I just read comments here about Mario Apuzzo having some kind of photo or video or something on his web site that somebody thinks is of Stanley Ann Dunham attending the funeral of Malcolm X.
Early on, someone produced a video showing a photo of Barack Obama being morphed into a photo of Malcolm X. I guess all black people look alike to some folks. However, such comparisons can be misleading. A similar case can be made that Obama bears a striking resemblance to another famous man.
Lest anyone just brush this off as silly, how else could President Obama know the Colonel’s secret recipe of 11 herbs and spices, which he must in order to have opened up his own chicken franchise in China?
Photos courtesy of the Daily Mail.
From another thread:
http://www.vpcharlescurtis.net/ksstudies/ccfamily.html
Charles Curtis’ baptism certificate, signed by a Jesuit priest, actually mentions William Curtis, the man everybody thinks is his grandfather, as the father.
If we really must have someone other than Barack Obama Sr as the President’s father, there is a much better candidate than Malcolm X. The President is tall and an excellent basketball player. As far as I know, Malcolm X was neither. However, there is someone who was not only both, but also claimed to have had sex with 20,000 women in his lifetime.
I refer to the great Wilt “the Stilt” Chamberlain. On the basis of statistics alone, he is far more likely than Malcolm.
But on the basis of political value, he’d be less interesting. Don’t forget at least a small part of the birthers is mostly about “digging up some dirt” (as, I presume, the birther movement started with). A promiscuous basketball legend would not have nearly as much “dirt value” as a former drug dealer / radical Muslim / radical black.
And since birtherism was never about truth but only about “believing something makes it true”, you know that probability won’t fly with them.
Yes. Apparently all of the pictures showing President Obama’s mother with long hair have been photo-shopped.
Here is the original article Mario was referencing…
http://terribletruth.wordpress.com/
I thought it may have been spoofery until I noticed Ms. Trowbridge’s associations on her LinkedIn page, and that Erik Rush of WND fame had co-written one of the entries.
In the 1960’s, girls wore hair supplements called “falls.” My cousin had one.
wow. even by birther standards that is loopy. the “evidence” is “i applied photoshop filters and they did what they were designed to do…….. obvious evidence of a conspiracy!!!” and ” stanley ann dunham has a face and a mouth. the guy in the video has a face and a mouth……… conspiracy!!!!!”.
the line between birther evidence and potential blatant prank is nonexistent.
The problem, from the birthers standpoint, with the “Wilt “the Stilt” Chamberlain” theory is this;
The only black people the birthers (such as Dean Haskins) like and accept are the ones who entertain them by dribbling a ball or singing & dancing.
So Wilt is out as a suspect.
Apuzzo really misses you:
Maybe Dr. Conspiracy did not like the fake mother-child photo of Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack Obama. He still has not commented on all that fake hair.
Well, maybe he’ll like this other fake one. Yes, you guessed it. Fake hair again. He can take a look and make a big post about it at his blog, showing us Birthers how wrong we are.
Here’s another one for you, Dr. Conspiracy, again courtesy of Terrible Truth:
http://terribletruth.wordpress.com/2011/10/04/years-may-pass-but-some-things-stay-the-same-like-stanley-anns-long-fake-hair/
I’ll be waiting for all that great commentary and analysis.
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7466841558189356289&postID=7465911241460456477
In that comment section, Apuzzo also explains how President Obama is still an usurper even if Malcolm X is his father:
“A child born into a marriage is presumed to be the legitimate child of that marriage.
“By jus sanguinis, allegiance and citizenship attach at the moment of birth and not at the moment of conception.
“We have been told that Obama Sr., a British citizen, and Stanley Ann Dunham, a U.S. citizen, first conceived baby Obama and then later married in February 1961. We have also been told that Obama Jr. was born to them in August 1961.
“Let us assume as you have pointed out that the British Nationality Act of 1948 made the wife of a British citizen a British citizen herself. Let us further assume that U.S. law would recognize and accept that under British law an American citizen marrying a British citizen also became a British citizen and that when Stanley Ann Dunham, a U.S. citizen, married Barack H. Obama, a British citizen, in February 1961, she herself became under U.S. law a dual U.S. and British citizen.
“Since Obama was born to the marriage of Barack Obama and Stanley Ann Dunham, he is the legitimate child of that marriage and of those parents.
“So, if Obama Sr. is Obama’s natural father, Obama was conceived by a British citizen father and a U.S. citizen mother and legitimately born to a British citizen father and a dual U.S. and British citizen mother.
“If Malcolm X is Obama’s father, Obama was conceived by a U.S. citizen father and a U.S. citizen mother, but legitimately born to a British citizen father and a dual U.S. and British citizen mother.
“Consequently, regardless of whether Obama or Malcolm X is Obama’s father, he was legitimately born to a British citizen father and a dual U.S. and British citizen mother.”
