Main Menu

Nairobi paper declares: Barack Obama was born in Kenya!

Flag of Kenya

I was digging through Internet archives and came across an article from November 18, 2009. In response to letters from American questioners, Judy Munyinyi-Mumo of The Standard newspaper of Nairobi, Kenya responded on the topic of Obama’s birth place and on the meaning of remarks such as referring to President Obama as “Kogelo’s Son.”

“Barack Hussein Obama [was] born in Kenya”

I have always said that this blog was about facts, not about defending Obama. I hope I have proven that now. Here is the larger quotation:

To all the skeptics out there, here is one inescapable fact. There was a Barack Hussein Obama born in Kenya. He is the father of your president. He was a black man from black Africa. The name and the person Barack Hussein Obama Sr, came from a sleepy village in Kenya called Nyang’oma Kogelo.

And here is another inescapable truth: the fact that Barack Hussein Obama Jr was born in Hawaii has already been proved beyond doubt by your own government. He is a US citizen. His election a year ago and his popularity around the world baffled many Americans but the fact remains he is entitled to be president. Get over it, you conspiracy theorists and people of dubious intelligence who cannot accept your country is led by a person of African descent. Obama has been examined under your microscope for at least two years. If there was proof to the contrary, wouldn’t you have found it by now?

The article goes on to explain language used by Kenyans and the mistaken literalism placed on it by the nObama tribe.

Let me explain how it works, America.

In Kenya, and many other African countries, a child belongs not just to the mother and father, but to the extended family: grandparents, uncles, aunts, cousins.

Amongst the Luo, this concept of community is particularly strong, which is why even though Obama is fully American, to his relatives in Kenya he is fully Luo. He is a son of Kogelo. That is his home.

In patrilineal Kenya, everybody has a ‘real’ home, which is where the father/husband originally comes from, and not just where they have chosen to live and work.

I, for instance, have lived and worked in Nairobi all my life but my children will grow up knowing that home is the dry and dusty area North-East of Nairobi called Kitui.

Obama doesn’t have to have been born in Kenya to get the privilege of calling Kogelo home. And even though, legally, the Government of Kenya does not recognise him as Kenyan that is of little consequence to his family here.

So, was Barack H Obama Jr born in Kenya? No. But believe it or not, the President of the most powerful nation in the world is still from a sleepy little village in Kenya called Kogelo.

Thank you, Ms. Munyinyi-Mumo.

Judy Munyinyi-Mumo

132 Responses to Nairobi paper declares: Barack Obama was born in Kenya!

  1. avatar
    Zixi of Ix April 26, 2010 at 7:12 pm #

    It is nice to read an informative glimpse into Kenya’s patrilineal society, but it is doubtful that any of this will change the minds of birthers.

    Birthers have a remarkable talent for being able to apply the line-item veto to reality and edit out any facts which might intrude on their rich fantasy lives.

    Thus, I predict that they’ll quote the following from the article:

    “Barack Hussein Obama [was] born in Kenya”

    To all the skeptics out there, here is one inescapable fact. There was a Barack Hussein Obama born in Kenya. He is the father of your president. He was a black man from black Africa. The name and the person Barack Hussein Obama Sr, came from a sleepy village in Kenya called Nyang’oma Kogelo. Coast Province General Hospital in Mombasa, Kenya.

    It might be funny if it weren’t so sad.

  2. avatar
    Scott Brown April 26, 2010 at 7:26 pm #

    Hummm, funny you should bring up the line-item veto. At least the birthers know what it is and can apply it correctly….

    now, if only Obama could live up to his campaign promises of doing the same thing – perhaps the birthers understand the concept better than he does.

  3. avatar
    Scott Brown April 26, 2010 at 7:28 pm #

    You think Michelle was referring to Sr. in her comment too?

    I think most of the birthers are smart enough to figure out when Sr. is being referred to as opposed to Jr. being referred to.

  4. avatar
    richcares April 26, 2010 at 7:43 pm #

    liar liar pants on fire!

  5. avatar
    TRUTH April 26, 2010 at 8:02 pm #

    First, I don’t care if he was born under a rock on Pennsylvania Ave. But to make CLAIM to posting NOTHING but the Truth, and post this article that “some woman” wrote about BHO Sr. as absolute truth, WHY in Haiti is that any more Truthful than all the Garbage about BHO Jr. being born there? Is her article somehow Certified and Sworn by Upholding Law Abiding Liberals as Factual that makes it more truth than some Lying idiot’s that went to all the trouble of finding some fake B.C. on BHO. Jr. being born there?

    Amazing how fast things become Factual when they are spoken in favor of what you believe.

    Yep, NUTTIN but the Truth here..Nuttin but THE TRUTH!!

  6. avatar
    northland10 April 26, 2010 at 8:12 pm #

    Obama can’t apply the line item veto because the law passed by Congress in the 1990s was ruled unconstitutional in 1998 (Clinton v. City of New York). Seems they felt that line item veto violated the separation of powers.

    Darn that pesky constitution.

  7. avatar
    Scientist April 26, 2010 at 8:17 pm #

    First, I don’t care if he was born under a rock on Pennsylvania Ave.

    Me neither. I have a hard time understanding why people think the circumstances of someone’s birth (especially someone they don’t even know) are so important. If your mother spent 24 hours in labor and you live to 70, that’s 1/25,550th of your life. You’d think that every sentient person could form an opinion of Obama by now that’s based on what he’s done as President, rather than something his mother did almost 50 years ago. Love him or hate him, what does his birth have to do with it???

    Shhesh people, grow up!!!

  8. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 26, 2010 at 8:43 pm #

    No, Michelle Obama was speaking figuratively.

  9. avatar
    Greg April 26, 2010 at 9:05 pm #

    Since you think Michelle was speaking literally, that’s not good evidence for your ability to distinguish.

  10. avatar
    Greg April 26, 2010 at 9:09 pm #

    At least the birthers know what it is and can apply it correctly….

    I guess you missed that it was held to be unconstitutional in 1998 in Clinton v. City of New York. Repubican Rudy Giuliani fought to have it invalidated.

    How, exactly, do birthers apply the unconstitutional line item veto correctly?

  11. avatar
    Arthur April 26, 2010 at 10:24 pm #

    TRUTH:

    I had a different reaction to this article than you did. I didn’t take it to be offered as evidence that would answer a question of fact. In other words, regarding the question of where Obama was born, it is no more valid than an opinion piece written in American newspaper–and certainly wouldn’t qualify as evidence in a law suit.

    However, it did provide useful information about how a Kenyan could speak figuratively of Barack H. Obama Jr. being born in Kenya, while at the same time, fully aware that Barack H. Obama Jr. was literally born in Hawaii. As one who did not grow up in a culture that observes such strong patrilineal ties, I found it informative and interesting.

  12. avatar
    Arthur April 26, 2010 at 10:30 pm #

    northland10:

    Thanks for reminding us of that Supreme Court decision. At one time, I fully supported giving presidents line-item veto authority. After learning something about the separation of powers, I ultimately understood that while line-item veto power might make streamlining the budget easier, it would also be a clear violation of the Constitution.

  13. avatar
    aarrgghh April 26, 2010 at 10:52 pm #

    arthur, patiently:

    “truth: I had a different reaction to this article than you did.”

    i’m pretty sure most people have a different reaction to most things than truth(iness) does.

