Main Menu

Birthers get more media attention

While I haven’t seen an any favorable coverage of the birther movement in the mainstream media, even in the more conservative outlets, there is certainly coverage.

When I started my media page series, it took from August 16, 2008 to June 10, 2009 to get a “page full” of articles. The next two page full took just two months each, and and then just one month. This month I have a long page with just the first 8 days of December.

Of course this is not a scientific study. I have better ways of knowing about new media articles than I did before, but still with “birther” a runner up for word of the year, more and more people know about the Obama denialist and conspiracy meme.

That said though, I think birthers in general have less credibility than, say, alien abductee stories.

, ,

108 Responses to Birthers get more media attention

  1. avatar
    euphgeek December 8, 2009 at 1:20 pm #

    Sure. Alien abductees at least have stories that sound halfway plausible. Plus in some cases, they actually have evidence. Two things that the birthers never have.

  2. avatar
    SluggoJD December 8, 2009 at 3:47 pm #

    “…birthers in general have less credibility than, say, alien abductee stories.”

    and about as much credibility as BigFoot murderers, like Ed Hale…oh wait, he’s a birther too 😉

  3. avatar
    Scientist December 8, 2009 at 4:46 pm #

    It is a mistake to regard the birthers as pursuing a legal or constitutional strategy. They are purely about getting attention.

    As Brendan Behan said “There is no such thing as bad publicity except your obituary.”

  4. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 8, 2009 at 6:12 pm #

    euphgeek,

    What evidence are you looking for? Obama has admitted that he was born a British subject/citizen. It is also conceded that he became a Kenyan citizen at age 2 which citizenship lasted until at least age 23.

  5. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 8, 2009 at 6:15 pm #

    Scientist,

    Are you for real? The only one that I have not yet heard any constitutional argument from is Obama.

  6. avatar
    NbC December 8, 2009 at 6:35 pm #

    Do you really think he would talk to you? Why? Give us one good reason

  7. avatar
    NbC December 8, 2009 at 6:36 pm #

    Excellent, it is also admitted that he was born on US soil, as confirmed by the COLB, making him also a natural born US citizen.

    Foreign citizenships do not affect the (natural born) citizenship status wrt the United States. Surely you must be aware of this?

  8. avatar
    Scientist December 8, 2009 at 6:47 pm #

    You must have missed the defense brief in Keyes. It argued very cogently that the determination of whether a President is qualified is made by Congress under the 20th Amendment. Like the determination of what constitutes “high crimes and misdemeanors” for impeachment, this is a matter exclusively for Congress and not subject to judicial review.

    Since I consistently trounce you at legal arguments, perhaps you would like to try a scientific argument next time.

  9. avatar
    Rickey December 8, 2009 at 9:25 pm #

    Mario,

    Obama doesn’t owe you (or anyone else) a Constitutional argument. If he has been following this “controversy” at all (which I find highly unlikely), he could hardly help but conclude that arguing with his dog would be more productive than arguing with birthers.

  10. avatar
    Preston December 8, 2009 at 10:10 pm #

    So maybe the Brit, Neil Sankey can succeed where the Russian immigrant (from the Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic) has failed, bring it on.

    Poor little Birthers (still in denial about their losses), Judge Land and now judge Carter, smack down the crazies (case dismissed).

    Not even “Fake News” Bill O’Reilly believes the crazies, how funny.

    http://belowthebeltway.com/2009/10/29/bill-oreilly-slams-orly-taitz/
    http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/BIRTHER%20CASE%20LIST.pdf

    To all the birthers in La, La Land, it is on you to prove to all of us that your assertion is true (TOUGH WHEN YOU KEEP LOSING CASES), if there are people who were there and support your position then show us the video (everyone has a price), either put up or frankly shut-up. I heard Orly Taitz, is selling a tape (I think it’s called “Money, Lies and Video tape”). She is from Orange County, CA, now I know what the mean when they say “behind the Orange Curtain”, when they talk about Orange County, the captial of Conspiracy Theories. You know Obama has a passport, he travel abroad before he was a Senator, but I guess they were in on it.

    In my opinion the Republican Party has been taken over the most extreme religious right (people who love to push their beliefs on others while trying to take away the rights of those they just hate) and that’s who they need to extract from their party if they real want to win. Good Luck, because as they said in WACO, “We Ain’t Coming Out”.

    I heard that she now wants to investigate the “Republican 2009 Summer of Love” list: Assemblyman, Michael D. Duvall (CA), Senator John Ensign (NV), Senator Paul Stanley (TN), Governor Mark Stanford (SC), Board of Ed Chair, and Kristin Maguire AKA Bridget Keeney (SC). She wants to re-establish a family values party.

    I can only hope that Taitz will resist the state collectors that will be coming to collect the $20K.

  11. avatar
    Lupin December 9, 2009 at 5:30 am #

    One of the problems is that your Constitutional argument (notwithstanding its merits) is buried among a heap of rubbish about Pakistani travel visas etc.

    In that respect, the analogy with UFOs is valid. There certainly is something we can’t explain or understand (yet), but the small percentages of truly unexplained cases are buried among a heap of hoaxes, delusions, lies or just plain rubbish.

  12. avatar
    Lupin December 9, 2009 at 5:39 am #

    And in Connecticut they found a cow with a holy cross on its forehead.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/09/holy-cow-named-moses-has-_n_385078.html

    This is America. You love freaks of nature.

  13. avatar
    Black Lion December 9, 2009 at 9:08 am #

    Better yet is this gem from over at the citizen wells site…As you know that is where all the birther trolls go to congregate and decide which untrue story to recycle on the blogs….

    However I saw this and started to laugh…Does it get any better?

    From the Larry Sinclair For Congress website:
    About Larry Sinclair and why he decided to run for office:

    “I decided to enter the race for U.S. Congressman from Florida’s 24th Congressional District after Suzanne Kosmas (D-FL24), a multi-millionaire said “my schedule does not permit me to hold Townhalls with voters….” but the very next week Mrs. Kosmas had time to spend the day with donors paying $1000-to-$10,000 to her re-election coffers. In addition to Suzanne Kosmas’ inability to lead, I have become determined to get involved after seeing first hand the efforts of Barack Obama and his administration to destroy anyone who dares speak the truth.
    I have criminal convictions between 1981 thru 1986 for “Theft” based on writing bad checks; “Forgery” for signing former Youth Counselors names to checks, and “Unauthorized use of a Financial Transaction Device” from using a credit card number by phone to pay a hotel stay in 1986. I do not hide from my past and I have always admitted to my wrong doings. Now there are people who have and will continue to misrepresent and distort my past, but that will not deter me from running for the U.S. Congressional Seat in Florida District 24.
    It is time that the people are represented by the people and not individuals who have made millions from Public Office.

    http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/larry-sinclair-for-congress/

    Larry Sinclair for Congress? What’s next? Orly for Senator? Charles Lincoln for Treasurer? Pure Comedy…

  14. avatar
    Black Lion December 9, 2009 at 9:12 am #

    But this has started the ball rolling unfortunately….Now from WND comes out buddy Sean Hannity…

    From World Net Daily, December 8, 2009.
    “Sean Hannity: ‘Where’s the birth certificate?’”

