Main Menu

Dissenting voices

Dr. Conspiracy

The main purpose of this blog was to publish articles examining conspiracy theories about Barack Obama. What grew up was an online discussion community.

I attempted to tolerate anything anyone wanted to say, and I still do not censor opinions. However, there have been some particularly obnoxious people that I just don’t want here. I find a few things obnoxious, and the main one is someone telling lies and refusing to answer for them. Another main contender for a ban is someone who posts many comments all over the place, lacking much substantive content, but full of insults. When I do ban someone it is after they said something and whatever they said is not deleted, so their ideas are not censored.

I looked over recent comments, and we really don’t have much left in the way of voices supporting the conspiracy theories. It may be that there is just something incompatible between courteous rational discourse and the birther movement. It may be that the vocal opposition to conspiracy theories here creates an environment where the “thoughtful birther” doesn’t feel welcome.

We’ll just have to wait and see what unfolds.

, ,

109 Responses to Dissenting voices

  1. avatar
    Scientist February 14, 2011 at 7:06 pm #

    “Thoughtful birther”? How can one be thoughtful when one believes things which all the evidence says is untrue. Isn’t that the very definition of “unthoughtful”? You would do better looking for the Fountain of Youth than looking for a “thoughtful birther”. At least the Fountain of Youth would be hugely valuable on the 1 in a billion chance that you found it.

  2. avatar
    Alexis February 14, 2011 at 7:11 pm #

    Thoughtful birther here. I was impressed with your research regading the Strunk FOIA request and your having pointed out that he didn’t actually request prior passports of Obama’s mother nor did he request passport issuance cards as you proved do exist on microfilm. I do not understand why Strunk would fail to request the actual passport or the passport issuance card.

    After all, passport applications are sometimes denied so it would hardly be thorough for the government not to have records of passports that were issued distinct from the applications. And as that 1981 report you found admits, such records are kept on microfilm.

    Therefore, in order to substantiate your research, I would greatly appreciate it if you would publish your FOIA request as well as the Government’s response and also your appeal. It’s historically relevant and important to document these events. If your FOIA request demanded the passport issuance cards and the Government did not send any, that would appear to prove that Stanley Ann Dunham did not have a passport prior to 1965.

    I am not a “born in Kenya” birther. I believe Obama was born in the USA. But I also don’t believe a person born with dual citizenship is eligible. I know you disagree and perhaps we could argue that point separately. Anyhoo, please post the documents for posterity.

    Thank you.

  3. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) February 14, 2011 at 7:29 pm #

    Alexis:
    Thoughtful birther here. I was impressed with your research regading the Strunk FOIA request and your having pointed out that he didn’t actually request prior passports of Obama’s mother nor did he request passport issuance cards as you proved do exist on microfilm.I do not understand why Strunk would fail to request the actual passport or the passport issuance card.

    After all, passport applications are sometimes denied so it would hardly be thorough for the government not to have records of passports that were issued distinct from the applications.And as that 1981 report you found admits, such records are kept on microfilm.

    Therefore, in order to substantiate your research, I would greatly appreciate it if you would publish your FOIA request as well as the Government’s response and also your appeal.It’s historically relevant and important to document these events.If your FOIA request demanded the passport issuance cards and the Government did not send any, that would appear to prove that Stanley Ann Dunham did not have a passport prior to 1965.

    I am not a “born in Kenya” birther. I believe Obama was born in the USA.But I also don’t believe a person born with dual citizenship is eligible. I know you disagree and perhaps we could argue that point separately.Anyhoo, please post the documents for posterity.

    Thank you.

    Alexis the constitution states that in order to be Vice President you must meet the qualifications to be President. Vice President Spiro Agnew under Richard Nixon had both Greek and American citizenship at birth and his whole life. So this example would mean you’re wrong.

  4. avatar
    dunstvangeet February 14, 2011 at 7:53 pm #

    Alexis…

    Just wondering…

    Do you want to give every country out there veto power over who the United States can elect as President or Vice President? That’s essentially what your “No Dual Citizens” thing is doing. It’s giving foreign law the ability to determine who can be the President of the United States, and Vice President of the United States. Personally, I would think that the birthers who claim to be concerned about Foreign Influence would lament about giving every country out there veto power over who we can and cannot elect as President. After all, the only thing that North Korea needs to do to put our government into disarray is to declare anybody born in America to be a Citizen of North Korea. That would instantly make everybody ineligible to be President.

    Why would the founders, who were mainly lawyers well-versed in English Common Law, take a term that had 400 years of history in English Common Law, redefine it, and then not tell anybody that they had redefined it? Usually when they redefined terms in the Constitution, they put the definition in the Constitution explicitly (see the definition of Treason for an example). And why would they redefine the term “Natural Born” to mean something based upon a book that didn’t use the term in the first place, and where no English Translation used the term until 10 years after the Constitution was written? Furthermore, why would they use a book that was a treatsies on International Law to define something that was a notion of Domestic Law?

    Furthermore, I can name 8 U.S. Presidents who had dual citizenship at birth. None of them were born before the Constitution was ratified, so all of them had to be Natural Born Citizens. They are: Ulysses S. Grant (French), Chester A. Arthur (British), Theodore Roosevelt (French), William Howard Taft (French), Franklin Delano Roosevelt (French), Harry S. Truman (French), Lyndon B. Johnson (French), and Leslie Lynch King aka Gerald R. Ford (French). This doesn’t include numerous Vice Presidents (such as Spiro Agnew) who also had Dual Citizenship when they were born.

    Furthermore, if your argument that dual citizenship at any point of life is ineligible, then why did the U.S. Supreme Court agree that someone who was an American Citizen, but had acquired dual citizenship after birth (Swedish citizenship in this case) was a Natural Born Citizen (the U.S. Supreme Court used those exact words).

    Now, onto the actual definition. The United States Supreme Court has defined the term “Natural Born” to be directly derived from the English Common Law. If they had to get down to it, I’m sure that the definition of Natural Born would be anybody who was born a citizen is a Natural Born Citizen, no matter what the laws of a foreign country says. There is no parental requirement. There is no checking with the laws of the other 360+ nations on this earth to make sure that this person doesn’t qualify for citizenship another place. It’s simply when they became a citizen.

    Anybody born in this country (and subject to the jurisdiction thereof) is a Natural Born Citizen. (Note this says if A, then B. This does not imply in any way if B, then A.) Anybody born in Puerto Rico (8 USC 1402), the U.S. Virgin Islands (8 USC 1406), and Guam (8 USC 1407) are Natural Born Citizens, as well as those born overseas to American Citizens (presuming they meet the requirements). All the birthplace require to be “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, and the Supreme Court has already defined what “Subject to the Jurisdiction thereof” means. It only means that children of Ambassadors, children of Foreign Soldiers who were born in Occupied Territory, and things such as Native Americans who are subject to their tribe, not the United States (this was remedied in 1920s).

    Obama became a citizen when he was born (8 U.S.C. 1401, 14th Amendment), and therefore Obama is a Natural Born Citizen. It doesn’t matter that the British gave him Citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies. It doesn’t matter that Kenya gave him citizenship when he was 2, and then revoked it when he was 23 (when he didn’t denounce other citizenships and swear an oath to Kenya). All that matters is Obama’s birthplace.

    Birthers tend to work backwards. They have their conclusion (Obama is not eligible for President) and then work backwards to try to find arguments that would fit Obama. If they don’t have valid arguments, they’ll just make up arguments that sound valid and throw them out there and start believing them. This is how all the Vattel stuff and the Dual Citizenship stuff actually started.

  5. avatar
    Keith February 14, 2011 at 8:09 pm #

    Scientist: At least the Fountain of Youth would be hugely valuable on the 1 in a billion chance that you found it.

    Actually, no it wouldn’t.

  6. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 14, 2011 at 8:17 pm #

    Alexis: Therefore, in order to substantiate your research, I would greatly appreciate it if you would publish your FOIA request as well as the Government’s response and also your appeal. It’s historically relevant and important to document these events. If your FOIA request demanded the passport issuance cards and the Government did not send any, that would appear to prove that Stanley Ann Dunham did not have a passport prior to 1965.

    I appreciate the value of your approach, which parallels my own reasoning that lead to submission of the FOIA.

    My FOIA was submitted online. The first document I got back, acknowledging my original request is not in my files; however, I have the screen print of the original web request. The following is the verbatim description (copied from my dog-eared and heavily annotated screen print) that I submitted.

    Time period of my request: between 11/1/1942 and 12/1/1975.

    Description of request:

    Passport issuance records (only) for Stanley Ann Dunham (b 11/29/1942) DECEASED aka Stanley Ann D. Obama aka Stanley Ann D. Soetoro.

    State department web site says it has passport records back to 1925.

    The person subject of this request (President Obama’s mother) is publicly known to be deceased in 1995.

    Since a passport issuance card can hardly be denied as a “passport issuance record” I think they should have been provided. The important point, which you seem to be tuned in to, is exactly what does it mean if no passport issuance card is provided. I am prepared to ask follow-up questions if the Department of State reply is ambiguous.

    I’ll assemble and scan the other documents later.

  7. avatar
    Keith February 14, 2011 at 8:23 pm #

    Alexis: Therefore, in order to substantiate your research, I would greatly appreciate it if you would publish your FOIA request as well as the Government’s response and also your appeal. It’s historically relevant and important to document these events.

    I seem to recall Doc being quite forthcoming keeping us all informed of the progress and results of his FOIA request.

    As I recall, it seems to be in limbo at the moment, possibly because the documents mention a living person.

  8. avatar
    misha February 14, 2011 at 8:48 pm #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): Vice President Spiro Agnew under Richard Nixon had both Greek and American citizenship at birth and his whole life.

    Agnew was also a convicted felon. It doesn’t matter: he was white.

  9. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 14, 2011 at 10:04 pm #

    Alexis: Thoughtful birther here.

    While the term “birther” has come to embrace both those conspiracy theorists who believe Barack Obama was not born in the United States and those who believe that the Constitution when properly understood excludes some persons born citizens in the United States from the presidency, I am not entirely comfortable with mixing the two, preferring that only the former group be labeled “birthers.”

    While I say firmly that the second group espouses a view that is not supported by history, it is still a legal theory and not a conspiracy theory. My judgment of those in the second group is based on the integrity of their handling of sources.

  10. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 14, 2011 at 10:16 pm #

    Keith: As I recall, it seems to be in limbo at the moment, possibly because the documents mention a living person.

    The response I had from the Department of State said that they had found 6 responsive documents, and that all could be released in full. This precludes any problems with living persons. What I believe happened is that they failed to read my request carefully and assumed that it was the same as Christopher Strunk’s request, and they sent me exactly what they sent him.

    When it comes to the passport issuance card itself, it may well be that the 1965 card exists AND that it was a family passport listing Barack Obama. (Remember that the 1965 application was destroyed and so presents no issue of release.) If this is the case, then I would expect to get a response back that could say that a document was located that could not be released in full or released at all. Should this happen, I would request the title and date of any documents not released.

  11. avatar
    G February 15, 2011 at 12:55 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: While I say firmly that the second group espouses a view that is not supported by history, it is still a legal theory and not a conspiracy theory. My judgment of those in the second group is based on the integrity of their handling of sources.

    I respectfully disagree. Although I agree that both groups exist, the “de Vattelists” and those espousing similar ideas are complete birthers in my view, as their appearance coincideded with Obama’s rise to the Presidency.

    They are nothing more than the “goalpost” movers who can’t accept Obama’s election, yet realize at some level that they can’t deny that he was born in HI and therefore need the “2 parent” nonsense in order to continue to demonize and delegitimize him.

    Their “legal theories” are bunk crank theories at best, spun out of D’Onofrio’s nonsense and such. They are no more serious nor sincere than any other form of birther.

