Main Menu

Birther pandemic

According to a Washington Post poll, 14 % of the American public has been infected with birther belief, and another 6% are showing symptoms. While broad majorities across party lines believe that Barack Obama was born in the US, 14% say otherwise and another 6% says their “best guess” is a foreign birth.

What was rather surprising was this statement:

About a third of all those who say Obama might have been born in another country approve of how he’s handling his job as president, hold favorable views of him personally and prefer him over congressional Republicans when it comes to dealing with issue No.1, the economy.

This bolsters my personal suspicion that a significant part of birtherism is not racist, but rather nothing more than susceptibility to clever propaganda from skilled political operatives and lawyers.

It sounds all so convincing to say “If he has nothing to hide, why does he spend millions in legal fees keeping his documents hidden?” if you don’t know that the President hasn’t spent millions in legal fees keeping documents hid.

I left this comment at The Washington Post:

The Internet is flooded with plausible-sounding arguments, sometimes long lists of them, that on the surface seem rather convincing that the President was born overseas. After all, we have professional political operatives and lawyers cranking out this stuff, and the average Joe is not in this league.

Since late 2008 I’ve run the ObamaConspiracy.org web site that deals with nothing but the birther question and I’ve seen thousands of comments like “if he’s not hiding anything they why is he spending millions of dollars in legal fees keeping his records hidden?” It sounds convincing as an argument until you find out that the President isn’t spending millions to keep his records hidden. They say that “anyone can fill out a form and get a Hawaiian birth certificate.” That’s equally untrue. Just think, they are saying that Hawaii hands out birth certificates to anybody saying they were born in Hawaii. Who would believe such a preposterous claim? Birthers who haven’t thought about the implications apparently do.

I could go on all day, but in my considerable experience it’s “once a birther, always a birther.” It is an incurable disease. I can only take comfort that similar numbers believe in witches.

157 Responses to Birther pandemic

  1. avatar
    Bovril May 11, 2010 at 8:33 am #

    One of the points that pisses off Birfers the most is….

    “Why don’t you use the same damn Inter-Tubes to evaluate the WTF-OMG email you just received from someone you don’t know…..then comment”

    Usually followed by spluttering about “I knows what I knows….”

    Can fix ignorant, can’t fix stupid

  2. avatar
    Don Draper May 11, 2010 at 8:55 am #

    Obama knows he’s in trouble and is circling the wagons.

    firedoglake.com, Apr 27, 2010 …

    “A source from the convening authority for the military commissions just informed the press corps that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has finally signed and issued a Manual for the Military Commissions Act of 2009.”

    WND … Obama waives ethics rules for eligibility lawyer

  3. avatar
    Greg May 11, 2010 at 9:16 am #

    Obama waives ethics rules for eligibility lawyer

    So what?

    If Obama didn’t waive the ethics rules for Bob Bauer, what would happen?

  4. avatar
    WTF? May 11, 2010 at 9:21 am #

    Nice piece of obfuscation there, Doc!

    When Obama was born in Kenya, his mother was not old enough to pass citizenship. To remedy this, his grandparent filed a report of home birth with Hawaii. Everything that has been presented to-date is the result of that fraudulent birth report. Yes, the COLB, the newspaper announcements; they are the result of that act of kindness from his grandparent. No one ever suspected that the little white lie, that fraudulently bestowed citizenship on a foreign-born child, when his mother was not old enough to pass citizenship, would evolve into a major cover up.

    That one fraudulent act explains it all!
    The CPGH birth certificate.
    His mother telling young Barack that they would “return to Kenya”.
    The members of Parliament saying that he is Kenyan-born.
    Mama Sara saying she was there when he was born.
    Michelle Obama saying Kenya is her husband’s home country.
    The Minister of Lands saying that Obama is not a native of the U.S.
    The Kenyan and African media saying he was Kenyan-born.
    Yes, all of that and more are supported, and can only be supported by a fraudulent birth report filed in Hawaii.

    What doesn’t make sense is for a Obama to black-out the serial number on his COLB. Was he afraid that the serial would be associated with a report of home birth?

    What information is Obama trying to hide? Why not release the information contained in the Hawaii’s vault and end the questions regarding the veracity of the document the COLB relies on?

    Those questions are easily answered: He can’t. At least not if he wants to continue to play the game. He can’t release it because there is no hospital listed on the original records. He can’t release it because no doctor affirmed his Hawaiian birth.

    He can’t release the records contained in Hawaii’s vault because he will be exposed as a fraud to all of you who bought a pound of his lies. The worst part, is that all you you who bought his lies, don’t want to know. You don’t want to take the chance of finding out that you were duped.

    Today I am starting an effort to find a philanthropist willing to donate $1 Million Dollars to the charity of Obama’s choice, in exchange for him releasing a his vital records. We’ll see once and for all if Obama is more interested in hiding the truth of his past, than he is in feeding a hungry child, or providing treatment to those in need.

  5. avatar
    Scientist May 11, 2010 at 9:56 am #

    Have you pitched the screenplay yet??? Come on, show a little good-old American entrepreneurialism.

    When you have lunch with producers, you need to be prepared for them to pick holes in your script, though. Here’s one (of many):

    Even an infant needed a passport to enter the US. So let’s say Grandma Dunham as you say, registers the birth in Hawaii. She gets a birth certificate and mails it to her daughter in Kenya. Stanley Ann takes it to the US embassy in Nairobi to get a passport for the baby. Ruh-roh, problem. The nice clerk at the embassy wants to know how this baby born a few weeks ago in Hawaii GOT to Kenya without a passport. Stanley Ann can’t say she lost the passport, because the records in Washington will show there never was one to lose. And don’t say she snuck across the border from Mexico or Canada, because they require passports for people flying in from overseas as well.

    Keep working on your script. Don’t call us, we’ll call you.

  6. avatar
    richCares May 11, 2010 at 9:58 am #

    Either you are a writer for the Onion or you are a complete idiot, which is it?

  7. avatar
    Dave May 11, 2010 at 10:08 am #

    Speaking of The Onion, I think the definitive piece on birthers et al. would be “Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be”.

  8. avatar
    Black Lion May 11, 2010 at 10:09 am #

    WTF, your stories are as interesting as Sven’s, but lacking something called proof. First of all how did Obama Sr and Stanley get to Kenya? How did they afford it? What airline did they fly? Since airline records are not covered why hasn’t any of them been found? And tell us how Obama Jr. was able to get into the US without any records? See that is the problem with your Kenyan birth, it makes no logistical sense. You can parse statements all you want, but when something called evidence is required, all you have is inadmissible hearsay and fraudlent documents.

    Your so called evidence…

    The CPGH birth certificate.

    Tell me what court in the US would believe in a document that was submitted by a convicted forger that has never been to Kenya. If you notice he never submitted proof that he went there. He went to the Dominican republic and pretende it was Kenya. Also the so called BC had many mistakes, the least of them was the so called doctor misspelling his own name and Obama Sr. not knowing his birthdate. That evidence would only be admissible in the Bob Campbell kangaroo court.

    His mother telling young Barack that they would “return to Kenya”.

    G, Dr. C, and other has already explained how this is a common English term. Which means coud mean that Mom and son would join their father in returning to his homeland….

    The members of Parliament saying that he is Kenyan-born.

    Which is evidence how? First of all none of the so called members were there and don’t claim that they were. None say that they have some evidence. So all you have is possible hearsay. That is evidence of nothing.

    Mama Sara saying she was there when he was born.

    First of all she is his step-grandmother. And as it has been explained numerous times, she never said he was born in Kenya. She said Hawaii. You might want to listen to the tape. It is on Doc’s site. And an affidavit by a fake minister is inadmissible as evidence.

    Michelle Obama saying Kenya is her husband’s home country.

    That is just like my fiancee saying that her home country is Italy, but she was born in NJ. Since Michelle was not present for his birth, again you have hearsay. In addition many people born in the US sometimes call the countries their parents were from their “homeland”. Not admissible.

    The Minister of Lands saying that Obama is not a native of the U.S.

    And again hearsay. Did he go under oath and make this claim? Did he explain how he came to have evidence of this? All you have is some guy, again who was not there at the supposed birth, making a claim. Not even close to admissible evidence.

    The Kenyan and African media saying he was Kenyan-born.

    So what? There are media who say that 9/11 was an inside job or that we have been visited by aliens…Unless they can provide supporting evidence, that is not evidence, it is kitty litter.

    Which shows us your evidence is nothing more that wishful thinking on your part. Not one piece of “evidence” would meet the burden of the federal rules of evidence. This is not even taking into consideration the statements by Dr. Fukino and Governor Lingle. Those statements, which contradict all of the so called African statements, would be admissible. And any individual with common sense would believe American officials in a position to know over some so called politicans trying to score a political point.

    But I suspect you already know that. Your point has always been to try and prove you were somehow smarter than the “obots” and score some points. Which is OK. But when you try and use discredited evidence and hearsay statements as proof, you look stupid. Again that is why we all know you are not even remotely familar with the law or how it works. You just hate the President, so whatever so called evidence is presented that supports your view, you will believe in it no matter what. And that is not only sad, it is pathetic…

  9. avatar
    JoZeppy May 11, 2010 at 10:17 am #

    Dude. You really need to to get back on your meds. Just recycling the same factually unsupported, and in many cases, proven falsehoods, of birfistan is getting boring. After two years, and over 70 lawsuits, the birthers still don’t have a shred of credible evidence that the President was born anywhere but Hawaii.

    What a sad bunch of bitter nutjobs.

  10. avatar
    Scientist May 11, 2010 at 10:17 am #

    While belief in foolish nonsense like birtherism may appear harmless, I have a story from the recent annals of science that shows how idiocy can be very harmful to the public health.

    There is a (formerly) well-respected virologist at UC Berkeley named Peter Duesberg. About 20 years ago, he took it into his head that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS. Since HIV was fairly newly discovered at that point, the theory was hard to absolutely disprove. As time went by, the evidence that HIV is the cause of AIDS mounted until it became undeniable to everyone except Duesberg, who continues to propound his nonsense despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary, including the fact that drugs directed against HIV have made AIDS a treatable chronic disease.

    OK, let this fool have his harmless delusions, you say. Who cares? Well, unfortunately, Thabo Mbeki became President of South Africa in 1999 and, for his own political reasons (cost of anti-HIV drugs, stoking of anti-Western sentiments) adopted Duesberg’s “theories”. As a result, South Africa did little or nothing to make life-saving anti-HIV drugs available to the millions of its citizens infected by the virus. It is likely that many hundreds of thousands who might have been saved died as a result.

    So far, fortunately, birtherism hasn’t kulled anyone, though it threatens to ruin at least one career and life (Lt. Col Lakin). But don’t kid yourself about what believing in foolish nonsense can do.

  11. avatar
    Dave May 11, 2010 at 10:19 am #

    This is one of my favorite quirks of birthers, the chronic belief that the President is scared of them.
    Oh, well, as long as you’re enjoying yourself.

  12. avatar
    Scott Brown May 11, 2010 at 10:21 am #

    “significant part of birtherism is not racist, but rather nothing more than susceptibility to clever propaganda”

    Yes, because according to Obama none of us, neither those that support or those that condemn his political views are smart enough to actually think for themselves and to understand the issues. Apparently, we are too busy playing games on our xBox and Playstation (where we receive misinformation) – if that makes any sense.

    You’re only racist if you insist that the Prez is black and that ppl oppose him because he is black. I think ppl are forgetting that he is also 50% white, so if you don’t call him White 50% of the time, then YOU are a racist for insisting that he is ONLY Black. I see no ‘color’ when I look at Obama – I only see a man that I 100% disagree with politically. When I looked at Bush – I saw a man that I 100% disagreed with politically. Where is the racism?

    I’m guessing Doc, Obama might even think of your little blog here as a threat to democracy – or perhaps he wouldn’t, since you support and run interference for him, maybe he wasn’t referring to your addition of misinformation on the internet. However, you do seem to be saying the same thing as the Prez….none of us are smart enough to actually think for ourselves and use both reasoning skills and common sense to believe that he needed to have 2 US Citizen parents in order to make him a NBC. That is MY opinion – what I was taught in school – I didn’t learn that from a politician or a lawyer. I could be wrong, but that’s what I believe.

    And yes, most ppl seem to trust the Dems more than the Repubs to deal with the Economy – it’s a shame that the Dems then continue to ignore the economy and JOBS!

    Frankly, I don’t care which ‘side’ cleans up the Bush/Obama mess, but someone needs to start working on the ECONOMY and JOBS, b/c right now, both are being ignored in favor of health care / cap and trade / immigration. While these issues are important, they are NOT more important than the economy and jobs.

  13. avatar
    Scott Brown May 11, 2010 at 10:25 am #

    Does name calling help your argument? Is it the only thing you have to throw as rebuttal?