But what if the Obama-Dunham marriage was invalid from the get-go, due to Obama Sr.’s pre-existing and un-dissolved village marriage in Kenya? I’m sure one could find any number of anthropologists and Luo elders who would be happy to testify that such marriages were every bit as real as Western marriages.
Attorney Apuzzo has boxed himself into a corner here, because if Obama Sr. was already married before he arrived in Hawai’i, then the President’s mother was legally unmarried. That would make the President a natural born citizen, even by Mario’s own ridiculous reading of the law.
It’s really sad that Mario so desparately need to cling to what little “fame” he had by jumping on the most rediculous conspiracy theories, and then trying to shoe-horn those with his prior stupdity.
I wouldn’t give Apuzzo’s latest pathetic conspiracies any ink on this blog if I were Doc C. They are not even worth ridiculing.
Let Mario sink into well-deserved obscurity, heightened by his ever-lessening grip on reality. (Like Polland). Eventually these guys will have to resort to playing with their own poo on YouTube to get any attention.
In the reality based world, we call her darker “fake” hair a shadow. That happens when somebody’s head blocks the light.
Meretricious Mario needs to cling to his paycheck.
He’s got to come up with stuff all the time for his “sponsors”, or else no turkeee.
Ah, Putzboy rides again! And as usual, he’s totally wrong!
Apuzzo is really, really lonely:
“Instead of getting any real response to the fake photos of Stanley Ann Dunham, here is what we get from Dr. Conspiracy’s Obot peanut gallery:
[obsolete’s October 5, 2011 at 5:53 pm comment quoted]
So, I see. Just hope that no one finds out and let it sink into obscurity.
The problem for Dr. Conspiracy and his Obot clan is that the cat is already out of the bag.
P.S. There was one comment there that did acknowledge that the Stanley Ann photos showing her with long hair have all been photoshopped. Here is the comment:
[WEP’s October 5, 2011 at 9:57 am comment quoted]
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7466841558189356289&postID=7465911241460456477
Wow, that is desperately pathetic, even for Apuzzo the Putz. So now he’s reduced to taking minor quotes out of context from here in order to try to get someone to pay any attention to him or bother to look at his website.
That level of desperation signals that his embers are fading out fast…
Well, my Principal is really clobbering all these Vattle Birthers WITH LOGIC, and unlike Obots, is doing “big picture thinking” to get to the root of this TOTALLY insane stuff. Her latest Internet Article, “Pseudo-Lawyers and Pseudolaw” ends with the idea that Vattle Birthers are megalomaniacs which is about the same thing as Narcissists. This means she will be developing strategies to deal with the underlying mental condition of the Vattle Birthers.
This hypothesis thingy is getting Anecdotal Confirmation from the observation that Mr. Apuzzo is getting wilder. This is going to turn out to be the same thing as Vivien Leigh disintegrating, and is also why the other Vattle Birthers are turning to Rubio and Jindle —not to be consistent, but to keep their Narcissistic Fantasy Life going on after Obama is booted out in 2013.
Obviously, it takes a Big Picture Thinking Birther to figure this out AND how to use it, but she does thank you Obots for the “crank legal theory” thingy here, which led her to Pseudolaw on wiki when she googled it.
http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2011/10/09/pseudo-lawyers-and-pseudolaw/
OH plus, she is also going to work on a psychological test to mimic (which means to copy)the legal test in her “Mars Need Vattel Birthers” very good Internet Article.
The Head Researcher, as Agent.
Personally, I’m wondering why Mario attaches special significance to the fathers political affiliation. Does he think Malomn X had a hammer and sickle in his sperm?
Ienjoyed the article, Squeeky, thanks.
Although you’ve focused on just the Vattel Birther law cases, I have to say that ALL the Birther lawyers suffer from meglomania and all of the Birther lawsuits are rife with pseudo-law.
As your article points out, many of the crazy strategies in play in this pseudo-law is right out of the crazy variations of the Tax Protester / Soverign Citizens movement. As such, it is no coincidence that we have been seeing an ever increasing amount of their nonsense appearing amongst the Birthistani population. It seems that once someone becomes susceptible to conspiracy thinking, they tend to become infected with other paranoid ideas quite easily. Conspiracy thinking definitely exhibits symptoms of a disease, that’s for sure.
Thank you G!!! I am glad you liked it. I do not agree however that Dr. Taitz and the other Common Sense Suspicious Birthers are the same as the Vattle Birther lawyers. First, I don’t think there are very many real lawyers who believe the Vattle stuff and most of the Vattle Birthers are not real lawyers at all, just pretend Internet ones. That is how they puff themselves up by pretending to be lawyers and pretending to know stuff.
