Althouse: At the Wisconsin State Fair: A man shouts "sic semper tyrannis" at Governor Scott Walker.

August 5, 2011

At the Wisconsin State Fair: A man shouts "sic semper tyrannis" at Governor Scott Walker.

Captured by the MacIver News Service:

Back in February, I caught that phrase on a protester's sign:

279 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 279 of 279

Nichevo said...: Seven Machos said...

By the way, you people bashing Titus are ridiculous. The accusations about him trying to get Althouse blocked are just stupid. The accusations about Titus trying to change the course of the conversation are right on. But it's not some sinister plot. He's very up front about this objective.

Trooper does this very same thing, changing the conversation when he wants to. You got a problem with him?

Don't be such cunts!
8/6/11 12:33 AM

My only problem with TY is his character is a poor speller, which I find distasteful, but it is part of the act.

Titus is to me utterly vile and I wish I didn't have to read him. He apparently has the right to defecate all over this board, and I have the right to wish him, or his character if you like, forever deprived of the power of speech.

I just hope that, should I ever have the opportunity to inflict a traumatic brain injury on Titus, it will not be attributed to a motive of anti-gay bigotry, but because he is a sick fuck. Has nothing to do with his being gay, which I don't even believe.

On a lesser note, Titus is also very bad at communicating with others. Fuck his desire to shape the conversation with dadaistic filth; if he wants to change the flow, let him do so constructively.

I think there is an excellent Bible verse about how the fool doesn't want to listen, but only to be heard. (Among others, Cedarford and Carol Herman share this difficulty, and it doesn't add to their attractiveness.) I think that at least up to a point, one has a responsibility to address remarks directed at oneself.

Ann tolerates, nay, encourages him, because she is very fond of toads. Toulouse-Lautrec spoke of Parisiennes who would go about with monkeys on a leash, to accentuate their own attractiveness by contrast. Ann's major problem is that nothing bad has happened to her in her entire life. It would have given her the character to discern right from wrong.; 8/6/11, 1:31 AM
Saint Croix said...: Ann's major problem is that nothing bad has happened to her in her entire life.

Have you been stalking Ann for 60 years, following the course of her entire life, so that you can opine, with perfect stupidity, that "nothing bad has happened to her in her entire life"?; 8/6/11, 4:08 AM
ddh said...: JAL,

Section 1409 [sorry for the incorrect citation last night--it was late] makes no distinction between mothers who are of age and those who are not. The only requirement of the US citizen mother is that she had lived for at least one year in US territory.

The document that you received from the State Department probably is FS-240, Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States of America or possibly DS- 2029, Application for a Consular Report of Birth. They do ask for the age of the parents, but then, so do most birth certificates in the United States.; 8/6/11, 6:12 AM
Temujin said...: Enough with the Union goons, thugs, and morons. Enough with students and professors (sorry Professor) parading around as serious thinkers.

It's been months. This act is beyond absurd. Haven't I read numerous articles on how Gov. Walker's bills have actually saved teachers jobs?

What are they still yapping about? Don't union people have actual jobs to deal with? Are the rest of the people of the State of Wisconsin willing to go along with an obviously and embarrassingly intellectually impotent group such as is staging these never ending parades/protests/art and craft fairs?

To the Unions, it's all about them. Their power, their money, their security. Did I mention their money? At this point, I don't even think their members know what the hell they're shouting about. They're told to hold a sign and chant the following....

What cretins. What horrible people. Any argument for unionization need only to show the last year in Madison. It's end is very near. So the actions- nationally- will only get more insane. Who would hire any of these people if they had the choice? Seriously.; 8/6/11, 6:19 AM
Mick said...: ddh said...
"Mick,

You could not be more wrong about Rubio, Jindal, and Obama. The citizenships of the parents do not affect their US citizenship. The Supreme Court ruling in US vs. Wong Kim Ark upheld Wong's contention that he was a US citizen by virtue of his birth in San Francisco despite his parents' status as Chinese citizens. Similarly, Rubio, Jindal, and Obama are eligible to be president or vice president by virtue of their birth in the United States, regardless of the citizenship of their parents."

And of course you're wrong. NO WHERE in WKA did Gray say that WKA was natural born Citizen, eligible to be POTUS. Gray said WKA was a US Citizen, due to birth to Domiciled Resident Aliens. Among all the gobbledy gook of his dicta (which is the only thing you can rely on, not the holding) , is a quote from Binney:

"The Citizen child of an alien has the same rights as the natural born citizen child of a Citizen."

ddh said,
"Moreover, we have already had at least one president and probably one vice-president who were dual citizens. President Chester Arthur's father was a British subject, making President Arthur from birth a US citizen and a British subject. Vice President Spiro Agnew probably could have picked up a Greek passport just by asking for one."