    “Sean Hannity today defended Sarah Palin’s recent comments about Barack Obama’s constitutional eligibility for the presidency and WND’s pursuit of the story.

    He said the question about his original, long-form birth certificate has still not been answered.

    “What was so wrong in saying that, Can we see your birth certificate?’ … We were told early on that, in fact, somebody else had looked at it and confirmed that it was legitimate. So, I mean, what was wrong with people saying, ‘Wait a minute. You know what? In light of the fact of where your, your father came from, et cetera, uh, let’s just make sure that this is a legitimate birth certificate’? … It was not asked by the mainstream media. It was asked by places like WorldNetDaily, who, I think, were just doing due diligence considering it’s a constitutional mandate. … I think a lot of people were just afraid to ask the question.””

    http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2009/12/09/sean-hannity-wheres-the-birth-certificate-sarah-palin-birth-certificate-fair-question-obama-not-natural-born-citizen-obama-attorneys/

  15. avatar
    Greg December 9, 2009 at 10:21 am #

    The voters knew his dad was never an American citizen.

    What you lack is evidence that this matters!

    Knowing his father was not a citizen, the American people voted for him.

  16. avatar
    mommybrain December 9, 2009 at 11:29 am #

    Seriously? “It is conceded” – pretty passive statement. Who concluded that he became a Kenyan citizen at age 2?

    Mario, quit flailing. It’s not working.

  17. avatar
    Mike December 9, 2009 at 3:10 pm #

    But flailing is all he has!

  18. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 9, 2009 at 3:51 pm #

    Black Lion reports Sean Hannity: In light of the fact of where your, your father came from, et cetera, uh, let’s just make sure that this is a legitimate birth certificate’?

    Could anything be more obviously racist?

  19. avatar
    Black Lion December 9, 2009 at 4:23 pm #

    Not for Hannity…It is his usual M.O…Subtle racism…

  20. avatar
    Black Lion December 9, 2009 at 4:24 pm #

    Speaking about Orly and her crazies from Patrick over at Bad Fiction….Our buddy Lucas Smith has finally gone over the edge…

    “InspectorSmith (1 hour ago)
    As to the possible coming civil war; I (Lucas) believe that violent overthrow of the US Government is PROBABLY the only course of action that will effectively remove Barack Obama from Office of US President.
    One thing that I will personally guarantee here, on todays date of 12.08.2009, is that after the revolution (which I am confident that I will survive) there will be no more annual property tax in the United States. Be there any avaricious attorney type that decides that he is going to take charge after the revolution and commence with unjust taxation I will not hesitate, not for a second, to bury the said attorney type and his entire family, man woman and child.
    I will not remove this comment. No need for anyone to write to me with recommendations that I do so.”

  21. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 9, 2009 at 4:47 pm #

    Orly Taitz for Senator does not sound at all out of character

  22. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 9, 2009 at 4:54 pm #

    Actually the Obama Campaign web site published the fact that he became a Kenyan citizen at in 1963, by action of constitution of newly independent Kenya.

    http://www.fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate

    I wouldn’t use the word “conceded.” It’s just a historical fact. What I would like to see is Mario Apuzzo concede that Barack Obama is president of the United States, another historical fact.

  23. avatar
    G December 9, 2009 at 5:57 pm #

    I really hope that all the agencies that monitor hate groups are keeping a close eye on this guy. He sure seems to want to have “McVeigh” written all over his future.

  24. avatar
    Benji Franklin December 9, 2009 at 6:01 pm #

    Dear Black Lion,

    Well isn’t it amazing? Yet another anti-Obama character betrays via his writing style that he is omnipotent AND insecure. We can be sure he has chiseled certain parts of this into stone tablets. See? We’ll be able to tell that he survived the violent overthrow of the government, because, surviving, he will be the reason that there will be no post-overthrow annual property tax ANYWHERE in the U.S.

    Then during Lucas’ post revolution Pax Americana Reich, as the Constitution basks in the cheery glow of his unavoidable violent overthrow to end all violent overthrows, in support of His core pet principle peeves of government, the Rule of Law will re-emerge like a Phoenix to slaughter any opposing attorney type champion, along with his entire family, man, woman and child.

    Revealingly, it is only someone who routinely contemplates condemning his political opponents to such a consequence, who would feel some special horror and commitment is added by reminding us that in performing these particular acts of butchery, he will be compelled to not hesitate, “not for a second”.

    How have we survived this kind of insanity in our midst?

    Benji Franklin

  25. avatar
    mrlqban December 9, 2009 at 11:14 pm #

    mommybrain: Seriously? “It is conceded” – pretty passive statement. Who concluded that he became a Kenyan citizen at age 2? Mario, quit flailing. It’s not working.

    Yes, he conceded. That’s his website. Obama has not denied or corrected the statement as far as we know.

    Nevertheless, the bellow SCOTUS authorities will hunt you like a ghost. That’s why the issue won’t stop until there is a clear constitutional definition or clarification of what a NBC is. All bellow cases brings the legitimate conclusion that the only known legal interpretation in SCOTUS of what a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ is that NBC are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. No where else we see a denition of this term as brought to by the U.S. Supreme Court that contradicts the above.

    Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
    Chief Justice on who are undoubtfully natives or natural born citizens–follows framer’s familiar concept of NBC.
    “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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.”

    Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)–Justice Story notion of citizenship follows Vattel’s principle of NBC.
    “Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.”

    The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)– Justice Livingston cites Vattel.
    “Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says:

    ‘The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.’

    The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it…”

    United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) –Chief Justice cites Minor
    “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.”

  26. avatar
    G December 10, 2009 at 2:06 am #

    There is also nothing in SCOTUS or other legal decisions that would suggest that if they ever made an “official ruling” on defining NBC that it would exclude situations such as our current President.

    If anything, definition would most likely follow precedent, and precedent has been clearly set the moment Obama was sworn in.

