Main Menu

Denying the antecedent

Denying the antecedent, sometimes also called inverse error, is a formal fallacy, committed by reasoning in the form:

If P, then Q.
Not P.
Therefore, not Q.

Informally, this means that arguments of this form do not give good reason to establish their conclusions, even if their premises are true.

Wikipedia

Here’s an example:

If someone owned 1,000,000 shares of IBM, then they would be rich!
Bill Gates does not own 1,000,000 shares of IBM.
Therefore, Bill Gates is not rich.

I bring this up because I see this fallacy quite often. It’s the foundation for much of the argument that Barack Obama is not eligible to be President because his father was not a US Citizen.

In the case of the anti-Obama argument “P” in the formal argument is “a person born in the United States to two US Citizen parents” and “Q” is “natural born citizen.”

Two birther examples of the fallacy include their reading of the material supporting  Senate Resolution 511 on John McCain and the Supreme Court decision in Minor v Happersett. Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee (on the subject of McCain’s eligibility) and made this statement that fits nicely in the template for the first premise:

My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen.

Obama opponents take this statement, or similar ones, and point out (correctly) that one of Barack Obama’s parents was not American. The mistake is drawing the conclusion that he is himself not a natural born American citizen–”that’s the formal fallacy.

Similarly, the decision in Minor v Happersett:

In that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United states, as much so before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution as since.

Is turned from a conditional statement to a definition through the same fallacy.

Print Friendly

, ,

58 Responses to Denying the antecedent

  1. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 9, 2011 at 11:09 pm #

    It’s hard for me to tell the difference between an up swell of public opinion and a handful of folks saying something in a lot of places on the Internet.

    It does seem that comments on public web sites, and articles on conservative web sites are putting more emphasis on the crank legal theory of a parental requirement for natural born citizenship than they do on where the President was born. I can’t tell if the idea is catching on, or we’re just looking at AstroTurfing.

    I am left with my jaw hanging every time I read a long grammatically correct by someone who seems to think that everybody knows that US Presidents always had to have American parents — everybody from the country’s founders to every member of Congress, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

  2. avatar
    G October 9, 2011 at 11:49 pm #

    Well, we know by name & known IDs that the same hard-core Birther proponents consistently spend a lot of time posting the same birther blather everywhere they can on the internet, day in and day out. Doesn’t matter if the info is debunked or not…they wait only a short while and then recycle it like zombies… or simply ignore the debunking outright and just ramp up their repeating of the same spew over and over and over again.

    WND as one of their largest media pimp outfits garnishes way more attention that it deserves and is notorious in their drum beat of repeating their false propaganda.

    That is why I’ve become so convinced that most of the birther trolls that remain are nothing but intentional misinformation artists. They know they are full of sh*t and just don’t care.

    There merely operate on the theory of intentional brainwashing – repeat a lie long enough and more gullible people will start to fall for it.

    Yes, an old and time warn tactic, but they have an audience of receptive and gullible people that have shown they can be brainwashed before and are desperate to cling to believing the worst things, no matter how absurd, just so they can feed their own confirmation bias.

    For some of these folks, it never was about truth or even their own belief. They just liked slinging poo and slandering others as long as they feel they can get away with it, without much consequence for their actions.

    If you don’t work hard to constantly monitory and eradicate a particular disease, it will inevitably spread again, even if a decent amount of herd immunity is in play.

    That is why it is so important to remain vigilant against nonsense and to counter it whenever it crops up.

    Of course, as we head into the next election, we’re going to see a “flare up” of this nonsense no matter what people believe. Those with a desire to prevent Obama from winning will grasp at any low blow straws and rumours they can use to further that cause, whether debunked or not.

    Dr. Conspiracy: I can’t tell if the idea is catching on, or we’re just looking at AstroTurfing.

  3. avatar
    jayHG October 10, 2011 at 12:54 am #

    G:
    Well, we know by name & known IDs that the same hard-core Birther proponents consistently spend a lot of time posting the same birther blather everywhere they can on the internet, day in and day out.Doesn’t matter if the info is debunked or not…they wait only a short while and then recycle it like zombies… or simply ignore the debunking outright and just ramp up their repeating of the same spew over and over and over again.

    WND as one of their largest media pimp outfits garnishes way more attention that it deserves and is notorious in their drum beat of repeating their false propaganda.

    That is why I’ve become so convinced that most of the birther trolls that remain are nothing but intentional misinformation artists.They know they are full of sh*t and just don’t care.

    There merely operate on the theory of intentional brainwashing – repeat a lie long enough and more gullible people will start to fall for it.

    Yes, an old and time warn tactic, but they have an audience of receptive and gullible people that have shown they can be brainwashed before and are desperate to cling to believing the worst things, no matter how absurd, just so they can feed their own confirmation bias.

    For some of these folks, it never was about truth or even their own belief.They just liked slinging poo and slandering others as long as they feel they can get away with it, without much consequence for their actions.

    If you don’t work hard to constantly monitory and eradicate a particular disease, it will inevitably spread again, even if a decent amount of herd immunity is in play.

    That is why it is so important to remain vigilant against nonsense and to counter it whenever it crops up.

    Of course, as we head into the next election, we’re going to see a “flare up” of this nonsense no matter what people believe.Those with a desire to prevent Obama from winning will grasp at any low blow straws and rumours they can use to further that cause, whether debunked or not.

    Actually, G, I believe it just so much racism at this point. Birthers think “I don’t want that scary black man in MY White House……..I just can’t stand it.”

    Nothing else makes sense because they are simply unmoved by any debunking, which is a sign of a bunch of demented racists. They will deny that race has anything to do with their dislike of President Obama, of course. They just want to know about him and THEY DON’T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT HIM. Never mind that they know more about this president than any of the 43 before him re: where he was born, proof of his birth, etc.

    This is why I think that as pathetic and common as it is, racism is the answer. How sad.

  4. avatar
    Head Researcher October 10, 2011 at 2:04 am #

    I really hate to give you Obots advice about stuff, because you usually don’t listen and are most always very mean to me, but since this is directed at the Vattle Birthers, I have a obligation, and I will try. You are missing the point above, because if you do things the way you have it listed, with a Vattle Birther, it will just flop, and here is what you and them will get:

    IF a person is born in the United States to two US Citizen parents, THEN the person is a “natural born citizen.”

    Emerich D. Vattel is NOT a person born in the United States to two US Citizen parents,

    THEREFORE, Emerich D. Vattell is not a natural born citizen.

    You are going to say, “Lookit at how logically screwed up this statement is!!!” The Vattle Birthers are going to say, “Duh??? It looks OK to us. You Obots must be crazy, because Vattel is really not a NBC.” And your whole example just gets laughed at.