  14. avatar
    Mary Brown April 26, 2010 at 11:03 pm #

    What are you talking about. He was born in Hawaii, Scott or Scotta. If you think he has broken campaign promises find a candidate you think might be a more effective President. Support that person. Oh, by the way what state were you born in so we can test your honesty? About birth certificates and why they are rejected.

  15. avatar
    Mary Brown April 26, 2010 at 11:04 pm #

    Just like folks referred to Kennedy returning home to Ireland.

  16. avatar
    Bob Ross April 26, 2010 at 11:05 pm #

    Can you be anymore an idiot fake Scott Brown? Obama can’t use a line item veto as its unconstitutional. Now if only you could tell us what state you were born in besides Denial.

  17. avatar
    Bob Ross April 26, 2010 at 11:06 pm #

    She was speaking figuratively much like you were when you claimed your COLB was rejected when getting a passport.

  18. avatar
    Arthur April 26, 2010 at 11:29 pm #

    aarrgghh:

    I think you’re right; that’s why, whenever I read TRUTH’s posts, I observe an ancient calming ritual developed by an obscure Gnostic monk called, “The Kramer.” The Kramer, (instrumental in popularizing the winter solstice celebration known as “Festivus”) developed a qigong-like meditation in which one slowly chants the mantra “serenity now, serenity now” while sitting in a lawn chair.

    For example, “Dear TRUTH” (ooommm . . . serenity now, serenity now)”in your previous post you averred” (serenity now, serenity now) “that Barack Obama intends to melt down all handguns guns to create a giant hammer and sickle and that will replace the Statue of Liberty” (serenity now, serenity). “An objective review of the evidence, however, demonstrates that your claim is unfounded” (serenity now, serenity now . . . ).

  19. avatar
    DraggingCanoe April 27, 2010 at 12:03 am #

    What is the difference between Judy Woodruff and Michelle Obama’s usage of “home country”?

    http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0004/22/bn.24.html

    Woodruff: Elian Gonzalez home country is Cuba.

    Michelle: Obama Jr. home country is Kenya.

    Keep drinking the Kool Aide. Spin it.

  20. avatar
    DraggingCanoe April 27, 2010 at 12:06 am #

    Students wanting to learn the “Art of Spin” they should visit this website and read Dr. Conspire.

  21. avatar
    Greg April 27, 2010 at 12:12 am #

    And, when the Kennedy library says this:

    “historic film footage from President Kennedy’s historic journey to his homeland of Ireland in June of 1963.”

    they are admitting that Kennedy was born in Ireland.

    Honestly, are you really this dumb, or do you work at it?

  22. avatar
    G April 27, 2010 at 12:19 am #

    Now if only you could admit what state you were born in, you lying coward!

  23. avatar
    G April 27, 2010 at 12:21 am #

    No, most of the birthers are nothing but foolish liars and idiots like you. What state were you born in again?

  24. avatar
    Arthur April 27, 2010 at 12:32 am #

    Greg:

    DraggingCanoe’s folly seems to come very easily. Shakespeare would have called him a “natural,” that is, one for whom a goosey foolishness is an innate gift, not acquired by training or hard work.

  25. avatar
    SFJeff April 27, 2010 at 12:52 am #

    Draggingcanoe,

    Apparently you are both unwilling to distinguish figurative from literal, and unable to distinguish between spin and debunking.

    But thats okay- its your right to continue to believe that mandate of the majority of voters should be overthrown and the constitution violated because a Kenyan politician says our President was born there. It is your right to believe that a digital copy of a Kenyan birth certificate verified by no one is legitimate, while a digital copy of an American Birth certificate, verified to be an actual copy by a factchecking group, and corroborated by an Hawaiian official is a forgery.

    It is your right to believe a pregnant American woman would travel from Hawaii to Kenya in 1961 in order to be able to give birth there. It is your right to slander the dead grandmother of the President by claiming she had fraudently filed his BC.

    Its a free country, even for you birthers with short memmories. Remember how you all were sure a year ago that President Obama was going to be rounding up opposition into FEMA camps? How he was going to be confiscating guns? Remember how he was going to stop all opposing views on the Internet.

    Continue to peddle whatever theories you can make up. Because President Obama is legitimate and I know that irritates the hell out of you. I know that his very presence in the White House offends your deep inner self and you are sure- sure beyond any objective reason- that he cannot-must not- be legitimately there.

  26. avatar
    Rickey April 27, 2010 at 1:04 am #

    SFJeff says:

    Remember how he was going to stop all opposing views on the Internet.

    They are still spouting that lie. Michelle Bachmann, being interviewed by Sean Hannity:

    Bachmann: Oh sure, that’s all they have left now, is they use pejorative terms, hateful terms, against those who are carrying the message. So whether they’re attacking conservative talk radio, or conservative TV, or whether it’s Internet sites — I mean, let’s face it, what’s the Obama administration doing? They’re advocating net neutrality, which is essentially censorship of the Internet!

    This is the Obama administration advocating censorship of the Internet. Why? They want to silence the voices that are opposing them.

    The idiocy is mind-boggling.

  27. avatar
    Lupin April 27, 2010 at 1:54 am #

    Compass. South. Scott Brown.

  28. avatar
    Lupin April 27, 2010 at 2:00 am #

    “In patrilineal Kenya, everybody has a real’ home, which is where the father/husband originally comes from, and not just where they have chosen to live and work.”

    Amusing that the Kenyan tradition appears to follow Vattel’s rule — as I suspect is/was historically the case before the world became more complicated.

    Note: even there, the “two parents citizens” remains an awkward, unnatural, impractical and fully made up myth.

    Mario would be a laughing stock, even in Kenya.

  29. avatar
    Lupin April 27, 2010 at 2:12 am #

    Admit it, when she wrote:

    “you conspiracy theorists and people of dubious intelligence who cannot accept your country is led by a person of African descent”

    …you thought she meant YOU.

  30. avatar
    nbc April 27, 2010 at 2:14 am #

    Or better read your nonsense. Funny how you have to attack the messenger rather than the messenger.

    I understand though…

  31. avatar
    DraggingCanoe April 27, 2010 at 4:16 am #

    Do you mean Anna Toot? She is wife number two to Obama Sr..

  32. avatar
    DraggingCanoe April 27, 2010 at 4:23 am #

    Michelle Obama and Judy Woodruff did not say homeland, motherland or fatherland…they said home country. The home is where the heart is.

  33. avatar
    DraggingCanoe April 27, 2010 at 4:34 am #

    pls tell us the qualifications of a Political Science and an English major at factcheck.org. Busted.

  34. avatar
    Greg April 27, 2010 at 8:07 am #

    Right, because homeland and home country are totally different. And home country can never be used rhetorically.

    I’m confused, though, is homeland different from home land? What about home-land?

    And, finally, do they let you use the big-boy scissors yet?

  35. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 27, 2010 at 8:24 am #

    DraggingCanoe: Students wanting to learn the “Art of Spin” they should visit this website and read Dr. Conspire.

    Frankly, if birthers knew what “spin” was, they wouldn’t be birthers in the first place. Birthers see spin as anything they don’t agree with.

    I’d nominate WorldNetDaily for a premier spin site.

  36. avatar
    Black Lion April 27, 2010 at 9:38 am #

    Michelle was as literal as Scott Brown was regarding her COLB story…You know the one that looked exactly like Obama’s but she could not get a US Passport with it….Scott should be careful when referencing intelligence…Since she thinks everyone here was dumb enough to believe her lies and is stupid enough to let her get away with it….