    You seem to forget that we are all on the same team! We are all Americans. If this is how you treat your teammates – I’m not sure I want you on my team!

  14. avatar
    Scott Brown May 11, 2010 at 10:29 am #

    Interesting list of coincidences. Your right, NONE of them prove anything.

    The problem is – there are so many of them – it just puts a question in your mind about the circumstances of his birth.

    Don’t get me wrong – I believe he was born in Hawaii. But I don’t believe we know the whole story.

    I don’t think it is pathetic for others to have a different opinion than you, or for them to stand up for what they believe. I think that is EXACTLY what America stands for and gives it’s citizens the right to do.

  15. avatar
    Black Lion May 11, 2010 at 10:31 am #

    Well I don’t know about the others but I would not want a proven liar on “my team”…Or someone when outed as a liar, instead of being an adult and accepting that they were caught in said lie, attempted to excuse the lie, which made you look worse. I have been on teams and you are someone that most people would steer clear of. It is a small step from lying to doing other less than reputable things….BTW, what state were you born in? Exactly. Again you have zero credibility here on this site…Maybe you should go back to the Post and Fail. At least there no one will call you on your lies…

  16. avatar
    richCares May 11, 2010 at 10:31 am #

    “…none of us are smart enough”
    speak for yourself but it does certainly appears to be true for you, now doesn’t it!

  17. avatar
    Bovril May 11, 2010 at 10:33 am #

    Good Ole Scotty always there for the unsupported snide little pack of lies.

    Recipe for the typical Scottia lie/post

    Take amd mix

    Bucket of paranoia
    Fistful of BS
    Handful of irrelevance
    Two cups of racist innuendo
    One cup of FUD
    Tablespoon of misquotes
    Teaspoon of character assassination
    Pinch of arrogance

    Mix thoroughly in a cauldron of ignorance until fetid

    Serve in a cold stinking mess.

    Oh don’t…. forgot the pinch of salt, perfect Birfer Pottage

  18. avatar
    Rickey May 11, 2010 at 10:37 am #

    Scott Brown says:

    You seem to forget that we are all on the same team! We are all Americans.

    How do we know that you are an American? Were you born in the United States? If so, in what state?

    A simple question which requires only a simple answer. Or have you been too busy looking for a state which issues a COLB that looks exactly like Obama’s?

  19. avatar
    Black Lion May 11, 2010 at 10:40 am #

    Scott Brown, the liar, says the following…

    “Yes, because according to Obama none of us, neither those that support or those that condemn his political views are smart enough to actually think for themselves and to understand the issues. Apparently, we are too busy playing games on our xBox and Playstation (where we receive misinformation) – if that makes any sense.”

    When you repeat debunked birther points as proof then you are showing everyone you are definately not smart enough. This is why the education level of the birthers are way below the educational level of people that do not believe in the birther nonsense.

    Besides “Scott Brown”, you showed us how smart you thought you were by trying to be slick. Trying to make the claim that your “COLB was just like Obama’s but you could not get a passport” was probably one of the dumbest statements you could have made. Why? Because unlike the Post and Fail, commenters on this site actually research claims and statements which make no sense. And your lie was easy to uncover. So again you have no credibility here on this site.

    Wow. The Dems are ignoring the econmoy and jobs? But the most recent jobs reoport shows the largest gain in new jobs (290,000) in months. And the stock market is also overall doing better than it had in a couple of years. So if the Dems are ignoring the enonomy and jobs as you say, I hope they continue to ignore it. But your commentary is not a surprise. You repeat the same discredited FOX and Limbaugh talking points trying to sound knowledgable. Just to let you know, its not working. If the economy and others issues continue to go as well as it has, no matter who the GOP nominates in 2012, they won’t stand a chance…

  20. avatar
    richCares May 11, 2010 at 10:44 am #

    correction:
    that should be “Birfer Porridge” as scott’s into fairy tales.

  21. avatar
    Scientist May 11, 2010 at 10:46 am #

    Scottie: Hust in case your financial knowledge is greater than your legal knowlefge (not hard) give me the Scott Brown big 3 list of what YOU would do to improve the economy and jobs. Come on, now’s your chance to impress us…

  22. avatar
    Don Draper May 11, 2010 at 10:52 am #

    If the Usurp’n MoFo wasn’t scared, then he would he would make his birth record(s) public.

  23. avatar
    Dave May 11, 2010 at 10:55 am #

    I do think it is theoretically possible to have a rational birther. I say “theoretically” because I haven’t yet seen a pro-birther post that made sense. For example, your post is largely an angry denial that you are a racist, at the top of which is a quote from Doc saying that not all birthers are racist. How does that make sense? You take the President’s comment about iPads out of context and claim it is a statement that nobody can think. You claim that in school you were taught that a President must have two citizen parents — forgive me, I find it very hard to believe this was in your curriculum. You seem to be saying that the President has done nothing about the economy — I have no clue how you could support such a statement. Criticism of his handling of the economy I could understand, but to claim he’s ignored the situation?
    A rational birther would recognize that only Congress can do anything about this, and that these court cases are a waste of time. I would also say your support of the Vattel theory is a step in the right direction, because however questionable that is as a matter of law, it is at least has a firm factual basis — the President’s father was certainly not a US citizen — as is proven by his COLB. Therefore a rational birther would see that the only way forward is to convince even one member of Congress to call for an investigation based on Vattel’s theory. Anything else is just blowing smoke.

  24. avatar
    Bovril May 11, 2010 at 10:56 am #

    Nope, Pottage as in mess of pottage, “Something of little to no value”

  25. avatar
    racosta May 11, 2010 at 10:57 am #

    if you weren’t so dumb, you would know that he already did.

  26. avatar
    BatGuano May 11, 2010 at 11:01 am #

    Scott Brown: .Don’t get me wrong – I believe he was born in Hawaii.But I don’t believe we know the whole story.

    if you believe he was born in hawaii then what possible part of “the story” could change his NBC status ?

    answer honestly, please.

  27. avatar
    racosta May 11, 2010 at 11:01 am #

    true, but the three bears ate porridge.

  28. avatar
    Sef May 11, 2010 at 11:33 am #

    You’re completely forgetting that Obama might have used a TARDIS. Seriously, though, there are so many deus ex machina necessary to make any of these scenarios to work that it boggles the mind.

  29. avatar
    WTF? May 11, 2010 at 11:49 am #

    Who said Little Barack didn’t return to the U.S. on a Kenyan passport? Who says that Barack Sr. didn’t get his new wife and child a Kenyan passport while in Mombasa?

    So much for you misconceived notions.

  30. avatar
    SFJeff May 11, 2010 at 11:58 am #

    Scott said: “Interesting list of coincidences…The problem is – there are so many of them”

    Kennedy Lincoln coincidences:
    1) Lincoln was elected in 1860, Kennedy in 1960, 100 years apart

    2) Both men were deeply involved in civil rights for African Americans.

    3) Both men were assassinated on a Friday, in the presence of their wives.

    4) Each wife had lost a child while living at the White House.

    5) Both men were killed by a bullet that entered the head from behind.

    6) Lincoln was killed in Ford’s Theater. Kennedy met his death while riding in a Lincoln convertible made by the Ford Motor Company.

    7) Both men were succeeded by vice-presidents named Johnson who were southern Democrats and former senators.

    8) Andrew Johnson was born in 1808. Lyndon Johnson was born in 1908, exactly one hundred years later.

    9) The first name of Lincoln’s private secretary was John, the last name of Kennedy’s private secretary was Lincoln.

    10) John Wilkes Booth was born in 1839 [according to some sources] Lee Harvey Oswald was born in 1939, one hundred years later.

    11) Both assassins were Southerners who held extremist views.

    12) Both assassins were murdered before they could be brought to trial.

    13) Booth shot Lincoln in a theater and fled to a warehouse. Oswald shot Kennedy from a warehouse and fled to a theater.

    14) LlNCOLN and KENNEDY each has 7 letters.

    15) ANDREW JOHNSON and LYNDON JOHNSON each has 13 letters.

    16) JOHN WlLKES BOOTH and LEE HARVEY OSWALD each has 15 letters.

    17) A Lincoln staffer Miss Kennedy told him not to go to the Theater. A Kennedy staffer Miss Lincoln, told him not to go to Dallas.

    By Scott’s logic, we don’t have the whole story of the coincidences between Lincoln and Kennedy- somebody must be hiding something- but what?

    What you call ‘coincidences’ are a mixture of verbal gaffe’s, unsupported statements and wishful thinking by birthers.

    You can have any opinion you want- and express it- but that doesn’t mean we should give it any more credence than the opinion of those who say that the U.S. never landed on the Moon, or that Elvis is still alive.

  31. avatar
    WTF? May 11, 2010 at 11:58 am #

    If verbosity won arguments, you Obots would surely win.

    We have questions. Given the numerous things that cause us to question the veracity of Obama’s report of birth in Hawaii, we ask for conclusive evidence. You don’t desire conclusive evidence. That’s fine, but to abuse those who think the question should be answered, only shows how afraid of the answer you are.

    What are you going to say when Obama decides to let children suffer because he won’t release his original records?

    Heck, you can’t even tell me what is on those records that would be considered to be a matter of personal privacy. Think about it!

  32. avatar
    Black Lion May 11, 2010 at 12:10 pm #

    Most rational people say that. Especially since there has been no evidence that his mother ever visited Kenya or had a passport before 1967, when she moved to Indonesia. Secondly how could he Sr. get his wife a US passport when she was an American citizen. You need to think your theories out in more detail.

    Also there is the little fact that the President didn’t receive a US Passport until 1967 when he went to Indonesia and returned to the US in 1971. Since you like to quote the books the President wrote like they were the gospel (remember your enitre “return” issue), what about when he write in his book coming back to the US and going through the customs area for US citizens.

    Also your preconcieved notions lack what is known in the legal profession as PROOF. You have a nice theory but no legally admissible proof.

  33. avatar
    Scientist May 11, 2010 at 12:12 pm #

    WTF?: Who says that Barack Sr. didn’t get his new wife and child a Kenyan passport while in Mombasa?

    How would he get Stamley Ann Dunham a Kenyan passport? And Kenyans needed visas to enter the US. Any evidence for any of that?

  34. avatar
    Dave May 11, 2010 at 12:17 pm #

    Yes, think of the children.

    I think you have a great idea. Let us know when you find this philanthropist.

    Also, let us know when you can find as many as one GOP Congressman willing to call for an investigation into the President’s eligibility.

  35. avatar
    Black Lion May 11, 2010 at 12:20 pm #

    And if evidence lacked proof, the birthers would win hands down. Only in a birhter world can the words BORN IN HAWAII mean anything other that being born in HI. Only in birther world can a statement by a Director of Health and a Governor be a lie, but unsunstantiated statements by Kenyan politicans be the truth. Only in birther world can a COLB, with a stamp by the state of HI and is confirmed by state officials be a forgery, but a “birth certificate” submitted by a convicted forger where the so called hospital offical spells his name wrong and the father doesn’t even know his own birthdate be “real”. Only in birther world can records that none of the 43 other President’s ever released be OK but when the 44th doesn’t release it we have a matter of “national security”. Only in birther world can privacy laws be not OK for one person but OK for everyone else. But best of all only in birther world can the burden of proof be shifted from the accuser to the accused.

    You state above that you “ask for conclusive evidence”, but provide none to support your ridiculous claims. And then to imply somehow that not releasing these records protected by federal privacy laws will lead to “children suffering” is not only delusional, but ridiculous….

  36. avatar
    SFJeff May 11, 2010 at 12:23 pm #

    Okay Scott- I really am trying to be polite to you, but you are really pushing my patience- lets go over what you said:

    “none of us are smart enough to actually think for ourselves and use both reasoning skills and common sense to believe that he needed to have 2 US Citizen parents in order to make him a NBC”

    Excuse me Scott- apparently you think so little of the large majority of voters who voted in President Obama, who apparently you think weren’t able to use their reasoning or common sense. Again this is what gets me- you- and your fellow travellers want to overthrow a legally elected President. You apparently believe your understanding of the Constitution is better than Congress, the Electoral College and the voters.

    “what I was taught in school”

    Really- what state did you go to school in and what year did you graduate? Because I can tell you- that my very conservative Republican 8th grade civics teacher somehow failed to mention that 2 citizen’s thing- matter of fact other than birthers I have never met anyone who says thats what they were taught in school. Show me a text book printed while you were in school that makes that claim. I don’t want to start calling you a liar, but support your claims.

    “You’re only racist if you insist that the Prez is black and that ppl oppose him because he is black.”

    Do you honestly believe this? See I think there is room to think that some people oppose the President purely for political reasons, but to me its clear that the motivation for many people, from reading comments that have been specifically racist, is racial. It is no coincidence that the first black man elected President is also the first President that a vocal minority of malcontents have demanded not only proof of his eligibility, but proof beyond what

    Do I have proof that a large portion of birthers are racist? Of course not, but then again birthers have no proof that the President isn’t eligible, and that doesn’t stop them from their beliefs.

