Foggy
We’ve discussed the WorldNetDaily article where Jerome Corsi smears a forum operator that goes under the name of Foggy. We’ve discussed the merits of a libel suit against WND. We’ve discussed why the WND article isn’t right. But let me present a different question: what possible reason could Corsi and WorldNetDaily have to publish such an article in the first place?
I can understand why Corsi smears Barack Obama. Obama has power. Obama’s programs and policies have an impact on the country. Obama is news.
Foggy just runs a forum. Alexa.com ranks Fogbow as number #205,205 among web sites. Compare that to The Huffington Post at #105 and even WorldNetDaily at around #2,878. Foggy’s minor lawyering troubles in California were a decade ago — hardly news today, and probably not even local news in California back then.
So why write an article to smear Foggy?
Foggy comments on Internet forums that relate to Barack Obama’s eligibility. How is that news? Many of my readers do that and the number of people who comment on the Internet every day probably runs in the hundreds of millions (there are an estimated 1.87 billion Internet users).
Foggy wrote a letter to a US attorney about Orly Taitz. He may have handled a fake Kenyan birth certificate. There’s no evidence that either of them had an impact on WND readers. WorldNetDaily even had some news to report debunking that fake certificate which Foggy did not create. And even if Foggy had something to do with getting the fake Kenyan birth certificate to Taitz, what does his California bar status have to do with anything except as an attempt to smear Foggy’s reputation?
This is all nothing stuff. Bloggers are not news.
So why did Jerome Corsi representing what claims to be a major news organization chose to pick on an obscure web site operator who 99.99999% of the world has never heard of (up until now)? I don’t have a clue.
Corsi needs to rile the birthers up again.,
Nothing a birther hates more than an ordinary person who doesn’t believe them.
Big news corporations are easy to explain away…. they’re “in on it”, but ordinary individuals are unlikely to be on “Obama’s payroll of silence”.
The fact that ordinary people don’t buy into the conspiracy crap bugs a birther to no end, and the most hated ordinary citizen of all is one with a voice of reason.
Foggy doesn’t matter. They care about what he represents. They need to present themselves as taking on the enemies. Thus, an Obot is elevated for attack; someone who stands out in some way and seems “easy” prey is selected. They raise the target up to make it look like they are punching up. One of the monstrous Obots! Do not fear! We are here to hold the ground.
In politics, one prefers to punch up, as you suggest, toward power, as they previously tried, but there is no there there anymore. There is only down, sideways and perhaps diagonal. Once such people start talking about Obama’s father not even being his father, one can see they have changed their focus. Anyone who hangs on such words is just looking for red meat or to indulge an emotional addiction. At that point, punching up toward power doesn’t matter (until the next opportunities). Then you are just making money or “steam” on the verbal equivalents of dog fights.
In brief, they would love to punch up, but that option has been negated for them, and they must punch to live. So, consciously or by instinct, they punch at what they can and call it up.
So you’re saying WND is creating outrage as a marketing tool.
Foggy made himself an easy target.
That doesn’t make it right, but it’s a lesson I’ve tried to instill in my kids. Nothing posted on the internet is ever “private”, though there is stuff that can be done to make it a little harder for people to get access to personal information. But the bottom line is that the information is out there, and it’s foolish to think that one can “trust” one’s adversaries.
But its not all that hard for someone to connect the dots if there is someone posting under a pseudonym who also chooses to post personal info, whether it is the name of the city where he/she lives, marital status, schools attended, occupation, hobbies, etc. The more details, the easier it become to connect the dots.
Corsi’s lazy and he doesn’t much care whether what he puts on his web site is valid or not. He’s happy with any piece of garbage that keeps his faithful reading and sharing and clicking on links — and if he gets a rise out of whoever he targets, so much the better. More hits to his site, more attention.
it wouldn’t be the first time. It’s practically standard operating procedure for WND to create outrage that they can then sell “information” about.
Haven’t they always?
Corsi and WND have tried several things to try to gin up interest in the birth certificate forgery meme. They put out some letters allegedly from the government of Kenya that they said are evidence of criminal tampering with Kenyan records to cover up Obama’s alleged Kenyan birth (they did not say that, but facts will not get in Corsi’s way). He had told the story that he was alerted in February that someone had forged a Hawaiian BC for Obama and, to support this story, released some draft web posts that he wrote at the time that he claimed showed that he knew that a forgery had been created. (His drafts did not, in fact, demonstrate that he knew anything that was not already publicly known but, again, facts don’t really matter to Corsi). He then had the absolutely ridiculous story of how Mike the forger inserted secret messages in the birth certificate PDF to indicate it was a forgery. Even the looniest nuts in birferstan didn’t buy that one. I think the Foggy/Rikker/Fogbow stuff is just another balloon he is floating to try to get a story going about how the presidents’ birth certificate has been forged. While he did not accuse Foggy of forging Obama’s birth certificate, I have no doubt that that is the impression he is trying to make.I hope he did not succeed.
If KBOA is to be believed, WND readers will soon be treated to Corsi’s attack on a disabled widow.
Don’t underestimate the ability of someone who really doesn’t “matter” to get under the skin of those in power. Why did Nixon go after Ellsberg? Why is China RIGHT NOW going after some of its best artists.
In the real world the effect of someone like Foggy is minimal. But the people who he’s going after feel the humiliation, the anger and frustration of his criticism. And they MUST. DESTROY. HIM.
Go to the WND articles and read the comments, it’s obvious, they get pay pal activities. EverythingFarah does is to get paypal pushes. ex: push me paypal so I can sue Esquire, when in fact no suit will take place, the billboard scam where most of the donations went tto Farah’s paocket. Or his fax sceme.
Well you ask a valid question Doc but remember this is the MO of the fringe. Remember during the whole refunding of the SCHIP program a few years back? The democrats brought out this young kid Graeme Frost and his family. Both Graeme and his sister had received medical insurance through the SCHIP program after they both suffered major injuries during a car accident. Graeme gave an address speaking of his family’s experience and how the program benefited them. Immediately those on the right like Michelle Malkin started hounding Graeme’s family. The fringe then started claiming the family didn’t deserve to be on the insurance program. Many of those associated with Malkin drove by the family’s house and left threatening messages on their answering machine.
This is how they operate, through intimidation. They don’t want a democracy. I’m just wondering when Corsi is going to do his article on you Doc.
I think Corsi is exhibiting signs of mental instability since Obama cost him probably 90% of the potential sales of his POS book. WND is already having a fire sale on the copies they bought in bulk to get it on the NY Times best seller list for a millisecond. (Yes, the NYT listing indicated bulk purchases affected the ranking). It is sinking like a rock on Amazon and is the butt of late night jokes.
I was thinking about this also, mostly because WND’s childish “outing” is a tactic used by Orly and KBOA, both of whom engage in behavior obviously driven by paranoia and delusions.
Quote:
“So why did Jerome Corsi representing what claims to be a major news organization chose to pick on an obscure web site operator who 99.99999% of the world has never heard of (up until now)?”
Because this is what Brownshirts do. Pick on targets that are not actually in power, (and who are usually minorities) but who have somehow kept the Brownshirt from gaining power/achieving their goal. (In the Brownshirts view).
Because Corsi
It is really simple…..
WND and the rest of the birfoons now know that they are sad, ineffectual and basically FAIL to the n’th degree.
In Corsi’s specific case he cares for nothing but the rich sound of Birfoon money in his back pocket.
The President scupperd his asinine “Wheres the Birth cerificate” so now in desperation he atempts to smear others, he belives will NOT take action against him in a pathetic attempt to pound the PayPal.
Corsi/Farah/WND et-al care not one iota for Birfoons except as they they pad their bank accounts
My belief is that they decided to “pick on someone weaker then” them. Then to use any perceived success to trumpet it as a major victory, or as a way to legitimize their arguments. It is a very successful tool used to influence true believes.
Heh. Wait till they know what I’ve done.
>: D
That is just beyond disgusting.
I’m inclined toward “marketing tool,” but I think we can be a bit more specific. Most if not all WND stories contain links to an item in the WND store, and thus WND stories double as advertising. WND needs to sell copies of Corsi’s book, so they need to keep up a stream of birther stories that advertise that book.
So I’m suggesting they are in a position where they are compelled to publish birther stories whether there is any birther news or not, and what we see here is the result of them scraping the bottom of the barrel.
I am a singularly uninteresting person in real life. KBOA thought she was clever uncovering some of my other web sites. What she missed is that I also pay for and maintain the web sites for two area churches, one where I sing in the choir.
There are two reasons for writing these articles. The first is an attack to somehow make it appear that Foggy might have been the one who put together what everyone believes is another fraudulent long form BC that Obama released. The second is marketing. The two articles they posted about Foggy and Rikker have not only enflamed the passions of the birthers but also have driven up traffic to their website. Look at the enormous number of visits by ‘Obots’ to defend Foggy and Rikker that normally wouldn’t have even visited their website.
Who ees thees ‘everyone’, white man?
WND has been falling in popularity. A year ago, WND was in the top 500 websites in the US according to alexa.com, but today it’s #626.
Where’s the Birth Certificate? dropped out of the top 1,000 at Amazon.com today and it is struggling to stay in the top 10,000 at Barnes & Noble.
Needless to say, WTBC? no longer sullies the NY Times bestseller list. It’s not even in the top 150 on the USA Today list (as of June 12).
Maybe we are all reading more into this than necessary (me included). Jerome is probably still smarting that he and Joey got snookered in as much as the idiot Taitz by the Bomford birth certificate. Remember this article from August 2, 2009:
Is this really smoking gun of Obama’s Kenyan birth?
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=105764
A few quotes from the article:
“WND was able to obtain other birth certificates from Kenya for purposes of comparison, and the form of the documents appear to be identical.”
and especially this one:
“Last week, a counterfeit document purporting to be Obama’s Kenyan birth certificate made the rounds of the Internet, but was quickly determined to be fraudulent. The new document released by Taitz bears none of the obvious traits of a hoax.”
Really, the document that had certificate number 47 0 44, was in book 44B, and was registered by a laundry soap? Nope, it was the real deal according to WND.
Corsi doesn’t have any other skill but hit pieces and dirty tricks. This is Corsi doing what Corsi does on a smaller scale. Why he’s taken to punching well below his weight:? The middle-aged lady employees of a flower shop? Young children? Disabled widows? Because he’s a washed-up, pathetic loser.
Leading up to the release of WTBC, and almost every day since, WND has been posting a continual parade of birther stories that link to “Buy WTBC!”, WND’s PayPal, or both.since even they know they can’t repost the same story with a different headline too many times in a row (at least not without time in between), they have to reach further and further in order to find something that might inflame the birthers enough to get them to click click click that button. Foggy just happened to be the next thing they could think of.
I did notice on freep this morning a new angle – that not only is Barack Obama’s SSN “fraudulent”, but they are starting to claim that Michelle Obama’s is too, listing a Hispanic name they say is tied to her number. I see a few new WND stories in the pipe from this one.
Of course, then they’ll stoop to something about the little girls. They can’t get anything on the boss, so they go after his wife and kids. Pathetic loserness by all involved in WND
Maybe, just maybe, this will be enough for our President to take the appropriate legal action to silence these id*ots.
Ahh but you’re not a “real” Christian, Doc. A `real`Christian would be on God`s side, fighting against the Satan worshipping Usurper.
After all only birthers are `real Christians/Americans/Patriots
You can’t trust Church musicians because they are all a bunch of heathens anyway. 😎
Foggy, was just the FIRST one he started with, in the SERIES to out the Obama Obots. We will be going through all of you, so it’s not JUST Foggy! You all will get your turn, don’t worry!
NO, we are SICK AND TIRED of you people trying to OBSTRUCT JUSTICE! You zombies might think that this is a JOKE, that we are doing this for FUN or for something political, but it is NOT! We are here to SAVE our country from you people that want to throw it away and we are NOT going to let you do it! Plain and simple!
AIN’T GONNA HAPPEN! It’s nice to know that YOU will give up your liberties, but you will NOT take mine!
NOT from what we found out!
You are meeting with some pretty up there BIG WIGS on immunization and they have just proven that the govt is paying out millions for vaccines that have killed children. You are pushing for a nationwide mandate and that is not good. Are you FOR depopulation as is the new world order??
Tha’s funny, I found 3 fogbowers that ADMIT that they are Heathens. I think it was Verbalobe, Suranis and one other…can’t remember who!
Have I LIED to you all YET? Have you found me in ANY lie? NO!!
I told you that Orly would be singling you all out and I was RIGHT. I told you all that WND and Post & Email would be doing the same and I was RIGHT… I know how much MORE Corsi is doing and you all are in trouble. You can believe me or not, that is up to you, but I do not lie, I have no reason to.
MUCH more is coming and this is nothing, YET…compared to what is to come!!
So, it’s not considered CHILDISH, when the fogbow writes about all of us and talks about our clothes and our looks and degrades us????? That IS the reason we are doing what we are doing!!!
Perhaps in the END, they are weaker than us, but the reason we are going after them is because they try to ACT like they have power, that Obama is behind them and will back them and that they are “smarter” than anyone else that doesn’t believe that Obama is Legal. You people need to get off the koolaid and think you yourselves and stop being SHEEP!
Corsi and Farah are cut from the same cloth as Roy Cohn: they made careers out of destroying the careers of others. It’s all they know how to do.
Also, remember Farah is a Phalangist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalange
No white man ever had to show his birth certificate.
Big wigs? I don’t know who that would be; however, I am extremely proud of the small contribution I have made to national standards for the interchange of immunization data between state immunization registries, and standards for improving the quality of data in those systems. I got an award from the Atlanta registry (a private non-profit) for my work in helping to protect the health of the children of Atlanta.
Vaccines have risk, but not taking them has a bigger risk.
You’re pathetic.
What I think is funny is that there are thousands of us “Obots” out talking to our friends and loved ones about this, helping them use common sense when thinking about this controversy. I’ve done my part in changing the minds of dozens of people I know. However, I don’t post much on line, so people like KBOA spend all their time on the obvious people and totally miss people like me.
KBOA might scare off some people, but there are so many more of us that she is ignoring, and we’re not going away.
That comment only proves that you don’t have a clue what “obstruction of justice” is.
And I see that you also are an “anti-vaccine” conspiracy theorist. How unsurprising. I hope that you have no children who will pay dearly for your ignorance.
I fell into that over at Helen Tansley’s site: began by commenting on a couple of non-birther articles there, had a couple of nice chats in which we exchanged Christian pleasantries, then let slip why I didn’t believe Obama’s SSN was a fraud. She hasn’t spoken to me since.
–Nathanael
KBOA: I am so glad to hear that Corsi will be writing an article about each and every one of us. I was afraid that I would be overlooked as, admittedly, my contributions have been quite negligible. Now I look forward to his article about me.
And, by the way, there is no New World Order. Vaccines are not a genocide program. And, while I’m on the subject, HAARP does not cause weather and/or earthquake disasters, the little trails left by jet planes are not “chemtrails”, and the world’s leaders are not alien lizards wearing meatsacks.
Wow, who knew? I thought it was the courts that were getting in your way?
Oooh, oooh, oooh. Me! Me next! Pick me! PLEEEEAAAAASE???
–Nathanael
You replied to Daniel that you were doing this because the people you are outing are trying to obstruct justice:
“We are here to SAVE our country from you people that want to throw it away and we are NOT going to let you do it! Plain and simple!”
Are you now saying you are doing it because some people on the internet, who you don’t know and who don’t know you, made fun of your clothes?! If you’re bothered by these people making fun of you, don’t read what they write. Sheesh. It seems so obvious to me.
You didn’t fake the twins BC did you?
Oops! Is George gonna stop payment on this week’s check ’cause I let that slip?
Careful. You could be confessing to Crimes Against Humanity.
I think I’ve discovered what’s got KBOA so scared: medical researches have just developed a vaccine against stupid. Remarkably, during the clinical trials, they discovered that the greatest response to the vaccine was found amongst a group of subjects who frequented WND. The subjects had all signed on, they claimed, in order to earn money to buy copies of WTBC?
KBOA’s afraid a tsunami of reason sweeping the US will wash away the last remnants of birthirism, and is desperately grasping at deck chairs to avoid getting swept out to sea.
–Nathanael
Let me get this straight, just so we are all on the same page…
Without immunization, 10’s of thousands of children die or are crippled from polio, to pick one example, and with immunization perhaps 3 per decade (I don’t know the correct figures, I just made these one’s up, but you get the idea that I am trying to get across).
