I got the following email on the 10th, the day I left for vacation and only saw it this evening. I told this fellow in previous emails that I didn’t have time to deal with individual cranks, and that he should post on the blog.
This is basically a regurgitation of Apuzzo I think (although I haven’t read Apuzzo lately).
You’ve scoured the Internet and cannot find a single thing you say that backs my assertion? You must be blind indeed. Seeing that you act like a child then I shall treat you as one, doing YOUR homework since you admit lack of intellectual capacity. At the end of this rather lengthy letter I have some questions for you. I expect you to provide answers to MY questions.
First I shall DESTROY your argument with the English common law itself and play off YOUR suposition. I had originally thought there were no distinctions to be made in English common law but luckily… I was wrong. In the English common law itself there were laws that were created for the sole purpose of EXCLUDING those who were NOT born in England by English ParentS – again, plural.
In 1701, the English Parliament passed a law excluding, from public office, foreign-born persons of non-English parents:
…no person born out of the Kingdoms of England, Scotland, or Ireland, or the dominions thereunto belonging (although he be naturalized or made a denizen), except such as are born of English parents, shall be capable to be of the Privy Council, or a member of either House of Parliament, or to enjoy any office or place of trust, either civil or military, or to have any grant of lands, tenements or hereditaments from the Crown, to himself or to any other or others in trust for him; (Act of Settlement, 1701)So there in the English common law of 1701 it is well defined, THE CONCEPT that people who are NOT born to parentS cannot hold high office! The concept of naturalization and differentiating between various types of citizens is there as well. You have no argument. Even in the English common law the concept of excluding certain people is VALID and was known at the time.
———————————————————–
The phrase natural born citizen also appears in Quintilianus, Institutio Oratoria, Book1, Chapter VIII. There were English translations available at the time, although many of the Founders read Latin as well; Guthrie 1756, Patsall 1774.
The phrase Natural Born Citizen was NOT something alien and foreign and new at the time. And there is Vattel, even in the early French saying: 212 Citizens and Natives-Vattel “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.”
Vattell “As the society can not exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers and succeed to all their rights.”The Founders were well read, the Vattel of 1758-60 is quite clear in it’s meaning and intent, whether that’s in French or English. Earlier writings in the Bible and Aristotle on the concept of nationality also show that children of citizen parents inherit their father’s nationality.
This concept didn’t just pop out of nowhere as you assert. It was known. It was talked about. It was discussed and it is NOT an unreasonable concept in that it’s purpose is to prevent traitors from sneeking into office.Next…
—————————————————————————
“The common law of England is not the common law of these States.” –”George MasonNBC in the Constitutional drafts:
June 18th, 1787 – Alexander Hamilton suggests that the requirement be added, as: “No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.” Works of Alexander Hamilton (page 407).July 25, 1787 (~5 weeks later) – John Jay writes a letter to General Washington (president of the Constitutional Convention): “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.” [the word born is underlined in Jay’s letter which signifies the importance of allegiance from birth.]
September 2nd, 1787 George Washington pens a letter to John Jay. The last line reads: “I thank you for the hints contained in your letter”
September 4th, 1787 (~6 weeks after Jay’s letter and just 2 days after Washington wrote back to Jay) – The “Natural Born Citizen” requirement is now found in their drafts. Madison’s notes of the Convention
The proposal passed unanimously without debate.
Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, George Washington… ALL of them in agreement that the INTENT behind their words as they wrote them was to prevent a foreigner getting into national government.
———————————————-
House Report No. 784, dated June 22, 1874, stated, “The United States have not recognized a ‘double allegiance.’ By our law a citizen is bound to be ‘true and faithful’ alone to our government.” It wouldn’t be practical for the United States to claim a child as a citizen when the child’s natural country of origin equally claims him/her because doing so would leave the child with competing allegiance demands.“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”—Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett (1875)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_Z…
“THE VENUS, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J. concurring) (cites Vattel’s definition of Natural Born Citizen)
SHANKS V. DUPONT, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830)
MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S.162,167-168 ( 1875) (same definition without citing Vattel)
EX PARTE REYNOLDS, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vattel)
UNITED STATES V WARD, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D. Cal. 1890) (same definition and cites Vattel.)”John Bingham, “father” of the 14th Amendment, the abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln’s assassins, REAFFIRMED the definition known to the framers by saying this: commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))”
Here on this link you will find the US government NOT using English common law but Vattel’s Law of Nations http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?linkurl=%3C%linkurl%%3E&graphurl=%3C%graphurl%%3E&friend=%3C%20riend%%3E&court=us&vol=120&invol=479
“It has also been observed that an act of Congress ought never to be construed to violate the law of nations if any other possible construction remains, and consequently can never be construed to violate neutral rights, or to affect neutral commerce, further than is warranted by the law of nations as understood in this country.”— Murray v. Schooner Charming Betsy, 6 US 64 – Supreme Court 1804 (Chief Justice Marshall)
—————————————————–
Between 1759 and 1834 there were ten translations of his (Vattel’s) work in England, and from 1796 until 1872 eighteen translations, or reprints of translations, published in the United States.
Vattel was by far the most quoted legal source in pleadings in American cases, by almost a factor of 4, between 1790 and 1820. (Nussbaums Concise History of the Law of Nations, 1962).Most lawyers and every framer understood Vattel during the Continental Congress and particularly afterword because Vattel served as the principal reference in the writing of the Constitution. Jefferson taught the course on Vattel beginning in 1779 at William and Mary. Madison was President of William and Mary, and future chief justice John Marshall a student. Vattel was used at virtually every college offering legal studies since it is by far the most authoritative source of maritime and international law, in addition to providing the structure for the U.S. government.
One of framers, a President between the Revolution and the ratification, Dr. David Ramsay, restated the definition perfectly clearly in an essay after he had returned to his medical practice. It is Vattel’s definition, and there has never been another. (You can find the Ramsay essay in the latest appendix to the Kerchner/Appuzo appeal at http://puzo1.blogspot.com )
—————————
Thus far, no court that I know of has ruled that Obama doesn’t qualify as a natural born citizen. What they have ruled on is whether the lawsuits have “standing.” In order for a lawsuit to go forward you have to show that you have “standing” that you have been harmed in some manner. So to this day, the question has not been broached in the courts on NBC alone.
—————————http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/04/02/founder-and-historian-david-ramsay-defines-natural-born-citizen-in-1789/ — founder and historian Ramsey
Two centuries’ growth of American law, 1701-1901, Volume 1
Author Yale Law School
Publisher Scribner, 1901
“When our government took its place among nations, its statesmen were guided by the treatises of Grotius, Barbeyrac, Puffendorf, Bynkershoek, above all, Vattel. 1 Vattel was used 1792-1795 by President Stiles at Yale for instruction.” Pg. 516.
“In WILLIAM AND MARY COLLEGE, President Lyon G Tyler states that the Law of Nations was taught first by the Professor of Moral Philosophy in 1779, and continuously since the text book being Vattel until 1861. This seems to have been at Jefferson’s suggestion.” Pg. 518
John Jay’s home library contained Vattel.