  12. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP February 15, 2011 at 1:18 am #

    It may be that there is just something incompatible between courteous rational discourse and the birther movement. It may be that the vocal opposition to conspiracy theories here creates an environment where the “thoughtful birther” doesn’t feel welcome.
    ————————————————————————————-
    I have to agree 100% with your assessment, Doc, but there are a couple of things I would like to add. Regarding the former, yes, there is something incompatible between courteous, rational discourse and the birther movement, Having been on gretawire since before this whole thing began back in the middle of 2008, birthers don’t like to go where they can’t insult someone who disagrees with them. In that forum, the insult was the rule rather than the exception with the birthers, and your site, thankfully, does away with that in large measure to keep everyone focused on the facts.

    Regarding the latter, it’s not so much the vocal opposition to the birther theories as it is the intelligent and knowledgeable individuals who come here and express that opposition with facts, their own personal knowledge, and good old common sense. History shows that birthers are defenseless against these things, especially when they don’t have the ability to be “discourteous.”

    But I believe there is another factor at work here; it’s what I called the FUTTHESHUCKUP Theorem about a year ago – The more time that goes on that President Obama remains in office, and the more court cases birther attorneys lose, the more likely it is people will take leave of this issue. The second FUTTHESHUCKUP Theorem says that the more time that goes on that President Obama remains in office, and the more cases birther attorneys lose, the more likely it is that those who are left clinging to this issue are racist since hardcore racists will never take leave of this issue. They are still dissenting, but they are doing it solely within a dwindling population in their safe havens.

    The more, relatively, rational people in the movement came to the realization that they were fighting a losing battle when Boehner made his statement on Obama’s eligibility when he took over as Speaker of the House. This was no less damaging to the birther movement than Nancy Pelosi’s statement about impeachment being “off the table” was to liberals when she took over the Speaker of the House position back in 2006. I still remember where I was when she made that statement – I was sitting at my computer fighting with Bushbots on Yahoo’s messageboards – and I will never forget the feeling of despair that came over me when I heard this news. I realized at that time that we were going to be stuck with Bush for another two years, and with with Boehner’s recent statement, the birthers have reached that same plateau; at this point, resistance is definitely futile, and they know it whether or not they will admit to knowing it or not.

    All things must pass, and the birther movement is no different. Of course some will cling to the issue because of racism, and they will continue to post in their own venues, but they know that once they venture outward, there are facts that they can no longer deny, not the least of which is that not only have the courts poo-pooed this issue and their claims, but now the authority responsible for addressing this issue, Congress, has also done so. They have nothing new and nothing left to present to a gullible public; all they have are the same, old phony claims that they have been trying to advance for more than two years without success. They will be content to remain among the choir that will agree with them regardless of the facts. They have made too many promises that have been broken and created too many bogus legal theories that no one in a position of authority has bought in to for them to go among rational people and still make their claims.

    I expect there to be a resurgence of the insurgents around election time in 2012, but the stake through their heart will be when President Obama is on all ballots in the coming election. There is no way they can still make their silly claims and be believed by anyone with a modicum of common sense when that happens. Hopefully, the birther klan will be rewarded for their lies and propaganda about the president with another 4 years of President Obama.

  13. avatar
    misha February 15, 2011 at 1:23 am #

    FUTTHESHUCKUP: Hopefully, the birther klan will be rewarded for their lies and propaganda about the president with another 4 years of President Obama.

    Obama will be re-elected, and Cory Booker will follow. Denialists better get used to it.

  14. avatar
    Slartibartfast February 15, 2011 at 2:13 am #

    misha: Obama will be re-elected, and Cory Booker will follow. Denialists better get used to it.

    You keep saying that – I sure hope it’s true…

  15. avatar
    Alexis February 15, 2011 at 6:58 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy said:

    “Since a passport issuance card can hardly be denied as a “passport issuance record” I think they should have been provided. The important point, which you seem to be tuned in to, is exactly what does it mean if no passport issuance card is provided. I am prepared to ask follow-up questions if the Department of State reply is ambiguous.

    I’ll assemble and scan the other documents later.”

    Thank you for scanning the other documents. I am very interested to see the Department of State Response. It’s very important. It appears to me that you requested a perfect FOIA inquiry and that their response is both improper and confusing. If they have no passport issuance card prior to 1965 then that proves Obama was not born in Kenya. End of story. The State Dept response is unfortunate and still leaves wiggle room for confusion. As for whether Obama’s name having been on the document would prevent them from releasing the passport issuance card, I do not buy it. They released the other document to Strunk and yourself which has President Obama’s name clearly legible, although a line through it. That line is not a redaction.

    Furthermore, in order for President Obama to have been born in Kenya, there would have to be a passport issuance card on file from before he was born.

    I feel you are very close to ending this “born in Kenya” myth. And that’s why your documents are so very important to history.

    Please scan them asap. Much appreciated.

  16. avatar
    Bob February 15, 2011 at 7:00 am #

    Slartibartfast February 15, 2011 at 2:13 am Slartibartfast(Quote) #

    misha: Obama will be re-elected, and Cory Booker will follow. Denialists better get used to it.

    You keep saying that – I sure hope it’s true…
    ———————————————–
    Ditto. Put me down for a double dose of O.

  17. avatar
    Alexis February 15, 2011 at 7:03 am #

    G wrote:

    “They are nothing more than the “goalpost” movers who can’t accept Obama’s election, yet realize at some level that they can’t deny that he was born in HI and therefore need the “2 parent” nonsense in order to continue to demonize and delegitimize him.

    Their “legal theories” are bunk crank theories at best, spun out of D’Onofrio’s nonsense and such. They are no more serious nor sincere than any other form of birther.”

    You may recall that Donofrio sued to keep Obama, McCain and Calero off of the ballots. His SCOTUS stay application was filed on Nov. 3, 2008, one day before the election. What will be interesting now is to see if Donofrio is going to oppose Rubio and Jindal. If Donofrio wants to be consistent he will have to oppose both of those GOP rising stars.

  18. avatar
    Alexis February 15, 2011 at 7:22 am #

    Dunstvangett said:

    “After all, the only thing that North Korea needs to do to put our government into disarray is to declare anybody born in America to be a Citizen of North Korea. That would instantly make everybody ineligible to be President.”

    The issue to me is cased in the term “owing allegiance to a foreign nation”. According to US law, if an American citizen has a child in Great Britain, that child owes allegiance to the United States at the time of his birth as well as Great Britain. That child is a US citizen at birth (but in my opinion, not a natural born citizen).

    If you had a child abroad, US law grants your child US citizenship. In return for granting your child US citizenship, your child owes allegiance to the United States.

    Vice versa. If a Great British man has a child on US soil with an American woman, US law recognizes that the child owes allegiance to both the US and Great Britain. The State Department Foreign Affairs Manual states that the US recognizes such dual citizenship and the manual even points out that Great Britain would have a greater claim to that person when that person is in Great Britain.

    Examining your example with North Korea, should that nation give citizenship out of the clear blue sky, let’s say to President Obama, Obama would certainly not owe allegiance to North Korea.

    And if Obama were to visit North Korea and perhaps North Korea granted him citizenship while he was there, if North Korea were then to invoke the State Department Foreign Affairs and claim that they have greater control over Obama since he is now a dual citizen, you are going to see a few battalions of Navy Seals hopping the border to retrieve the President. the US is not going to recognize THAT false form of dual citizenship. But the US does recognize that a child’s father’s nation can claim that child as one of their own. It’s only fair that a father confer citizenship as well as the mother.

    The issue for me, and I speak only for myself, has more to do with legally owing allegiance to a foreign nation at the time of ones birth, then it does with any far fetched hypothetical dual citizenship as the one you have suggested.

    To examine your

  19. avatar
    Alexis February 15, 2011 at 7:26 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy said:

    “While I say firmly that the second group espouses a view that is not supported by history, it is still a legal theory and not a conspiracy theory.”

    Thank you for the important and accurate distinction.

  20. avatar
    Alexis February 15, 2011 at 7:30 am #

    “The issue to me is cased in the term “owing allegiance to a foreign nation”. According to US law, if an American citizen has a child in Great Britain, that child owes allegiance to the United States at the time of his birth as well as Great Britain. That child is a US citizen at birth (but in my opinion, not a natural born citizen). ”

    Let me clarify that —– I meant to say that if an American citizen parent has a child in Great Britain with a Great British citizen, that child owes allegiance to both Great Britain and the US. I’m not sure what the law is if two US citizens have a child on Great British soil.

  21. avatar
    ellid February 15, 2011 at 7:39 am #

    Alexis –

    There is no such thing as “Great British citizen.” The proper term is “British.”

  22. avatar
    E. Glenn harcsar February 15, 2011 at 8:05 am #

    Dr c great post.

    Attack polarize freeze isolate ridicule marginalize berate dishearten accuse bait—tactics that abound on many of the sites you list on your good bad and ugly( a useful service that keeps my bookmarks tidy).

    Birtherism a red herring that is designed to silence those that oppose the true conspiracy that runs past a botched cover story to the banking cartels that seek to reorder the world.

    Like I said thank for you list, but still have a lot of other reading to do.

    Anyone here care to take the negative?

    Always happy to stir the pot, makes being called a looney birther seem quaint.

  23. avatar
    Alexis February 15, 2011 at 8:06 am #

    dunstvangeet said:

    “Furthermore, I can name 8 U.S. Presidents who had dual citizenship at birth. None of them were born before the Constitution was ratified, so all of them had to be Natural Born Citizens. They are: Ulysses S. Grant (French), Chester A. Arthur (British), Theodore Roosevelt (French), William Howard Taft (French), Franklin Delano Roosevelt (French), Harry S. Truman (French), Lyndon B. Johnson (French), and Leslie Lynch King aka Gerald R. Ford (French). This doesn’t include numerous Vice Presidents (such as Spiro Agnew) who also had Dual Citizenship when they were born.”

    Except for Chester Arthur, all of the above listed persons were born on US soil to parents (both as in both parents) who were US citizens.

    It was not revealed that Chester Arthur was a British subject at birth until December 2008 when Donofrio found Chester’s father’s naturalization records in the LOC. There is literally no mention of the fact in history before December 2008. And Chester Arthur burned all of his papers which helped conceal the fact as well.

    The rest of your allegations are simply false and have been proved false by historical record many times and in many chat rooms. Look, I want to have a serious discussion, but you have false information. This is not up for debate. Every person you listed above was born in the US to two parents who were citizens except for Chester Arthur.

    Here is the WWI draft registration card data for Spiro Agnew’s Dad.

    “WWI Registration Card 559 A2691
    Theodore Spiro Agnew
    226 W. Madison St.
    Baltimore City, Maryland
    Age 40 Birthdate Sept. 12, 1878
    Race White
    NATURALIZED U.S. CITIZEN
    Occupation Restaurant
    Margaret M. Agnew, wife (nearest relative)
    Registrar’s report
    Height medium
    Hair black
    Eyes black
    Build stout
    No disabilities
    DATE OF REGISTRATION: Sept. 12, 1918”

  24. avatar
    Bovril February 15, 2011 at 8:19 am #

    Alexis,

    I’m afraid you are making the usual Birther mistake of applying your personal belief of what a word means as opposed to it’s legal and Constitutional meaning.

    “Allegiance” (see The Calvin Case passim) denotes the fact that one is under the requirements, obligations restrictions and penalties of the country in which you live at that moment. The only exemptions being those inherently without “allegiance” specifically ambassadors and invading military forces.

    So the children of the same are born out of allegiance and therefore cannot be citizens.

    The USA, recognizes both “Jus Soli” (born on the soil) and “Jus Sanguinis” (born of the blood of citizens) to provide NBC status.

    I further add, before we go down the Birther rabbit hole of irrelevant nit picking, that NBC is and always has been interchangeable as NATIVE and NATURAL born citizen.

    The two words in this context are wholly interchangeable.

  25. avatar
    Alexis February 15, 2011 at 8:24 am #

    More on Spiro Agnew’s father. 1910 census record confirms he was naturalized by that time, whereas Spiro the VP was born in 1918. The WWI draft registration card confirms the same. A 1920 census record appears to state he was an alien. But that 1920 record also has other verifiable mistakes. A 1930 census record confirms he was naturalized:

    HERITAGE QUEST:

    AGNEW THEODORE 45 M W GREE MD BALTIMORE 15-WD BALTIMORE 1930
    Series: T626 Roll: 859 Page: 8

    Naturalized 1903. Census taker Leticia E. Tyson, April 5, 1930.