Common sense suspicious Birthers are pretty honest about how we/they DON’T KNOW things, which is why they always want discovery. To find out if there is something fishy or not in the Connecticut SS#, or whatever. Plus, there is a difference between TOTALLY squirrely law like the Vattle Birthers do, and making mistakes suing under good laws like maybe Dr. Taitz does sometimes. Plus, I am doing a lot of thinking if the Vattle Birthers are even “birthers” at all, since there were idiots like them a long time before Obama. Maybe what they are is just frustrated Psuedo-Lawyers who saw the Obama NBC stuff as a place to do their thing, Which is why they switch off to Rubio and Jindal sooo fast.
In other words, Birtherism did not find them, or make them. . .instead, they found Birtherism to our everlasting embarrassment. But I am still thinking about all this because it is some pretty deep theoretical stuff, which me being a INTP, I can probably figure out. But it may take a few days.
The Head Researcher, as Agent.
Sorry, but I have to completely disagree with you here.
Orly fits the definition of meglomanical to a “t”. There is nothing honest about her filings or how she constantly misrepresents the situation in her tellings. Every single birther lawyer’s case has been nothing but pseudo-law claptrap. I see very little honesty or willingness to deal with reality, facts nor logic in the birther community at all. Besides your attempts to further research the whole Vattel spiel and realize what a canard it is, give me any example of any other prolific birther being honest or realistic. It is easy enough to point to constant examples of every leading birther website being nothing but a hotbed of lunacy, paranoid conspiracy delusions and demonstrable of a whole host of wilful denial traits.
… nonexistent.
Hate to tell you this, Squeeky, but all of the Orly’s evidence falls under psuedo-law as well. She tries to use evidence that was obtained blatently illegally and completely against the law and uses stuff that doesn’t actually mean anything to suggest that Obama is hiding something.
For instance, let’s take a look at the SSN thing. There are literally tens of thousands of people out there who have social security numbers outside of the state that they were born in. It was a filing system, and mistakes were made. The fact that Obama was given a SSN from Connecticut is not nefarious and is no indication of fraud. In fact, the Social Security Administration for at least the last 10 years has put it on their website that the “Area Code” part doesn’t necessairly mean that the person was in that area when it was issued. It’s an antequated filing system that was designed literally 80 years ago.
Then she takes a database printout that her own experts know has literally thousands of errors in it and should not be taken as evidence of fraud to actually be evidence of fraud, and then she doesn’t actually interpret it correctly. She claimed that the President used 33 different SSNs, I believe. However, if you look at her list of SSN, you’d realize that most of the SSNs are actually the same number.
She then takes “evidence” that is fraudently obtained, such as someone pretending to be the President to obtain his Selective Service application, change the President’s Address to his own address, and then have a replacement sent to him. Or, for instance in the E-Verify “evidence” (though it’s not really evidence) have people criminally abuse the system to run checks on Obama through a flimsy psuedo-law that they believe that they are his employer, though the E-Verify system specifically violates this action. She then takes that and mis-interprets it. Instead of seeing Occum’s Razor and seeing that the President, after his old SSN was plasted over legal filings and her websites over the internet, was actually assigned a new SSN, she assumes that this proves her case of Fraud.
To G and Duns:
This is opinion stuff, but here is how I see it. You have to look at what the law you are suing under to figure out whether or not it is Pseudolaw. A Vattle Birther would sue Obama under Vattel maybe, who isn’t even American law. This is crank law stuff.
But Dr. Taitz, being a really smart lawyer, might sue instead under Emotional Distress, which is a valid law, Now, she would probably lose because I think it has to be really bad for Emotional Distress, BUT she would get her point out about Obama. Plus suing people for Emotional Distress is legal even if you lose. Because there was a case about this I just saw, and some poor little kid who got shipped out to Mexico by ICE even though she was a NBC. Well, she lost but the issue got a lot of press. Sooo, to me that is the difference between Dr. Taitz and these loser Vattle Birthers.
The Head Researcher, as Agent.
Filing frivolous lawsuits merely to get attention is a good way to get disbarred. No lawyer would think Orly has any emotional distress claim and such would be thrown out of court like every other one of her cases. The courts and the state bar will eventually get fed up with the courts being used to generate publicity with this kind of nonsense. President’s are generally immune from civil suits for their actions while in office and no court will allow Orly to go on some fishing expedition when she has no evidence that the President ever intended to cause here emotional distress, which is what she would have to prove. Just like her quo warranto and fraud claims, it has no basis in actual law and would be a violation of ethics to bring into court.
I’ll echo what Ballantine has already replied with and add the following challenge back to you, Squeeky – 1) What evidence do you have at all to support your opinion of Orly as a smart lawyer at all?
She hasn’t won a case, has been warned repeatedly and eventually santioned and has constant trouble even submitting basic filings properly, even after repeated helpful reminders by the court. She’s about as delusional, meglomaniacal and incompetent as they come.
Of all the Birther lawyers trying to practice their frivolous pseudo-law nonsense out there, she may be the most frequent filer, but she is also the least competent.
