Main Menu

Texas birther gets visit from Secret Service

Birther William Mattison from Amarillo, Texas was visited by the Secret Service after sending a email threatening Barack Obama to his congressman, Republican Mac Thornberry, according to the Amarillo Globe News. After admitting that he wrote that he was considering assassination of the President, Mattison explained: “I’m tired of having a president that refuses to make public his birth certificate.”

Threatening the President is a felony that carries a penalty  of up to 5 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. The case is still under investigation.

66 Responses to Texas birther gets visit from Secret Service

  1. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP October 6, 2010 at 10:25 pm #

    I knew it. That’s what they are trying to do with their lies and propaganda – influence some nutjob to take the law into his own hands. They are scum

  2. avatar
    Daniel October 6, 2010 at 10:33 pm #

    “(The Secret Service) told me I had committed a crime, and I told them I did it on purpose,” Mattison said.

    Oh great, another Lakin….

  3. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 6, 2010 at 10:36 pm #

    Daniel: “(The Secret Service) told me I had committed a crime, and I told them I did it on purpose,” Mattison said.
    Oh great, another Lakin….

    I can see the defense: you can’t convict me for threatening the President when he ain’t the president. That actually makes a little more sense then Terry Lakin’s “defense.”

  4. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP October 6, 2010 at 10:37 pm #

    lol. That’s rich.

  5. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP October 6, 2010 at 10:43 pm #

    Maybe this will be the newest birther trend. Threatening the president thinking they can get discovery in order to defend themselves. lmao

  6. avatar
    Majority Will October 6, 2010 at 10:52 pm #

    Lock him up and lose the key.

  7. avatar
    nbc October 6, 2010 at 11:05 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I can see the defense: you can’t convict me for threatening the President when he ain’t the president. That actually makes a little more sense then Terry Lakin’s “defense.”

    Barely because the courts will find the same. The issue of eligibility is not relevant.

  8. avatar
    Gregory October 6, 2010 at 11:51 pm #

    Daniel: “(The Secret Service) told me I had committed a crime, and I told them I did it on purpose,”

    As Clint Eastwood reminded us in In the Line of Fire, “It’s a felony to threaten the President of the United States – even if you don’t mean it.” To which John Malkovich, replied, “but I do mean it…”

  9. avatar
    Ardvark Joos October 7, 2010 at 1:43 am #

    Gregory: As Clint Eastwood reminded us in In the Line of Fire, “It’s a felony to threaten the President of the United States – even if you don’t mean it.” To which John Malkovich, replied, “but I do mean it…”

    actually the Character Mitch Leary said he meant to kill the president. You just accused John Malkovich of a felony. Falsely accusing someone else of commiting a felony is a felony. You obots sure are good at criminality.

  10. avatar
    Steve October 7, 2010 at 1:48 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I can see the defense: you can’t convict me for threatening the President when he ain’t the president. That actually makes a little more sense then Terry Lakin’s “defense.”

    And as I’ve said before, I’m pretty sure it’s illegal to threaten to kill anybody. It might not carry as severe a sentence as threatening to kill the President, but it’s still illegal.

  11. avatar
    NbC October 7, 2010 at 1:56 am #

    Steve: And as I’ve said before, I’m pretty sure it’s illegal to threaten to kill anybody. It might not carry as severe a sentence as threatening to kill the President, but it’s still illegal.

    True but not as interesting…

    Sadly enough I doubt that the courts would find merit in the argument as the President, regardless of his future eligibility determination by Congress, is our President and thus regardless, the statement, if found to be indeed a threat, will be allow to stand.

    Just like Lakin, our foolish friend may face jail time and financial hardship.

    And for what?

  12. avatar
    AnotherBird October 7, 2010 at 5:32 am #

    NbC:
    … Just like Lakin, our foolish friend may face jail time and financial hardship. And for what?

    Anything to dull the disappoint of an election lost. There should be awards for these people.
    – $20,000 fine
    – possible prison time and a fine
    – possible prison time, loss of pension, and prison (Lakin)
    – fired from contract job after orders withdrawn.

    I can think of any more examples.

    Birthers seem to want to go very deep just to be proven wrong. Of course they never admit that they are wrong.

  13. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 7, 2010 at 7:20 am #

    Steve: And as I’ve said before, I’m pretty sure it’s illegal to threaten to kill anybody. It might not carry as severe a sentence as threatening to kill the President, but it’s still illegal.

    Threatening a federal official is a specific statute, and would the statue this fellow would be charged with in a federal court. My guess is that he won’t be charged.

  14. avatar
    Bovril October 7, 2010 at 8:00 am #

    Ardvark Joos: actually the Character Mitch Leary said he meant to kill the president. You just accused John Malkovich of a felony. Falsely accusing someone else of commiting a felony is a felony. You obots sure are good at criminality.

    Going to have to work a LITTLE harder Joos/Sven for that sort of “insult” to work.

    It shows, at the very best, a facile and juvenile Weltanschauung and reflects badly on your current 8th grade educators.

  15. avatar
    Black Lion October 7, 2010 at 9:51 am #

    Glenda Beck is at it again….