    Because I figured out if P and Q equaled each other, and the word “only” was in there then doing this would be a pretty hard thing to explain why it wasn’t logical, especially when “logical” and “true” are not the same thing. I almost didn’t say anything to you, because I did not want to spend 19 hours debating the point with Obots, but lucky for both of us, this was already in wiki:

    “It is possible that an argument that denies the antecedent could be valid, if the argument instantiates some other valid form. For example, if the claims P and Q express the same proposition, then the argument would be trivially valid, as it would beg the question. In everyday discourse, however, such cases are rare, typically only occurring when the “if-then” premise is actually an “if and only if” claim (i.e., a biconditional). For example:

    If I am President of the United States, then I can veto Congress.
    I am not President.
    Therefore, I cannot veto Congress. ”

    How come this was obvious to me, who all you Obots say is just totally stupid or something most of the time, without any regards to me being a human being who has feelings and stuff, is (1.) I was in debate in school and was very good and had to learn stuff like this. and (2). I did this same thing a day or two ago in a argument with some Vattle Birthers. BUT I put words into my example to make sure that what came out VERBALLY (in words) was the same thing that came out LOGICALLY (in the form of p’s and q’s or whatever Logic is.).

    One thing I would always do if I was you, is check out to make sure what you say in math or logic or whatever p’s and q’s are, is to go the extra step and put the words in you give as a example to make sure it comes out the same way. Or else the Vattle Birthers will clobber you WITH ARGUMENTS.

    Here is how I did mine, like Friday or Thursday maybe??? and YES, I thought about it and tried to make it something like “mammals” that had more than just one thing in it to be better to argue and to show the fallaciousness of the Vattle birthers.:
    =============
    The Case of Minor Rabbit Versus Happersett (1875)

    The Court: At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all rabbits were mammals, and their children were mammals, too. These were mammals, or common sense mammals, as distinguished from critters like platypuses or weird animals. Some authorities go further and include as mammals, platypuses. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.

    Vattle Birthers: See!!! This PROVES platypuses are NOT mammals!!!

    Wong Kim Platypus versus U.S.(1898)

    The Court: History says if it has hair, and is warm-blooded, then it’s a common sense mammal. The U.S Constitution says there are only two kinds of critters—mammals and icky fishy/reptile/buggy/birdy ones. Wong Kim Platypus has hair and is warm-blooded, and therefore is a mammal.

    Vattle Birthers: But the court didn’t say Wong Kim Platypus was a common sense mammal!!! There is a difference between common-sense mammals and mammals!! The 1875 case says only rabbits are common sense mammals, not platypuses!!! And what about Emerich de Vattel??? He says that in FRANCE, platypuses are not common sense mammals!!!

    Vattle Birthers versus Indiana 2009

    The Court: The Vattel Birthers said there is a difference between mammals and common sense mammals. We do not agree. There are only two kinds of critters—mammals and icky fishy/reptile/buggy/birdy ones. Based on Wong Kim Platypus, we rule that Barack Platypus is a common sense mammal. Plus, who cares what France says.

    The Vattle Birthers: But that 1875 case is PRECEDENT that ONLY rabbits are common sense mammals!!!

    Rational People: No it didn’t say that. You Vattle Birthers can’t read. It didn’t rule one way or the other on platypuses. It didn’t have to. Minor Rabbit, was a rabbit, not a platypus. The law is, if it has hair and is warm blooded, its a common sense mammal. Barack Platypus is stupid, but he has hair and is warm-blooded. He is a common sense mammal. And so is Marco Platypus!!! And so is Bobby Platypus in Louisiana.
    ============
    Sooo, I won’t bother you Obots anymore for a while unless it is to announce a important new Internet Article at the Think Tank, but there is only one really big one I am working on right now, which is “2012 – The Year of The Birther !!!- (A White Paper)”, and it will probably come out tomorrow but I might back date it to yesterday because I had such a KEWL Easter Egg in the Pseudo Lawyer one that I want to keep it on top for a while..

    The Head Researcher, as Agent

  5. avatar
    Daniel October 10, 2011 at 2:21 am #

    It’s Emerich de Vattel, not Emerich D. Vattel.

    The rest of your argument is just as mistaken.

  6. avatar
    Lupin October 10, 2011 at 6:16 am #

    jayHG: Actually, G, I believe it just so much racism at this point. Birthers think “I don’t want that scary black man in MY White House……..I just can’t stand it.”

    Totally agree with that.

  7. avatar
    Lupin October 10, 2011 at 6:20 am #

    Head Researcher: Plus, who cares what France says.

    I couldn’t agree more, although in this case it would be more correct to say “who cares what SWITZERLAND says.”

    As established here ad nauseam Vattel didn’t say what the birthers want him to have said, and even if he had (which he didn’t), his relevance to the current situation is spurious at best.

  8. avatar
    Pastor Charmley October 10, 2011 at 7:43 am #

    As I see it the problem is that too much is being read into certain words and phrases. The words, “My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen,” are being made to bear the further meaning “and if you have only one American parent you are not a natural-born American citizen, something that was not at issue.

    Similarly, “In that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United states, as much so before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution as since” does not address the question of those born of only one citizen parent. Indeed it could be argued that since “women’ is in the plural and does not refer to sisters, “parents” is plural in order to agree with it (so two women born to different parents, each with only one citizen parent, have between them ‘citizen parents’).

    One must always be careful not to push legal precedents beyond the questions they were actually addressing.

  9. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 10, 2011 at 8:20 am #

    It’s interesting that you say that because one of the things that prompted my comment was a pair of articles appearing at the Right Side News:

    http://www.rightsidenews.com/2011100814670/editorial/us-opinion-and-editorial/debate-over-obama-not-natural-born-period.html
    http://www.rightsidenews.com/2011100814671/editorial/us-opinion-and-editorial/debate-is-over-hes-not-natural-born-part-ii.html

    These articles argue for the natural born parent theory, although they fumble even worse than the logical fallacy described in my article. At the end of the article the author Jim Williams is described:

    Williams is a business man, a husband, a father, and a writer. A no nonsense commentator on American politics, American history, and American philosophy. He is published nationwide and in many countries around the world. He is also a Founder of The United States Patriots Union and a staunch conservative actively engaged in returning the power to the right people in America.[emphasis mine]

    I get the feeling that the “right people” are white.

    jayHG: Actually, G, I believe it just so much racism at this point. Birthers think “I don’t want that scary black man in MY White House……..I just can’t stand it.

  10. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 10, 2011 at 8:33 am #

    Since I have found birthers impervious to argument of any form, I really am not directing my articles to them. I am directing them to normal people. Incorporating your suggestions into the article would not, I believe, make the argument convince birthers. Are you having any success doing this?

    That said, I take what you say to heart, and I did add an example of the invalid form. However, I didn’t want to make my article so long that some folks wouldn’t read it.

    Head Researcher: I really hate to give you Obots advice about stuff, because you usually don’t listen and are most always very mean to me, but since this is directed at the Vattle Birthers, I have a obligation, and I will try. You are missing the point above, because if you do things the way you have it listed, with a Vattle Birther, it will just flop

  11. avatar
    Reality Check October 10, 2011 at 9:21 am #

    Wouldn’t it be easier just to ask them to show you their 9th grade Civics book that said both your parents have to be US citizens if you want to run for president? That will keep them busy. One poor lady at Dr. Kate’s blog has been looking for two years at yard sales for a Civics book that said that.