“But Dr. Taitz, being a really smart lawyer . . .”
Not by any stretch of the imagination, now or ever.
Perhaps her youngest son will continue her windmill tilting.
From one of her FB pages:
“My two older sons are studying premed, my youngest son is starting pre-law and economics this year. My oldest son is graduating this year from a top IVY League university with Honors. My youngest son just got accepted to a top IVy League university on early admissions, he will start in fall.”
Keep in mind that this is the millionaire Birther Queen who is constantly begging for money from her fans – some of whom have admitted to giving her their fixed income retirement checks and Social Security funds.
G, Maj Will, and Ballantine:
Basically everybody said:
She hasn’t won a case, has been warned repeatedly and eventually sanctioned and has constant trouble even submitting basic filings properly, even after repeated helpful reminders by the court. She’s about as delusional, meglomaniacal and incompetent as they come.
I have repeatedly addressed this, including recently this, from the back up website, Both Sides Now:
http://headresearcher.posterous.com/no-birther-has-ever-escaped-from-obotski-stal#
The Head Researcher
So Squeeky is contending that it is valid to sue someone just because your delusions of them cause you emotional distress?
Really?
I found that to be your most underwhelming argument to date and containing no actual argument of substance.
Simply put, Orly’s arguments have no validity in law. They have been poorly filed, argued and are nothing but frivolous. Simple as that.
In her (sic) article referenced above, Squeeky makes the oft drooled out excuse “Because what a smart and effective person would want to do is put an end to the questions concerning eligibility.”.
The problem with that bit of pablum is that it assumes that the person asking would ever be satisfied with an answer. It assumes that birthers are actually asking an honest question.
The problem, of course, is that birthers are not asking an honest question. There is simply no amount of objective, substantive evidence that would satisfy a birther. That much has been made very plain over three years of failed lawsuits and failed aspirations.
Birthers will never win, because the only answer they will accept as sufficient just simply is not true. Birthers don’t even really want an answer. They just want to keep bitching about losing the election, and this faux “question” is nothing more than a vehicle to bitch.
It goes well beyond the won-loss record. Her cases by and large do not even make legal arguments at all. Any idiot can go on google and find the elements of a particular claim. Not Orly. This is laziness as much as anything. You seem to be implying that filing these frivolous suits is fine as long as they generate publicity. Such is as much as admitting that she should be disbarred.
So how much evidence does Obama have to produce. Two birth certificates with two administrations vouching for it. His certifcate is one the official state website with a letter cerrifying it is correct. No president in history has provided more evidence of his birth status. Orly has already stated that if the vault copy matches what has been released, it is a fake. What evidence will be demaned next? If you are not being driven by Obama derangement, please show uis your demands that all the republican candidates provide the same proff as obama. Remember, no copies allowed.
Daniel:
Are there less Birthers now that Obama has coughed up his long form birth Certificate???
If p, then q, which is logic, means that “if yes, then you are wrong.”
Sooo, mind your p’s and q’s.
The Head Researcher
Ballantine:
I was always more of a WHY Birther than a WHERE Birther, sooo I don’t care much about seeing any more birth documents, although I am still curious why he has a Connecticut ss#, which I have read could just be a paperwork screw up. Who knows??? I am like 90%to 95% sure the long form was a real document, although I think Obama and/or the Obots left it squirrely to keep the Birther issue alive. This is something I discuss a lot in a upcoming Internet Article, 2012 – The Year of the Birther, which is where I predict stuff that I think is going to happen. Plus give the strategy of things. Which is fraught with dangers for Birthers.
The Head Researcher
Are there fewer birthers . . .
Grammar Girl:
http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/less-versus-fewer.aspx
Apuzzo, still lonely:
Be sure to read the new post at Terrible Truth. This one shows how “someone” has been busy altering photos of baby Obama. I wonder why someone would do that.
So, we have altered photos of Stanley Ann Dunham (they put her in long hair when she really had short hair) and now we have altered photos of baby Obama. I wonder what else we will see.
See the new post entitled, “When The Bough Breaks, by Martha Trowbridge, accessed at
http://terribletruth.wordpress.com/2011/10/10/when-the-bough-breaks/
Maybe Doctor Conspiracy and his assistants can take a jab at this one, too.
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7466841558189356289&postID=7465911241460456477
Putzy the putative attorney and birther bigot is spinning into further irrelevancy.
Is he one of those dysfunctional illiterates? That might help explain his string of failures in court or why real attorneys sneer at his bigotry, incompetence and crank theories.
Squeeky, you often do not get to know the reason why.
For instance, the one thing that you put is the Social Security Number (SSN). The fact is that there are tens of thousands of people in this country who have SSNs from states that they never stepped foot in. There is nothing nefarious about it, and my gut says that Obama doesn’t even know the reason why. It’s the number he was assigned and nobody probably does know why exactly. We can speculate that it was someone who put in a wrong zip code by replacing a 9 with a 0. However, we don’t know, the Social Security Administration doesn’t know, and Obama doesn’t know.