    Glenn Beck: Slavery “started with seemingly innocent ideas” and then “the government began to regulate things”

    http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201010010026

    “Apparently Glenn Beck’s infatuation with black history extends to slavery. On the Oct. 1 broadcast of The Glenn Beck Program, Beck stated that slavery “started with seemingly innocent ideas.” Come again? What’s even more ridiculous than the comment is how he got there, rambling from one point to the next. He was attempting to deconstruct President Obama and borrow from the president’s comments on patience. Obama used slavery as an example of having patience at a time when it seems the world has gone mad. Somehow, Beck took that comment and meandered to comments on slavery that don’t even support the point he was trying to make. Eventually he got to it, but only after some major gaffes about slavery. He wanted to know if folks are in the business of being slaves or freeing slaves as it relates to health care reform and the economy. Beck undermines the question and himself by pretending that slavery just appeared from out of nowhere. Poof — slavery. Yeah, not so much. Even though his thoughts are real, his facts are not. Beck’s point that slavery started out as this innocuous thing that turned into this monster is a false one.”

    http://www.theroot.com/buzz/glenn-beck-downplays-slavery

  16. avatar
    ballantine October 7, 2010 at 10:13 am #

    Black Lion: Glenda Beck is at it again….Glenn Beck: Slavery “started with seemingly innocent ideas” and then “the government began to regulate things”http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201010010026“Apparently Glenn Beck’s infatuation with black history extends to slavery. On the Oct. 1 broadcast of The Glenn Beck Program, Beck stated that slavery “started with seemingly innocent ideas.” Come again? What’s even more ridiculous than the comment is how he got there, rambling from one point to the next. He was attempting to deconstruct President Obama and borrow from the president’s comments on patience. Obama used slavery as an example of having patience at a time when it seems the world has gone mad. Somehow, Beck took that comment and meandered to comments on slavery that don’t even support the point he was trying to make. Eventually he got to it, but only after some major gaffes about slavery. He wanted to know if folks are in the business of being slaves or freeing slaves as it relates to health care reform and the economy. Beck undermines the question and himself by pretending that slavery just appeared from out of nowhere. Poof — slavery. Yeah, not so much. Even though his thoughts are real, his facts are not. Beck’s point that slavery started out as this innocuous thing that turned into this monster is a false one.”http://www.theroot.com/buzz/glenn-beck-downplays-slavery

    .
    That was just delusional. What court case is he talking about. There wasn’t slavery before Dred Scott? The right has simply lost its mind.

  17. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) October 7, 2010 at 10:14 am #

    ballantine: .That was just delusional. What court case is he talking about. There wasn’t slavery before Dred Scott? The right has simply lost its mind.

    Yeah because owning another human being is a seemingly innocent idea. Glenn is off the deep end

  18. avatar
    Black Lion October 7, 2010 at 11:41 am #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): Yeah because owning another human being is a seemingly innocent idea. Glenn is off the deep end

    He is…But you should have seen how many people refused to call him on it over at GW….Beck is still a hero to many….

  19. avatar
    Slartibartfast October 7, 2010 at 11:50 am #

    Ardvark Joos:
    actually the Character Mitch Leary said he meant to kill the president. You just accused John Malkovich of a felony. Falsely accusing someone else of commiting a felony is a felony. You obots sure are good at criminality.

    Actually, if you read the comment, it accurately reports dialogue by Mr. Eastwood and Mr. Malkovich in the movie ‘In the Line of Fire’. Mr. Malkovich did utter those words in the context presented, thus Gregory did not do anything wrong, unlike Mr. Mattison, but thank you for demonstrating once again how poorly birthers understand the law…

  20. avatar
    misha October 7, 2010 at 12:20 pm #

    I read an interview in the print Washington Post, with Clarence Thomas.

    He actually said that liberalism was the cause of slavery.

    Are they insane, or does it just seem that way?

  21. avatar
    AnotherBird October 7, 2010 at 12:22 pm #

    Ardvark Joos:
    actually the Character Mitch Leary said he meant to kill the president. You just accused John Malkovich of a felony. Falsely accusing someone else of commiting a felony is a felony. You obots sure are good at criminality.

    It shouldn’t be hard to differentiate between the character an actor is performing and that actor. The analogy used by Gregory was to demonstrate some people’s lack of understand of the law. It the context that “Mitch Leary” utters the treat against the “president,” the character did commit a crime but only in the movie. Gregory does know the distinction between “Mitch Leary” and Mr. Malkovich. Taking about “falsely accusing someone.”

  22. avatar
    misha October 7, 2010 at 12:42 pm #

    Ardvark Joos: You obots sure are good at criminality.

    Conservatives are even better at criminality. No one has ever investigated Glenn Beck’s possible involvement in a rape and murder, for over a decade since 1990.

    Also, Beck is an anti-semite: http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/2010/07/did-glenn-beck-rape-and-murder-girl-in.html

  23. avatar
    J.D. Reed October 7, 2010 at 2:52 pm #

    Get serious, Aardvark. Expressing an opinion as to someone’s guiilt of a crime is in no way a crime. Falsely accusing someone of a crime by making a formal complaint to the authorities iis a crime. I”ll venture this opnion: The Amarillo guy is guilty of a crime, unless he’s shown to lack the requisite mental capability.