Chester Arthur's father was only recently found to not have naturalized until CA was 14. It was unknown to the public at the time. It was also the subject of fraud by CA in lying about his family history and date of birth. He also burned his family history when he died. Fraud is not precedent. Spiro Agnew was undoubtedly natural born. His father was here in the US for 20 years nefore Spiro was born, and worked for the Democratic party, so he was certainly naturalized before Spiro was born.

ddh said,

"The Constitution, statute, and the Supreme Court have never defined what "natural-born citizen" means in terms of eligibility to be president or vice president, but that does not mean that you can substitute your opinion on what should be the law."

Right, they just stuck those words in there and didn't know what they meant, just sounded good! Natural born Cititizen has been defined the same way over more thab 200 years, including Resolution 511 which required CITIZEN PARENTS, and Minor v. Happersett which you ignore, since you have no answer for truth-- it is acid in the face of a liar:

""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. "; 8/6/11, 6:57 AM
damikesc said...: Hitler was legally elected.

Hitler was not elected Chancellor. He was appointed to that position.

He was elected to the Reichstag only.; 8/6/11, 7:00 AM
Mick said...: Seven Machos said...
"JAL -- ddh's post was brilliant. Brilliant. The document you cite is not a law and you have no idea what you are talking about."

So says the ringleader of the Obama propagandist bootlicker brigade. I destroyed his silly argument, which is the same one the obfuscators (like you) have been spewing for some time.; 8/6/11, 7:01 AM
Mick said...: Seven Machos said...
"Oh man! Mick's here? I missed the fun?

Hey Mick: when does your super-secret plan to prevent Obama from running for election or being president or whatever kick in? Don't forget to let me know, so I can get the popcorn and, if necessary, contact the Secret Service".

I'm so scared! I thought you already called them!
So answer the question:
How is it possible that Obama, admittedly born BRITISH, is a natural born Citizen, eligible to be POTUS, when the purpose of the natural born Citizen requirement was to prevent foreign influence?

And how do you explain this from Minor v. Happersett:

""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. "; 8/6/11, 7:04 AM
B said...: 'How is it possible that Obama, admittedly born BRITISH...'

You keep asking this like a scratched record. It's been answered. He wasn't born British. Britain's laws of citizenship do not supersede US laws, which say that he was born an American citizen.

Seems like every time someone shots your nonsense down, he resort to the conspiracy nut's tried and true tactic of accusing the person of being part of the conspiracy. - 'So says the ringleader of the Obama propagandist bootlicker brigade.'

'I destroyed his silly argument, which is the same one the obfuscators (like you) have been spewing for some time.'

You don't actually. You simply ignore the implications of being shown to be wrong and re-issue the same lame question.

Get a life. There are important matters before us as a country and your sort of white noise nonsense distracts.; 8/6/11, 8:30 AM
Fred4Pres said...: Mick for SCOTUS.

Save Titus.

Save the rare cumber.

Save Wisconsin from itself.; 8/6/11, 8:39 AM
ddh said...: Mick,

You are thicker than a brick, and your reading and writing skills are sub-par. Reread what I wrote about US vs. Wong Kim Ark. Calling me a liar for writing something you think is wrong is stupid beyond words.

The quotes you cite only say that the children of citizens are natural born--they don't say that only the children of two US citizens are natural born. What Justice Gray wrote is still true--nothing in the Constitution defines what "natural born" means, and neither does statute or case law. You are riding a hobby horse.

I also noticed that you dropped your argument that dual citizens and the children of dual citizens are ineligible to be president. Chester Arthur's father was indisputably a British subject all the days of his life, regardless of the date of his naturalization. British law in the 19th century did not allow anyone to renounce citizenship, remember? The War of 1812 and British impressment of American seamen? Ring any bells? So, according to British law, Chester Arthur was a British subject because his father was one. All the Irish in America knew that aspect of British law back then, and so did most other Americans.

You're so convinced you're right that I wonder why you don't file suit in Federal Court to remove Obama from the presidency. I'd be willing to bet that you won't get anything for your troubles but legal fees.; 8/6/11, 9:22 AM
Mick said...: B said,

"You keep asking this like a scratched record. It's been answered. He wasn't born British. Britain's laws of citizenship do not supersede US laws, which say that he was born an American citizen."

Of course he was born British silly! He admits it himself at his campaign website "Fight the Smears".

"“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children."

Just like children of an American citizen born in Britain are considered American Citizens by American law (USC 8 S. 1401), it works both way by way of the BNA 1948 (at the time), the Jay Treaty, and the British Treaty 1951.
So if your answer to the argument is that "he was not born BRITISH, thus he is natural born", then you lose.
Play again?; 8/6/11, 9:35 AM
Mick said...: ddh said...
"Mick,

You are thicker than a brick, and your reading and writing skills are sub-par. Reread what I wrote about US vs. Wong Kim Ark. Calling me a liar for writing something you think is wrong is stupid beyond words".