And it is no indication of anything nefarious going on. As I said before, tens of thousands of Americans have SSNs that are within the state block that is assigned to a state that they have never set foot in. There is no reason for the Social Security Administration to get rid of those numbers (it’s ultimately a number from an antiquated filing system that was designed before the files were centralized).
What birthers do is that that minor event that actually doesn’t do anything, and then spin something that somehow this proves that Obama is a usurper in this country illegally.
Let’s take another few instances of Birthers doing this same thing. Take for instance this e-verify thing. The Social Security Administration, when a number is made public, assigns the person having the number a new number. One famous case of this occurred in 1938 when a department store put sample Social Security Cards into their wallets, using a real number of one of their employees. This number became invalidated, and the secretary got a new number. The owner of Lifelock also got a new SSN after his number was used in advertising and fraudulent things started coming up.
The President’s SSN was made public by Orly Taitz. With this, it would stand to reason that the SSN would be invalidated and the President would get a new number. This completely valid, innocuous thing is currently being used by the birthers as evidence that the President is a fraud though it proves nothing of the sort. Then of course, you have the people fraudulently either claiming that the President is their new employee (he’s not. My guess is that only the OMP of the Federal Government may run that on a Federal Employee, including an elected official), or actually fraudulently claiming that they are him in order to try to get his Selective Service Application and have it sent to their home. These are still being used by birthers as “proof” that the President is a fraud.
He really lost since the Supreme Court rejected his case. Since then he has made no sense at all. When he argued at CAAFLOG after his loss he was simply refusing to acknowledge what basic English said, redefining words and re-writing authority to try to help his cause. It was and continues to be embarrassing.
I am not at all sure that Kerchner does not write some of his gibberish. They are both equally convincing.
That’s too much.
He has mistaken my ridicule as acknowledgement. Was that really too subtle? I guess I should have added a (((snicker))).
In the real world, the darker long hair in back is called a shadow. See where the light is coming from in the picture? if you are going to try to claim altered photos, at least try to not miss the obvious (or Obama’s knee). This one is not even up to the previous birther standards.
I see Mr. Paralegal is in full form at Mario’s place and even MichaelN pops in to try and quote the Calvin Case.
What “point”, except for more ridicule, would that “get out”?
Birfers still have to learn that “even bad publicity is good publicity” doesn’t work in politics, it only works in the entertainment industry.
Besides, I don’t think she’ll like the spin of “Crackpot lawyer sues Obama, ’emotionally distressed’ because not used to having black Prez” this will inevitably cause.
And adding to that, what publicity did the previous 94+ birfer cases generate? Not even the ones that made it to requesting certiorari from SCOTUS made any headlines. Not even a single “crackpot Obama case reaches highest court”.
If you’re too unimportant even for ridicule, it shows you’re lost beyond salvation.
As an aside, I think this is why WND and birfers are so mad about “Occupy Wall Street”. It rubs in their face that others have no problem getting huge amounts of people on the streets, when their alleged “millions of concerned Americans” always stay at home when birfers call…
Wow, what a crew. And amongst the whole group, they won’t get one point of law correct.
Let’s see, would I rather be ahead on Mario’s scorecard or Tes’s scorecard of actual court cases? That is the question. 😆
Not in reality. But when did that matter to a craven crew of lunatics?
Well, here is a story about the Global Warming people who realize that they are getting beat, and why they think that. Which, is like I have been saying above, and saying other places, that Dr. Taitz is winning the war, even though she keeps losing in court.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/global-warning-climate-sceptics-are-winning-the-battle-2368617.html
Which was on Drudge this morning.
The Head Researcher
If “global warming sceptics [sic]” aren’t buying beachfront property for their grandchildren don’t believe anything they say. IOW, follow the money.
Ok, that is a very sad argument when you look at it in totality. If your whole point is that a bunch of nonsense propaganda can fool a number of people to ignore reality smacking them in the face…wow…well, I wouldn’t consider that a “win” in any real sense at all.
All you have as a result is a bunch of people walking around in denial and disconnected from the world around them and the real impacts that occur. No amount of their fantasy beliefs can have any impact to change the underlying reality…so what is the point of championing such delusions? What exactly is gained by a bunch of unprepared folks with their heads buried in the sand?
Global warming is real. As the article points out, the evidience and impacts for such are just going to continue to become a greater and greater impact. There is very little doubt on this amongst the actual scientific community. Your pointing out that the scientists are not winning the “messaging war” doesn’t change that reality and all the deniers in the world can’t stop global warming from happening. All their foolish denials will do in the end is lead to unpreparedness, which will increase human suffering and losses in the long term. So in the end, global warming “wins” no matter what and civilization loses by being ignorant until it is too late. What a sad and sorry state of affairs.