  24. avatar
    Gregory October 7, 2010 at 3:31 pm #

    Ardvark Joos:
    You just accused John Malkovich of a felony. Falsely accusing someone else of commiting a felony is a felony. You obots sure are good at criminality.

    Initially, I thought your reply was a parody (and I’m still unsure). But since others on this thread have taken your post seriously, I felt I should reply myself.

    As I thought I had made clear, John Malkovitch uttered his threat to kill the President as a line of dialogue in a movie. Furthermore, the “President” whom he threatened to kill – was not an actual U.S. President – in fact, he was not even a real person.

    And I’m fairly confident that it is not a felony to threaten to kill a fictional character.

  25. avatar
    HellT October 7, 2010 at 3:37 pm #

    misha: I read an interview in the print Washington Post, with Clarence Thomas.He actually said that liberalism was the cause of slavery.Are they insane, or does it just seem that way?

    Tell them that liberalism was the cause of the United States coming into being, and they wet their pants in rage.

    I don’t know if they’re crazy, or ignorant, or equal parts of each. All I know is they have little acquaintance with reality.

    I do find it hilarious that every single attribute they’ve accused liberals of using they’ve taken up themselves. They’ve adopted the use of protest groups, they scream in fury about things they deem politically incorrect, play the historical revisionism game, proudly display their hatred of religion (every religion except theirs), play the victim card, disclaim any notion of personal responsibility, solicit volunteers to picket at demonstrations and work on political campaigns, attempt vote tampering by trying to disqualify masses of people from voting. They’ve even engaged in community organizing, To top it all off, they’re incensed about people exercising their second amendment rights in public places – when it’s a couple of African-Americans holding sticks.

    Years ago I read a scholarly analysis of right-wing talk radio that defined it as a group of white male hysterics. It’s a haven for guys who want to whine and moan and otherwise act out in ways that were formerly considered un-masculine. The kicker is, it’s okay as long as it is framed in political terms. But it isn’t really about politics, it’s about men seizing their chance to scream like babies and not only not be called on it, but to be commended for it. As long as they pretend it isn’t about them (childish), but about their country (heroic).

    Which is why the birthers deserve their very own waaaah-mbulance.

  26. avatar
    Majority Will October 7, 2010 at 4:00 pm #

    Gregory: And I’m fairly confident that it is not a felony to threaten to kill a fictional character.

    Cartoons are real in his world.

  27. avatar
    Patrick McKinnion October 7, 2010 at 4:05 pm #

    Dear. Berg, Taitz, Apuzzo, Hale, Fitzpatrick, Pidgeon, Rondeau, Pinkstaff, Martin, Polland, Geller, Lakin, Hemenway, Swenssen, Manning, Vallely, Farah, Huff, Campbell, “Crockett”, Wells, “Lame Cherry”, Daniels, and every other birtherstani wackadoodle out there.

    Meet your child, William Mattison. Aren’t you happy??

    Oh, right, you ARE happy. Because it’s never been about the Constitution, or politics, or anything else for you, has it? It’s been your butt-hurt over the fact that Obama took office, either because you mourn the loss of “Dear Hillary”, or the loss of Sen. McCain and St. Sarah Moosekiller, or that you’re aghast over the fact that the majority of American voters voted for that uppity darkie with the scary name.

    That’s all it’s ever been for you, right? All this pious weeping over the Constitution (even though you’ve obviously never read it), this misreading of de Vattel, all this talk of uprisings and military coups, all this talk of armed rebellion and citizen “grand juries”, all these increasingly absurd conspiracies, is all because you’re still upset that Someone other than Hillary/A Democrat/an uppity darkie is President.

    Right??

    Well, meet the product of your little conspiracy fetish. Of course, you don’t want someone to merely threaten, oh no.

    You’re waiting for that special someone to actually make the attempt. To hell with the country, to hell with the American people, to hell with the voters, you want someone to actually pull that godsdammed trigger and free the White House once and for all from Obama.

    Right?? Of course.

  28. avatar
    misha October 7, 2010 at 4:11 pm #

    Patrick McKinnion: Meet your child, William Mattison. Aren’t you happy??

    Amen, bro. Orly goes to gun shows, in the hope of inciting a lone wolf. Send that shonde back to Moldova, or Tel Aviv.

  29. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP October 7, 2010 at 4:36 pm #

    Patrick McKinnion: You’re waiting for that special someone to actually make the attempt. To hell with the country, to hell with the American people, to hell with the voters, you want someone to actually pull that godsdammed trigger and free the White House once and for all from Obama.Right??Of course.

    If they can’t deprive 64.5 million Americans of their Constitutional rights constitutionally, I’m sure they have no problem of inciting someone to achieve that end unconstitutionally.

  30. avatar
    ASK Esq October 7, 2010 at 5:59 pm #

    How soon until some enterprising birther lawyer sets up a website with a handy PayPal button so as to trick other birthers to pay for the defense for this soon to be alleged patriot(along with said attorney’s mortgage)?