And that is an acceptable trade off to you to deny immunization?
Whatever happened to the “Right to Life” in your world view?
I participated in a clinical trial for a tablet to cure the common cold. The active ingredient was pigeon milk. I had to stop because of one unfortunate side effect:
I constantly had an urge to crap on a windshield.
KBOA,
Sorry, you can’t have your country back. Not now. Not in 2012. Not ever.
You are the one fighting to overturn the will of the people. I will not let you and other seditionists like Orly win. Ever.
Bank on it.
(btw- where do you get those “charming” leggings?)
I knows all about yur churches DOC! You even “saved” one of them, didn’t you?
Actually YES, John McCain did or did you forget that one? Last I remember, he was white, right?
I know all about your “AWARD” and EXACTLY what you got, from the people “ON THE HILL”. It was just last month, wasn’t it???
What about the children that were KILLED by govt immunizations, that they have admitted to in court and paid out millions???
WOW, you are so far behind. Someone, FILL HIM IN, please!
It’s not about making fun of us, it’s not about being banned from the fogbow, it’s about ALL THE LIES that you people make up to try and sway the masses! It’s your cover up of an enemy that is sitting in our White House. You people KNOW that you are wrong and you still push the agenda!
You attack people, hiding behind a keyboard and don’t want them to know who you are and if you are so right, you wouldn’t MIND it if people KNEW who you were. You think it BOTHERS me, why you try to out me, NO…I WANT more people to know about me and to pay attention, while you people try to hide and do you dirty work, that’s the difference between us!
SORRY, but KBOA ain’t SCARED…LOLOL, what a joke!
You don’t have a chance, WE are the majority! Watch in 2012! It will be way worse than 2010!
Honestly, I’d love to be your “LEGGINGS person, but sorry…you look like an idiot cause MOST know that I wasn’t there on the First day at Lakin’s trial, which is when the LEGGINGS lady was there.
FAILLLLL!
“that you have no children who will pay dearly for your ignorance.”
.
recently in Ashland, Oregon, parents were convicted of negligence in the death of their child, a needless death that a simple vaccine would have prevented. Anybody here remember what an IRON LUNG was, vaccines made that a thing of the past. Why does this silly opinion by KBOA not surprize me? Let’s hope she never has children! Nothing worse than raising kids in ignorance. (except killing kids with stupid opinions, that”s worse)
.
does anyone know where KBOA gets this crap?
Wow, a whole new level of crazy…
I wonder if any mental health professional has ever done a study on the correlation between worsening mental illness and the increasing use of caps?
“I constantly had an urge to crap on a windshield.”
.
I was the control agent for this study
though we said it was pigeon milk, it was really made from pidgeon poop.
Ooooh…how threaty! “…and our little dog, Toto, too!”…right? *rolls eyes*
*rolls eyes*
Yeah…”saving” the country by trying to destroy it…violating the will of the people in a lawful election, supporting sedition and ignoring just about every law and fact that you come across… You truly live in a Bizarro-world that is backwords from reality…
Um…yeah…. And pray tell, just exactly what “liberties” have been given up? *crickets*…
*blink*…what the??? Wow, you are just a haven of paranoid conspiracy nuttiness, aren’t you? Are you going to warn us about Chemtrails, flourine in our water and Reptilians next? *sheesh* Newsflash – guess what helps spread disease that kills people – not having immunity. Guess what helps eradicate disease – “herd immunity”, which only works by having an overwhelming majority of the population immunized.
“Heathens”…LOL! Seriously??? Who cares. You DO realize that this country supports freedom of religion, don’t you? That means all beliefs (or lack thereof) are tolerated. There are NO religious tests in our laws. HINT: Try actually reading the Constitution for once. Yes, you prove you are a true bigot.
Remind us again why we care? You seem to have trouble realizing that this IS NOT Fogbow. Whatever CHILDISH nonsense you have going on at some other site has nothing to do with here, so deal with your problems with them over there.
Perhaps the better term would be “less foolish” and “less gullible” than those Birthers that prove themselves to be constantly wrong on the law and reality time and time again. If you seriously think “Obama” or his administration have any connection or backing to this blog or the people who comment here, well, that’s just absolutely silly. The rest of your comment is just classic projection.
All CAPS are usually used by the semi-literate and the insane.
FIFY.
Missed it by that much…
Silly me. I thought you meant the tinfoil kind.
No. I think you might have me confused with someone else.
John McCain never released a birth certificate. But he was white. Half right.
There are a couple of fake McCain birth certificates on the Internet, but John McCain had nothing to do with them.
No. (I don’t have a clue what you’re talking about.)
My former pastor taught that the “unforgivable sin” (the sin against the Holy Spirit) was to call evil good, and good evil. It is one thing to give someone’s name in public; it is another thing to assassinate their character with lies and innuendo. Your efforts to taint my public service in furtherance of child health shows the extent to which your view of the world is poisoned by your obsession with Obama’s eligibility.
This concerns me. In our worship service we have a time of prayer in which we are invited to say out loud (but quietly) the names of persons we are concerned about. I added you yesterday. This is not condescension, but genuine concern. I would give almost anything not to be you.
The only lies around here are from the birthers.
Doc,
Whilst admirable, your attempts to engage with Trace the Fashion Victim are ultimately inherently useless.
It’s real simple Trace, simple enough even for a Birther to grasp.
The President garnered the majority of the votes cast in the Presidential election
The President garnered the majority of the votes of the Electoral College in same
The Electoral College validated the votes
In a dual session of Congress the votes were UNANIMOUSLY accepted
The President was sworn in and has taken office.
That’s it, full stop, end of story.
Not one member of Congress or the Senate availed themselves of their right to challenge the votes or the President.
Not one member has raised a call for impeachment
So, Trace, real simple, he’s the President, it’s legal AND Constitutional, all actions, bills etc signed by the President are legal and WILL REMAIN legal.
Don’t like it, tough shit.
You can either
a. Try and convince 2 members of Congress to raise Articles of Impeachment AND convince enough members of Congress to Impeach, try and convict the President. (Probability as close to zero as there is)
b. Lose the whiney sad attitude and engage with the party of your choice and WORK to get the candidate of your choice to win enough votes to beat the incumbent. (Again the probability is vanishingly small)
These are the only two choices, the rest of your sad, pathetic little tirades WON’T CHANGE A SINGLE THING.
So, shed the persecution complex, attempt to act like an adult and attempt to do something constructive. If you don’t you will most certainly spiral into even more ineffectual stupidity when the curent President wins re-election.
to date, the vst majority claims made by the birthers have made have proved to be false (i say vast majority in case there´s something that i may have missed), and yet those of us that expose those lies are the ones that you are calling liars.
in reality, `the masses´ are finding the birthers more and more outlandish and looking at them in the same way as they do when they encounter someone in the street shouting obcenities at fire hydrants.
the current birther positition is much akin to someone on a sinking boat thinking `hey! i´ll bash some holes in the bottom to let the water out!´
BTW, why exactly do you consider your democratically elected president to be `an enemy´?
Or: “Well that didn’t work. Let me go bash some holes over on the other end.” They never ask themselves “What am I doing wrong?” It’s always somebody else’s fault.
Yeah actually we’ve caught you in multiple lies in your videos but that never stopped you from denying reality. [Redacted. Doc.]
This sounds like an episode of Law and Order where someone was picked on in high school so she gets revenge on all those people.
Actually no, McCain never did. The birth certificate that says he was born in Colon is a forgery released during the Hollister case. It is not McCain’s. He has consistently claimed he was born at the Coco Solo Naval Hospital which is within the PCZ. Colon is not. He showed his birth certificate to one reporter and only one. No copies were made, no photographs were taken.
KenyanBornObamaAcorn: Is there any data on this eligibility issue that would satisfy you and cause you to say “I was wrong, he is eligible to be the president.”?
Huh? Corsi is angry because someone doesn’t like the way he looks? This guy must mean that since as far as I know, nobody knows what Mr KBOA looksl ike.. If correct, that is the saddest, most pitiful thing I have heard yet. This guy has some major self-esteem issues.
Thrifty she’ll never admit it. She says its not about the birth certificate and yet focuses on the birth certificate time and time again. She still carries around that Lucas Smith forgery even though she knows its a fake. She’s already moved on to the fake two parent rule that doesn’t exist.
Hahahaaa. You don’t know that I was in training to be a Roman Catholic Priest at one point, do you? I mean I’ve been hiding it so well, like I said it on RC radio and I’ve occasionally quoted parts of the Bible to make a point.
God’s punishment for liars is that they eventually believe their own lies and can no longer tell truth from lies. That’s from Thessalonians.
Well said! I agree completely.
Excellent analogies.
Dear KBOA:
Thanks for taking the time to respond to so many posters. I also appreciate that you touched on a variety of issues, including your fear of vaccines and the humiliation you experienced when your clothes and appearance were ridiculed. Your openness has given me the chance to see beyond the surface issue of presidential eligibility and into the mind of a highly motivated, true-blue birther.
Short answer: yes to both. Constantly, since the old days at the Washington Independent.
Give it up, [Personal identification deleted. Doc.]. You’re wrong about the President, you were wrong two years ago, and you will continue to be wrong. All your hysterical blather won’t change that, and it won’t force the President out of office.
[Personal identification deleted. Doc.], sweetie, [Objectionable content deleted. Doc.] You seem a little, I don’t know, calmer. Not so many caps.
Nobody forgot. It’s just not really true. McCain has never released his birth certificate.
It’s Ms KBOA, and photos of her have been published. Criticizing someone’s looks is totally stupid and offensive, and has nothing to do with whether Barack Obama is eligible to be president.
Excuse me KBOA, but what does ObamA corn mean? Is it because he was a Senator from Illinois? I don’t get the connection.
I know, but a guy can dream, can’t he?
I imagine that it is an attempt to mash up the President’s last name with the group known as ACORN.
Well, i don’t get the connection to Kenya at all. Corn is native to North America (Mexico) and acorns are found mostly in Europe and North America.
Obamacorn is a new Monsanto hybrid. Roundup ready, stands up in the heat, grows tall in the sun, Big ears. (*grin*) just right by harvest time.
Good one, kimba!
Hmmm…
Law, vital records, document authentication, and now public health. It seems there’s no start to KBOA’s talents.
to borrow a bit of hyperbole from a certain internet stalker: “Birfers is TOAST! The video that will END the Birfer Movement!* Sane Folk Everywhere Get Last Laugh & Wonder WTF That Was All About!”
(*flash req’d)
“Just proven?” The government has run a national vaccine compensation program, where plaintiffs don’t have to prove causation, simply that they experienced an injury soon after vaccination since 1988. The program has always been a public program with its statistics released on an annual basis. To date, they’ve compensated 2,600 victims, with 1,061 deaths, a little more than 46 a year.
By contrast, studies show that vaccines save 33,000 lives in the United States and 3 million a year worldwide.
Every drug has side-effects. Aspirin kills more people a year than vaccines, by a factor of 5-10, at least. We justify aspirin because its benefits (pain relief and a marginal decrease in heart disease/stroke death) outweigh its side-effects.
Vaccines are so lopsidedly beneficial to society (33,000 saved lives v. 46 deaths) that it’s not even funny.
Your views are dangerous, KBOA, and pathetic!
And I, in my role of all-around Obot evildoer, wrote electronic medical record software to capture Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) data and provide warnings to practitioners who were about to give vaccines to someone with a contraindication due to a past adverse event.
I believe that meets the classic definition of satire.
I like the music. Who drew the pictures? That’s one of the guys from Mad Magazine right? I can’t remember the name. Al Jaffee?
And of course children who are not vaccinated pose a danger to other children. KBOA probably isn’t old enough to remember the polio epidemics, which were stopped in their tracks by the polio vaccines.
When I was young I knew a boy who had polio. He was lucky, because he was left with just a bad limp. But it was tough on him because he had two very athletic older brothers, one of whom played in the NBA for a few years. The boy came down with polio just a year or two before the vaccine began to be administered.
In the forties and early fifties there was an average of 35,000 new polio cases each year. Between 1980 and 1999, there were a total of 162 cases reported (roughly 8 per year), 154 of which were associated with taking the live oral poliovirus vaccine. The live vaccine was then stopped in the U.S., and since 2000 only the inactivated poliovirus vaccine is used here.
However, the live vaccine is still used in other countries and a child who has not been vaccinated can develop vaccine-derived poliovirus through contact with someone who has recently been given the live vaccine – yet another reason why it is extremely dangerous to refuse to have children vaccinated.
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/polio/dis-faqs.htm
Ah, yes. “Thou shalt not got into public swimming pools.” And then there was Dr. Jonas Salk.
As someone who works on developing vaccines I have to second the views expressed by Greg, Rickey and others.
First, the term “government vaccines” is simply wrong. All the vaccines used today are manufactured and sold by pharmaceutical companies, including Merck, Aventis and Pfizer. None are produced or sold by any government entity. Most doses are administered through physicians offices, not by any government agency. They were largely developed by those companies or by scientists at universitiies in the US and overseas.
Second, as Greg pointed out, the fact that claims have been paid under the Vaccine Injury Compensatiion Program (VICP) in no way means that the vaccines actually caused the injuries. The program is no fault; it pays for a laundry list of symptoms, provided the onset was close in time to the vaccination.. It specifically makes no attempt to determine whether the vaccination caused the injury. In fact, the data suggests that few, if any, of the injuries were caused by the modern version of the vaccines, which rarely, if ever, cause worse than a sore arm and/or a transient fever. The VICP was set up when the whole-cell pertussis vaccine was in use. That was a crude product that did cause some serious side effects. The modern, acellular pertussis vaccine causes few if any serious problems.
Third, the libertarian argument that everyone can choose whether or not to be vaccinated is quite problematic. There are many people who have weakened immune systems (cancer patients, AIDS patients, premature babies etc.). They respond poorly to vaccines and depend on herd immunity; i.e. that others will be vaccinated. We have a situation analogous to 2 nearby houses in a dry forest (like Arizona). If your house goes up, mine will likely go too, so I have a right to forbid you from setting off fireworks or leaving your barbecue unattended.
which is worth posting, for the edification of the humor-impaired:
KBOA,
if you are so sure you are in the majority now, why try to keep Obama off the 2012 ballet? Why not let voters decide? Why are you against our Constitution and Democracy?
Btw- just a heads up KBOA. After Obama wins in 2012 we are going to repeal the 22nd. Bank on it.
You missed one: he was sworn in by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, making it a clean sweep: voters + Congress + Judiciary = birther shutout.
–Nathanael
Oh, good to know. I was worried you were attempting to get revenge over something silly.
But he’s a scarrrrrrrry black man with a funny name who is presidenting whilst a Democrat…make him go awwwwwwwwwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyy.
Sorry, transient feedback from a birfoon thought thread
Many people are afraid of silence, because silence invites reflection and introspection. It’s why you shout constantly, because the minute you stop you hear the echoes of your tirades and begin to realize what a sorry buffoon you sound like. So you start screaming again to drown out the those accusatory sounds of silence. It really doesn’t matter what you scream, as its the decibel level that’s paramount, not the content. Which is why you make most of it up on the fly. Nor do you need to actually believe your own rants. You just need to silence the echoes.
Probably the most enduring lesson I took away from my years as a monk is that silence can be your best friend. If you let it.
It’s all ad libitum. For people like KBOA it’s not really about facts or reason, it’s about anger. Honestly, I admire her passion. But passion misguided is the very definition of fanaticism.
–Nathanael
Feel free to not answer Nathanael but what order were you a part of?
Hmm, let’s see. There’s a Youtube page for someone calling him/herself KenyanBornObamAcorn on which is posted a series of videos called “America MEET your MASTERS!” In the comments to the first one, KBOA says, “Wait for the next one, uploading now. It’s all their pictures. These lizards are CREEPY looking!”
The second video, subtitled “Faces of Evil that Rule the World!”, complete with spooky background music, does nothing BUT lampoon the looks of various world leaders, for example, juxtaposing a photo of Pope Benedict with Emperor Palpatine, with the caption, “I KNEW I’d seen that face before!” And the third video opens with a photo of Tzipi Livni, with an ominous voice-over saying, “these are the eyes of a psychopath.”
I’m curious, therefore, is it not considered CHILDISH to write about others and their looks and degrade them? Or is it only CHILDISH when they do it to you?