Very typical insults backed by no facts from the Obama Protection Alinsyites. You better get reinforcements. NOTHING in the WKA decision remotely says that WKA is a natural born Citizen, eligible for POTUS, Only a US Citizen, since born of unnaturalizable resident doiciled aliens. SHOW ME where it says WKA is natural born-- "born a Citizen equals natural born" is YOUR definition, not that court.

"The quotes you cite only say that the children of citizens are natural born--they don't say that only the children of two US citizens are natural born".

Sure it does. It says that CLASS are the natural born Citizens, and those born of aliens or foreigners may not even be US Citizens.

"I also noticed that you dropped your argument that dual citizens and the children of dual citizens are ineligible to be president. Chester Arthur's father was indisputably a British subject all the days of his life, regardless of the date of his naturalization. British law in the 19th century did not allow anyone to renounce citizenship, remember? The War of 1812 and British impressment of American seamen? Ring any bells? So, according to British law, Chester Arthur was a British subject because his father was one. All the Irish in America knew that aspect of British law back then, and so did most other Americans."

Nonsense, that is the whole argument. No dual citizens at birth can be natural born. It is historical FACT that the public was not aware of CA's father not being naturalized-- only recently discovered. So you're lying again. Of course you Agnew argument was just nonsense. You think I have never seen these silly OBOT arguments? You must be newly indoctrinated. Better get some reinforcemnets.

ddh said,
"You're so convinced you're right that I wonder why you don't file suit in Federal Court to remove Obama from the presidency. I'd be willing to bet that you won't get anything for your troubles but legal fees."

Typical taunting by the Lying Obama protection team. When the time is right, in due time. The truth sets me free.; 8/6/11, 9:48 AM
Mick said...: Fred4Pres said...
"Mick for SCOTUS".

I'm a hedgehog.; 8/6/11, 9:50 AM
Fred4Pres said...: Don't bash Titus.

He is fearful of the future and wants to be remembered.

I will care for his rare cumber if anything ever happens.; 8/6/11, 9:56 AM
Mick said...: ddh said,

"Chester Arthur's father was indisputably a British subject all the days of his life, regardless of the date of his naturalization."

Ah the Alinsky "use the enemiy's argument against them" rule surfaces. At the point that CA's father naturalized as a US Citizen, any subsequent children born thereafter to a married spouse wold have been natural born (born in the US of 2 US Citizen parents). Chester was naturalized at 14 when his father became naturalized, therefore is not natural born. Thanks for proving my point!!! Play again?; 8/6/11, 9:58 AM
Fred4Pres said...: Yes Mick, you are.

Mick for SCOTUS.; 8/6/11, 10:19 AM
hombre said...: "ddh's post was brilliant. Brilliant.... [Y]ou have no idea what you are talking about."

Hm-m-m. Title 8 USC Section 1609, eh?; 8/6/11, 10:31 AM
Bruce Rheinstein said...: Andrea Harris used to perform troll-control on Tim Blair's websites. Given the behavior of Titus, et al., someone like that could be used here.; 8/6/11, 10:42 AM
Trooper York said...: I have to agree with Seven Machos. I often change the subject because what we are talking about is so freaking boring. At least to me.

Now maybe that makes me a troll. Fair enough you can just scroll on by. But to talk about banning someone is way over the top. And to her credit not the way the evil blogger lady operates.

What first attracted me to this site was the unending pomposity. Anything that punctures that for a little while is fine with me.; 8/6/11, 11:25 AM
The Dude said...: Hockey Bum (redundant name, eh?), this is a free speech zone. Occasionally comments will get deleted, but our hostess allows all kinds of shit to get dropped here. Check the name at the top of the comment and read the comment or move on based on what you think of the author - you have that freedom. And Andrea Harris, whoever she is, can go fuck herself.

So Troop, what do you think of the latest turn of events in the choking incident at the Wisconsin supreme court, eh? Scintillating story, no?; 8/6/11, 11:38 AM
narciso said...: This is part of the 'civility gambit' that has been promoted since
January, if another threat like that
Lindell (sic) that threated the state legislators is acted upon,
they 'will disavow all knowledge', or worse yet, saying it was warranted.; 8/6/11, 11:42 AM
B said...: "Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children."

Can you read? Honestly, can you read and understand simple english? IT DOES NOT MATTER what British law says. US citizenship is governed by US laws, and is not governed by any British act. My answer to your eternally lame question is not that 'he was not born BRITISH, thus he is natural born'. I won't even address the asinine logic that took you there. My answer is and has always been that Obama was born a US citizen by US laws.