  37. avatar
    Black Lion April 27, 2010 at 9:42 am #

    DC shows his stupidity….”Toot” was his grandmother….Both his grandmother and mother had Ann as part of their names….So before commenting make sure you get your facts straight…

  38. avatar
    DraggingCanoe April 27, 2010 at 9:44 am #

    historic film footage from President Kennedy’s historic journey to his homeland of Ireland in June of 1963.”

    they are admitting that Kennedy was born in Ireland.

    Honestly, are you really this dumb, or do you work at it?

    Home country. Not Home land.

  39. avatar
    DraggingCanoe April 27, 2010 at 9:46 am #

    Woodruff was speaking figuratively?

  40. avatar
    Greg April 27, 2010 at 9:51 am #

    Yes, because everyone knows that homeland is different from home country.

    And, of course everyone knows that home country is never used rhetorically. It is the one phrase in the entire English language that cannot be used rhetorically.

    So, my question remains: are you really this dumb, or do you work at it?

  41. avatar
    DraggingCanoe April 27, 2010 at 9:52 am #

    two parents is normal..natural..natural law..the law under which we are placed by our birth into the world..

  42. avatar
    DraggingCanoe April 27, 2010 at 10:01 am #

    when you are born..you are born free..unless there is a link to slavery…when you are born..free..sui juris..all the descendents through the male line are in his power..

    what the son acquired belongs to the father..get in the Founders minds..study the works they read..not Obama’s talking points..

  43. avatar
    Greg April 27, 2010 at 10:02 am #

    two parents is normal..natural..natural law..the law under which we are placed by our birth into the world..

    So, test-tube babies are ineligible for the Presidency? The children of gay couples?

    I didn’t think it was possible, but I think the birthers are getting stupider!

  44. avatar
    Greg April 27, 2010 at 10:07 am #

    .study the works they read

    I have. Have you read Calvin’s Case? It gave us such concepts as “taxation without representation.” Have you heard that phrase? Did they teach it at birther school?

    It also defined “natural born.”

    I’m curious, have you read anything not written by a birther? I mean, all the way through.

  45. avatar
    Kathryn N April 27, 2010 at 11:33 am #

    Under the Constitution, laws and judicial precedence of this country, all persons born in the US are natural born citizens of the US. President Obama was born in the US. No matter what ties he may have to another country–and in America almost all of us have those ties–he is a natural born citizen of the United States of America.
    He is also our legitimate, legal, properly elected President.
    All the birther prattling about de Vattel, and various carefully selected letters from old dead guys will not change the facts.

  46. avatar
    PaulG April 27, 2010 at 11:59 am #

    Thanks for this post. I’ve been watching birthers too long. It’s such a relief to get a breath of sanity, and just plain old humanity.

  47. avatar
    Lupin April 27, 2010 at 12:03 pm #

    I’d love to have some of what you’re drinking. (Or smoking. Or injecting.)

  48. avatar
    Lupin April 27, 2010 at 12:06 pm #

    “all the descendents through the male line are in his power..”

    And all your bases are belong to us, yes, we know that already.

  49. avatar
    DraggingCanoe April 27, 2010 at 12:41 pm #

    http://allafrica.com/stories/200408160533.html

    Busted again. barack obama Sr. married Anna Toot in Hawaii..according to Obama’s African family.

  50. avatar
    Greg April 27, 2010 at 1:00 pm #

    So, an African newspaper makes a typo.

    Do you think Dewey really beat Truman?

  51. avatar
    DraggingCanoe April 27, 2010 at 1:06 pm #

    Read The Institutes of Justinian the Founders had copies..

    Natural Law..the law under which we are placed by our birth into the world.

    In the Founders age..who are citizens and who are not citizens? Who were the foreigners.

    Were Africans citizens? Could Africans be naturalized? Were Africans considered property or citizens? Were Africans foreigners? Remember the John Jay letter..a strong check no foreigners in our government

    The only people who could be naturalized were free white aliens.

    In the establishment of the government by the Founders..the African was not deemed a person. He was property. The Africans who came to the colonies were forced to go there.

    No one from Africa immigrated to the colonies.

    De Ingenuis (latin): A person who is free from the moment of birth by being born who have either both born free or made free.

    Indegenes(FR)french is a romantic language from Latin.

    Enough for today..do not want to get some of you confused.

    Ingenui..free men.

    Africans could not have parents who were citizens. They were not citizens.

    Vattel: natives or natural born citizens are those born in country of parents who are citizens.

    Complicated.

    In was 1776..not 2010.

  52. avatar
    nbC April 27, 2010 at 1:12 pm #

    Complicated

    But hardly unresolvable, as Wong Kim Ark has so clearly shown.

    Natural Born Citizen: Undefined in the Constitution, meaning thus needs to be found in Common Law usage of the term.

    Natural Born according to Common Law principles: Born on US soil, regardless of the status of the parents (unless: Indians not paying taxes, invading military, foreign diplomats)

    The idea that citizenship were determined by the law of nations is untenable. The Founders would never abandon the US’s rights to be able to define who were its citizens to international law.

    As several posters have so clearly shown, the adherence to Vattel makes no sense, has limited if any support in history, legislative as well as legal and Common Law practices in the early Colonies and states clearly followed English Common Law with respect to citizenship.

    Complicated? perhaps, but hardly unresolvable through logic and reason.

    President Obama: Born on US soil thus natural born citizen.

    QED

  53. avatar
    nbC April 27, 2010 at 1:16 pm #

    In the Founders age..who are citizens and who are not citizens? Who were the foreigners.

    Citizens versus aliens

    Citizens:= Natural Born (Natus) and Naturalized (Datus)

    Natural Born: Citizen by Common Law (american born/native born)

    Naturalized: Citizen by statute (alien born citizens)

    Born on US soil makes a child a natural born citizen of the United States under most circumstances with minor exceptions (invading military, diplomats, Indians not paying taxes).

    All data point to these simple facts.

  54. avatar
    DraggingCanoe April 27, 2010 at 1:43 pm #

    It is impossible for Obama to be a NBC according to the Founders.

  55. avatar
    DraggingCanoe April 27, 2010 at 1:47 pm #

    You did not answer my question..who were the foreigners in the 18th century?

  56. avatar
    Bob Ross April 27, 2010 at 2:12 pm #

    If you want to get technical anyone who wasn’t a native american. Jay’s letter thought referred to the commander in chief which at the time was separate from the president.

    Where do the founders say Obama would be not natural born?

  57. avatar
    richcares April 27, 2010 at 2:23 pm #

    “toot” a variation of the Hawaiian word “tutu” which is a loving referral to gandma. Made famous by the Hawaiian XMas song, “On the first day of Christmas my tutu gave to me…”

    just a little tidbit for dip$hit.

  58. avatar
    nbc April 27, 2010 at 2:49 pm #

    An unsupported assertion. After all, the Founders used a well understood term “natural born citizen” which clearly would have included President Obama. Of course, they would have rejected him based on his skin color and that oversight was corrected in the 14th amendment.
    So are you arguing that original intent would have precluded President Obama from being an NBC because of his skin color?

  59. avatar
    nbc April 27, 2010 at 2:49 pm #

    Well, in not so many words they do only admit whites. And men only…
    Of course, that’s not much of an issue here.