The homes of America, Editor: Martha Joanna Lamb, Publisher: D. Appleton and company, 1879, Original from the University of Wisconsin – Madison
“One division [Of the library in the “Bedford House” of the 1st Chief Justice John Jay] contains the favorite authors of the Chief Justice, weighty folios of Grotius, Puffendorf, Vattel and other masters of the science of international law, standard theological and miscellaneous works and the classic authors of antiquity. Pg. 108.
——————————–
The U.S. Supreme Court has, on occasion, used the word “citizen” in reference to individuals who were either not born in the United States or not born of U.S.-citizen parents. Such individuals were U.S. citizens by law or by naturalization. But the Supreme Court has never referred to such persons as natural born citizens. In those few cases in which the Supreme Court has declared an individual to be a “natural born citizen”, the individual was always U.S.-born to U.S.-citizen parents. For example, in Perkins v. Elg (1939), the Supreme Court referred to Marie Elizabeth Elg as a natural born citizen. Miss Elg was born in the United States in 1907. A year before her birth, her father became a U.S. citizen by naturalization, and her mother acquired U.S. citizenship through marriage. Thus when Miss Elg was born, both of her parents were U.S. citizens. Also, in the majority opinion in Wong Kim Ark (1898), Justice Gray quoted an article, by Horace Binney, which used the term “natural born” in connection with a U.S.-born child of a U.S. citizen, but not in connection with a U.S.-born child of an alien. In Binney’s opinion, both children were U.S. citizens by birth, but only the U.S.-born child of a citizen was labeled “natural born”.In August 1787, Jay’s recommendation was accepted. The presidential eligibility requirement was changed from “born a citizen” to “natural born citizen”:
It was originally proposed in the Constitutional Convention that the presidential qualifications be a “citizen of the United States.” It was so reported to the Convention, by the Committee which had it in charge, on the 22nd day of August, 1787. It was again referred to a Committee, and the qualification clause was changed to read “natural born citizen,” and was so reported out of Committee on September the 4th, 1787, and adopted in the Constitution. (Long, p.7)
The framers of the Constitution were concerned that a foreign power might raise a “creature of their own” to the Office of President:
Nothing was more to be desired, than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of Republican government, might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? (Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 68, March 14, 1788, emphasis added)
———————————–
“FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Constitution Of The United States, 1799. By the House of Delegates, | January i, 1799. | Whereas it is highly expedient that every constitutional barrier should be opposed to the introduction of foreign influence into our national councils . . . Folio (13 by 8), sheets, uncut.
[Annapolis, 1799]
Contains the Resolve of the Maryland House of Delegates relative to a proposed amendment to the Constitution of the United States, requiring all senators and representatives to be natural born citizens, and that none but a natural born citizen shall become Vice-President of the United States.
Printed in script on the first page of a four-page folder.”
Pg 211.
Illustrated catalogue of acts and laws of the colony and state of New York and of the other original colonies and states constituting the collection made by Hon. Russell Benedict, justice of the Supreme court of New York
Authors: Russell Benedict, American Art Association 1922 (??)
If you have a FOREIGN father, and you were born with FOREIGN citizenship, wouldn’t that constitute “foreign influence?” Of course.
—————————————————-
The Politics of Aristotle
“a citizen is defined to be one born of citizen parents”
———————————————–
Barry v. Mercein 46 U. S. 103 (1847)
Case Footnote:
4. The plaintiff in error being of legeance to the crown of England, his child, though born in the United States during his father’s temporary residence therein – twenty-two months and twenty days – not withstanding its mother be an American citizen, is not a citizen of the United States. It is incapacitate by its infancy from making any present election, follows the legeance of its father, partus sequitur patrem, and is a British subject. The father being domiciled and resident within the dominions of Her Britannic Majesty, such is also the proper and rightful domicil of his wife and child, and he has a legal right to remove them thither. The child being detained from the father, its natural guardian and protector, without authority of law, and writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum is his appropriate legal remedy for its restoration to him from its present illegal detention and restraint. Constitution United States, art. 3, sec. 2; Judiciary Act, 1789, sec. 11; Inglis v. Trustees Sailor’s Snug Harbor, 3 Peters, 99; 7 Anne, cap. 5; 4 Geo. III. cap. 21; Warrender v. Warrender, 2 Clar. & Fin. Ap. Ca. 523; Story’s Confl. Laws, 30, 36, 43, 74, 160; Shelford on Marriage, Ferg. Rep. 397, 398.The mother took the case before the Supreme Court and they dismissed her request as they did not have jusrisdiction to hear the case & thus the lower court ruling was upheld. The child at birth was NOT a US citizen just because it was born on US soil to a mother who was an American prior to her marriage to the British subject.
———————————on Vattel’s common law
From the Pennsylvania Gazette, March 6 1776.
Messieurs HALL and SELLERS
“All Europe must allow, that while America was in the greatest good humour with her old mother, a scheme was laid to keep up a large standing army in her capital towns, and to tax her at pleasure for the support of it. They see that, from time to time, the most fraudulent and violent measures have been taken to support their entirely unprecedented claim, till at last, drained of their national troops, they have applied for assistance to other nations. By the law of nations , we were discharged from our allegiance the moment the army was posted among us without our consent, or a single farthing taken from us in like manner; either of these being fundamental subversions of the constitutions. It remains entirely with ourselves to have ample justice done to us. We have nothing to do but declare off, and appeal to the droit des gens.”
——————————————
President U. S. Grant – Municipal laws are declarations of the law of nations:
“Special Message
July 14, 1870
To the Senate of the United States:
I transmit to the Senate, in answer to their resolution of the 7th instant, a report from the Secretary of State, with accompanying documents.
U. S. GRANT.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Washington, July 14, 1870.
The public measures designed to maintain unimpaired the domestic sovereignty and the international neutrality of the United States were independent of this policy, though apparently incidental to it. The municipal laws enacted by Congress then and since have been but declarations of the law of nations. They are essential to the preservation of our national dignity and honor; they have for their object to repress and punish all enterprises of private war, one of the last relics of mediaeval barbarism; and they have descended to us from the fathers of the Republic, supported and enforced by every succeeding President of the United States. ”
———————————————
famous, quote by Bingham:
“every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”
(Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866)).
We see that Bingham had reiterated Vattel’s definition 4 years earlier!
All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens . Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.
(Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862)).
There should be zero question, that the “father” of the 14th Amendment (which concerns citizenship among other things) knew that the framers relied on Vattel’s definition for who is a “Natural Born Citizen” and reiterated it multiple times during discussions of citizenship and the 14th Amendment.
———————————–
SUMMATION AND QUESTIONS
Your argument was destroyed using English common law itself. I then provide to you the homework that you’ve said you’ve NEVER SEEN before, which to me sounds like a lie. I then provide to you, some of the founders words which confirm that YES, they do want to avoid having a foreigner slip into office, that IS IN FACT their express intent. I then give you several court cases that reference Vattel. Did I say English Common Law? Nope. I said Vattel. So judges ARE USING VATTEL in deciding their cases on citizenship.Here’s what I want from you…
I want you to send me letters from Vattel saying that later editions of his manuscript in regard to “natural born citizens” were mistranslated and in error and should be corrected. Simple task right, especially since you state that they’re mistranslated. Surely Vattel himself would protest right? Surely he would DEMAND that they be burned and reprinted or something of that nature in regards to “natural born citizen” being in the later editions? Having trouble finding that? I’m sure you are because Vattel did NOT protest any such thing.