I was Cistercian, specifically, New Melleray Abbey in Iowa.
Now that should give KBOA enough to go on 🙂
However, significant quantities of vaccines are stocked, paid for and distributed by the government. Reference the Vaccines for Children program established in 1993. VFC vaccines are distributed in public and private settings.
That doesn’t make them “government vaccines” any more than drugs paid for by Medicare or Medicaid (in some cases that would be a majority of the sales) are “government drugs”. The idea that any health care system is 100% private or 100% public is fantasy whether in the US or elsewhere.
I notice that some in the Sunday morning congregation get uncomfortable with silence. This has always confused me, though, as a former Quaker, I am likely rather more comfortable and appreciative of silence. I watch people around here and some clutch their phone as if they are afraid to be alone with themselves.
As I reflect on this statement, I also remember a statement from CEL3 about how Orly would work. If I recall, he was commenting that she would keep pushing for more and more without reflecting or considering what she already had in her briefs, motions, etc. She would not listen to concerns or suggestions. The art of listening requires silence and reflection by the listener. She may be showing the same fear of silence (and listening) which prevents her from doing the necessary due diligence.
One of he obstacles to polio eradication have been the radical Muslim clerics who had preached that the Polio vaccine was a way the western world was going to poison the followers of Islam. This has made the task of eradication in the last endemic countries increasingly difficult.
So, in the twist of irony, KBOA’s statement is in agreement with radical Muslim clerics.
I think, in some way, this is endemic to American (Western?) culture. Or the Protestant work ethic (“Time is money!”). My sister can’t stand a moment’s silence. The TV is on literally 24/7 at her house, her car stereo likewise when she drives. And she’s not alone. I had roommates in college and grad school who couldn’t study without background music. One sits on buses surround by ear-budded passengers. The list goes on.
In the Mass there are prescribed pauses for silent reflection and private prayer. In the monastery, those pauses were minutes in length. I still get annoyed at the way secular Masses rush through the pauses — a few seconds here, a few more there. In one parish they were less a pause for reflection than they were a chance for the priest to catch his breath.
Good points. I think part of this also has to do with this ever increasing pace of our 24/7 modern world. It seems folks attention spans and patience has gotten a lot shorter too. In some respects, as things move faster, folks expect nearly *everything* to be resolved quicker, even when that is not realistic at all. Silence can feel like “something is not happening” and therefore, might seem uncomfortably contrary to folks caught in the motion and noise of the modern world…
Anger??? LOL, I have no anger at all!
I like to watch you all squirm, that’s about it!
I’m voting for Herman Cain to go all the way, hey…isn’t he BLACK? DOH!
It’s not revenge at all. Once I started researching you people I found a lot of disturbing things. Many are attorneys and people in high positions and it is very sickening to me that these same people are running all over the internet acting like bullies and haters and trying to stop the people who want to save our country.
You people should be ashamed of yourselves. I have every right to let others know who their attackers are!
If you cant to call corruption a clean sweep, then you are sick in the head!
Just because they were able to scam themselves into the White House, doesn’t mean they are allowed to get away with it!
You are the who is against the Constitution. If you are so sure that you are right, then why won’t you and your fellow haters push the courts to hear a case on the merits? Why won’t you help get the TRUTH out instead of trying to HIDE it?
They were not talking about MY clothes because I wasn’t there on the day Mari was there taking notes! They tried to say that I was someone else that wasn’t me. So that has nothing to do with why I go after them!
It’s because they are LIARS and are trying to ruin our country!
So, you don’t agree with the Founders writings and Government documents? If you hate this country and our Founder’s so much, then why don’t you just leave?
The video that will END the Obama Presidency! Birthers Get Last Laugh & Demand Formal Apology!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1DHZmeMXyE
Kenyan Born Obama Acorn (ObamAcorn)
Thanks Doc!
So there, LADY! Pictures of me have been published and if you must see them so you can TRY and make fun of me, be my guest!
http://s1132.photobucket.com/albums/m579/KenyanBornObamAcorn/
There’s a message there for you too, in the last picture (Zoom in to see it)
Hmmm. You do look a lot like Malcolm X.
Yeah, I look a lot like that birth certificate too, don’t I?
Loaded those two pics cause I had to post them somewhere. I’m SURE others know that that pic isn’t ME!
Come on Doc!
[Just an attempt at a little levity. Doc.]
Uhhh, because we’re sure we are right and already know the outcome?
Why is it that you can be SURE with no facts to prove you are right, yet I have the facts tp prove Obama is is ineligible and you won’t won’t even acknowledge them? How can you be so sure, if you won’t even look at the opposition’s facts?
If you were so SURE, you wouldn’t have a problem with a case on the merits!
NUFF SAID!
We’re exposing the Obots, the Obama brown shirts that carry his water even though we have PROOF that Obama is an undocumented alien!
Can’t hide the truth when facts are right in front of your face!
ARREST USURPER OBAMA NOW! BARRY SOETORO IS AN ILLEGAL ALIEN~100% SOURCED W/ GOVT DOCUMENTS~WARNING!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTnJDuVNifQ
And this is an EXCELLENT video, that ever American should see!
Open Letter to President Obama:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxDwBYjL3Fc
Wow, you truly live in Bizarro World in your own head. Simply put, I think you are a totally delusional whiny paranoid nutcase. That is my opinion, based on what you write and post and I’m entitled to it.
Good luck with all your nonsense. Back here in reality, Obama will remain President. None of your silliness and wrongheadedness will have any impact on that. As always, the Constitution, all evidence, facts and our laws are NOT on your side. But hey, keep tilting at those windmills and wasting your time.
Wow, that post sure comes across as a “beard”. Next you’ll have to point out to us that you have a few “black friends” too, I guess. LOL!
There is a difference between having a problem with a case on the merits (which I don’t) and being an activist for such a case. I am not an activist because I think it is a waste of time.
The problem with cases on the merits here is that none of the cases dismissed so far could legally be heard on the merits. If a case is brought which under the Constitution CAN be brought, then I am fine with that. I would remind you of Ankeny v Daniels where a court did address the question of Obama’s eligibility and concluded based on the law and the prior Court precedents that Obama’s birth situation allowed him to be President.
I don’t think you fully understand the fact that the legal community is not and is not going to be agreeable to your personal view of the Constitution.
You believe that the question of US-born children of aliens and the Presidency isn’t settled law, but it is.
It isn’t our fault that the birther lawyers are not smart enough to figure out the Constitutional requirement of standing. We cannot push a court to waive a Constitutional requirement as such would violate ethic rules. And the birther claims to standing so far have been comical. As you love the Constitution, I’m sure you understand.
And, if claims of forgery by the self-proclaimed experts we have seen is your evidence, we are not worried. Of course, if a case proceeded Obama would not have to even show a birth certificate as the burden would be on you to show he was born outside the US and if you can’t produce admissible evidence to support that, such claim will be dismiss without Obama having to do anything. The Vattel claim would be dismissed as a matter of law as the Supreme Court rejected such theory a century ago. I wonder if you learn anything with all this free legal advice.
Got MANY black friends. What’s your point?
Got a whole rastafarian village in Jamaica, that are like family!
I’m sorry you find the Founders writings “silly and wrongheaded”
Can’t help you with that problem. Leave the country if you don’t like it!
And guess who was on the Senate committee asking in April 2008 to see John McCain’s birth certificate … Senator Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton! The very first birthers were the DNC operatives working for the campaigns of Obama and Hillary Clinton.
Pffttt Ankeny, what a JOKE! If you read the phrase you are claiming that says Obama is a NBC, from Ankeny…they claim that WKA shows us that he is a NBC, when WKA says NO SUCH THING. And besides, Ankeny is a state case and has NO bearing on Federal Law!
Read the “Dissenting Opinion” for WKA and you will see that THEY got it 100% right and they show the facts, just as my video does!
WKA dissent: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZD.html
MY video: ARREST USURPER OBAMA NOW! BARRY SOETORO IS AN ILLEGAL ALIEN~100% SOURCED W/ GOVT DOCUMENTS~WARNING!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTnJDuVNifQ
ANY American should have standing against a USURPER President, just because you want our country to die, doesn’t give you the right to change our laws without a constitutional amendment!
BO BO is not eligible and never will be!
The point is that real judges don’t read things like you do. I would think that should lead you to reconsider your position.
Actually, Breckinridge Long was the first birther:
http://www.youtube.com/user/KenyanBornObamAcorn#p/c/DE4A9F8F71609B0F/0/kBMcmajQ2ZM
No one give a rat’s a** what the dissenting opinion says.
Sorry Doc, but it ain’t over til the fat lady sings and we aren’t going anywhere until the truth is out and Obama is GONE!
If you want that, you can either get the Constitution amended to expand the jurisdiction of the federal courts, or you could get Congress to pass a law against Presidential usupation that includes a citizen’s right to sue under that law.
You don’t appreciate that court, after court, after court, after court, after court, after court, after court, after court have said that these suits are not allowed under the law. I would think that after 70 times, that would trigger some kind of a realization.
WRONG!!!
We already KNOW what Natural Born Citizen means in the Constitution and if YOU want to CHANGE that you are the one that nees an amendment, NOT US!
Just because corruption is happenening to cover for Obama, doesn’t mean that we have to accept the corruption. We will fix it in the end, don’t worry!
Because you don’t like facts. People that want the truth and the facts, will appreciate it!
Run along, libby!
That’s true in an ironic way.
Just as the long-form birth certificate was supposed to resolve Obama’s birth place — and did not, so you are suggesting that a Supreme Court ruling would resolve the NBC issue, but this is also clearly not true either.
What you really mean by “the truth comes out” is that “your version of the truth comes out.” Well, your version of the truth is out, but it’s not going anywhere because it isn’t true. You might, however, get lucky, and Obama not be re-elected and it would be instructive to see who shuts up and who keeps talking should that happen.
So where does this knowledge come from? It doesn’t come from the case law, the US Code, the Constitution, any Constitutional authority, any civics text book, or any statement from the founders. Did you see it written in the sky?
Sorry, I’m a proud and patriotic American standing up for my country and our Constitution against delusional people who abuse and don’t seem to understand what our Founding documents say, such as you. Too bad the Constitution and ALL American laws are on my side (reality) and not your hate-filled Bizarro-verse fantasy. Go cry and pout in a corner somewhere. We’re not impressed with your juvenile insults, your completely backwards interpretations of everything, nor your useless whiney bluster.
??? Say What? Just about everything you’ve said is nonsense.
Um, Obama & Clinton were key signatories to a document in SUPPORT of McCain being eligible to be POTUS. Nowhere in those records is any demands to see McCain’s birth certificate either.
Great argument. You don’t care what the law is. You just want your way like a silly kid.
Um yeah. Good luck with that delusion. Too bad in reality you wake up and BO is STILL president. Guess what. Same thing tomorrow. Sorry, but not going to change until either Jan 2013 or more likely, Jan 2017. Nothing you can do about it.
Another great argument. You think the losing side was right. No one cares. It is the majority that is the law and it clearly defines natural born citizen. Even the dissenting opinion says so if you actually read it. The dissent is actually very weak as it doesn’t cite any early authority to support it.
You’ve demanded to see his original birth certificate, right?
kenyanbornobaqmacorn,
Here is Justice Fuller’s summary of the majority opinion in his dissent. Read it very slowly and see if you can understand how Fuller says the majority ruled. Did you think Fuller didn’t understand what the majority said. Duh.
“The argument is, that, although the Constitution prior to that amendment nowhere attempted to define the words “citizens of the United States” and “natural-born citizen” as used therein, yet that it must be interpreted in the light of the English common law rule which made the place of birth the criterion of nationality; that that rule was in force in all [p706] the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established; and that, before the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the adoption of the Constitutional Amendment, all white persons, at least, born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign Government, were native-born citizens of the United States.
Thus, the Fourteenth Amendment is held to be merely declaratory except that it brings all persons, irrespective of color, within the scope of the alleged rule, and puts that rule beyond he control of the legislative power.”
I guess you’ll remain a noisy little crank rambling nonsense until 2017 then, eh?
LOL! Yeah, good luck with that. How’s that working for you so far? Oh right, its not.
Another irony meter explodes!
You go, Bizarro Girl! Keep marching to that Projection drum!
Please don’t apologize.
So, now YOU are saying that the Founders writings aren’t true?
Well you get get the hell out also, DOC! We don’t want you founder haters in our country!
This made me laugh. I almost spilled a nice amber ale on my new laptop. Seriously though, you do know the “dissenting opinion” is from a justice who did not agree with the majority ruling? In simpler terms, he was on the losing side. I find the reading the dissent in cases to be informative and educational, but they are not the holding of the court (apologies to the attorneys in the room if I used the term “holding” incorrectly, IANAL).
January 2017?
Don’t forget “ObamacornLies”.
There are thousands of your posts archived on washingtonindependent.com and elsewhere with all kinds of amazing claims.
Based on the incredible volume of posts and time stamps, you must have a LOT of spare time. It reminds me of borderraven who is a prolific and ubiquitous birther supported by a government pension.
Is posting your full time or part time job?
If you would just watch the videos DOC, it’s all in there, sources and all. You refuse to look at my facts which is why you do not GET IT!
There are cases mentioned in the video, there are congressional records, there are constitutional drafts and there is NO disputing them. You just try to ignore the video but it just makes you looks like an imbecial!
Once again, here is my PROOF:
The video that will END the Obama Presidency! Birthers Get Last Laugh & Demand Formal Apology
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1DHZmeMXyE
AND
ARREST USURPER OBAMA NOW! BARRY SOETORO IS AN ILLEGAL ALIEN~100% SOURCED W/ GOVT DOCUMENTS~WARNING
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTnJDuVNifQ
Watch both of those and that has all the facts you need to KNOW that Obama is not eligible!
But OTHERS are impressed with my FACTS!
YOU FAIL! Facts are on my side!
Even after his second term in office, as an expert in Constitutional law, President Barack Obama could be appointed to the Supreme Court like President William Howard Taft.
That’s a great idea.
I have the law and I have the proof! You don’t like facts, that’s not my problem!
She keeps mentioning facts but I have always had the same questions as you. What proof do they have that he was born elsewhere? I recall her being fond of the Lucas Smith BC but, ignoring any document research, he has yet to provide one shred of evidence he was every in Kenya, or Africa, for that matter. Does that mean the evidence is “Lucas Smith says so?” That is worthless evidence, even when ignoring his history of forgery.
I do… and thank you.
Corruption used as a synonym for truth. Intriguing philosophical overtones …
Court decisions are interesting but the final word on presidential eligibility lies with the voters and Congress. If anyone wants to discuss facts, THAT is the only relevant fact.
By the way, we figured out what Obamacorn was (a Monsannto genetically engineered strain), but what is Obaqmacorn?
Cheating at Scrabble.
You obviously didn’t read the dissent, because it is loaded with facts and sources…even Vattel
Scrabble cheaters are the lowest of the low..
I was OFF the BC, over a year ago. You do NOT need a BC to prove that Obama isn’t a natural born citizen. All you need to know is that his father was never a citizen and therefor had no rights whatsoever to pass down American citizenship, much less natural born citizenship American citizenship to Obama!
WOMP WOMP WOMP
We don’t need ANY court cases that TRY to figure out what the founders meant, when we’ve got the words right from the founders themselves:
————————————–
http://www.14thamendment.us/articles/anchor_babies_unconstitutionality.html
By P.A. Madison
Former Research Fellow in Constitutional Studies
February 1, 2005
Fortunately, we have the highest possible authority on record to answer this question of how the term “jurisdiction” was to be interpreted and applied, the author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob M. Howard (MI) to tell us exactly what it means and its intended scope as he introduced it to the United States Senate in 1866:
“Mr. HOWARD: I now move to take up House joint resolution No. 127.
The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the joint resolution (H.R. No. 127) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all “persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.[1]
SOURCE: Congressional Globe
http://www.14thamendment.us/articles/jacob_howard_on_14th_amendment_1866.gif
CONT…
It is clear the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment had no intention of freely giving away American citizenship to just anyone simply because they may have been born on American soil, something our courts have wrongfully assumed. But what exactly did “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” mean to the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment? Again, we are fortunate to have on record the highest authority to tell us, Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment, and the one who inserted the phrase:
[T]he provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.