    Head Researcher: I really hate to give you Obots advice about stuff, because you usually don’t listen and are most always very mean to me, but since this is directed at the Vattle Birthers, I have a obligation, and I will try. You are missing the point above, because if you do things the way you have it listed, with a Vattle Birther, it will just flop, and here is what you and them will get: …

  12. avatar
    Ballantine October 10, 2011 at 10:07 am #

    One must always be careful not to push legal precedents beyond the questions they were actually addressing.

    Clearly, the “trying to discern some hidden meaning between the lines type” of analysis is all the birthers have as no court has ever actually said citizen parents are required. Minor’s entire discussion of citizenship is clearly obiter dictum. Minor’s citizenship was admitted in the original pleading and never argued or briefed by the defendent all the way to the Supreme Court. The court below didn’t address the admitted fact of citizenship and held that citizenship was irrelevant to the right to vote anyway. The Supreme Court also held that it didn’t matter whether she was a citizen as citizenship did not give one the right to vote. Hence, the court in no way had to address an issue not contested by defendant that was deemed irrelevant to answering the question presented to the court. It is also obvious that the discussion is dictum as the court cites no authority and does bother addressing any contrary arugments. Compare Waite’s discussion of the common law to Justice Gary. The latter cites authority after authority and addresses in turn every argument to the contray. One is dictum, the other not.

  13. avatar
    Rickey October 10, 2011 at 10:18 am #

    Reality Check:
    Wouldn’t it be easier just to ask them to show you their 9th grade Civics book that said both your parents have to be US citizens if you want to run for president? That will keep them busy. One poor lady at Dr. Kate’s blog has been looking for two years at yard sales for a Civics book that said that.

    I ask that of every birther who raises the two-citizen parent theory – show us a civics book, a history book, a law book, anything. They never respond, because of course no such book exists or ever has existed.

    The other question to ask them is why Jerome Corsi never mentioned the two-citizen parent requirement in “The Obama Nation.” It’s obvious that Corsi was never taught the two-citizen parent requirement in school. He learned about it somewhere between the publication of “The Obama Nation” and the publication of his latest piece of dung.

  14. avatar
    Ballantine October 10, 2011 at 10:43 am #

    Another thing about Minor is that the birthers overlook that the court says to define “natural born citizen” by the common law of our founders. Since the whole argument between us and birthers is the English common law vs. the Law of Nations, one would think it would dawn on them that this case does not help them. Does anyone really think the common law of the foudners was something other than the English common law being that the English common law was adopted in all the states in 1787? The court has said a hundred times that the Constitution should be interpreted by the English common law as that was the common law of the founders. Does anyone rationally believe this one time the court was talking about another common law this one time?

    The argument that the court is somehow implying that children of aliens is some kind of citizen other than natural born is even sillier. The birthers say the court only used “citizen” when referring to children of aliens, not “natural born citizen.” However, the court only called Virginia Minor a “citizen” and twice called native born children of citizens only “citizens.” Also, in the paragraph they cite, Waite is talking about the common law and, in the sentence immediatiely preceding the discussion of children of aliens, Waite tells us that there are only two classes of persons at common law, natural born citizen and aliens, as he only distinguishes natural born citizens from aliens. If there was a 3rd class such as another class of citizen, he would have distinguished them from the natural born as well. This is straight from Blackstone, as at common law, one was either natural born or alien born. There is no third class as there were no naturalized citizens at common law, naturalization being a modification of the common law rule. Hence, under whatever common law Waite is discussing, he is telling us that if one is a citizen at birth he is natural born as there are only two classes of persons at common law. The fact that someone, somewhere had doubt (i.e., was uncertain) about the status of children of aliens under this common law and such doubt was left unexplored doesn’t change this.

  15. avatar
    Reality Check October 10, 2011 at 11:13 am #

    None of the Brithers ever mentioned the two citizen parent BS or de Vattel until after Donofrio brought it up. Even Mr. Vattel himself, Dean Haskins, doesn’t mention de Vattel or the two parent citizen nonsense in his first eligibility video from December 2008. http://deanhaskins.wordpress.com/2011/06/23/first-eligibility-video-12102008/

    Rickey: The other question to ask them is why Jerome Corsi never mentioned the two-citizen parent requirement in “The Obama Nation.” It’s obvious that Corsi was never taught the two-citizen parent requirement in school. He learned about it somewhere between the publication of “The Obama Nation” and the publication of his latest piece of dung.

  16. avatar
    GeorgetownJD October 10, 2011 at 12:10 pm #

    Daniel:
    It’s Emerich de Vattel, not Emerich D. Vattel.

    The rest of your argument is just as mistaken.

    Squeeky purposely misspells Vattel’s name to tweak the birthers. dont’ let her “get” to you. However, I don’t think that it detracts from her argument, which actually is quite creative to demonstrate the fallacy in terms that the IQ birthers OUGHT to understand. However, as the birthers don’t want to understand — I agree that the birthers are driven by racial animosity — it will fall on deaf ears.

  17. avatar
    Head Researcher October 10, 2011 at 12:12 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Since I have found birthers impervious to argument of any form, I really am not directing my articles to them. I am directing them to normal people. Incorporating your suggestions into the article would not, I believe, make the argument convince birthers. Are you having any success doing this?

    That said, I take what you say to heart, and I did add an example of the invalid form. However, I didn’t want to make my article so long that some folks wouldn’t read it.

    Well, IMO (which means in my opinion) it looks a lot better now, and the example you picked was a very good one!!! For rational people, It will be hard to misunderstand that. As far as Internet Articles being too long, I do that a lot but if they get way too long then I call them White Papers. Plus, since I do a Think Tank, people kind of expect Think Tanks to be very academic and study stuff in detail. And, have you ever noticed, that on all this Birther stuff, some of the threads and things get real wordy when people start throwing cases back and forth at each other???

    As far as me getting anywhere with Vattle Birthers, who knows for sure. Sometimes I think I do, but nobody has ever just come and stopped being one in public. But sometimes I sense subtle changes in the Vattle Birther arguments that make me think I am doing some good. But, there is a New Dawn dawning!!! Because if the cranky legal stuff is really a symptom of narcissism, then it would be smart to build Cognitive Therapy stuff into my arguments. Sooo, I am reading a psychology book about this.

    Plus, thank you for having the “crank legal theory stuff” here because that is how I found the Pseudolaw thingy on wiki, of which I joined.

    The Head Researcher, as Agent.

  18. avatar
    G October 10, 2011 at 12:20 pm #

    I sense that it is more complex than that and for many the “right people” are devout followers of specific sects of Protestant Evangelical Christianity only.

    For some, this definitely seems to be an underlying motive that even trumps race, but definitely both factors are at strongly at play here.