  37. avatar
    WTF? May 11, 2010 at 12:25 pm #

    Stanley Ann Dunham would have acquired dual citizenship by marriage to Obama Sr. Being a U.S. citizen, she would have had no problem traveling back to the U.S. with her newborn child, even if that child had a Kenyan passport.

    Look at item 30 on this page:
    http://travel901d.his.com/passport/fri/faq/faq_1741.html#doc30

    It states “It cannot be prepared if the child has been brought back into the United States”, which is a pretty clear indication that the child can be brought back into the United States without the birth being reported to the Consular’s office.

  38. avatar
    SFJeff May 11, 2010 at 12:28 pm #

    “What are you going to say when Obama decides to let children suffer because he won’t release his original records?”

    Yes, in hospitals across the United States, Doctors will be informing parents:
    “I am sorry, we can’t treat your sick child because the President won’t release his original long form birth certificate”

    Or the Doctor might be saying “good thing President Obama pushed that health insurance reform bill through because your insurance now will pay for your child’s treatement”

  39. avatar
    Lupin May 11, 2010 at 12:28 pm #

    As I have often stated, I’m French, and was initially drawn to this site because of the rubbish written about Vattel by birthers.

    I stayed for the booze. 🙂

    Let me be candid: I have absolutely no stake in whether your president is Obama or Kermit the Frog.

    That said, you should know that (assuming yours is not some kind of elaborate performance art la Andy Kaufman) you come across as a completely demented idiot, a raving lunatic — I mean this literally — that ought to be medicated.

    I don’t know who you are, what you do, and if you hope to convince anyone with your ranting screed, but I’ve seen and heard more coherent people arguing about space aliens while standing on a box on Hyde Park Corner.

  40. avatar
    Don Draper May 11, 2010 at 12:29 pm #

    This video shows how Factcheck.org faked BO’s COLB.

  41. avatar
    WTF? May 11, 2010 at 12:32 pm #

    Quel dommage, Mme Lupin. Il est dommage que vous ne comprenez pas notre langue ou des lois assez bien pour participer l’argument.

  42. avatar
    Lupin May 11, 2010 at 12:32 pm #

    I don’t understand why the country who (for a long time) was the most scientifically advanced in the world (and derived its power from it) harbors so many lunatics who are against science or disbelieve so many sound scientific notions.

    Really. It has always puzzled me.

    The US is a little like some of of CONAN-type heroic fantasy universe where the savant wizards in their towers of glass rule the world while the ape-men below worship giant spiders and despoil virgins.

    That’s probably why fantasy is so popular: it mirrors your world?

  43. avatar
    Black Lion May 11, 2010 at 12:36 pm #

    So you can show is the position in Kenyan law that the spouse of someone that marries someone from Kenya is automatially granted Kenyan citizenship? But you changed your story. Originally it was that Sr, SA, and Obama Jr traveled on Kenyan passports. Now it was just Sr. and Jr.? You need to keep your stories straight.

    The section you state is the following…

    30. What should I do if my baby is born abroad?

    As U.S. citizen parent(s), you should report your child’s birth abroad as soon as possible to the nearest U.S. embassy or consulate to establish an official record of the child’s claim to U.S. citizenship at birth. The official record will be the Consular Report of Birth of a Citizen of the United States of America , Form FS-240. This document, know as the Consular Report of Birth Abroad , is a basic United States citizenship document. An original FS-240 document will be given to you at the time registration is approved (We have more information on these documents).

    A Consular Report of Birth can only be prepared at a U.S. embassy or consulate. It cannot be prepared if the child has been brought back into the United States, or, if the person is 18 years of age or older at the time the application is made.

    You state that “the child can be brought back into the United States without the birth being reported to the Consular’s office.” But no where does it say the child could enter the country without a visa or documents from the country of origin. Meaning that the regulation is stating that you couldn’t have the child registered as a Kenyan, brought to the US, and then go to an agency in the US and claim that the child was an American under that specific regulation. That is all it is saying. You make a large leap in logic to assume that it is saying that you could bring an American baby into the US without any documentation…You also forget that there are no US embassies or consulates in the US. And that is all the section is referencing. But again that is why you are not a legal professional.

  44. avatar
    WTF? May 11, 2010 at 12:40 pm #

    BTW, Has anybody told you that your Hyde Park reference tells us just how full of crap you are? You’re a Chicago Obot.

    Il y a plus prêt d’acheteurs que de connaisseurs.

  45. avatar
    Scientist May 11, 2010 at 12:45 pm #

    WTF?: BTW, Has anybody told you that your Hyde Park reference tells us just how full of crap you are? You’re a Chicago Obot.Il y a plus prêt d’acheteurs que de connaisseurs.

    You MORON! The Hyde Park Corner Lupin is referring to is in London. You know, England. It is the famous Speaker’s Corner where cranks get up on their soapbox on Sunday morning. You ought to check it oit.

    I am so glad that your ignorance is on display for all to see.

    Bwahahahaha!!!!

  46. avatar
    dunstvangeet May 11, 2010 at 12:45 pm #

    No, it is not possible to have a rational birther, Dave.

    A rational birther would have accepted a sealed Birth Certificate from another state as proof that the birth actually too place. At that point, they would have said, “The President was born in Hawaii, and that’s the proof.” At that point, they would not be a birther anymore.

  47. avatar
    WTF? May 11, 2010 at 12:50 pm #

    BL,

    Do you always have problems following along? That may explain why you were so easily taken by Obama.

    BL said; “Meaning that the regulation is stating that you couldn’t have the child registered as a Kenyan, brought to the US, and then go to an agency in the US and claim that the child was an American under that specific regulation.”

    Tell me. Why would anyone need to go to any agency “and claim that the child was an American under that specific regulation” when the child acquired a Hawaiian birth certificate based on the fraudulent birth report filed in Hawaii?

    No wonder you’re so lost.

  48. avatar
    richCares May 11, 2010 at 12:51 pm #

    Wow, what a great piece, by Pollard the great PHD. Now we can issue forgery warrants to arrest Obama, we can get Linda Lingle as a witnesss. Great find there Don Draper, be proud of it. we all cheer you on as it will help reelect Obama, Thank you!

  49. avatar
    dunstvangeet May 11, 2010 at 12:51 pm #

    And as far as the de Vattel theory…

    A rational birther would realize that the term “Natural Born” is a modifier that comes from British Common Law, and would realize that the term would not come from a Swiss Philosopher, writing in French, using the term indigenes, which had never been translated into English as Natural Born, until 10 years after the Constitution was written. So, a rational birther would be forced to conclude that the term meant anybody born in the United States, regardless of the citizenship status of their parents. They’d realize that this view was supported by the 14th Amendment, and that this was supported by the U.S. Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark…

    There is absolutely no such thing as a rational birther.

    A rational birther is like saying that there’s a rational physicist out there who believes that the earth revolves around the sun.

  50. avatar
    richCares May 11, 2010 at 12:53 pm #

    “didn’t get his new wife and child a Kenyan passport while in Mombasa?”

    why would his wife need a Kenyan passport, what did she use to get in to Kenya (your imagination)
    Stop the Stupid, will you!

  51. avatar
    Scientist May 11, 2010 at 12:53 pm #

    dunstvangeet: A rational birther is like saying that there’s a rational physicist out there who believes that the earth revolves around the sun.

    Actually, the earth does revolve around the sun. But there still are no rational birthers.

  52. avatar
    SFJeff May 11, 2010 at 12:54 pm #

    In WTF’s world:

    Ann Dunham married Obama Sr., and while pregnant travelled to Kenya to give birth to their child in a third world country, in the presence of Obama Sr.’s father who vehemantly opposed the marriage.

    And then- because she apparently realized after she travelled half way around the world while pregnant that she wanted her son to be a natural born citizen- she contacted her mother in Hawaii and convinced her to commit fraud.

    And then she travels back with newborn Obama in time to attend college in Washington- somehow obtaining not only a Kenyan passport for both herself and her toddler, but also Kenyan visa’s to return for the return to the United States.

    In WTF’s mind, this is all far more plausable than Obama simply being born in Hawaii.

    And assuming that all this happened exactly as WTF surmises- what would the mythical long form show- that he was born in Hawaii.

    “He can’t release it because there is no hospital listed on the original records. He can’t release it because no doctor affirmed his Hawaiian birth.”

    Again- what would that prove? Even if the BC showed his grandmother had registered the birth as a home birth, it would still be the official record of his birth and would still be legal proof of his birth in Hawaii.

    Its a sad day when there are Americans who would rather believe that a President’s grandmother would commit fraud and that a BC produced by a convicted forgerer is correct, than believe the Governor of Hawaii.

    But sure, you just have ‘questions’

    Good luck with the million dollars.

  53. avatar
    BatGuano May 11, 2010 at 12:56 pm #

    Scott Brown: ….he needed to have 2 US Citizen parents in order to make him a NBC.That is MY opinion – what I was taught in school – I didn’t learn that from a politician or a lawyer.

    both my parents were resident aliens ( i was a dual-citizen) so the term ” natural born citizen” has fascinated me from the first time i heard it in second grade. every year when i got a chance i’d ask the teacher if i was a NBC……. it always came down to where i was born ( US=yes).

    that was in california ’72-’85. where and when did you learn something different scott ???

  54. avatar
    Scientist May 11, 2010 at 12:56 pm #

    WTF?: No wonder you’re so lost.

    Lost?? This from the MORON who thinks the Hyde Park Speaker’s Corner is in Chicago?

    Bwahahahahah!!!!

    Now I demand that you tell is what YOUR credentials are. If you are going to come here and pretend to be an expert, we have a right to know.

  55. avatar
    dunstvangeet May 11, 2010 at 1:03 pm #

    Sorry, I meant Sun revolving around the earth…

  56. avatar
    WTF? May 11, 2010 at 1:08 pm #

    Wow Jeff! Do you usually take arguments to the point of being ridiculous in order to sell them. I guess, if that’s what it takes to keep your head bobbing for Obama, you’lll be happy to do it.

    When did Obama’s mother travel? -It could have been anytime between May and August 1961.

    Was she out in the middle of nowhere? No. She was in Mombasa. Mombasa was well established. It good medical facilities. Besides that, women had been giving birth for many thousands of years before we had hospitals. Obama was only born twenty years after hospital births became the norm in the U.S. You make it seem like her giving birth to Obama Jr. in much the same way that Obama Sr. was born would have been impossible.

    “And then she travels back with newborn Obama in time to attend college in Washington”

    It’s no wonder you don’t include dates. That would only serve to show your ignorance! The first appearance of Stanley Ann and Obama Jr. is Seattle in the Spring of 1962. Eight months after he was born. Are you suggesting that travel with an 8 month old was restricted? Idiot!

    “And assuming that all this happened exactly as WTF surmises- what would the mythical long form show- that he was born in Hawaii.”

    You’re another one who has trouble following along. Aren’t you? The Hawaiian birth report will show that he was born at home in Hawaii. Idiot!

    “Again- what would that prove? Even if the BC showed his grandmother had registered the birth as a home birth, it would still be the official record of his birth and would still be legal proof of his birth in Hawaii.”

    It would prove that he is a lying piece of crap. It will prove that his U.S. birth cannot be supported by any independent witness. It will prove that a goddamn investigation should have been started a long time ago.

  57. avatar
    Greg May 11, 2010 at 1:18 pm #

    Shorter Scott Brown: Dr. C. says that not all birthers are racists?That’s outrageous! Splutter…cough…rant…nonsense – jobs, economy…AARGH, I disagree 100% with Bush, 100% with Obama, 100% with Democrats, 100% with Republicans, 100% with the Greens, 100% with 100% of the population!

    2 US Citizen parents in order to make him a NBC. That is MY opinion – what I was taught in school

    I don’t know what state you’re from, Scott, but I’m from Kansas, which is pretty close to Missouri – the “Show-me State.”

    So, show me.

    Show me the lesson plan that the teacher used to teach you this nonsense. Show me the text-book that wrote it down. I have yet to see a single civics text-book, even from the land text-books go to die (Texas) that claims that you need two citizen parents to be NBC!

    And you wonder why people call you a liar!

  58. avatar
    WTF? May 11, 2010 at 1:18 pm #

    What kind of scientist are you? I never said that Hyde Park Speaker’s Corner was in Chicago. Idiot!

    I said that it gave him away. He’s a socialist moke, just like you and Obama.

  59. avatar
    Greg May 11, 2010 at 1:23 pm #

    What are you going to say when Obama decides to let children suffer because he won’t release his original records?

    Do you plan on taking children hostage? Otherwise, this makes zero sense.

  60. avatar
    Greg May 11, 2010 at 1:29 pm #

    Ah, the sweet sounds of rapid back-pedaling. Now, Chicago-Obot = socialist moke. Being against tin-foil-deflector-wearing space-alien-preaching nutters is socialist?

