Main Menu

Kreep rejects two-citizen parent theory

In an article in Slate magazine, Gary Kreep is quoted:

“There’s nothing that I’m aware of that says you have to have two American parents,” said Gary Kreep, executive director of the United States Justice Foundation. “My understanding of it is if you’re born in the United States, you’re a natural-born citizen, period.”

In this view, Kreep is in the company of fellow anti-Obama litigator Philip Berg and virtually the entire legal community.

 

11 Responses to Kreep rejects two-citizen parent theory

  1. avatar
    Majority Will May 24, 2011 at 10:20 am #

    Does this mean we might see a tag team cage match of Kreep and Berg vs. Taitz and Apuzzo on pay (pal) per view this summer?

  2. avatar
    Stanislaw May 24, 2011 at 11:14 am #

    If this is true, then this means one thing and one thing only…Obama has paid off/threatened/coerced Gary Kreep the same way that he did with John McCain, Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, Linda Lingle, every single representative and senator, as well as every sitting federal judge.

    Oh, and Chief Justice John Roberts. And the other Supreme Court Justices as well. And the Indiana Court of Appeals.

  3. avatar
    aarrgghh May 24, 2011 at 12:46 pm #

    Stanislaw:
    If this is true, then this means one thing and one thing only…Obama has paid off/threatened/coerced Gary Kreep the same way that he did with John McCain, Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, Linda Lingle, every single representative and senator, as well as every sitting federal judge.

    Oh, and Chief Justice John Roberts. And the other Supreme Court Justices as well. And the Indiana Court of Appeals.

    … and the joint chiefs and every serviceman and woman (except terry lakin of course). and ken starr and every other 5-star conservative lawyer. and of course, first and last, the media, including even wnd’s les kinsolving.

    so it’s now down to everybody but me and thee and i’m not too sure about thee …

  4. avatar
    Thrifty May 24, 2011 at 1:45 pm #

    Just keeping score. We’re down to two main birther talking points now?

    1) The long form birth certificate is forged.

    2) What birth certificate? Who ever said anything about a birth certificate? The Founding Fathers (who were not, as you may believe, a group of a few dozen men but actually one hive-mind linked entity), clearly intended only people born of two citizen parents to be president.

    I’ve noticed that birthers who aren’t completely out to lunch have settled upon one or the other, perhaps realizing that adopting both is not necessary.

    The first point is absurd and always, always comes down to “High ranking Hawaii officials were in on it! Big conspiracy!”

    The second point almost sounds credible, if you’re like me and don’t have a good head for the law (I’m more of a technical, numbers-oriented guy myself). I feel saddened that I can never really follow the legalese in the arguments, but then I remind myself of the saying “If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” While the legalese sounds impressive, there are so many practical holes in this when you stop to think about it. I know I’m preaching to the choir here, but here’s what I think about when this Vattel nonsense comes up.

    1) The reasoning seems to be that, without this restriction, two Al Qaeda operatives could sneak into America, have an anchor baby, and 35 years later that anchor baby could be president! Or just one operative. It’s a dastardly fiendish plan! All someone has to do to be president is be a natural born citizen, 14 years a resident of the United States, and age 35 or older. There’s no election involved or anything!

    2) Pursuant to point number 1, there seems to be some idea that no person born in America, to 2 American citizens, could ever have any loyalty to any country other than America. America is just such a super-mega-awesome country that if you were born here to two citizen parents, that in itself makes you loyal enough to be trusted with the office of the presidency.

    3) Foreigners all have some sort of weird genetic disease that imbues them with foreign influence, and this passes on to their babies, unless the receive the cure of becoming citizens. So if, say, a Turkish man citizen impregnated an American woman citizen, and the Turkish man became an American citizen on June 1st, and the baby were born on June 2nd, the baby would be free forever from foreign influence. But if the baby were born on May 31st, he would be permanently scarred with the taint of foreign influence, even if his father died the next day and the child never set foot in Turkey.

    4) Having dual citizenship at birth taints you with “foreign influence”. It further taints your children. Citizenship is bestowed by other countries, by their own laws. Any dictatorial country could therefore render an entire generation of Americans ineligible to be citizens by declaring everyone to be citizens, irrevocably and permanently.

    5) Barack Obama’s father was not a citizen at the time of his birth. This is established fact. Yet nobody in Congress, nobody on any of the 51 ballots where he was placed, nobody on the Supreme Court, said anything and he was inaugurated.

    The last point is, in my opinion, the most absurd, and the one that leads to the same “everyone was in on the conspiracy” path that forged birth certificate claims do.