    Anybody who thinks that SCOTUS would consider creating a more narrow definition of NBC that would exclude a sitting or former POTUS is not being realistic.

  27. avatar
    Lupin December 10, 2009 at 4:13 am #

    I hate to have to point the obvious again and again but “parents who are citizens” even in English does NOT mean that BOTH parents have to be citizens. It means at at least ONE parent must be a citizen in order to qualify.

    E.G.: “Children whose parents are … get in free” means that only one parent has to meet whatever requirement in order for the child to be granted free admission.

    It’s not complicated.

    Obama’s mother being a US citizen, that avenue is and has always been closed.

  28. avatar
    Lupin December 10, 2009 at 4:16 am #

    Actually I think some birthers (like Mario) might have ties to right-wing groups and are using this to push a racist agenda through the courts.

  29. avatar
    Lupin December 10, 2009 at 4:19 am #

    It wasn’t until I dug up and read a copy of Gordon’s Precepts on Google Books that I realized that the more educated birthers like Mario are taking entire pages from old KKK rethoric.

    Meet the new Boss…

  30. avatar
    misha December 10, 2009 at 6:12 am #

    My exact feeling.

    I’ve rarely seen such tenacity.

  31. avatar
    misha December 10, 2009 at 6:15 am #

    I’d love to hear her in a debate. Unintentional Monty Python.

  32. avatar
    Greg December 10, 2009 at 10:45 am #

    No, mrq, those cases will haunt you. You’ll look at them and wonder why, oh why, does the evil Supreme Court not just read the losing side in Wong Kim Ark and pretend, like you do, that it should have some legal weight? Why doesn’t it read the partial dissent in Venus and pretend, like you do, that the judge was citing Vattel approvingly for citizenship and not his definition of domicile? Why doesn’t that evil Supreme Court give weight to Minor’s “no doubt” statement which clearly decided the issue even though it said it didn’t decide the issue? And why doesn’t the Supreme Court recognize that a 200 year-old case about the birth of nation and the citizenship of children born to parents who could be either loyalists or invading forces control?

    Why, in short, does the Supreme Court and all the lower courts persist in reading these cases as they’ve always been read and not in the special way that you read them? Why do they have to follow the reading that has been given to the clause for more than 200 years and not the reading that the losing side in WKA tried to put on it? Why won’t they let you refight these lost causes?

    The cases will haunt, but they won’t haunt us.

  33. avatar
    SFJeff December 10, 2009 at 11:50 am #

    I am not opposed to the concept that the Supreme Court(I really hate the term SCOTUS)decide on an interpretation of what exactly defines a “natural born citizen”. From common understanding and past rulings I am fairly confident that the interpretation would include anyone born in the United States(other than the known exceptions).

    But for the current President, there is no need for interpretation, he is the President. He was duly elected by citizens who knew exactly what his birth and parents status was. Voters cast their vote using their own understanding of what the interpretation of NBC is.

    The Birther’s new interpretation that NBC must include 2 citizen parents only became a theory after voters elected our first black President, and looking for any possible way to disqualify him, they developed a new concept that both parents must be citizens. I have no doubt that the original motivation of these claims are racist and/or political, though I realize that there are dupes who are not racist who have been recruited who don’t ask why this is an issue they were never aware of before, or passionate about before. Suddenly with the election of our first black President, these strident defenders of the Constitution emerge. Coincidence? I think not.

  34. avatar
    misha December 10, 2009 at 12:06 pm #

    Don’t forget Jesus on the electric iron. Actually, I saw Elvis in the Safeway frozen food isle.

    Not to be snide, France has Lourdes. I remember there were so many claims of miracles, the government had a French army doctor examine all claims of miraculous healing. Needless to say, he didn’t find any miracles. As the doctor said, ‘most people are not miracle material.’

  35. avatar
    Benji Franklin December 10, 2009 at 12:58 pm #

    Shame on you Charles Lincoln and shame on the sleazy website that caught you heart-broken on the rebound and sent some retreaded octogenarian in a diaper to fool you into thinking you were an attractive older man. Sir, we at this site KNEW Orly Taitz; Orly Taitz was a(practically Facebook) friend of ours! YOU SIR, are NO Orly Taitz! Or any other kind of decent liar!

    Benji Franklin

  36. avatar
    Scientist December 10, 2009 at 1:18 pm #

    SFJeff: I am not opposed to the concept that the Supreme Court(I really hate the term SCOTUS)decide on an interpretation of what exactly defines a “natural born citizen”. From common understanding and past rulings I am fairly confident that the interpretation would include anyone born in the United States(other than the known exceptions).

    I agree with you that if forced to define natural born citizen, the courts would define it as anyone born in the US as well as those born abroad to Americans. However, I’m not sure it really is in the Court’s purview to define it. While most actions of the executive and legislative branches are reviewable by the courts, certain ones are not. Presidential pardons are absolute, no matter how corrupt or foolish they might be. Similarly, Congress’ powers of impeachment and the power of each House to determine the qualifications of its members and expel members are not reviewable by the Courts.

    I contend that determining whether a President-elect qualifies is similar to impeachment in that Congress (the House for the President and the Senate for the Vice President) has absolute and final authority. In the case of impeachment, they must interpret the term “high crimes and misdemeanors” based on the facts and circumstances of each case. In the case of qualifying a President-elect, Congress must decide what “natural born citizen” means and whether the person in question is one. Of course they can consider court rulings for guidance, but the final word is theirs.

    Congress is also the final arbiter in the case of disputed votes. It is commonly believed that the 2000 election ended when the Supreme Court decided Bush v Gore. In fact, Congress (the House specifically) could have over-ruled the court and refused to count the Florida votes for Bush. Had the Democrats controlled the House, it’s very possible Gore would have been President.

  37. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 10, 2009 at 1:34 pm #

    Say some state denied ballot access to a candidate, saying the candidate wasn’t eligible. I think the court would have to decide. But I agree that after the election, it’s only Congress.

  38. avatar
    Scientist December 10, 2009 at 1:58 pm #

    Yes, Dr C, state courts will hear ballot access cases and those can be appealed to the US Supreme Court. In fact, as we all know, the Indiana Court of Appeals has defined NBC, and agreed with the consensus view here. If the birthers really wanted a ruling from from the US Supreme Court, they would appeal that case to the Indiana Supreme Court and then, after their inevitable loss, on to the US Supreme Court. Why don’t they? I suspect they’re afraid they won’t like the answer. So they continue their futile strategy and whine endlessly about how wrong it is that they don’t have standing.