  60. avatar
    nbc April 27, 2010 at 2:51 pm #

    Foreigners were those not born on US soil who did not acquire citizenship through naturalization

  61. avatar
    Arthur April 27, 2010 at 3:04 pm #

    DraggingCanoe:

    I would be interested in reading and responding to the point you sought to make in your recent post, but I can’t uncover it. For a moment, could you drop the supercilious tone, and without resorting to rhetorical questions, incomplete sentences, or ellipses, straightforwardly explain your point?

    Thank you.

  62. avatar
    ballantine April 27, 2010 at 3:22 pm #

    You need to read the debates from the constitutional convention where foreigners were repeatedly distinguished from natives, were equated with foreign birth and where the restrictions on foreigners were referred to as discrimination by place of birth. Hence, it is clear that the framers thought foreigners meant the foreign born. You should also look at the outbreak of nativism that gave rise to the alien and sedition act ten years later when the federalists proposed to correct the mistake of letting the foreign-born become citizens and to provide that “none but persons born in this country should be permitted to take part in government.” In a nation where allegiance was uniformly defined by place of birth, no one thought any native born person to be a foreigner.

  63. avatar
    Greg April 27, 2010 at 3:23 pm #

    The Founders also had copies of Calvin’s Case. I’ll read the Justinian thing if you read Calvin’s Case.

    Oh, and this:

    Africans could not have parents who were citizens. They were not citizens.

    Is probably very near the heart of your objection to Obama.

    Do you have dress sheets for when the cross-burning is really special?

  64. avatar
    SvenMagnussen April 27, 2010 at 3:52 pm #

    You did not answer my question..who were the foreigners in the 18th century?

    Anyone who was not a British subject.

    Excerpts from Wikipedia …

    Magna Carta, also called Magna Carta Libertatum, was arguably the most significant early influence on the extensive historical process that led to the rule of constitutional law today in the English speaking world. Magna Carta influenced the development of the common law and many constitutional documents, including the United States Constitution.

    In 1719, Fairfax came into possession of the vast Culpeper family estates in Virginia’s Northern Neck Proprietary between the Rappahannock and Potomac Rivers. These lands included a great portion of the Shenandoah and South Branch Potomac valleys, in all consisting of some 5,282,000 acres. Lord Fairfax travelled to Virginia for the first time between 1735 and 1737 to inspect and protect his lands.

    An avowed Loyalist, Fairfax’s land was confiscated during the hostilities by the Virginia Act of 1779.

  65. avatar
    Rickey April 27, 2010 at 3:58 pm #

    nbc says:

    So are you arguing that original intent would have precluded President Obama from being an NBC because of his skin color?

    That seems to be exactly what he is saying.

    It is noteworthy that when birthers speak long enough, their racism always manages to bubble to the surface.

    Interesting article here about racism and Tea Partiers:

    http://www.newsweek.com/id/236996

  66. avatar
    aarrgghh April 27, 2010 at 4:22 pm #

    arthur, again, patiently:

    “For a moment, could you drop the supercilious tone, and without resorting to rhetorical questions, incomplete sentences, or ellipses, straightforwardly explain your point?”

    it’s pretty clear that this is exactly his point, (in)famously summed up by wingnut hero congressman joe wilson at obama’s first state-of-the-union address:

    “YEW LAHHH!!!!”

    nogginCement is not here to debate. he thinks he’s won some kind of birfer superbowl and he’s here to moon the spectators and dance in an imaginary endzone.

    but he’s in the wrong stadium. if he’s right, nogginCement can make his case before a judge and win. he can even bring us the head of the usurper for sh*ts and giggles. until then, his little trip to disneyland is a little premature.

  67. avatar
    nbc April 27, 2010 at 4:41 pm #

    No way!!! That’s just plain foolish. I’d like to hear from Draggin’ himself

  68. avatar
    G April 27, 2010 at 4:49 pm #

    Unfortunately, race seems to be the only way to interpret his statement about the Founders not finding Obama an NBC.

    Otherwise, how can he possibly argue that someone born on US soil (within a state of the US no less) is a not a US citizen by birth, even back then?

  69. avatar
    Arthur April 27, 2010 at 5:48 pm #

    argive (Excuse the Arginian reference, but I’m eating Greek olives):

    That “celebrating in the end zone” image is funny and apt. DraggingCanoe does act like a show-boater — maybe it’s the origin of his moniker.

    I can’t help feeling sorry for DraggingCanoe, because whenever I see his name, I’m reminded of the Ojibway maxim, “He who drags his canoe through a portage has no friends.”

  70. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 27, 2010 at 5:51 pm #

    DraggingCanoe: It is impossible for Obama to be a NBC according to the Founders.

    I am intimately aware of your prejudices, and I grow tired of you asserting them endlessly, and apparently mindlessly.

    This blog operates under a higher standard than prejudice. I expect facts, and facts tied to points using logic.

  71. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 27, 2010 at 6:35 pm #

    DraggingCanoe: Were Africans citizens?

    You seem to be confusing “African” with slave in a very troubling way.

    As for your questions, I don’t play games. Make an assertion and back it up, or move on.

  72. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 27, 2010 at 6:37 pm #

    You were aware that Obama’s mother was named Ann?

    Idiot.

  73. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 27, 2010 at 6:40 pm #

    Lupin, your knowledge of American culture continues to astound me.

  74. avatar
    Arthur April 27, 2010 at 9:17 pm #

    Dr. C:

    Good point about Lupin; I had no idea what the “bases” line referred to and had to Google it.
    And I is an Amerikin!

  75. avatar
    northland10 April 27, 2010 at 9:27 pm #

    I am not going to bother to respond directly to DC on this as his/her posts are sounding more like arguments from some middle school students trying to get out of detention. However, I did go to take a look at The Institutes of Justinian (doesn’t everybody read 6th century legal writings while riding the commuter train home).

    In my brief review, I noticed that DG seem to missed the whole issue of who would born free (arrgghh… got that song stuck in my head now):

    He is also free born if his mother be free even though his father be a slave, and so also is he whose paternity is uncertain, being the offspring of promiscuous intercourse, but whose mother is free.

    Thus, if we follow the logic, since his mother would not have been a slave (or decedent from slavery), thus Obama would also be free. Is it possible then, even to that time period, that free born child would be able to be a Roman citizen?

    Obviously, I assume are many more details and contrasts between Roman Law and the founders Common Law. I figure there are some on here that know Justinian Code very well (I’m looking at you Greg) who could likely poke many holes in my response. To be fair, I am much better with liturgical history of that time period than law, of which I have had little experience.

  76. avatar
    SFJeff April 27, 2010 at 9:41 pm #

    “No one from Africa immigrated to the colonies.”

    Unsupported assertion. I am not saying that you might not be correct, but I am saying it is unlikely. Note Africa also included North Africa and Egypt. I would say that the odds that there were no African immigrants who arrived in America as free persons is unlikely.

    Not only that, not all blacks in America were born in Africa- many were born in Haiti or other Carribean territories.

    What about indentured servents? Many European immigrants arrived into the New World as indentured servents.

    Beyond that, I do not believe that the Constitution actually identified citizenship by color- while slaves were not considered as a full person for census purposes- there were free black africans in many colonies at the time of the Revolution if I remember correctly the first American to die in the Revolution was truely African American.

    Not sure where you are going with this, other than perhaps suggesting that our founders couldn’t comprehend a black man being President? Which of course is true- and which of course is why looking at the mythical “Founder” intent is so ridiculous.

    I know what Natural born citizen means- and so does anyone who went through Junior high or High School in the United States- we all learned that to be eligible to be President you had to be old enough, and a Natural Born citizen- which we were told in our text books meant born in the United States.

    Show me a textbook printed prior to 2008 which says otherwise.

  77. avatar
    Bob Ross April 27, 2010 at 9:58 pm #

    Hard to take you seriously dragging when you list your website as freerepublic.

  78. avatar
    DraggingCanoe April 27, 2010 at 10:32 pm #

    How can property(Negroes) be considered a natural born citizen in the 18th century? They were not considered anything but property.

    I am not saying..Black Africans are property.. the men who wrote the Constitution did.

    The only way to get around this..is tear up the Constitution.

    In the Founders thinking could natural born..

    Natural Law: the highest rule of HUMAN conduct as imposed by God on MAN we speak of it as natural.

    The Founders thought Negroes as PROPERTY.

    Natural Law: The law under which we are placed by our BIRTH into the world.

    It is not my thoughts..it was the Founders.

    Could a Black man be on the ticket for president after the ratification of the Constitution? You know the answer.

    There is a published list of books the Founders had in their possession..suggest reading them.

  79. avatar
    DraggingCanoe April 27, 2010 at 10:36 pm #

    “No one immigrated from Africa” Unsupported assereion”

    Dred Scott. It is in the record.

  80. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 27, 2010 at 11:01 pm #

    Rickey: Interesting article here about racism and Tea Partiers

    It is interesting, but hardly a surprise.

    Just because there is a correlation between association with the Tea Party and racism doesn’t necessarily mean that the Tea Party is essentially racist or that people join the Tea Party because of Racism. I daresay that you will find a positive correlation between rasicm and membership in the National Rifle Association, but you would not conclude that the NRA was racist because of that.

    My personal view is that the Tea Party has always been with us, but that now it has had a chance to thrive in the vacuum left by the defeat of mainstream conservative John McCain. Moderate Republicanism was weakened by what happened in 2008 and the Tea Party is an opportunistic weed.

  81. avatar
    nbC April 27, 2010 at 11:37 pm #

    You’re such a fool. Let me ask you a simple question:

    Do you really believe that under the present Constitution, black people cannot be natural born citizens?

  82. avatar
    nbC April 27, 2010 at 11:38 pm #

    Could a Black man be on the ticket for president after the ratification of the Constitution? You know the answer.

    And what about today?

    Afraid to answer?

    Fool (Romans 1:22)

  83. avatar
    nbC April 27, 2010 at 11:41 pm #

    Thanks to Dragging Canoe at Dr C’s Obamaconspiracy.org blog we have another great reference (blogged also at my blog:

    The municipal laws of most nations establish the rights of perpetual allegiance, but not of universal allegiance. Allegiance in fact is limited by space, and not by time. The power of a government is only co-extensive with its territorial limits, and the extension of its territorial power. Beyond these it can neither enforce duties nor extend protection. Now, the basis of allegiance is protection ; and all legal duties must suppose, at least in theory and in the nature of things, an ability to enforce them : but beyond the territorial limits and the extension of the territorial power of a government, neither of these exist,nor can,in the nature of things, exist; and, of course, beyond these, allegiance must cease. Out of these dominions the citizen cannot be subject to a power which in its nature can only exist within them.

    Source: Speaker of the House of Representatives, Langdon Cheves, in February of 1814 ” The Historical register of the United States edited by Thomas H. Palmer

    There are some who ‘argue’ that since President Obama was born to a father who held a non-US citizenship, that Obama thus had conflicting allegiances. This is based on a flawed understanding of the concept of allegiance. Allegiance, as the above quote shows, depends on protection. While within the territorial limits of the United States, Obama is fully bound by the laws and protection of the United States and thus owes allegiance to the United States. Since the country of Obama’s father’s citizenship holds no rights over the United States, Obama is therefor outside its territorial limits and thus does not owe allegiance to this foreign country. In other words, President Obama was born under full jurisdiction of and owing full allegiance to the United States. As such he was born on United States soil, and under its jurisdiction and therefor not just a citizen, but a natural born citizen.

    My special thanks to Draging Canoe for unearthing these great references

  84. avatar
    nbC April 27, 2010 at 11:51 pm #

    Could a Black man be on the ticket for president after the ratification of the Constitution? You know the answer.

    Today is after the ratification of the Constitution and after a hard fought victory over the foolish south. Slavery has been ended, women have equal rights to men. Still some way to go but we are moving towards a society that deserves to be called ‘The land of the free’.
    With the foolishness of slavery out of the way, there is no logic or reason that precludes, under the present Constitution, non-whites from being eligible for the Presidency.
    Thank God for that. That’s far more natural than what some had in mind, blinded by their ignorance and foolishness.

  85. avatar
    Whatever4 April 28, 2010 at 1:14 am #

    –DraggingCanoe says:
    April 27, 2010 at 10:32 pm DraggingCanoe

    How can property(Negroes) be considered a natural born citizen in the 18th century? They were not considered anything but property. I am not saying..Black Africans are property.. the men who wrote the Constitution did.The only way to get around this..is tear up the Constitution.

    Not everyone who wrote the Constitution felt that way. Slavery was abolished by judicial decision in Massachusetts in 1783 (18th century, 4 years before the US Constitution.) From the Instructions to the jury: a different idea has taken place with the people of America, more favorable to the natural rights of mankind, and to that natural, innate desire of Liberty, with which Heaven (without regard to color, complexion, or shape of noses–features) has inspired all the human race. And upon this ground our Constitution of Government, by which the people of this Commonwealth have solemnly bound themselves, sets out with declaring that all men are born free and equal–and that every subject is entitled to liberty, and to have it guarded by the laws, as well as life and property–and in short is totally repugnant to the idea of being born slaves. This being the case, I think the idea of slavery is inconsistent with our own conduct and Constitution; and there can be no such thing as perpetual servitude of a rational creature, unless his liberty is forfeited by some criminal conduct or given up by personal consent or contract . . . .
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part2/2h38t.html

    There was such a thing as “free blacks” — not property. Some even owned slaves. The world has always been a complex place. North was different than South, esp. in the 18th century, in regards to slavery and the status of blacks and mixed-race people.

  86. avatar
    Richard April 28, 2010 at 1:25 am #

    You’re such a fool. Let me ask you a simple question:

    Do you really believe that under the present Constitution, black people cannot be natural born citizens?

  87. avatar
    Whatever4 April 28, 2010 at 1:29 am #

    Dred Scott didn’t immigrate from Africa, he was born a slave in VA. His ancesters were forceably brought here. “Imported” is the word the court used.

    “…the plaintiff was not a citizen of the State of Missouri, as alleged in his declaration, being a negro of African descent, whose ancestors were of pure African blood and who were brought into this country and sold as slaves.”

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0060_0393_ZO.html

  88. avatar
    nBC April 28, 2010 at 1:34 am #

    The only way to get around this..is tear up the Constitution.

    Or amend it. Fool

    Are you really serious. You sound like a troll, nobody could be this dense.

  89. avatar
    Arthur April 28, 2010 at 1:42 am #

    northland10:

    Although I’m no judge when it comes to assessing your grasp of the Justinian Code, I do know a good simile when I see it. You wrote,

    “I am not going to bother to respond directly to DC on this as his/her posts are sounding more like arguments from some middle school students trying to get out of detention.”

    That’s it! After reading the remarks of DraggingCanoe, John, TRUTH, etc., I knew the flavor of their style was familiar, but I couldn’t identify it until scanning your post. Indeed, their comments ooze with the jejune swagger of finagling students. To be honest, I now feel a sort of kinship with those folks, for I did my share of finagling, too, and if I grew out of it, so can they!

  90. avatar
    SFJeff April 28, 2010 at 1:55 am #

    DC, I am having a harder and harder time trying to figure out what you are arguiing for or against- or what this has to do with Obama’s Presidency.

    “How can property(Negroes) be considered a natural born citizen in the 18th century? They were not considered anything but property.”

    Are you that ignorant? Did you not read what I said? There were many free black Africans in the American Colonies at the time of the revolution. Slaves were indeed considered property, but Free Black Africans were not. They were not considered the equal of Europeans but they were not property either.

    “I am not saying..Black Africans are property.. the men who wrote the Constitution did.”

    No they didn’t.

    “The only way to get around this..is tear up the Constitution.”

    Show me one place in the Constitution where it says Africans are property- please show me?

    “In the Founders thinking could natural born..”

    I have no clue what you are trying to say in that sentence.

    “Natural Law: the highest rule of HUMAN conduct as imposed by God on MAN we speak of it as natural.”

    Who is “we”? “We” wouldn’t even agree on who God is.

    “The Founders thought Negroes as PROPERTY.”

    No they didn’t. They thought of slaves as property. Not all negroes were slaves. And not all slaves were African American. The first slaves in the colonies were native americans.

    “Natural Law: The law under which we are placed by our BIRTH into the world.”

    See, I have allegiance to the Constitution and the United States, not some vague “Natural Law”

    “It is not my thoughts..it was the Founders.”

    The Founders believed that illness was caused by ‘bad humors’- should we discard germ theory because the mythical Founders(as opposed to the real men who wrote the Constitution) didn’t believe in it?

    “Could a Black man be on the ticket for president after the ratification of the Constitution? You know the answer.”

    And your point being? Really is this whole tortured exercise in bad grammer just you trying to excuse why a black man can’t be President of the United States.

    “There is a published list of books the Founders had in their possession..suggest reading them.”

    Really. First of all- define exactly for me who the mythical Founders are? And then tell me how you can positively identify exactly which books all of them had read from cover to cover.

    Not that I really care- the Constitution is robust enough without us needing to know which books the writers of the Constitution relied upon.

  91. avatar
    SFJeff April 28, 2010 at 2:01 am #

    You are not seriously trying to rely upon Dred Scott for anything are you? I mean I really hope you are. I really hope that some Birthers show their true colors and end up in front of court houses holding signs proclaiming “The Dred Scott decision was right”.

  92. avatar
    Lupin April 28, 2010 at 2:21 am #

    This has to be the most appalling post I ever read on this forum.

  93. avatar
    Lupin April 28, 2010 at 2:28 am #

    Thank you. I did spend 26 years (almost half of my life) in your country. One can’t help pick up the odd bit of cultural reference. I don’t know much about sports and music, but I bet I could take any of you on geek TV and comics. 🙂

  94. avatar
    Lupin April 28, 2010 at 2:30 am #

    I have been surprised that none of the MSM (AFAIK) has called the Tea Baggers for what they really are, which is Birchers. It is so obvious.

  95. avatar
    Hawaiiborn April 28, 2010 at 4:20 am #

    So, test-tube babies are ineligible for the Presidency? The children of gay couples?
    I didn’t think it was possible, but I think the birthers are getting stupider!

    My good friend from high school didn’t ever want to get married, so she did the invitro method. Anonymous donor sperm (the only thing she had about the donor was his medical history and features = examle color eyes, height, weight, hair color, nationality). No other information was offered (ie born in the US/ foreigner etc).

    after trying 3 times to get inseminated (first two resulted in miscarriages) – she ended up with a beautiful baby boy.

    So, are the birthers telling me, because the mother didn’t know the status of citizenship of the father, that now her child is NOT a natural born citizen? give me a break.

  96. avatar
    Hawaiiborn April 28, 2010 at 4:27 am #

    “toot” a variation of the Hawaiian word “tutu” which is a loving referral to gandma. Made famous by the Hawaiian XMas song, “On the first day of Christmas my tutu gave to me…”just a little tidbit for dip$hit.

    and local comedian Frank Delima (The cab Tutu – (808)422-2222)

  97. avatar
    DraggingCanoe April 28, 2010 at 5:17 am #

    No one answered my question..could a Obama, a Black man be President in the 18th century.

    Yes or No. A free black man was not a citizen.

    Only Negroes in that time period could be born free or made free.

    study the founders..read their books..they did not have superman or daffy duck on their book shelves.

    look at the list of books Jeffeson kept..

    Jus Quiritium the power of the manus..the hand of the conqueror..

    Do you guys know about the Vattel..Dublin printed for Luke White..hehehe

    .Jus nature methodo scientifica 1740-48..

  98. avatar
    Whatever4 April 28, 2010 at 6:21 am #

    No, a black man could not have been president in the 18th century. A woman couldn’t have been, either. Neither were full citizens and could not vote. But there have been a couple of amendments since then that changed the Constitution. The People spoke, added their collective wisdom to the Framers’ document, and changed the rules.

    It’s a beautiful process.

  99. avatar
    MuhommadMcLovin April 28, 2010 at 7:07 am #

    Obama couldn’t have been President because he did not own land.

  100. avatar
    Keith April 28, 2010 at 8:10 am #

    And what about today?Afraid to answer?Fool (Romans 1:22)

    Yes. Of course. If he were a Free black man, born in one of the United States, of whom there were a number. Wouldn’t have gotten many votes, but he could have been on the ballot.

  101. avatar
    Keith April 28, 2010 at 8:11 am #

    That got attached to the wrong post. I dunno what happened. It doesn’t make sense where it is.

  102. avatar
    DraggingCanoe April 28, 2010 at 8:19 am #

    Please provide the amendment changing the requirement for natural born citizen as the Founders intended. To the Founders at that time Negroes could not be natural born citizens. I do not agree with it..but..we have to look..what the Founders thought was best for the country..not what we think today.

    They formed the country..they fought for independence.and beat an Empire .they created the greatest country ever..

  103. avatar
    Bovril April 28, 2010 at 8:52 am #

    Drag Ass

    You REALLLLLLY need to read your history jackass.

    That would be the 13 and 14th Amendments for black men and the 19th for all women.

    Jesus what part of stupid are you.

  104. avatar
    Greg April 28, 2010 at 9:03 am #

    You do know we fought a Civil War, too, don’t you?

    I’m guessing that now you are pulling our leg.

  105. avatar
    train111 April 28, 2010 at 9:03 am #

    Quite frankly

    Who gives a crap what the founding fathers thought about citizenship. They are all dead and in the ground. What they thought about ‘slavery’ ‘property’ ‘voting rights’ and so forth back in 1776 doesn’t amount to a hill of beans in 2010. Sure they wrote a ‘framework’ as a Constitution to guide our nation. However, a ‘literal’ interpretation of it is total nonsense since all of us have biases and nobody can discern exactly what somebody was thinking 200+ years ago–regardless of how many dreadfully boring books about citizenship one reads.
    This is 2010. We need to think in lines of our society today–we can not go back nd recreate 1776 no matter how hard we try.

    train111

  106. avatar
    Bovril April 28, 2010 at 9:04 am #

    Just so Drag Arse, Sven and Co. don’t start the “You’re being horrid to us” Squealathon…..

