What else do you want?

[tailsupcom]

Originally Posted by MitchellJD1969

Well dont let the door hit you in the butt on the way out. Go check the Daily Kos or Democrat Underground for some good leftwing extremist propoganda.

its the exact same bullsh1t.......only difference its directed at someone else. misquotes, using information out of context, twisting facts around..........its all crap.

[TJMAC77SP]

Originally Posted by tailsupcom

its the exact same bullsh1t.......only difference its directed at someone else. misquotes, using information out of context, twisting facts around..........its all crap.

Thought you had left....................

[tailsupcom]

Originally Posted by TJMAC77SP

Thought you had left....................

not yet.....still kickin im afraid.

[DAG48]

Originally Posted by Silver Fox

Dude. STOP SPAMMING IT. YOU DON'T HAVE TO POST THE SAME SHIT IN EVERY SINGLE THREAD.

1. Supreme Court Decision Trumps your opinion

2. Supreme Court Decision Trumps the Canadian Guy on Website you Posted.

3. Supreme Court Decision Trumps youtube, yahoo, and AP stories you posted.

4. As for the Two Recent Federal Court Decisions from New Jersey and California, that stated it is not within the Courts Jurisdiction to oust a sitting President, that it was a matter of Impeachment by Congress, this Democratic Congress will not Impeach this Democratic President.

Is this starting to make sense to anyone else out there? (Reference Post # 193 )