    So those are some stray thoughts, and I guess the talking points I’ll hit when Birther cranks come in spouting their Vattelist nonsense. It seems superfluos to argue case law and history, in my opinion. Gives Birthers too much room to weasel around.

  5. avatar
    Scientist May 24, 2011 at 3:59 pm #

    Thrifty: 5) Barack Obama’s father was not a citizen at the time of his birth. This is established fact. Yet nobody in Congress, nobody on any of the 51 ballots where he was placed, nobody on the Supreme Court, said anything and he was inaugurated.
    The last point is, in my opinion, the most absurd, and the one that leads to the same “everyone was in on the conspiracy” path that forged birth certificate claims do.

    Of course, a perpetually unreliable source, the banned “RIO”, would telll you that they were all deathly afraid of those “dangerous black people rioting like they did in Watts.” RIO is an Extremely Important Person, no doubt, who, when he calls his Representative’s office is patched through straight to the Rep him or herself, whether they are on the golf course or in the massage parlor and is privy to their deepest, most personal thoughts. Even though he wouldn’t name his Rep, we are assured that his Rep was powerfully afraid of riots breaking out and so were many of his colleagues.

    Of course, the problem “RIO” has is that there is not the slightest evidence that blacks would have rioted had Obama not been on the ballot. In fact, a great many black leaders endorsed Hillary Clinton and she probably got a similar number of primary votes as Obama did. She and Bill were always extremelly popular in the black community. And while Obama did win the black vote overwhelmingly in the general election, so did Kerry, Gore and every other Democrat since 1968. So it’s pretty safe to say that there would not have been riots had Obama been kept off the ballot.

    What if some Republican member of Congress had challenged his eligibility? Would there have been riots? No, because the Democrats who controlled Congress would have voted down the objection long before anyone who wasn’t a C-SPAN junkie had even heard of it. After all, how many know that there was an actual official challenge lodged against Bush in 2005?

  6. avatar
    Thrifty May 24, 2011 at 4:12 pm #

    Scientist: Of course, the problem “RIO” has is that there is not the slightest evidence that blacks would have rioted had Obama not been on the ballot. In fact, a great many black leaders endorsed Hillary Clinton and she probably got a similar number of primary votes as Obama did. She and Bill were always extremelly popular in the black community. And while Obama did win the black vote overwhelmingly in the general election, so did Kerry, Gore and every other Democrat since 1968. So it’s pretty safe to say that there would not have been riots had Obama been kept off the ballot.

    Yeah I remember that. At least RIO had the balls to provide an answer, as disgustingly racist as it was.

    This speaks to another thing that sticks in my craw. Ever since the election, Obama haters have been saying that black vote for him because he’s black. It stretches beyond that to say that everyone who votes for him is only doing so because they’re brainwashed by hype, like we’re all sheep incapable of making up our minds. Like it isn’t possible someone voted for the man because they felt he was best suited for the job. I disagreed with people who vote Republican, but I at least respect that they have their reasons for it. And I will admit that there are decent Republican voters who feel the same way about me. It’s just that the sentiment that only a brainwashed fool could vote for Obama is out there.

  7. avatar
    Arthur May 24, 2011 at 6:05 pm #

    While objective evidence and common sense demonstrate that Kreep’s arguments are absurd, I will grant him this: he’s the most competent lawyer among the birthers. Granted that may not be saying much, but unlike Orly Taitz, he doesn’t come off as arrogant lunatic. The way Kreep comports himself in court and the way he speaks to the judge(s) suggests that he has a dash of professionalism.

  8. avatar
    Stanislaw May 24, 2011 at 6:30 pm #

    Arthur:
    While objective evidence and common sense demonstrate that Kreep’s arguments are absurd, I will grant him this: he’s the most competent lawyer among the birthers.

    That’s equivalent to being the tallest midget.

  9. avatar
    gorefan May 24, 2011 at 6:37 pm #

    Stanislaw: That’s equivalent to being the tallest midget.

    or, the smartest rock in a box of rocks.

  10. avatar
    Arthur May 24, 2011 at 7:15 pm #

    . . . the most fragrant corpse flower, or the prettiest hyena?

  11. avatar
    Terry K. May 25, 2011 at 5:43 pm #

    Actually, the Gary Kreep quote is from a WND article, which also quotes Obama-hater Floyd Brown as agreeing with him.

    It’s a bit of a shock for WND to report that, given that it has largely avoided reporting on opinions that contradict WND’s two-citizen-parent definition. Also noteworthy is that WND has been a client of Kreep’s USJF, and that WND’s Joseph Farah co-founded the Western Journalism Center, which Floyd Brown now heads.

    If two of WND’s closest allies won’t affirm one of WND’s key birther arguments, does that mean WND itself is moving away from that claim?