    Some racists may be Tea Partyers
    Some Tea Partyers may be racist

    This does not flow to

    All racists are Tea Partyers
    All Tea Partyers are racist

    As an example I have know a range of “liberal” scions whose “right on” values only extend as far as a check to Amnesty International or the NAACP.

    They are however only capable of regarding everyone out of their milieu/race as at best gardeners, nannies or “the help”.

    Lets not even go down the path of Black-Asian bigotry etc.

  107. avatar
    Rickey April 28, 2010 at 9:12 am #

    Agreed, a Tea Partier is not necessarily a racist, but racists are attracted to the Tea Party movement. I thought that the most interesting part of the Newsweek article is its take on the notion of “taking back” America. We have a perfect example here in Dragging Canoe, who apparently would like to take the U.S. back to an era when blacks and women could not vote.

  108. avatar
    Scientist April 28, 2010 at 9:42 am #

    Not that it matters what one could do in the 18th century, since last I checked this is the 21st, but there were thousands of free blacks in the US at the time of the Revolution, even in the South. They were full citizens, and there would have been no legal barrier to them becoming President (at least for males over 35), only the prejudice of their fellow citizens.

    As for Africans, only those whose ancestors were brought here as slaves were slaves. A free Luo could have gotten on a ship and come here as a free immigrant. He could have married a free American black woman and his US-born son would have been eligible for the Presidency. Nothing new under the sun.

  109. avatar
    Scientist April 28, 2010 at 9:44 am #

    Obama couldn’t have been President because he did not own land.

    He owns a house in Chicago. I presume he owns the land under it also.

  110. avatar
    Greg April 28, 2010 at 9:52 am #

    A free black man was not a citizen.

    Not surprisingly, but you get your racist history wrong.

    Many states, including Massachusetts made free blacks citizens. Massachusetts’ Constitution is older than the U.S. Constitution.

    The State of Massachusetts, being one of the oldest, and at that time one of the most populous and important of the original thirteen, is chosen as an example by the Chief Justice. The Constitution of Massachusetts was formed during the Revolutionary War, and several years before that of the United States. It contains numerous passages which clearly show that it is intended for all inhabitants without exception–for all who were subjects of Great Britain. It uses the words “people,” “citizens,” “subjects,” and “inhabitants,” as entirely synonymous and convertible terms. This is sufficiently shown by the following articles of the Declaration of Rights, prefixed to that Constitution: “All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; and that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property.” “No subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience.” “Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for the profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men.” “All the inhabitants of this Commonwealth, having such qualifications as they shall establish by their frame of government, have an equal right to elect officers, and to be elected for public employments.” “Every subject of the Commonwealth ought to find a certain remedy, by having recourse to the laws, for all injuries or wrongs which he may receive in his person, property or character.” “In criminal prosecutions, the verification of facts in the vicinity where they happen, is one of the greatest securities of the life, liberty, and property of the citizen.” And it may be truly said of each of these clauses, as was said by Chief Justice Shaw of that first cited: “That the description was broad enough in its terms to embrace negroes, and that it was intended by the framers of the [state] Constitution to embrace them, is proved by the earliest contemporaneous construction, by an unbroken series of judicial decisions, and by a uniform practice from the adoption of the Constitution to the present time. The whole tenor of our policy, of our legislation and jurisprudence, from that time to the present, has been consistent with this construction, and with no other.”

    This is from Horace Gray’s scathing critique of Dred Scott, written in 1857. He points out that the only evidence Chief Justice Taney points to that blacks were not full citizens was the anti-miscegenation law.

    In fact, Massachusetts had long believed that any slave that entered her borders was instantaneously made free.

    A few years before the case of Aves, Chief Justice Shaw remanded a negro boy, brought before him by writ of habeas corpus, to the custody of his mistress, only upon the ground that she, “having, by her return to the writ, disclaimed to hold him as a slave, had made a record of his freedom, and could not make him a slave again in the Island of Cuba;” and further said that “the boy, by the law of Massachusetts, was in fact free,” and if the mistress had claimed him as a slave, he should have ordered him to be discharged from her custody. Francisco’s case, 9 Amer. Jurist, 490. And in a later case the supreme court refused to allow a negro boy, only seven or eight years old, to be carried back into slavery, even with his own consent, but ordered him to be delivered to a guardian appointed by the judge of probate. Commonwealth v. Taylor, 3 Met. 72.

    Dred Scott is bad law, its holding that blacks couldn’t be citizens was overturned by the 14th Amendment. Wong Kim Ark made crystal clear that the 14th Amendment worked no change in the definition of citizen, but simply extended it to everyone born in the United States.

    Simply put, before Dred, there were no born-here citizens who were not natural born citizens, and the 14th Amendment did not create them. There are three classes:

    Natural Born Citizens
    Naturalized Citizens
    Aliens

    look at the list of books Jeffeson kept..

    Okay, why don’t we look at the list of books the Founders read. Here’s a list ordered by number of citations:

    1. St. Paul
    2. Montesquieu
    3. Sir William Blackstone [note: Clearly jus soli]
    4. John Locke
    5. David Hume
    6. Plutarch
    7. Cesare Beccaria
    8. John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon
    9. Delolme
    10. Samuel Pufendorf
    11. Sir Edward Coke [Note: He wrote the case that defined natural born. Jus soli]
    12. Cicero
    13. Thomas Hobbes
    14. William Robertson
    15. Hugo Grotius
    16. Jean-Jacques Rousseau
    17. Lord Bolingbroke
    18. Francis Bacon
    19. Richard Price
    20. William Shakespeare
    21. Livy
    22. Alexander Pope
    23. John Milton
    24. Tacitus
    25. Plato
    26. Abbe Guillaume Raynal
    27. Abbe Gabriel Mably
    28. Niccolo Machiavelli
    29. Emmerich de Vattel
    30. William Petyt
    31. Voltaire
    32. John Robinson
    33. Algernon Sidney
    34. John Somers
    35. James Harrington
    36. Paul de Rapin-Thoyras

    Wow, you’re right, the Founders didn’t have superman on their book shelves. But, they did have Calvin’s Case written by Lord Coke, which defined Natural born as those born on British soil (regardless of parental citizenship) or those born abroad to British citizens. And, they had a copy of Blackstone. Apparently, Blackstone and Coke are quoted significantly more often by the Founding Fathers than Vattel.

    Do you have anything by Pufendorf? He’s at least slightly more quoted than Coke.

  111. avatar
    ballantine April 28, 2010 at 9:53 am #

    Please provide the amendment changing the requirement for natural born citizen as the Founders intended. To the Founders at that time Negroes could not be natural born citizens. I do not agree with it..but..we have to look..what the Founders thought was best for the country..not what we think today.They formed the country..they fought for independence.and beat an Empire .they created the greatest country ever..

    Gee, the birthers finally come up with an argument with some historical support. Would love to see them argue this in court.

    Unfortunately, the framers of the 14th Amendment saw themselves as clarifying what was in original constitution, not creating anything new. Most of them thought such was unnecessary other than to remove the doubt brought about by Dred Scott which had declared that blacks couldn’t be citizens under the constitution.

  112. avatar
    Greg April 28, 2010 at 10:00 am #

    In case you’re curious, Thomas Jefferson’s library (the one he sold to the Library of Congress) included 3 volumes by Vattel and 10 by Sir Edward Coke (and one book about Lord Coke).

  113. avatar
    nBC April 28, 2010 at 11:28 am #

    Are you really that foolish?
    The 14th Amendment my dear foolish friend.
    Are you hiding behind ignorance of our Founders to continue some of their foolishness.