  39. avatar
    SFJeff December 10, 2009 at 2:51 pm #

    Scientist,
    I hope I made it clear that I agree that the Supreme Court has no jurisidiction to determine the eligibility of a sitting president.

    “Congress must decide what “natural born citizen” means and whether the person in question is one. Of course they can consider court rulings for guidance, but the final word is theirs.”

    I am no lawyer or Constitutionalist, but I do not agree with you. When deciding whether to confirm the vote, of course Congress must decide at that point whether a candidate qualifies, but I do not think it is Congress’ role to interpret the Constitution, but the Supreme Courts. Just as Congress statement that John McCain was eligible isn’t binding, I don’t think the Congress could make an interpretation of what the Constitution means by NBC. I think it would require a constitutional amendment to have legal authority.

    I can easily see the case raised by a candidate with standing during an election campaign, and the Supreme Court might choose to hear it if it reached them. I would welcome that decision even though for the more strident Brithers, they will just rant that the Supreme Court was corrupt.

  40. avatar
    Scientist December 10, 2009 at 3:12 pm #

    SF-I’m not a lawyer either and I don’t play one on TV, but I see a subtle distinction here. When the House impeached Clinton, they didn’t specifically define the term “high crimes and misdemeanors”, but they said he was guilty of at least one act that met that description. The Senate disagreed, also without actually defining the term.

    When a President is elected, the House, in accepting the vote, rules that he is qualified. They don’t define the term “natural born citizen”, but they simply agree that that particular person is one.

    These terms are much like Justice Stewart as regards his statement that hard-core pornography was hard to define, “But I know it when I see it”.

  41. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 10, 2009 at 3:14 pm #

    Scientist,

    Your arrogance and ignorance complement you well. I’m sure they have taken you far in life.

    Furthermore, I really do not see the Obama eligibilty issue as being anything scientific. But yet, you are parked here at site devoted to the issue. One can only conclude that you are not much of a scientist. Do you not have any science projects to work on?

  42. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 10, 2009 at 3:16 pm #

    Rickey,

    Are you telling me that our President would find arguing with a dog more productive than arguing with a human? If that is the case, then maybe you and Obama have been arguing with dogs too long.

  43. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 10, 2009 at 3:19 pm #

    Lupin,

    You are up to par. You really do not know how to make any legal argument. But are a master at repeating little trivialities. By the way, since you know so much about Pakistan, why do you not tell me with what passport Obama travelled to Pakistan in 1981. Please, no guesses.

  44. avatar
    Scientist December 10, 2009 at 3:21 pm #

    Regarding McCain, the resolution wasn’t binding. They could have gone back on it, especially since it was a Senate resolution and the House is the ultimate authority as regards the President, but they were signalling they intended to approve McCain if he was the voters choice, which I am positive they would have done.

  45. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 10, 2009 at 3:24 pm #

    Lupin,

    I think I missed something. Would you be so kind as to explain to the public what is racist about wanting a person who will sit in the Office of the President to be a “natural born Citizen” as is prescribed by Article II?

    While you are drafting your response and only if you are really feeling ambitious, you can included in your answer how my definition of a “natural born Citizen” is racist.

  46. avatar
    Scientist December 10, 2009 at 3:26 pm #

    Mario-I have a scientific interest in whether fools are naturally born or created by their environment. You provide support for both sides of the issue.

  47. avatar
    Mary Brown December 10, 2009 at 4:09 pm #

    Christians who use these examples do not glorify God. That is not their intention but that is the result. People who take these examples as representative of the meaning of Christ in the lives of many people are able to reinforce their own prejudices. And many Chritians take shelter in their prejudeces about people who do not believe as they do. I think it just reinforces the fact that many times we like to feel safe and superior.

  48. avatar
    NbC December 10, 2009 at 5:28 pm #

    His US passport, which he used when he returned from Indonesia.
    What do you believe?

    And yes, the fact that you referred to Pakistan in a certified complaint is somewhat troublesome, don’t you think?

  49. avatar
    NbC December 10, 2009 at 5:31 pm #

    Your arrogance and ignorance complement you well. I’m sure they have taken you far in life.

    Oh the irony. I guess the facts presented by Scientist are too problematic to deal with?

    No worries, we understand.

  50. avatar
    SFJeff December 10, 2009 at 5:45 pm #

    Mario,

    There is as much proof that you are a racist as there is proof that President Obama is not eligible to be President.

    So please prove that you are not a racist.

  51. avatar
    Scientist December 10, 2009 at 6:25 pm #

    Mario-From your picture, you appear to be on the downhill side of 50. In all that time were you front and center defending the Constitution before Obama’s election? Did I miss the headline, “Mario Apuzzo protests warrantless wiretapping” or “Mario Apizzo protests detention without trial”? The reason it’s hard to take the birthers seriously when they claim to be fighting for the Constitution is that they act as though the document consists of only 3 words.

  52. avatar
    BlackLion December 10, 2009 at 6:47 pm #

    Of course you didn’t because when Bush was President most of the birthers were happy and had no issues….But the hatred of the President for whatever reason they might have to hate him is the driving force behind these suits. And what is more amazing is how Mario continues to be dishonest by continually to push this Pakistan travel ban even though we all know one did not exist. He would have garnered more respect if he had admitted that he made a mistake and moved on…And Obama traveled on a US passport because there has been no evidence that he was a citizen of any other country…

  53. avatar
    mrlqban December 10, 2009 at 6:51 pm #

    G: There is also nothing in SCOTUS or other legal decisions that would suggest that if they ever made an “official ruling” on defining NBC that it would exclude situations such as our current President.

    Exactly. Therefore, the legal question should be clarified.

    G: If anything, definition would most likely follow precedent, and precedent has been clearly set the moment Obama was sworn in.

    No. Definition should follow the “true meaning” as written in the Document. Humans make mistakes. If for some reason Obama is found to be constitutional inelegible in 20 years, then he was never supposed to be a President in the first place. Precedent will go down the drain in this case. Precedent should not define the U.S. Constitution.

    G: Anybody who thinks that SCOTUS would consider creating a more narrow definition of NBC that would exclude a sitting or former POTUS is not being realistic.

    If a case ever gets this far in SCOTUS, they must interpret the Constitution as it is. Whether they give a narrower definition or not, and whether this definition may affect a sitting or former President, their job is to protect the Constitution. If you are saying that they won’t hear the case because they will be afraid of the consequences, then that would mean that SCOTUS has no purpose in this country.