The natural born end of things has gone through the courts, as has been exhaustively pointed out to you by people with more patience with jackasses than I do.; 8/6/11, 12:22 PM
Mick said...: B said...
""Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children."

Can you read? Honestly, can you read and understand simple english? IT DOES NOT MATTER what British law says. US citizenship is governed by US laws, and is not governed by any British act. My answer to your eternally lame question is not that 'he was not born BRITISH, thus he is natural born'. I won't even address the asinine logic that took you there. My answer is and has always been that Obama was born a US citizen by US laws.

The natural born end of things has gone through the courts, as has been exhaustively pointed out to you by people with more patience with jackasses than I do."

I think your reading skills must not be very good, since it says at Obama's own Campaign website that Obama'Sr's CHILDREN's (BO 2 is Obama Sr's CHILD) Citizenship was "governed" by the BNA 1948, which says:

"Citizenship by descent.

5.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth:

Provided that if the father of such a person is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent only, that person shall not be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by virtue of this section unless—

(a) that person is born or his father was born in a protectorate, protected state, mandated territory or trust territory or any place in a foreign country where by treaty, capitulation, grant, usage, sufferance, or other lawful means, His Majesty then has or had jurisdiction over British subjects; "

So it appears that as Obama HIMSELF says, he was born British, and at the very best British/US, and naturalized passively by election of residence at the age of majority. So again you are wrong (and lying).; 8/6/11, 1:07 PM
richard mcenroe said...: Someone wanna tell Mick about Anchor Babies?; 8/6/11, 1:23 PM
ddh said...: Mick,

Calling me a liar shows me that you are too dumb to know what the word means. I say what I mean, and I mean what I say. That, my semi-literate correspondent, means I can be wrong, but I can't be lying. You insult me, and I will feel free to retaliate. A few other people around here have also questioned your intelligence and your ability to read and reason, so I think I was making observations that others have validated.

Of course US vs Wong Kim Ark doesn't define "natural born," as I said and repeated in each of my posts. Wong wasn't elected president, so the Supreme Court had no need to rule on whether he was natural born. If you were a careful reader, you would have understood that.

The absence of a definition of "natural born" in the Constitution, statute, or case law means that no one can rule out or rule in that "natural born" citizenship is citizenship acquired at birth. I have no disagreement with the passage you cite, but if you were a careful reader, you would have seen that the passage does not exclude from being a natural-born citizen anyone who acquires citizenship at birth. Here's a clue to why I say that: The words "if and only if" or their equivalents do not appear.

I am sorry I misread your point that dual citizens are indeed ineligible to be president. I thought you were merely inarticulate instead of too stupid to realize that you try to have it both ways. According to what you have written, dual citizens are not eligible to be president, but they are eligible if both parents were US citizens at the time of birth. Those two categories overlap. If you were a careful thinker, you would have understood that.

By saying that no dual citizen is natural born, you are allowing foreign countries to veto who is eligible to be president. Despite what you wrote about Chester Arthur's father, it was well known that he was born in Ireland and emigrated first to Canada where he married a US citizen. Under the British law that existed all during the 19th century, the father and all his children were from birth to death British subjects. It does not matter when President Arthur's father or Spiro Agnew's parents were naturalized (are you going to claim that it was not widely known that Agnew was a Greek-American?)--they remained citizens of the UK and Greece, respectively, for all the days of their lives, and all their children were British and Greek citizens, respectively.

You're right, Mick, I am taunting you. I'm taunting you because, by your reckoning, Obama is ineligible to be president, but you don't have the guts to file suit. As for that Alinsky crap you're throwing around, I didn't vote for Obama in '08, and I sure as hell won't vote for him next year, either. So, does that make you a liar, or only wrong?

Oh, and your taunt "Play again?" It sounds to me like Charlie Sheen's saying "Winning!" How dumb. How pathetic.; 8/6/11, 1:49 PM
Nichevo said...: Saint Croix,

I've in essence wished for Titus to have his head smashed in and you're worried about Althouse's feelings? If I'm stupid, that's better than being whatever it is that you are. Anyway she's tougher than that. I won't be gross to prove it, but I could.

TY,

Titus IMHO is one step above (or below, whatever) goatse.cx. Not that I mind puncturing Althouse but why do you think he is a favorite of hers?

Mick,

My family emigrated from Russia in 1920. My grandafther was 8, IIRC. I'm pretty sure he was naturalized before my dad was born. My mom was born here and her folks and their folks. So I should be OK to run for POTUS, right?

Except I am Jewish. So, I believe Israel's Law of Return allows me to claim Israeli citizenship anytime. Cedarford, I believe, thinks this makes me a dual citizen. So am I allowed to run for President? Are any Jews allowed to run for President? If not, was this only effective after 1948?

Also, I agree that Ithought only those born of twqo US citizens were "natural born citizens" and only NBCs could run for President. But I find your opinions on why this was ignored or missed unconvincing. Got anything else?