  31. avatar
    Lupin October 8, 2010 at 4:38 am #

    Gregory: And I’m fairly confident that it is not a felony to threaten to kill a fictional character.

    Otherwise Leonard “Spock Must Die” Nimoy would still be serving time. 🙂

  32. avatar
    J.D. Reed October 8, 2010 at 7:58 am #

    Here’s a link to the wouold-be assassin’s ramblling letter to Congressman Thornberry.
    Note the birther talking points in it.
    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1f1_1286485571

  33. avatar
    HORUS October 8, 2010 at 11:15 am #

    Steve: And as I’ve said before, I’m pretty sure it’s illegal to threaten to kill anybody.

    Unfortunately there is no law against people threatening to kill you, until they actually attempt to kill you.

    I found this out when an ex-brother-in-law threatened to kill me.
    I went to the Police Station and they told me that there was NOTHING they could do until he actually tried something.
    I got out of town before anything could happen and have not been back there since.

  34. avatar
    Daniel October 8, 2010 at 11:16 am #

    ““After all of this, I am considering assassinating him in fulfillment of the oath I took in September of 1958 when I was sworn into the Air Force,” Mattison wrote in the letter’s final paragraph. “I made a sacred promise to my God and no power on earth can make me abandon that oath.””

    Funny how people think that only Muslim religious extremeists are dangerous……

  35. avatar
    misha October 8, 2010 at 11:26 am #

    Daniel: Funny how people think that only Muslim religious extremeists are dangerous……

    Yeah, just like McVeigh, or clinic violence.

  36. avatar
    Bovril October 8, 2010 at 12:53 pm #

    Horus,

    I was not there so cannot state with certainty, however the probability with your issue is not that there was no law against threatening you, there is.

    The issue is you probably had no demonstrable proof of the threat such as an email, a witness, a voice recording etc.

    Without some corroboration, it’s a “He Said – He Said” matter

  37. avatar
    Black Lion October 8, 2010 at 1:21 pm #

    I saw this over at BadFiction…heads up to Pat for noticing….It is from the idiotic Dr. Kate….Interesting to the fact how the birthers claimed that old books taught everyone that the President needed to have 2 citizen parents….

    http://drkatesview.wordpress.com/2010/10/06/the-usurpathons-october-surpris/#comment-12387

    jc
    Thursday, October 7, 2010, at 9:17 am
    I have also been looking for books from the 50′s and before to find something written with the definition clearly laid out for natural born Citizen. In this quest I have always thought until it is determined what is a natural born Citizen we can never have resolution. On what basis do each of the 50 states determine this requirement if they cannot agree on what is or is not a natural born Citizen.

    Our town has a yearly rummage sale that has a huge book section that has lots of very old books. This year I procured a copy of a childrens book titled, Presidents by Harold Coy. This was the 1973 edition. It was first published in 1952.
    In it on page two is “Who Can Be President? Anybody, so the saying goes, can be President of the United States. Actually this is not quite true. The Constitution says the President must be:
    a United States citizen from birth
    at least thirty-five years old
    fourteen years a resident of this country.
    A President serves four years and may be reelected for four years more. A 1951 change in the Constitution provides that no President can serve for more than two terms.
    Sometimes the President is spoken of as “the people’s choice,” but you will not find this in the Constitution. When it was written, few people voted without owning property. Even these voters were to choose only electors for their state. These electors were to pick a President. In practice it has worked out differently.”

    A United States citizen from birth. Not what I was looking for. The hunt continues. Good luck, Patriots.

  38. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) October 8, 2010 at 2:12 pm #

    Black Lion: I saw this over at BadFiction…heads up to Pat for noticing….It is from the idiotic Dr. Kate….Interesting to the fact how the birthers claimed that old books taught everyone that the President needed to have 2 citizen parents….http://drkatesview.wordpress.com/2010/10/06/the-usurpathons-october-surpris/#comment-12387jcThursday, October 7, 2010, at 9:17 amI have also been looking for books from the 50′s and before to find something written with the definition clearly laid out for natural born Citizen. In this quest I have always thought until it is determined what is a natural born Citizen we can never have resolution. On what basis do each of the 50 states determine this requirement if they cannot agree on what is or is not a natural born Citizen.Our town has a yearly rummage sale that has a huge book section that has lots of very old books. This year I procured a copy of a childrens book titled, Presidents by Harold Coy. This was the 1973 edition. It was first published in 1952.In it on page two is “Who Can Be President? Anybody, so the saying goes, can be President of the United States. Actually this is not quite true. The Constitution says the President must be:a United States citizen from birthat least thirty-five years oldfourteen years a resident of this country.A President serves four years and may be reelected for four years more. A 1951 change in the Constitution provides that no President can serve for more than two terms.Sometimes the President is spoken of as “the people’s choice,” but you will not find this in the Constitution. When it was written, few people voted without owning property. Even these voters were to choose only electors for their state. These electors were to pick a President. In practice it has worked out differently.”A United States citizen from birth. Not what I was looking for. The hunt continues. Good luck, Patriots.