    Dr. Conspiracy: I get the feeling that the “right people” are white.

  19. avatar
    G October 10, 2011 at 12:23 pm #

    With the revisionist nature of how these folks view history, I wouldn’t be surprised if various home schooling civic text books published post 2009 start trying to make such a ludicrous claim.

    Rickey: I ask that of every birther who raises the two-citizen parent theory – show us a civics book, a history book, a law book, anything. They never respond, because of course no such book exists or ever has existed.

  20. avatar
    Majority Will October 10, 2011 at 12:37 pm #

    G:
    With the revisionist nature of how these folks view history, I wouldn’t be surprised if various home schooling civic text books published post 2009 start trying to make such a ludicrous claim.

    Or the next and revised printing of Corsi’s The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality since he forgot to mention it the first time around.

  21. avatar
    Majority Will October 10, 2011 at 12:39 pm #

    G:
    I sense that it is more complex than that and for many the “right people” are devout followers of specific sects of Protestant Evangelical Christianity only.

    For some, this definitely seems to be an underlying motive that even trumps race, but definitely both factors are at strongly at play here.

    I remember hearing the label of WASP (White Anglo Saxon Protestant) when I was growing up.

  22. avatar
    Rickey October 10, 2011 at 12:55 pm #

    Head Researcher:

    As far as me getting anywhere with Vattle Birthers, who knows for sure. Sometimes I think I do, but nobody has ever just come and stopped being one in public. But sometimes I sense subtle changes in the Vattle Birther arguments that make me think I am doing some good.

    I would suggest that you ask the Vattel Birthers why Jerome Corsi never mentioned the two-citizen parent requirement in his book, “The Obama Nation.” When Corsi wrote the book he knew that Obama’s father was never a U.S. citizen and Corsi obviously was opposed to Obama’s candidacy. So why didn’t Corsi make the case then that Obama wasn’t eligible? When did Corsi learn about the supposed two-citizen parent requirement?

  23. avatar
    Tarrant October 10, 2011 at 12:59 pm #

    I often ask about the civics or history book – especially when there are birthers out there that say things like they “fondly remember learning about two citizen parents in high school history” and the like. I remember what my high school history book was called, I know it didn’t say that. Surely at least one of these people would remember or have kept such a book, yet none are ever produced. Despite thisthey continue to fondly remember it being in their book.

    I recall at one point someone on Freep who talked that line actually finding their book and seeing that it didn’t say what they claimed it did. Their response? Obama’s thugs went and replaced the real copies with fakes, of course. So somehow they went out and located every copy of the book still in existence, reprinted them all, aged them, and replaced them everywhere? Wow. What amazing resourcesthey must have, to do all that with no one noticing.

    It’s like when butterdezillion claims that Obama found every existing microfiche of the newspapers in which his birth announcement was posted – every one in the world – and replaced them with fakes that have a forged birth announcement. And they did this with no one noticing in any location! What powers they have. And yet these people still think that given this incredible power, he would then release an “obvious” forgery…

  24. avatar
    Head Researcher October 10, 2011 at 1:27 pm #

    Rickey: I would suggest that you ask the Vattel Birthers why Jerome Corsi never mentioned the two-citizen parent requirement in his book, “The Obama Nation.” When Corsi wrote the book he knew that Obama’s father was never a U.S. citizen and Corsi obviously was opposed to Obama’s candidacy. So why didn’t Corsi make the case then that Obama wasn’t eligible? When did Corsi learn about the supposed two-citizen parent requirement?

    OH Thank You for telling me this!!! I think this will make a very good Internet Article. I have a First Threshold Edition copy of the book put out in August 2008. There is a 23 page index, and not a single entry for Vattel, eligibility, ineligibility, natural born citizen. Inside the cover it says this “thoroughly researched and documented”!!!

    Inside, on page xi, Jerome Corsi says:

    While I intend to vote in 2008 for Chuck Baldwin, the presidential candidate for the Constitution Party, this book was begun before that party had chosen a 2008 presidential candidate and is not intended to be an argument for Chuck Baldwin. I also want to make clear the Constitution Party asked me to run as its presidential candidate in 2008, but I declined, preferring instead to remain with World Net Daily, where I a currently employed as a senior staff reporter.

    Sooo, how come somebody who could have run for the CONSTITUTION Party did not know any of this two citizen parent stuff???

    Well, I will just be running this up their rear ends every chance I get.

    Thank you AGAIN!!!

    The Head Researcher, as Agent.

  25. avatar
    Judge Mental October 10, 2011 at 1:54 pm #

    Head Researcher:

    Well good luck with that…..but don’t get your hopes up for reactions…..there is absolutely no reason to think that in response you will get anything other than most of us have been getting for a very long time….crickets.

    Usually they go into some kind of self-induced “this does not compute with what I am compelled to believe so it wasn’t actually said to me” semi trance and seem to convince themselves that the question was never asked of them. They simply bulldoze onwards ignoring it.

    Persistence will frustrate you more than them, of that you can be sure.

  26. avatar
    G October 10, 2011 at 1:57 pm #

    Yeah, me too.

    Watching Ken Burns excellent “Prohibition” documentary, the same WASP ownership of America mentality was pretty prevelant during that time too. Yes, there were certain societal ills caused by alcoholism that inspired part of the movement, but it was also a veil and cover for anti-immigrant feelings against the increasing numbers of Jewish and Catholic immigrants at the time.

    Of course, there are many of the older traditional Protestant faiths practiced here in America that are fairly moderate in their beliefs. I have a feeling that the “WASP only” mentality in place today would even exclude those if they could and only apply to the right-wing evangelical branches that formed in America and and started schisming off from the rest of Protestantism during the various “Great Awakening” movements in America, particularly from the 2nd Great Awakening onward and that have a particular hold on the South.

    It is for that reason that I think many fail to understand how Herman Cain could be a legitimate contender. Much of the Tea Party is really just part of the existing social conservative wing of the GOP that has been increasingly taking it over, these past few decades.

    Romney is not their candidate…for several reasons. Newt and Santorum may preach rhetoric that sounds like their brand of social conservatism (particularly Santorum who is a “true believer” it that extent… Newt is just a manipulative politician). However, both Newt and Santorum are Catholic… So they are viewed much “less desirable” to these true evangelical WASPs.

    Ron Paul is Baptist, so he’s “ok” from that perspective…but his strong Libertarian views of leaning towards non-interference makes these folks “nervous”, as they truly want a firebrand champion who will turn this into a “Christian nation” in their image and worry that Paul won’t fight to impose their social policies into law.

    Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann are the two preferred options for this significant crowd of GOP voters – because they are of the “right” religion for them. However, those two have been performing so badly, that they’ve so far shaken that evangelical WASP community’s faith that they can win and in the case of Perry – even offended them with some of the statements and positions he’s taken on issues.