    If there is doubt for anyone here, official naturalization records ought to put the issue to rest. But I just wanted to acknowledge the various documents.

    Furthermore, as to the other names listed that dunstvangeet claims were relevant. Please make your argument as to each person rather than just list their name with no supporting evidence. I will be happy to discuss each name on that basis.

  26. avatar
    Alexis February 15, 2011 at 8:32 am #

    Bovril said:

    “I’m afraid you are making the usual Birther mistake of applying your personal belief of what a word means as opposed to it’s legal and Constitutional meaning.

    ‘Allegiance’ (see The Calvin Case passim) denotes the fact that one is under the requirements, obligations restrictions and penalties of the country in which you live at that moment. The only exemptions being those inherently without “allegiance” specifically ambassadors and invading military forces.

    So the children of the same are born out of allegiance and therefore cannot be citizens.

    The USA, recognizes both “Jus Soli” (born on the soil) and “Jus Sanguinis” (born of the blood of citizens) to provide NBC status.”

    That’s just false. Show me what law conveys “natural born citizen” status? There is no such law. In fact, there was such a law in 1790 but it was repealed. Actually, everything in the 1790 law was kept except the words “natural born”. Those words were repealed. PLease stick to facts.

    Bovril said:

    “I further add, before we go down the Birther rabbit hole of irrelevant nit picking, that NBC is and always has been interchangeable as NATIVE and NATURAL born citizen.

    The two words in this context are wholly interchangeable.”

    That’s just your wrong opinion not supported by facts. And in fact it is conflicted by dicta in various supreme court cases, specifically Minor v. Happersett and Wong Kim Ark.

    But hey, if the Arizona, Nebraska or Tennessee laws on this issue are enacted, the SCOTUS will probably weigh in finally. Get the popcorn!

  27. avatar
    dch February 15, 2011 at 8:37 am #

    “legally owing allegiance to a foreign nation at the time of ones birth”

    So a newborn is capable having “allegiance” to a foreign nation?

    As minors they cannot enter in legal agreements, sign contracts, make many decisions, etc. But they are capable of having “allegiances” to foreign nations.
    That is so stupid it is not even wrong.

    By the way my son fits your category of “mix allegiance.” But his one and only BC from CA (1990) lists nothing about the citizenship of his mother and father – so future birthers will have no way of knowing (there is no “Long Form”). Nothing about the hospital, not even the city of birth.

    About 1/2 his close friends meet this condition, as does my nephew serving in with the US Army.

    LOL

  28. avatar
    misha February 15, 2011 at 8:44 am #

    Alexis: Please make your argument as to each person rather than just list their name with no supporting evidence.

    Terry Lakin may not be a citizen. See for yourself:
    http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/2010/08/lakin-undocumented-worker_26.html

  29. avatar
    Bovril February 15, 2011 at 8:45 am #

    Sorry Alexis,

    Not opinion, facts of law.

    I told you the case to look up, off you go now, show us you’re not the typical birther who can’t handle factual statements.

  30. avatar
    Bovril February 15, 2011 at 8:50 am #

    Oh Alexis

    ps

    Both the Arizona and Montana Birfoon bills were canned yesterday, not looking so good for you is it….?

  31. avatar
    Alexis February 15, 2011 at 8:57 am #

    Sorry Bovril,

    Not opinion, facts of law.

    I told you the cases to look up, off you go now, show us you’re not the typical anti-birther who can’t handle factual statements.

  32. avatar
    misha February 15, 2011 at 9:03 am #

    Alexis: If Donofrio wants to be consistent he will have to oppose both of those GOP rising stars.

    Donofrio is a fifth rate lawyer. He makes his living as a full time poker player. He’s not even a good poker player. Mario is an ambulance chaser, Orly is a third rate dentist who has been sued for malpractice 22 times.

    Joseph Farah is rumored to make barnyard animals skittish.

    Donofrio isn’t even at 100:
    http://www.pokerpages.com/players/lists/worlds-top-players.htm

  33. avatar
    Alexis February 15, 2011 at 9:03 am #

    Bovril said:

    “Both the Arizona and Montana Birfoon bills were canned yesterday, not looking so good for you is it….?”

    Dr. Conspiracy called for thoughtful discussion. You are insulting me. Sarcasm is fine, but you are lowering the discourse now with this “birfoon” insult. If this is the way it’s gonna be, I’ll take my ball and go home and you can claim victory. Congratulations.

    As to the Arizona and Montana ballot bills, II haven’t seen anything to indicate they were canned. If you would be so kind to provide a link, I will review.

  34. avatar
    dch February 15, 2011 at 9:04 am #

    If your reasoning is so good why has no GOP lawyer with cred taken up the cause?

    Why are you stuck with nutbags lawyers like Orly and Mario?

    Why have multiple judges seen fit to dismiss every lawsuit citing this same logic?

    Why can’t you guys convince a judge of anything other than the fact that your cases suck and need to be dismissed.?

    Why has EVERY dismissal been upheld on review by appeals courts.

    Why has every such case been dead filed at the SCOTUS and “denied without comment”?

  35. avatar
    misha February 15, 2011 at 9:14 am #

    Alexis: You are insulting me. Sarcasm is fine, but you are lowering the discourse now with this “birfoon” insult. If this is the way it’s gonna be, I’ll take my ball and go home and you can claim victory. Congratulations.

    Birthers are in the same class as Holocaust deniers, moon landing hoax claimers, Truthers, perpetual motion machine cranks, and all other cranks in history.

    100 years from now, Obama will have hundreds of books written about him, and the cranks will be a footnote.

    Obama will be re-elected. The GOP candidate will be Romney. It will be fun to watch him campaign against his own health care law.

    Better get used to it.

  36. avatar
    G February 15, 2011 at 9:19 am #

    E. Glenn harcsar: Birtherism a red herring that is designed to silence those that oppose the true conspiracy that runs past a botched cover story to the banking cartels that seek to reorder the world.

    Not even sure what you are talking about here at all. If you are merely stating the obvious, that at the top of the income scale, there are rich individuals and multi-national corporations that try to use their money and influence to sway laws towards their favor, then I agree.

    If you are trying to imply that there is some secret cabal all working together to try to control the world in some version of the NWO conspiracy, then I think you’ve bought into nothing but pure conspiracy paranoia, designed for those who need to see some invisible “bogeymen” pulling the strings behind the world’s evils. Such notions are no more realistic than the simplistic fantasy that “the devil” made them do it…

  37. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) February 15, 2011 at 9:22 am #

    Alexis: The issue for me, and I speak only for myself, has more to do with legally owing allegiance to a foreign nation at the time of ones birth, then it does with any far fetched hypothetical dual citizenship as the one you have suggested. To examine your

    So you’re saying the its the fault of the child for the parents being foreigners and having kids? What specific allegiance did Obama ever show towards Kenya? When did he ever live there? I think its ridiculous that you’d try to disqualify someone for somewhere they’ve never lived and showed actual allegiance to.

  38. avatar
    G February 15, 2011 at 9:24 am #

    Alexis: “The issue to me is cased in the term “owing allegiance to a foreign nation”. According to US law, if an American citizen has a child in Great Britain, that child owes allegiance to the United States at the time of his birth as well as Great Britain. That child is a US citizen at birth (but in my opinion, not a natural born citizen). ”
    Let me clarify that —– I meant to say that if an American citizen parent has a child in Great Britain with a Great British citizen, that child owes allegiance to both Great Britain and the US. I’m not sure what the law is if two US citizens have a child on Great British soil.

    I know people like to go off on tons of “what if” tangents and scenarios, but no form of “dual allegiance” to some other nation is going to trump the American NBC birth status of someone born in America and primarily raised in America.

  39. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) February 15, 2011 at 9:24 am #

    Alexis: More on Spiro Agnew’s father. 1910 census record confirms he was naturalized by that time, whereas Spiro the VP was born in 1918. The WWI draft registration card confirms the same. A 1920 census record appears to state he was an alien. But that 1920 record also has other verifiable mistakes. A 1930 census record confirms he was naturalized:HERITAGE QUEST:AGNEW THEODORE 45 M W GREE MD BALTIMORE 15-WD BALTIMORE 1930Series: T626 Roll: 859 Page: 8Naturalized 1903. Census taker Leticia E. Tyson, April 5, 1930.If there is doubt for anyone here, official naturalization records ought to put the issue to rest. But I just wanted to acknowledge the various documents.Furthermore, as to the other names listed that dunstvangeet claims were relevant. Please make your argument as to each person rather than just list their name with no supporting evidence. I will be happy to discuss each name on that basis.

    The birther problem with Agnew is that He was a dual greek american citizen and according to you would have an allegiance to greece at the time of his birth.

  40. avatar
    kimba February 15, 2011 at 9:25 am #

    Alexis: Dr. Conspiracy called for thoughtful discussion. You are insulting me. Sarcasm is fine, but you are lowering the discourse now with this “birfoon” insult. If this is the way it’s gonna be, I’ll take my ball and go home and you can claim victory.

    Wah. Typical birther after all.

  41. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) February 15, 2011 at 9:30 am #

    Alexis: Bovril said:“I’m afraid you are making the usual Birther mistake of applying your personal belief of what a word means as opposed to it’s legal and Constitutional meaning.Allegiance’ (see The Calvin Case passim) denotes the fact that one is under the requirements, obligations restrictions and penalties of the country in which you live at that moment. The only exemptions being those inherently without “allegiance” specifically ambassadors and invading military forces.So the children of the same are born out of allegiance and therefore cannot be citizens.The USA, recognizes both “Jus Soli” (born on the soil) and “Jus Sanguinis” (born of the blood of citizens) to provide NBC status.”That’s just false. Show me what law conveys “natural born citizen” status? There is no such law. In fact, there was such a law in 1790 but it was repealed. Actually, everything in the 1790 law was kept except the words “natural born”. Those words were repealed. PLease stick to facts.Bovril said:“I further add, before we go down the Birther rabbit hole of irrelevant nit picking, that NBC is and always has been interchangeable as NATIVE and NATURAL born citizen.The two words in this context are wholly interchangeable.”That’s just your wrong opinion not supported by facts. And in fact it is conflicted by dicta in various supreme court cases, specifically Minor v. Happersett and Wong Kim Ark.But hey, if the Arizona, Nebraska or Tennessee laws on this issue are enacted, the SCOTUS will probably weigh in finally. Get the popcorn!

    Alexis the Arizona law wouldn’t even make it out of the district court. The Attorney General for the State of Arizona would most likely weigh in as well since the Arizona bill would invalidate the chances of any child born in Arizona after 1989 running for President 14 years from now. The terms native and natural born have been used interchangeably by the courts. I suggest you read some of the fine articles Dr C has written here. I suggest you start with this page: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/01/the-great-mother-of-all-natural-born-citizen-quotation-pages/

  42. avatar
    Alexis February 15, 2011 at 9:35 am #

    As Dr. Conspiracy said, the issue of dual citizenship is a legal question, not a conspiracy theory. The good Dr. led the thread off as follows:

    “It may be that there is just something incompatible between courteous rational discourse and the birther movement. It may be that the vocal opposition to conspiracy theories here creates an environment where the “thoughtful birther” doesn’t feel welcome.”

    I certainly don’t feel welcome. I haven’t insulted anyone here, but now I’ve been called “birfoon:, “holocaust denier” and a “crank”.

    This thread has quickly devolved into the exact thing it was created to counter —- thoughtful discussion.

    Dr. C, please post the documents from the Department of State in order that the historical record on this important issue be documented.

    adieu

  43. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) February 15, 2011 at 9:40 am #

    Alexis: As Dr. Conspiracy said, the issue of dual citizenship is a legal question, not a conspiracy theory. The good Dr. led the thread off as follows:“It may be that there is just something incompatible between courteous rational discourse and the birther movement. It may be that the vocal opposition to conspiracy theories here creates an environment where the “thoughtful birther” doesn’t feel welcome.”I certainly don’t feel welcome. I haven’t insulted anyone here, but now I’ve been called “birfoon:, “holocaust denier” and a “crank”.This thread has quickly devolved into the exact thing it was created to counter —- thoughtful discussion. Dr. C, please post the documents from the Department of State in order that the historical record on this important issue be documented. adieu

    If Holocaust denier is the worst you’ve been called here I’d say you got off easy. I’ve gone to birther sites and when I posted accurate information instead of people trying to refute what I’ve said, I had my posts removed, been called unpatriotic, a traitor, scum, obot, paid poster, scab for the DNC, etc.