And whatever steps you have in mind to keep Obama from being reelected, would they work to get him out of office now? In which case WTF are you waiting for?; 8/6/11, 1:51 PM
Mick said...: Nichevo said,

"Except I am Jewish. So, I believe Israel's Law of Return allows me to claim Israeli citizenship anytime. Cedarford, I believe, thinks this makes me a dual citizen. So am I allowed to run for President? Are any Jews allowed to run for President? If not, was this only effective after 1948? "

You have the right to claim Jewish Citizenship if you apply, and you owe no allegiance to them at birth. Birth to 2 US Citizens in the US equals natural born Citizen, it isn't any more complicated than that, unless an obfuscator wants to complicate it.; 8/6/11, 2:23 PM
Mick said...: Nichevo said.
"Also, I agree that Ithought only those born of twqo US citizens were "natural born citizens" and only NBCs could run for President. But I find your opinions on why this was ignored or missed unconvincing. Got anything else?"

what are you talking about?; 8/6/11, 2:24 PM
Mick said...: Nichevo said,

"Also, I agree that Ithought only those born of twqo US citizens were "natural born citizens" and only NBCs could run for President. But I find your opinions on why this was ignored or missed unconvincing. Got anything else?"

In due time Obama Internet operative.; 8/6/11, 2:25 PM
Anonymous said...: While I really appreciate the good work you are doing here, ddh, along with a few others, what you have to understand is that Mick is a hilarious conspirator. At some point, you have to accept that you'll never win the argument and start batting him around like a rag doll.

I do battle with Mick, but for a different reason. I am a conservative libertarian. I do not like Obama's politics. I want others to agree with me. I don't want people confusing legitimate political and economic grievances with this Mick's conspiratorial hokum.; 8/6/11, 2:26 PM
Mick said...: ddh said,

"You're right, Mick, I am taunting you. I'm taunting you because, by your reckoning, Obama is ineligible to be president, but you don't have the guts to file suit. As for that Alinsky crap you're throwing around, I didn't vote for Obama in '08, and I sure as hell won't vote for him next year, either. So, does that make you a liar, or only wrong?"

Sure you didn't!!! It's fun to play a role on the internet isn't it. In due time, if he makes into to the next election; 8/6/11, 2:28 PM
Anonymous said...: In due time, if he makes into to the next election

Come on, Mick. Tell us about the super-secret plan. Does it involve some gnat district judge issuing an order that the most powerful man in the world cannot run for the office? Does it involve a book depository overlooking Dealey Plaza?; 8/6/11, 2:30 PM
Mick said...: 7 Machos said,

"I do battle with Mick, but for a different reason. I am a conservative libertarian. I do not like Obama's politics. I want others to agree with me. I don't want people confusing legitimate political and economic grievances with this Mick's conspiratorial hokum."

Please, you don't "do battle" you simply get embarrassed and proven wrong over and over. Sure you don't like Obama, I believe you! The truth sets me free, and is acid in the face of a liar.
So answer the question:
If the purpose for the natural born Citizen requirement is prevention of foreign influence, then how is it possible that Obama, admittedly born British, is a natural born Citizen, eligible for POTUS?; 8/6/11, 2:32 PM
Gary Rosen said...: "Cedarford, I believe, thinks ..."

Mistaken assumption right off the bat, Nich.; 8/6/11, 2:32 PM
Anonymous said...: Mick -- ddh has answered this question you have posed. So have others. So have I and others in previous threads.

You will not get what you want. Doesn't that define the concept of losing the argument exactly?

Please keep us updated on your secret plan to put an end to Obama's presidency, so I'll know when the time is right to contact the Secret Service. Thank you.; 8/6/11, 2:36 PM
Mick said...: ddh said,

"By saying that no dual citizen is natural born, you are allowing foreign countries to veto who is eligible to be president. Despite what you wrote about Chester Arthur's father, it was well known that he was born in Ireland and emigrated first to Canada where he married a US citizen. Under the British law that existed all during the 19th century, the father and all his children were from birth to death British subjects. It does not matter when President Arthur's father or Spiro Agnew's parents were naturalized (are you going to claim that it was not widely known that Agnew was a Greek-American?)--they remained citizens of the UK and Greece, respectively, for all the days of their lives, and all their children were British and Greek citizens, respectively."

You must have just gotten out of the indoctrination class-- these are silly nonsense arguments propagated by the Obama Propagandists! It was well known that CA's father was born in Ireland, lived in Canada, and married an American, but of course you left out the most important part-- that he never naturalized until CA was 14-- that was the important part that NO ONE knew until 2009. When one naturalizes they swear off allegiance to any other foreign power, so it doesn't matter what other countries say at that point. Naturalization as a US Citizen is all that is needed to transfer US Citizenship and potential natural borb Citizenship at birth. CA was naturalized at 14 years old, when his father was naturalized-- therefore not natural born, and the only other Usurper (which no one knew at the time-- the controversy, like today, was about his Birth Certicate).; 8/6/11, 2:43 PM
Anonymous said...: Cedarford was certainly right in a previous thread about one thing: he pointed out that McCain signaled to people that he didn't care about experience when he picked Palin for his vice presidential candidate.

But he's a strange hater of Jewish people who is stuck in the 19th Century and absurdly wrong bordering on evil most of the time. He's a trailer park Tom Buchanan. The occasional Malthusian arguments are just a whimsical bonus.; 8/6/11, 2:44 PM
Anonymous said...: Naturalization as a US Citizen is all that is needed to transfer US Citizenship and potential natural borb Citizenship at birth.

What U.S. law or federal court case says exactly this? Citation please, with relevant full quote in italics.

Prediction: this question will go unanswered. Or it will be answered with a question, since Mick obviously has no authority to back his fantasy up.; 8/6/11, 2:47 PM
Mick said...: Seven Machos said...
"Mick -- ddh has answered this question you have posed. So have others. So have I and others in previous threads.

You will not get what you want. Doesn't that define the concept of losing the argument exactly?

Please keep us updated on your secret plan to put an end to Obama's presidency, so I'll know when the time is right to contact the Secret Service. Thank you."

And he was wrong--- he said Obama was not born British-- and Obama himself, and the BNA 1948 say that he was--

I'm so scared, please don't call them mister 7 LOLOLOLOLOl.

You can't answer the question either-- because it is Obama's kryptonite. It gives you cognitive dissonance since answering it truthfully exposes your lies, Obama Internet operative.; 8/6/11, 2:48 PM
Anonymous said...: Obama is still president. How does that make you feel, Mick?; 8/6/11, 2:50 PM
Mick said...: Seven Machos said...
"Naturalization as a US Citizen is all that is needed to transfer US Citizenship and potential natural borb Citizenship at birth.

What U.S. law or federal court case says exactly this? Citation please, with relevant full quote in italics.

Prediction: this question will go unanswered. Or it will be answered with a question, since Mick obviously has no authority to back his fantasy up."

That should have read Naturalization of both parents is all that is needed to transfer NATURAL BORN CITIZENSHIP. At that point it doesn't matter what other country's laws say. It is still quaestionanle whether those born of 2 aliens are even uS Citizens (they are surely not natural born Citizens).; 8/6/11, 2:52 PM
Mick said...: Seven Machos said...
"Obama is still president. How does that make you feel, Mick?"

So answer the question Obama bridgetender.; 8/6/11, 2:54 PM
Nichevo said...: Mick,

You are a fool to throw around insulting accusations like that. I resent being called anything for Obama. I am in broad sympathy with your point; whether or not the 0 was born in Hawaii the British (Kenyan) father seems to be a problem. I have always understood that anchor babies were NOT eligible to become POTUS.

I might even have spoken badly and should say that my chief incredulity is regarding the idea that if correct, this could have been missed or ignored during the election - but that conspiracies of the Bilderberg/Protocols/grassy knoll variety never appealed to me. Rather than you personally are unconvincing, you have not convinced anyone who matters, which is a problem, and why not?

In fact, I am not even put off by your gratuitous insult. That is, your offensive manner does not change my views of the truth or falsehood of this issue.

It just makes me think that you are not a reliable source of information and that if I care enough I will have to go elsewhere to learn more, because though you may be right, it's probably in the manner of a stopped clock, and other than that I obviously can't talk to you.

Gary,

I tend to think that C4 is only mad north-north-west, that he knows a hawk from a handsaw. I am happy for you to go to war with him, I take a different approach, though when he tells outright lies, as with his libel regarding Jewish-American participation in WWII, I call him on it.. Other than that I try to approach him with H. Beam Piper's dictum in mind: When someone says something you don't understand, don't tell him he's crazy. Ask him what the hell he means.

The secret to his utter destruction, of course, would be to lock him in a room with Carol Herman.; 8/6/11, 2:56 PM
Anonymous said...: What law or federal holding, Mick? Citation please with relevant quotation.

You are wrong. You cannot produce such a citation. It does not exist outside your fanciful imagination.; 8/6/11, 2:56 PM
Mick said...: Seven Machos said...
"Cedarford was certainly right in a previous thread about one thing: he pointed out that McCain signaled to people that he didn't care about experience when he picked Palin for his vice presidential candidate.

But he's a strange hater of Jewish people who is stuck in the 19th Century and absurdly wrong bordering on evil most of the time. He's a trailer park Tom Buchanan. The occasional Malthusian arguments are just a whimsical bonus."