  114. avatar
    Arthur April 28, 2010 at 11:58 am #

    Greg:

    I’ve got a question about the Dred Scott case. Did the Supreme Court’s decision affect the status of free blacks who were citizens living in non-slave states?

  115. avatar
    Bob Ross April 28, 2010 at 12:42 pm #

    Common misconception not all Blacks back in the revolutionary era were slaves or servants.

  116. avatar
    Bob Ross April 28, 2010 at 12:45 pm #

    Non property owners couldn’t either. Only white property owning males had the right to vote

  117. avatar
    SvenMagnussen April 28, 2010 at 12:54 pm #

    The Tea Partiers are anti-semitic. Look at how they treated Orly.

    That means they are bigots, not racists.

    And before Mishsa jumps in here and says, “I’m Jewish and I say it’s okay,” let’s see Mishsa offer to speak at a Tea Party rally and watch the bigots fly off the handle.

  118. avatar
    nbC April 28, 2010 at 1:17 pm #

    Did the Dred Scott case affect the status of free born blacks? Yes and no. The statements from the Court were clearly dicta, however that did not prevent the case from being cited in various Court cases, mostly in the South.

    This decision of course was not without its effect and cases arising in the South thereafter cited it for the proposition which the Chief Justice announced: Heirn v Bridauft 1859 37 Miss 209 Mitchell v Wells id 235 260 Anonymous 1859 21 Law Reporter 630 Clark v Gautier 1859 8 Fla 360 Marshall v Donovan 1874 73 Ky 681 Donovan v Pitcher 1875 1875 53 Ala 411 25 Am Rep 634

    As quoted from

    James Brown Scott, et al., Citizenship of the United States, expatriation, and protection abroad: letter from the Secretary of State, submitting report on the subject of citizenship, expatriation, and protection abroad, by United State Dept. of State, G.P.O., 1906.

  119. avatar
    nbC April 28, 2010 at 1:21 pm #

    The foolish claim that “A free black man was not a citizen” has already been shown to be based on ignorance.

    From a legal perspective there have been both cases holding that a free black man was a citizen, or was not a citizen.

    First Decisions holding that free negroes were citizens Cases adjudicated both before and since the civil war have declared that free negroes were citizens One of the earliest cases to this point is State v Manuel 1838 3 Dev & Bat 20 24 in which the court announced the doctrine in the following language

    Link

  120. avatar
    Black Lion April 28, 2010 at 2:20 pm #

    But Pam Geller supports them. And she is Jewish…And I am sure if she wanted to speak at a rally, the would accept her with open arms. Although we know you are trolling, you know that the reason Orly was disinvited was because she is insane. No legitimate politican wanted to be anywhere near that crazy woman. Orly is an idiot and anyone that belives in her is a sucker who gets what they deserve….

  121. avatar
    Black Lion April 28, 2010 at 4:19 pm #

    The Post and Fail must be getting desperate…The following is their latest smear job on the President’s mother….It also implies that the President was born in HI, but of course the Post and Fail neglects to mention that in detail. They seem more interested in smearing the family, especlally the President’s mother….Yellow journalism at its best…

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/04/28/did-obamas-mother-use-an-alias-after-obamas-birth/#comments

    “The online newspaper AllAfrica reported during Obama’s 2004 senatorial campaign that his father had married “Anna Toot” in Hawaii and that the marriage had produced a son.

    It has been reported by many news outlets that Stanley Ann Dunham used aliases. Is it possible that she adopted the pet name “Toot” used for her mother as a surname and hence used the name “Anna Toot” some of the time?

    Reportedly, Stanley Ann had been known as “Anna” since high school.

    Dunham was also known as Stanley Ann Dunham Obama, Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro, and Stanley Ann Dunham Sutoro.

    Was “Anna Toot” a nickname, alias, or real name? Did she have a social security number? Where is Anna Toot now?

    Why did Mama Sarah identify Obama’s mother as “Anna Toot”? Why did Stanley Ann, if she is Obama’s mother, use an alias, at least where Obama Sr.’s family was concerned?”

  122. avatar
    nbc April 28, 2010 at 4:53 pm #

    Idiots.

  123. avatar
    Rickey April 28, 2010 at 5:07 pm #

    SvenMagnussen says:

    The Tea Partiers are anti-semitic. Look at how they treated Orly.

    If the Tea Partiers who disinvited Orly did so because she is Jewish, they are bigots.

    If the Tea Partiers who disinvited Orly did so because she is an embarrassment to the legal profession due to her incompetence and disrespect to the judiciary, plus the fact that she is an off-the-rails wackco, they may simply be showing some common sense.

  124. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 28, 2010 at 9:52 pm #

    It seems that the Tea Baggers are too far out for the regular Republicans, and the the birthers are too far out even for the Tea Baggers.

  125. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 28, 2010 at 9:54 pm #

    I thought Obama called his grandmother “Toot.”

  126. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 28, 2010 at 10:06 pm #

    Bob Ross: Non property owners couldn’t either. Only white property owning males had the right to vote

    Not all citizens have the right to vote: Minor v. Happersett.

  127. avatar
    G April 28, 2010 at 10:25 pm #

    Hey, a good geek TV & comics discussion… anytime it happens, count me in! 🙂

  128. avatar
    G April 28, 2010 at 11:12 pm #

    There are definitely Birchers coming out of the woodwork amongst the Tea Party movement. Just like any good Venn Diagram, there is an overlap, but not a one-to-one correlation.

    The Birchers really never went away, just into hiding as they were rightfully ridiculed out of the mainstream a long time ago.

    The Tea Party folks on average tend to skew towards the older end of the spectrum, so its not that surprising really that some of the old-time anti-govt paranoids would come out of the woodwork to join other angry anti-govt folks of their age range.

  129. avatar
    G April 28, 2010 at 11:18 pm #

    Although there do seem to be a number of birthers amongst the Tea Baggers. And yes, there are quite a few outright racists amongst them too.

  130. avatar
    misha April 30, 2010 at 2:54 pm #

    “And before Mishsa jumps in here and says, “I’m Jewish and I say it’s okay,” let’s see Mishsa offer to speak at a Tea Party rally and watch the bigots fly off the handle.”

    Orly was disinvited because she makes asylum inmates look rational. The Tea Partiers are the Birchers with a new look. And Pam Geller has several screws loose. Geller is like the Jews who worked on Palin’s campaign.

    I can say with 99% certainty Palin’s private speeches go like this: ‘Those Jewish people are so nice. I can’t believe they’re the same people what killed our lord.’

  131. avatar
    TRUTH May 8, 2010 at 7:07 pm #

    Hey Arthur, that was a fairly Ignorant example. Fitting considering the source.

    Scientist, because I posted what I did had no relation to what I think the President has done or not done so far in office. You(and most the clueless here) like to presume a lot. And if you can’t presume it, you just MAKE IT UP. But that’s par for the party you follow, so no surprise.

    To respond to “what he’s done so far”…he’s even more pathetic than anticipated. His latest, LYING on National TV. Making a blatant accusation about the new Arizona SB 1070 that is completely false, makes him a Liar. I can’t WAIT till November. With Gods blessing we will do something to correct the Error of 08 and begin to turn things around. Even if it takes 20 more years to fix the last 2.

  132. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 8, 2010 at 7:36 pm #

    TRUTH: Even if it takes 20 more years to fix the last 2.

    I think we have a pretty long backlog to fix the previous 8 first.