  44. avatar
    G February 15, 2011 at 9:52 am #

    Alexis: As to the Arizona and Montana ballot bills, II haven’t seen anything to indicate they were canned. If you would be so kind to provide a link, I will review.

    Montana HB205 birther bill tabled:

    http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=16382

    Arizona Bill fails to make it out of committee:

    http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=16405

  45. avatar
    The Magic M February 15, 2011 at 9:55 am #

    Have to play a bit of advocatus diaboli here (since the birthers themselves obviously cannot mount even the slightest bit of a logical defense of their “arguments”):

    > So a newborn is capable having “allegiance” to a foreign nation?

    “Allegiance” is a problematic term in itself since it confounds notions (such as “I feel a strong allegiance to the LA Lakers” or “even though I was born a Frenchman, I feel strong allegiance towards Canada, the country of my ancestors”) and legal obligations (I owe allegiance to my home country if they choose to draft me for their army, regardless whether I may be also a citizen of another country at the same time).

    > As minors they cannot enter in legal agreements, sign contracts, make many decisions, etc. But they are capable of having “allegiances” to foreign nations.

    I suppose the birthers, had they any brains, mean something like “if Obama is also a British citizen, the British military might decide to draft him” or “if a minor is also an Iranian citizen, Iran might decide to draft him regardless of his age” (age restrictions in the US would obviously not decide on what Iranian military law can or cannot do).

  46. avatar
    Bovril February 15, 2011 at 10:19 am #

    So Alexis,

    You have been provided with a selection of FACTS, now, rather than whine, because they don’t agree with your personal beliefs, opinions, prejudices etc, off you trot, read, inwardly digest and return afresh with an apology.

    I might add, the AZ and Montana bills are wholly Birfoon.

    Your crying that pointing that out makes you feel all insulted implies your agreement with them, makes you all Birfoony and says considerably more about you and your beliefs than anything else, doesn’t it?

  47. avatar
    G February 15, 2011 at 10:40 am #

    Alexis: I certainly don’t feel welcome. I haven’t insulted anyone here, but now I’ve been called “birfoon:, “holocaust denier” and a “crank”.

    Now you are just trying to play the “victim card” here. You were NOT called a holocaust denier by Misha.

    Nor were you directly attacked and slurred in those posts – such minor slurs of crank and birfoon were applied in broader terms to the concept of birtherism. You may feel that birfoon is excessively derogatory of a term to use, when the simple common use of “birther” would suffice. On that minor point, I would accept that argument.

    However, “crank theory” is completely applicable in describing birtherism, as the full history of the birther ideas and the birther movement fit that defintion to a T so far.

    Until you have any actual law or a solid body of eviidence that supports your notions, instead of contradict them, then you are merely dabbling in the realm of unsubstantiated hypothesis and fringe notions that come off as “crank” ideas. Deal with it.

    Saying that unsupported fringe theories, such as birther theories are merely crank ideas, similar to other conspiracy crank theories of the past is NOT the same at all as saying that someone holds those other crank beliefs.

    Therefore, pointing out OTHER examples of OTHER crank theories (such as Moon Landing Deniers, 9/11 Truthers, Flat Earthers, Intelligent Designers or Holocaust Deniers, etc.) is merely making an analogy to what crank theories are out there, NOT in any way accusing YOU or anyone of specifically holding ANY of those other example views.

    It is merely an analogy that points out that there are a class of people who buy into and hold onto a fringe theory which has been repeatedly debunked in the mainstream and relates it to other situations where that has happened in the past.

    You are either over-sensitive or being intentionally disingenous, trying to portray yourself as a victim and make accusations out to be much more than they ever were.

  48. avatar
    Greg February 15, 2011 at 11:01 am #

    Alexis: And if Obama were to visit North Korea and perhaps North Korea granted him citizenship while he was there, if North Korea were then to invoke the State Department Foreign Affairs and claim that they have greater control over Obama since he is now a dual citizen, you are going to see a few battalions of Navy Seals hopping the border to retrieve the President. the US is not going to recognize THAT false form of dual citizenship. But the US does recognize that a child’s father’s nation can claim that child as one of their own. It’s only fair that a father confer citizenship as well as the mother.

    Did we invade Poland?

    Poland considers the children of anyone of Polish ancestry, even those who have naturalized in the United States, to be Polish citizens. US citizens were visiting Poland, confident in the fact that their parents were naturalized long before they were born and being told that they needed a POLISH VISA to leave the country.

    When did we invade Poland? I missed that.

    In fact, here’s what the State Department says now about Poland:

    Poland requires Polish citizens (including U.S. citizens who are OR CAN BE CLAIMED AS POLISH CITIZENS) to enter and depart Poland using a Polish passport. If you are a U.S. citizen and also a Polish citizen, OR ARE UNSURE IF YOU HOLD POLISH CITIZENSHIP, you should contact the nearest Polish consular office for further information.

    Emphasis added.

    Here’s what the Polish Consulate in New York states:

    Q: Does a child born from Polish parents on the US territory and holding US citizenship, who never lived in Poland, hold Polish citizenship?
    A:
    YES, because he/she is born from Polish parents.

    Since we haven’t declared war on Poland yet, and the US clearly recognizes the right of Poland to declare the children of naturalized US citizens Polish citizens and recognizes that Polish citizenship, can we assume that anyone whose parents are of Polish descent is not eligible for the Presidency?

  49. avatar
    Rickey February 15, 2011 at 11:08 am #

    Alexis:

    But hey, if the Arizona, Nebraska or Tennessee laws on this issue are enacted, the SCOTUS will probably weigh in finally.Get the popcorn!

    Don’t hold your breath.

    If any of the birther laws were to pass (and the Arizona and Montana laws haven’t even been able to get out of committee), they would be struck down as unconstitutional in short order. It would not be necessary for the District Court to define “natural-born citizen.” The District Court would simply follow precedent such as that set down in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995), where SCOTUS ruled that states cannot impose qualifications for Federal offices which are greater than those imposed by the Constitution (e.g., the Constitution does not require the president to even have a birth certificate, much less one that shows the name of a hospital and the signature of a doctor).

    Any appeal to SCOTUS would almost certainly end up with a disposition similar to the way the various birther lawsuits have been disposed off – cert denied without comment.

    From today’s Arizona Republic:

    Senate Bill 1526 would have required presidential, statewide and legislative candidates to file an affidavit of citizenship to the Secretary of State’s Office in order to get on an Arizona ballot. Candidates would have to provide their birth certificate as well as a sworn statement that both their parents were American citizens at the time of the candidate’s birth.

    The committee voted the bill down 5-3.

    Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Phoenix, said the bill exceeded requirements of the U.S. Constitution. “The Constitution says that a person must be a citizen . . . it doesn’t say anything about their parents,” Sinema said. “This bill would deny the eligibility of a number of our former presidents. Thomas Jefferson’s mother was born in London. Woodrow Wilson’s mother was English.”

    Sen. Adam Driggs, R-Phoenix, also voted against the bill, calling himself a “strict constitutionalist.”

    “One of the problems we could arrive at is when every state defines different qualifications needed to get on the ballot for a U.S. president,” Driggs said. “You’ll get 50 different standards.”

  50. avatar
    JoZeppy February 15, 2011 at 11:17 am #

    Alexis: Except for Chester Arthur, all of the above listed persons were born on US soil to parents (both as in both parents) who were US citizens.
    It was not revealed that Chester Arthur was a British subject at birth until December 2008 when Donofrio found Chester’s father’s naturalization records in the LOC. There is literally no mention of the fact in history before December 2008. And Chester Arthur burned all of his papers which helped conceal the fact as well.
    The rest of your allegations are simply false and have been proved false by historical record many times and in many chat rooms. Look, I want to have a serious discussion, but you have false information. This is not up for debate. Every person you listed above was born in the US to two parents who were citizens except for Chester Arthur.
    Here is the WWI draft registration card data for Spiro Agnew’s Dad.
    “WWI Registration Card 559 A2691
    Theodore Spiro Agnew
    226 W. Madison St.
    Baltimore City, Maryland
    Age 40 Birthdate Sept. 12, 1878
    Race White
    NATURALIZED U.S. CITIZEN
    Occupation Restaurant
    Margaret M. Agnew, wife (nearest relative)
    Registrar’s report
    Height medium
    Hair black
    Eyes black
    Build stout
    No disabilities
    DATE OF REGISTRATION: Sept. 12, 1918‘

    Care to show an actual image of either? Funny because both the 1920, and 1930 census forms list him as an alien.

    http://www.city-data.com/forum/attachments/politics-other-controversies/62106d1272625631-eligibility-thread-agnew1.jpg

    http://www.city-data.com/forum/attachments/politics-other-controversies/62093d1272603917-eligibility-thread-imagesa.jpg

    And there was no mystery about CA Arthur’s father’s citizenship. Just read any history book about the man published before 2008. There was no cover up. Just no one cared. Why do you think so much hubub was made trying to claim he was born in Canada? Perhaps because we are a jus soli state? You see, this is why there is so much hostility agaist birthers. They keep throwing the same b.s. around. None of the cases you mention say there is anything more than two types of citizens. Natural born, and naturalized. There are some obscure exceptions, and some debate as to the “natural born” status of those like McCain who are born overseas (some calling it “naturalized at birth), but there is no debate in the legal community that native born, and natural born are the same thing. Cite to one credible constitutional law scholar in the past 100 years that has argued otherwise. Cite to one civics book published in the same time that says anything about the status of the parents to be natural born citizens. These are challegnes that have been made over and over to the birth community, and they never respond to because all they have is junk law argued by hack lawyers. Don’t you find it strange that the only lawyers taking up the cause are a professional poker player, a DWI attorney, a dog bite attorney, and a mail order attorney? If there was any real question here, you’d have the likes of Lawrence Tribe, and countless con law profs from Harvard, Yale, and Staford making their case. But you don’t. You don’t even have profs from the mail order law school Orly attended trying to make that case. Don’t you find that the least bit odd?

  51. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 15, 2011 at 11:32 am #

    Alexis: Dr. C, please post the documents from the Department of State in order that the historical record on this important issue be documented.

    The actual responsive documents I received from DoS are the same 6 documents received by Christopher Strunk, and published on this site in articles about Strunk’s FOIA and in many other places on the Internet.

    When I get something unique, it will be published.

    As for perceived insults, they go with the territory. Thin skinned persons are advised not to express their opinions on open Internet forums. I would like people to be polite here, but it has proved impractical to force them to be. I do delete insulting comments from time to time, but in the main comments appear as they are submitted.

  52. avatar
    Greg February 15, 2011 at 11:34 am #

    In an article written in 1935, it was noted that 24 nations, including Bulgaria, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Norway, Poland, Sweden and Yugoslavia, required governmental approval before naturalization in another country canceled their original citizenship. Thus, anyone born from one of those countries that did not have their former country’s express permission to be naturalized in the United States would be born with dual citizenship, despite having naturalized in the United States (since the United States doesn’t require prior approval from any other nation before it naturalizes aliens).

    The same article suggests that Greece would allow military service to substitute for explicit permission from the national government. Spiro Agnew’s dad came to America in his 20s and was 40 when he filled out that draft card. So, one can assume that he didn’t serve in the military. Spiro did serve, so he lost his Greek citizenship at some point.

  53. avatar
    Lupin February 15, 2011 at 11:36 am #

    Alexis:

    I honestly try to understand your reasoning, but I just don’t.

    Because of (a) his ancestry, (b) his birth parents, (c) his adoptive parents, (d) his place of birth and various combinations thereof, a child may be born with the potentiality of being entitled to citizenships in multiple countries.