Further, trying to compare the issue of global warming to birtherism is like comparing an elephant to an ant.
Birtherism is such a minor and insignificant phenomenon in any scheme of things, let alone in its “popularity” that such a comparison is nothing but an excessively hyperbolic fallacy.
People being aware of birtherism isn’t the same as people believing in birtherism. Most of those who have become aware of the phenomenon flatly reject and denouce it as a baseless and impotent conspiracy of bigots. The number of actual birthers out there is really an insignificant and irrelevant segment of the population. Pointing out that a number of hard core conspiracy die-hards continue to cling and pursue this fools quest only really points out that these people are too disconnected from reality and society to probably ever recover and there is no “win” in that.
Who cares if they spend every day of the rest of their lives rocking back and forth claiming “any day now”… that day simply never comes.
G:
You said: “Ok, that is a very sad argument when you look at it in totality. If your whole point is that a bunch of nonsense propaganda can fool a number of people to ignore reality smacking them in the face…wow…well, I wouldn’t consider that a “win” in any real sense at all.”
Well, would you consider it REALITY that the “nonsense” is fooling people??? Because the Global Warmer people are facing reality, that they are losing. And, that if they are going to win, they will have to become better at explaining stuff to people. Like me, who is a skeptic about it. Which skeptic means that I don’t accept it because I don’t think it has been proven to where I can see and understand it. Sooo, whose fault is that??? Not mine.
Which is the same thing as what I said above, that smart and effective people would want to put an end to the questions concerning eligibility.” Which is what I am trying to do with the Vattle Birthers. I am going to study them and understand them, and then do my best to clobber them WITH LOGIC on their own battlefield. I am not going to say stuff like:
Well, my good man, you obviously have not been to “Hahvard” like me, and obviously your regrettable record in the adjudication system has been less than spectacular, and “rahther” than engage in verbal fisticuffs with you, I am simply going to scull, scull, scull my boat, gently down the stream.
Because that is “burying your scull in the sand.” I am going to come at them from every angle imaginable, not because of Obama, who is not worth the effort, but for TRUTH, and Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal. And I will be constantly adjusting my arguments and not relying on winning in court, when the winning so far, is pretty much avoiding the fight.
Which, is maybe what the global warmer scientists have finally realized.
The Head Researcher
Actually, yes, to a certain extent, it *is* your fault if you can’t discern between reality (whether you like it or not) and propaganda due to mere paranoia and emotional issues.
The real scientific community has had a solid consensus on the Climate Change issue for some time. Just as the real legal community has had a solid consensus on Obama’s legitimacy.
If some people chose to buy into contrarian propaganda spiel by folks with an obvious agenda over the simple facts in front of their face, just because they emotionally prefer what the propaganda is selling, than that is their own problem and why they will always be on the foolish and losing end of things in the long run.
There is rational skepticism and then there is irrational skepticism. If you simply are paranoid and full of doubts and can’t distinguish between official and accredited sources and those that are merely agenda based and conspiratorial in nature, then you only have yourself to blame.
I agree with your statement and direction to educate yourself on the issue…but you better have the ability to truly discern between credible sources in your education. You’ve made significant process on the Vattel issue and have learned for yourself why it is such nonsense. Therefore, I think in time, if you put enough scholarly energy into these other issues and don’t fall into the trap of merely filtering out answers that don’t fit your preconceived biases, you can arrive at reasoned and reality-based conclusions on other issues and become better at quickly discerning the legitimacy of supportable arguments vs. agenda based propaganda.
Global warming is happening, whether people chose to ignore it or not. If you ignore a storm approaching, the storm doesn’t go away. You just are unable to get out of the path and suffer the consequences. Simple as that.
In terms of the courts, they have not been “avoiding the fight” as you mistakingly portray it. All these frivolous lawsuits have been given quite a bit of leeway and allowed to go through the full process of the courts. The process has been followed. You have been misled and bought into gullible nonsense in thinking that issues of jurisdiction, judiciability and standing are not issues about the root “merit” of a case…because that is exactly what they legally are. Those are the legal initial pillars of “merit” and cases which can’t even meet those simple, basic requirements *are* completely frivolous (i.e. without merit) and more importantly, inadequately written. No legitimate lawyer with proper training should ever be bringing filings to court that can’t meet the very basic requirements of being a viable case.
Climate change deniers validate what Upton Sinclair said: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
Climate change science has done a perfectly fine job establishing the truth and it is not “losing” (and an article in a newspaper hardly proves the case). No serious person who is honest doubts the truth of climate change. The debate is over whether anything can be done to affect the course of the process. We may in fact simply have to accept a warmer Earth and do our best to adapt. The politicians have simply decided that they prefer to look after their short-term interests, rather than the long-term future. There is nothing new in that, as that is what they do on every other issue.