    Haha she doesn’t like what she reads so she throws it out. The fact is the books didn’t teach what she states and they’re trying to retroactively say something that didn’t exist before

  39. avatar
    Rickey October 8, 2010 at 2:25 pm #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross):
    Haha she doesn’t like what she reads so she throws it out.The fact is the books didn’t teach what she states and they’re trying to retroactively say something that didn’t exist before.

    As I just posted in another thread:

    I have a copy of a conservative history textbook published by the right-wing National Center for Constitutional Studies in 1985 titled “The Making of America: the Substance and Meaning of the Constitution.” It was written by W. Cleon Skousen.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleon_Skousen

    The book breaks the Constitution down to 286 “principles.” Principle 141 discusses the natural born citizen requirement:

    To be a candidate for President of the United States, a person must be a natural born citizen, or a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. This provision gave the American people the right to have a President who would always be one of their own native-born fellow citizens.

    p. 528

  40. avatar
    ballantine October 8, 2010 at 3:56 pm #

    Black Lion: I saw this over at BadFiction…heads up to Pat for noticing….It is from the idiotic Dr. Kate….Interesting to the fact how the birthers claimed that old books taught everyone that the President needed to have 2 citizen parents….http://drkatesview.wordpress.com/2010/10/06/the-usurpathons-october-surpris/#comment-12387jcThursday, October 7, 2010, at 9:17 amI have also been looking for books from the 50′s and before to find something written with the definition clearly laid out for natural born Citizen. In this quest I have always thought until it is determined what is a natural born Citizen we can never have resolution. On what basis do each of the 50 states determine this requirement if they cannot agree on what is or is not a natural born Citizen.Our town has a yearly rummage sale that has a huge book section that has lots of very old books. This year I procured a copy of a childrens book titled, Presidents by Harold Coy. This was the 1973 edition. It was first published in 1952.In it on page two is “Who Can Be President? Anybody, so the saying goes, can be President of the United States. Actually this is not quite true. The Constitution says the President must be:a United States citizen from birthat least thirty-five years oldfourteen years a resident of this country.A President serves four years and may be reelected for four years more. A 1951 change in the Constitution provides that no President can serve for more than two terms.Sometimes the President is spoken of as “the people’s choice,” but you will not find this in the Constitution. When it was written, few people voted without owning property. Even these voters were to choose only electors for their state. These electors were to pick a President. In practice it has worked out differently.”A United States citizen from birth. Not what I was looking for. The hunt continues. Good luck, Patriots.

    .

    Since she appears too stupid to use google books, I thought I would help her out. Here are google snippits from 10 minutes of searching for old books from 1930-70. I think it will be a long, long time before she finds her book.
    .

    The PTA magazine: Volume 48
    National Congress of Parents and Teachers – 1953 – Snippet view
    The President must be thirty-five years of age. born in the United States, and fourteen years a resident within the United States. 32. He is commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy, grants pardons, calls extra sessions of Congress, …

    Civics for citizens
    Stanley Ellwood Dimond, Elmer F. Pflieger – 1965 – 636 pages – Snippet view
    A natural-born citizen is one born in the United States or in one of its possessions. It is generally believed that a person born in a foreign country whose parents were American citizens could become President, but this issue …

    The American Constitution
    Charles Herman Pritchett – 1968 – 840 pages – Snippet view
    Every person born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen and, of course, a natural-born citizen.

    The American review
    Johns Hopkins University. Bologna Center. European Center of American Studies – 1960 – Snippet view
    The Constitutional qualifications for President are astonishingly simple: he must be born in the United States and be thirty-five years of age. These are the only qualifications: on all the other matters that have commanded so much …

    American Government: democracy at work
    Robert White – 1961 – 707 pages – Snippet view
    Qualifications: Who Can Be President? The legal qualifications for the President as set by the Constitution (Article II, Section 5) are only three in number: the President must be ( 1 ) a native-born citizen, (2) 35 years of age, …

    handbook for naturalization workers
    Esther Sterna Beckwith, Helen M. Katz, National Council of Jewish Women – 1942 – 76 pages – Snippet view
    Who may be a President or Vice-President of the United States? Any native-born citizen, 35 years of age or over, may be elected President or Vice-President of the United States. 38. What are some of the duties of the President? …

    Machinists’ monthly journal: Volume 49
    International Association of Machinists – 1937 – Snippet view
    Senator Wagner (NY) never tried to get the Democratic nomination for President. He is a naturalized citizen (born in Germany) and the constitution requires that a President must be born in the United States. To 0. …

    American business abroad: Ford on six continents
    Mira Wilkins, Frank Ernest Hill – 1964 – 541 pages – Snippet view
    “I can never be King of England,” he pointed out, “but if I had been born in the United States I could be President.” He was a furious worker, exacting but just, and quickly took charge of the Ford Motor Company’s business affairs. …

    Children’s activities
    Child Training Association, Children’s activities for home and school – 1959 – Snippet view
    Every boy born in the United States has the same chance to become president of our great country as had George Washington and