    That does NOT mean he owes “allegiance” to some or even any of these countries, although he will be de facto subject the jurisdiction of at least ONE of these countries.

    At age 18 (usually; it may vary), the grown up child can then, if he/she so chooses, elect to obtain one or several more citizenships to which he/she is entitled.

    I gather the facts of his birth mean that Obama MIGHT have been eligible to become a British citizen HAD HE SO REQUESTED. But he didn’t.

    He never owed any “allegiance” to England, nor was he subject to their jurisdiction.

    Honestly, your reasoning is completely flawed and, as a matter of fact, totally disconnected with the day-to-day situations arising from dual citizenships etc. with which I have a little more than a passing acquaintance.

  54. avatar
    Lupin February 15, 2011 at 11:38 am #

    Greg:
    In an article written in 1935, it was noted that 24 nations, including Bulgaria, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Norway, Poland, Sweden and Yugoslavia, required governmental approval before naturalization in another country canceled their original citizenship. Thus, anyone born from one of those countries that did not have their former country’s express permission to be naturalized in the United States would be born with dual citizenship, despite having naturalized in the United States (since the United States doesn’t require prior approval from any other nation before it naturalizes aliens).

    Once you’re French, you’re French forever unless they officially kick you out. You have no say in the matter. You can’t renounce French citizenship.

  55. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 15, 2011 at 11:38 am #

    Alexis: Sorry Bovril,

    Not opinion, facts of law.

    I told you the cases to look up, off you go now, show us you’re not the typical anti-birther who can’t handle factual statements.

    So let me get this straight. You are insulted to the point of leaving when someone calls a piece of legislation “birfoon”, yet you are perfectly willing to claim that the typical anti-birther “can’t handle factual statements.”

    You’re a hypocrite.

  56. avatar
    Bovril February 15, 2011 at 11:42 am #

    I might further add that I stated the very pivotal case for Alexis to look up (Calvins) but she didn’t do me the same courtesy….

    Alas in the real world I’m not a mind reader.

  57. avatar
    Sef February 15, 2011 at 11:53 am #

    Lupin: Once you’re French, you’re French forever unless they officially kick you out. You have no say in the matter. You can’t renounce French citizenship.

    So if I have a French Huguenot ancestor from 1620 does that mean I also have French citizenship?

  58. avatar
    Lupin February 15, 2011 at 11:58 am #

    Sef: So if I have a French Huguenot ancestor from 1620 does that mean I also have French citizenship?

    You wish! ๐Ÿ™‚

  59. avatar
    Sef February 15, 2011 at 12:08 pm #

    Lupin: You wish!

    Whew! That’s a load off my mind.

  60. avatar
    Sef February 15, 2011 at 12:29 pm #

    Lupin: You wish!

    To expand a bit, that would have meant that if I had French citizenship via this route, so would the 2 Bushes, as we have the same Mayflower ancestor.

  61. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 15, 2011 at 12:37 pm #

    Alexis: It was not revealed that Chester Arthur was a British subject at birth until December 2008 when Donofrio found Chester’s father’s naturalization records in the LOC. There is literally no mention of the fact in history before December 2008. And Chester Arthur burned all of his papers which helped conceal the fact as well.

    I take exception to the assertion that it was unknown that Arthur’s father was not a US citizen at the time Arthur was born. You’re correct that the historical record says little on this subject. However, a lawyer and Democratic operative named A. P. Hinman made an investigation of Arthur’s origins in his attempt to prove Arthur was born in Canada. He visited Arthur’s home town and took statements from many local people. Hinman even wrote a book about his research, titled “How a British Subject became President of the United States.”

    I would not want to mislead anyone based on the title of that book. The book asserts that Arthur was a British subject because he was born in Canada, not because of his father’s citizenship status. However, in that book, Hinman records a letter he received from Senator Bayard in response to a hypothetical question Hinman raised asking if a child not born in the United States became a natural born citizen when his father subsequently naturalized. This strongly suggests that Hinman knew that Arthur’s father naturalized after the president’s birth. The fact that Hinman raises this scenario, suggesting he knew the father’s naturalization status, but never suggests that the father’s status was a problem tells me that Hinman did not think it was a problem. What I cannot say is whether Hinman uncovered the father’s status or that it was general knowledge (but not important enough to mention).

    It is no surprise if Hinman believed the citizenship status of Arthur’s father was of no consequence. You see, both Hinman and Arthur were New York lawyers, and the Chancery Court of New York had written in the case of Lynch v Clarke that the child of alien parents born in the United States was eligible to be president!

    I further take strong exception to your comment: “And Chester Arthur burned all of his papers which helped conceal the fact as well.” Exactly how does Chester A. Arthur burning his papers (after he left office) cover up his father’s date of naturalization and have anything to do with the election campaign 4 years before? That’s more of a smear than an argument. There is no reason at all to think Arthur even had a copy of his father’s naturalization papers (they had been estranged since Arthur was a young man), and even if he did, they were available from official sources anyway. Further, as shown above, President Arthur had no reason to consider himself ineligible, given the clear guidance of his own state court. Arthur did not seek reelection because he was terminally ill, by the way.

    See:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2008/12/the-mysterious-mr-hinman/
    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/01/hinman/
    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/04/chester-a-arthur-rest-in-peace/
    http://books.google.com/books?id=ERgvAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA236 (Lynch v. Clarke)

  62. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 15, 2011 at 12:53 pm #

    Alexis: That’s just false. Show me what law conveys “natural born citizen” status? There is no such law. In fact, there was such a law in 1790 but it was repealed. Actually, everything in the 1790 law was kept except the words “natural born”. Those words were repealed. PLease stick to facts.

    The fact is that your comment is fully and completely false.

    The 1795 law which repealed the Nationality Act of 1790 is about twice as long, and the wording in the section dealing with citizenship for the children of citizens born overseas has been completely restructured.

    Please refer to the following link for the text of both acts:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/01/the-naturalization-acts-of-1790-and-1795/

    For someone harping about facts, you don’t seem to have a good handle on your citations.

  63. avatar
    US Citizen February 15, 2011 at 1:01 pm #

    Alexis: I’m not sure what the law is if two US citizens have a child on Great British soil.

    The law is quite clear in regards to this issue:
    Simply put, two US citizens who have a child birthed in the UK have a child who is a US citizen.

  64. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 15, 2011 at 1:08 pm #

    Alexis: That’s [the interchangeability of “native” and “natural” born citizen] just your wrong opinion not supported by facts. And in fact it is conflicted by dicta in various supreme court cases, specifically Minor v. Happersett and Wong Kim Ark.

    And I will say that your assertion about Wong and Minor is just your opinion. The fact is that “native” and “natural” are interchanged by the courts, such as this from Schneider v. Rusk (1964):

    We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the ‘natural born’ citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, s 1.

    Luria v United States

    Citizenship is membership in a political society, and implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of the society. These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other. Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency.

    Senator Lyman Trumbull said:

    By the terms of the Constitution he must have been a citizen of the United States for nine years before he could take a seat here, and seven years before he could take a seat in the other House ; and, in order to be President of the United States, a person must be a native-born citizen. It is the common law of this country, and of all countries, and it was unnecessary to incorporate it in the Constitution, that a person is a citizen of the country in which he is born.

    Oh, and what about Wong and Minor? Try these on for size:

    Minor v Happersett includes:

    These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

    And this from Wong:

    Again, in Levy v. McCartee (1832) 6 Pet. 102, 112, 113, 115, which concerned a descent cast since the American Revolution, in the state of New York, where the statute of 11 & 12 Wm. III. had been repealed, this court, speaking by Mr. Justice Story, held that the case must rest for its decision exclusively upon the principles of the common law, and treated it as unquestionable that by that law a child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject; quoting the statement of Lord Coke in Co. Litt. 8a, that ‘if an alien cometh into England, and hath issue two sons, these two sons are indigenae, subjects born, because they are born within the realm’; and saying that such a child ‘was a native-born subject, according to the principles of the common law, stated by this court in McCreery v. Somerville, 9 Wheat. 354.’

  65. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 15, 2011 at 1:16 pm #

    E. Glenn harcsar: Birtherism a red herring that is designed to silence those that oppose the true conspiracy that runs past a botched cover story to the banking cartels that seek to reorder the world.

    If you would like to say more giving evidence that birtherism was intentionally created to cover up another conspiracy theory, go ahead. However, conspiracy theories beyond those relating to Barack Obama must have their hearing elsewhere.

  66. avatar
    Bovril February 15, 2011 at 1:23 pm #

    Not to mention the ever popular and VERY current and on point Ankeny v Indiana which asked the quotation specifically about President Obama.

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

  67. avatar
    Slartibartfast February 15, 2011 at 1:34 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: If you would like to say more giving evidence that birtherism was intentionally created to cover up another conspiracy theory, go ahead. However, conspiracy theories beyond those relating to Barack Obama must have their hearing elsewhere.

    Have you ever considered branching out into other conspiracy theories? There’s a whole lot of grade-A crazy out there that has nothing to do with President Obama’s eligibility…

  68. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 15, 2011 at 1:37 pm #

    Alexis: Dr. Conspiracy said:

    “While I say firmly that the second group espouses a view that is not supported by history, it is still a legal theory and not a conspiracy theory.”

    Thank you for the important and accurate distinction.

    However, asserting as you did that Chester A. Arthur burned his paper to covers up his alleged ineligibility for office (based on that legal theory) or asserting (as Donofrio did) that Arthur toyed with the assertion that he was born in Canada to distract people researching his origins from discovering his father’s naturalization status, is a conspiracy theory.

    While there are examples of folks that only subscribe to the “born in Africa” story (Philip J. Berg) and those that only subscribe to the crank legal theory (Leo C. Donofrio), I find that most folks who hold one also hold the other.

  69. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 15, 2011 at 1:39 pm #

    Slartibartfast: Have you ever considered branching out into other conspiracy theories? There’s a whole lot of grade-A crazy out there that has nothing to do with President Obama’s eligibility…

    No.

  70. avatar
    gorefan February 15, 2011 at 1:45 pm #

    Alexis: That’s [the interchangeability of “native” and “natural” born citizen] just your wrong opinion not supported by facts. And in fact it is conflicted by dicta in various supreme court cases, specifically Minor v. Happersett and Wong Kim Ark.

    Dr. Conspiracy: Minor v Happersett includes:
    These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

    Isn’t it always amazing that birthers, of whatever stripe, always insist that native born and natural born are not used interchangeably and then direct us to the Minor opinion as proof. Do any of them even bother to read what they quote. In Alexis’ case, I suspect she knew the mistakes would eventually be shown and so she feigned insult and ran off like a coward. Clearly, in this case, birfoon fits Alexis to a tee.

  71. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 15, 2011 at 1:51 pm #

    Alexis: The issue to me is cased in the term “owing allegiance to a foreign nation”.

    While this isn’t what the Constitution says, we can talk about it.

    Let’s say that the government of Iran passes a law taxing Americans $100 per year just because they are Americans and the government of Iran doesn’t like us. Would you say that I would “owe” the government of Iran $100? Of course you wouldn’t say I owed Iran anything, but under what basis would you make that determination?

    The legal principle [IANAL] involved is enforceability. The government of Iran cannot enforce that law (unless I physically go to Iran) and this is why I don’t owe the money.

    The same principle applies to Barack Obama’s British citizenship. He was born in the United States as a United State citizen. Any obligation that British citizenship would impose upon him was unenforceable, and hence no allegiance was created. Allegiance simply cannot be created upon the whim of a foreign government.

  72. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 15, 2011 at 1:56 pm #

    ellid: There is no such thing as “Great British citizen.” The proper term is “British.”

    In the case of Barack Obama, it would be “Citizen of the UK and Colonies.”

  73. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 15, 2011 at 2:01 pm #

    Alexis: I feel you are very close to ending this “born in Kenya” myth. And that’s why your documents are so very important to history.

    Please scan them asap. Much appreciated.

    Let me reiterate, the response I received (both the response letter and the documents) does not differ materially from what Strunk received. What I have SO FAR is of no value in answering the question of whether the President’s mother had a US passport in 1961.