Then I want you to send me letters, speeches, etc. from other Founding Fathers saying that “natural born citizen” as defined by Washington, Jays, and Hamilton was WRONG and that the Constitution was in error. Simple task if your argument is true and has merit.
Otherwise YOU’RE the one whose argument is based on your delusional attachment to Obama a child of a BRITISH CITIZEN. Are you an American? Perhaps you’re a British citizen? I find it strange that IF you are American, you would allow a person with dual allegience govern you so willingly.I’ll be waiting for what I asked for. My guess… I’ll be waiting for a looooooooong time.
Mario didn’t give you his email address?
Methinks that’s the mark of a sore loser.
“you admit lack of intellectual capacity.
First I shall DESTROY your argument with the English common law itself and play off YOUR suposition.”
———————————————————–
And so should you, Mario.
“June 18th, 1787 – Alexander Hamilton suggests that the requirement be added, as: “No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.” Works of Alexander Hamilton (page 407).”
To show just how stupid this author is, Hamilton’s draft constitution of June, 1787 did not contain this clause. That draft didn’t even have a President in it!
Because birthers simply copy from Kerchner (who made this mistake), they are not even aware that they are repeating a mistake.
It’s like sitting next to the dumbest kid in class and copying their answers on a test..
What a moron.
I wonder if NBC just got tired of listen to these knuckleheads. Frankly, I can not even imagine how Dr. C puts up with it.
“I want you to send me letters from Vattel saying that later editions of his manuscript in regard to “natural born citizens” were mistranslated and in error and should be corrected”
Considering Vattel died in 1767, that would be quite a feat!
“Earlier writings in the Bible and Aristotle on the concept of nationality also show that children of citizen parents inherit their father’s nationality.”
Actually, under Jewish law, Jewish identity passes via the mother, not the father.
Somebody contact Sylvia Browne!
When you’re reading all these quotes from the 17th, 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries, you have to remember that their conception of the nuclear family is vastly different than ours today. The nuclear family went through some drastic changes in the latter half of the 20th century, and to take those old quotes as literally as the birther klan does today is just a denial of these changes. It’s entirely likely that one parent would be sufficient to pass citizenship regardless of which one that is. When they said “parents” a couple of hundred years ago, that was the standard because most married couples stayed together back in those days, and there were never really any single parents as there are today. I just have a problem with those who interpret these quotes so literally that they think that we should adopt the standards of hundreds of years ago that are no longer relevant today
Actually I didn’t put up with it, which is why I posted it here rather than waste time responding to this crank. If anything, he was right that I was being childish (or perhaps more accurately “foolish”) by trying to engage him in previous emails, in which rather than admit that he was proven wrong, he just raised the volume of his insults and changed the subject.
To quote the satire of George Carlin:
“This country was founded by a group of slave owners who told us “All men are created equal.” Oh, yeah, all men. Except for indians and n*****s and women, right? I always like to use that authentic American language. This was a small group of un-elected, white, male, land holding, slave owners who also suggested their class be the only one allowed to vote. Now that is what’s known as being stunningly and embarrassingly full of s**t.”
Carlin was one the absolute bests; probably my second favorite after Rickles. I went to a taping of the Tonight Show back in the 70’s, and he was the guest host. Never saw his act though
“When cheese gets its picture taken, what does it say?”
Carlin was the first host of SNL. You can get the episode on iTunes.
http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewTVSeason?id=206150210&s=143441
What’s another word for thesaurus?
– Steven Wright
I shop exclusively at the Pirate Bay, Will. They have the right prices – all you can download for $0.00
Greg had commented some time ago that he wondered where the birthers got their claim that de Vattel was cited 4 times more than any one else in the founding period. Well now we “sort of” know where it comes from: Nussbaum’s “A Concise History of the Law of Nations”, 1962 ed.As usual, there is no exact quote or context to go on.
I can’t find the text of this book online, but I can get it via interlibrary loan, so I will pursue that option.
I consider that to be stealing. And I consider stealing to be wrong.
Nothing self-righteous just holding to my belief.
I know, Will. A lot of people do
> In 1701, the English Parliament passed a law excluding, from public office, foreign-born persons of non-English parents
> […]
> So there in the English common law of 1701 it is well defined, THE CONCEPT that people who are NOT born to parentS cannot hold high office!
That’s really a stretch. A law specifically excluded those who were both foreign-born *and* born to non-citizen parents and he claims that somehow supports his view that Common Law does not only look at ius soli.
That’s akin to saying “Because not all brown four-legged animals are dogs, the concept that fur colour may decide what animal is a dog is clearly there”.
> Earlier writings in the Bible and Aristotle on the concept of nationality also show that
children of citizen parents inherit their father’s nationality.
Just funny there is not the slightest indication the Founders were guided by the Bible or Aristotle (or Vattel, for that matter) in secretly redefining a term from Common Law without telling the public.
If they meant so, why didn’t they write “born in the country to two citizen parents” if they wanted to, why would they have secretly redefined what “natural born” had been meaning for hundreds of years?
> This concept didn’t just pop out of nowhere as you assert.
No-one claims that Vattel invented that concept. It’s just that it didn’t dominate Common Law.
> “It has also been observed that an act of Congress ought never to be construed to violate the law of nations
> […]
> By the law of nations , we were discharged from our allegiance
*lol* So he disqualifies himself again by assuming that any time the “law of nations” is mentioned, this means Vattel’s book. Pathetic.
> So judges ARE USING VATTEL in deciding their cases on citizenship.
So far, he has only cited one such case (“Here on this link you will find…”) which did cite Vattel, but not on citizenship.
> The Politics of Aristotle
“a citizen is defined to be one born of citizen parents”
Is he now claiming that you need to have two citizen parents to even be a “normal” citizen? Oh, the idiocy!
> Barry v. Mercein 46 U. S. 103 (1847)
Case Footnote:
And that’s just plain chutzpah. The quoted text is not a “footnote” by the court but part of quoting the arguments plaintiff made in opposition to the motion to quash his motion:
“I submit, therefore, with great deference, the motion that this writ of error should be quashed, as irregular, and for want of jurisdiction.
Mr. Barry, in opposition to the motion, made the following points, which he maintained at great length.
1. …
2. …
3. …
4. The plaintiff in error being of legeance to the crown of England…
5. …
”
So we have another case of someone pretending that the court quoting the plaintiff/defendant is actually part of the court’s ruling. Pathetic.
He makes a big thing out of parentS being plural and supposedly indicating more than one parent.
Then he speaks about their children, which is also a plural word.
(The Constitution could have said “any child”, after all.)
If he’s going to interpret it in such a literal sense, surely he must also then believe that no one can be president unless they also have a brother or sister.