  54. avatar
    mrlqban December 10, 2009 at 7:13 pm #

    SFJeff: The Birther’s new interpretation that NBC must include 2 citizen parents only became a theory after voters elected our first black President, and looking for any possible way to disqualify him, they developed a new concept that both parents must be citizens. I have no doubt that the original motivation of these claims are racist and/or political, though I realize that there are dupes who are not racist who have been recruited who don’t ask why this is an issue they were never aware of before, or passionate about before. Suddenly with the election of our first black President, these strident defenders of the Constitution emerge. Coincidence? I think not.

    It doesn’t matter if he’s black or green. Cases and cases get sent to the Supreme Court because someone says, hey, is this constitutionally legal? The same goes with the interpretation of NBC. Birthers brought the question (way before Obama was sworn in)because for the first time, known in our current generation, a major party candidate and eventually a President was born to a foreign father. Hell yes it is a fair question to ask because a President, after all, is the highest executive official in our nation. This has nothing to do with color. You are bringing the wrong topic to discussion.

  55. avatar
    mrlqban December 10, 2009 at 7:18 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Say some state denied ballot access to a candidate, saying the candidate wasn’t eligible. I think the court would have to decide. But I agree that after the election, it’s only Congress.

    Congress must not define NBC. This will violate the separation of powers. When it comes to removal, yes, Congress must act by order of the Court.

  56. avatar
    Chris December 10, 2009 at 7:21 pm #

    The problem of course is that they may not get an answer from the Supreme Court. Review by the Supreme Court is in almost all cases discretionary. The Supreme Court may well deny review, especially if there is, as there would be here, a significant doubt about whether the petitioners had standing. The Indiana Court of Appeals did not need to address that issue because it was not bound by the Article III standing requirements binding upon federal courts.

  57. avatar
    brygenon December 10, 2009 at 8:11 pm #

    Losing attorney Mario Apuzzo asks: While you are drafting your response and only if you are really feeling ambitious, you can included in your answer how my definition of a “natural born Citizen” is racist.

    Since before you were born, Mario, authorities on U.S. law have universally agreed that one born in the U.S. is a natural-born citizen. Until last year, no one had ever heard you disagree — not with Black’s Law Dictionary‘s definition of ‘natural born citizen’, nor with the peer-reviewed literature of your field, nor with testimony in Congress. Only when Barack Hussein Obama is elected do you insist that your profession’s well-established definition of natural-born citizen is incorrect.

    If your dispute is on principle, Mario, shouldn’t you have stuck up for that principle before you needed reasons why the black man with the Muslim name cannot really be President of the United States?

  58. avatar
    Chris December 10, 2009 at 8:12 pm #

    Sorry, this was meant to be a reply to Scientist’s posting at 1:58 p.m.

  59. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 10, 2009 at 8:15 pm #

    But Congress must also certify the election of the president, and particularly act if the president is not eligible. That may not be “defining” natural born citizen, but it amounts to the same thing.

  60. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 10, 2009 at 8:16 pm #

    It’s an old picture.

  61. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 10, 2009 at 8:22 pm #

    This reminds me of the email I received today from Cort Wrotnowski, one of the first Obama eligibility plaintiffs. He passed on an email campaign to flood the ACLU with Christmas Cards, because the ACLU is trying to “take Christmas away from us.”

    I thought it ironic the writer, out one side of his mouth said:

    “don’t be rude or crude. (It’s not the Christian way, you know.) ”

    and out of the other:

    “Two tons of Christmas cards would freeze their operations”

  62. avatar
    Scientist December 10, 2009 at 8:27 pm #

    “Congress must not define NBC. This will violate the separation of powers. When it comes to removal, yes, Congress must act by order of the Court.”

    As Dr C pointed out Congress does define NBC (as well as age and residency) when they certify (or do not certify) the election. And the Court has NO power to compel Congress to act. They can invalidate a law Congress passes, but cannot oblige Congres to pass a law. And they certainly can’t order them to impeach someone.

    It would be nice if you’d read the REST of the Constitution (beyond your 3 favorite words).

  63. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 10, 2009 at 8:28 pm #

    I think that in this case there is a widespread consensus among those in law and government that Obama was duly eligible to be president. I cannot see any other explanation from the lack of objection from Congress or the state secretaries of state or the media or the law journals.

    McCain’s eligibility was duly debated by the learned professors of law, but I didn’t see any concern about Obama. Did anybody else? The Senate saw fit to investigate McCain’s eligibility, but I didn’t see any concern about Obama. Did anybody else?

  64. avatar
    brygenon December 10, 2009 at 8:43 pm #

    mrlqban: Exactly. Therefore, the legal question should be clarified.

    The situation is entirely clear, except to those who deliberately fool themselves. “Natural born citizen” simply means citizen by birth. Who qualifies as a citizen by birth was arguably unclear long ago, but with the 14’th Amendment and U.S. v Wong Kim Ark, there’s no longer any question that jus soli applies in the U.S.

    Barack Obama is not only eligible to be President of the United States, he is President of the United States. If you have problems dealing with that, seek appropriate counseling; the Supreme Court is not it.

  65. avatar
    SFJeff December 10, 2009 at 8:54 pm #

    “Birthers brought the question (way before Obama was sworn in)because for the first time, known in our current generation, a major party candidate and eventually a President was born to a foreign father. Hell yes it is a fair question to ask because a President, after all, is the highest executive official in our nation.”

    Because before President Obama was the Democratic candidate no one made any serious assertion that Natural Born Citizen meant ‘born of two citizen parents’.

    So yes, I feel comfortable asserting that the Birther movement has racist and politicial origins. Birthers who started this by asserting that President Obama was hiding his birth certificate- and implying he was not born in the United States- then added the claim that he also wasn’t eligible because his father wasn’t a citizen.

    Now mind you- none of the millions of the majority of voters felt that his foreign father disqualified President Obama, nor did the Electoral College or Congress or Chief Justice Roberts.

    But this question would never have been raised if Obama’s father was a good solid white Canadian named Smith.

  66. avatar
    Rickey December 10, 2009 at 9:23 pm #

    Are you telling me that our President would find arguing with a dog more productive than arguing with a human? If that is the case, then maybe you and Obama have been arguing with dogs too long.

    Mario,

    Is that your idea of a witty response?

    I didn’t say anything about arguing with humans in general. I was talking specifically about arguing with birthers.

    You are the perfect example. Your refusal (inability?) to admit that you are wrong about the Pakistan “travel ban” demonstrates the utter futility of arguing with birthers.

    However, it is nice to see you acknowledge that Obama is our president.

  67. avatar
    Greg December 10, 2009 at 9:50 pm #

    Hell yes it is a fair question to ask because a President, after all, is the highest executive official in our nation.