    Here are the letters:

    Mine:
    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/scan0001.pdf

    Strunk’s with same attachments I got:
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/35161730/Stanley-Ann-Dunham-Obama-Soetoro-Passport-Application-File-Strunk-v-Dept-of-State-FOIA-Release-FINAL-7-29-10

    Note that Strunk’s letter is identical to my first letter, word for word, except for the change in the request date.

    I have nothing on the passport issuance cards, except an acknowledgment that I filed an appeal.

  74. avatar
    Slartibartfast February 15, 2011 at 2:04 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: No.

    Oh, well. You certainly do excel at running a site devoted to gathering facts about conspiracy theories…

    On the topic of the thread, I don’t think that the discussion with Alexis could have gone much differently – as I’ve said before, I think that most forays here are attempts to count coup by bearding the lion in his den (can you give us a roar, Doc? ;-)). Since it is impossible to defend the birther position against the scholarship of yourself and the other posters here (not without the ability to control the discussion like Mario does on his site, anyway…), any birther that showed up in response to your chumming the waters was destined to either become unresponsive to arguments (since they have nothing to support their rebuttal), to quit the discussion due to a real or imagined slight (I thought that claiming to have been called a ‘holocaust denier’ was a particularly nice straw man for this purpose…), or to admit their mistake and the legitimacy of President Obama (and if you get someone to do that… [the rest of this sentence has been left unfinished as it will never be needed]). Does anyone else see another possible outcome?

  75. avatar
    Slartibartfast February 15, 2011 at 2:07 pm #

    Slartibartfast: Does anyone else see another possible outcome?

    There is, of course, the option of getting yourself banned, as well…

  76. avatar
    BatGuano February 15, 2011 at 2:20 pm #

    Alexis: It was not revealed that Chester Arthur was a British subject at birth until December 2008 when Donofrio found Chester’s father’s naturalization records in the LOC. There is literally no mention of the fact in history before December 2008. And Chester Arthur burned all of his papers which helped conceal the fact as well.

    “The Chester A. Arthur Papers” first published in 1961 makes reference to arthur’s father being naturalized in 1843. arthur did burn “three large garbage cans, each at least four feet high, full of papers” the day before his death ( according to his grandson ) but it doesn’t appear to have been to hide his father’s nationality.

  77. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) February 15, 2011 at 2:27 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: No.

    I think you might need to start a Corey Booker conspiracy theory site by 2015

  78. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 15, 2011 at 2:56 pm #

    Alexis: I feel you are very close to ending this “born in Kenya” myth. And that’s why your documents are so very important to history.

    You don’t understand birthers very well. There is nothing in the way of evidence that will have any effect on them.

    If I received an unambiguous statement from the Department of State saying that they are certain that Obama’s mother had no US passport in 1961, the birthers will just say:

    a) I forged the document from the Department of State
    b) The Department of State lied and are covering up for Obama
    c) She traveled on a British passport (somehow becoming a British citizen through her marriage to Obama Sr.)
    d) She traveled illegally on the passport of someone else.

    There are precedents for each of these types of objection. Of course, there is no way to “prove” that these didn’t happen and so the conspiracy lives on.

  79. avatar
    ballantine February 15, 2011 at 3:05 pm #

    This dual allegiance thing really baffles me. First, it has no historical basis at all. Our naturalization laws from the beginning contemplated dual citizenship and no early legal authority said such has any impact on American citizenship. But, it baffles me that any thinking person wouldn’t understand that foreign nations could bestow citizenship on any American they want. How can anything think such would affect American citizenship status. Oh no, England just decided to bestow subject status on anyone with a drop of English blood. Better get new slate of candidates as we would have few citizens left. Or course, we don’t care what England does as what matters is how we define “allegiance” and we have defined it by place of birth for 200 years. In the early republic many native-born Americans with citizen parents were technically British subjects as one only needed a British grandfather. The notion that anyone cared what British law said, a law they could change any time at their whim or the notion that the US would ever recognize an English claim of allegiance on such persons is absurd. We went to war to over their claims of allegiance to their native born. England wouldn’t try to assert a claim of allegiance on our native born as they considered considered their claim of allegiance on such persons to be conditional, i.e., it only applied when such persons left America and came to England.
    .

    “That’s [the interchangeability of “native” and “natural” born citizen] just your wrong opinion not supported by facts.”

    .

    It is clear these people have done no research. Doc points out some relevant case law above. Also, we should remember that Blackstone used “native” and “natural born” interchangeably and that the framers themselves used “native” when debating eligibility in the Constitutional Convention. For those who have done no research, he is some for you. i actually have more, but I think these make the point.

    “No man but a native, or who has resided fourteen years in America, can be chosen President.” Elliot’s Debates –DEBATES IN THE CONVENTION OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, ON THE ADOPTION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, pg 195-196 (statments of future Supreme Court Justice James Iredell, July 30, 1788).

    “That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted) is a happy means of security against foreign influence,…” St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES (1803)

    “As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States….” James Kents, Commentaries on American Law, (1826)

    “The president must, by law, be a native born citizen; so that none need aspire to that high calling, but those who might emphatically be termed natural sons of America.” Joseph Dennie, John Elihu Hall, The Port Folio, pg. 199, (1822)

    “By the provisions of the federal constitution, the President and Vice President of the United States are required to be native-born citizens; and the President is required to cause the laws of the Union to be executed. These high places of power, it was then thought, could not, with safety to the American people, be occupied by any but natural-born citizens” Rep. Russel, Congressional Globe, 24th Cong., 1st Sess. pg 4256 (1836)

    “It is not too much to say, that no one, but a native citizen, ought ordinarily to be intrusted with an office so vital [the presidency] to the safety and liberties of the people. But an exception was, from a deep sense of gratitude, made in favor of those distinguished men, who, though not natives, had, with such exalted patriotism, and such personal sacrifices, united their lives and fortunes with ours during the Revolution….” Joseph Story, A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States, pg. 167 (1840 ed.)

    “Citizenship” ….Citizens are either native born or naturalized. Native citizens may fill any office; naturalized citizens may be elected or appointed to any office under the constitution of the United States, except the office of president and vice-president.” Bouvier Law Dictionary pg. 265 (1843)

    “No person can be elected president who is less than 35 years of age, who is not a native born citizen of the United States, or was not a citizen at the time of the adoption of the constitution of the United Stales…” John Ramsay McCulloch, Daniel Haskel, M’Culloch’s Universal Gazetteer: A Dictionary, Geographical, Statistical, and Historical, of the Various Countries, Places, and Principal Natural Objects in the World, pg. 994 (1844)

    “Afterwards however, in Convention, the words “natural born citizen” were stricken out, and the word ” native” was substituted, as the original words might have left an uncertainty as to the meaning of the Convention, for ” natural born citizen” might have had some reference to the manner of birth, while the word ” native” would refer more particularly to the place of birth. ” Sherman Croswell, R. Sutton, Debates and Proceedings in the New-York State Convention – New York (State) Pg. 148 (1846)

    “A natural (or native) bom citizen of the United States means a person born within the limits of the American Republic;—a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution denotes a foreigner who was then an inhabitant of the country.” Joseph Bartlett Burleigh, The American manual: containing a brief outline of the origin and progress of political power and the laws of nations, a commentary on the Constitution of the United States of North America, and a lucid exposition of the duties and responsibilities of voters, jurors, and civil magistrates, pg. 28 (1850)

    “No person can be President or Vice-president who is not a native-born citizen, of the age of thirty-five years, ….” Richard Swainson Fisher, The progress of the United States of America: from the earliest periods. Geographical, statistical, and historical, pg. 9 (1854)

    “The executive power is vested in a president and vice-president; each chosen for a term four years each to be a native born citizen…..Emma Willard, Abridged history of the United States, or, Republic of America, pg. 254 (1856)

    “They declared by that solemn compact, that the President of the United States should be a native born citizen, … Samuel Clagett Busey, Immigration: Its Evils and Consequences pg. 10 (1856)

    “Your committee is of opinion that no one can be eligible to discharge, for the time being, the functions of President, unless he be thirty-five years old, and a native born citizen. A Speaker of the House, or a President pro tempore, might not have these qualifications —and if so, he could not act as President in compliance with the Constitution.” Sen. Butler, 8/05/1856, Reports of Committees: 30th Congress, 1st Session – 48th Congress, 2nd Session, pg. 4., By United States Congress. Senate, Congress, Published 1856

    “However, to be native-born citizens of the order to be eligible to the office of President, a person must have been born in the United States. He must have resided in the country at least fourteen years, and must be thirty-five years.” Augustine Joseph Hickey Duganne, The American law register: Volume 2 – Page 206 (1860)

    “A majority of the aggregate electoral votes is necessary to elect. THE PRESIDENT AND VICE-PRESIDENT must be native born citizens, at least thirty-five years of age, and have been resident for fourteen years.” B.R.Carroll, Catechism of the united states history, pg.279 (1859)

    “The Constitution of the United States provides as a qualification for the offices of President and Vice-President that the person elected must be a native-born citizen.”
    ex parte Garland, 71 US 333, 395 (1866)(J. Miller, dissenting).

    “The Constitution of the United States provides that no person but a native-born citizen of the United States, with other qualifications as to age and residence, shall be president of the United States……” Senator Williams, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 573 (1866).

    “The Constitution of the United States declares that no one but a native-born citizen of the United States shall be President of the United States. Does, then, every person living in this land who does not happen to have been born within its jurisdiction undergo pains and penalties and punishment all his life, because by the Constitution he is ineligible to the Presidency? Senator Trumbull, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 2901(1866).

    “One of those principles is that the candidate voted for must be thirty-five years of age; another is that he must have been a citizen of tho United States at the time the Constitution was adopted, or he must be a native-born citizen.” Sen. Davis, 2/2/1865 reported in The presidential counts: a complete official record of the proceedings of Congress at the counting of the electoral votes in all the elections of president and vice-president of the United States; pg. 203 (1877)

    “It is a singular fact, however, that to-day, under the Federal Constitution, a negro may be elected President, United States Senator, or a member of the lower branch of Congress. In that instrument no qualification for office is prescribed which rejects the negro. The white man, not native born, may not be President, but the native-born African may be.” Sen. Henderson, William Horatio Barnes, History of the thirty-ninth Congress of the United States, pg. 387 (1868)

    “By the terms of the Constitution he must have been a citizen of the United States for nine years before he could take a seat here, and seven years before he could take a seat in the other House ; and, in order to be President of the United States, a person must be a native-born citizen. It is the common law of this country, and of all countries, and it was unnecessary to incorporate it in the Constitution, that a person is a citizen of the country in which he is born….I read from Paschal’s Annotated Consitutuion, note 274: “All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country as well as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are, in theory, born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons. Senator Trumbull Cong. Globe. 1st Session, 42nd Congress, pt. 1, pg. 575 (1872)

    “What is the qualification for the office of President? He must be a native-born citizen of the United States and thirty-five years of age. Nothing more!” Rep. Boutwell, 1/11/69 cited in Great Debates in American History: Civil rights, part 2 Volume 8 of Great Debates in American History: From the Debates in the British Parliament on the Colonial Stamp Act (1764-1765) to the Debates in Congress at the Close of the Taft Administration (1912-1913), United States. Congress, pg. 113 (1913)

    “One of the qualifications of President of the United States is that he must be a native born citizen, and incontestibly were it not for this provision a naturalized citizen might, if elected, hold that high position.” White v. Clements, Georgia Supreme Court, 1870, Reports of Cases in Law and Equity, Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of the State of Georgia, in the Year , pg. 256-57 (1870)

    “The qualifications for president and vice-president by this clause are made the same. They must, therefore, be native born citizens of the United States, or citizens of the United States at the time of the adoption of the federal constitution, and been fourteen years citizens of the United States, and thirty-five years old.” John King, A Commentary on the Law and True Construction of the Federal Constitution, pg. 206, (1871)