    That is why they are turning to Herman Cain. Yes, he is black, but he is the “right religion” for them and considered a “true believer”, which is what they are really looking for more than anything. If they feel they can’t win with Perry or Bachmann, a sufficient number will settle for Cain as their standard bearer and rally around him. Those that can’t might peel off to the “next” level – Paul, Newt or Santorum…and I’ve analyzed a number of state & national polls and it shows that there has been an increase in polling for these 3 in the wake of Perry’s implosion as well.

    It all comes down to the Evangelical WASP desires really at play in this election. If either of their “first choices” of Perry or Bachmann can turn things around enough in the next few debates to not only say the right things but also provide indications that they can sustain a successful national campaing, then many in this base will forgive them their “past sins” and rally back in their support. As long as the viability of either of those two remains questionable, Cain will be their legitimate alternative option that they can bring themselves to support, because in the end, “right religion” is the dominant trump factor across their broad swath.

    Majority Will: I remember hearing the label of WASP (White Anglo Saxon Protestant) when I was growing up.

  27. avatar
    Head Researcher October 10, 2011 at 2:17 pm #

    Judge Mental: Well good luck with that…..but don’t get your hopes up for reactions…..there is absolutely no reason to think that in response you will get anything other than most of us have been getting for a very long time….crickets.

    Usually they go into some kind of self-induced “this does not compute with what I am compelled to believe so it wasn’t actually said to me” semi trance and seem to convince themselves that the question was never asked of them. They simply bulldoze onwards ignoring it.

    Persistence will frustrate you more than them, of that you can be sure.

    Oh, but I have just thought of the perfect way to just ridicule Jerome Corsi to death about the Vattle Birther stuff!!! I am going to do it first in one of my parody songs!!!

    Oh Tee Hee! Tee Hee!

    The Head Researcher, as Agent.

  28. avatar
    SluggoJD October 10, 2011 at 3:53 pm #

    Little doubt in my mind much of it is funded.

    For example, look at Steadman at ”
    He, Lying Lucas Smith’s” miserable little You Tube corner of the world.

    All day along, day after day, month after month, Steadman puts out misinformation. There is no logical reason whatsoever, except for one – money.

    On a larger scale is Parker Shannon, aka Beckwith. Parker announced to the world is a now-closed website that he had a new mission. Very shortly afterwards, the “Obama is a MUslim” crap started, that Loren has done such a fine job researching. Beckwith started the API (African Press International, Sammy Korir, etc) crap about Michelle Obama and the phony tape, and of course continues to push lies and misinformation at his Obama Files website.

    Does he do it because of hate? Because he is a racist? Because he is mentally deranged? I don’t think so. I think he is paid for his efforts.

    For more on Beckwith and Korir, see here:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/27/AR2008062703781_3.html?sid=ST2008062703939&pos=&s_pos=

  29. avatar
    Majority Will October 10, 2011 at 4:41 pm #

    SluggoJD: There is no logical reason whatsoever, except for one – money.

    I wouldn’t discount mental illness. That doesn’t preclude money either. Who better to hire than a fanatic?

  30. avatar
    Keith October 10, 2011 at 11:06 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I can’t tell if the idea is catching on, or we’re just looking at AstroTurfing.

    I am convinced. 99.44% AstroTurfing.

  31. avatar
    Keith October 10, 2011 at 11:31 pm #

    Rickey: I ask that of every birther who raises the two-citizen parent theory – show us a civics book, a history book, a law book, anything. They never respond, because of course no such book exists or ever has existed.

    Alternative solution to the stated problem

    The other question to ask them is why Jerome Corsi never mentioned the two-citizen parent requirement in “The Obama Nation.” It’s obvious that Corsi was never taught the two-citizen parent requirement in school. He learned about it somewhere between the publication of “The Obama Nation” and the publication of his latest piece of dung.

    Alternative solution to the stated problem

  32. avatar
    bob October 11, 2011 at 12:21 pm #

    Apuzzo responds:

    Another approach that Obama’s enablers take to attacking Minor’s definition of a “natural born” Citizen is to say that we commit the logical fallacy of denying the antecedent. This fallacy is described as:
    If A, then X.
    Not A.
    Therefore, not X.
    This reasoning is fallacious, unless A is a necessary condition which in such case, the logic would not be fallacious. In other words, if A is merely sufficient for B to exist, the fact that A does not exists does not necessarily rule out that B can come into existence by some other factors, e.g. B or C. So if A is a bi-conditional which is expressed as “if and only if,” the logical expression presented would not be fallacious. For example, if Joe has a lot of land, then Joe is rich. Joe does not have a lot of land. Therefore, Joe is not rich. This is fallacious logic, for Joe could be rich by having a lot of gold. But if we said if Joe is breathing, then he is alive. Joe is not breathing. Then he is not alive. We do not question the correct logic of this statement. And it is correct because breathing is not only sufficient but also necessary. So what we are really saying is: “If and only if” Joe is breathing, then he is alive.

    Obama enablers argue that we deny the antecedent when we say that under Minor, since Obama was not born to two U.S.-citizen parents, he cannot be a “natural born” Citizen. They add that two U.S.-parent citizenship is only a sufficient condition, and not a necessary one. But the logical error that they make in putting forth this argument is in denying that Minor gave us a binding definition of the clause “natural-born citizen” which affirmatively declared what such a citizen is. Hence, being a definition, the elements expressed are necessary conditions and not sufficient ones. Would these same Obama enablers say while reasoning under the Fourteenth Amendment that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is only a sufficient condition and that it is wrong to conclude that if someone is born in the United States but not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ that that person could still be a “citizen of the United States” under that amendment? No, they would not make such an argument because they know that the Fourteenth Amendment provides an affirmative and declaratory definition of citizenship each element of which is a necessary condition to earning the right to have that national character. There is no difference with Minor’s affirmative definition of a “natural born” Citizen, but they deny that Minor put forth a definition, but accept that the Fourteenth Amendment does. There simply is no consistency or logic in how these enablers treat Minor in one fashion but then treat the Fourteenth Amendment in another.

    http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2011/10/how-obamas-enablers-mislead-public-on.html

  33. avatar
    Majority Will October 11, 2011 at 1:03 pm #

    bob: Apuzzo responds:

    Another approach

    Idiotic gibberish. This putative attorney’s monkeys will swallow anything Putzy flings.

  34. avatar
    Head Researcher October 11, 2011 at 1:21 pm #

    OH, I was just doing this stuff in a new Internet Article about “Contributing to the Delinquency of Minor and Happersett!!! (Un-Natural Born Acts???). Because this case seems to be one the Vattle Birthers mess up a lot. Anyway, Mr. Appuzo is right about their being some more conditions stuff than just being born here, there also has to be a “in the allegiance” condition.

    The problem for him is that the Wong Kim Ark judges in 1898 already decided what “in the allegiance” meant. Which was:

    It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

    III. The same rule was in force in all 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.13

    I was just cutting and pasting part of this to the new Internet Article. Sooo, Mr. Apuzzo seems to right in his logic that there is another condition, but wrong about how he keeps trying to change “allegiance” to what he wants it to mean (two citizen parents) instead of what the Judges mean (uh, LIVING HERE, being here, traveling thru here,visiting here, etc. and not being a diplomat or invading soldier.)