Anyway, Vattel died several years before the Constitution was signed, so I hardly think he’d voice any opinion, good or bad.
I couldn’t get past the mistake in the first argument. The children born to aliens IN ENGLAND were eligible for the Privy Counsel. The law cited means those born ABROAD to NON-ENGLISH parents are ineligible. It doesn’t deal with the alien IN England situation.
Uh…pirate content is illegal. And as much fun as it might be to rip off the Peacock, an author I know loses thousands in royalties every year because people download her books (all available in e-format) instead of buying them. She may actually have to stop writing fiction and get a conventional job if gets much worse.
Something to think about….
I have a huge problem with originalism of any type. Quoting “the Founders” or “the Framers” as definitive on the issues of the day (which all sides do all too often) amounts to little more than ancestor worship. Would the Founders have wanted Barack Obama as President? I neither know nor care-they chose the President for their times, as those alive today do now. They no more get a vote today then we get a vote in the 2208 election.
And words change meaning with time. When they wrote “Freedom of the Press” in 1788, they meant material printed on paper. Does that mean radio, TV, the internet, Twitter, etc., should be subjected to censorship? Of course not. “Arms” in 1788 meant muskets. Does that mean hunters today can only own muskets? Even the most pro-gun control people wouldn’t say that. None of these changes required an amendment either; they simply arose out of changes in how we live and what meaning words have.
So I don’t really care what “natural born citizen” meant in 1788 (though it’s pretty clear that the Vattel crowd is wrong about that). What does it mean today? The term as such is really not used in common conversation, but there was the book “Natural Born Killers”, which was made into a movie by Quentin Tarantino. The main character was an evil murderer who had been that way since birth-in other words a “born killer”. There is no suggestion at all that either or both of his parentts were a killer. Same with the term “natural born fool”-it doesn’t mean that the fool’s parents were also fools (they might or might not be). So, really, today, “natural born citizen” is one who was a citizen from birth, which is how every normal person understands it. The proof of this is clear in Obama’s case, since he announced he was running in Jan 2007 and his book clearly said that his father was not a citizen and no one said “Boo!” until after the election. Congress certainly understood that both Obama and McCain were eligible, due to having been born citizens.
And before Apuzzo pipes up with,, “Why did the framers say natural born citizen, rather than born citizen?” Well, just go back and read any book from the period. Universally, they use 10 words where we would use 5 or 6. That’s how they wrote back then. At the time he gave it, no one liked Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address-they found it way too short and preferred the guy who spoke before him, who went on for over an hour. Any attempts to divine what one or another dead person thought are a waste of time. We live in 2011. Words mean what they mean in today’s common English usage. “Press” includes the internet, “Arms” includes rifles and “natural born citizen” means a citizen born naturally. Nuff said.
Yes. Well said. Thank you.
It is quite amazing to me that he starts by quoting an English statute that clearly states that it applies only to people born outside England, then says that proves that any and everyone must meet the same requirements. He contradicts his argument in his first paragraph!
Sort of like the birthers that claim the “Leahy Resolution” clearly makes Obama ineligible despite the fact that when one reads the entirety (and doesn’t just cut and paste the words “two citizen parents” and ignore the rest) it’s clear it, like the English statute above, is referring to someone born outside the United States.
I skimmed across the e-mail you posted, regarding citizenship and De Vattel, and wanted to add that we don’t really need to guess how the Founding Fathers defined “natural born citizen.”
The primary author of the Constitution stated:
“It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.”
James Madison, The Founders’ Constitution Volume 2, Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2, Document 6 (1789)
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/natural-born-quotes/
To say that S.R. 511 requires 2 citizen parents also means that Abercrombie’s H.R. 593 requires one to be born in Hawaii to be NBC. Who teaches these idiots the rudiments of logic???
From Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th ed (2009):
common law, n. [snip]
1.The body of law derived from judicial decisions, rather than from statutes or constitutions [snip]
2. The body of law based on the English legal system, as distinct from a civil-law system; the general Anglo-American system of legal concepts, together with the techniques of applying them, that form the basis of the law in jurisdictions where the system applies [snip]
3. General law common the the country as a whole, as opposed to special law that has only local application [snip]
4. The body of law deriving from law courts as opposed to those sitting in equity [snip] the common law of England was one of the three main historical sources of English law. The other two were legislation and equity.[snip]
______________________________________
So how is an act of Parliament passed in 1701 deemed part of “the English common law of 1701”? Just what does Doc’s correspondent mean when he uses a legal concept like “common law”? Does he even know?
You’re welcome.
Some more Birfoon analysis,
As some may remember, in between my actual paid job (supplemented of course by my monthly “Soros Bucks” check) I am trying to run a numerical analysis of the actual numbers of Birthers in the wild.
A small additional snippet….
=============================================
I ran a count of Dr K(H)ates site, which is a heavily censored, high output, single threading site exclusivley Birther in content, with identities showing by name AND Gravatar.
http://drkatesview.wordpress.com/
The posters cut across the pathologies of Birfoondom although with a marked tendency to only the highly exclusionary, the De-Vattelist, Kenya Birther and Whole World Conspiracy views.
There is a minor tweak with one poster in particular (QuantumLeap) who has exhibited a sub pathology of “chemtrails” which get woven into the whole ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrome).
I recorded a sample of 7 threads, totaling 1,046 posts, showing a total of 101 discrete ID’s for an average of 149 posts per thread.
The only filtering performed was where known, obvious “obots” had been left in, for the purpose of inflaming the core.
Of the ID’s recorded, only 35 showed a post count of greater than 2 posts across the entire sample, the 66 demonstrating both low counts and low engagement with the high post count sample ID’s.
As can be seen below the top 5 posters generated exactly 50% of ALL posts, averaging 104.6 posts across this limited sample with the top 20 generating 84.03% of all posts.
Posts Percent
Top 20 879 84.03%
Top 10 735 70.27%
Top5 523 50.00%
Grand total posts 1046
Grand total users 101
Whilst still a relatively small sample, this tends to further support the thesis that the “Theorist” populace is both small in overall numbers but appears disproportionately large due to a very engaged and loud core that is no more than 10% (at best) the size of the semi-active.
Rough samples of other threads at Dr Kate’s shows the same names, same apparent numbers and a fairly static populace.
As an aside the obvious use of “sock puppets” to artificially inflate the apparent numbers at the site has dropped markedly since I revealed that individuals were doing this (along with ID’s ) at both Dr C’s and TheFogbow earlier this month…8-)
As a further aside, the amount of single malt I need to consume after reading all this turgid cack has also risen….8-)
At first glance it would seem that the following is from The Onion, or other such, but it’s not. Another California nut-case pro se rears her head: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/28/diddy-sued-for-1-trillion-woman-claims-date-rape-911-responsibility_n_815254.html . Question of the day: How many pro se filings does it take to fill a bit bucket?
Do you prefer Glenmorangie or Oban?
> the amount of single malt I need to consume after reading all this turgid cack has also risen
I wouldn’t want to waste my precious JD Single Barrel as I’d have a hard time keeping it in, either for disgust or amusement…
> The only filtering performed was where known, obvious “obots” had been left in, for the purpose of inflaming the core.