I am willing to bet that Squeeky doesn’t understand General Relativity either. That must be Einstein’s fault. All those complicated Reimann sums and warped space-time. I guess old Albert was just a boob for not being able to prove his ideas with numbers that Squeeky can count without taking her shoes off.
Are you a zeteticist?
Well said, Scientist. Well said.
The global climate has changed hundreds of times on this planet and those changes can be documented. Anybody ever heard of an “Ice Age”? Anybody ever been to Glacier National Park in Montana?
The National Academies of Science of 13 nations have issued a joint statement on the reality of Climate Change.
http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/G8+5energy-climate09.pdf
I had to look that one up. I may be one, but I will have to read more. Here is one quote I found VERY INTERESTING:
The term has found occasional use in fringe fields where opposition from those within the scientific mainstream or from scientific skeptics is strong. In 1994, Susan Blackmore, a parapsychologist who became more skeptical and eventually became a CSICOP fellow in 1991, described what she termed the “worst kind of pseudoskepticism”:
There are some members of the skeptics’ groups who clearly believe they know the right answer prior to inquiry. They appear not to be interested in weighing alternatives, investigating strange claims, or trying out psychic experiences or altered states for themselves (heaven forbid!), but only in promoting their own particular belief structure and cohesion…I have to say it—most of these people are men. Indeed, I have not met a single woman of this type.[11]
Sooo, about grunty little malebeasts, oh she is sooo right!!! But, I am not sure that every stupid claim deserves a long, fair hearing. For example, Moon Landing Deniers. Which, they only had one questionable thingy, about the flag waving, which was disproved. Sooo, for me personally, why waste any more time on them.
As far as global warning, I think there are maybe two big herds of people on earth on any given issue. The SMART herd and the STUPID herd. Nobody in the STUPID Herd ever thinks they are in the STUPID herd. They think they are in the SMART herd, because nobody wants to be STUPID. But sometimes, you do not find out until later, that you were in the STUPID herd.
I read that back in the 1960s whatever, people thought that science was about Global Cooling and a new Ice Age. Sooo, the people who believe whatever science is supposed to be saying, were global coolers. They thought they were in the SMART Herd, just because of who they believed. Come to find out, ooops!!! They may have been in the wrong herd, because the NEW science idea was global warming. Sooo, off to join the NEW SMART herd.
Which, from what we had in Earth Science was that the Earth had gone thru a lot of Ice Ages, which for them to end, would have needed global warming, so I guess we have also had Hot Ages. Sooo, are we in a Hot Age, and if so is it because of humans??? Because the other Hot Ages were before humans. Or, is it because the Sun gets hotter and colder on some kind of cycle thingy??? Or, is science following the money to global warming, or are people following the money to NOT be global warming.
Sooo, my herd on stuff is usually the I Don’t Know HERD, because I don’t want to join the SMART Herd, until I am really pretty sure it isn’t the STUPID Herd. But, as a woman, I don’t mind admitting I DON’T KNOW, and plus, I am not afraid to ask directions.
The Head Researcher
Would you refuse to believe you have cancer if your doctor told you that you do…. simply because you don’t understand exactly how the immune system works? If so, would your “skepticism” mean the cancer would magically fail to exist?
Nice explanation but don’t hold your breath. Sound reason rarely makes a dent.
The problem is often that science and the scientific process are too poorly understood and communicated, so people latch on to the wrong conclusions in search for a simple soundbyte answer.
The problem with the whole pointing to “global cooling” dismissively in the argument is a failure to understand the bigger point being made: We *are* currently living in an inter-glacial period (i.e. the “warmer” period between current natural glacial cycles). What that simply means is that at some point, that broader climate cycle will likely lead to another future ice age. The speculation rampant in the 60’s & 70’s was in terms of how long the interglacial period had existed and therefore a few overly alarmist worries of how soon the next one would begin received too much headline hype over much of the more serious science work looking into the issue.
Like many of the brances of science, our understanding of previous time period climate cycles has really expanded exponentially over the past few decades.
Yes, the planet has had much larger long-term periods of both warmer and cooler climates. In terms of human lifetimes, these larger climate cycles are very gradual. The whole point of the real climate change debate issue is that the RATE of increase currently happening is much more dramatic than any natural cycle on record and is continuing to increase at a rate closer to exponential than linear. These unnatural increases seem to really mirror the increase in industrialization and therefore are likely to indicate that human activity has dangerously impacted the climate dynamic in play.
Although there are valid arguments on the inside question of identifying all the various components within climate change and the extent to which each has had influence, the overall picture is clear – that a rapid an increasing change is in progress and will continue to accelerate over the next century if nothing is done to address it.
