Main Menu

Archive | June, 2009

The polls are open

i-votedAccording to site statistics, there are thousands of you sitting on the sidelines. Here’s your chance to express your opinion. Introducing Obama Conspiracy Polls. A random poll is located on the right sidebar. Just click your answer and then see the results.

Select “Polls” under the Conspiracies section of the right sidebar to see all the polls.

Enjoy.

Discussions about polls and suggestions for new polls may be left as comments to this article. You can discuss each poll in the comments for each.

Reply to Cort Wrotnowski

Mr. Wrotnowski send me an email, and this is my reply.

We agree that de Vattel writes eloquently espousing his view of natural law. And we agree that de Vattel was known to and likely influential in the minds of the framers of the Constitution.

That said, it would not be at all reasonable that to conclude that de Vattel’s views based on the stable Swiss society would closely fit in every respect the ideas from a fledgling frontier immigrant-driven democracy like the United States. Switzerland and the United States in the late 18th century were not the same kind of place. One had a stable population. The other needed immigrants just to keep the population from declining because of disease (at least this was the case in the southern colonies).

It would be an error to jump from the statement that de Vattel was influential to the statement that de Vattel was influential on issues of citizenship. One needs some additional evidence to make that connection and I do know where you would find that evidence. Continue Reading →

Conspiracy theories interview

I hope you’re familiar with Terry Gross, and her Fresh Air program on public radio. Terry interviewed analyst Chip Berlet about his studies on conspiracy theories, extremism, white supremacy, and murder. The birthers get a mention.

Thanks to http://mpandgs.blogspot.com/ for the info. 

Here’s the audio link:

Listen

Listen

Read Berlet’s paperToxic to Democracy: Conspiracy Theories, Demonization, & Scapegoating:

Chip Berlet shows that the development of modern conspiracism is rooted in bigotry and that the conspiracist analytical model itself encourages demonization and scapegoating of blameless persons and groups. In so doing, conspiracism also serves to distract society and
its would-be agents of change away from ongoing, structural causes of social and economic injustices

Response to Eligibility Primer (Part 2)

This is a continuation of the discussion of the June 5, 2009, article titled Obama Presidential Eligibility – An Introductory Primer by Stephen Tonchen. We resume at the end of his section 4:

In 1898, in the Wong Kim Ark case, the Supreme Court reexamined the “citizenship-by-birthplace-alone” theory, but did not decide whether it applied to natural born citizenship. The Court ruled that Mr. Ark was a citizen, but did not rule that he was a natural born citizen (SCOTUS in ‘Wong Kim Ark’).

This is a major gloss over one of the most sweeping surveys of citizenship ever appearing in US jurisprudence. The question before the court was whether Wong Kim Ark, born in California of Chinese subjects at a time when racist legislation (the Chinese Exclusion Act) prohibited the Chinese from becoming naturalized citizens, was a citizen. The Court said that he was. But in the majority opinion, the Court said a great many things of importance, specifically:

  1. Citing Smith v. Alabama, the court said that the Constitution is framed in the language of English Common Law
  2. The Court cited English Common law, saying that those born in England are natural born subjects of England, without regard for the citizenship of their parents
  3. The Court asserted the equivalence of “citizen” and “subject”.

While US v. Wong did not decide the natural born citizen question, the majority opinion leads inevitably to the conclusion that those born within the United States (except the children of ambassadors) are our natural born citizens, without regard to the citizenship of their parents. Continue Reading →

Response to Eligibility Primer (Part 1)

I have come to realize that there are two debates on the question of presidential eligibility and the definition of “natural born citizenship,” and some of the more thoughtful people on each side are debating different things. One debate thesis may be summed up this way:

The Constitution does not define “natural born citizen,” nor is it defined in legislation. The U. S. Supreme Court has never decided the question of the relationship of parentage to natural born citizenship. The uncertainty should be resolved.

The second debate thesis might be summed up this way:

Based on common law principles, and supported by numerous authorities, one may conclude with a high degree of certainty that natural born citizens of the United States are those born within its borders except the children of ambassadors.

Folks like Ken Dunbar and Stephen Tonchen (the author of the piece to be discussed here) are debating the former, and this web site is largely geared towards investigating the latter. If debating the first question, then one might say that Barack Obama’s eligibility is “unproven,” but when debating second one will conclude that it is “proven.”

I have no strong objection to the first thesis, but because I affirm the second, I don’t find that there is any urgency towards a judicial resolution of a question that has already been decided by force of argument, the same argument that would be made to the Court and that would certainly prevail. Whichever the case, I find language like “usurper” to be totally irresponsible. Continue Reading →

Original BC discloses missing information

I now have a copy of the original birth certificate, received today from the state vital records office. There are some amazing disclosures here:

  1. The certificate is for a delayed birth registration
  2. The certificate lacks the name of the hospital
  3. The certificate lacks the name of the doctor or midwife
  4. The certificate is attested to ONLY by the affidavit of one person, the mother

Now anybody that says anything against my disabled World War II veteran daddy or his birth certificate, is itching for a fight.

What is instructive for the discussion on this web site is that my father’s certificate is a “Delayed Certificate of Birth” not a “Certificate of Live Birth”. States have multiple kinds of birth certificates.