  61. avatar
    WTF? May 11, 2010 at 1:34 pm #

    Sorry Greg,

    You’re right. It doesn’t make sense if you came in late. May I suggest that you study the material before commenting?

  62. avatar
    Black Lion May 11, 2010 at 1:35 pm #

    WTF says “Tell me. Why would anyone need to go to any agency “and claim that the child was an American under that specific regulation” when the child acquired a Hawaiian birth certificate based on the fraudulent birth report filed in Hawaii?”

    I was responding to your implication. Obama Jr., if born in Kenya, could not get into the US without either a Kenyan Passport or a US Passport. If he has a Kenyan passport, there is no way that the HI DOH would have then issued him a COLB stating that he was born in Honolulu. And he would have had to enter that US as a foriegn national, requiring a entry visa. So there would be a paper trail. The hospital in Kenya. Plane records. Entry visa records, which might not be protected. But there is none of that. Which makes the theory of a Kenya birth impossible. You can go ahead a make up some farfetched scenario, but common sense dictates when there is no evidence of something happening, it probably did not happen. No evidence has ever been submitted that showed that Stanley Ann Dunham ever visited Kenya. No evidence has shown that she received a passport before 1967. If you fail to belive that then ask our buddy Strunk, who has remained silent since he received the passport records for SA Dunham. Nice try but epic fail…

  63. avatar
    SFJeff May 11, 2010 at 1:36 pm #

    “Was she out in the middle of nowhere? No. She was in Mombasa”

    Speaking of being ridiculous- you are just speculating that she was in Mombasa- you have no proof, no evidence- nothing that she was in Mombasa. Show me evidence that Ann was in Mombasa.

    “You make it seem like her giving birth to Obama Jr. in much the same way that Obama Sr. was born would have been impossible.”

    I never claimed that- I will write slowly for you- while not impossible, it is highly improbably that a woman raised in America in the 1960’s would voluntarily choose to travel to a third world country to give birth to her child. It is highly improbable that a pregnant American would choose to travel by prop plane from Hawaii to Kenya. Possible? yes. Highly improbably and a pipe dream of birthers yes.

    “Are you suggesting that travel with an 8 month old was restricted? Idiot!”

    No- I am saying it is highly improbable, and unsupported by any evidence. I will let the other readers decide who is the idiot here.

    “The Hawaiian birth report will show that he was born at home in Hawaii.”

    Hmmm last I heard that wasn’t a crime.

    “It would prove that he is a lying piece of crap.”

    Exactly how? Even assuming that he knew that the BC said he was born at home(which is again- unsupported by any evidence)- where exactly was he lieing?

    “It will prove that his U.S. birth cannot be supported by any independent witness.”

    And so what? There is no list of evidence that you seem to think that a Presidentential candidate must provide. And 50 years later asking for independent witnesses is pretty late to the party.

    “It will prove that a goddamn investigation should have been started a long time ago.”

    Good luck with that skippy. I can hear your frustration. It must be hard to be pinning your hopes and dreams on statements of Kenyan politicians.

    Meanwhile, I look forward to President Obama providing a copy of his ‘vault copy’ in his Presidential library, along with all the other records of his life- his school records etc that he has no reason to give to a few malcontents and racists who can’t accept his presidency.

  64. avatar
    Bob Ross May 11, 2010 at 1:37 pm #

    So you’re saying that somehow a visibly pregnant Ann Dunham would travel randomly to a country she had never been to give birth on in Mombassa, which wasn’t apart of the country of Kenya at the time, and then got on a plane months later to go back. For what purpose? She somehow magically knew her son would one day be president? Your theory makes no sense.

  65. avatar
    WTF? May 11, 2010 at 1:40 pm #

    Well Greg,

    Maybe you’ll understand that when Obama says he was born in Kapiolani Hospital, we say “Show Me!”

    Here! Do some reading. Maybe you’ll understand what a citizen is when you apply natural reason.
    http://books.google.com/books?id=zPVBAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA56#v=onepage&q&f=false

    If you have a problem with the author, just let me know. FYI: it was originally published in 1831.

  66. avatar
    Greg May 11, 2010 at 1:41 pm #

    I see you saying that Obama will let the children suffer and I see Dave, Black Lion and SFJeff calling you an idiot for suggesting that not releasing the information could harm the children.

    What am I missing?

  67. avatar
    Bob Ross May 11, 2010 at 1:44 pm #

    Its more than obvious Jeff Abraham Lincoln shot John F Kennedy 100 years after he was shot. Come on keep up 😛

  68. avatar
    nemocapn May 11, 2010 at 1:48 pm #

    WTF?: Il y a plus prêt d’acheteurs que de connaisseurs.

    The literal translation doesn’t make any sense. “There are more ready of buyers than of expert judges.”

    Êtes-vous Québécois? Je ne peux pas comprendre ce que vous dites.

  69. avatar
    Bob Ross May 11, 2010 at 1:49 pm #

    WTF seriously if you’re had children put them up for adoption they could certainly grow up in a better home where their education won’t be stunted by utter stupidity. If you haven’t put your seed in anyone, please don’t do the human race a favor, don’t procreate.

  70. avatar
    Scientist May 11, 2010 at 2:06 pm #

    Actually even if your story were 100% accurate in every detail and you could prove every single fact (obviously you can’t prove even one) it wouldn’t say at all that the President lied about anything. It would say his parents and grandparents lied. Then you would have to prove that they shared the story with him, rather than just telling him he was born in Hawaii as his papers indicate. They’re all dead and can’t say.

    And of course, we’re supposed to believe that you, who won’t even tell us his credentials, broke a story that the opposition researchers for Hillary and the Republicans completely missed.

    I have a very nice bridge in NYC that you can have at a good price.

  71. avatar
    Greg May 11, 2010 at 2:07 pm #

    Obama’s eligibility isn’t premised on his birth within any particular hospital. If he was born in Hawaii that is enough.

    His COLB says he was born in Hawaii. It is attested as a true and accurate copy or abstract of the records on file.
    The Director of the DOH in HI says he was born in Hawaii.
    The Governor of Hawaii says he was born in Hawaii.

    Ever heard of the phrase “vanishing returns?” If you asked for Obama to “show you” proof that he wasn’t a time-traveler, I’d scoff at you only slightly more than I am now.

    No, I don’t have a problem with Tucker. I’ve quoted him several times as showing that the people at that time recognized “natural born citizen” as those born within the borders:

    A very respectable political writer makes the following pertinent remarks upon this subject. “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it.

    So, if even Tucker acknowledges that natural born citizen means those born here, why didn’t the Founders use “natives” or indigenes?

    Oh, yeah, that’s right, in WTF-world, the founders were simpering morons who knew that natural born subject meant what it meant, but thought that it would be obvious to everyone involved that natural born citizen would mean something different!

    Apparently, not many people got the memo. In 1929, Rawle wrote:

    Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.

    Oh, and I’m sure you can find a text-book used in schools in the past 100 years that says that you need two citizen parents to be a natural born citizen.

  72. avatar
    Greg May 11, 2010 at 2:13 pm #

    Here! Do some reading.

    Have you gotten around to reading the articles I cited that disagree with you? I listed 35 to start.

  73. avatar
    Greg May 11, 2010 at 2:25 pm #

    As misha has demonstrated, it’s entirely plausible that Stanley Ann traveled to Kenya to give birth. It would have taken:

    1. Five days (plus) of flights to Kenya
    2. $22,000 in today’s dollars
    3. Yellow fever vaccinations never given to a pregnant woman
    4. A cable back to Grandma to fraudulently register the birth at $19/word
    5. A 500 kilometer train ride to Mombasa from Nairobi.
    6. A five day (plus) back to Hawaii with a newborn
    7. A family passport which is only issued to families with children and isn’t issued in anticipation of birth.

    Yeah, it’s totally plausible!

    /sarcasm

  74. avatar
    nemocapn May 11, 2010 at 2:29 pm #

    WTF?: Stanley Ann Dunham would have acquired dual citizenship by marriage to Obama Sr. Being a U.S. citizen, she would have had no problem traveling back to the U.S. with her newborn child, even if that child had a Kenyan passport.

    You agree, do you not, that British/CUKC citizenship at that time was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948?

    It says, “(2) Subject to the provisions of subsection (3) of this section, a woman who has been married to a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies shall be entitled, on making application therefor to the Secretary of State in the prescribed manner, and, if she is a British protected person or an alien, on taking an oath of allegiance in the form specified in the First Schedule to this Act, to be registered as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, whether or not she is of full age and capacity.”

    Ann Dunham couldn’t have gained automatic citizenship by marrying a CUKC. She would’ve had to have registered and taken an oath of allegiance. Where’s a copy of that registration?

    Furthermore, in order to get a Kenyan passport today you have to provide a Kenyan birth certificate. I have no reason to believe that wasn’t true in 1961.

  75. avatar
    nemocapn May 11, 2010 at 2:31 pm #

    Unfortunately there’s more truth than fiction in that article. There really are people who think that way.

  76. avatar
    SFJeff May 11, 2010 at 2:38 pm #

    “Wow Jeff! Do you usually take arguments to the point of being ridiculous in order to sell them.”

    No- I am pointing out how that your argument has been taken to the point of ridiculous.

    I am pointing out that on one side we have the sane version that is shown by the record, and passes the smell test:
    – President Obama was born in Hawaii

    Or the other side-

    That his pregnant mother chose to fly by prop plane to Africa, to the country where his father vehemantly opposed the marriage- to give birth in a Third World country- yet be so concerned about her son gaining American Citizenship that she convinces her mother to commit fraud- in writing mind you- and then stays very briefly(as you point out- at most 8 months)- so briefly that it raises the question that if she was so concerned about American citizenship for her son, why the hell did she go to Kenya at all? What was her motivation to both go to Kenya to give birth to her son, and at the same time commit fraud to give her son the citizenship she could easily have obtained otherwise.

    And then she hopped onto another prop plane to return to the U.S. with at most with an 8 month old son, having obtained during that time both Kenyan passports and visa’s.

    Basically why should give any credence to the least likely story, with the least amount of evidence when there is an actual plausible history supported by evidence?

    And what I really love, is that Birthers still also tout their fallback provision- Vattel- who apparently wrote the U.S. Constitution and inserted the invisible words “and two citizen parents” into the Constitution.

  77. avatar
    nemocapn May 11, 2010 at 2:51 pm #

    There are questions in my mind about the birth of Sarah Palin’s Trig.

    Why would a woman with a high risk pregnancy fly all the way from Texas to Alaska while in labor without anyone noticing she was in labor?

    Why was her pregnancy kept secret for months?

    Why would a pro-life woman have an amniocentesis test, a procedure which could induce a miscarriage?

    Why has only one picture of a visibly pregnant Palin shown up? It’s a picture that could easily be faked with a pregnancy outfit.

    Then, there’s the MySpace picture of Sarah Palin, Trig, and Merced Johnston. Palin is remarkably skinny after having given birth.

    It makes one wonder if Trig is really her baby. Publishing Trig’s birth certificate would help to allay suspicions. But guess what? It’s nobody’s business. His birth certificate is private by law.

    In all likelihood, Palin is Trig’s baby. If she weren’t, the Johnstons would know and could make a fortune out of revealing such a secret. Common sense points to Palin being the mother. Someone who demands Trig’s birth certificate is just as silly as someone who demands Obama’s birth certificate.

  78. avatar
    Greg May 11, 2010 at 3:00 pm #

    You know what the birthers remind me of? This study. Unskilled and unaware of it.

    In 1995, McArthur Wheeler walked into two Pittsburgh banks and robbed them in broad daylight, with no visible attempt at disguise. He was arrested later that night, less than an hour after videotapes of him taken from surveillance cameras were broadcast on the 11 o’clock news. When police later showed him the surveillance tapes, Mr. Wheeler stared in incredulity. “But I wore the juice,” he mumbled. Apparently, Mr. Wheeler was under the impression that rubbing one’s face with lemon juice rendered it invisible to videotape cameras (Fuocco, 1996).

    The birther lawyers, Berg, Taitz, Donofrio, Apuzzo had never looked at Constitutional law before 2008, certainly not the development of American citizenship, and they’re the most skilled of the birthers! We have arm-chair forensic document examiners “examining” documents online; college-grads (?) reading Hawaiian laws without knowing where to look for the Hawaiian regulations, etc.

    Take, for example, the birther response to the dissent in Wong Kim. The Supreme Court justices there clearly read the decision to mean that Wong was eligible for the Presidency. Ah, but they were wrong, says Apuzzo! We birthers know better! We’ve stumbled on the lost third type of citizen that has never been noticed in 200 years!

    The study in question found that those in the bottom quartile across various tests grossly exaggerated their abilities. Their test scores said they were in the 12th percentile, yet they thought they were in the 62nd percentile!