    The Head Researcher

  35. avatar
    ballantine October 11, 2011 at 1:27 pm #

    The problem is the court only provides a definitive definition in hAuzzo’s imagination. He can spin all he wants, but this dictum does not state that children of citizens are the exclusive class of natural born citizens. Nor does it say that when speaking of children of aliens that they are talking about a type of citizenship other than natrual born. Just making things up to say otherwise. The court only distinguishes natural born citizens from aliens and foreigners, not from aliens and some other type of citizen. This is because at common law everyone was either natural born or alien born as Blackstone made clear. Waite obviously understood this and since the whole paragraph is about the common law, the entire discussionis obviously about being natural born.

    The notion that the common law of the founders Waite is talking about is something other than the English common law is comical. The court has said about a hundred times that the constitution must be interpreted by the common law of the founders and has always meant the English common law (which was in place in all the states in 1787). Clearly, Waite is saying someone had doubts about the English common law but declined to address those doubts.

    Accordingly, no one in history ever thought Minor defined natural born including everyone who discussed natural born citizens in Wong Kin Ark . Of course, this dictum is superceded by Wong Kim Ark anyway but no birther will ever admit what such case says. Too bad Apuzzo isn’t smart enough to come up with a non-frivolous standing argument as I would love to see this nonsense laughed out of court.

  36. avatar
    Daniel October 11, 2011 at 1:34 pm #

    One of the basic problems of de Vattelist arguments is it requires that somehow the founding fathers were stupid enough to think that having citizen parents makes one more likely to be patriotic and loyal.

    I don’t think the founding fathers were that stupid.

    Timothy MCVeigh had citizen parents.

  37. avatar
    Majority Will October 11, 2011 at 1:44 pm #

    Daniel:
    One of the basic problems of de Vattelist arguments is it requires that somehow the founding fathers were stupid enough to think that having citizen parents makes one more likely to be patriotic and loyal.

    I don’t think the founding fathers were that stupid.

    Timothy MCVeigh had citizen parents.

    That and that somehow they inadvertently left out that wording from the text of the Constitution is also ludicrous.

  38. avatar
    Head Researcher October 11, 2011 at 1:53 pm #

    OMG!!! I just found out that I am supposed to be the “Obama Enabler” that Mr. Apuzzo is talking about in that Internet Article!!! Can you believe that??? Oh my goodness the Vattle Birthers sure get stuff backwards, don’t they???

    Tee Hee! Tee Hee!

    The Head Researcher

  39. avatar
    Ballantine October 11, 2011 at 2:11 pm #

    Daniel: One of the basic problems of de Vattelist arguments is it requires that somehow the founding fathers were stupid enough to think that having citizen parents makes one more likely to be patriotic and loyal.I don’t think the founding fathers were that stupid.Timothy MCVeigh had citizen parents.

    Yes, they secretly were concerned about parentage. But you see, it was a secret as not one framer ever talked about parentage when discussing loyalty or eligibility. So in the Convention, when eligiblity and loyalty were discussed, the framers only talked about place of birth when, secretly, they were really concerned about parentage. It was such a secret, no court or scholar ever figured it out until the birthers came along and discovered this secret meaning that there is not a single legal authority to support.

  40. avatar
    Sef October 11, 2011 at 2:37 pm #

    Majority Will: Idiotic gibberish. This putative attorney’s monkeys will swallow anything Putzy flings.

    Just another instance of a little knowledge being incorrectly used. His flying monkeys probably have very little understanding of logic, so they will not understand his error. So, so sad.

  41. avatar
    dunstvangeet October 11, 2011 at 2:58 pm #

    The thing about the secret definition is that the founders would basically have to commit Constitutional Malpractice. The birthers are arguing that the founders, who all had training in English Common Law and had grown up around it, used a term that had 400 years of history in English Common Law, and then redefined it to mean the exact opposite (or to add another requirement on it depending upon if it is the “blood and soil” birthers), and then didn’t mention anything about it in the Constitution, in their debates, or do anything else to indicate this redefinition.

  42. avatar
    Bran Mak Morn October 12, 2011 at 4:40 am #

    bob:
    Apuzzo responds:

    Another approach that Obama’s enablers take to attacking Minor’s definition of a “natural born” Citizen is to say that we commit the logical fallacy of denying the antecedent. This fallacy is described as:
    If A, then X.
    Not A.
    Therefore, not X.
    This reasoning is fallacious, unless A is a necessary condition which in such case, the logic would not be fallacious. In other words, if A is merely sufficient for B to exist, the fact that A does not exists does not necessarily rule out that B can come into existence by some other factors, e.g. B or C. So if A is a bi-conditional which is expressed as “if and only if,” the logical expression presented would not be fallacious. For example, if Joe has a lot of land, then Joe is rich. Joe does not have a lot of land. Therefore, Joe is not rich. This is fallacious logic, for Joe could be rich by having a lot of gold. But if we said if Joe is breathing, then he is alive. Joe is not breathing. Then he is not alive. We do not question the correct logic of this statement. And it is correct because breathing is not only sufficient but also necessary. So what we are really saying is: “If and only if” Joe is breathing, then he is alive.

    Obama enablers argue that we deny the antecedent when we say that under Minor, since Obama was not born to two U.S.-citizen parents, he cannot be a “natural born” Citizen. They add that two U.S.-parent citizenship is only a sufficient condition, and not a necessary one. But the logical error that they make in putting forth this argument is in denying that Minor gave us a binding definition of the clause “natural-born citizen” which affirmatively declared what such a citizen is. Hence, being a definition, the elements expressed are necessary conditions and not sufficient ones. Would these same Obama enablers say while reasoning under the Fourteenth Amendment that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is only a sufficient condition and that it is wrong to conclude that if someone is born in the United States but not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ that that person could still be a “citizen of the United States” under that amendment? No, they would not make such an argument because they know that the Fourteenth Amendment provides an affirmative and declaratory definition of citizenship each element of which is a necessary condition to earning the right to have that national character. There is no difference with Minor’s affirmative definition of a “natural born” Citizen, but they deny that Minor put forth a definition, but accept that the Fourteenth Amendment does. There simply is no consistency or logic in how these enablers treat Minor in one fashion but then treat the Fourteenth Amendment in another.

    http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2011/10/how-obamas-enablers-mislead-public-on.html

    What is crazy about this is that Minor doesn’t make it a necessary condition. The way it was worded didn’t make it necessary. So his response is invalid.

  43. avatar
    The Magic M October 12, 2011 at 4:43 am #

    Daniel: One of the basic problems of de Vattelist arguments is it requires that somehow the founding fathers were stupid enough to think that having citizen parents makes one more likely to be patriotic and loyal.

    In addition, it assumes that for some strange reason, the Founders were fixated on the parents’ condition at birth, yet would not have had a problem with a President who acquired (dual) foreign citizenship later in life, as if that would not have any influence on his loyalty.

    The main claim behind the “at birth” logic is that if a child is born with (dual) foreign citizenship, the foreign state could “demand loyalty” (military service etc.) from the person.
    However that is also the case if, for some reason, the child becomes a (dual) foreign citizen after his birth.
    So the Vattelist theory requires the Founders to be quite stupid and short-sighted indeed.

  44. avatar
    Head Researcher October 13, 2011 at 7:44 pm #

    Well, The Birther Think Tank just fired back at Mario Apuzzo for his Internet Article he did calling me a “Obama Enabler.” OH,my fingers are just bloody to a pulp from all the hard typing and my head is killing me, too.

    http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2011/10/13/the-vattel-birther-mob-weighs-in-and-comes-up-short/

    The Head Researcher

  45. avatar
    G October 13, 2011 at 8:01 pm #

    Loved it! You really showed up Mario for the incompetent hack lawyer @ss that he is. As you said, the answers are pretty obvious to even any non-lawyer that spends a moment to actually look at the issue and read the rulings. What does that say about Mario and his level of incompetence? A lot.

    My favorite line of yours BTW: “What was Vattel, The Scarlet Pimpernel of American Law???” Along with the poem that followed. LMAO!

    Kudos again. I of course disagree with your birther opinions, as always, but I appreciate the hard work you’ve put into debunking those other scam artists out there and the constant level of development and progress in your writing style and wittiness. Keep up the hard work.

    Head Researcher: Well, The Birther Think Tank just fired back at Mario Apuzzo for his Internet Article he did calling me a “Obama Enabler.” OH,my fingers are just bloody to a pulp from all the hard typing and my head is killing me, too. http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2011/10/13/the-vattel-birther-mob-weighs-in-and-comes-up-short/The Head Researcher

  46. avatar
    Head Researcher October 13, 2011 at 8:48 pm #

    G:

    Thank you!!! I am working on a Internet Article about The Scarlett Pimpernel for this stuff, and I just couldn’t wait to use the line. That was not my poem but one that goes with the book and movie. Did you like the Easter Egg??? Because you have to kind of think about it. Plus, when they see the Little Cigars, I bet it makes the Vattle Birthers sooo mad!!! Because you know what that is saying, don’t you??? OH, Tee Hee!!! Plus, this was the first case that I read by myself, the Ochoa one, and tried to talk about, sooo my BFF Fabia Sheen, Esq., a lawyer is supposed to double check me this weekend when she comes over. . .We used to have to do stuff like this in Debate, sooo it isn’t like I am just lost or anything. Plus, I had 6 hours of Business Law in college, and did real good in it. But, I am glad you like it and thank you for reading it.

    The Head Researcher

  47. avatar
    Northland10 October 13, 2011 at 10:25 pm #

    Ballantine: Yes, they secretly were concerned about parentage. But you see, it was a secret as not one framer ever talked about parentage when discussing loyalty or eligibility. So in the Convention, when eligiblity and loyalty were discussed, the framers only talked about place of birth when, secretly, they were really concerned about parentage. It was such a secret, no court or scholar ever figured it out until the birthers came along and discovered this secret meaning that there is not a single legal authority to support.

    The Gnostic Constitution?

  48. avatar
    G October 13, 2011 at 11:36 pm #

    Yeah, got the “little dwarves” references…and all the double-entrendre meanings you’ve insinuated against those male Vattelists…about how they are small in various ways… cute. *chuckle*

    Head Researcher: Did you like the Easter Egg??? Because you have to kind of think about it. Plus, when they see the Little Cigars, I bet it makes the Vattle Birthers sooo mad!!! Because you know what that is saying, don’t you???

  49. avatar
    Sally HIll October 20, 2011 at 4:09 pm #

    G: Well, we know by name & known IDs that the same hard-core Birther proponents consistently spend a lot of time posting the same birther blather everywhere they can on the internet, day in and day out. Doesn’t matter if the info is debunked or not…they wait only a short while and then recycle it like zombies… or simply ignore the debunking outright and just ramp up their repeating of the same spew over and over and over again.

    This is an interesting statement, because the Birthers feel EXACTLY the same way about Obots. It could very easily read as follows:
    “Well, we know by name & known IDs that the same hard-core Obots consistently spend a lot of time posting the same anti-birther blather everywhere they can on the internet, day in and day out. Doesn’t matter if the info is debunked or not…they wait only a short while and then recycle it like zombies… or simply ignore the debunking outright and just ramp up their repeating of the same spew over and over and over again.”

    What good does it do to sling insults back and forth? I mean, think about it for a second. Try and put yourself in your opponents shoes and try and see it from their side. They believe in their view and idea as much as you believe in yours. I don’t get the fact that we have to call each other names and try and insult each other’s intelligence. I could be the teller at your bank that handles your deposits for all you know – and if so, you better hope I’m not an idiot.

    Just because I have a different opinion than you, does not make me stupid or ignorant any more than it makes you and idiot for disagreeing with me. It means that we live in America where we are FREE to believe as we choose and no one is forcing their opinions and beliefs upon us. For that – we should celebrate, not insult and name call.

    I’ve given up arguing and debating the issue. I think we all have a pretty good understanding of both sides of the argument and have probably picked the side we most believe in. THAT belief, and only that belief is what matters. It matters not to me what you or the countless others on this site believe. I am the one going into the voting booth, not you. You vote your belief and I’ll vote mine. It’s just that simple.

    We need to stop buying into this division that ALL politicians from both sides are trying to create in this country. A nation divided cannot stand, and they all (Dems and Repubs) know that.

    And your perception is correct….the birthers are focusing more on both of the parents heritage than on place of birth; although both must be present in their opinion to create a NBC.

  50. avatar
    G October 20, 2011 at 5:15 pm #

    Oh spare me the FALSE equivocation you are trying to peddle here. The very word choice you use in your post is telling. Sorry, but laws, facts and evidence are REAL things, not simple “gut belief” systems like you use.

    ALL actual facts, evidence and laws point only ONE way on this… what we’ve simply been pointing out in rebuttal to you tools all along. Sorry, but that is reality.

    So yes, you come across as an idiot, because the stuff you support, “believe” and blather on about are simply UNSUPPORTABLE in reality.

    Simple advice – if you don’t wish to be made fun of, stop saying silly things. If you don’t wish to be thought of as a fool, stop being foolish.

    Obviously, you have no sense of personal responsibility because you merely whine like a baby when being called out for your own choice of blathering on like a delusional person.

    Sally HIll: What good does it do to sling insults back and forth? I mean, think about it for a second. Try and put yourself in your opponents shoes and try and see it from their side. They believe in their view and idea as much as you believe in yours. I don’t get the fact that we have to call each other names and try and insult each other’s intelligence. I could be the teller at your bank that handles your deposits for all you know – and if so, you better hope I’m not an idiot.