    Fair? Who knows. Stupid? Abso-effing-lutely!

    Your teachers lied to you, mrlqban, there is such a thing as a stupid question. Is slavery constitutionally legal? Do cats give birth to dogs? Do birthers know the Constitution? Is Obama a natural born citizen?

    All are stupid questions! Just because you think up a question does not make it legitimate!

  68. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 10, 2009 at 9:55 pm #

    SFJeff: But this question would never have been raised if Obama’s father was a good solid white Canadian named Smith.

    Or an Irishman named Arthur.

  69. avatar
    mrlqban December 10, 2009 at 11:42 pm #

    Scientist: As Dr C pointed out Congress does define NBC (as well as age and residency) when they certify (or do not certify) the election. And the Court has NO power to compel Congress to act. They can invalidate a law Congress passes, but cannot oblige Congres to pass a law. And they certainly can’t order them to impeach someone. It would be nice if you’d read the REST of the Constitution (beyond your 3 favorite words).

    No. It has to be left to the Judicial branch to intrepet a phrase in the Constitution. It would be nice if you understand that this is different from the process of removing a sitting President.

    Congress cannot pass a law that would narrow the meaning of NBC. I never said that the courts will oblige Congress to pass a law. But they can possibly order the Executive branch to remove a sitting federal official by action of Quo Warranto.

    As far as the removal of a sitting President by Congress other than impeachment this has been uncharted territory.

    However, we know that the Constitution through Article II Section 6 does give Congress the power to remove a President other than impeachment.

    “In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.”

    If congress has given the power to the DC District Court to order the removal of a public official from office through Quo Warranto, I think it would be possible to remove a President this way also. If this happens, the DC District Court can order the Executive branch to execute that order because Congress have given them that power through the Quo Warranto statue.

  70. avatar
    G December 10, 2009 at 11:55 pm #

    What I’m trying to say to you is that if the Supreme Court took up the issue and wanted to clarify the definition, they are absolutely going to look at both the body of any evidence before them as well as past history and past court cases in order to render a decision.

    That absolutely is their purpose and how they function in order to “protect the Constitution”.

    Nothing within the existing Constitution, Amendments (or case law that has been discussed in detail on this site) creates any conflict whatsoever with allowing, in the broadest sense, that NBC includes anyone born on US soil (other than situations such as children of foreign diplomats).

    And yes, therefore, they would have to have very good reason and evidence to create a more restrictive definition, as there is no existing “Constitutional conflict” requiring such.

    There would have to be sufficient, Constitutionally valid justification and need in order to create a restrictive definition that would justify overturning the will of the people in a properly procedurally followed Presidential process.

    As there is nothing existing to require such exclusion, it would be a far stretch for them to make such an interpretive ruling. Such a restrictive stance is hardly a realistic scenario and would be a case of judicial activism at the most extreme.

    Face it, all you have is that you are “unhappy” with how the election turned out, for whatever your personal reasons are and you are desperately looking for any excuse to “wish it wasn’t true”.

    Claiming you just want “clarification” for a definition, is nothing more than “concern trolling”.

  71. avatar
    mrlqban December 10, 2009 at 11:57 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: SFJeff: But this question would never have been raised if Obama’s father was a good solid white Canadian named Smith. Or an Irishman named Arthur.

    Dr. C, I can’t believe you are also playing the “racist” card. Don’t you agree that Arthur was never questioned because perhaps no one knew he was a British subject at birth at the time of his Presidency?

  72. avatar
    G December 10, 2009 at 11:57 pm #

    To mrlqban,

    For some reason, my response to you here didn’t embed properly, so it is posted a bit higher up in this thread.

  73. avatar
    G December 10, 2009 at 11:59 pm #

    Exactly!

  74. avatar
    G December 11, 2009 at 12:10 am #

    mrlqban says: “Congress cannot pass a law that would narrow the meaning of NBC.”

    Yes they can, if they wished. They could propose another Constitutional Amendment to do so.

  75. avatar
    mrlqban December 11, 2009 at 12:35 am #

    G: mrlqban says: “Congress cannot pass a law that would narrow the meaning of NBC.”Yes they can, if they wished. They could propose another Constitutional Amendment to do so.

    Sorry I meant to say that “Congress can pass the law to narrow the meaning (yes of course the only way to do this would be through an ammendment) but I didn’t say that the Courts would force them do it. The courts can clarify Article II one way, and Congress can certaintly overrule that interpretation by doing an ammendment. But Congress cannot define what has already being written in the Document. That is always left to the Courts to interpret.

  76. avatar
    Expelliarmus December 11, 2009 at 12:38 am #

    LOL…. like the ACLU doesn’t usually get much mail? (Given the volume of mail I get FROM the ACLU, I’d say that they’ve probably got the mail-processing end of their operations figured out already.)

  77. avatar
    Expelliarmus December 11, 2009 at 12:42 am #

    mrlqban:
    Congress must not define NBC. This will violate the separation of powers. When it comes to removal, yes, Congress must act by order of the Court.

    Er… could you point me to the provision in the Constitution that say that the Courts must determine presidential eligibility?

    Seems to me that the separation-of-powers thing goes the other way. Lots of stuff in the Constitution about the powers of Congress, not a darn thing about a Judicial role in the process of qualifying Presidents.

  78. avatar
    Expelliarmus December 11, 2009 at 1:51 am #

    mrlqban:
    But Congress cannot define what has already being written in the Document. That is always left to the Courts to interpret.

    That’s technically incorrect. Congress CAN pass laws which relate to the implementation of Constitutional requirements — and they do it all the time — but those laws would be subject to judicial review.

    However, because of ordinary rules of construction and statutory interpretation, IF Congress passed a law purporting to define “natural born citizen”, the Court’s would probably give great deference to a provision that seemed to be a reasonable interpretation of the phrase, especially if it *expanded* rather than *limited* the language. That is, the law that Congress passed in 1790 that said “the children of citizens 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” — is an example of Congress acting to define the term, and would probably stand up in Court if challenged (if that law were still in effect).

  79. avatar
    Lupin December 11, 2009 at 4:58 am #

    “You really do not know how to make any legal argument.”

    Oh the irony!

  80. avatar
    Lupin December 11, 2009 at 4:59 am #

    US passport. Same as he used when he went to France at about the same time.

  81. avatar
    Lupin December 11, 2009 at 5:01 am #

    I’m disturbed that your legal theories about natural-born citizens appear to be identical to those expounded by George Gordon in his Precepts. If it quacks like a duck, etc.

  82. avatar
    Lupin December 11, 2009 at 5:12 am #

    Funny you mention Lourdes.