Trumbull continues, “Can you sue a Navajo Indian in court? Are they in any sense subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? By no means. We make treaties with them, and therefore they are not subject to our jurisdiction. If they were, we wouldn’t make treaties with them…It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens.[2]
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage
Sen. Howard concurs with Trumbull’s construction:
Mr. HOWARD: I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word “jurisdiction,” as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.[3]
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage
[None of KBOA’s links work, so don’t bother clicking on them. Doc.]
No doubt in the Senate as to what the citizenship clause means as further evidenced by Sen. W. Williams:
In one sense, all persons born within the geographical limits of the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in every sense. Take the child of an ambassador. In one sense, that child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, because if that child commits the crime of murder, or commits any other crime against the laws of the country, to a certain extent he is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but not in every respect; and so with these Indians. All persons living within a judicial district may be said, in one sense, to be subject to the jurisdiction of the court in that district, but they are not in every sense subject to the jurisdiction of the court until they are brought, by proper process, within the reach of the power of the court. I understand the words here, ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,’ to mean fully and completely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.[5]
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage
Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:
[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…[6]
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage
Another problem for the court is the fact both Howard and Bingham viewed the citizenship clause as simply “declaratory” of what they regarded “as the law of the land already.” This then requires flights of fantasy to elevate Howard’s express purpose of inserting the Citizenship Clause as simply removing “all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States,” and not to elevate citizenship to a new protected constitutional right. Citizenship is a privilege, not a right as say the right to freedom of religion is, and therefore, can be taken away just as any other privilege can be.
James Madison defined who America seeked to be citizens among us along with some words of wisdom:
When we are considering the advantages that may result from an easy mode of naturalization, we ought also to consider the cautions necessary to guard against abuse. It is no doubt very desirable that we should hold out as many inducements as possible for the worthy part of mankind to come and settle amongst us, and throw their fortunes into a common lot with ours. But why is this desirable? Not merely to swell the catalogue of people. No, sir, it is to increase the wealth and strength of the community; and those who acquire the rights of citizenship, without adding to the strength or wealth of the community are not the people we are in want of.[7] (James Madison on Rule of Naturalization, 1st Congress, Feb. 3, 1790.)
Don’t need any more proof than that!
http://www.14thamendment.us/articles/anchor_babies_unconstitutionality.html
First. P. A. Madison is not a “Constitutional Research Fellow” he is a fellow who does Constitutional research, aka a blogger. Second, neither Mr. Howard nor Mr. Trumbull are founders or a framers, not having been born in 1787, nor is he the author of the section of the 14th Amendment defining who citizens are. Neither is a particularly high authority, and neither actually agrees with your crank views. You are way too deep in your own worldview to read any legal case objectively.
P. A. Madison does not treat his sources honestly as I exposed long ago:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/05/madison-v-madison/
If the Founders knew no difference between a Citizen and a Natural Born Citizen, then WHY would they have had the change from one to another?
NBC in the Constitutional drafts:
June 18th, 1787 – Alexander Hamilton suggests that the requirement be added, as: “No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.” Works of Alexander Hamilton (page 407).
July 25, 1787 (~5 weeks later) – John Jay writes a letter to General Washington (president of the Constitutional Convention): “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.” [the word born is underlined in Jay’s letter which signifies the importance of allegiance from birth.] http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28fr00379%29%29:
September 2nd, 1787 George Washington pens a letter to John Jay. The last line reads: “I thank you for the hints contained in your letter”
http://www.consource.org/index.asp?bid=582&fid=600&documentid=71483
September 4th, 1787 (~6 weeks after Jay’s letter and just 2 days after Washington wrote back to Jay) – The “Natural Born Citizen” requirement is now found in their drafts. Madison’s notes of the Convention
The proposal passed unanimously without debate.
Oh and it doesn’t hurt to remind people that Justice Horace Gray, who gave the final opinion in WKA was appointed by Chester Arthur, YES..the first usurper. I’m SURE that has nothing at all to do with the courts opinion. Just coming from a Usurper president makes the whole case VOID anyways. But there are still MANY things in the Final Opionion that also prove BO BO is ineligible!
The text you cited doesn’t support your view. Madison is talking about naturalization, not about those born in the Country. In fact Madison makes it clear that place of birth is deciding factor in citizenship, not parentage.
Now that is proof of what one influential founder believed, and you are incapable of seeing it, or believing it. It is outside your power to understand. You could spend the rest of your life reading and studying that text and come away none the wiser. You have fallen down a hole from which you are incapable of climbing back out. You are lost, and there is nothing you or anyone else can do about it.
Thanks, but I work 6 days a week and 10 hours a day…I get paid while I post!
Can you sue Barack Obama in court? Yes. Therefore, by your own admission, he is and was subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States. Could you have sued Barack Obama Sr in court? Yes. Therefore, while here, he was subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States.
It was nice of you to make the case against yourself so well.
The vote on WKA was 6-2.
But this proves what I said earlier. You claim to want your day in court, but you wouldn’t accept losing, so why bother.
For the 100th time it does NOT matter WHERE Obama was born. You people try to change the subject because you can’t argue on the merits and the REAL problem. Obama could have been born on the White House steps and it still wouldn’t matter because his father was never a citizen, GOT IT!
So, why would I want to sit around argue about something that is MOOT and wouldn’t change the REAL problem to begin with and that is Obama’s lack of Natural Born Citizenship!
Your problem here is that you haven’t done the background research on how the legal community defined “allegiance”. You’re out of your depth.
Go tell WorldNetDaily.
The mention of foreigners and aliens had the clause “who belong to the families of ambassadors.” This is the class we already mentioned that would not be NBC. The President’s father was not an ambassador or invading army (even though some may consider him an invading army).
Indians, especially at that time, and on tribal land, were therefore not considered under jurisdiction, given their special relationship. However, the President is not a tribal member born on tribal land.
Who then is “jurisdiction” of the United States in terms of the 14th amendment? We could look to the majority opinion in Yick Wo V. Hopkings http://supreme.justia.com/us/118/356/case.html#369 :
If he’s not a natural born citizen, why didn’t he have to go through the naturalization process to become a citizen?
Name one qualified Constitutional expert, one judge, one Congressman or one law professor who is impressed by your “facts.”
You are deeply deluded and cannot see it.
I didn’t put the link there to the Madison guy to say he was the “Authority” on the subject, I put it there because it has all the quotes from the people who wrote the laws, concerning the issue we are talking about, you know…it’s call my SOURCE!
SEE, that’s exactly what I mean. You will jump on the fact that I called them FOUNDERS and try to make the whole ISSUE a LIE, because of that. Even if they are not the founders, they are historical men who EXPLAINED our laws to us. So it doesn’t matter whether they were founders or not, our only concern is the facts they give us for our PROOF!
Who cares about the PA guy, read the damn facts by the people who are explaining your questions! These are in the Gongressional records and debates and can not be disputed!
You know Doc, in my very first post here, quite some time ago, I stated that natural born citizen could only be interpreted as a citizen born naturally; i.e., through natural childbirth. 100,000 or so posts later, nothing I have read has changed my mind.
They can be misunderstood and taken out of context, and that is all you’re doing.
My links work fine for me. If they don’t work, you can find them here at the bottom of the page: http://www.14thamendment.us/articles/anchor_babies_unconstitutionality.html
If you are AFRAID of the facts, then don’t look there!
So you’re stealing time from your employer?
That’s pretty vile and unethical unless they are also paying you to post which means you’re doing this for financial gain.
Which is it?
Thief or paid political operative?
They gave no facts, merely opinions. Nothing they said is law, only the actual text that was voted on.
Do you know what a fact is?
Again, you really haven’t done any research at all. You just keep reciting birther talking points. Bingham had nothing to do with the citizenjship clause at all and was all over the place on the topic. For example:
“Who does not know that every person born within the limits of the Republic is, in the language of the Constitution, a natural-born citizen.” Rep. Bingham, The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 2212 (1869)
Of course, if you research, you would see about a dozen other member of such Congress including the people who drafted the citizenship clause said the president must be native born, born in the United States, that children of aliens were natural born, etc.
“Mr. HOWARD. I have two objections to this amendment. The first is that it proposes to change the existing Constitution in reference to qualifications of President of the United States. If this amendment shall be adopted, then that clause of the Constitution which requires that the President of the United States shall be a native-born citizen of the United States is repealed, and any person who hasbeen naturalized and then become a citizen of the United States will be eligible to the office of President;” The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 1013 (1869)
“Blackstone says ‘The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it.’ The principle here laid down applies to this country as well as to England. It makes a man a subject in England, and a citizen here… The English Law made no distinction on account of race or color in declaring that all persons born within its jurisdiction are natural-born subjects. This law bound the colonies before the revolution, and was not changed afterward. The Constitution of the United States recognizes the division of the people into the two classes named by Blackstone – natural born and naturalized citizens.” Rep. Wilson. Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lest Sess. 1116 (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 the 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).
“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)
“I propose to insert before the word “citizen” the word “natural-born;” so that it will read: “The right of natural-born citizens of the United States to vote and hold office shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” If that amendment is adopted it will not be competent for Congress or for any State to discriminate against any person born in the United States on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude ; but the States may discriminate as against foreign-born persons. Adopt this amendment of mine and the States of California and Oregon would be able to provide that any persons born in China or Japan should not exercise political power in those States, but California or Oregon could not provide that any person born in the United States, no matter what his color might be, sbonld be deprived of the elective franchise or the right to hold office; so that the effect of this amendment would be that it would leave it with the States to declare that persons born in Asia or in Africa should not exercise political power within the several States.” Senator Henderson, The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 938 (1869)
But it does matter where he was born. Here was born in the US, and by a citizen mother and a Kenyan father, who was not an ambassador or invading army. Being born under the jurisdiction of the United States, he is a Natural Born Citizen.
On a practical side, exactly how does a father who was absent for a child’s entire life make the child a foreigner. The President’s father did not raise him nor did he have really anything to do with Obama’s upbringing. Over 85% of Obama’s upbringing was in the United States with a citizen mother and 2 citizen grandparents.
In the Federalist Papers, it refers to, while discussing the senate qualifications, the balance between admitting foreigners to our council and those that are born and educated here. If those are the 2 choices the founders had in mind (and those where wrote the Federalist Papers were founders), that it looks like Obama is “born and educated” in the United States. He is not, nor has ever been a foreigner or alien.
The decision was 6-2 and would have been 7-2 if Field didn’t retire so such is a really silly point and there is nothing in the opinion that says he is ineligible. I suggest you take a class on reading case law before running you mouth. At this point refusing to admit what the decision says is simple dishonesty.
So have you confirmed beyond doubt that Herman Cain and the other Republican challengers are natural born citizens?
How did you confirm they are natural born citizens? Wouldn’t you be a hypocrite if you didn’t?
How much effort? Six days a week?
How much of your employer’s time?
Some time ago, either here or on another blog, I recall Dwight or Phil posting a link to a good and simple explanation of allegiance used by at least some in the military.
WAKE UP!
Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment, and the one who inserted the phrase:
[T]he provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.
More nonsense. Hamilton never showed his that draft to the Convention and was never voted on. It wasn’t in the June 18th draft. Try doing some research before you further embarrass yourself.
Jay’s quote didn’t define “natural born citizen” so why do you cite it? Why do you think a native birth requirement wouldn’t be a strong check against admissions to foreigners? I guess you have not read the debates from the Convention. The only check they discussed when debating eligibility was a native birth requirement. I bet you didn’t even know they debated eligibilty and only discussed place of birth. Why didn’t anyone mention parentage or Vattel?
I’ve never understood xenophobia either.
Of course I have looked at your videos, and it’s the same stuff I’ve been looking at for a couple of years now. There are many pages on this web site devoted to detailed, well-researched and scholarly discussion of this question by folks far more qualified than you or I. Select “citizenship” from the Conspiracies drop down box in the right sidebar of this blog. There are 134 articles in that list.
If you want a video, you might look back two years:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEnaAZrYqQI
Look familiar? I’m sure you’ll agree with it. Perhaps this will demonstrate why your video is just more of the same stuff that people didn’t buy two years ago, and your video isn’t going to convince anyone who isn’t already down the rabbit hole with you. And I debunked that video in September of 2009, long before you “discovered” your new theory of why Obama can’t be President.
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/01/youtube-video-proves-obama-not-natural-born/
You ask “why” don’t I get it. You’re incapable of understanding why I don’t get it. The fact that a normal, honest, intelligent and thoughtful person like me thinks you’re totally off the reservation is something outside your ability to understand, and so you demonize me, label me an Obot or a liar or say that I haven’t looked at your evidence — anything but accepting the truth: no informed, normal person is ever going to agree with you, and certainly no federal judge.
I’ve been reading a scholarly work on Conspiracy Theories, and you’re a classic conspiracy theorist (whether you call your ideas conspiracy theories or not, the mental process is the same). You’re incapable of understanding people like me, and you’re incapable of changing.
You can make YouTube videos until hell freezes over, and it’s not going to change anything, just like I can tell the truth here until hell freezes over and it’s not going to change anything either.
You don’t seem to GET IT. You act as if WKA is a case that states that Obama is a NBC and that I just don’t want to accept it..
It doesn’t, that’s where you are wrong. WKA deals with citizenship, not natural born citizenship and there are MANY quotes in there that ALSO prove Obama is ineligible. I have read the entire thing and you are WRONG. Anyone can read it themselves and see that you are wrong!
You have absolutely no idea what you’re babbling about.
No of course not. I’m saying that your reading of the founders isn’t true.
Dude, I’ve been researching this issue for the last three years nonstop, so don’t tell me that I don’t know what I am talking about. The facts are in front of your face and you deny them. Others will be able to see them though! You, I couldn’t care less, what you believe!
You should actually read the debates of the 39th Congress as clearly you don’t understand what they did. Justice Gray got it exactly right and one of the leading members of such Congress told Gray so. Most members thought blacks were already citizens due to their birth in the United States. For example, Bingham said slaves were natural born citizens under the disability of slavery and when they were freed, they became natural born citizens. Others thought Dred Scott needed to be over-ruled. No one thought they were changing the law of citizenship other than to clarify it was color blind. Since you have not done research, take a look at this link, though I know you won’t actually read it:
http://naturalborncitizenshipresearch.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2010-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-08%3A00&updated-max=2011-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-08%3A00&max-results=3
Why do you think that Madison quote helps you? You do realize that Madison said citizenship in America was determined by place of birth. In the Convention, he didn’t want any restrictions on eligibility at all. Again, you need to do actual research rather than cut and paste.
Apparently the appeals court in Indiana read WKA and they didn’t see that I’m wrong. They said you are wrong.
Would you not agree that the three judges of the Indiana Court of Appeals are BETTER QUALIFIED to understand WKA than you are?
Now how can you answer that? If you say that you are more qualified, you prove that you’re a liar and a crank. If you say that you are less qualified, then why don’t you believe them?
Even Leo Donofrio who dreamed up this two-citizen thing believed that was trying to make “new law” based on first principles. He says WKA was decided wrong, because he understands that it damns his position.
When Mario Apuzzo showed up here ages ago, I told him that he had to overturn Wong. He didn’t believe me at the time, but I think he finally came around.
You don’t understand how to read case law. You do not know what is binding precedent in a case and what is not. The holding of the case was citizenship under the 14th Amendment but the ratio decidendi was that such Amendment was declaratory of the law under the original Constitution and hence required defining the original Constitution. Thus, the definitions under the original Constitution is binding precedent. Since you obviously have no training in law, why would you make posts on this subject, a subject you obviously have no understanding of. Do you go on blogs with doctors and claim you understand medical issues you have no training in? Here, you are simply wrong on the law. Since this has been explained to you, if you keep repeating your nonsense, you are knowingly being dishonest.
It appears that you evaded the question on how the founders viewed allegiance, and your posts prove that you don’t know what you’re talking about. The point, of course is not what I believe, but what the people who make the decisions believe, the Congress, and the Courts, and you’ve gotten nowhere convincing them.
Now if you don’t care what I believe, and by extension, what anyone else who disagrees with you believes, why are you flooding my blog with comments?
Why do you thing Trumbull’s “complete jurisidiction” helps you? And the allegiance quote? Trumbull said one owed allegaince to his place of birth and there was talking about indians who were deemed to owe a foreign allegiance since indian nations were deemed to be foreign nations. Again, try doing some research. Read some Trumbull quotes:
“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).