  51. avatar
    G October 20, 2011 at 5:20 pm #

    Look, nobody here has ever threatened your right to vote for whomever you want.

    You are the one who seems to have difficulty accepting that others won’t necessarily vote the way you do and can’t accept an election that was OVERWHELMINGLY decisive for someone other than who you cast your vote for.

    Again, your word choice betrays you. We all have our individual reasons and factors that weigh upon us, when deciding who to vote for.

    I’ll continue to weigh my options and make decisions based in reality. You are free to vote on mere “fantasy beliefs” all you want, but that doesn’t change reality, sorry.

    Sally HIll: I am the one going into the voting booth, not you. You vote your belief and I’ll vote mine. It’s just that simple.

  52. avatar
    Scientist October 20, 2011 at 5:20 pm #

    Sally HIll: It means that we live in America where we are FREE to believe as we choose and no one is forcing their opinions and beliefs upon us.

    Anyone is free to believe that the Earth is flat. They are free to vote for candidates who flatter them by agreeing with them.

    However, none of those beliefs alter for a nanosecond the FACT that the Earth is slightly flattened sphere.

  53. avatar
    G October 20, 2011 at 5:34 pm #

    Birthers are mostly focused on that quaint and FALSE notion of “2 citizen parents”, mainly because of all their other fantasy arguments of foreign birth have been thoroughly debunked and shredded to tatters to the point that they flee to D’Onofrio’s nonsense idea, because that’s pretty much all they have left.

    Hey, you can have the “opinion” that you think parental heritage should matter, all you want.

    However, that doesn’t at all change the reality that our laws do NOT support your “opinions” whatsoever.

    If you were honest about said opinion, you would be talking about how you wish you could change our laws and going about a proper process to try to attempt that instead of pretending like a delusional child that the laws don’t exist as they do.

    Sally HIll: And your perception is correct….the birthers are focusing more on both of the parents heritage than on place of birth; although both must be present in their opinion to create a NBC.

  54. avatar
    Majority Will October 20, 2011 at 6:12 pm #

    Head Researcher:
    G:

    Thank you!!! I am working on a Internet Article about The Scarlett Pimpernel for this stuff, and I just couldn’t wait to use the line. That was not my poem but one that goes with the book and movie. Did you like the Easter Egg??? Because you have to kind of think about it. Plus, when they see the Little Cigars, I bet it makes the Vattle Birthers sooo mad!!! Because you know what that is saying, don’t you??? OH, Tee Hee!!! Plus, this was the first case that I read by myself, the Ochoa one, and tried to talk about, sooo my BFF Fabia Sheen, Esq., a lawyer is supposed to double check me this weekend when she comes over. . .We used to have to do stuff like this in Debate, sooo it isn’t like I am just lost or anything. Plus, I had 6 hours of Business Law in college, and did real good in it. But, I am glad you like it and thank you for reading it.

    The Head Researcher

    Hey Head Researcher,

    Could you take care of Sally Hill with that two parent nonsense, please?

    Thanks in advance.

  55. avatar
    Rickey October 20, 2011 at 7:49 pm #

    Sally HIll:
    And your perception is correct….the birthers are focusing more on both of the parents heritage than on place of birth; although both must be present in their opinion to create a NBC.

    And those birthers have still been unable to identify a single civics, history, or legal text which asserts that a natural born citizen must have two citizen parents.

    Jerome Corsi, who has a Ph.D in political science from Harvard, never mentioned the two-citizen parent requirement in his book The Obama Nation, even though the book covers the fact that Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen. How do you explain that omission? Maybe because Corsi, just like the rest of educated Americans, had never heard of the two citizen parent requirement before Leo Donofrio dreamed it up?

  56. avatar
    Head Researcher October 20, 2011 at 8:39 pm #

    Majority Will: Hey Head Researcher,

    Could you take care of Sally Hill with that two parent nonsense, please?

    Thanks in advance.

    No problem, but I have to listen to the Obot radio show to get new ideas on that stuff, too. But I have put up two more very exciting and new Internet Articles on the Vattle Birther Debunking side of stuff. I bet we start seeing the name of Oswald Florp, pretty soon:

    http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2011/10/19/oswald-florp-the-new-darling-of-the-vattel-birthers/

    And, for reading comprehension troubled Vattle Birthers, apparently their problems started at a young age:

    http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2011/10/18/fun-with-dick-and-jane-and-a-vattel-birther/

    You know, one thing I have to say GOOD about you Obots, is that while you have the same mindset as the Vattle Birthers, at least you don’t just lie all the time like they do.

    The Head Researcher

    OH, plus I am working on like 3 more Internet Articles, then I am going to start clobbering Mr. Apuzzo some more WITH LOGIC. I am just making sure of my stuff before I tackle a lawyer, although my BFF Fabia Sheen, Esq., a lawyer, says she” has my back.” For which I am typing more stuff for her.

  57. avatar
    G October 20, 2011 at 9:15 pm #

    Read them both, thanks. With all the F as S in Ye Olde Printing Style, do we know for sure if it is Oswald Florp or Oswald Slorp? Anyways, not a surprise that the Vattel argument support this far back in history would amount to no more than a mere opinion piece by a manure hauler…LOL!

    In the second of your articles, the sample conversation to illustrate the sophisims they employ in their disingenuous dialogue was quite entertaining and made a very good point. I agree and think we all suspect and know that they too know better than the specious claims they make and that their arguments out of context are intentional acts of mere obsfucation.

    Head Researcher: No problem, but I have to listen to the Obot radio show to get new ideas on that stuff, too. But I have put up two more very exciting and new Internet Articles on the Vattle Birther Debunking side of stuff. I bet we start seeing the name of Oswald Florp, pretty soon:http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2011/10/19/oswald-florp-the-new-darling-of-the-vattel-birthers/And, for reading comprehension troubled Vattle Birthers, apparently their problems started at a young age:http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2011/10/18/fun-with-dick-and-jane-and-a-vattel-birther/You know, one thing I have to say GOOD about you Obots, is that while you have the same mindset as the Vattle Birthers, at least you don’t just lie all the time like they do. The Head Researcher OH, plus I am working on like 3 more Internet Articles, then I am going to start clobbering Mr. Apuzzo some more WITH LOGIC. I am just making sure of my stuff before I tackle a lawyer, although my BFF Fabia Sheen, Esq., a lawyer, says she” has my back.” For which I am typing more stuff for her.

  58. avatar
    Head Researcher October 21, 2011 at 2:46 am #

    G:

    Thank you!!! I am pretty sure it is Florp. Don’t ask me how I know, because I don’t want to be subpoenaed anywhere. Plus, I have been sooo busy researching stuff and guess what??? I found a 1898 American Law Review article written about Wong Kim Ark that says the Vattle Birthers are just plain wrong about what was the first Supreme Court case about foreign parents of children born here. It is NOT Minor vs. Happersett.

    http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2011/10/21/remember-the-maine-battleship-remember-the-wong-kim-ark/

    The Head Researcher

333333 44444
5555555
6666666