I don’t think any of those is really what the birthers call an Obot, i.e. one of us.
While I have seen sane persons that used harsh words against the birthers, I have never seen the likes of what Dr Kate allegedly gets as posters. Those “Obots” are either using foul and obscene language or are actually promoting birther ideas (like “Jake Stiner” on the latest blog entry who wrote something along the lines of “ha-ha, your hero Lakin goes to jail and the people who framed him up go free, that’s so great”).
It’s obvious they’re all sock puppets, either of Dr Kate herself or one of her followers who’s learned at least one thing, his propaganda 101.
The scotch is almost exclusively Laphroaig 15 year occasionally supplemented by Talisker 18 year
The filters were less than 15 posts in total and were almost exclusively from a Fogbow person who had stated she had posted them.
The analysis inherently includes a certain number of sockies, before I did my little expose of their sockie fetish back around the 11th Jan, the OBVIOUS count there was around 15% -20% of all posters.
Since the generic Birfoon is a Bufoon, the work entailed in consistently swapping identities tends to be tasking for them and I did identify 9 (almost) definite sockies.
The point though is that a pretty heavily traffic’ed site such as Dr Hates still only can support a regular populace of 19 high posters (those that can break double figures in post counts).
My estimate is that the total number of real unique identities will becirca 200 with, as I said active users numbering less than the numbers to fill an RV……>8-)
In reviewing Dr Hate’s article and reading the comments, it seems like Bovril is on to something. Especially regarding the so called “Obot” “Jake Stiner”….He is such an obvious plant….by Dr Hate or one of her followers…For instance look at the following post….
drkate
January 28, 2011 at 8:20 am
Hi Jake from WA state! Ever been reported for death threats? I guess there is always a first time! thanks for dropping in and letting us know who you are!
Reply
Jake Stiner
January 28, 2011 at 5:12 am
I am an anti american here out of desperation. Yes Jake, put me on the spam list!!
First of all what so called Obama supporter would reference themself as “anti american”…That is what the birthers call anyone that doesn’t support them. But even more interesting is how the poster tells himself to be put on the spam list….Basically Dr. Hate forgot to keep her ID’s straight and messed up…Hilarious….
Also hilarious is the bad doctor’s ability to understand the Constitution….Look at the nonsense she wrote…
Constitutional Measures for Removing the Executive
A careful reading of the Constitution demonstrates that the Congress has sufficient authority to resolve the issue of a President who has a constitutional disability. Those specific words are mentioned in Article II, and the Twelfth and Twentieth Amendments. The term “disability” is also used in the Twenty Fifth Amendment can be applied broadly to cover any disability of a President.
Article I. The first Article of the Constitution grants the authority to the Senate to try and convict the President by impeachment. There are numerous impeachable offenses committed by Obama posing as President that the first investigation Congress undertakes in an impeachment proceeding will lead quickly to his ineligibility, conviction, and removal by the Senate. The democrat controlled Senate would have no choice but to convict or risk being seen as supporting the usurpation of the Presidency.
Article II. Article II is the measuring stick’ for who can be President of the United States: a natural born Citizen. A constitutional disability is implied in Article II if a person fails to meet the natural born citizen’ requirements of Article II, Section I, Clause 5. That Obama admittedly failed the natural born citizen’ requirements of Article II as described in his two autobiographies should have alerted the Congress, the Democrats, the entire citizenry, and the military that he was not qualified to serve. Notwithstanding any process that has already occurred, whether purporting to certify Obama as eligible under Article II, the Congress has the right to demand that Obama release those credentials immediately or face arrest for the breach of Article II.
Twelfth Amendment. This amendment was ratified in 1805 and modified Article I with regard to choosing a President. In the case of the death or constitutional disability of the President, the House of Representatives has the authority to choose a President:
But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.
Twentieth Amendment. Section 3 of this amendment reads:
Section 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified
Caught in a Lie
Here we have a situation in which Obama clearly failed to qualify constitutionally and thus Biden should be acting as President. The likelihood of Biden’s complicity in Obama’s deception makes this a case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified’. The Congress then has the authority to determine who acts as and how to select the President until a new President and Vice President have qualified.
Twenty Fifth Amendment. The Twenty Fifth Amendment provides for either the President, the Vice President with a majority of the Cabinet, or such other body as Congress may provide by law to transmit a statement to the President pro tempore of the Senate and Speaker of the House that the President is unable to discharge the duties of the office. Under this scenario, Biden would act until the Congress further resolved the issue under the Twelfth or Twentieth Amendments.
The removal of Obama from the White House can be accomplished by any one of these five existing mechanisms drawn directly from constitutional provisions that deal directly with the constitutional disability of a President.
Investigations Leading to the Removal of Obama
If the Congress lacks the courage to investigate Obama directly, there are numerous lesser conspirators that make legitimate subjects for investigation. The outcome of such investigations is guaranteed to lead once again to the lack of eligibility of Obama, and his removal by any number of means including arrest.
Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi. If the Congress lacks the courage to investigate Obama directly, or if they have been threatened if they do or bribed not to, the easiest path to the truth about Barack Hussein Obama is the documented 2008 election fraud committed by Nancy Pelosi. As the chair of the Democratic National Convention, her signature was on the documents that verified Obama met the constitutional requirements’ for the office of the President. Her two different certifications sent to the states regarding Obama are the facts that will put Ms. Pelosi behind bars. How did she certify Obama’s constitutional eligibility? Subsequent to this falsification of records, then Speaker Pelosi presided over the joint session of Congress on January 8, 2009, knowingly leading the House to falsely certify the vote of the electoral college.
Hawaii Lt. Governor Brian Schatz. It is ironic that the one place Obama cannot cover for himself, and the one place where the fraud committed is the most visible and verifiable, is Hawaii, his purported ‘home’ state. Governor Abercrombie has already made quite promise to stomp the issue into the ground, but inadvertently blew Obama’s cover: there is no Hawaii long form birth certificate. Laughably, the Hawaii legislature is now trying to charge a fee to see the non-existent long form birth certificate…both diversionary to requiring Obama to release it. To rectify his own reputation, Governor Abercrombie should query his Lt. Governor, Brian Schatz under oath, how he, as head of the Hawaii Democrat Party certified that Obama was constitutionally eligible to be placed on the ballot according to party rules.
Release Lakin and Investigate the False Court Martial. If Terry Lakin asked the question about a birth certificate and went to jail, then Neil Abercrombie should join him in Leavenworth. Based on the actions of Hawaii’s Governor and his failure to produce a birth certificate, Congress should order the release of Lakin and demand testimony from the officers who tried and convicted him. That would include at a minimum Judge Lind and the prosecuting attorney as well as Lakin’s superior officers. Any investigation here will automatically lead to the fact that Obama has provided absolutely no documentation and his orders are in fact illegal.