“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 Constitution, 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.” Sen. Trumbull, Cong. Globe. 1st Session, 42nd Congress, pt. 1, pg. 575 (1872)
“And, as is suggested by a Senator-behind me, even the infant child of a foreigner born in this land is a citizen of the United States long before his father.” Senator Trumbull (reply to President Johnsons’s Veto), William Horatio Barnes, History of the Thirty-ninth Congress of the United States, pg. 254 (1868).
“I understand that under the naturalization laws the children who are born here of parents who have not been naturalized are citizens. Is not the child born in this country of German parents a citizen?” Senator Trumbull, CONG. GLOBE, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 497 (1866).
“I am afraid that we have got very few citizens in some of the counties of good old Pennsylvania if the children born of German parents are not citizens.”‘ Sen. Trumbull, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. 498 (1866)
“Undoubably.” Sen. Trumbull, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. 498 (1866)(in reply to Sen. Cowen’s question whether [the Civil Rights Act] will not have the effect of naturalizing the children of Chinese and Gypsies born in this country).
“It is competent for Congress to declare, under the Constitution of the United States, who are citizens. If there were any question about it, it would be settled by the passage of a law declaring all persons born in the United States to be citizens thereof. That this bill proposes to do.” Senator Trumbull, Cong. Globe, 1st Sess. 39th Congress, pt. 1, p. 475 (1866).
“How is it that every person born in these United States owes allegiance to the Government? Every thing that he is or has, his property and his life, may be taken by the Government of the United States in its defense, or to maintain the honor of the nation. And can it be that our ancestors struggled through a long war and set up this Government, and that the people of our day have struggled through another war, with all its sacrifices and all its desolation, to maintain it, and at last that we have got a Government which is all-powerful to command the obedience of the citizen, but has no power to afford him protection? Is that all that this boasted American citizenship amounts to? Go tell it, sir, to the father whose son was starved at Andersonville; or the widow whose husband was slain at Mission Ridge; or the little boy who leads his sightless father through the streets of your city, made blind by the winds and the sand of the Southern coast; or the thousand other mangled heroes to be seen on every side, that this Government, in defense of which the son and the husband fell, the father lost his eyes, and the others were crippled, had the right to call these persons to its defense, but has no right to protect the survivors or their friends in any right whatever in any of the States. Sir, it can not be. Such is not the meaning of our Constitution. Such is not the meaning of American citizenship. This Government, which would go to war to protect its meanest–I will not say citizen–inhabitant, if you please, in any foreign land, whose rights were unjustly encroached upon, has certainly some power to protect its own citizens in their own country. Allegiance and protection are reciprocal rights.” Senator Trumbull, William Horatio Barnes, History of the Thirty-ninth Congress of the United States, pg. 255 (1868)
Dude if this is all your “research” amounts to is misreading the law, quoting dissenting opinions and not understanding rulings then I’d say it’s time you go back to school and learn actual research techniques. The kind of stuff that shows up in your videos horribly misquotes and takes facts out of context.
Considering her equally paranoid, idiotic and potentially dangerous views on vaccinations I’m going to guess yes.
Probably with a handle like Salkwasapoopyhead or NewWorldOrderMeAround.
Your links are probably tied to a cookie on your computer or some such. Several of these sites don’t actually show the real URL in your address bar. It happens a lot. They probably won’t work for you tomorrow.
But, that P. A. Madison page is something I happened on I think in 2008 or maybe 2009. It’s dated 2005, but he’s changed it some to make it less Obama-friendly. I wrote about another of his articles in a similar vein on May of 2009, over 2 years ago. So “been there, done that.”
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/05/madison-v-madison/
If you are AFRAID of the facts, then don’t look there!
Anyone can say judges are wrong. Birthers think that they can dismiss any case by just asserting the court is wrong. Of course, why would anyone care about people who have no understanding of law saying a court is wrong. No one cares. Our friend here insists all our courts are wrong on standing because she says so. Rather, the law on standing is what the courts say it is, not what our friend, or my 5-year old, imagine it is.
Birthers wanted a case on the merits and when they got it, they say it doesn’t count. A state appeals court is as substantial authority as a federal district court and Ankeny will be cited by any court that addresses the issue. Indeed, it could have been appealed to the Supreme Court. To pretend it doesn’t exist is just denial and to pretend that it didn’t understand that Wong Kim Ark embraced jus soli is willful ignorance.
He SHOULD have and every other person that wasn’t born to TWO American citizens. That is the ONLY other way to prove your FULL allegiance to America, by taking the Oath or by being born to parents NOT oweing allegiance to anyone else, which gives you full allegiance. (Barack Sr did owe allegiance) My vidoe explains it all!
ARREST USURPER OBAMA NOW! BARRY SOETORO IS AN ILLEGAL ALIEN~100% SOURCED W/ GOVT DOCUMENTS~WARNING
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTnJDuVNifQ
I tend to think that some of the birther attorneys never wanted a case on the merits (I could not say with Dr. Taitz). I think many of them really do understand exactly what would happen and instead were happy to trumpet how there actual merits were never on. A quick loss on the merits would not be good to their cause. Instead, they are happy to “use” their flock.
Damn,
I take a couple of hours off and miss all the fun with Trace the Seditious…..8-)
It definitley seems to be a pattern with KBOA that there are prolonged periods of blessed peaceful silence from her insane ramblings followed by a sudden burts of frenetic disorganized cack.
Now, I’m not saying that KBOA has ever partaken in prolonged meth abuse but the pattern seems eerily similar to a long time tweaker….allegedly.
What you fail to understand is that none of us are impressed with your videos. We find your assertions sloppy and incorrect and full of a bunch of nonsense. Good luck with your delusions about “ending the Obama Presidency”.
How’s that working out for you, so far?
If you really had anything to go on, then why aren’t you taking actions in court or with Congress, eh? Those would be the avenues for someone with VALID concerns.
Sorry, but normal folks don’t need to pay attention to delusional paranoid cranks just because they wail loudly and make up useless videos.
But keep wasting your time and rocking back and forth, thinking “any day now”…let’s see how that works out for you. LOL!
Yeah, you just keep sticking your fingers in your ears and closing your eyes and pretending what you want… how’s that working out for you so far?
READ it POPS!
This is where Ankeny got it WRONG!
Taken directly from the Ankeny text (We’ll use Richard’s link to make him feel imporant):
http://www.scribd.com/doc/22488868/ANKENY-v-GOVERNOR-OF-THE-STATE-OF-INDIANA-APPEALS-COURT-OPINION-11120903
“Id. at 662-663, 18 S. Ct. at 462 (quotations and citations omitted). The Court held that Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States “at the time of his birth.”14
Id. at 705, 18 S. Ct. at 478″
“Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 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”
(THE COURT IS DOING THE SAME THING YOU OBOTS ARE DOING, EQUATING A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN TO A CITIZEN WITHOUT ANY PROOF OF WHERE THEY COME TO THEIR ANSWER. JUST SAYING ACCORDING TO WKA THEY ARE NBC’S WHEN WKA NEVER SAYS THAT)
And if you read the footnote on the first quote it says 14 ” We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution’s Article II language is immaterial. For all but forty-four people in our nation’s history (the forty-four Presidents), the dichotomy between who is a natural born citizen and who is a naturalized citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment is irrelevant. The issue addressed in Wong Kim Ark was whether Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States on the basis that he was born in the United States. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 705, 18 S. Ct. at 478. ”
Ok, I will. You don’t know what you’re talking about. That you’ve wasted the past 3 years to be so wrong and with ZERO success in your goals shows an astounding level of incompetence and delusion. I call that a pathetic waste of time and I view such obsessive fixation on being wrong to be a sure sign of compulsive craziness. You might as well spend the next few years researching and ranting about Mole People and Reptilians. Heck, wasting your time on that nonsense would actually be a step up in credibility for you. LOL!
Somewhere today, a new, potent batch of crystal meth was delivered.
She will use it all within a day or two, and then disappear for a while again.
Judges refer to precedents when they have nothing else to go on. We have the Founders writings on what they meant by NBC and what they meant by subject to the jurisdiction thereof, so we don’t need to go looking for precedents!
3 years. Wow. And still no indication that KBOA has any understanding of the most basic tenants of Constitutional law. If KBOA wants any lawyer here to take her seriously, she needs to show she understands what is binding precedent in a case. So far, she shows no such understanding. Next, she needs to show why Wong Kim Ark’s defination of natural born citizenship is not binding authority. So far, she just asserts that it is not so because she says so. If she ever plans on winning a case, she needs to do a whole lot more research.
Don’t think so, I’ve talked about that many many times! The Oath of Allegiance was taken by George Washington and is pretty much exactly the same as it is today:
http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2009/03/historic-oath-allegiance-comes-home-valley-forge-national-historical-park
:
Today’s words:
“I hereby declare, on oath,
that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen;
that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;…”
http://law.justia.com/cfr/title08/8-1.0.1.3.85.html
NBC’S GET THIS ALLEGIANCE PASSED DOWN FROM THEIR “AMERICAN CITIZEN PARENTS”, NATURALIZED CITIZENS GAIN THIS ALLEGIANCE BECAUSE THEY MUST TAKE THIS OATH, TO BECOME A CITIZEN. People born as Obama has admitted himself, a DUAL citizen, are proven NOT full citizens and certainly not Natural Born Citizens!
BEING A US CITIZEN MEANS GIVING FULL ALLEGIANCE TO AMERICA “ALONE”. Dual citizens, according to the founders are NOT US citizens UNTIL they become naturalized and take the Oath of Allegiance!
AND anyone can look at the text of the case and the FACTS and understand why others say they got it wrong. They admit themselves that WKA doesn’t say the Wong is a NBC! That is ot out of context, that is the WHOLE text of the footnote!
Footnote 14 in Ankeny
“We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution’s Article II language is immaterial. For all but forty-four people in our nation’s history (the forty-four Presidents), the dichotomy between who is a natural born citizen and who is a naturalized citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment is irrelevant. The issue addressed in Wong Kim Ark was whether Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States on the basis that he was born in the United States. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 705, 18 S. Ct. at 478. ”
FAIL!!!
That’s funny cause this is exactly what you are doing (Alinksy tactic) You will not look at my facts yet you claim I am wrong!
Too funny!
When they GOT IT? When did we get a case on the merits?
Pretty good actially, I just did The Andrea Shae King show and I’m doing research for Corsi and The Post & Email and now Lakin’s website wants to interview me…
Looking up, I would say, my stuff is finally getting out there!
Prove where I am wrong. Tell me where I got it wrong in my videos! You CAN’T!
I wonder why Vattel is mentioned so much in the Congressional Documents and Debates, weird isn’t it?
Type the word Vattel in the box and hit search:
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/hlawquery.html
Type in the phrase Law of Nations and see how often it’s was quoted…unbelievable!
And you can’t forget Franklin’s letter to Dumas, pretty much all the proof you need there, that Vattel’s “Law of Nations” was used in writing the Founding Documents…AND whre they got their definition of Natural Born Citizen!
The Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States, Volume 2
Franklin to Dumas.*
[Note *: * 5 Sparks’ Dip. Rev. Corr., 185; given in 8 Sparks’ Franklin, 162, and 5 Bigelow’s Franklin, 541, as of Dec. 9, 1775; as to Dumas: see Introduction, § 185; Index, title Dumas.]
Philadelphia, December 19, 1775. (In the process of writing the Declaration of Independence)
“…I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising State make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author. Your manuscript “Idée sur le Gouvernement et la Royauté,” is also well relished, and may, in time, have its effect. I thank you, likewise, for the other smaller pieces which accompanied Vattel.”
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?hlaw:12:./temp/~ammem_Jaal::
You have never exhibited ANY evidence that you know ANYTHING about ANY subject you’ve mentioned here, not just the “birther” issue but politics, economics, socialism, etc.
You’re just about the most ill-informed, ignorant person to have ever posted here.
Good times (in retrospect). Conversing with the Meretricious One was like a breath of fresh air when compared to KBOA.
There is nothing in your citation that touches citizenship so when you say “AND whre they got their definition of Natural Born Citizen!” you do so without support from Franklin.
You certainly cannot make a blanket statement that Vattel was followed in the Constitution since many things Vattel wrote (such as a mandatory state religion) were explicitly rejected by the founders.
Also de Vattel’s book available at the time of the writing of the Constitution did not use the phrase “natural born citizen.”
So you see, upon examination your view is shown to be false, crank and misunderstood.
In the months of debate when the Constitution was written, the notes indicate that de Vattel came up in the discussion one time. I think that is adequate rebuttal. Vattel wasn’t a “nobody” but he wasn’t everything
plus
Vattel’s book in the 1789 edition did not use the word “natural born citizen”
The Jay letter proves conclusively that you are wrong.
At the time Jay wrote that letter there were NO persons in America whose parents were Americans, and old enough to serve in the Army. Therefore the commander in chief must come from persons whose parents were British or other foreign subjects — Jay does not make the exception that the Constitution does.
If we were to accept your definition (and I emphasize that is YOUR definition) then there were no natural born citizens to serve as commander in chief according to Jay. And that is absurd.
Too bad you’ve wasted your 3 years looking up the wrong stuff and being duped into buying into every tabloid trash website nonsense rumour out there. As others have pointed out and which has been covered here endlessly, Vattel only had some influence on INTERNATIONAL LAW. Nothing on NBC clause. That is NOT his book being referenced when the Constitution uses the phrase “Law of Nations”.
Want to know what the meaning of the phrase “Offenses against the Law of Nations”in the Constitution is all about? (HINT: Nothing to do with Vattel at all.)
Here ya go. Learn something for once:
http://www.constitution.org/cmt/law_of_nations.htm
just a sample:
I don’t see where you have cited any founder saying this. You cited come Congressmen (out of context) 80 years later.
In fact Hamilton repudiates you by saying that place of birth is all that matters.
The reason you are so sure is that you imagine that evidence exists and that people say things that they really don’t say.
Sorry, you simply don’t understand the law. So why do you pretend that you do. The case didn’t have to call Wong an NBC for the case to define what an NBC is and for it to be finding precedent. Please explain why its definition of isn’t precedent. You obviously have no idea.
Wow, very impressive. Now put in Blackstone and the common law. Now find one reference to Vattel that discussed natural born citizenship. There are none. There has been a study of the authorities that founders cited. Vattel was 29 and blackstone was 3. Coke and a number of other legal scholars were also way ahead of Vattel. The supreme court has cited Blackstone 4 or 5 times more often that Vattel. The fiction that Vattel was the major influence on the founder is just a birther fiction.
Here is just show a lack of rationale thinking. How does the fact that some member of the Continental Congress read Vattel mean that it was it was used in the founding documents or the basis of NBC? Clearly every founder was taught law reading Coke and Blackstone and cited them much more frequently. How does it follow that the fact that they read Vattel too, a version of Vattel that didn’t include the words “natural born citizen” signify they relied upon Vattel for any particular provision. Any honest person would admit it doesn’t. If you actually did research you would find Vattel was mention once in the convention on the issues of state soveriegnty. Many provisions of the Constitution was contrary to Vattel’s position such as the 1st and 2nd Amendment. Finally, it is simply a fact that much, it not most, of the Constitution is based upon English law and is full of English common law terms that have nothing to do with Vattel. Try actually reading the Constitution.
It is part of your malady that you cannot grasp the concept that people have looked at your facts carefully, and found them unpersuasive.
You said that you’ve done 3 years of research on the definition of “natural born citizen.” Given the material you cite, which is the same stuff everybody else in your birther club cites, I would be led to think that your research consisted mainly of reading other birthers and maybe finding hyperlinks when they omitted them.
When I went looking into this question with no opinion formed, and wrote my first article on it (December 17, 2008) I didn’t have birther blogs or obot blogs to look at. I went to the original sources. I went to Lexis-Nexis and read around 40 cases. I searched archives of colonial laws and early American laws. I looked at the debate record of the Constitutional Convention. I read one very important case, Lynch v Clarke, that was a sweeping survey of the issue, and of course I read Wong. (I didn’t find this one on my own; somebody pointed me to it.) I read everything in context, not from what somebody told me I should find.
I remember reading P. A. Madison’s 2005 posting at the Federalist Blog, reading as it got stranger and stranger towards the end. It was like an April Fools joke that sounds plausible at the beginning but then tries to drag you into something absurd. I learned a lot from him about how people can lie with citations.