    Long story short, my wife who’s a journalist did a lot of research for a book on the subject in 1999. She went there, interviewed the Chief Medical Officer, etc. (I tagged along.)

    She has copies of X-rays, medical files, etc. There has been unexplained cures there. That’s what they call it. It’s up to the Church to decide if it’s a miracle or not. The cures are not always connected to the faith either, which is odd.

    When you boil it down , there are three possible explanations which accounts for every known fact:
    1) The one the Church gives you;
    2) Some unknown entities (replace Mary with alien of extra-dimensional faerie or whatever you like);
    3) Unknown human ability to partly regenerate due to some unknown chemical process(es).

    What is 100% certain, without dispute, is that there has been entirely unexplainable, instant cures. Medical science is baffled; however, none of the cures violate the laws of science. (eg: no regrown limbs etc. which would be against the Second Law of Thermodynamics.) Organs or cells don’t become like “new” again; they just regain their functionality. We don’t understand (yet) how it happens, but it does happen.

    I don’t want to hijack the thread, but we have a filing cabinet full of information on the topic.

  83. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 11, 2009 at 6:47 am #

    Expelliarmus: …the law that Congress passed in 1790 that said “the children of citizens 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” — is an example of Congress acting to define the term, and would probably stand up in Court if challenged (if that law were still in effect).

    If the definition of “natural born citizen” is “born a citizen”, then what Congressin 1790 did was nothing more than declare a class of persons were were born citizens (using it’s naturalization power), observing that such were natural born citizens. It would be similar to a hypothetical requirement that says that only registered voters could be president, and Congress passing a law saying that 18-year-olds can vote.

  84. avatar
    brygenon December 11, 2009 at 7:05 am #

    mrlqban: mrlqban says:
    December 10, 2009 at 11:57 pm (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy: SFJeff: But this question would never have been raised if Obama’s father was a good solid white Canadian named Smith. Or an Irishman named Arthur.

    Dr. C, I can’t believe you are also playing the “racist” card. Don’t you agree that Arthur was never questioned because perhaps no one knew he was a British subject at birth at the time of his Presidency?

    No, mrlqban, Dr. C. already debunked that birther lie, and frankly, you were pretty gullible to ever believe it. Why did you think Arthur’s father’s citizenship came up last year?

    The general public was unaware of Arthur’s father’s citizenship for the same reason we’re unaware of lots of other trivia: it makes no difference, so we didn’t care. Everyone was fine with President Arthur being the son of an Irishman, right up until it became a precedent proving the black man with the Muslim name is likewise eligible.

  85. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 11, 2009 at 7:05 am #

    mrlqban: Dr. C, I can’t believe you are also playing the “racist” card. Don’t you agree that Arthur was never questioned because perhaps no one knew he was a British subject at birth at the time of his Presidency?

    And I cite the birthers for failing to acknowledge the elephant in the room.

    I do not agree that “no one knew.” That’s Donofrio’s made up fact. My research turned up evidence that it was known at the time by Arthur opponents (specifically the lawyer A. P. Hinman). There is no evidence I know of that anyone at the time of Arthur’s election would have thought that his father’s citizenship status was a factor in Arthur’s eligibility. The false allegation that Arthur was born in Canada was their approach, but it wasn’t believed.

  86. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 11, 2009 at 7:07 am #

    G: Claiming you just want “clarification” for a definition, is nothing more than “concern trolling”.

    Wonderful sentence.

  87. avatar
    Scientist December 11, 2009 at 7:46 am #

    First, I note for the record that all discussion of removal of a sitting President on the grounds of being unqualified are for the purposes of fiction only, since all Presidents including the present one have been and are qualified. But assuming you did have a President who was unqualified, what would happen? If the Constitution were silent on how to remove a President, then you might have the bare bones of a case to invent a procedure out of whole cloth. However the Constitution in fact describes the procedure in great detail, as you yourself note (though incompletely). Where the Constitution takes the trouble to describe a procedure in detail, then that is what needs to be followed.

    mrlqban: As far as the removal of a sitting President by Congress other than impeachment this has been uncharted territory.
    However, we know that the Constitution through Article II Section 6 does give Congress the power to remove a President other than impeachment

    Well, the section you quoted has been superceded by the 25th Amendment, which states:

    “Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.”

    I suppose if you wanted to construe ineligibility as being “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office” then you could argue that the Vice President should assume the office. However, the clear intent of this amendment, which was passed after the Kennedy assasination, was to cover medical disability, not qualifications. Moreover, invoking this amendment requires the discretionary approval of the Vice President and a majority of the cabinet. They can’t be ordered to use this power by the Courts.

    You need to face the fact that Obama is qualified. Even if someday there were a President who wasn’t, you simply don’t ignore the rest of the Constitution for the sake of 3 words, but rather you follow the provisions laid out in the document.

  88. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny December 11, 2009 at 7:46 am #

    And here I agree with you, Doc. Whatever we did not agree on in the past.

  89. avatar
    Black Lion December 11, 2009 at 11:44 am #

    Benji, good points…These people are insane….The problem is that they do not realize the depths of their insanity…

  90. avatar
    misha December 11, 2009 at 7:38 pm #

    The one case I remember (you can look it up), was from around 1970. Frances Burns, a 5-year old girl from Scotland had lukemia, and was given 6 months. Her mother took her there, and two days later the cancer went into remission. The question of course is, would it have gone into remission had they remained in Scotland?

    The fact is, there have been cases of malignancies going into remission with conventional medicine. It happened to a cousin, who was also a MD professor.

  91. avatar
    mrlqban December 11, 2009 at 7:50 pm #

    Greg: The voters knew his dad was never an American citizen. What you lack is evidence that this matters!Knowing his father was not a citizen, the American people voted for him.

    Even a year after the election, if you were to run a survey now and ask the American voters if they know the nationality of Obama’s father. I wouldn’t be surprise if no more than 10 percent would get it right.

  92. avatar
    misha December 11, 2009 at 7:57 pm #

    “US passport. Same as he used when he went to France at about the same time.”

    I thought he used a passport issued by the Galactic Federation.

  93. avatar
    Scientist December 11, 2009 at 8:28 pm #

    His name made it obvious that he had foreign ancestry and his skin tone suggested it wasn’t German or Irish.

    Face reality, no one is going to overturn an election based on information that was publically known, regardless of the exact percentage of the voters who paid attention to it. Especially not a year later.

  94. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 11, 2009 at 8:31 pm #

    I’m not keeping score.