Clean up on Aisle 666. Any RICO, slander or bribery investigation into major media sources, certain blogs, Valerie Jarrett, Michelle Obama, and other individuals who conspired to harass the Constitutionalists will bring out a host of even lesser cohorts to defrauding America. In some cases, the blogs may have broken the law in their activities to perpetuate false information about Obama. The only saving strategy for these individuals is to reveal who paid them to do the deception. That in itself will bring out the criminal element of the Obama enterprise and the fraudulent methods of winning’ elections.
http://drkatesview.wordpress.com/2011/01/28/constitutional-options-for-removing-obama/#more-5319
More derangement, from someone who is obviously an 80’s fan…
8675309
January 28, 2011 at 7:19 am
Where are these published? Are these the ones on thefogbow. com? (p.s. don’t go there, it’s a pit of vipers who do know they’ve no legs to stand on legally or logically, all they do is plot violence and mayhem).
8675309
January 28, 2011 at 6:24 am
Dr. Kate: I suggest the following. Get this person’s ISP, find who they are (easy enough) and sue them in your local court and file a simple “anti-harassment” suit. They have posted their threats openly “seeking your utter destruction” and you have a slam dunk case and the judge will file a protective order. This establishes precedent, then sue them for all of their assets, or whoever their associates are as well. Wipe them out
8675309
January 28, 2011 at 6:50 am
This person sounds like PJ Foggy hisself. Sue his ass off, since he’s made a threat of violence and bodily harm.
http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/01/24/have-two-pro-obama-websites-broken-the-law/
The text of the comment by “PJ Foggy” reads:
“Hi, kids! Did I forget to introduce myself?
I’m one of the administrators of Politijab. “PJ” stands for Politijab. We rule, and Birthers drool. We’re the ones who made it so Orly Taitz can’t call the Supreme Court and talk to the clerk’s office like other lawyers. Instead, her calls are routed to the Threat Assessment office of the Supreme Court Police Dept.
We’re the ones who got Officer Dischler in trouble in Beaumont, TX, when he said he’d investigate the president for treason and fraud.
We’re the ones who got more than 100 cops ready for Cdr. Walt Fitzpatrick, when he showed up on April 20 with a group of armed men who thought they’d take over the Monroe County courthouse.”
She wants Congress to impeach on the basis that Congress was wrong in accepting Obama’s eligibility, certifying the electoral votes and accepting him as the legally elected President ever since?
I’m surprised she’s not confined to a mental hospital.
Dr K(H)ate is a sooper speshul individual and since she was let go from her role with the Northern Arapahoe Tribe her outright racism (she obviously failed to hide too well) has escalated horribly.
Lets’ be honest, anyone that admiringly links to Lame Cherry and gets a reach round in return has GOT to be off their meds big time.
Just a note on Aristotle. The article mis-states his views entirely, He did not believe that being a citizen required citizen parents. He believed that citizenship resulted from neither parentage nor place of birth, but whether one participated iin the political life of the city:
“Aristotle begins his investigation by saying what will not quailfy someone for citizenship:not place or location, or the capaciity to sue and be sued; not birth, ancestry or blood. Rather, a citizen is one who particpates in ruling and judging, one who rules and is ruled in turn; one who shares in the judicial and deliberative offices of a polity”
http://www.cas.sc.edu/poli/psrw/frank032803.pdf
In other words, acccording to Aristotle, Barack Obama, is a full and complete citizen, regardless of who his parents were. The birthers, however, would not be considered citizens at all by Aristotle.
Dr. Demented says, “The White House Insider finally notices and reports that there is something to this birther issue’, and with the frantic sound of many, sends this message:
…Since then heard repeated rumors/confirmations of attempted “purge” coming down the pike. WH/media going on the offensive bigtime on issue. Has already started as you probably know. Talking very specific, very confrontational, very scary stuff here. Don’t wish to drag you into that. Much bigger fish are circling this. They can survive what could be coming. Not sure about me. Let the big players handle this now. This thing will either break out big or disappear. Apologize for past doubt/ridicule. There is something there. 100% certain of it. God help us….from the White House Insider”
As if this some kind of scoop from an actual WH insider. It’s not. It’s a concern troll at an anonymous, fright wing, teabagging birther cesspool of a blog.
Shocked?
> In the case of the death or constitutional disability of the President
Dr Kate conveniently omitted “other” before “constitutional”, thus entirely misunderstand the scope of the 12th amendment which talks about the President’s (physical) constitution, not the US Constitution.
So “constitutional disability” means “unability to occupy the office due to severe illness”, not “ineligible”. *duh* It’s really amazing how those people can’t even get a simple English sentence right. If I, not being a native speaker, can recognize that, it’s quite telling.
I think that the problem with your argument is that a lot of people do not see piracy as “stealing” – because stealing takes something away from the owner in such a way that the owner no longer has the item that was stolen. After all, breaking into the Louvre and stealing the Mona Lisa would leave the museum without the painting, whereas going to the Louvre and leaving with a perfect copy of the Mona Lisa would not be the same as stealing the Mona Lisa – at least not in the minds of most people. And this is the reason why many people rationalize away the piracy-is-theft argument.
I say that piracy is wrong because it is cheating. A pirate cheats the author of their due for having created the art – and the pirate cheats everyone else (who has paid for the art) by not abiding by the same rules of our society that allow an artist to charge a fee for their work.
I admit that I used to obtain movies and software from pirate web sites, but I found that the same (or even better) versions are available for reasonable (to me) prices on iTunes and elsewhere, so I no longer have any self-justification for using pirate web sites.
MW, is she talking about the infamous Ulsterman WH insider reports? If so has she realized that the Ulsterman was already been outed as a hack liar?
http://ulster-man.blogspot.com/
Intro to Ulsterman
For the past several weeks, a writer who goes only by “Ulsterman” has produced a series of interviews with a nameless “White House Insider,” who he claims has close access to the inner workings of the Obama Administration. Since the first appearance of the “Insider” in September, “Ulsterman” has published more than a dozen supposed interviews with his own personal Deep Throat.
Some people have completely bought into these stories, while others have been more skeptical.
And for good reason. “Ulsterman” offers no evidence that he’s an actual reporter, or that he has any legitimate contacts. The websites that he submits articles to, such as Newsflavor, are for user-submitted content, and have no editorial oversight. He is an anonymous person claiming to interview a second anonymous person. And as time has gone on, more people have begun to believe that the “Insider” is nothing but an attempt at a hoax, as the “interviews” have become increasingly conversational and unprofessional, resembling bad fiction more than actual conversations with a valued asset.
The important question is: can it be proven that “Ulsterman” has made up stories? The answer is: yes. “Ulsterman” has repeatedly made up individual subjects, given them fake jobs and employers, and fabricated whole interviews with these imaginary people. With “the Washington Insider,” he kept his fake person anonymous, so that his fraud couldn’t be exposed directly. But in multiple other articles, he wasn’t so careful, and he simply presented fiction as if it were news.
In all, “Ulsterman” has used fabricated interviews in at least seven articles he wrote and published between September and November. Four of these articles he has already scrubbed. Below, you will see each of those seven articles exposed as the lie it is.
Point well taken, Scientist. When the birther klana says that we should interpret these old texts literally, they are just being disingenuous.
Yes, she is referring to Ulsterman. Birthers will eagerly swallow any b.s. to prop up their confirmation bias.