I think it is YOU who haven’t read MY arguments, not the other way around. So I tell you what, if you have anything in your arsenal that I haven’t already devoted time to on this site in the 2 1/2 years we’ve been discussing this here, them point that out and I’ll respond. Otherwise, you can just rant to your heart’s content, but don’t expect any more replies. You’re incapable of understanding them; you’re a conspiracy theorist.
But if it will keep you out of trouble for a few minutes, you could read my first NBC article. Obviously I’ve learned a lot in the the 2 1/2 years since then, but maybe you should start over from the beginning.
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2008/12/natural-born-citizen/
Obviously, you need to research what allegiance meant. It meant one owed a duty of obedience and the government owed you protection. Allegiance has always been tied primarily to soil as one cannot compel obedience or really offer protection outside one’s country. Hence, all American authority, and I mean all, maintained that one owed allegiance to his place of birth, not parentage. When one says we didn’t recognized dual allegaince, it means we didn’t recognize foreign claims of allegiance on our citizens. It is simply a fact that many or our native born and naturalized citizens were considere to be citizens by the laws of other nations. The US policy was that we ignored their laws and our citizens only owed allegiance to us. Our state department always protected our native born citizens from claims of foreign allegiance, but not always our naturalized citizens until Congress made the declaration in 1868 that we thereafter protect all our citizens from claims of foreign allegiance. Since any foreign country can make any American a dual citizen at any time, it was never the law that we would let a foreign nation determine who are our citizens. Such concept is really dumb.
Since you haven’t research what allegiance meant:
“It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.” James Madison, The Founders’ Constitution Volume 2, Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2, Document 6 (1789)
“The people are considered as aliens, born in some foreign country, as inhabitants of some neighbouring state in the union, or natural born subjects, born within the state. It is an established maxim, received by all political writers, that every person owes a natural allegiance to the government of that country in which he is born. Allegiance is defined to be a tie, that binds the subjeft to the state, and in consequence of his obedience, he is entitled to protection… The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.” Zephaniah Swift, A system of the laws of the state of Connecticut: in six books, Volumes 1-2 of A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut: In Six Book, pg. 163,167 (1795)
“The doctrine of the common law is that every man born within its jurisdiction is a subject of the sovereign of the country where he is born, and allegiance is not personal to the sovereign in the extent that has been contended for; it is due to him in his political capacity of sovereign of the territory where the person owing the allegiance as born. Kilham v. Ward (1806), 2 Mass. 236, 265.
“This claim of the commonwealth to the allegiance of all persons born within its territories, may subject some persons who, adhering to their former sovereign and residing within his dominions, are recognized by him as his subjects, to great inconvenience, especially in time of war, when two opposing sovereigns may claim their allegiance. But the inconvenience cannot alter the law of the land. If they return to the country of their birth, they will be protected as subjects.” Ainslie v. Martin, 9 Mass. 454, 456, 457 (1813).
“Natural allegiance is the consequence of being born within the jurisdiction of a particular sovereignty : conventional allegiance is implied, when an individual goes within the jurisdiction of a sovereignty, for the purpose of residing a longer or shorter time as suits his convenience : and Conventional allegiance is expressed, when there is a positive contract between the sovereign or subject, made by the intervention of an oath of allegiance.” Willima Charles Jarvis, The Republican: or, a series of essays on the principles and policy of free states, pg. 71 (1820)
“It would, therefore, seem more correct to say, that none except those born in America, or who resided here at the declaration of independence, can be said to owe allegiance to this government.” Trezevant v. Estate of Henry Osborn, 3 Brev. 29 (1812)(Note, J., concurring)
“Allegiance is nothing more than the tie or duty of obedience of a subject to the sovereign under whose protection he is, and allegiance by birth is that which arises from being born within the dominions and under the protection of a particular sovereign. Two things usually concur to create citizenship: first, birth locally within the dominions of the sovereign, and secondly, birth within the protection and obedience, or, in other words, within the allegiance of the sovereign….That the father and mother of the demandant were British born subjects is admitted. If he was born before 4 Juy, 1776, it is as clear that he was born a British subject. If he was born after 4 July, 1776, and before 15 September, 1776, he was born an American citizen, whether his parents were at the time of his birth British subjects or American citizens. Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth.” Justice Story, concurring opinion, Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155,164. (1830)
“The common law principle of allegiance was the law of all the States at the time of the Revolution and at the adoption of the Constitution, and, by that principle, the citizens of the United States are, with the exceptions before mentioned, such only as are either born or made so, born within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States or naturalized by the authority of law, either in one of the States before the Constitution or, since that time, by virtue of an act of the Congress of the United States.” Horace Binney, American Law Register, 2 Amer.Law Reg.193, 203, 204, 206 (February 1854)
“It is a rule of universal law, adopted and maintained among all nations, that they who are born upon the soil are the citizens of the State. They owe allegiance to the state, and are entitled to the protection of the State. Such is the law, whether you put it into this bill or nor. So far as this declaration of the bill is concerned, it is but reiterating an existing and acknowledged principle of law.” Rep. Thayer, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. 1152 (1866)
“As a positive enactment this would hardly seem necessary….What is a citizen but a human being who, by reason of his being born within the jurisdiction of a government, owes allegiance to that government?” Congressman Broomall, Cong. Globe, 1st Sess. 39th Congress, pt. 1, pg. 1262 (1866).
In the great case of Lynch vs. Clarke, it was conclusively shown that in the absence of all constitutional provision or congressional law declaring citizenship by birth, “it must be regulated by some rule of national law coeval with the existence of the Union” it was and is that “all citizens that children born here, are citizens, without any regard to the political condition or allegiance of their parents.” Rep. Lawrence, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 1832 (1866)(House reply to Johnson’s veto)
Let’s pretend that the entire Constitution was based on Vattel (it wasn’t, but let’s pretend). What did Vattel say? “Born of parents who are citizens”. Now consider the following sentence, “Employees may use sick leave to care for parents who are ill”. Does that mean you can only use sick leave if BOTH parents are ill? That you can’t care for only ONE sick parent? Of course not!! You can take sick leave if one parent OR both parents are ill.
So, even Vattel didn’t say BOTH parents had to be citizens. He said AT LEAST ONE parent had to be a citizen. What is the law in Vattel’s home country of Switzerland? ONE parent must be Swiss to transmit citizenship. One, not two.
Even Vattel considers Obama a natural born citiizen . He might not consider Jindal and Rubio ones, but, fortunately for them, this is the United States, not Switzerland. But President Obama has nothing to worry about from Mr. Vattel.
There are have been tens of millions (perhaps hundreds of millions) of people born in the US who are dual citizens through a foreign-born parent or grandparent. In the entire history of the United States, not a single one has ever been naturalized. I challenge you to show me a single case (barring a few whose parents were diplomats).
When are you going to provide evidence that even one founding father defined natural born citizen by Vattel? Just one?
Wait, you claim the convention rejected Hamilton’s definition. Too bad such is not true.
Oh, you gave us a quote by Jay that didn’t define who was a natural born citizen. Gee, powerful stuff.
Wait, you pointed out that Vattel was one of the many legal books the founders relied upon, an edition of Vattel that didn’t include the words “natural born citizen.” That proves what?
Gee, I guess you have provided absolute proof of nothing. If this all you have after 3 years it is pathetic.
Does it also mean that you must have at least two employees requiring sick leave before either can take it? Where did these idjuts learn English?
You have to READ the comments and follow the sources. I can’t help it if you won’t LOOK at them, before saying I have NO evidence!
Others know you are wrong, so I am not worried about your LIES!
The Founders knew French and could translate. DOH!
If you read the Dumas letter, it’s dated 1775,so they were not using the 1789 edition. Plus, they knew how to translate and the translation has been proven as to what it translates to!
FAIL!!!
Which is why they had the Grandfather clause ready to Art 2 Section 1 of the Constitution. Sorry, DOC…but these mean were way to smart for YOU!
I don’t read tabloid stuff, I find my own facts from the foudners writings!
FAIL!!!!
FAILLLL, you people USE Ankeny and you SAY that it says that…READ the footnotes, they clearly say that WKA doesn’t say that!
Because the letter SAYS SO!
“It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising State make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author.”
FAIL!
”
“Natural born citizen” is not in any edition of Vattel until a decade after the Constitution was written. The fact that you don’t know this proves your research is half-assed.
So FAIL to you.
I am still waiting to find out about those Obots who took the photos and videos at the Blue Falcon’s homecoming at BWI. Did I miss it?
Sorry, invoking a time machine doesn’t work. There was no “grandfather clause” when John Jay’s letter was written. Jay didn’t make any such suggestion. It is clear that he considered himself, George Washington, and all those fine founders of our country, born of British fathers, but born in the territory that became the United States, to be natural born citizens.
The exception in the eligibility clause was for patriots like Hamilton who were born outside the US.
You should read history books by qualified writers instead of relying on your own limited comprehension.
Sorry, the footnote simply said the court didn’t pronounce the plaintiff to be natural born. That is true. It doesn’t say the court didn’t define natural born citizen as clearly the Ankeny court points out that it did. Again, just because the court didn’t call Wong natural born doesn’t mean its definition of natural born citizen is not binding precedent. Please explain to me how it is not. You obviously cannot as you don’t understand what is binding precedent in a case. Why do you comment on things you don’t understand?
How does the fact that member of the Continental Congress in 1775 read Vattel mean the framers in 1787 were using it above any other book? Your comments are really getting stupid. Do you really think that Blackstone was not constantly in their hands as all the states adopted the English common law following the revolution. Madison himself said Blackstone was “the book in everyone’s hands.” Show me proof that the framers consulted Vattel on any provision in the Constitution. Just one. You can’t.
Yes, some could speak French. However, “natural born citizen” is not what de Vattel said. A literal translation is “natives or indigenous people”. The original French is “Les Naturels ou indigènes” and you will note that the French word for “citizen” (citoyen) does not appear. Dump that phrase into Google translate and see. Further, someone who reads French would have known that Vattel is saying one citizen parent, not two. It is ambiguity comes in English translation.
But of course your research is far too shallow to get into things like this.
See my article from 2009:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/05/de-vattel-revisited/
Again, you have not done any research. Read the debates from the convention. The grandfather clause was for foreign born persons like Wilson and Hamilton. Can’t you get anything right?
The fact is she has no idea how many framers read the french or how they would translate, such it is a frivolous argument. There are many French-English dictionaries and translations of our Constitution into French from the period and none that I have seen have translated it in such a manner. Hence, there is no proof even one framer thought Vattel even contained such phrase.
I did. On the comments on your videos. and then you deleted the videos and all the comments where I and other people kicked your ass and you just re-posted them pretending nothing had happened. People getting bored with your bullshit and ignoring you does not = winning an argument.
For evidence, see who will be in the white house tomorrow. And you said your video would end that persons presidency…
Blackstone is invisible to KBOA because he is not consistent with her version of the truth.
I was sort of in the area, about a 2-hour drive, and I seriously considered attending the Lakin homecoming, but I decided it wasn’t worth the effort. Of course I wasn’t thinking of identifying birthers, but just documenting the size of the crowd.
It is ironic that the birthers seem angry with everyone over Lakin except themselves. People with no knowledge of law cheered him on and assured him that eligibility would be a defense. We pointed out over and over it would not and he would go to jail. He listened to people like KBOA and went to jail. Did any of them ever apologize to Lakin for helping to lead him astray?
You have a pretty odd definition of “founder” given that most of them hadn’t even been born when the country was founded.
Pop quiz for KBOA:
Charles Pinckney was a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, and he was the last surviving framer in Congress. He spoke about the motivation behind the presidential eligibility clause. Given that this is the only surviving statement from a framer directly on rationale behind the eligibility clause, you certainly should know it if you had done even minimal research.
So tell us what he said, along with your solemn oath that you didn’t cheat and look it up on the Internet.
Yeah, all your own imaginary “facts” are from you misreading / cherry-picking of the founder’s writings and more importantly, completely ignoring every bit of their writings that disproves your nonsense. Your entire worldview and postings is nothing but tabloid pablum.
I noticed how you completely ignored the legal reference I gave you explaining what the meaning of the phrase “Offenses against the Law of Nations”in the Constitution is all about? (HINT: Nothing to do with Vattel at all.)
Here, try again. Learn something for once:
http://www.constitution.org/cmt/law_of_nations.htm
You simply can’t handle the truth.
KBOA:
Please take time from your busy schedule and look over my scholarly video research, which is VERY serious and VERY scholarly. They are entitled:
ARREST USURPER OBAMA NOW! BARRY SOETORO IS AN ILLEGAL ALIEN~100% SOURCED W/ GOVT DOCUMENTS~WARNING WARNING LIZARD PEOPLE UFO AREA 51 NEW WORLD ORDER GHADDAFY LIVES!!1!!11!
KBOA: Why won’t anyone take me and my serious work seriously?
(Personally, I would have thought her uneducated screechings were those of a ten year old if I hadn’t seen her picture and known that she was pushing 60.)
KBOA: I think you should declare victory and move on. You should be using your knowledge, energy, and dedication in a venue that matters in terms of getting Obama out of office. As I’m sure you know. Congressman Goodlatte recently indicated that he is open to hearing more evidence of Obama’s ineligibility. You could certainly educate him more effectively than most birthers/Constitutionalists on the Vattel aspect. Also, as I’m sure you know, Congressman West recently said that he referred LTC Lakin to the lawyer who convinced him to plead guilty to most of his charges. This is the same Congressman West who has not yet asked Obama what passport he used when traveling to Pakistan in the early 80s, something he said he would do during the campaign. You and other birthers/Constitutionalists need to hold Congressman West accountable for his words and actions. And then there’s Donald Trump. You and Theresa Cao–who I understand has had some interactions with Trump–need to work to get him to release a report on what his investigators found in Hawaii regarding Obama’s birth certificate. I know that you believe that where Obama was actually born doesn’t matter, but, as a practical matter, good evidence that he was not born in Hawaii would be more effective than the Vattel argument during any sort of Congressional or judicial action to remove Obama from office.
I think you have become distracted by Obots. You need to get back to the serious business of birfin’.
I missed it. Does she really think the “Law of Nations” in the Constitution refers to Vattel’s book? That really is the dumbest of birther arguments. Yes, one enumerated power of Congress is to punish offenses against a book just in case someone doesn’t pay their over-due fine. Duh.
Yes. When pressed, just about every Birther pulling the Vattel or dual citizen nonsense seems to get around to pointing to the phrase “Offenses against the Law of Nations” in the Constitution as their “proof” of Vattel’s influence. I agree that it is absurd, particularly when it is so easily debunked…but then again, that pretty much sums of Birther arguments in general.
It happens all the time.
It would hardly make sense to do that, since “law of nations” means lots of things besides the English title of a book. However, one could type in Vattel and get a total of 44 hits.
We have:
1. Franklin’s letter to James Bodoin (1776) commending Vattel’s book.
2. Vattel listed among 5 authors writing about individual rights
3. Looks like same citation as 2
4. In a list a books someone wants.
5. Not actually cited in text
6. Same as 4
7. Constitutional convention, cited with Locke on equality of people in society
8. In a list of people cited in 7.
9. Same list of people as above.
10. On a question of international law regarding shipping
11. Something about buying copies of several books including Vattel
12. Franklin letter to Dumas (discussed previousl7)
13. Senate buys a copy of the Law of Nations (and a copy of Blackstone’s Commentaries)
14. Dumas reply. He likes the book.
15. Vattel cited as authority on receiving a diplomat
16. Somebody found some letters stuffed in a copy of Vattel
17. Vattel and one other cited on treaties
18. Somebody cites Vattel on a salary dispute of a public minister or some such
19. Vattel mentioned on international relations
20. Index entry
21. Mention that someone made an edition of Vattel
22. Index entry
23. Vattel listed with Grotius on a question about fisheries
24. Vattel cited on shipping tolls
25. Index entry
26. Vattel cited on one side of a question of treaties
27. Index entry
28. Vattel cited as one of the best writers on the “law of nations” re treaties
29-41. Index entry
42. Vattel and two others inadequate on a question
43. Index entry
44. List on an expense account
So if we take out the expense account entry and the index entries, we are left with a generous 25 mentions of Vattel in the totality of the early government documents and letters.
Pretty piss poor for what you think is such a vitally influential document.
You just can’t believe what you’re finding, can you?
Trumbull, you mean the fellow who said:
TRY reading a little, maybe you’ll learn something. Oh that’s right, you people don’t like FACTS, IF you have to READ them! You only like the pictures with audio!
Well, for those that want the TRUTH, it’s WELL WORTH the read!
“No one played a more important role than Hamilton, in the adoption of the U.S. Constitution, and in fulfilling its Leibnizian mandate. A number of Hamilton’s key initiatives show how Vattel’s {The Law of Nations} shaped Hamilton’s thinking and actions, and thereby shaped the founding of the United States.”
“James Duane, then the mayor of New York City, presided over the proceedings, in an extremely charged atmosphere. He dodged the issue of whether the peace treaty, a national law, invalidated the New York State law. Responding to the second argument, Duane described the importance of the new republic abiding by the law of nations, and explained that the standard for the court would be Vattel.”
READ THE TRUTH HERE: http://east_west_dialogue.tripod.com/vattel/id5.html
Taken directly from Vattel’s 1758 edition of “Le Droit des Gens” translated means
The Law of Nations
“Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parens citoyens”
Translated it says:
“Les (The) naturels (natural), ou (or) indigenes (natives), sont (are) ceux (those) qui (that) sont (are) nes (born) dans (in) le (the) pays (country), de (of) parens (parent) citoyens (citizens)”
“The natural, or natives, are those that are born in the country, of parent citizens”
I have noticed that most of the mention of Vattel has to do with equal sovereignty and various philosophies of international relations, i.e. treaties. I can imagine that Benjamin Franklin might find another resource in this area helpful, as they were now in a position to need to think intentionally about how to deal with other nations and the equal sovereignty of the soon to be become or newly create independent colonies. I also recall some court case favored by birthers that, when the Vattel quote is in its entirety makes an argument for equal sovereignty, not citizenship.
With some interesting timing, I came across a Vattel quote in a recent book I was re-reading, Henry Kissenger’s Diplomacy. In a section discussing European balance of power:
I wonder if this may be part of what was quoted at the Constitutional Convention. It is very close to what they were discussing and the discussion of equal sovereignty would be consistent to Locke (though, possibly not so much on the balance of power part). Poor Vattel, unfortunately, could not be alone on this one either. Prior to the above quote, Kissinger quoted Montesquieu.
The “law of nations” refers to the customary ways in which nations deal with each other, something like (but not exactly) what we would call “international law”. Vattel, according to the textbooks, was very influential on the subject of international law, particularly regarding ambassadors, treaties and what is proper to do in the case of conflict. Vattel’s book is also a book of political philosophy. The founders read the liberal philosophers Vattel, Grotuis, and Locke, as well as Leibnitz and others.
When you look at the citations of Vattel from the early American writing, you find Vattel cited on the subject of international relations.
However, Vattel also had some other ideas that went counter to the American spirit and I documented that in my article:
The wit and wisdom of Emerich de Vattel. http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/05/the-wit-and-wisdom-of-emerich-de-vattel/
So Vattel was influential in some things and not in some other things.
Citizenship is a mater of municipal law, not international law, and in the area of municipal law the founders relied on the laws that were in existence in the colonies at the time of the revolution, the laws their own colonial legislatures had passed. When those sources are examined, they universally describe citizenship and allegiance with place of birth, and not parentage. Americans believed that the English common law was their birthright, and natural born English subjects (the source of the phrase in the Constitution) were those born in the Country (excepting ambassadors and invading armies).
So you can elevate Vattel all you want, but you cannot find any place where he was cited on the subject of the acquisition of citizenship, and you cannot erase the early colonial, and early state laws based solely on place of birth.
This is why the sweeping survey of American citizenship law written by Chancellor Sandford in the case of Lynch v Clarke from 1844 (which even discusses Vattel) concludes that the natural born citizens are those born in the country without regard for the status of their parents and even says that the children of aliens can be President. If you read and understood Lynch, then you might qualify as an expert on citizenship. Here’s the link. Your research is incomplete without it.
http://books.google.com/books?id=ERgvAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA236
He is discussing a peace treaty and its effect on state law. That is international relations and law of nations issues, not citizenship. We have stated before that Vattel was consulted at times on issues of equal sovereignty and treaties. However, he was not the only writer consulted (see above) and not once have you or any birther shown that he was consulted on citizenship, especially NBC.
I recommend, when you try to make point, pull a quote that deals with your actual hypothesis.
I have an old high school civics book here that discusses natural born citizens and there is nothing in reference to de Vattel in it. Sh*t. Vattel is such a unique name it is something I would not have forgotten had it been taught in grade school.
Vattel had no influence in the founding fathers’ writing of the constitution. For the definition of natural born citizen, look to Black’s Law because that is what the courts will do if they’re ever required to define it. The Indiana Court of Appeals already used it to write in their opinion that Obama is a natural born citizen a long with the decision from Wong Kim Ark.
It would be nice to see more birthers taking this argument over the usconstitution.net and the attorneys there. There’s nothing more amusing than reading their conversations with birthers.
Here’s a good example of one:
http://www.usconstitution.net/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=debarch2010;action=display;num=1273091398
But it does not say “de deux parens citoyens”-of two citizen parents. The sentence “Employees may use sick leave to care for parents” does not mean you have to care for both parents-even if you have only 1 parent alive, you can take time off. The sentence “Parents must pick up their children at 4 PM” doesn’t mean both parents have to be there-one parent is enough.
According to Vattel, ONE parent must be a citizen-two is of course OK, but only ONE is required. That is the law in his home country: A child is a Swiss citizen if ONE parent is a Swiss citizen. You don’t need both parents to be Swiss citizens, only ONE.
Let me repeat this so you get it: According to Vattel ONE parent must be a citizen. ONE. ONE. ONE. Not two.
Quote from the birther from the link:
“Just like he is half white, he is also half British. You call that natural/genuine all-American ?”
I call that racism and xenophobic bigotry and thoroughly disgusting.
Natural/genuine all-American? How many “natural/genuine all-Americans” came through Ellis Island?
And then this gem:
“He is no NATURAL BORN CITIZEN and no amount of debate from you and your sort on this forum can convince me otherwise. I will NOT give this matter up. This matter will be pressed until the last day of Civil War II. I just hope I am better armed than you all.”
But I enjoyed this reply to the birther inanities:
“The foundation of American exceptionalism is that America is an IDEA, not a blood ethnicity.”
You have zero understanding of Vattel. It is tiresome to see the same old piece of rubbish rear its head again and again.
I (as a French attorney) have posted here an annotated translation of Vattel’s which Dr. C was kind enough to archive which comprehensively proves that even if one was to argue that Vattel’s was somehow applicable in this case, according to his definition Obama would clearly qualify.
Vattel has been thoroughly misunderstood and misquoted by the birthers; in no way do his writings support their cause.
Look it up, it’s all on this site.
Thanks, Lupin, for speaking up. I was just going to mention your points. Unfortunately, things like Google Translate are doing a great disservice in this area.
I note KBOA and the rest of the muppets never actually add in the piece where Vattel also specifically states that in other countries (England is shown as an example), his VIEWS and OPINION on the subject are null and void and Jus Soli is the rule.
Why could that be…?
Again, there seems to be problems with your reasoning. Why do you think what you cite proves the framers defined NBC by Vattel. Showing he was an influence does not prove de was a bigger influence than Blackstone or that any provision of the Constitution was based upon Vattel. Duh. Can you really not understand this. Now where is your proof that he was more influential than Blackstone. Let’s ask Madison:
“I will refer you to a book which is in every man’s hand–Blackstone’s Commentaries.” James Madison, Debate in Virginia Ratifying Convention18–19 June 1788Elliot 3:499–515
Wait, I thought Vattel was in everyone’s hand. Let ask an actual professor who actually read all the speeches and writing of the founders:
http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?Itemid=259&id=438&option=com_content&task=view
The “Top 40” Authors cited by the Founding Generation (with links to material in the Online Library of Liberty)
St. Paul
Montesquieu
Sir William Blackstone
John Locke
David Hume
Plutarch
Cesare Beccaria
John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon
Delolme
Samuel Pufendorf
Sir Edward Coke
Cicero
Thomas Hobbes
William Robertson
Hugo Grotius
Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Lord Bolingbroke
Francis Bacon
Richard Price
William Shakespeare
Livy
Alexander Pope
John Milton
Tacitus
Plato
Abbe Guillaume Raynal
Abbe Gabriel Mably
Niccolo Machiavelli
Emmerich de Vattel
Blackstone no. 3, Coke, no. 11, Vattel no. 29. Where is your evidence.
And, we are still wating for your evidence that even one provision of the Constitution was based upon Vattel.
Doesn’t say “natural born citizen,” does it. The COnstitution doesn’t says the President must be a natural.
The term “natives” was used repeatedly in the Constitutional Convention and it was used in the sense that Blackstone used it referring solely to place of birth, not the Vattel definition. Pretty conslusive evidence that they were not relying on Vattel, don’t you think.
And as I have mentioned here in the past, I have a textbook on the Constitution which was published for home schoolers by a right-wing think tank in 1985 called “The Making of America: The Substance and Meaning of the Constitution.” It cites Blackstone, but Vattel is nowhere to be found. Regarding Article II, Section 1 it says:
“To be a candidate for President of the United States, a person must be a natural-born citizen, or a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. This provision gave the American people the right to have a President who would always be one of their own native-born fellow citizens.” [emphasis added]
There is nothing in the book which even mentions the citizenship of a President’s parents.
This has been pointed out to KBOA numerous times, but she never addresses it. That is the way of birthers – if you can’t dispute it, pretend that it doesn’t exist.
I’ve linked to this before, but here are about 400 civics books, dictionaries, treatises and textbooks describing Presidential eligibility that KBOA will never read:
http://naturalborncitizenshipresearch.blogspot.com/2010/10/view-of-constitution-of-united-states.html
Yes, and this link remains at the top of the Citizenship links on this site’s bookmarks page. (See menu, top of page.)
Regarding Blackstone, University of South Carolina professor Denis R. Nolan wrote:
Let me add that this point was very specifically the subject of the District Court’s ruling in US v Wong Kim Ark.
http://library.uchastings.edu/library/topical-and-course-research-guides/wkadisplay/0071.f1.0382.pdf
The problem for the birthers is that the District Court rejected this position. They said:
The case, therefore, hinges on what “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the 14th Amendment means. The District court cited Judge Fields in the case of In Re Look Tin Sing and that subject to the jurisdiction is equivalent to subject to our laws.
Actually, no. Franklin’s French was passable. Jefferson had a good knoweldge. Which is why they were the ones sent to France. Washington spoke barely a lick which is how he got himself in such trouble during the French and Indian War. My understanding is that Madison, Hamilton, both Adams and Monroe ranged from non-speaking to competent.
Ah, the good old days. Remember when KBOA went on fogbow and asserted that when Jefferson was a law professor at William and Mary he taught a whole course of Vattel? I actually made a screencap because it was so hilarious.
Jefferson never taught at William and Mary. After graduation he went to apprentice with George Wythe.
Notice how KBOA and the birthers view the “Founders” as some Borg monolith.
kenyanbornobamacorn: The Founders knew French and could translate. DOH!
She is gone now, until the next batch is cooked and delivered. (as per her own admission on Fogbow).
Here is an interesting paper on legal education in the colonial and founding era. No mention of Vattel at all. Mostly Coke and Blackstone. We talk of Blackstone alot and fail to appreciate that Coke, the author of Calvin’s Case, was perhaps equally as influential.
http://www.washburnlaw.edu/wlj/42-4/articles/moline-brian.pdf
“The law books he [Jefferson] recommended included Coke’s Institutes of the Laws of England, Matthew Bacon’s Abridgments, Lord Kame’s Principles of Equity, and
Blackstone’s Commentaries.”
“The principal textbooks of the colonial lawyers were Sir Edward Coke’s Institutes on the Laws of England and Matthew Bacon’s A New Abridgment of the Law. Some students were also exposed to the medieval commentators — Bracton, Glanvil, and St. Germain. Blackstone’s Commentaries, the supreme authority for later generations of lawyers, was not published until 1765-1769.”
“The Commentaries were particularly well received in the American colonies. Close to 2500 copies were purchased in America prior to the Revolution. The first American edition, published by Robert Bell in Philadelphia in 1771-1772, was the first general law book published in the colonies. The names of the initial subscribers constitutes a virtual “who’s who” in colonial political and judicial leadership, including John Adams, John Jay, Governeur Morris, Nathanial Green, James Wilson, and St. George Tucker. Tucker would succeed George Wythe as Professor of Law at the College of William and Mary, and his 1803 edition of Blackstone contained one of the most important commentaries on the new American Constitution. Of the initial subscribers, sixteen would become signatories to the Declaration of Independence; six were delegates to the Constitutional Convention in 1787; another became Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court; and one was elected President. John Marshall’s father
was also one of the original subscribers.”
I find it amazing that you consider yourself enough of an expert on “Vattel” that you can contradict an actual attorney… yet you don’t even know how to spell his name correctly.
I mean seriously, if you cannot even spell an author’s name, how can you possibly claim to have substantive knowledge of his work?
So how do you spell it? [Scratches head]
Go to page 122 and start reading…EXCELLENT AMMO for our side!
YOU FAIL!!!
VATTEL LAW OF NATIONS VATTEL LAW OF NATIONS VATTEL LAW OF NATIONS
You can’t excape the law of nations!
http://lsr.nellco.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1035&context=nyu_plltwp&sei-redir=1#search=%221783%20peace%20law%20nations%20treaty%20OR%20paris%22
Search The Venus 12 U. S. 253 (1814)
for the phrase “law of nations”
http://supreme.justia.com/us/12/253/case.html
That darn PESKY law of nations!
de Vattel, of course.
Without the “de” it is not his name, for the same reason that my name without the “Van” would not be my name
There was a discussion a while back that suggested it was not necessary. So I dropped it.
Search rutgers v. waddington
for the phrase “law of nations” and see how often it is used and how Alexander Hamilton won his cases using VATTEL and the Law of Nations!
Supreme Court cases citing Vattel…
http://supreme.justia.com/search.py?query=vattel&page=1
Vattel is cited, but it never cites him on the acquisition of citizenship.
So you’ve found nothing new, interesting, or applicable.
If all you’re trying to show is that Vattel is cited sometimes about some things, we already know that.
I don’t immediately see the text of the case; however the case is about citizenship but treaties, so you’ve found nothing new, interesting, or applicable.
If all you’re trying to show is that Vattel is cited sometimes about some things, we already know that.
Why are you wasting everybody’s time listing cases that have nothing to do with the question we’re discussing.
Are you so totally unsophisticated to think that you can cite something irrelevant to make an argument? I realize that as long there is some kind of a connection, conspiracy theorists declare it significant, but no normal person thinks that way. Remember, we’re normal people — you have to make normal people’s arguments to convince us.
So why don’t you find a case where the judge endorses Vattel saying (which Vattel doesn’t) that two citizen parents are required. Oh, that’s right. There is no such case.
I looked and didn’t see Vattel or his book mentioned a single time. The lower case phrase “the law of nations” appears, but it is not capitalized and in context it is obviously not the title of a book. The “law of nations” is a topic ABOUT WHICH Vattel wrote and included as PART of the title to his book.
Look, if you don’t know the difference between a subject and a title, I can perhaps see why you have the nutty beliefs you have on this topic. But you don’t know how to read law, and you don’t understand how that law works, so your comments are of no value.
Please don’t dump any more “law of nations” of “vattel” search results because they are worthless. We all have browsers and can use mindless search engines to find character strings. I’m not going to approve any more of this stupidity.
If you find a case where a court approvingly cites Vattel on the subject of citizen parents as a requirement for citizenship, then I will let you post. Otherwise go away.
Now search for Blackstone and see how often the Supreme Court has cited his Commentaries.
KBOA has a rare learning disorder called ablackstonia which makes her unable to read or write the word “blackstone.”
Unfortunately for her and other birthers, the Founders and Framers did not suffer from that affliction.
Now search for Blackstone. By my search the supreme court has cited Blackstone 841 times and Vattel 187. Code has been cited hundreds of more times. What is your point? Do
a search of the “common law” versus the “law of nations” would be even more lopsided. You are simploy wrong to think vattel was more influential than Blackstone.
BUT of COURSE, you don’t want to get into this HERE, because you don’t want the FACTS to be seen. Tuff luck, yur seein em!
You are such a LIAR and a diversionist!
Let me help you…go here (Vattel’s Law of Nations in FRENCH):
http://books.google.com/books?id=i3I-AAAAcAAJ&pg=PA197&lpg=PA197&dq=%22Les+Naturels+ou+indig%C3%A8nes%22+-obama+vattel&source=bl&ots=VNRRmIRwNq&sig=1yDK1i2–ok2a1RAfLUJDgqGawo&hl=en&ei=iXMJTr3JOoTy0gGG86F6&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CDgQ6AEwBQ#v=snippet&q=citoyen%20Les%20Naturels%20ou%20indig%C3%A8nes&f=false
and go to page 197, 2nd paragraph and looky there, CITOYENS and the EXACT phrase that I translated!
I THOUGHT YOU SAID IT DIDN’T APPEAR?????
Google Translate hahaha what a JOKE!
Go to Google Translate and paste in “I road over a pothole and it put a dent in my wheel”
You get this: “J’ai route sur un nid de poule et il fait un trou dans ma roue”
Paste that back into the box and translate that from french to English and you get
“I road on a pothole and blew a hole in my wheel”
Don’t trust Google translate for phrases/sentences. Try translating EACH word and you’ll get it!
[Your lack of comprehension of the English language (and the French language) is appalling. I said “The original French is ‘Les Naturels ou indigènes‘ and you will note that the French word for ‘citizen’ (citoyen) does not appear.” Anyone, not an idiot, would know that I wasn’t saying that it didn’t appear anywhere in Vattel’s book, but that it didn’t appear in that phrase where I said it didn’t appear. In the part that some are trying to translate “natural born citizen” it does not appear as I said. If you translate each word, as you did, you don’t get “natural born citizen.” Your comment makes no sense.
Vattel wasn’t just CITED, he was praised and called the highest authority many many times by the founders…LOOK it up!
What is your point? The law of nations is cited sometimes? What does this prove. Where is your evidence that the framers meant to define “natural born citizen” by the law of nations? You clearly have none. We have shown you scholarship that Blackstone and Coke were cited by the founders much more often than Vattel or any writer on the law of nations. Where is your authority to the contrary. It is simply a fact that the Supreme Court has cited Blackstone far more often than Vattel. It is a fact that the father of the Constitution, when actually debating the Constitution, said Blackstone was the book in everyone’s hand. You will never find authority say Vattel was more influential than Blackstone or Coke because he was not. And, even if he was, it doesn’t prove any provision of the Constitution was based upon him. For example, Vattel didn’t believe in the right to bear arms. There is no dispute that the language of the 2nd Amendment comes from the English bill of rights. How can that be if the framers was Vattel’s biggest fans.
Hey, looky here…
The Resolution of 1783 granted the states the right to punish against infractions of the law of nations. So, that means that we don’t even NEED Congress, we can do it through our states. Beings that this may have only applied to the 13 Colonies that turned states with the Peace Treaty, it’s a good thing I live in a colony state!
This is a great find! I read about the law of nations being woven into the Constitution with the Treaty of Peace, but never saw it actually written into law!
schwing!
[KBOA continues to confuse “the law of nations” as a topic of study and “The Law of Nations” as the partial title a book about that topic (and by the way, not the only contemporary book including that phrase in its title). This fundamental, and obvious error renders her comment complete and utter nonsense. Doc.]
I have been reading the comments by KBOA and her ilk for some time now.
I have learned two things:
– How Bachmann, Leo Berman and Sarah Palin got elected.
– H. L. Mencken: Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.
oops the link
These Library of Congress links never work for some reason
Go here http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/hlawquery.html type law of nations in the box and change the title to “journals of the continental congress” and click on the date of November 23, 1783!
Now, why on Earth would I want some crap from 1985, that is trying to interpret what the Founders intended, when I have the founders words coming directly from them?
DOH! You people make no sense!
It says the NATURAL are those that are BORN in the country of citizen parents…
1 + 1 = 2, not hard to figure out!
Heeey, Mrs Pelosi, nice to see ya here! NOT
I don’t recall saying Jefferson TAUGHT the law of nations, however I do remember saying that Jefferson had part in the reorganization and he instituted Vattel’s Law of Nations!
Taken straight from the william & Mary website:
II. The Revolution to the Civil War
The College of William and Mary claims among its priorities to have been the first college in the nation to teach political economy. This development was an outgrowth of a reorganization of the College in 1779 instigated by Thomas Jefferson, who as Governor was appointed to the Board of Visitors of the College. The reorganization entailed a secularization of the curriculum. The grammar school, which primarily taught classical languages, and the chairs of divinity and oriental languages were eliminated and three new chairs were created: law and police ( administration); anatomy, medicine, and chemistry; and modern languages. In addition, the laws of nature and of nations as well as fine arts were added to the duties of the chair of moral philosophy, and natural history and biology were added to the duties of the chair of natural philosophy and mathematics.[2] Robert Andrews held the chair of moral philosophy at this time, but it is not known whether he lectured on political economy within the context of moral philosophy or the law of nations.[3]
http://www.wm.edu/as/economics/about/history/index.php
Misha, the full quote, as applied to KBOA, is actually:
– H. L. Mencken: Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public; however, some have empty pockets from repeatedly filling pipes with shards.
That is also an EXCELLENT point which I regularly forget to bring up.
You have demonstrate a zillion times that you do NOT know how to read your own sources, even less interpret them correctly.
And as I pointed out, you are always wrong about a myriad other things as well, which have nothing to do with the eligibility issue, such as your lunatic notion of what “socialism” is and isn’t.
You are truly one of the most ignorant people I’ve ever seen. I wonder how you go about in real life.
Lupin,
I’ve mislaid my original link to that full quote, do you have it mon ami?
KBOA apparently tried to prove you correct as she neglected to read page 122 and the footnote, 85:
oops.
Still waiting …
KBOA continues to confuse “the law of nations” as a topic of study and “The Law of Nations” as the partial title a book about that topic (and by the way, not the only contemporary book including that phrase in its title). This fundamental, and obvious error renders much of her comments complete and utter nonsense.
How does one argue with someone who lacks the intelligence to realize that not every published reference of the phrase “law of nations” refers to de Vattel, and every time de Vattel is cited for any reason whatsoever, is not evidence that his definition of citizenship was adopted by the founders?
How difficult is it to grasp the notion that the only evidence that the founders relied on de Vattel for defining citizenship, would be something actually citing de Vattel on the subject of citizenship?
Reminds me of my favorite part of one of her “videos” where she quotes from one of Mario’s article which overstated the importance of Vattel in regards to citizenship issues…
(hit pause)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1DHZmeMXyE&feature=player_detailpage#t=720s
It makes me wonder who she thinks wrote the books “state law” and “federal law”.
This is a question that I think about often. At least for me, life is pretty complicated and challenging. On the other hand, some folks get by, seemingly with a lot less effort and with a lot less competence. I think there’s a lesson for me in there somewhere.
I am still intrigued by KBOA’s comments that she gets paid while she posts. I don’t take that to mean that some birther cabal is funding her and I wonder just what kind of a job one can do while posting on the Internet (presuming she’s not defrauding her employer by pretending to work when she’s not). Maybe she is a keyboard tester, and that explains the ALL CAPS.
I cannot even fathom why you think this proves anything. So, they wanted to have the power to punish crimes against international law. So? How is this relevant to citizenship. Madison wanted such provision in the Constitution so Congress could prohibit people from breaking international law and getting us into a war. There seems to be a reasoning problem here. The occational citation the the body of law call the “law of nations” in contexts unrelated to citizenship does not help you argument. Duh.
Again, what is your point. The supreme court has sometimes cites Vattel on cases of international law like Prize cases such as The Venus. It didn’t say he was the highest authority nor did the founders. Where is your evidence that Vattel and the law of nations were cited more or more influential that Blackstone, Coke and the common law. we have provided evidence to the contrary, you pick a ciation here and there and make no case that he was more influential. Why has the Supreme Court cited Blackstone so many more times than vattel? Why did the founders cite Blackstone and Coke so many more times? You obviously can’t answer these questions.
KBOC:
Thank you for providing such a telling example of your remarkable ability to misunderstand written English. By juxtaposing a straightforward and unambiguous citation from the William and Mary website with your mistaken explanation of what you think the citation means, you have provided a clear example of of how frighteningly inept you are at carrying out even elementary research.
Sorry, you forgot to translate naturel (not NATURAL) into English. The problem, though, is not “natural” the problem is “citizen”.
Perhaps we should address KBOA as Ms Duh.
Oh, so you are speculating that some framers might have been reading the original French, you are speculating that they may have translated the French to include the word “natural” and are speculating that they would equate the word “natural” with “natural born citizen.” Wow, great argument. In other words, you admit the framers neither had or translated an edition of Vattel to include the phrase “natural born citizen” and you has no evidence that even a single framer defined such term by Vattel. when are you going to present some evidence that actually supports your theory?
I’m going with Occam’s Razor. It’s been quite reliable.
Yes, it’s terrifying to consider how many natural-born citizens seem to be natural-born dunces. Of course, like you, I’m just a left-wing elitist; although you’re worse, living on the East Coast and all.
Yes, and because everyone in history is wrong except her because she says so. All those dumb courts and scholars out there who for centuries couldn’t understand that since the founders read Vattel and occationally cited him in contexts unrelated to citizenship means that they must have looked to him on citizenship. It was just a secret they didn’t tell anyone. To really confuse everyone, they used a term that was conflated with an English common law term throughout the early republic and a term that didn’t appear at all in their editions of Vattel. And they fooled everyone as there is not a single scholar or court that defined “natural born citizen” by Vattel prior to the Civil War.
Did you happen to notice that the article never, not once, says Vattel?
In fact, as Northland10 points out, the article disproves your reliance on Vattel over Blackstone. Who did Hamilton cite to prove that the “law of nations” was adopted in the United States? NOT Vattel, but Coke, Blackstone and Mansfield (footnote 85).
I don’t, but it’s in the same article just following the infamous paragraph that gets misused by the birthers all the time.
I’ve resisted making myself a Vattel FAQ because I just don’t want to spend that much time I don’t have on it.
Just dealing with banks, credit cards, the DMV, etc. does seem to require a modicum of intelligence.
I just don’t know how these people cope. They must be very grateful for velcro every morning.
Of course, what you cite doesn’t support you. Do you ever get anything right? The website talks of Vattel being instituted after 1812, long after the framers were educated. And they were not talking about the law school. The first law professor was framer George Wythe. His course was based upon Blackstone which you could find in a 2 second search.
“Among his most distinguished pupils were John Marshall, Spencer Roane, John Breckenridge, Thomas Jefferson, James Monroe, Henry Clay and Edmond Randolph. (Some of the aforementioned studied under Wythe before his appointment to professorship at William and Mary.) Wythe’s course which was both-thorough and practical was based on Blackstone as a textbook and lectures comparing English and Virginia law.”
http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3297&context=wmlr&sei-redir=1#search=%22william%20mary%20first%20american%20law%20school%20robert%20hughes%22
Keep trying, you may get something right yet.
Direct quote from George Washington proving that you are full of it! Excellent ammo for our side!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0
Um I think this says exactly the opposite of what you mean. If you read it, it says that a new guy took over in 1814 and started teaching more based on Vattel instead of what they had been doing earlier which is basing their curriculum on Rousseau. Which we have been telling birthers for close to 4 years now. A “political economy” curriculum based on Rousseau would be nothing like one based on Vattel.
I can give you some links, but I need to ascertain just how fluent your French is.
Oh, and Smith’s tenure (the one where they used Vattel – 1814-1826) was a disaster and they went back to using folks like Adam Smith and Rousseau in their teaching.
That is the danger of quote mining. You sometimes completely lose the context.
Interesting……
We’ve prevailed in every singlecourt action thus far (and you’ve lost).
No recognized and credentialed Constitutional expert agrees with you
Congress refuses to begin impeachment, or even to pay you any attention at all.
The majority of the general public dismisses you as a fringe of kooks.
and…..
Obama is still President
How, exactly, does that equate to a failure on our part again?
Speaking for KOBA:
“Because I say so. Duh!”
What’s worse is that I’m one of those Jewish New York liberals you read about, and live in Chinatown. The primary language spoken here is Mandarin. Know who else spoke Mandarin? Mao. Coincidence?
The whole discussion is flat out ridiculous:
1. Even if Vattel wrote the entire Constitution word for word, that doesn’t help the birthers at all, because he only says at least one parent should be a citizen (the law in his home country of Switzerland). Vattel never said two parents. Never. i dare you to show me where he said two. Vattel pronounced Obama eligiible.
2. What the Founders meant by natural born citizen is irrelevant. Dead guys don’t vote. The only ones who have any say are living voters.
I would just like to note that if KBOA and her ilk had a debate with my Siamese cat, the cat would win.
This is not intended to be an insult to my Afghan hound – you know, one of those breeds kept by the cognoscenti. It is also not intended to be an insult to the canine community in general. It is just a scientific fact that a domestic cat’s central nervous system is 99% of a human’s.
Of course, conservatives don’t believe in science. Just ask Michele Bachmann, who has received $250K in farm subsidies from the socialists.
I’m not sure that I agree. The basic structures are similar in all mammals, but at the DNA level, the identiity between cat and human is around 90%.
Not MY cat. I’ll have you know my cat is a feline Rhodes scholar. Take that, KBOA.
As I mentioned earlier, it has been shown that a Corgi can do calculus (google corgi calculus), a feat which I have doubts can be performed by the likes of Sister Sarah or Bachmann
I have a question for KBOA:
Why do we park on a driveway, and drive on a parkway?
Poor puss cats…. 8-(
Book 1, § 214.
http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01.htm
Hey, lay off Daley.
Thank you Doc, I just had to beat someone with this one and it was most useful…. 😎
Note that parents has an “s”. Never underestimate the precedent-setting prowess of the letter “s”. Of course, when Vattel wrote that he accidentally left out the “t”, poor ignorant francophone that he was. But never mind, ’cause “s” rules!
Good link, Doc. I’ve got a PDF facsimile of the original French edition, but I’d been looking for a downloadable English text.
However, I note your link is to the text of the 19th century Chitty translation which was, IIRC, based on the 1797 updated edition of Droits des Gen. I’m trying to track down a text-searchable English edition that would have been contemporary with the Founding Fathers. It’d be nice to read what the framers (excepting dear ol’ Ben, who didn’t need no steenkin’ English transation) likely had in front of them.
–Nathanael
Because Usurper-in-Chief Obama is a bleepin’ commie socialist trying to tear down two and a half centuries of democracy.
I wouldn’t normally answer on KBOA’s behalf, but I think some of those words were too big for her.
–Nathanael
a-HA! I’d always said the beginning of the end of American education was the day they stopped teaching Latin in school, but I never realized that could be back-dated all the way to the founding fathers. Wow, who knew?
–Nathanael
As far as I know, there is none online. All I have is an image of Section 212 from the 1787 American Edition.
Google seems to be scanning books like mad and things that were unavailable two years ago are coming online, such as this copy of the 1797 edition, reportedly the first to say “natural born citizen”
As I pointed out above, “s” doesn’t mean it must be more than one; It means one or more:
“Employees may use sick leave to care for parents” does not mean you have to care for both parents-even if you have only 1 parent alive, you can take time off. The sentence “Parents must pick up their children at 4 PM” doesn’t mean both parents have to be there-one parent is enough.
The Vattelist definition is one or more citizen parents (note the “s”)
To quote Vattel himself, “Barack Obama is a natural born citizen, because he was born in the country to one or more citizen parents.”
kenyanbornobamacorn: Let me help you…go here (Vattel’s Law of Nations in FRENCH): … Try translating EACH word and you’ll get it!
Wow, this is really getting annoying.
KBOA, I minored in French at university, and spent my junior year abroad in Paris. I have a masters in linguistics and ten years’ experience as an English educator, and I’m here to say in no unequivocal terms your comprehension of both languages is abysmal. You wanna talk about what Vattel’s French does or does not say, I’ll be more than happy to help you out.
You’re welcome.
Shh!!! Keep it down. That’s supposed to be a secret!
Of course, “s” could just as well mean three as two, so perhaps Vattel was suggesting reproductive freak of nature as a prereq.
Of course, it also means Jesus couldn’t be an American, because God wasn’t… oh, wait, God IS an American.
I have an entirely new perspective on KBOA after I heard her mangle the English language on Andrea Shaking’s show. last week as she trotted out her laughable “research” on the Obots. She has a long way to go to understand her native language before even thinking about French.