    Building our democracy
    Vanza Nielsen Devereaux, Homer Ferris Aker, Chester D. Babcock – 1962 – 381 pages – Snippet view
    The President must be at least thirty-five years old. He must have lived in the United States for fourteen years. He must be a native-born citizen. … A native-born citizen is a person born in the United States, its territories, …

    Our Federal Government: how it works: an introduction to the …
    Patricia C. Acheson – 1958 – 168 pages – Snippet view
    In the original Constitution there was no limitation placed on the number of terms one President might have. … Anyone aspiring to the highest office in the land must have been born in the United States, and he must be at least …

    Civics for Americans [teachers annotated ed
    Nadine I. Clark – 1961 – 570 pages – Snippet view
    Native-born citizens are those born in the United States or in its possessions. Those born in other countries are also … Only native-born citizens are eligible to be elected as the highest officers in the land, the President and …

    Encyclopedia Americana: Volume 9
    1965 – Snippet view
    The president and the vice president are elected for four years by direct, secret ballot and may not be reelected within 4 years after the expiration of their terms. Only native-born citizens at least 35 years of age are eligible for …

    How to become an American citizen
    American Committee for Protection of Foreign Born – 1938 – 30 pages – Snippet view
    For how many years are the President and Vice- President elected? They are elected for four years. Who may be President or Vice-President of the United States? Any native-born citizen, 35 years of age or over, may be elected President …

    Rise of the American Nation: Volume 2
    Lewis Paul Todd, Merle Eugene Curti – 1966 – 880 pages – Snippet view
    *I Qualifications for President: ( 1 ) A native-born citizen resident of the United States for at least 14 years, of the United States. (2) At least 35 years of age. (3) A f term of office: 4 years. 6. Filling vacancies. …

    Understanding American Government and politics
    Samuel Steinberg – 1967 – 372 pages – Snippet view
    Under the Constitution, the President must be a native-born citizen, at least 35 years of age at the time he takes office, and 14 years a resident of the United States. The residence requirement does not mean that a person must have …

    Choosing the president of the USA.
    No cover image Kathryn Haeseler Stone – 1954 – 43 pages – Snippet view
    This pamphlet will confine its description to the role of the two-party system in choosing the President. II. … that he be a native-born citizen at least 35 years of age and a resident of the country for at least fourteen years. …

    The Illinois constitution: an annotated and comparative analysis
    George D. Braden, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Institute of Government and Public Affairs, Illinois. Constitution Study Commission – 1969 – 624 pages – Snippet view
    The United States Constitution requires that the President be native born, 35 years old and l4 years a resident. By implication the same requirements must be met by the Vice President. The Model State Constitution requires only that the …

    Problems in American democracy
    Samuel Howard Patterson – 1961 – 658 pages – Snippet view
    The Constitution specifies that the President must be a native born American, at least 35 years of age. His term of office is four years, after which he may be re-elected. George Washington, our first President, refused a third term, …

    Principles and problems of American national government
    John M. Swarthout, Ernest R. Bartley – 1951 – 700 pages – Snippet view
    Since the Vice-President may assume the post of chief executive, he must meet the same constitutional qualifications as the President. The Vice-President, too, must be a native-born citizen who is at least 35 years of age and who has a …

    Life in America: a handbook of information for newcomers to the …
    Common Council for American Unity – 1955 – 96 pages – Snippet view
    However, only the Senate can approve or reject treaties with other nations proposed by the President and only the … The President must be a native-born citizen, at least 35 years old and with 14 years’ residence in the United States. …

    The World and its peoples: U.S.A.
    1966 – 642 pages – Snippet view
    The Executive Branch The executive branch of government is headed by the president, who is chosen in a national election for a four-year term of office. Any native-born citizen at least 35 years of age and a resident of the country for …

    America: its history and people, a unit organization
    Harold Underwood Faulkner, Tyler Kepner – 1950 – 953 pages – Snippet view
    Election of the President. To be eligible for the Presidency or Vice Presidency, either by election or succession, one must be a native-born citizen, at least 35 years of age, and a resident of the United States for 14 years [59, note; …

  41. avatar
    Slartibartfast October 8, 2010 at 6:00 pm #

    ballantine: Since she appears too stupid to use google books, I thought I would help her out. Here are google snippits from 10 minutes of searching for old books from 1930-70. I think it will be a long, long time before she finds her book.

    Very impressive list – I’d like to hear Mario try to explain it…

  42. avatar
    Dave October 8, 2010 at 6:41 pm #

    Black Lion: I saw this over at BadFiction…heads up to Pat for noticing….It is from the idiotic Dr. Kate….Interesting to the fact how the birthers claimed that old books taught everyone that the President needed to have 2 citizen parents….

    I fear you have given people the misimpression that you’re quoting Dr. Kate herself. The comment is on Dr. Kate’s blog, but is not by Dr. Kate. And, for those blissfully unfamiliar with her blog, it is a veritable Poe’s Law festival over there. Half the comments are written by people mocking birthers while pretending to be one. I suspect the comment you quote is one of those, but, just as Poe’s Law tells us, we can’t really tell.