Po-tay-to, Po-taht-o. I don’t see it as a problem but I understand your take on the semantics.
If someone deliberately downloads a software program I’ve written and uses it without paying me, they have my money and my program. The app would not have existed without me. That’s theft.
Wow…I just read some of the comments below the “Ulsterman Reports.” How mind numbling gulible do you have to be to swallow that B.S.? Seriousy?!?!
Did you go to this link? Ulsterman has a number of b.s. articles and cesspool blog.
White House Insider: Proceed At Your Own Peril
Read more: http://newsflavor.com/world/usa-canada/white-house-insider-proceed-at-your-own-peril/#ixzz1CNBHkzZP
This comment is pretty funny:
AmyBagadonuts
Posted January 27, 2011 at 6:43 am
I’m 95% positive the insider is James Carville… For several reasons. Will we ever find out Ulster? Even years from now?
How does someone come up with 95% certainty? There’s quite a bit of birther dementia on the intarwebs.
I’ve been there before but damn these people are beyond stupid. I don’t think I saw one post save Magic M where there weren’t multiple falsehoods
“Between 1759 and 1834 there were ten translations of his (Vattel’s) work in England, and from 1796 until 1872 eighteen translations, or reprints of translations, published in the United States”
Actually the first US edition was 1787 – it’s very rare I had to lock away all my stuff including my pen and sign two sets of forms before the Library of Congress would let me look at it.
After all that, it still said “indigenes” – not that I expected anything else!
It’s worse that that – the research the Birthers’quote was ONLY comparing Vattel to Wolff, Pufendorf and Bynkerhoek. The table is at page 179 of the following –
http://books.google.com/books?id=7PiHOIxUpX8C&pg=PA178&lpg=PA178&dq=%22Studies+in+the+History+of+the+Law+of+Nations%22&source=bl&ots=34bd2qwhHL&sig=06gj6jUiiLdql6HwCWm-69t6KRo&hl=en&ei=_FyKTMbnIoL7lwfmtIy1Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBsQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q&f=false
Doc
I believe that the absolute source of this claim is an article “Concepts and the Doctrine of Incorportion” (1932). It’s avaialble at JSTOR but I don’t have the subscription.
In any case, I think the birthers actually got it via the work I’ve linked to in my response to Greg – “Spaulding” pointed me to it in an exchange I had with him a few months ago.
Sorry folks – I’ve been messing up my blockquotes – hope you can understand my previous two posts
—
That feigned illiteracy and panic (while saying absolutely nothing) must have been fun to write.
It is not easy for a private individual to get someone’s name from their ISP, or else we would have known who Ron Polarik was a year earlier. The comment attributed to Foggy has no threat of violence in it. (I have doubts about the authenticity of the quote.)
No one is disputing the fact that The Law of Nations was an influential work on the subject of The Law of Nations (i.e. International Law). However, citizenship is a topic of municipal law, not international law. While Emer de Vattel talked about citizenship, he seems to have had very little influence on this topic in America based on the court (and other) citations.
I think one of the best places to get perspective on the place de Vattel holds on this subject is the court decision in Lynch v Clarke.
Agreed…But again it is the mentality of the birthers. They take whatever is written at sites like WND or the Post and Fail as the truth becaus that is what they want to believe. Ever since the right a few weeks ago attacked Fogbow, you have seen comments like this….Of course there is no basis in fact or reality….But we know there never is….
Piracy is theft. The pirate downloader is stealing the royalties from the artist/author/rights owner.
Rationalizing the crime to the supposedly lesser offense of ‘cheating’ is disingenuous and hypocritical.
Another [piece of evidence proving that birthers are inherently racists… Posts by birthers comparing Obama to a gorilla on Fox’s sire:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/1/28/939727/-Fox-Nations-Gorilla-Story-Stirs-Racist-Frenzy
Yep. I don’t write fiction but I have been plagiarized, twice. It still pisses me off even though I didn’t lose a penny. I can’t imagine how I’d feel if I learned that someone was depriving me of royalties.
And then there are all the racists calling Michelle Obama “Sasquatch” and making nasty comments about her being fat (!) and having such a big butt that she shouldn’t be leading a campaign against childhood obesity. It’s sickening.
It’s very important to know history. However, dressing up in pantaloons and pretending that this is the world of 1788 is to knowing history as staying at Paris Las Vegas is to visiting Paris, France.
I agree with opening up all offices to all citizens and allowing voters to choose. Either the American people are adults capable of making good choices or the country is screwed and no Constitution can save it.
It reminds me of one of my favorite bumper stickers:
“Illiterate? Write for free help.”
Some humorous posts from the so called “insider reports”… MattMPosted January 26, 2011 at 6:59 pmThe $h1t hitting the fan, will take place at SCOTUS. The Hollister case that requested a writ of certiori from the SCOTUS, and the SCOTUS rejected it without cause – has new life. The attorney for the case made a motion for recusal, to request that Justice Satomeyer, and Justice Kagan recuse themselves. This motion was never responded to by the court, and therefore according to court rules, should have been granted, but wasn’t. With 9 justices in conference, there would need to be 4 justices wanting to hear the arguments for it to be heard, if only 7 are present, only 3. The attorney is refiling, and requesting that the court follow it’s own rules, and have Kagen, and Sotomayer, recuse themselves. If that happens there will likely be 3 justices (Thomas, Scalia, and Alito), that will move the case forward. Thomas has said the court is avoiding the issue. Scalia, said he needs doesn’t have enough votes, and Alito – I don’t think he appreciated Obamas comments at the 2010 SOTU. I think it’s probably Roberts who is right now keeping it from moving forward. A little ironic that the 3 justices who could bring down Obama, are the same 3 who were not at the SOTU address. If that happens, there will be no stopping this! DanaePosted January 27, 2011 at 1:12 pmUlsterman, This is the smoking gun, this is what Obama is hiding. Please ask the insider to consider… this is monumentally huge. Form a Free Republic posting (GGMac) in the last 24 hours, its NOT the birth certificate, its immigration and naturalization records which are Obama’s real achiles heel:______________________________________ “Background:We know that Barry was adopted by Lolo Soetoro. Aside from his half-sister Maya stating so publically, we know from the Stanley Ann/Lolo 1980 divorce documents that “the parties” were the parents of one child under 18 [Maya] and one child over 18 but still dependent on the parties for his education [Barry]. The divorce was filed/granted in Hawaii. That Barry was adopted by Lolo Soetoro is not in the realm of speculation; it is fact. None of we bloggers/commentors know with certainty that Barack Obama of Kenya sired Barack Obama II. There is considerable doubt, starting with the boy’s name being designated with the honorary “the Second” (II), rather than the sire-to-son “Junior” – specifically, the boy was named “for” Barack Obama of Kenya, rather then “after” him, indicating that Obama was the right race, at the needed time, and willing. Whether it was BO of Kenya, Frank Marshall Davis, the milkman, or “unknown”, IF our little Barry was truly born in a Honolulu hospital there was a long form, official with raised seal, signed by attending physician certificate of birth – and it was filed in the normal manner at the Department of Health. Where it remained – UNTIL BARRY WAS ADOPTED BY LOLO SOETORO. I know the following from personal experience: In an adoption procedure such as Lolo of Barry, a petition is filed, hearings are held, privately, before a family court judge and court recorder, adoption is approved, and Court Orders are written which spell out the remaining requisite procedures: A brand new, pristine