    “The Chief Executive and the Vice President must be native born citizens of the United States, residing within the states fourteen years, and the Constitution further demands that they shall have attained the age of thirty-five years.” Charles Richard Tuttle, Tuttle’s new history of America: an historical and descriptive (1876)

    “The President was required to be thirty-five years of age, and native born, or a citizen at the adoption of the Constitution.” Richard Hildreth, The History of the United States of America, pg. 521 (1880)

    “The President and the Vice-President, (and hence their Electors also), are required, however, to be native-born citizens of the United States. Here we have a clear inclusion of all the States as to their native-born, and a clear Delusion of all foreign-born citizens.” Meeds Tuthill, The civil polity of the United States considered in its theory and practice, pg. 83 (1883)

    “The Executive power is vested in a President. He must be a native-born citizen, a resident of the United States, and at least thirty-five years of age. He holds his office during a term of four years, and may be re-elected.”The popular American dictionary, on the basis of Webster, … – pg. 430 (1885)

    “As the president and vice-president are elected at and for the same time, the right to be chosen to both offices is dependent upon the same conditions (12th amendment). To be eligible, it is necessary to be a native-born citizen of the United States,…Hermann Von Holst, Alfred Bishop Mason, The Constitutional Law of the United States of America” pg. 84 (1887)

    “The President must be a native-born citizen of the United States over thirty-five years of age. The Vice-President is elected in a similar manner.” Paul Samual Reinsch, Civil government – Page 243 (1909)

    “By far the most important officer of the federal government is the president. The president must be at least thirty-five years of age and a native-born citizen” John Augustus Lapp, Charles KettleboroughOur America: the elements of civics, pg. 331 (1916)

    “It is well settled that “native-born” citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born.” “Native-born citizens are natural born by virtue of the nearly universal principle of jus soli, or citizenship of place of birth.” Jill A.Pryor, The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility: An Approach for Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty, 97 Yale L.J. 881, at 881 and n. 2 (1988)

    “Native: A natural-born subject or citizen; a citizen by birth; one who owes his domicile or citizenship to the fact of his birth within the country referred to.” Black’s Law Dictionary 6th Addition (1994).

    “It is now generally assumed that the term “natural born” is synonymous with “native born.” “It [therefore] is clear enough that native-born citizens are eligible [for the presidency] and that naturalized citizens are not.” There is a general agreement among commentators, whether or not they are advocates of an originalist approach to constitutional interpretation, that “whether someone born of American parents abroad would be considered a natural born citizen” is an open question.” Lawrence Freedman, An Idea Whose Time Has Come–The Curious History, Uncertain Effect, and Need for Amendment of the “Natural Born Citizen” Requirement for the Presidency, 52 St. Louis U. L.J. 137, 143 (2007)

  80. avatar
    Patrick McKinnion February 15, 2011 at 3:27 pm #

    Same here. My daughter is a US/UK dual-citzen, as is her mother.

    However, all her BC has is the birthstate or country of both parents – nothing at all of the citizenship status of said parents. Under US law she’s a “natural born US citizen”. Under UK law she has derived UK citizenship though her mum.

    My brother was born in Scotland of two US citizen parents. Under US law he’s a “natural born US citizen”. Under UK law he could, if he chose, claim UK citizenship due to his birthplace.

  81. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 15, 2011 at 3:49 pm #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): I think you might need to start a Corey Booker conspiracy theory site by 2015

    I’ll leave that to Misha.

  82. avatar
    misha February 15, 2011 at 4:01 pm #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): I think you might need to start a Corey Booker conspiracy theory site by 2015

    Dr. Conspiracy: I’ll leave that to Misha.

    Thank you. I firmly believe Booker will announce for ’16. Obama proved a black man can win. A pattern has been established. For example, Buffalo, where I earned both degrees. Buffalo is majority white and elected Byron Brown mayor, a black man from Brooklyn.

    Denialists will scream Booker was born in DC, which is not a state. Al Gore was born there too, so they’ll scream his BC was forged, and come up with conspiracies that will make the current crop look sane by comparison.

    Stay tuned.

  83. avatar
    ballantine February 15, 2011 at 4:02 pm #

    Patrick McKinnion: Same here. My daughter is a US/UK dual-citzen, as is her mother.However, all her BC has is the birthstate or country of both parents – nothing at all of the citizenship status of said parents. Under US law she’s a “natural born US citizen”. Under UK law she has derived UK citizenship though her mum.My brother was born in Scotland of two US citizen parents. Under US law he’s a “natural born US citizen”. Under UK law he could, if he chose, claim UK citizenship due to his birthplace.

    For some people, it would be alot of work to try an figure out if they are dual citizens. I understand English law pretty well, but have clue in any other countries that may kids have ties to. We would need a whole cadre of experts on the international law of citizenship to determine everyone’s status.

  84. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 15, 2011 at 4:25 pm #

    BatGuano: “The Chester A. Arthur Papers” first published in 1961 makes reference to arthur’s father being naturalized in 1843.

    Where did you come across this?

  85. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) February 15, 2011 at 4:32 pm #

    I’m wondering what might be found here:
    http://millercenter.org/president/arthur/papers

    It references James Richardson’s Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents published in 1918. I wonder what they have in the arthur section.

  86. avatar
    Keith February 15, 2011 at 6:13 pm #

    Slartibartfast: Have you ever considered branching out into other conspiracy theories?There’s a whole lot of grade-A crazy out there that has nothing to do with President Obama’s eligibility…

    And there is a perfectly good honey pot site for that too… “Above Top Secret”. All the crazy you would ever want.

  87. avatar
    BatGuano February 15, 2011 at 6:35 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Where did you come across this?

    it’s listed as the reference source on wikipedia when it mentions the senior arthur’s naturalization.

  88. avatar
    dunstvangeet February 16, 2011 at 3:25 am #

    Alexis

    It doesn’t matter how many citizens they were born to. There are thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of American Citizens who were born to 2 American Citizens, who were born within the country of the United States, who still are dual citizens. It happens every day. I never claimed that any one of those people were born to non-U.S. Citizen Parents. I claimed that they all had dual citizenship when they were born, which they did. More than one country claimed them as Citizens, Alexis. The French, for about 200 years, granted citizenship to the Hugenots who lived in the new world, and their descendents. The 7 U.S. Presidents had Hugenot heritage. So, they were both French Citizens, and U.S. Citizens. Therefore, they had dual citizenship.

    Just as Justice Antonin Scalia probably has dual citizenship, and so does Justice Samuel Alito. The Italians allow the children of citizens to be citizens. So, here’s the scenario: Your grandparents immigrated here from Italy. Before they were naturalized, they had your father. Your father is now an Italian Citizen, and an American Citizen. Neither one of them expire without specific renoucing of the citizenship, and since your father never really cared, he never bothered to renounce either one of them. Now, your father marries an American Citizen, and has you. You are an American Citizen, born to 2 Citizen Parents. But according to Italian Law, you are also an Italian Citizen. Therefore, you are also a dual citizen.

    Hundreds of thousands of Americans fall into this category. So, my question to you is are they Natural Born Citizens, or are they not? Is it the fact that another country claims you as a citizen that disqualifies you, or is it the fact that you were not born to American citizen parents? Furthermore, how many citizen parents are required?

    Greek law said that Spiro Agnew was a citizen of Greece, because his father was Greek (Greece allows dual citizenship even through Naturalization. If Theodore Spiro Agnew never submitted an official renouncing of Greek Citizenship, the fact that he was Naturalized does nothing to denounce his Greek Citizenship). Just like Eisenhower, because he had German Blood, was considered a citizen of Germany when he was born as well. Why should any sort of foreign law determine who the United States can elect, and not elect President?

    As far as the difference. There are two, and only two, types of citizenship: Natural Born, and Naturalized. Note the word, Naturalize can be broken down into two word-parts. The word Natural, and the suffix -ize. -ize means “to cause to be, to become”. So, you have citizens that are born Natural, and you have citizens that become Natural at a later date.

    It is my opinion that anybody born a citizen is a Natural Born Citizen. At the very least, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark says that anybody born in this country is a Natural Born Citizen. Constantly, the courts have upheld this definition, most recently in the decision of Ankeny v. Daniels.

  89. avatar
    Loren February 16, 2011 at 8:34 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: While I say firmly that the second group espouses a view that is not supported by history, it is still a legal theory and not a conspiracy theory.

    Although it’s fair and accurate to say that the ‘two-citizen-parent’ argument is not a conspiracy theory, it does still fall into the arena of pseudolaw and denialism.

    The two best comparisons, IMO, are to tax deniers and ‘flag fringers.’ Like this second group of birthers, both groups are based in arguments for novel legal theories that have no historical or precedential merit, and no measurable support among actual legal scholars. And like the second group of birthers, no amount of contrary legal evidence from legitimate sources seems to be capable of persuading them that they’re wrong.

  90. avatar
    Loren February 16, 2011 at 9:13 am #

    Actually, let me amend my above comment with one caveat.

    ‘Vattelist’ advocates of a ‘two-citizen-parent’ theory of natural born citizenship can and *do* intersect with conspiracy theory in at least one respect.

    Not unlike the proponents of the ‘Lost 13th Amendment,’ some Birthers claim that legal books and texts USED TO support their definition, but that somewhere along the way those texts got changed and the originals were hidden away. To suggest that there’s some secret force out there intentionally redefining natural born citizenship by altering and hiding source material, that necessarily implicates a conspiracy of some degree.

  91. avatar
    Scientist February 16, 2011 at 9:39 am #

    dunstvangeet: There are thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of American Citizens who were born to 2 American Citizens, who were born within the country of the United States, who still are dual citizens. It happens every day.

    In fact it is likely that there are millions. Census estimates for 2009 were that there are about 15 million naturalized US citizens. http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/foreign/cps2009/T1.2009.pdf

    Since`citizenship renunciations are extremely rare and few, if any,countries these days remove citizenship without a formal renunciation, it is safe to say that the vast majority of those 15 million retain their birth citizenships. It is further true that most countries extend citizenship to the foreign-born children of their citizens. Thus, in most cases, the US-born children of naturalized citizens will be dual citizens. Since the average person in the US has 2 children, it is highly likely that there are at least 10 million US-born dual citizens and 20 million or more would not be out of the question.

  92. avatar
    Jules February 16, 2011 at 10:40 am #

    Alexis: Vice versa. If a Great British man has a child on US soil with an American woman, US law recognizes that the child owes allegiance to both the US and Great Britain.

    No, the US has no business in saying who is and is not a British citizen. The UK alone has such authority. (Incidentally, if the sole British parent in your scenario is British only by descent, then UK law holds that the child born outside the UK is not British at birth.)

    The recognition of dual citizenship in case law and the Foreign Affairs Manual is merely the recognition of the fact that those who are citizens of the United States may well be conferred nationality of another country by virtue of that country’s laws. The law in the US is clear that the rights and responsibilities of a US citizen are not affected under US law by the fact that he is a dual citizen.

    Alexis: the US is not going to recognize THAT false form of dual citizenship. But the US does recognize that a child’s father’s nation can claim that child as one of their own. It’s only fair that a father confer citizenship as well as the mother.

    Again, the US has no business in saying whether someone is a citizen of any country other than the US. The US can well make consular representations on behalf of any of its citizens, but any country is capable of telling the US to f*** off when dealing with someone in its jurisdiction who is one of its own nationals.

    You seem to think that fairness and parentage should be the key indicators of whether someone is a national of a given nation. You are certainly free to argue that they should be, but American notions of fairness and sufficiently close parental links are irrelevant. Only the law of the foreign country is relevant.

    Just as North Korea could claim all Americans as North Korean citizens, the British Parliament could choose to pass an Act declaring all those who hold US citizenship to be British citizens from the moment of birth and incapable of relinquishing their British citizenship. (I prefer to use the UK in such a hypothetical because I can say with certainty that the UK would have no absolutely constitutional impediment to enacting such a law.) If this happened, then all US citizens would be treated as British citizens whenever they dealt with any part of the British government. Whether the US wished to recognise the dual nationality of such individuals would be irrelevant.