  43. avatar
    obsolete October 8, 2010 at 7:58 pm #

    I am very impressed by us OBOT’s ability to suppress and scrub all the “correct” books (with the two citizen parent theory) from the internets and libraries!
    Good job!

  44. avatar
    Arthur October 8, 2010 at 8:30 pm #

    Slartibartfast:
    Very impressive list – I’d like to hear Mario try to explain it…

    How would Mario explain it? “I’m right, and everyone else is wrong!” It’s the fallback response that he and his ilk use whenever they are presented with evidence that contradicts their weltanschauung.

  45. avatar
    Slartibartfast October 8, 2010 at 8:36 pm #

    Arthur:
    How would Mario explain it? “I’m right, and everyone else is wrong!” It’s the fallback response that he and his ilk use whenever they are presented with evidence that contradicts their weltanschauung.

    But Mario’s attempt would probably be very entertaining…

  46. avatar
    NBC October 8, 2010 at 8:36 pm #

    obsolete: I am very impressed by us OBOT’s ability to suppress and scrub all the “correct” books (with the two citizen parent theory) from the internets and libraries!
    Good job!

    Google is part of the Soros network… Just ask Orly

  47. avatar
    Majority Will October 8, 2010 at 8:52 pm #

    NBC:
    Google is part of the Soros network… Just ask Orly

    I’m still waiting for my loyal Obot check.

  48. avatar
    misha October 8, 2010 at 11:35 pm #

    Majority Will: I’m still waiting for my loyal Obot check.

    I already got mine, courtesy of the International Jewish Conspiracy™.

  49. avatar
    BatGuano October 9, 2010 at 12:19 am #

    Dave: I fear you have given people the misimpression that you’re quoting Dr. Kate herself. The comment is on Dr. Kate’s blog, but is not by Dr. Kate.

    this is true and i do believe it is important to keep the facts straight on who said what. thanks dave.

    dr kate does chime in on the subject in the thread:

    “Thank you Coot, rogering Papoose.

    This is a significant find on the civics books…because this is proof of how the educational system has been twisted to denigrate the constitution. The target group was always the first or second generation after the WWII vets…the children of their children…”

  50. avatar
    Slartibartfast October 9, 2010 at 12:40 am #

    BatGuano: “Thank you Coot, rogering Papoose.

    This is a significant find on the civics books…because this is proof of how the educational system has been twisted to denigrate the constitution. The target group was always the first or second generation after the WWII vets…the children of their children…”

    Hmm… since there are quotes (above) that predate WWII, I guess this means that ALL OF WWII was some sort of plot that has culminated with the election of President Obama…

  51. avatar
    AnotherBird October 9, 2010 at 1:33 am #

    obsolete: I am very impressed by us OBOT’s ability to suppress and scrub all the “correct” books (with the two citizen parent theory) from the internets and libraries!
    Good job!

    … especially the libraries.

  52. avatar
    Northland10 October 9, 2010 at 9:52 am #

    The US Government in 1917 must have been gotten to by the Obots in their time machine. The Official U.S. Bulletin, Volume 1, under the “How to Answer the Army Regulation Questions” state:

    The fourth question, in regard to naturalization, reads: “Are you (1) a. natural-born citizen, (2) a naturalized citizen, (3) an alien, (4) or have you declared your intention (specify which)”?

    Regarding Naturalization. This question is explained, as follows, in the guide:

    (1) If you were born in the United States, Including Alaska and Hawaii, you are a natural-born citizen, no matter what may have been the citizenship or nationality of your parents. If you were born in Porto Rico, you are a citizen of the United States, unless you were born of alien parentage. If you were born abroad, you are still a citizen of the United States if your father was a citizen of the United States at the time you were born, unless you have expatriated yourself.

    (2) You are a naturalized citizen if you have completed your naturalization; that is, if you have taken “final papers.” But you are not a citizen if you have only declared your intention to become a citizen (that is, If you have only “taken out first papers”) ; In the latter case you are only a ” declarant.”

    You are also a naturalized citizen if, although foreign born, your father or surviving parent became fully naturalized while you were under 21 years of age, and If you came to the United States under 21.

    (3) You are a declarant if, although a citizen or subject of some foreign country, you have declared on oath before a naturalization court your intention to become a citizen of the United States. Receipt from the clerk of the court of the certified copy of such declaration is often called “taking out first papers.” You are not a declarant if your first paper was taken out after September 20, 1906, and is more than 7 years old.

    (4) You are an alien if you do not fall within one of the three classes above mentioned.

    http://books.google.com/books?id=6UfmAAAAMAAJ&dq=natural%20born%20citizen%20parent&pg=PA75#v=onepage&q=natural%20born%20citizen%20parent&f=false

  53. avatar
    Sef October 9, 2010 at 10:12 am #

    misha:
    I already got mine, courtesy of the International Jewish Conspiracy™.

    I just get letters, emails & phone calls to send in MY check.

  54. avatar
    Arthur October 9, 2010 at 12:43 pm #

    Northland10: The US Government in 1917 must have been gotten to by the Obots in their time machine.The Official U.S. Bulletin, Volume 1, under the “How to Answer the Army Regulation Questions” state:

    Interesting find, Northland.