  79. avatar
    JoZeppy May 11, 2010 at 3:02 pm #

    Does name calling help my argument? No. But when you are faced with abject stupidity, sometimes it is better to call out the stupid for what it is than waste your time arguing with idiots that have no interest in reality, and would rather believe forgers, foreigners with no actual knowledge of the facts, and every bogus “Kenyan birth certificate” than accept the words of a Republican Administration in Hawaii, and a form from the state of Hawaii, that any serious person has no reason to question at this point.

    And no, we are not on the same team. One team consists of Americans, who recognize that the will of the people is expressed in elections, and sometimes our guy wins, and sometimes our guy loses, but irrespective of it all, the winner is our president. The other side consists of wanna be fascists that believe democracy only counts when their guy wins, and if he doesn’t, they will spend every effort to try to get him out and challenge his legitimacy, and are perfect willing to lie (something you know about), and distort reality to destroy our nation. They spent 8 years doing it to Clinton, and now they’re onto Obama. Those people that would undermine our national system and try to destory our nation are not on my team. Which team are you on again?

  80. avatar
    nemocapn May 11, 2010 at 3:06 pm #

    WTF? says:
    WTF?: Obama was only born twenty years after hospital births became the norm in the U.S.

    So you’re admitting Obama was born in the US? If he were born in Kenya, it wouldn’t matter what the norm is in the U.S.

  81. avatar
    JoZeppy May 11, 2010 at 3:17 pm #

    Well there is a serious does of stupid. How exactly do children suffer because you’re not willing to accept reality? You currently have more conclusive evidence of his NBC status than you have for any other president before. What makes you think that you are so special that you are the arbitor of what is consclusive evidence? What makes you so super special that you get to decide what level of satisfaction you are entitled to for your doubts, and that the entire country must stop everything they’re doing to cater to your special needs?

    We mock you, not because we are afrid of you and your questions, we mock you because you deserve it. We mock you because every now and then, true Americans need to stand up in the face of stupid, and call it for what it is. If you don’t call stupid out for what it is, perhaps some people won’t realize that it really is stupid, and will give it too much credit. Like 9/11 was an inside job, like Saddam had WMDs, like we faked the moon landing, global warming isn’t happening, or perhaps there is scientific evidence that the world is 6,000 years old. The only reason the children suffer is because we have dummed them down to think that every opinion, no matter how unsupported by facts, is valid, and deserves to be treated equally.

    And finally, the records are covered by privacy law because of what they are, no merely what is on them. They contain medical information, personal data, and documents relating to the individual. They are private by virtue of what they are.

  82. avatar
    WTF? May 11, 2010 at 3:20 pm #

    Greg,

    I find that honesty is not your strong suit. You did not quote Tucker, you quoted Tucker acknowledging the opinion of an unnamed source and tried to imply that it was the opinion of Tucker.

    http://books.google.com/books?id=9dJ4BMa46wEC&pg=PA256#v=onepage&q&f=false

    You might be able to fool your fellow Obots, but you won’t do the same to me.

    Why quote the misinterpretation of Rawle when you could read Vattel, and recognize that the term natural-born citizen was adopted to avoid confusion with those who were the native or indigenous people of this country, namely the Indians.

    Natural-born is how things are without law. It is a natural state. To quote a contemporary version of Vattel;

    The Law of Nations, says he, is common to the whole human race. The exigencies and necessities of mankind have induced all nations to constitute certain rules of right. For wars have arisen and produced captivity and servitude, which are contrary to the Law of Nature ; since originally, and by the Law of Nature, all men were born free.”

    That is the foundation of the term “natural born citizen”. It denotes a citizen who from birth has no ties other than what nature provides. The child is not encumbered by loyalty to anyone other than that which nature has provided.

    If you think I’m just arriving at a convenient conclusion, try this on for size.

    “But it is just that we should insert what Wolfius himself has said in his preface ‘Nations, says he, among themselves acknowledge no other law than that which nature herself has established; it will therefore perhaps appear superfluous to give a treatise on the Law of Nature. But those who think thus, have not sufficiently studied the subject. Nations, it is true, can only be considered as so many particular persons, living together in the state of nature, and for that reason, we ought to apply to them all the duties and rights which nature prescribes to, and lays upon mankind, as they are born naturally free, and are only bound to each other by the single knot Nature herself has tied. The law which arises from this application, and the obligation resulting from it, proceed from the immutable law founded on the nature of man; and in this manner the Law of Nations certainly belongs to the Law of Nature: it is therefore called the natural Law of Nations, with respect to its origin; and the necessary law, in relation to its obligatory force. This law is common to all nations, and that which does not respect it in its actions, violates a law common to all people.'”

    Now that you know what it is to be “naturally born” and you are aware of the reasons for not using the terms “native” or “indigenous”, maybe you will be able to understand this;

    “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 natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

  83. avatar
    sarina May 11, 2010 at 3:33 pm #

    Don Draper:

    McCain didn’t produced his medical or Naval school records either. Show me a link to see McCain’s GPA.
    Can you show me a link to see the Bushes BC? How about their school records and their “delivery doctors”?
    What are they hiding?

  84. avatar
    sarina May 11, 2010 at 3:36 pm #

    Don Draper:

    Go to Congress and show them this video! Soon a couple of guys with white coats will be knocking at your door!

  85. avatar
    nemocapn May 11, 2010 at 3:41 pm #

    Dave: For example, your post is largely an angry denial that you are a racist, at the top of which is a quote from Doc saying that not all birthers are racist. How does that make sense?

    Maybe the reason birthers object to being called “racist” is that they have a different definition of racism? For many people, being racist means you have a problem with someone because of the color of their skin. I believe many of the birthers when they say they like people like Bill Cosby, Colin Powell, Justice Thomas, and Alan Keyes. They like or dislike people based on shared values, not skin color.

    The birthers have heard from people who share their values that Obama is a socialist, a Marxist, and a communist. He’s been portrayed as someone who doesn’t share their values. They’re not aware that the same false accusations were made against FDR; or else, they are aware and think FDR was a communist, too.

    I’ve also noticed many birthers believe Obama is a secret Muslim. They don’t like it that his father isn’t American. That’s xenophobia and islamophobia. To me, both are a form of racism, but I’m not surprised other people think it’s not since it has to do with religion and nationality, not skin color.

    I think some of them would be fine if Obama were a conservative Republican and the son of two American Christians. Of course, there’s a racist subset that wouldn’t even be satisfied under those circumstances, but they’re not all the birthers.

    I think it’s not fair to portray any group as monolithic.

  86. avatar
    JoZeppy May 11, 2010 at 3:46 pm #

    Scott Brown: none of us are smart enough to actually think for ourselves and use both reasoning skills and common sense to believe that he needed to have 2 US Citizen parents in order to make him a NBC. That is MY opinion – what I was taught in school – I didn’t learn that from a politician or a lawyer. I could be wrong, but that’s what I believe.

    Gee, lie much…oh, wait, that’s already been clearly established. I challenge you to show any school book published that says you need 2 citizen parents to be an NBC. The the parent B.S. is a recent creation of birthers.

    So yes, you are not smart enough, and yes, you are wrong. But, hey, it’s America. There no law against not being smart enough or being wrong.

    Oh, btw…did you miss last month’s job numbers, speaking of jobs? Largest job growth in 4 years I believe it was….yeah…really ignoring that job thing, isn’t he? Again, lie much? Or perhaps you just can’t be bothered with learning the truth?

  87. avatar
    Scientist May 11, 2010 at 3:58 pm #

    “I say, that, in order to be of the country…”

    Any statement prefaced by “I say” is simply one man’s opinion.

    “The Law of Nations, says he, is common to the whole human race.”

    “Says he”, again, one man’s opinion.

    But let’s look at “common to the whole human race”. Do all countries reserve their top elective office only to natural born citizens? I know that Britain, France, Canada and Australia do NOT-they allow any citizen, natural born OR naturalized to be President or Prime Minister. In fact, Canada’s current Governor General (the Queen’s representative and technically above the Prime Minister) is a naturalized citizen from Haiti. So the natural born citizen clause is very far from “common to the whole human race”. In fact the only countries I know of that have it are the US and the Philippines, which took it from the US.

    Epic fail again!!!

  88. avatar
    sarina May 11, 2010 at 4:11 pm #

    WTF?

    I posted this before: I emailed the Vital Statistic Dept. When the birthers started the rumor that any foreign child can have a Hawaiian bc and this was their response:

    Vital Statistic of Records
    Office of Health Status Monitoring
    1250 Punchbowl ST.
    Honolulu, HI 96813
    vrinfo@doh.hawaii.gov

    ” A foreign child would have a “certification of foreign birth” on the top not a COLB and the place of birth would be indicated”

    Aloha,
    kd

  89. avatar
    G May 11, 2010 at 4:15 pm #

    Wow, WTF, so now you’ve devolved to nothing but coming up with elaborate fictional speculative stories.

    Well, sorry, we’ve already got Sven for that. He’s our favorite birther village idiot on coming up with fantasy fiction scenarios without evidence to make them plausible.

    So, if you are reducing yourself now to just mere entertainment for our sakes or because living in elaborate fantasy worlds makes you able to deal with the real world better, that’s fine.

    Just realize that we’ve already got Sven, so you’ve got competition to try to out crazy him in the speculation department. Besides, he’s already got a number of chapters of his great “Barry and the Pirates” saga up and running, so you’ve got a lot of catching up to do. LOL!

    Its like you blew your entire load with your elaborate “return” ruse the other day, and now that even that has been eviscerated and has fallen apart on you, you’ve already revealed that you can’t make credible arguments without resorting to lies and deception, so you’ve got nothing to fall back on but trying to compete with Sven’s speculative fiction.

    If you really weren’t afraid of the truth and cared about this issue you’d be trying to do one of the following:

    1. Demanding the US Supreme Court take up the Ankeny appeal.

    2. Demand that your US congressional representatives pursue the issue.

    3. Call or write the HI DOH yourself.

    But you won’t.

    Because those are REAL actions you could take if you were serious and you are not after the truth. You are only about shooting off your mouth and defending your precious fiction.

    Oh, and you do just come off extremely foolish ranting against the serial number being blacked out, as if it isn’t actually there.

    Here you go, the serial # is clearly visible for you to see:

    http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_2.jpg

  90. avatar
    Black Lion May 11, 2010 at 4:20 pm #

    WTF, the best response to your ridiculous claim that it was Vattel rather than English Common Law is by a panel of 3 Appeals court justices, which know more about the law and Constitutional intent that you will ever know….

    “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens.”

    Pretty straight forward and straight to the point….Of course you will disagree but we are still waiting for some Court ruling, any court ruling after the 1898 Wong ruling that says otherwise….

    “The Plaintiffs do not mention the above United States Supreme Court authority in their complaint or brief; they primarily rely instead on an eighteenth century treatise and quotations of Members of Congress made during the nineteenth century. To the extent that these authorities conflict with the United States Supreme Court’s interpretation of what it means to be a natural born citizen, we believe that the Plaintiffs arguments fall under the category of “conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions” that we need not accept as true when reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.”

    Again straight to the point. Especially when they address “some 18th century philospher”…A person that before 2008 99% of people had never heard of….

  91. avatar
    sarina May 11, 2010 at 4:23 pm #

    WTF?

    First Obama’s father was in Hawaii with a student visa , second they didn’t have the money to travel, third there is no point Ann, a young girl, would travel alone to give birth to a son in Mombasa far from her family to a non-English speaking country. I don’t think any doctor would give a pregnant woman all the vaccines required to travel there.
    Birthers are not even smart, no common sense at all!

  92. avatar
    Sef May 11, 2010 at 4:30 pm #

    I also love it when they talk about needing the names/signatures of witnesses to Obama’s birth. In all probability most, if not all of those would either no longer be around or be non compos mentus, so what value could they add to the equation? Other than confirming that it was their signature on the BC I doubt their testimony would be of much value as they probably have no recollection of a particular birth 49 years ago.

    There is also the “Stanley had a baby” quote which provides additional evidence that Obama was born in Kapiolani Hospital.

    Each of the points which the birthers come up with can and has been easily refuted, so each has zero value. The sum of all these zeroes is still zero. On the other hand, none of the points from the “reality” side has been refuted. All in all, any reasonable-thinking person would conclude that Obama was born in Hawai`i, is a natural born citizen & is qualified for the office of POTUS.

  93. avatar
    sarina May 11, 2010 at 4:32 pm #

    WTF

    You don’t remember that your birther paper
    WND finally conceded Obama’s bc was authentic?
    Yep. It was back in Aug 2008!

    Here I copy/paste for you:

    “A separate WND investigation into Obama’s certification of live birth utilizing forgery experts also found the document to be authentic. The investigation also revealed methods used by some of the bloggers to determine the document was fake involved forgeries, in that a few bloggers added text and images to the certificate scan that weren’t originally there”.