  95. avatar
    Greg December 11, 2009 at 8:33 pm #

    Would they be able to name the country he was from? Maybe not. Would they be able to say that he was not a citizen? Probably. It was part of Obama’s stump speech. Son of a Kenyan goat-herder.

    Some percentage of Americans probably doesn’t know that McCain served in Vietnam, but most probably know he served in a war.

    Obama didn’t hide the fact that his father was Kenyan. So the American people had as much opportunity to scrutinize this as they had to evaluate his connection with radical pastors.

    When he wakes up in the morning, they call him Mr. President.

  96. avatar
    mrlqban December 11, 2009 at 9:17 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: There is no evidence I know of that anyone at the time of Arthur’s election would have thought that his father’s citizenship status was a factor in Arthur’s eligibility. The false allegation that Arthur was born in Canada was their approach, but it wasn’t believed.

    Huh? You even proved in your research that there was evidence that his father’s citizenship status was a factor with your Hinman’s made up letter to the Senator. This is a clear contradiction of yours.

    I do, however agree that the “old” birther (A.P. Hinman) wasted his time by concentrating his entire research in Arthur’s place of birth. Ironically, very similar to what is going on now.

  97. avatar
    milspec December 11, 2009 at 9:40 pm #

    Reply of the day, bravo.

  98. avatar
    mrlqban December 11, 2009 at 10:37 pm #

    Scientist: I suppose if you wanted to construe ineligibility as being “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office” then you could argue that the Vice President should assume the office. However, the clear intent of this amendment, which was passed after the Kennedy assasination, was to cover medical disability, not qualifications. Moreover, invoking this amendment requires the discretionary approval of the Vice President and a majority of the cabinet. They can’t be ordered to use this power by the Courts.

    I disagree with you on this. I think that the intent of this ammendment was to clarify the meaning on who would take over the President’s job in case of disability. This ammendment doesnt replace Article II Section I Clause 6, it just clarifies devolution of power to the VP in case of disability and also details VP succession. Therefore, “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office” can certaintly still mean ineligibility in light of Article II Section I Clause 6.

  99. avatar
    TRUTH December 11, 2009 at 11:56 pm #

    I feel like I reverting back almost 18months by even commenting in here on THIS subject. Good GOD how can this not get old for you all? Anyways, I just disagree with the original post that Birthers are LESS Credible than Alien Abductees. We can’t ASK and Alien their version of the story, to defend themselves..”oh Mr. Alien, where were you on the night of Oct. 31st, 2008?”. CAN NOT DO IT! We CAN ask(like it or not) Mr. Obama to present a seperate piece of proof than he already has. He refuses to abide to the requests, but that’s neither here or there, so don’t get confused NBC. I’m taling about the Comparison, not your Anti-Birtherism. So for credibility, what little either have, I have to give it to a Birther, for at least he’s accusing a Human Being(I think) who could at least respond. Alien Abductee story people can’t get cooberating witnesses. Unless you go off the comment EUPHGEEK made, that says “at least some alien abductees have evidence”.. LOL!!! And you laugh at Birthers!!? Whata Joke

  100. avatar
    TRUTH December 12, 2009 at 12:03 am #

    WAAHHHahahahahaaa!!! Tell him Scientist!!

  101. avatar
    misha December 12, 2009 at 3:12 am #

    Hey, you’re back – a Jewish conservative. Jews who enjoy slumming. Jews who ignore the anti-Semitism of Coulter, Hagee, Robertson and the rest of that reptilian crowd. The crowd who loves Israel, but hates Judaism and Jewish culture. The crowd who finances settlers to engage in pogroms against Arabs, so Armageddon will come next week.

    What’s the difference between Rush Limbaugh and a reptile?

    One is hatched from eggs, eats insects, and sleeps under a rock.
    The other is a reptile.

  102. avatar
    misha December 12, 2009 at 3:20 am #

    One more thing. Here’s John Hagee, an odious fat bigot like Falwell, showing his anti-Semitism. He can’t hide it very well. I challenge you to watch this, and tell me Hagee is merely misunderstood:

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7706179979766534830&hl=en#

    But remember, he luvs Israel. A Faustian bargain at best.

  103. avatar
    misha December 12, 2009 at 3:29 am #

    “The anti-Christ will be Jewish, as was Adolf Hitler, as was Karl Marx.” John Hagee

    See? Jews gave us Hitler AND Marx. Hey, did you see that part where he tells his congregation about Jesus’ Bar Mitzvah? Did you see when he tells his flock how Jews control the world’s monetary system? He recites the entire catalog of Jewish stereotypes. But he luvs Israel. And those stupid settlers welcome him along with Huckabee, an affable bible thumping idiot. Huckabee doesn’t believe in evolution, or scientific inquiry, for that matter.

  104. avatar
    G December 12, 2009 at 5:45 am #

    I guess a more appropriate comparison would be the Birthers to “Flat Earthers” – those that still refuse to believe that the world is round or that the earth travels around the sun, despite long standing proof as well as satellite imagery. (Yes, there are still a few out there – I actually had a college professor once who seriously was one…)

    When are you going to get it through your head that Obama does NOT need to provide anything more. The document he provided is what the State of HI has stated that they provide and it says Honolulu, HI. All courts have rejected your many silly and frivolous claims. Case closed.

  105. avatar
    misha December 12, 2009 at 6:53 am #

    Conservatives: guilty until proven innocent.
    Liberals: innocent until proven guilty.

    See Orly Taitz et al.

  106. avatar
    Lupin December 12, 2009 at 9:34 am #

    From Remulak! 🙂

  107. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 12, 2009 at 9:29 pm #

    TRUTH: Good GOD how can this not get old for you all?

    It is old–very, very old.

  108. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 12, 2009 at 9:36 pm #

    mrlqban: Huh? You even proved in your research that there was evidence that his father’s citizenship status was a factor with your Hinman’s made up letter to the Senator.

    What do you mean “made up letter”? It’s in Hinman’s book, a scanned copy of which is on this web site.

    You misunderstand what Hinman was up to. Here’s the scenario that Hinman wanted to rule out through his inquiry to the Senator:

    A child was born in Canada. His father subsequently became a naturalized American citizen, thereby making his SON an American citizen too. Question: would such a child be a “natural born citizen?”

    The answer was no.

    Either Hinman KNEW that Arthur’s father naturalized after Arthur’s birth (most likely since Hinman researched extensively) OR he considered the possibility seriously enough to come up with a counterargument to it.

    Donofrio claimed that Arthur saying he was one year younger than he really was so confused Hinman that he never thought to consider that the father wasn’t a citizen. That’s total bull.