  55. avatar
    misha October 9, 2010 at 1:06 pm #

    Northland10: The US Government in 1917 must have been gotten to by the Obots in their time machine.

    Arthur: Interesting find, Northland.

    It doesn’t matter to Denialists. Since Denialists say it’s not about race, what is their argument going to be in ’16 when Cory Booker runs? He was born in DC, and not a state? Sorry, Gore was born in DC.

  56. avatar
    J.D. Reed October 9, 2010 at 4:34 pm #

    This guy Mattison looks ready to make a defense that his contemplating an assassination does not amount to actually making a threat, and thus is no crime. I liken it to encountering a bear in the woods, a short distance away. You see the bear, he sees you. For a moment the bear stands there contemplating whether to attack you.
    Question: Are you already under threat while the bear is standing there considering his course of action? Or are you under threat only at such time as the bear makes known his intent by charging you?
    For someone to get by with no consequence, saying that he is only considering assassination is to inspire 50 thousand nutjobs to do likewise. Which would totally defeat the purpose of a ,statute criminalizing a threat to assassinate the president.
    Also, are we to credit this guy with honestly expressing his intentions? He has graciously told us what he is considering; do we just take it on faith that he will be as nice and transparent with his intentions, should he decides to move from words to action?

  57. avatar
    Reality Check October 10, 2010 at 9:22 am #

    ballantine: Since she appears too stupid to use google books, I thought I would help her out. Here are google snippits from 10 minutes of searching for old books from 1930-70. I think it will be a long, long time before she finds her book.

    Would you mind if I reposted this at The Fogbow? (Or even better you could). This is nice research.

  58. avatar
    Ballantine October 10, 2010 at 1:07 pm #

    Reality Check: Would you mind if I reposted this at The Fogbow? (Or even better you could). This is nice research.

    Of course not. When I get a few minutes, I want to see how many such sources I could find on google books. I’m pretty sure I could find at least 500. Take a look at this link for just one search:

    http://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&tbo=p&q=President+35+fourteen+%22born+in+the+united+states%22&num=100#sclient=psy&hl=en&tbs=bks:1&q=President+35+fourteen+%22born+in+the+united+states%22&aq=&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=aaa7d934080d917

  59. avatar
    Reality Check October 10, 2010 at 4:37 pm #

    Ballentine

    I think this is important research. Even links well down in the list all refer to natural born meaning born in the United States.

    Here is an interesting sidebar. One of the links led me to the constitution of the Confederate States of America. Look at the similar clause for presidential eligibility:

    (7) No person except a natural-born citizen of the Confederate; States, or a citizen thereof at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, or a citizen thereof born in the United States prior to the 20th of December, 1860, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the limits of the Confederate States, as they may exist at the time of his election.

    So the writers of the Confederate Constitution knew what the term “natural born” meant in the US Constitution. The just made it even more clear!

  60. avatar
    Reality Check October 10, 2010 at 4:37 pm #

    I meant “They just made it even more clear!”.

  61. avatar
    Reality Check October 10, 2010 at 4:46 pm #

    I also meant to spell your name correctly, Ballantine! I looks like those Johnny Reb’s never needed no stinking de Vattel.

  62. avatar
    ellid October 10, 2010 at 5:22 pm #

    Lupin:
    Otherwise Leonard “Spock Must Die” Nimoy would still be serving time.

    Actually, “Spock Must Die!” was written by James Blish. I read it. There was one good line, some interesting philosophical speculation, and a crappy plot.

  63. avatar
    aarrgghh October 11, 2010 at 8:46 pm #

    ellid:
    Actually, “Spock Must Die!” was written by James Blish.I read it.There was one good line, some interesting philosophical speculation, and a crappy plot.

    i read that too — like thirty years ago

  64. avatar
    aarrgghh October 11, 2010 at 8:53 pm #

    standing — by any means necessary (via freeperville):

    “would judges state he has no standing to see Obama’s “embarrassing” documentation, or would they just slam him in jail without allowing him a defense”

    “I do wonder if this man is smarter than he seems. Is it the case that there are distinct offences for threatening the alleged-President, above and beyond the regular offences for threatening somebody with murder?

    If so, he may have a very solid case for standing in demanding that Obama prove that he is the President. Then bam, it’s over, Obama is exposed and all this uyg has to do is pay the price for threatening a regular person. Which isn’t going to be that much jailtime at all, considering how weak the threat was.”

    it’s kind of amazing how these people never let you forget how stupid they are.

  65. avatar
    Sef October 12, 2010 at 12:00 am #

    aarrgghh: “I do wonder if this man is smarter than he seems.”

    No!

  66. avatar
    Thomas Brown October 12, 2010 at 9:36 am #

    Ardvark Joos:
    actually the Character Mitch Leary said he meant to kill the president. You just accused John Malkovich of a felony. Falsely accusing someone else of commiting a felony is a felony. You obots sure are good at criminality.

    Referring to a character, whose name you don’t remember, by the name of the actor is a common practice.

    You knuckle-dragging, racist, microcephalic reactionary pipsqueak conservaturds aren’t real good at thinking, are you?