long form certificate of birth is filled out with all of the data from the original birth certificate. It is filled out exactly as the original with two exceptions: on the pristine document the name of the baby’s father is “Lolo Soetoro”, and his race is [whatever Lolo’s race was]. Enter now the LAW: the signing and filing of the Court Orders does three things in the Law: (1) Lolo Soetoro is the actual – not “step” – ACTUAL father of the boy Barry, who is now Barry Soetoro; (2) as proscribed by the government of Indonesia, the father Lolo’s Indonesian citizenship is conferred onto Barry; (3) whatever man was named on the original birth certificate as father, in the eyes of the law in relation to the child, does not exist – and never did exist. In the eyes of the law, Lolo Soetoro conceived Barry. Chiseled. In. Stone. The next step – because above all, the child is to be protected from any person or occurrance which could cause him distress, or could in any way breach his and his parents’ privacy – all records relating to the adoption are sealed, under Court Order. “All” records means ANY and ALL papers, records, memos, files, filings, recordings, transcripts of proceedings, etc, and most importantly – the ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE. In the eyes of the law, that certificate does not, and never did, exist. The Certificate of Birth – the “long form” – which identifies Lolo Soetoro as Barry’s father IS the ORIGINAL birth certificate. It is the ONLY one on file at the HDOH. Forever.Unless someone ELSE petitions the court and adopts Barry – in which case yet another “original” birth certificate would be generated. Regarding the various staff at the Hawaii Dept. of Health, who have made tortured, prevaricating attempts to do Barry’s bidding — any statements or remarks they have made about having personally seen, touched, patted, or swooned over a document as being Obie’s “original birth certificate” has to be in reference to the only one on file – naming Lolo as father. It appears they are dancing for the media and following instructions which could have come only from Barry. The birth records are not public information; FOIA does not apply. The DOH staff are not at liberty to peruse those files; they can only look, handle if required by the job – which means if the “owner” files a request for a certified copy. There was a report during the ‘08 campaign that Barry had petitioned the Hawaiian court for his on-file birth certificate and related records of copies requested over the years, etc, to be sealed. It would be out of the ordinary – butthe Chicago way means such requests are likely to be approved. As for the sealed adoption records – anyone poking around there, and that means ANYone – would be committing a criminal act. Last I knew, such files were still actually sealed with a huge blob of wax. All things considered, best guess is that Barry refuses to produce his long form birth certificate – and is willing to spend $$million$ to keep it hidden because that one document shows the truth which would reveal layers upon layers of his lies about his life, activities, and travels. Instead of peeling an onion from the outside>in, Barry’s birth certificate Waterloo begins at the center of the onion – right there at the tear-making core – with the fact of his being adopted by Lolo and thus being a citizen of Indonesia. Indonesia doesn’t permit dual citizenship, so the Indonesian citizen son of Indonesian Lolo had to have an Indonesian citizen passport. Why his mother had to file for an amendment to remove Barry from travelling on her passport. As a US citizen he could be on hers, but his US citizenship was forsaken for the marriage to Lolo. No problem for a woman who didn’t love her native country anyway – or for the son she dutifully trained to reflect her distaste for America. No problem for him, that is, until he decided to go into politics. Suddenly that Indonesian citizenship and it’s trickle-down useage in his life became a thorn. He wanted to fundamentally change our precious country, and to do so required masses and masses of lies and cover-ups. No problem – just haul out the Chicago way, and the tactics of Chicago’s favorite son, Alinsky. Not working, however – bloggers, Freepers! – and Barry’s thorn of deceit has turned into a festering boilthat’s rapidly reaching the point where it will be lanced.”
In the NY County Supreme Court Building at 60 Centre in Manhattan (Beautiful building. If you ever have to go to court, I recommend it highly), there is a rotunda with a mural depicting important figures from the history of law. It includes Presidents, kings, biblical figures, etc. Also as part of the work are several faces of important legal personages, including Solon and Blackstone. Oddly enough, there is no depiction of Vattel. Now that I think of it, I have never seen him depicted at any courthouse I’ve been to. Even more oddly, his name never came up while I was at law school.
And for the record Vattel didn’t say what the birthers claim he did. This has been detailed here ad nauseam.
By danaes logic several supreme court members should have revised themselves from bush v gore
Especially since Michelle Obama is the most lovely and graceful First Lady since Jackie Kennedy.
I’m proud of our First Lady.
Birthers are hopelessly ignorant about how SCOTUS operates.
There was no “motion” for recusal. Hemenway filed a “request” for recusal. Regardless, SCOTUS was under no obligation to respond to it. And there are no rules regarding recusals. That is a call which each justice makes for himself or herself.
As usual, birthers just make stuff up.
There’s also no standing rule that if one or more justices recuse themselves, that their adherence to the long-standing Rule of Four would change to a Rule of Three. Numerous birther lawyers have asserted this despite it having zero precedent – anytime there are recusals, it has always remained four. I think they do so partially so they can blame Kagan and Sotomayor (and keep those dollars from gullible donors coming in), and by extension, blame Obama’s “corrupt machine” and just fan the hatred.
Many birthers also insist that because the Hollister case was was dismissed for reasons OTHER than just standing, that it means they WERE granted standing, another preposterous notion. There’s no realization that of a court finds one justified reason to dismiss, then it doesn’t bother wasting its time looking at 16 other possible reasons to do so. It stops there, and will look at those only if the first is resolved somehow.
I also like that the poster in question says “And therefore according to court rules [the recusal request] had to be granted.”
Do they quote the “rules” in question? Cite any Court precedent that it usually works that way? Link some historical reference? No, of course not. They simply state that “according to the (unnamed) rules” it should have happened in their favor (and by extension the reason it did not is not that they are wrong, but that the conspiracy and corruption is so far-reaching as to have corrupted every minute sector of government).
I was just by that building yesterday on my way to a business meeting in Chinatown….It is an awesome building…Anyone familar with Law and Order knows what the building looks like…Many scenes have taken place on the steps of that building….
The US Supreme Court Building, on the inside where the Justices hear oral arguments also has a marble friezes of famous justices. Blackstone made the cut, Vattel not so much.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Supreme_Court_Building
> And then there are all the racists calling Michelle Obama “Sasquatch” and making nasty comments about her being fat (!) and having such a big butt that she shouldn’t be leading a campaign against childhood obesity. It’s sickening.
Actually the worst racist birther comment about the First Lady I read was something along the lines of “when God handed out pretty faces, she must have been in the back of the bus”.
Obama is president. He is through half of his term. Get over it.
The writer misrepresents the text from BARRY v. MERCEIN as a statement of the court. It is not “footnote 4, but rather point 4 made by the losing side, and I do not see any agreement to it by the court. The numbered list was preceded by the text: