tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5809277197679874020.post1134186528313363406..comments2024-02-08T06:24:01.507-08:00Comments on America's Conservative News: Donald Trump Getting Nasty With Jeb Bush's WifeAmerica's Conservative Newshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14169271939148467408noreply@blogger.comBlogger77125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5809277197679874020.post-74009162164738388642015-07-19T08:59:58.489-07:002015-07-19T08:59:58.489-07:00like donald trump,i speak for the majority of amer...like donald trump,i speak for the majority of america.not the few liberal lying scumbags trying to destroy america.get out of our country scumbag communist pigscottnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5809277197679874020.post-56496926046839930812015-07-19T05:11:04.895-07:002015-07-19T05:11:04.895-07:00Why do you bother to comment . It is always nothin...Why do you bother to comment . It is always nothing but hate . Get some help.Merle Dickeynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5809277197679874020.post-78362347008520555572015-07-19T05:09:44.772-07:002015-07-19T05:09:44.772-07:00Funny few pwople on here and who I talk to are ...Funny few pwople on here and who I talk to are in favor of Jeb Bush but yet they say he is running 1st or 2nd ( depending on the one it is written by) in the polls . That certainly sounds fishy . I hope we don't have another illegal election which doesn't go the way of the american citizens!!Merle Dickeynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5809277197679874020.post-53213840956569587032015-07-12T09:49:50.932-07:002015-07-12T09:49:50.932-07:00Exactly!! - "We the People" have become ...Exactly!! - "We the People" have become the pawns in the chess game for power & greed. -- Stay Well, Safe & FreeGeneral "Bull" Krappernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5809277197679874020.post-28053733504141822602015-07-09T13:40:36.746-07:002015-07-09T13:40:36.746-07:00IT (meaning the Wong Kim Ark decision) ruled that ...IT (meaning the Wong Kim Ark decision) ruled that Wong Kim Ark was a citizen, not a naturalized citizen----a citizen at birth because he had been born on US soil. And then it ruled separately that ALL persons born on US soil who were not children of foreign diplomats or members of an invading army are NATURAL BORN CITIZENS.<br /><br />Remember Syllogisms? <br /><br />When EVERY child born on the soil is a Natural Born Citizen (with the exceptions noted) and when Wong Kim Ark was born on the soil and did not have either of those exceptions, then logically Wong Kim Ark is a Natural Born Citizen.<br /><br />And that, duh, is so obvious that the ruling did not have to say it.<br /><br />And, yes, it did say, as the appeals courts have all ruled, that EVERY child born on US soil is a Natural Born Citizen-----which, BTW, the Heritage Foundation book said too.smrstraussnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5809277197679874020.post-76602766610870921882015-07-09T13:28:38.463-07:002015-07-09T13:28:38.463-07:00"Try to find a decision that actually rules t..."Try to find a decision that actually rules that someone is not a Natural Born Citizen."<br /><br />That is the dumbest comeback I have ever read from a afterbirther..lol...It didn't rule that he wasn't found a nationalized citizen either...should I find that one for you too...I can see this is going no where...You are a troll.hvac1noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5809277197679874020.post-4973658634982695652015-07-09T13:19:40.225-07:002015-07-09T13:19:40.225-07:00He wrote in French and what he wrote was "Le...He wrote in French and what he wrote was "Les Naturales ou indigenes" which literally translated would mean "the naturals or natives." That phrase was later translated as "natural born citizens"<br /><br />Whoopie...naturals or natives...those are people that are born a soil and then when he added born of citizen parents it has the same meaning as a natural born citizenhvac1noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5809277197679874020.post-87769563955711722602015-07-09T13:19:31.253-07:002015-07-09T13:19:31.253-07:00The Wong Kim Ark decision ruled that Wong was a ci...The Wong Kim Ark decision ruled that Wong was a citizen, and it certainly DID NOT RULE that he was not a Natural Born Citizen. <br /><br />Try to find a decision that actually rules that someone is not a Natural Born Citizen. I have shown you the Lynch v. Clarke ruling that ruled that Julia Lynch was a Natural Born Citizen.<br /><br />Here is a far more recent ruling, not related to Obama (If you'd like the ten or 11 that are directly related to Obama, I can post them too):<br /><br />Musata v. U.S. Department of Justice, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (1999)<br /><br />"Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States."smrstraussnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5809277197679874020.post-29182569016864427012015-07-09T13:07:45.770-07:002015-07-09T13:07:45.770-07:00Re: "Why do you refer to English ..."
C...Re: "Why do you refer to English ..."<br /><br />Common law instead of the 14th Amendment in the case of WKA...duh."<br /><br />Answer: Because it does. See the quotation above, and the part about" "by the law of England for the last three hundred years..."<br /><br />Re: ""The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens...."<br /><br />Answer: You are quoting the translation of Vattel that appeared TEN YEARS after the Constitution was written. The one that was available at the time said the "indigines: had two citizen parents----and Vattel is not mentioned in the Federalist Papers at all. <br /><br />Wikipedia puts it this way: "It's hard to see how Vattel could be a 'possible source' considering the<br /> fact he never used the phrase "Natural born citizen." He wrote in <br />French and what he wrote was "Les Naturales ou indigenes" which literally translated would mean "the naturals or natives." That phrase was later translated as "natural born citizens" in an English translation that didn't come out until ten years after the Constitution was written. "<br /><br /><br />The Framers (the Founders are the Puritans) wanted the president to be (1) a citizen, and (2) not naturalized. That's all that the term Natural Born Citizen means.<br /><br /><br />Re Anchor Babies. <br /><br /><br /><br />Yes, they and 330 million others are eligible. If you don't like it, don't vote for her or him when and if one runs for president. (I have noted before that you did not seem surprised that Ted Bundy and the Unibomber are eligible to become president. Why do you suppose the writers of the Constitution allowed even convicted criminals to be president?<br /><br /><br />Because they wanted US to be FREE TO CHOSE---a well-known conservative principle.<br /><br /><br />Re: "the one person sitting at the top to have unquestionable, unwavering loyalty..."<br /><br /><br />First, the US-born children of foreign citizens have fought and died for the United States of America in two world wars----and there is not a particle of a shred of a hint of a rumor that they were any less loyal than the US-born children of US citizens.<br /><br /><br />Second, if the writers of the US Constution had thought that the US-born children of foreigners (like Scalia and Alito, BTW) would be any less loyal than the US-born children of US citizens THEY WOULD HAVE SAID SO----but not one of them ever did.<br /><br /><br />Moreover, the principle of allegiance that they subscribed to held that a person could not have divided allegiance, and that everyone born on the soil of a country had total allegiance to THAT country, regardless of the citizenship of his parents at the time.smrstraussnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5809277197679874020.post-84834453535426399012015-07-09T12:44:28.607-07:002015-07-09T12:44:28.607-07:00So, YOU have to show me a case where a person born...So, YOU have to show me a case where a person born on soil to non-citizen parents (prior to Obama and after the passing of the Constitution) that was declared NOT to be a natural born citizen. Can you?<br /><br />Wang Kim Arkhvac1noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5809277197679874020.post-26206441974416743042015-07-09T12:35:33.048-07:002015-07-09T12:35:33.048-07:00Why do you refer to English Common law instead of ...Why do you refer to English Common law instead of the 14th Amendment in the case of WKA...duh<br /><br />Forget English Common Law due to we now live under the Constitution and the 14th Amendment clearly states that those born on soil are CITIZENS!!!<br /><br />"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society can not exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all<br /> their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as a matter of<br /> course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. THE COUNTRY OF THE FATHERS IS THEREFORE THAT OF THE CHILDREN."<br /> <br />The Founders wanted the President to be a Natural Born Citizen to ensure that the ONE person sitting at the top of the<br />Executive branch had UNQUESTIONABLE, UNWAVERING loyalty to the United States,first and foremost....They did not intend for anchor babies to become natural born citizens and take over our country,hvac1noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5809277197679874020.post-86626621042979524432015-07-09T12:11:07.389-07:002015-07-09T12:11:07.389-07:00Re: "That is why we refer to WKA for a person...Re: "That is why we refer to WKA for a person born on soil to non-citizen parents.....He was declared a "CITIZEN" by order of the 14th Amendment due they used it to determine his citizenship....It is stated right <br />there in the final decision."<br /><br />Answer: Ever hear of the number TWO? <br /><br />The Wong Kim Ark decision did two things. It declared that Wong Kim Ark was a citizen----because that was the issue of the case. AND (2) it defined Natural Born Citizen, in these words:<br /><br />"It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries [the common law, duh], beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.<br /> <br /><br />III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established."<br /><br />YOU have not read the above. Or else you think that it is not a definition of Natural Born Citizen----but 11 appeals courts all say that it is and that in fact it is the KEY ruling on the subject (and notice how similar its words are to those the the Heritage Foundation book).<br /><br />Re: "Can you show me one case where a person born on soil to non-citizen parents (prior to Obama and after the passing of the Constitution) that was declared a natural born citizen?"<br /><br />Answer: Are you a CONSERVATIVE?<br /><br />Well, if so, you would remember strict construction and the need for strict construction in rulings.<br /><br />Under strict construction if there is NO ruling that says that X is barred, X is not barred.<br /><br />So, YOU have to show me a case where a person born on soil to non-citizen parents (prior to Obama and after the passing of the Constitution) that was declared NOT to be a natural born citizen. Can you?<br /><br />There is at least one state appeals court case where a woman born on US soil to foreign parents was declared to be a Natural Born US citizen---Lynch v. Clarke.<br /><br />"Lynch v. Clarke, 3 N.Y.Leg.Obs. 236, 1 Sand. Ch. 583 (1844).<br /> <br /> Summary of Case:<br /> <br /> "The defendant, Julia Lynch, was born in the City of New York in 1819, of alien parents, during their temporary sojourn in that city. She re-turned with them the same year, to their native country, and always resided there afterwards. It was held that she was a citizen of the United States." [NYLO at 238.]<br /><br />.......Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegience of the United States, whatever were the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen."<br /><br />(For more details see: http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/the-natural-born-citizenship-clause-updated.html#NBC_NBC_p1868_Munro)<br /><br /><br />And I have already shown the quotations from the legal scholars Tucker and Rawle---who knew the members of the Constitutional Convention, that the term Natural Born Citizen is to be used as Natural Born Subject was in the common law, and that EVERY child born on US soil is a Natural Born Citizen.<br /><br /><br />BTW, that is what the Heritage Foundation book said too.smrstraussnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5809277197679874020.post-90941441141826377072015-07-09T11:35:19.224-07:002015-07-09T11:35:19.224-07:00That is why we refer to WKA for a person born on s...That is why we refer to WKA for a person born on soil to non-citizen parents.....He was declared a "CITIZEN" by order of the 14th Amendment due they used it to determine his citizenship....It is stated right there in the final decision.<br /><br />Can you show me one case where a person born on soil to non-citizen parents (prior to Obama and after the passing of the Constitution) that was declared a natural born citizen? <br /><br /><br />14th Amendment: “All persons born or<br />naturalized in the United States,<br />and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are "CITIZENS" of the United States,<br /><br /><br />Is this not clear enough for you..."ALL PERSONs BORN" "in the United States" "are CITIZENS"....NOT NATURAL BORN CITIZENS!!!<br /><br />Now just add citizen parents to the 14th amendment citizen and you have a Natural Born Citizen.....duh.<br /><br />The Naturalization Act of 1790 included all residents in the United States and abroad...It denied citizenship to blacks slaves and asians that were born on soil so it was not just about those born abroad....duh, it was the law of the land for determining citizenship and only temporarily allowed for children of citizens born abroad to be natural born citizens...It was later repealed and determined that they were only citizens....Naturalization Law was used in determining if John McCain was eligible for POTUS ...duh, there is no use for the law to determine if someone born on soil is a citizen..duh..but there is to determine if they are eligible to be POTUS...duh.<br /><br />So you want me to believe that the children of citizens of this country that are born abroad are were not found worthy of being a natural born citizen but just anyone can drop a anchor baby and boom!!! they are a natural born citizen....hahahha!!!hvac1noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5809277197679874020.post-63913878657209325392015-07-09T10:51:04.189-07:002015-07-09T10:51:04.189-07:00Once again, naturalization laws apply to people wh...Once again, naturalization laws apply to people who were born in foreign countries. They do NOT apply to people born in the USA.<br /><br />The law you are referring to said that children born outside the USA to US citizens were Natural Born Citizens. But it did not say that children born in the USA to parents who were not citizens were not Natural Born Citizens.<br /><br />In fact, duh, it does not mention people born in the USA AT ALL.smrstraussnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5809277197679874020.post-83327388773118042202015-07-09T10:32:24.296-07:002015-07-09T10:32:24.296-07:00I love it when you afterbirthers starting calling ...I love it when you afterbirthers starting calling names....a nut, well at least I am not a useful idiot.<br /><br />The United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790 provided the first rules to be followed by the United States in the granting of national citizenship to all people, not just those born abroad....It was the "LAW", not just someone's opinion of the "LAW". And it is the only other place in the LAW that we have a clear use of the natural born citizen phrase other than in Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5. ...The Law was later repealed and removed the natural born from the phrase and made them only citizens...So how did they make them natural born in the first place....Only by looking that they had citizen parents but that was not enough, they changed the LAW due to they had to be born on US soil as well.<br /><br />"The children of citizens of the United States, that may be born<br />beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens" DO YOU UNDERSTAND???<br /><br />Thus your born on soil idea was not even considered in giving citizenship, it was being born of citizens that solely made them a natural born citizen at that time and only three years after the eligibility clause was written....So yes, I would say they knew the framers of the Constitution. <br /><br />Quote all the usurpers you want of that time that were trying to pass off British Common Law but it is worthless in saying that all you have to do is be born on soil to be a natural born citizen when the LAW of 1790 clearly states that a person born of citizen parents that is born over seas is a natural born citizen....NOT BORN ON US SOILhvac1noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5809277197679874020.post-60002575277336040442015-07-09T07:06:28.619-07:002015-07-09T07:06:28.619-07:00Re: "The Naturalization Act of 1790 stated th...Re: "The Naturalization Act of 1790 stated that "the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born<br />beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as..."<br /><br /><br />Answer: Naturalization Acts apply ONLY to people who were born on foreign soil. There is nothing in those acts or ANY naturalization act or any legislation or any of the writings of any of the framers or any of the writings of the leaders at the time that says that two citizen parents (or even one) were required for a child born on US soil to be a Natural Born Citizen.<br /><br />ADDING the abilities of children of American parents born outside of the USA to the abilities of children born inside of the USA to parents regardless of the citizenship of the parents, does not---duh---reduce the status of US-born children.<br /><br />In fact, the act had NOTHING to do with children born on US soil----and it is misleading (probably deliberately) to claim that it did.<br /><br />Once again, look at the quotations from Tucker and Rawle----who knew the writers of the Constitution. They said that every child born on US soil was a Natural Born Citizen.smrstraussnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5809277197679874020.post-64756666248107686562015-07-09T06:58:43.417-07:002015-07-09T06:58:43.417-07:00Re: ".nothing to convince me..."
Answer...Re: ".nothing to convince me..."<br /><br />Answer: I post the facts for RATIONAL people, if any of them visit this site. There are always bound to be a few nuts.<br /><br />When the Heritage Foundation's book and ten or 11 appeals courts and hundreds of articles and books all say that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen includes EVERY child born on US soil. And when the writings of men who knew the framers of the Constitution use the term Natural Born Citizen exactly the same as Natural Born Subject in the common law.<br /><br />And when the writers of the Constitution would have had to have translated "indigines" as "Natural Born Citizen" and used it----without even saying that they did that (and generally people say when they translate a word and use it and do not use the common law).<br /><br />...then the fact that a nut is not convinced is not likely to affect the thinking of rational people.<br /><br />Here, again, are the quotations from Tucker and Rawle----and remember both of them KNEW the writers of the Constitution, and Rawle was a good friend of both Washington and Franklin:<br /><br /><br />"Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting <br />the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born <br />citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were <br />born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all <br />the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such <br />as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to<br /> their emigration. ...St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES: WITH<br /> NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL <br />GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803)<br /><br />"Therefore<br /> every person born within the United States, its territories or <br />districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born<br /> citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the <br />rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity."---William Rawle, A<br /> VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)<br /><br />BOTH of them (and Kent and Storey and the Lynch v. Clarke ruling) use Natural Born Citizen exactly the same way that Natural Born Subject was used in the common law.<br /><br />In short, Rubio and Jindal and, yes, Obama, are all eligible because of being born on US soil. (Cruz, who was born in Canada, is more of a question.)smrstraussnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5809277197679874020.post-70136091227303432532015-07-09T06:04:12.555-07:002015-07-09T06:04:12.555-07:00Here is undeniable proof that the natural born cit...Here is undeniable proof that the natural born citizen was originally decided by born of citizen parents...The location of birth was temporarily waveried to include those born beyond sea or out of limits of the United States...BUT in 1795 it was changed back to make those not born on soil to citizen parents be only CITIZENs....I can't believe I have missed this over the years..l can't believe that the courts have either.<br /><br />The Naturalization<br />Act of 1790 stated<br />that "the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born<br />beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States."[21] This act was repealed by the Naturalization Act of 1795, which removed the characterization of such children as "natural born," stating that "the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States,<br />shall be considered as citizens of the United States" while retaining the same residency restrictions as the 1790 act.[22hvac1noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5809277197679874020.post-56396466288353872522015-07-09T06:01:00.346-07:002015-07-09T06:01:00.346-07:00I think I understand what Trump meant - merely tha...I think I understand what Trump meant - merely that Jeb Bush is more sympathetic to immigration issues- legal and illegal because of his love for his wife and her culture, etc. Just wasn't well stated.2brnt1noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5809277197679874020.post-1420214389818647602015-07-09T02:43:01.758-07:002015-07-09T02:43:01.758-07:00Both of them are wrong.Both of them are wrong.BrightHeartCloudTail 【Freya】noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5809277197679874020.post-76297585212025120822015-07-08T21:36:42.564-07:002015-07-08T21:36:42.564-07:00You are so right, steamroller61 and prominent Lati...You are so right, steamroller61 and prominent Latinos taking <br />The side of the illegal immigrants only adds to the confusion. Nobody is against immigrants, but this forced entry is illegal It violates the laws of pur land as much as it violates the beliefs of those that think that laws matter. It is almost as though our government is conspiring with the Mexican government against us whom our government is supposed to protect. Montanabearnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5809277197679874020.post-19643185066503361072015-07-08T20:32:01.018-07:002015-07-08T20:32:01.018-07:00Trump should attack the Democrats. Nothing is to ...Trump should attack the Democrats. Nothing is to be gained by attacking other Republicans, even if they deserve it. He will not gain votes by polarizing Bush supporters. Everything could be lost by demeaning Bush's wife and the wives of other candidates. If he wants to win, he will need their support (or at least he will not need their enmity) in the general.rattler15noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5809277197679874020.post-17483594894979214312015-07-08T20:31:49.432-07:002015-07-08T20:31:49.432-07:00It is really about the ELITE. The fools/voters don...It is really about the ELITE. The fools/voters don't countKurtofLAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5809277197679874020.post-54664135434699099672015-07-08T20:14:51.468-07:002015-07-08T20:14:51.468-07:00Trump is getting too much press coverage, when the...Trump is getting too much press coverage, when there are way better candidates in the ring - Bobby Jindal and Ted Cruz for two.<br />These men know their way around - Trump has no clue compared to what these guys know. I like Trump but not for a President. Bobby and Ted have boatloads more class.Serenanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5809277197679874020.post-69892943509947901962015-07-08T20:10:52.460-07:002015-07-08T20:10:52.460-07:00she is if her husband's ez on illegals CUZ she...she is if her husband's ez on illegals CUZ she was one too!bamissfanoreply@blogger.com