    Google it!

  94. avatar
    G May 11, 2010 at 4:33 pm #

    Scott Brown –

    And I’m not going to attack you this time on the fact that you made up an elaborate ruse and lie about your personal background, because WTF just did a similar thing.

    Please realize that when you have to resort to deception and lying to back up your point, that means you have no actual reality-based point at all and you only damage your own credibility.

    Yes, we are all Americans and we should focus on wanting this country to continue to improve and fix the problems we face. We can legitimately disagree with how we get from point A to point B. You can legitimately argue that you think it would be better to turn right than to turn left to arrive at a destination. Those are fair points and argument and differences in viewpoints to make. However, if in the end, you disagree with turning left but we get to the same destination, we should all come together and be happy that we made it to our goal.

    That being said, attacking a legitimately elected President because you don’t like or disagree with him by calling him unAmerican is not displaying good values of American unity. When you take the argument to such absurd levels of opposition, you ARE attacking the fabric of America. We elect our officials. We do not have a totalitarian dictatorship. We live in a country with over 300+ million American citizens, who come from a diverse array of cultures, backgrounds, religious views, and political perspectives.

    If you want respect for your positions, you need to be respectful of others. If you are unhappy with the elected officials we have, you have your opportunity at the next election to express your views. If in the end, someone else is elected instead of who you wanted, you can be disappointed, but you need to accept that it simply means that more Americans chose to go in a different direction than you did.

    If someone says something crazy, and people call them crazy for it, that is not name calling, it is pointing out that their idea sounds crazy. If you say something completely unsupported and which can’t be backed up, expect to be called out on it. If you make foolish statements, expect to be viewed as a fool. If you lie, expect to be called a liar. If you don’t have the decency to come clean and admit when you are wrong or when you are caught lying, expect to be viewed as a dishonest person with no credibility. Deal with it.

    You of all people need to look into yourself and your actions and take some personal responsibility. If you don’t respect yourself or care about your own credibility, then don’t whine when you are caught lying and ducking from this issue and your credibility is then in tatters.

  95. avatar
    G May 11, 2010 at 4:37 pm #

    Well said JoZeppy!

    You’ve hit the nail on the head with every point in this reply, that I now no longer need to give my own reply here, except to say “ditto”.

  96. avatar
    Dave May 11, 2010 at 4:38 pm #

    WTF is right, you’re missing the full comedic effect because you didn’t read one of his previous notes, in which he proposes to find a philanthropist who will offer to donate $1M to a childrens’ charity if Obama releases the usual laundry list of documentation.
    So Obama is harming the children by depriving them of this $1M donation that nobody has actually offered to donate.

  97. avatar
    G May 11, 2010 at 4:39 pm #

    And WTF, please tell us where is your evidence that she ever traveled there?

    Oh that’s right, it only exists in your imagination.

  98. avatar
    sarina May 11, 2010 at 4:47 pm #

    WTF

    The Supreme Court recognizes only 2 citizenships: natural born and naturalized.

    Obama didn’t go through a process (naturalization) he WAS BORN IN US SOIL, therefore he is a natural born citizen. If he wasn’t Hillary, a lawyer, wouldn’t let him ran in the first place. Birther common sense=None.

  99. avatar
    G May 11, 2010 at 4:47 pm #

    Sadly, I share your worries.

    Education used to be of higher value and respect here. There are still many talented minds, entrepreneurs and resources in America and there is always hope that we can return to focusing on valuing and encouraging education, innovation and excellence.

    So, don’t count us out even when it seems we have been overwhelmed by the noisy small-minded voices out there who wear their intentional ignorance proudly, while slovenly living off the backs of all our great minds & accomplishments that came before.

  100. avatar
    G May 11, 2010 at 5:16 pm #

    Scott Brown, oh she of no credibility, continues to spout meaningless whining that she makes up herself:

    “Yes, because according to Obama none of us, neither those that support or those that condemn his political views are smart enough to actually think for themselves and to understand the issues.”

    Except he’s never said that. Like you are prone to do, you make up statements about others, that are not based in reality. Show me a quote to support that or STFU. You just make up things to support your own prejudices instead of dealing with the actual world we live in.

    And your whole middle section of your post is a rant about race & color. YOU seem to be the one obsessing and caring about this issue. Why does it matter at all? You want to spend all this time trying to distance yourself from being a racist… yet, you seem to obsess about the issue of his race? That doesn’t make sense unless at some level the issue of his mixed-race background BOTHERS YOU. I think you need look into your own motivations and start by being honest with yourself, as you sure are never honest with us on here.

    …common sense to believe that he needed to have 2 US Citizen parents in order to make him a NBC. That is MY opinion – what I was taught in school – I didn’t learn that from a politician or a lawyer. I could be wrong, but that’s what I believe.

    Well, as you have no credibility, I don’t believe you when you say you were taught “2 US citizen parents” as a requirement for NBC in school. I think you were closer to the truth when you said “that’s what I believe”. Beliefs don’t trump the reality of facts. They just demonstrate that you believe incorrectly.

    You might believe it, but I have yet to see an actual text book that says it and of course, you can’t provide a text book example that would back you up.

    Even if I gave you the maximum benefit of the doubt on this, it would simply come down to you either didn’t properly understand what you were learning back in school or you might have even had a teacher that was poor at explaining it sufficiently to you.

    Regardless, your lack of education and understanding of the issue doesn’t change that the actual laws don’t support any such 2 US Citizen parent requirement nonsense. Your personal beliefs or desires don’t trump the reality of actual laws, whether they be citizenship law or privacy law.

    Frankly, I don’t care which ’side’ cleans up the Bush/Obama mess, but someone needs to start working on the ECONOMY and JOBS, b/c right now, both are being ignored in favor of health care / cap and trade / immigration. While these issues are important, they are NOT more important than the economy and jobs.

    So if that is the case, then please be consistent. What role do you want government to fulfill? Suddenly you want government to solve the problems about jobs? Wouldn’t that be “socialist” from your point of view? Wouldn’t that be “government interference in the free market”?

    I find it laughably dishonest that you will b*tch and moan about government being evil and socialist and inept, except when you want something from it… then all of a sudden you b*tch that the government isn’t doing enough! So which is it?

    Let’s see. The very first major legislative act Obama’s administration passed was the Economic Stimulus plan – which was designed to help with jobs & also provide a lot of tax cut relief to the middle class.

    Cash for Clunkers was also designed to help protect both US auto industry jobs and help regular people purchase new, more cost-efficient cars during a difficult economy.

    Let me guess, you always were and still are against those types of programs, aren’t you.

    So tell me, instead of simple slogans or platitudes of whining, just what do you expect the government to do about the economy or jobs? Are you asking them to “force” private companies to start hiring more people? Please tell my how your ideas to fix the situation are not “socialistic” or “interfering with the private market”.

    But I bet you can’t. You are just a bitter hypocrite who wants to complain about everything instead of actually find solutions.

  101. avatar
    G May 11, 2010 at 5:30 pm #

    I think it’s not fair to portray any group as monolithic.

    nemocapn, everything you said in your post was well stated and a good breakdown.

    However, I question that your final sentence is a false trope here. Who here, other than the birthers themselves, has ever made such a monolithic portrayal of them?

    Every post I can recall talking about birther motivations only mentions that racism (of any sort) is only one of the motivations out there. Many of the examples of xenophobia, islamophobia, broader religious bigotry and ideological tribalism have all been pointed out my many of us as other motivational factors time and time again.

    I don’t think you can point to any of us who have painted a brush that broadly “monolithic”, and therefore it is not proper to buy into this particular birther’s defense meme, as such a monolithic charge against them exists only in their own minds.

  102. avatar
    richCares May 11, 2010 at 5:56 pm #

    birthers tend to whine a lot, basically they are Whinos, as such they drink thunderbird and/or sterno. That tends to fuzz up the mind as is evident by their posts.

    Now what in the world is their point, they can’t remove Obama and they can’t prove the Kenya crap, so what is their point? Oh, I know it’s whine, whine, whine!

  103. avatar
    nemocapn May 11, 2010 at 6:49 pm #

    G, I wasn’t directing my comment about portraying a group monolithically to any one in particular here. I was speaking about it as a good general principle. I recall your discussion with Charo about the different types of birthers you’ve encountered. I know you don’t consider all birthers racist. You have nuanced opinions.

    I’ve seen commenters on other boards, though, who have said “all birthers are racist,” so I’m not surprised if some birthers believe everyone who opposes them thinks that way. By the way, that’s thinking of us monolithically,too.

    I’ve read comments on conservative boards that say, “liberals are the enemy.” Sometimes I make the mistake of responding to conservatives as if they all believe that. I have to guard against my own preconceived notions of what a conservative (or even a birther) thinks.

  104. avatar
    WTF? May 11, 2010 at 7:17 pm #

    sarina,

    Welcome to the discussion.

    I think you meant that there are only two types of citizens; those who are born, and those who become naturalized.

    Do we have citizens who are naturalized at birth? Of course we do. If you need some case law to support that I’ll be happy to provide you with some.

    So now you can see that someone can be born a citizen via naturalization. Why don’t those citizens need to take an oath? Because the oath was waived by Congress due to the descent of blood.

    Did any state ever recognize citizenship by blood? Sure. Louisiana did. I know…OMG What a bizarre revelation.

    A long, long time ago, the subjects of the King who were living on this land wanted their freedom. They said;

    “When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

    The result of that war we call “The American Revolution” was thirteen sovereign states. Yep, just like thirteen countries. They all had their own laws. And they all had to deal with each other as separate nations.

    What law were these separate nations to follow when dealing with each other? Do you think they were gonna deal with each other in the same way that England had dealt with them? Not on your life. They turned to the the Law of Nations.

    Do you know who the most famous man in the colonies was? That’s right. It was Benjamin Franklin. He had been honored for his many inventions and his contributions to science. Franklin was also a public figure, comfortable in the world of politics and letters.

    While he was in the Netherlands, Benjamin Franklin met another man of letters by the name of Charles William Frederick Dumas. Franklin was so impressed with Dumas that he convinced the revolutionary Americans to make Dumas their representative at the Hague. It was Dumas who provided them with the Law of Nations.

    Did you know that Law of Nations was the third most published work during the revolution and just after?

  105. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 11, 2010 at 8:02 pm #

    WTF?: Do we have citizens who are naturalized at birth? Of course we do. If you need some case law to support that I’ll be happy to provide you with some.

    Such a comment as this is a total waste of time. You know that you’re going be asked for case law, and I really wonder where you will find any.

    WTF?: What law were these separate nations to follow when dealing with each other? Do you think they were gonna deal with each other in the same way that England had dealt with them?

    This proves your ignorance of American history. Chief Justice Story says:

    “The universal principle (and the practice has confirmed it) has been that the common law is our birthright and inheritance, and that our ancestors brought hither with them upon their emigration all of it which was applicable to their situation. The whole structure of our present jurisprudence stands upon the original foundations of the common law.” 1 Story Const.. § 160. [emphasis added]

  106. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 11, 2010 at 10:04 pm #

    WTF?: Do you know who the most famous man in the colonies was? That’s right. It was Benjamin Franklin. He had been honored for his many inventions and his contributions to science.

    Franklin and Washington were the chief persons of the country. Because of his infirmities, Franklin did not involve himself in the inner workings of the Convention, said historian Richard Barry, although he was well aware of what was going on.

    The notes taken of the debate by the Constitutional Convention mention The Law of Nations and Emerich de Vattel how many times exactly?

  107. avatar
    joeymac May 11, 2010 at 10:34 pm #

    It will prove that his U.S birth cannot be supported by any independent witness.

    Except for my mother (who is obviously an interested party), there are no surviving witnesses to birth. Does that mean that my certification of birth from SC can’t be trusted?

    FO & D. Fool!

  108. avatar
    G May 11, 2010 at 10:43 pm #

    nemocapn,

    Believe me, I understand what you are saying. Just be careful and don’t fall into the same traps that you want others to avoid, that’s all.

    I find it interesting that you note that I have “nuanced” opinions. You are absolutely right about that. But there should be nothing unusual about such, as reality is very nuanced.

    I know many folks like to communicate or view things in as simple a way as possible – boiling it down into binary “black-&-white” distinctions. But that isn’t honest or realistic, is it?

    We all, myself included can generalize. I would like to believe that most of us truly understand how to think past just the generalizations we make.

    Maybe there truly are some people that are incapable of thinking in a nuanced way, I don’t know. I’ve always wondered about that.

    Are they truly incapable? If so, I feel sad that they can’t actually comprehend the world around them. Or do they just lie to themselves to try to cling to false beliefs that life is nothing more than a choice of basic dichotomies? I don’t know. I can only answer truly on how I see the world and I think it is natural for all of us to assume that everyone’s mind works like theirs does.

    Anyways, thanks for listening to my little musing here.