And McCain wasn't natural born either. He needed USC 8 S. 1403 (US Citizens at birth born in PCZ)to be a US Citizen. Natural born Citizens need no statute, since they are born in the US of US Citizen parents. What else would they be?; 8/6/11, 2:57 PM
Anonymous said...: Still waiting...; 8/6/11, 2:58 PM
Mick said...: Seven Machos said...
"What law or federal holding, Mick? Citation please with relevant quotation.

You are wrong. You cannot produce such a citation. It does not exist outside your fanciful imagination."

How desperate you are. There is no "law" or "statute"
saying who is natural born, since no law or statute is needed. If one is born in the US of US Citizen parents, what else would one be but a US Citizen, and therefore a natural born, as in naturallly occuring, indigenous, US CITIZEN. But Naturalized Citizens declare this oath when naturalized:

"Oath

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

So you are wrong again (it's a habit); 8/6/11, 3:02 PM
Nichevo said...: And Mick, at the risk of wasting my time talking to you again, isn't it kind of silly to think that McCain or his parents would owe allegiance to the Panama Canal Zone? I mean. RLY?; 8/6/11, 3:02 PM
Anonymous said...: There is no "law" or "statute"
saying who is natural born

Great then. If there's no law or statute, then there's no authority and we can do what we want. We are, after all, a nation of laws, not men (so don't bring up some obscure tract written by some obscure man).

No law. No statute. What makes you think you get to decide in the absence of a law or statute? Why does anyone get to decide in such an anarchy?

Obviously, no one gets to decide. Certainly not you, as you are a loon.

Thanks for the clarification. Please don't do anything rash.; 8/6/11, 3:05 PM
Mick said...: Seven Machos said...
"Still waiting..."

Look up. You're wrong again. Try again?; 8/6/11, 3:06 PM
Anonymous said...: There's no law, Mick. No statute. You said so yourself. Therefore, Obama can do what he wants.; 8/6/11, 3:08 PM
Mick said...: Seven Machos said...
"There is no "law" or "statute"
saying who is natural born

Great then. If there's no law or statute, then there's no authority and we can do what we want. We are, after all, a nation of laws, not men (so don't bring up some obscure tract written by some obscure man)."

Just like Minor v. Happersett and WKA said. The Constitution does not contain the definition, one must look elsewhwere (clue: that means it is not in the 14A either). Elsewhere would be Law of Nations (our original common law of international relations, see A1S8C10), and Minor v. Happersett itself:

"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. "

along with MANY other sources over 230 years.; 8/6/11, 3:12 PM
Mick said...: Seven Machos said...
"There's no law, Mick. No statute. You said so yourself. Therefore, Obama can do what he wants."

You really are desperate with you little word games. I embarrass you, then you go on to the next nonsense. No statute is needed to make one born in the US of US Citizen parents US Citizens (that's why the word "natural born" doesn't appear in USC 8 S.1401), that's why they are natural born Citizens.

Events over the last 2 1/2 years say that Obama answers to no law. Why should he, he's not qualified for the office, and never took the oath-- so he doesn't have to follow any Constitution. The illusion of his oath (flubbed, and taken over in private w/ no media or recording) was taqiyya.; 8/6/11, 3:18 PM
Anonymous said...: So it's back to the cases you keep bringing up that don't say anything like what you suggest? Alright then.

Obama is still president. You lose. Good day, moron.; 8/6/11, 3:20 PM
Mick said...: Seven Machos said...
"So it's back to the cases you keep bringing up that don't say anything like what you suggest? Alright then.

Obama is still president. You lose. Good day, moron."

Right, you can't answer the question or explain away SCOTUS precedent. Typical of the Obama bridgetender Internet operatives to get huffy and take their ball and go home! You've been embarrassed again, the Usurper (your boss) is not gonna like that!; 8/6/11, 3:25 PM
Anonymous said...: I thought there was no law. Now you say there is a law. Is there a law, or isn't there a law? Please be consistent.

This is not complicated.; 8/6/11, 3:29 PM
Nichevo said...: This little black duck, this operative or bridgetender or whatever you called me, came right back at you, Mick, and you are ducking the shit out of me. So who's the ducker, motherducker?; 8/6/11, 3:31 PM
Mick said...: Seven Machos said...
"I thought there was no law. Now you say there is a law. Is there a law, or isn't there a law? Please be consistent.

This is not complicated."

I thought you took your ball and went home! Still desperate w/ your little word games? There is no law-- of course- because it is natural law-- no man made statute is needed. But there is 230 years of historical knowledge that ALL points to bor in the US of US Citizen parents equals natural born, plus there is the Minor v. Happersett precedent definition shown many times above.; 8/6/11, 3:36 PM
Gary Rosen said...: "I tend to think that C4 is only mad north-north-west, that he knows a hawk from a handsaw."

No, he doesn't. A lot of people have this misconception that he may be a bigoted grump but he's really a knowledgable guy becuase he projects this persona of having inside knowledge. In reality he is a barking loon who just makes all his shit up.

You need to check when he's *not* ranting about da Joooos. Whenver someone actually knows something about the shit he spews out he gets caught lying. Don't make the mistake of glorifying this pathetic old loser.; 8/6/11, 3:37 PM
Mick said...: Nichevo said...
"This little black duck, this operative or bridgetender or whatever you called me, came right back at you, Mick, and you are ducking the shit out of me. So who's the ducker, motherducker?"

WTF are you talking about? I thought you already took your ball and went home.; 8/6/11, 3:38 PM
Anonymous said...: Mick -- Is there a law or isn't there a law? If there is a law, what is it? Citation please. If there isn't a law, then why are you spouting?

There's no law. You yourself said it.; 8/6/11, 3:40 PM
Mick said...: Seven Machos said,
"This is not complicated."

I know. It's pretty plain to see. Minor v. Happersett:

"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."; 8/6/11, 3:40 PM
Mick said...: Seven Machos said...
"Mick -- Is there a law or isn't there a law? If there is a law, what is it? Citation please. If there isn't a law, then why are you spouting?

There's no law. You yourself said it."

Still with the desperate word games. YES NO LAW, NO congressional statute. The judiciable definition is from SCOTUS precedent. Minor v. Happersett (although I guess that is called law)-- posted many times. I thought you were taking your ball and going home?; 8/6/11, 3:43 PM
ddh said...: Mick,

You win.

When are you filing suit? Obama is in the White House and will stay there until January 2013 or January 2017 unless you act.

If you're not going to file suit, why not?

I'm sure that the others who have exchanged words with you are wondering what your plans are. What are you going to do?; 8/6/11, 3:45 PM
Anonymous said...: Mick -- I thought you said there was no law. At any rate, where in what you just cited does it say that a person with an American mother and a foreign father cannot be president?

Your citation obviously does not say that.

I'll try to explain to you in simple words using a simple argument, because I know you are a loon.

Here's the law: Seven Machos can have ice cream.

Does that law mean that no one else can have ice cream? No, of course, it does not.

But, anyway, please tell us the date you will execute your super-secret plan. I don't want to miss it. And I want the Secret Service to be aware.; 8/6/11, 3:45 PM
Mick said...: Seven Machos said...
"Mick -- I thought you said there was no law. At any rate, where in what you just cited does it say that a person with an American mother and a foreign father cannot be president?"

And where does it say that a purple elephant can't be POTUS? Silly old argument of the Bridgetenders squashed many times by logic.; 8/6/11, 3:49 PM
ddh said...: Mick,

What are you going to do?; 8/6/11, 3:51 PM
Mick said...: 7 said,

"But, anyway, please tell us the date you will execute your super-secret plan. I don't want to miss it. And I want the Secret Service to be aware."

Just tell them now, give em an early jump!; 8/6/11, 3:56 PM
Mick said...: ddh said...
"Mick,

What are you going to do?"

What are you gonna do?; 8/6/11, 3:56 PM
ddh said...: Mick,

You didn't answer the question.

What are you going to do?; 8/6/11, 4:09 PM
ddh said...: Mick,

What are you going to do? Do you have a plan?; 8/6/11, 4:11 PM
Mick said...: ddh said...
"Mick,

What are you going to do? Do you have a plan?"

Nunya. You got a plan?; 8/6/11, 4:13 PM
ddh said...: Mick,

What's the plan? Tell us what we should do. Tell us what you will do.; 8/6/11, 4:14 PM
ddh said...: Mick,

What are you waiting for? The whole thread has gone silent waiting for your answer.

What's the plan?; 8/6/11, 4:16 PM
Anonymous said...: What are you going to do, Mick?

As for me (and probably ddh), we're not going to do anything except tell you that you are a complete loon. We are fine with Obama having been elected president. Sure, he sucks. But he's an American and has been since birth.

Tell us your plan!; 8/6/11, 4:23 PM
ddh said...: Mick,

What's the plan? Why won't you tell us?; 8/6/11, 4:46 PM
ddh said...: It seems that Mick has left the building. Now I'll never find out what his plan is.; 8/6/11, 4:52 PM
Nichevo said...: Oh, no, not at all. He took his ball and went home! Oh wait:

"WTF are you talking about? I thought you already took your ball and went home. "

"WTF are you talking about? I thought you already took your ball and went home. "

"WTF are you talking about? I thought you already took your ball and went home. "

I see, he is actually a bot. Guess he's down for maintenance. Mick, you are a little bitch like your avatar. Why don't you go blow David Bowie?; 8/6/11, 10:33 PM