    The allegiance that is owed by a national of a given nation is determined by the laws of that nation. Thus, the hypothetical British law would lead to all Americans owing allegiance under UK law and having all responsibilities as well as rights of British citizens. In practice, this would affect most Americans very little because most would continue living outside the jurisdiction of the UK; similarly, Obama has lived outside the jurisdiction of the UK and Kenya his whole life and so his former British and Kenyan nationalities were irrelevant.

    Alexis: I’m not sure what the law is if two US citizens have a child on Great British soil.

    If the child was born in the UK before 1 January 1983, then the child is a British citizen from birth. If the child was born on or after that date, the child will only acquire British citizenship at birth if at least one of the two foreign parents has settled status (lawful permanent residence) in the UK.

  93. avatar
    Rickey February 16, 2011 at 10:42 am #

    Patrick McKinnion:
    Same here. My daughter is a US/UK dual-citzen, as is her mother.

    Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York is married to a U.K. citizen They have two sons, both born in the U.S. She clearly is a natural-born citizen, but the Vattelists would have us believe that her chidlren are not.

  94. avatar
    JoZeppy February 16, 2011 at 1:11 pm #

    Rickey: Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York is married to a U.K. citizen They have two sons, both born in the U.S. She clearly is a natural-born citizen, but the Vattelists would have us believe that her chidlren are not.

    Both my parents were born in Poland.
    They both immigrated to the US.
    I was born in the US.
    They became US citizens after I was born.
    My wife and her parents were born in the US (of Polish, Italian, and German decent).
    My daughter is born in the US.

    Poland considers my parents, me, my daugther, and possibly my wife, depending on the particulars of her ancestors immigration, to be Polish citizens.
    There is some question about my wife having Italian citizenship.

    So according to the Vattelist nuts, despite being a 2nd generation American, and never having stepped foot in Poland, my daughter cannot run for President of the US……yeah, that makes a whole lot of sense.

    BTW….once of proper age, is she would be permitted to run for President of Poland.

  95. avatar
    The Magic M February 16, 2011 at 2:56 pm #

    > once of proper age, is she would be permitted to run for President of Poland

    Now that would probably make the birthers’ heads explode, if the female US president runs for Polish presidency and actually is elected. ๐Ÿ˜‰

  96. avatar
    The Magic M February 16, 2011 at 3:01 pm #

    > But, it baffles me that any thinking person wouldn’t understand that foreign nations could bestow citizenship on any American they want. How can anything think such would affect American citizenship status.

    As I’ve said, my own conspiracy theory is that this theory, along with the “soldiers, lay down your arms and disobey any orders until da usurrpurr is removed” calls, has its roots not just in stupidity, but in a deliberate anti-American agenda.
    A military in total disarray, civil war and a country full of ineligible never-to-be-presidents, that has got to be Castro’s final joke on America or Ghaddafi’s wet dream.
    Maybe one day we’ll find out who pays the Corsis, Rondeaus and Taitz’ of the world…

    Just sayin’… ๐Ÿ˜‰

  97. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny February 16, 2011 at 8:09 pm #

    JoZeppy: Poland considers my parents, me, my daugther, and possibly my wife, depending on the particulars of her ancestors immigration, to be Polish citizens.

    Two points to be made here:

    1) Some people have in fact “been able to lose” Polish citizenship. Inhabitants of Poland who left Poland for Germany between 1945 and 1989 claiming to be German, have thus lost all rights to Polish citizenship. Their children, even if born in Poland, do not have Polish citizenship. Inhabitants of Poland who left Poland for the Soviet Union between 1945 and 1989 claiming to be Russians, Ukrainians, Belo-Russians, Lithuanians, Latvians or Estonians.have thus lost all rights to Polish citizenship. Special exceptions apply for Germans born to a Pole, and to inhabitants of the former Soviet Union states who have during censuses claimed to be ethnic Poles.

    2) At first glance, the Polish legislation seems contrary to article 15, sub 2, second part of the Universal Declaration of human rights “nor denied the right to change his nationality”. To which Poland retorts that they do not object to, or even try to stop people from swearing oaths of allegaince to other countries and remouncing their Polish nationality – the point is that Poland doe not recognize. such renunciations.

    When the Soviet Union split up, Yuri Koperanov left Uzhbekistan for Russia where he had lived for many years, applied for Russian citizenship, which, at that time, still meant renouncing Uzbek citizenship. In October 2010, Yuri Koperanov, now 62 and a pensioner was travelling from Tashkent to Moscow by train. When the train traversed a small portion of Uzbek territory, Yuri was taken manu miltari from the train, dragged before a court and sentenced to 16 years imprisonment (which in his case, may as well be for life). Yuri’s crime was treason to Uzbekistan, due to his renouncing Uzbek citizenship – there was no other evidence.

    It seems obvious that Uzbekistan is indeed violating article 15. But it shows to what lengths some countries will go to “protect” the citizenship of their dual citizens.

    Other countries may disallow renunciation unless the person first performs his military service (Turkey). Would not the fact of having been in a foreign army constitute a far bigger security risk than simply being born in the USA of a Turkish father?

  98. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny February 16, 2011 at 8:15 pm #

    The Magic M:
    > once of proper age, is she would be permitted to run for President of Poland

    Now that would probably make the birthers’ heads explode, if the female US president runs for Polish presidency and actually is elected.

    The possibility of someone who was already a head of state elsewhere, like Prime Minister or Governor General of Australia, running for President of the United States (effectively emulating the Austo-Hungarian double monarchy) is not as laughable as it sounds.

    Check the Wikipedia article on Nicole Kidman.

  99. avatar
    Scientist February 16, 2011 at 8:18 pm #

    Paul Pieniezny: The possibility of someone who was already a head of state elsewhere, like Prime Minister or Governor General of Australia, running for President of the United States (effectively emulating the Austo-Hungarian double monarchy) is not as laughable as it sounds.
    Check the Wikipedia article on Nicole Kidman.

    Nicole Kidman-no problem

    Mel Gibson- no way

  100. avatar
    Slartibartfast February 16, 2011 at 8:24 pm #

    Scientist,

    Did you get the email I sent you?

  101. avatar
    misha February 16, 2011 at 8:30 pm #

    Slartibartfast: Scientist,Did you get the email I sent you?

    He did not get the email because Obama’s Chicago thugs blocked it. Here’s how that works: you see aieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

  102. avatar
    Scientist February 16, 2011 at 8:37 pm #

    Slartibartfast: Scientist,
    Did you get the email I sent you?

    Thanks Slarty. I just saw it. I suspect that the pro-Obama birthers I seek don’t frequent Dr. Kate’s neighborhood. I may have to go down to my local watering hole and try my luck there.

  103. avatar
    Slartibartfast February 16, 2011 at 9:16 pm #

    Scientist: Thanks Slarty.I just saw it.I suspect that the pro-Obama birthers I seek don’t frequent Dr. Kate’s neighborhood.I may have to go down to my local watering hole and try my luck there.

    Don’t worry, Dr. Kate’s is just a starting place – if the one you seek is anywhere in bitherstan, I’ll find it eventually…

    In any case, Bovril’s project and your search are ultimately about the same thing – determining the electoral impact of the birthers… Ultimately, I think that they will be an advantage for President Obama not because of the massive number of birthers voting for President Obama after the courts rule him eligible, but for the independents for whom the birther’s antics (when said ruling occurs) are the last straw in driving them from the Republican party.

  104. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny February 16, 2011 at 9:29 pm #

    Regarding Huguenots – this was due to a law voted during the first years of the French Revolution and granting natural born citizenship status to the descendants of the Huguenots The Revolutionary leaders wanted the people who had been the “notables” of so many villages particularly in the South to come back and claim their property – since the protestant remnants had been staunch supporters of the Revolution, it was also a way of thanking and strengtheneing them. The whole operation failed miserably. Though almost all countries in the world showed two or three individuals returning or rather visiting the embassy to procure French papers, most of the actual returnees were Swiss and even that was a dismal number.

    The law was changed in the 1920s to limit the right of return to naturalized citizenship, meaning you actually had to return to France to claim it.The law was finally abolished by the introduction of a new citizenship law in 1945, which unlike previous citizenship laws did not include a line about the Huguenots’ Right of return. The French government seems to have had information that Nazi war criminals were planning to claim French citizenship to avoid being handed over to … Poland or the Soviet Union. I cited the relevant legal French links on PJ, now Fogbow.

    Speculation about GW Bush and Obama being Huguenots is of course silly, as they were both born too late to have any right to French citizenship.

    Do not forget Eisenhower however, As a direct descendant via the male line he was entitled to German citizenship; Prussian law saw him as German at birth.Though the Eisenhowers came to America in the 1740s, no male predecessor of Eisenhower was born during the time of British rule and Eisenhower’s first American predecessor was born in 1794 (his father being in his seventies, according to some sources). No grandfathering seems to have happened there, though some Eisenhowers fought on the American side in the Revolutionary war. The same Prussian rules which made Eisenhower automatically German at birth stripped him of German citizenship when he joined the US Army as a professional, since working in the civil service of a foreign nation was deemed incompatible with German citizenship. It seems Eisenhower visited Europe before that.
    http://www.dwightdeisenhower.com/eisenhowers.html

  105. avatar
    G February 16, 2011 at 10:31 pm #

    Scientist: Thanks Slarty. I just saw it. I suspect that the pro-Obama birthers I seek don’t frequent Dr. Kate’s neighborhood. I may have to go down to my local watering hole and try my luck there.

    Scientist –

    Well, there is actually a birther named “Patrick” posting under “Dear Mr. Bowman” claiming that he “voted for Obama” that posted within the past day over at Bill Bowman’s place… not that I buy this concern troll’s story of course, but I wanted to send it your way, in case this can actually advance the plot of finding your mythical MacGuffin… ๐Ÿ˜‰

    http://www.examiner.com/birther-movement-in-national/birthers-constitutionalists-just-different-words-for-anti-american?page=1#comment-14447066

  106. avatar
    Northland10 February 17, 2011 at 6:58 am #

    misha: Slartibartfast: Scientist,Did you get the email I sent you?

    He did not get the email because Obama’s Chicago thugs blocked it.

    Well, the mail here can be notoriously slow. Maybe I should start blaming it on the Obama thugs. They are searching all outgoing/incoming mail from Chicago to make sure it does not contain evidence showing Obama is ineligible and has 390 Social Security Numbers (no, that is not a typo, just Birther Inflationary Mathฎ, just like their use on his money spent “hiding everything”).

  107. avatar
    misha February 17, 2011 at 8:13 am #

    Northland10: Maybe I should start blaming it on the Obama thugs. They are searching all outgoing/incoming mail from Chicago to make sure it does not contain evidence showing Obama is ineligible and has 390 Social Security Numbers

    I can’t type anything now. They’re here.

  108. avatar
    Scientist February 17, 2011 at 9:32 am #

    G: Well, there is actually a birther named “Patrick” posting under “Dear Mr. Bowman” claiming that he “voted for Obama” that posted within the past day over at Bill Bowman’s place… not that I buy this concern troll’s story of course, but I wanted to send it your way, in case this can actually advance the plot of finding your mythical MacGuffin…

    I don’t buy him for a second. Besides, supposedly having voted for Obama is not sufficient. My mythical pro-Obama birther has to approve of the job he is doing as President, generally agree with him on most issues (not every single issue, certainly, but at least on most major ones) and be willing to vote for him in 2012 if only he’d do something like release his long-form or disown his father. I don’t think “Patrick” fits the bill.

    The quest goes on. The journey matters more than the destination.

  109. avatar
    US Citizen February 18, 2011 at 5:02 pm #

    Scientist: The journey matters more than the destination.

    Figuring out if you’ve actually arrived at your destination is also subject to question too…
    How would you know if a pro-Obama birther is being honest to begin with?
    Birtherism and the truth are fairly disconnected.
    Seems like you’re looking for some sort of idiot-savant therefore.
    Such a person would have to be intelligent enough to appreciate the Obama doctrine (this leaves Palin out), but stupid enough to embrace some sort of mass conspiracy amongst all branches of government.

    Reminds me of a person I know who has been looking for a girlfriend that’s “really smart AND naive.”
    He’s been single a loooong time.