    Back to topic, I will restate that utilizing a generalization about “monolithic” attitudes that you have seen other people display on other boards is not fair to the audience here, when you are making that implication here, where such things have not occurred to that extent. At least not to my recollection.

    I’m sure there are those people who make such over generalized statements. When they do, that is the time and place to point out or correct them or provide broader context, if appropriate.

    However, you must realize that the birthers and those of their ilk who, at least come across like they live in a binary world, love to pull others into this world and use “victimhood” at every chance to try to distract and turn the argument away from their bad actions.

    They try to dodge the whole “racism”, bigotry, etc. issues, whether true or not by immediately crying “foul” and play up that such charges are being applied in a “monolithic” manner, whether that is true or not.

    So just a word to the wise to not buy into, or play into the hands of their false distraction of “victimhood”.

  109. avatar
    nemocapn May 12, 2010 at 12:49 am #

    Thanks for your perspective, G. I didn’t realize anyone would think my monolithic statement was directed at someone on this blog.

    I truly believe there are people who don’t think in a nuanced way. When I was a child, my older brother told me I saw things in black & white, not shades of gray. In some respects, that may be true because I had a respect for authority at that time. I listened to my parents, my teachers, and my Bible. Since I had loving parents I maintained that respect for authority for many years. It took time and experience with the outside world to learn that sometimes authority is abused and sometimes authority can be mistaken. I learned people weren’t simply good or bad; they’re complex. I developed the ability to see people and ideas in shades of gray. I abandoned my reliance on the Bible.

    I’ve come across a few adults who think similarly to the way I thought as a child. God and the Bible say that things should be a certain way, and that’s the way things should be. That’s just the way they think, but I don’t think it’s sad. I accept that everyone has their own path in life which may not correspond with mine. I’ll admit, though, that sometimes it’s frustrating to deal with someone like that, because he or she insists that you’re condemned for eternity unless you accept Jesus as your personal savior. Since it’s heaven or h—, it’s difficult to argue the alternatives in eschatology.

    As for victimhood, that’s a whole other topic that I’d like to avoid because it’s a loaded topic. I almost lost it when Charo said right wing women are “persecuted” because I have a different definition of it than she does. To me, the Jews in the holocaust were persecuted. Christians in this country haven’t been persecuted–at least not since the Quakers. I can’t even think of the last time a person in this country was killed simply for being a Christian. To me, that’s persecution. Being told “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas” isn’t persecution. (And just to clarify, by that I don’t mean that Charo thinks saying “Happy Holidays” is persecution. I’ve just read articles that some Christians think that.)

  110. avatar
    G May 12, 2010 at 2:00 am #

    Thanks nemocapn.

    I enjoyed your followup post and examples and I fully understand the points you’ve made.

    Just on a slight follow-up note, I don’t have a problem with folks who want to live by a simple or as clear-cut as possible set of rules.

    I only feel sad if they can’t pull beyond that when required by the realities of life, in order to properly handle those inevitable shades of gray.

    It reminds me of an old Star Trek episode (I, Mudd”), where there were robots that could only handle binary thinking and as soon as they were challenged with greater complexity, it fried their circuits.

    So, it is a concern that such people either won’t be able to handle or deal with “greater complexity” or by not being able to see the “gray” (i.e. the old statement it will make their “heads explode”), they’ll make very poor decisions in their limited “vision” of the world.

    Either way, its like a major handicap for them.

    I do truly fear that such limitations explain a certain extent of the illogical reactions or actions among the birther folk.

  111. avatar
    Lupin May 12, 2010 at 2:46 am #

    This is fairly mediocre French. Stick to speaking in tongues which is what you do best.

    And I’m not a “Mme” either. The pseudonym should tell you that.

  112. avatar
    Lupin May 12, 2010 at 2:48 am #

    I’m sure the Doc here can check my IP address and prove that I am indeed posting from France, southern France to be accurate, not Chicago or anywhere within the US.

    Your one-line makes absolutely no sense. What a surprise.

  113. avatar
    Lupin May 12, 2010 at 2:51 am #

    From your mouth to God’s ears, indeed.

    In the meantime let’s tune back to WTF and his giant spider-god.

    I wish I could insert here the cover of Marvel’s CONAN #13.

  114. avatar
    Lupin May 12, 2010 at 2:59 am #

    I have developed a certain fondness for my earlier image of comparing the birthers to a tribe of Picts worshiping the giant spider-god in a CONAN comic.

    Other than speaking in grunts, one of the most common characteristics of the tribe is that, the more contrary evidence you offer that their god is just a freak of nature, the more quickly they’ll drag you towards the giant sticky web.

    As modern studies have established, contrary evidence only reinforces the belief, not shake it. (I’ve mentioned this before.)

    There’s virtually nothing anyone here can say that will crack their insane delusions.

  115. avatar
    nemocapn May 12, 2010 at 3:23 am #

    If Obama were born in Kenya, how does Mombasa make any sense? Presumably the only reason to give birth in Kenya would be so that the Obama family could be present at Barack’s birth. It’s 12 hours from Nyangoma-Kogelo where the Obama family lived and still lives. Nairobi would be closer, but even that is 5 1/2 hours away from Obama’s paternal family. It seems to me that if you were going to travel to another continent to visit your family, you’d stay closer than 12 hours away. It’s like traveling from Egypt to visit your family in Birmingham, Alabama, and staying in Washington, DC, instead.

  116. avatar
    G May 12, 2010 at 4:16 am #

    Thanks as always for the comics reference, Lupin! As you probably know by now, I’m a huge comics fan.

  117. avatar
    Lupin May 12, 2010 at 6:56 am #

    Quoting Vattel:

    “I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

    This is, of course, incomplete, as Vattel himself realized, since it omits children born out of wedlock and/or without any known fathers.

    The second edition consequently and logically added a footnote at that exact spot to specify that in those cases, citizenship was inherited through the mother.

  118. avatar
    tallbull May 12, 2010 at 7:05 am #

    Freerepublic has resolved the natural born citizen issue. Obama does not pass muster.

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2511602/posts

  119. avatar
    tallbull May 12, 2010 at 7:09 am #

    Seems Vattel was taught at Kings College..now Columbia University in 1773.

    Later other colleges jumped on board..before the drafting of the Constitution.

  120. avatar
    Greg May 12, 2010 at 7:18 am #

    Freerepublic has resolved the natural born citizen issue.

    LOL! I’m sorry, that’s hilarious! I think you owe me a new keyboard – sputtered coffee all over this one.

    And, see, it’s hilarious on three levels! First, Freerepublic as final arbiter of Constitutional meaning.

    Second, what does FR give us to finally determine the Constitutional meaning? That Jefferson read Vattel. He even recommended Vattel. (Okay, he also recommended Locke, Montesquieu , Adam Smith, Beccaria, and James) Um, missing link, anyone? Show me that Jefferson used Vattel to define NBC, and not Locke, Montesquieu , Adam Smith, Beccaria, or James.

    Third, FR readers reject the premise as often as they accept it. Here’s a good example of the response this “argument” received at FR:

    NO real offense meant, but Jefferson also read the Koran.

  121. avatar
    Greg May 12, 2010 at 7:40 am #

    Vattel was the only thing taught at Columbia University in 1773?

    They didn’t teach Blackstone? Lord Coke? Locke?

    Let’s look at the source King’s College comes from:

    From 1758 to 1776 Grotius, Pufendorf, and Burlamaqui were read, studied, and commented upon in the English colonies of America, but Vattel, at that time, seems to have been unknown to them. In 1773, the Law of Nations was taught at King’s College (now Columbia University). In 1774, Adams, and in 1774 Hamilton, quote or praise Grotius, Pufendorf, Locke; neither mentions Vattel.

    The way birthers imagine it, the founders only read Vattel and Vattel was the only philosopher in the day that talked about the meaning of “natural born.” Well, the founder also read Lord Coke – who wrote Calvin’s Case which defined natural born.

    Quick Summary of the literature in 1783:

    Vattel = indigenes
    Coke = natural born

    Jefferson told people he preferred Coke to the “honeyed Mansfieldism” of Blackstone.

    Patrick Henry passed the bar studying only Coke.

    John Adams called Coke “our judicial oracle.”

    Coke was used by the founders to give us things like “taxation without representation,” and trial by jury. Ever heard of those things?

    Samuel Adams, Jeremiah Dummer, James Otis, John Adams, John Dickinson, Richard Bland, William Henry Drayton, Charles Carroll and James Wilson all used Coke and Calvin’s case in making their arguments for the colonies.

    The state of mind produced by English conditions, no less than the actual chain of events, was of value to Americans. Its most prized historians were illustrious lawyers and philosophers who did not scruple to build eternal monuments to political right and wrong on the shifting sands of party politics. Bacon, Coke and Selden, Harrington, Locke and Sidney, are great names in the history of law and politics; their reputations need not suffer from an admission that they were not wholly disinterested spectators. It was these men and other whose dicta scattered through controvesial writings or embedded in weighty decisions, clutter up the pages of American pamphlets. Their value was greater because the authors were English: to the colonial pamphleteer there was absolution in quoting the political saints of England. Of the English authors, none occupied a higher place than Sir Edward Coke.

    Lastly we turn to James Wilson, the most exhaustive colonial student of Coke, and to all intents possessed of the best legal mind in America. From Calvin’s Case Wilson derived the blanket defence of colonial claims, namely that the colonies were not bound by English statutes.

    Tallbull, for every founder you find that mentions that they read Vattel, I’ll find you two founders who use Lord Coke’s Calvin’s Case to argue that the meaning of allegiance in that case (which gives us the definition of natural born) gives us the philosophical reasons for Independence!

    The founders read Vattel, but they argued that Lord Coke applied.

  122. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 12, 2010 at 7:49 am #

    Greg: James Wilson, the most exhaustive colonial student of Coke

    Would that be the same James Wilson who was a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, in whose home John Rutledge stayed during the convention (Rutledge contributed about 1/3 of the clauses in the Constitution), and the James Wilson upon whom Benjamin Franklin relied for advice during the Convention?

  123. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 12, 2010 at 7:53 am #

    greg: Show me that Jefferson used Vattel to define NBC, and not Locke, Montesquieu , Adam Smith, Beccaria, or James.

    Had Jefferson read de Vattel in 1777 when he used the the phrase “natural born citizen” in a resolution of the Continental Congress?

  124. avatar
    Greg May 12, 2010 at 8:29 am #

    WTF, if you’re going to impugn my honesty, please read more carefully. Did I say that Tucker believed that? No, I said:

    I’ve quoted him several times as showing that the people at that time recognized “natural born citizen” as those born within the borders:

    As for your reasoning for why the Founders chose natural born citizen over natives or indigenes, it doesn’t really address the source of confusion. Let me see if I can make this clear:

    natural born subject
    natural born citizen

    The meaning of the first phrase was well known to the Founders. It came from Lord Coke’s Calvin’s Case. Calvin’s case and Coke were cited by Samuel Adams, James Otis, John Adams, John Dickinson, Richard Bland, William Henry Drayton, Charles Carroll and James Wilson in making their arguments for the colonies.

    Lastly we turn to James Wilson, the most exhaustive colonial student of Coke, and to all intents possessed of the best legal mind in America. From Calvin’s Case Wislon derived the blanket defence of colonial claims, namely that the colonies were not bound by English statutes.

    Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin all recommended Lord Coke to their fellows. John Adams called him “our judicial oracle.”

    Oh, and the Rawle quoted above was 1829, not 1929. The definition of NBC as equivalent to NBS arose early in our nation’s history. Nowhere, for example, in Tucker’s book that you quoted, does he say that NBC means anything other than NBS. He uses the phrases “native or indigenes” on the page you linked to!

    Did you know that Law of Nations was the third most published work during the revolution and just after?

    And what were the other two?

    And, there’s a difference between publishing a book and reading and quoting a book. The most cited works by the founders were, in order, God (St. Paul), Montesquieu, and Blackstone. At number 11 was Lord Coke (who gave us the meaning of natural born subject), and at a distant 29th is Vattel.

    Lots of people own Stephen Hawking’s A Brief History of Time. Not many people have read it all the way through! Lots of founders may have owned Vattel’s book, but when they actually got around to talking to people, they mentioned Blackstone and Coke significantly more often than they mentioned Vattel!

  125. avatar
    Greg May 12, 2010 at 8:34 am #

    The same.

  126. avatar
    Mike May 12, 2010 at 9:41 am #

    Scientist: I know that Britain, France, Canada and Australia do NOT-they allow any citizen, natural born OR naturalized to be President or Prime Minister.

    Andrew Bonar Law, who was Prime Minister for a brief span in the 1920s, was born in New Brunswick, now part of Canada.

  127. avatar
    Scientist May 12, 2010 at 10:03 am #

    And Nicolas Sarkozy’s father was from Hungary and only became a French citizen many years after Nicolas was born.

    The birther’s have consistently ignored me when I’ve said this, but I will keep hammering on it. They attempt to tell us that the natural born citizen clause:

    1. Derives from “natural law”, which is supposed to be common to all humans.
    2. Is essential to national security.

    Yet, the US is virtually alone in having such a clause. Now I recognize that the US or any other country has the right to make their own laws. Still, if you’re driving down the highway and all the cars in your lane are going in the opposite direction from you, it behooves you to take a good hard look at whether it might be you rather than all of them who is going the wrong way.

    I would like to hear a real defense of the natural born citizen clause beyond “The founders said so”. After all, the Bill of Rights can be supported by a whole body of moral philosophy and similar provisions are in the constitutions of a great many countries and in the UN Charter on Human Rights. Not so with NBC, I’m sorry to say. The philosophical underpinnings are weak at best.

  128. avatar
    WTF? May 12, 2010 at 10:56 am #

    “The notes taken of the debate by the Constitutional Convention mention The Law of Nations and Emerich de Vattel how many times exactly?”

    I don’t know off the top of my head. I’m currently running OCR on the debates.

    What importance does it have?

  129. avatar
    Black Lion May 12, 2010 at 11:05 am #

    Really Tallbull? You may want to change your mind…Even the Freepers are not sold on Vattel and your NBC definition….Who would have thought that there would be semi-rational freepers out there….

    Indigenous is defined as
    “1. originating in and characteristic of a particular region or country; native (often fol. by to): the plants indigenous to Canada; the indigenous peoples of southern Africa.
    2. innate; inherent; natural (usually fol. by to): feelings indigenous to human beings.”
    Its derivation is…
    “1640–50; < L indigen(a) native, original inhabitant (indi-, by-form of in- in-2 (cf. indagate) + -gena, deriv. from base of gignere to bring into being; cf. genital, genitor) + -ous”
    Also: “—Synonyms 1. autochthonous, aboriginal, natural.”
    So I think a translation of “the native, or indigenous person” is vastly superior to “the native, or natural born citizen” – and certainly reject the idea that NBC is the definitive translation, for legal purposes, of a document that makes one reference to “Indigenes”.
    To: Mr Rogers
    So I think a translation of “the native, or indigenous person” is vastly superior to “the native, or natural born citizen” – and certainly reject the idea that NBC is the definitive translation, for legal purposes, of a document that makes one reference to “Indigenes”.
    You're right. I don't see how the Founders who were reading Law of Nations when the Constitution was being written, either in French or an early translation, would get "natural born citizen" from the text. It's much more likely to me that the phrase is adopted from common law of England, which I believe is what the Supreme Court has already said.

    35 posted on Wednesday, May 12, 2010 1:48:06 AM by Kleon

    To: Mr Rogers
    FWIW, your definitions are of the English word indigenous. While I assume this definition is quite similar to the equivalent word in French, there may be shades of meaning that vary.

    Since we’re dealing with shades of meaning here, that could be pretty important.

    I agree with you that using Vattel as a primary argument for the legal definition of NBC is a pretty weak reed.

    I have yet to see any convincing argument that NBC means “citizen at birth” as opposed to “naturalized citizen.” If so, its specific parameters would change as the definition of citizen at birth changed, notably with the 14th Amendment.

    45 posted on Wednesday, May 12, 2010 8:10:10 AM by Sherman Logan

  130. avatar
    Benji Franklin May 12, 2010 at 11:29 am #

    Dear WTF,

    Ask President Obama what relevance it has; between making Supreme Court Justice nominations, being Commander-in-Chief, and establishing foreign policy, he’s transparently your Daddy!

    Benji Franklin

  131. avatar
    WTF? May 12, 2010 at 11:38 am #

    Who is quoted more in early SCOTUS opinions? Blackstone or Vattel?

    Answer: Vattel

    As to the books, I’m talking about those used by lawyers and law students.

    The three most popular books on civil law that were widely read by post-revolution law students were (in order of numbers published):

    “An Essay on Crimes and Punishments” by Cesare Beccaria, (1778) –(sold by R. Bell, next door to St. Paul’s Church, on Third-Street in Philadelphia, PA.)

    “The Principles of Natural Law” by Jean Jacques Burlamaqui , (1748)

    “The Law of Nations” by Emmerich de Vattel, (1758)

  132. avatar
    Black Lion May 12, 2010 at 11:46 am #

    WTF, that is a misleading statement. Define what you mean by “early SCOTUS Opinions”. Do you mean before 1820? Statistics out of context are meaningless. And regarding citizenship, the SCOTUS justices explictily rejected Vattel in the Wong ruling. So what exactly is the point you are trying to make? Blackstone was widely referenced and many of his terms were used to establish law in the early US.

  133. avatar
    WTF? May 12, 2010 at 11:47 am #

    Greg,

    Was the term “natural-born citizen” used anywhere prior to its use in the U.S. Constitution?

  134. avatar
    WTF? May 12, 2010 at 11:49 am #

    Black Lion,

    Who are the people indigenous to America?

  135. avatar
    WTF? May 12, 2010 at 12:01 pm #

    Black Lion

    Cranch

  136. avatar
    Greg May 12, 2010 at 12:02 pm #

    And, who wrote the Constitution, the Founders, or law students?

    By number of times quoted by the founders, the most influential writers were, in order:

    1. St. Paul
    2. Montesquieu
    3. Sir William Blackstone
    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

    28. Niccolo Machiavelli
    29. Emmerich de Vattel

    Federal Cases 1776-1800
    Blackstone – 38
    Vattel – 14

    1800-1825
    Blackstone – 53
    Vattel – 30

    1826-1850
    Blackstone – 68
    Vattel – 37

    1851-1900
    Blackstone – 287
    Vattel – 79

    1901-2010
    Blackstone – 3,670
    Vattel – 102

    This is from Google Scholar. It only has coverage of the Supreme Court until 1923. You can see the results from 1776-1850 for Vattel and for Blackstone by clicking on the links.

    So, when was it that the Supreme Court quoted Vattel more often than Blackstone?

  137. avatar
    WTF? May 12, 2010 at 12:06 pm #

    Black Lion,

    “And regarding citizenship, the SCOTUS justices explictily rejected Vattel in the Wong ruling.”

    Was the Court asked to determine is Ark was a “natural-born citizen”?

    Please quote the portion of Ark where the Court “explictily[sic] rejected Vattel”.

  138. avatar
    Greg May 12, 2010 at 12:16 pm #

    Constitution was written in 1787. Jefferson put forward a resolution of the Continental Congress in 1777 using the term “natural born citizen.”

    And, Tucker seems to think it was used prior to the Constitution being written:

    A very respectable political writer makes the following pertinent remarks upon this subject. “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it.

  139. avatar
    Black Lion May 12, 2010 at 12:19 pm #

    Like Greg said you must have not read the entire Wong opinion. Goerge D. Collins’ entire argument rested on the Vattel theory, and he lost. Since he lost that means the SCOTUS rejected that argument. The dissent did belive Collins in regards to the Vattel definition, but they lost 6-2. So in other words the SCOTUS examined the so called 2 citizen “Vattel” theory and rejected it in favor of Blackstone and the English Common Law definition. And while you are at it you may want to read the brief to the court after the lower court ruling. The argument by the losing side was that if they ruled in favor of Wong, then that would make Wong eligible to be President.

  140. avatar
    Greg May 12, 2010 at 12:19 pm #

    The court found Wong a citizen because the term natural born citizen was the same as natural born subject.

    As to their rejection of Vattel, what do you think the court is talking about here:

    It was contended by one of the learned counsel for the United States that the rule of the Roman law, by which the citizenship of the child followed that of the parent, was the true rule of international law, as now recognized in most civilized countries, and had superseded the rule of the common law, depending on birth within the realm, originally founded on feudal considerations.

    Isn’t that the rule of Vattel?

    Since you’ve read the case, you can tell us whether the court accepted this or rejected this. Hint: pages 666-675.

  141. avatar
    Black Lion May 12, 2010 at 12:32 pm #

    Anyone born in America. Simple. Just like who are the people indigenous to Europe? The answer would be anyone that was born there. The point is that natural born and indigenous are not synonyoms, so to translate it as such was wrong. And Vattel never defined his term to mean 2 citizens. According to his writings he felt that one parent who was a citizen would be sufficient to make a person an “Indigenes”. Even the freepers, who hate Obama, have figured that one out…

  142. avatar
    Expelliarmus May 12, 2010 at 1:00 pm #

    Actually, based on train schedules at the time, Mombasa was 2 days travel away from Kogelo.

  143. avatar
    SFJeff May 12, 2010 at 1:15 pm #

    Clearly only native Americans.

    Apparently we have been misinterpreting the Constitution all along- the writers of the Constitution recognized that only those whose American ancestors had predated European colonization were fit to be President.

    Someone should get the Supreme Court to rule on that.

  144. avatar
    SFJeff May 12, 2010 at 1:20 pm #

    Hey WTF- still looking for some evidence that Obama’s pregnant mother travelled to Mombasa.

    Do you have anything, or was it just the product of your fertile imagination?

  145. avatar
    nbC May 12, 2010 at 1:22 pm #

    Was the Court asked to determine is Ark was a “natural-born citizen”?

    Yes, the alternative was that he was a naturalized citizen which was impossible under US law of those times.

    Did you even read the case?

  146. avatar
    nemocapn May 12, 2010 at 1:35 pm #

    Thanks for that info, Expelliarmus. Wow, that’s some train trip. I should’ve mentioned that my calculations are based on road travel as calculated by Google maps. I don’t know whether those roads were there in 1961.

  147. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 12, 2010 at 1:41 pm #

    WTF?: Was the term “natural-born citizen” used anywhere prior to its use in the U.S. Constitution?

    Yes. In addition to the resolution from the Continental Congress from 1777 as mentioned by Greg, it was also used in state legislation, for example in Massachusetts in 1785. Further, state legislation was using the term “natural born subject” in legislation passed after 1787.

  148. avatar
    nbC May 12, 2010 at 1:47 pm #

    The appellant’s brief included clear statements that indicate that they understood that the lower case had ruled Wong Kim Ark to be a natural born citizen. Remember that there are only two kinds of citizens: natural-ized and natural-born. So when the lower court observed that WKA could not have become a naturalized citizen and ruled him to be a citizen, the implications were clear.
    Even the dissenting judge observed that Wong Kim Ark, under the ruling, would be eligible to run for president.

  149. avatar
    nbC May 12, 2010 at 1:48 pm #

    There are plenty more but I doubt that WTF is really interested in learning that there is a clear understanding, legally, historically and scholarly that natural born citizen, involves any child born on US soil, regardless of the parents, with minor exceptions.

    Citizens are either natural-born or natural-ized.

  150. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 12, 2010 at 1:49 pm #

    WTF?: What importance does it have?

    If de Vattel and the Law of Nations were not mentioned AT ALL in the notes of the debate on the Constitutional Convention, I would think it has considerable importance to the evaluation of any argument asserting the importance of the work in the formulation of the Constitution.

  151. avatar
    nbC May 12, 2010 at 1:50 pm #

    The NY Constitutional Conference changes natural-born to native-born because the former would be confusing as to the manner of birth (caesarian)…
    Clearly born on soil was a clearly understood definition of native/natural born.

  152. avatar
    J. Edward Tremlett May 12, 2010 at 1:52 pm #

    I WISH we could have Kermit the Frog as President. : )

    But I’ll gladly settle for Obama for the time being.

  153. avatar
    Expelliarmus May 12, 2010 at 1:55 pm #

    nemocapn: Thanks for that info, Expelliarmus.Wow, that’s some train trip.

    It’s been a while since I checked, but I believe that there is a night train from Nairobi to Kisumu, and a night train from Nairobi to Mombasa, and that they run on alternate days (e.g., one is Monday, Wednesday, Friday –the other is Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday.

    Obama describes his journey from Nairobi to Kogelo in his autobiography — that took place in the 1980’s — and even then it was something of an ordeal.

    The village of Kogelo did not even have electricity until November 2008, a local improvement that only occurred in response to Obama’s election as President.

  154. avatar
    Expelliarmus May 12, 2010 at 1:59 pm #

    The other thing to keep in mind is that in 1961 Nairobi had significantly better medical care available than Mombasa, and Mombasa did not have an international airport — only a small airstrip for local flights. So it would have made no sense for a pregnant westerner stranded in western Kenya to journey to bypass Nairobi and journey to Mombasa.

  155. avatar
    Bob Ross May 12, 2010 at 1:59 pm #

    The french? We don’t need the french we have Benjamin Martin and you know what he done to the french?

    Sorry couldn’t resist the obscure line from the Patriot

  156. avatar
    J. Edward Tremlett May 13, 2010 at 5:41 pm #

    Too true.

    Makes you wonder what WTF’s actually after, here.

    What ARE you arguing for, WTF?