The only real issues in serious debate are about what can be done to slow down the trend AND to successfully adapt to it, as it does have serious impacts for not just human society, but also the rest of the species living on this planet. The longer the problem is ignored, the greater the long term damage will be.
I would probably get a second opinion. But, I think you have missed the point. Science knows some things. That does not mean it knows all things. On global warming, some of the “evidence” is temperatures taken all over the world for maybe what 120 years??? Who knows how reliable some of that stuff is, and if it is good evidence, does it tell you why??? Because there have been pretty big ups and downs for millions of years. I saw a thing on TV about glaciers coming and going lots of times in places. Before humans.
Plus, the sun stuff is just starting to get looked out. If you want to join the SMART herd, then do it. I am still not sure which herd that is.
The Head Researcher
How do we know that this is the fastest warm-up ever??? That is the kind of statement that makes me stay in the IDK Herd. Because who knows for sure what the temperature in Washington was in 5,000,000,000 BC compared to 5,000,000120 BC??? This is the kind of statement thing that makes me think STAMPEDE.
The Head Researcher
One has to distinguish between very short-term trends and longer term trends. Because stocks go up today doesn’t mean we are in a bull market. There was a brief cooling in the 1970s superimposed on a longer-term warming since 1700 or so. We also know that atmospheric CO2 began rising around 1700 as the Industrial Revolution and the burning of coal began.
It’s not about herds, it’s about cost/benefit analysis. There is ALWAYS uncertainty in any complex situation. I’m not an alarmist, but the best evidence right now strongly favors that global climate change is real. So, what is the PRUDENT course of action? Simply to take reasonable (as opposed to pie-in-the sky) steps to reduce CO2 emissions. Drive more efficient cars, develop mass transit, make buildings more efficient. If we do that, even if global warming turns out to be wrong, we will spend less on energy (especially $$ sent to unfiendly countries) and we will make the energy resources we have last longer (we don’t know exactly how much oil and gas exists, but the laws of thermodynamics ensure the amount is finite). It’s a win-win no matter what happens.
Now suppose we do nothing. Keep driving big ass vehicles and burning through oil reserves. That’s a lose-lose proposition no matter whether climate change is correct or not.
Simple logic, which I wouldn’t expect Squeeky to be able to follow, because I didn’t say “thingy”.
Scientist:
How does any of the stuff you say to do, have any major effect on global warming??? If people were doing enough in 1700 to cause more CO2 (which means carbon dioxide), and there were maybe a billion people then, mostly on farms, then how much are you going to save with 7 billion people mostly in houses and stuff and traveling all over the place.
You see, here is where your thinking becomes like the Vattle Birthers. There is a certain thing that they want, namely Obama gone. Sooo, if case says “citizen” instead of “NBC”, they latch onto that to try to get what they want.
There seems to be something you want, which is maybe more fuel efficiency and mass transit, and here comes Global Warming for you to latch onto to make those things happen. Even though they will probably not do much good. Which to me says again, STAMPEDE.
The Head Researcher
“But, I think you have missed the point.”
Oh, the irony.
I have said I’m not that optimistic that climate change (a more accurate term than global warming, not that you care about accuracy) can be prevented, as we are late in the game. but how does doing nothing make sense? I look at someone who weighs 500 lbs and say maybe it’s unrealistic to imagine he can lose 350 lbss. But I would still advise a sensible diet and if he loses only 100 or 200 lbs, he’s still better off than if he does nothing. You say unless you are certain he can get to normal weight, he might as well just stuff his face with Doritos and Twinkies.
As for the Vattel birthers or any type of birthers, who cares? The whole “eligibility’ thing is a crock from start to finish. The 12th Amendment says “The Person having the greatest Number of votes for President shall be President”. That is crystal clear. In a democracy, the voters have the final say. Birth doesn’t matter, parents don’t matter. A good President born in Kazakhstan to a French mother and a Chinese father is better than a bad President born in the US to ancestors who arrived on the Mayflower. The End
Science never prescribes to know “all things”…just to try to use properly tested and verified methods to improve our knowledge and get better answers. There will always be gaps in what we know and we will always be filling in the pieces, but just because a few holes in the detail remain doesn’t mean that the bigger picture isn’t pretty much understood to a significant extent.
Our knowledge of climate goes back much farther that what you referred to, which is merely the timeframe of when we started writing down and tracking temperatures.
We have many other sources, all of which when cross-referenced and correlated together all point to the same trends and help to put the bigger picture into focus.
Tree ring data gives us yearly climate records for hundreds of years further back then that… and when you add in fossilized tree/plant records, we can fill in pieces of the puzzle going back much, much further in time.
Here is a good basic primer for you:
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/past-present-and-future.html#1
Ice Ring data is also one of the best sources of yearly climate and atmospheric records, as that air and sediment becomes trapped in the frozen ice and clear layers build up on a yearly cycle that are easy to see and distinguish when we extract ice cores. Ice core samples are taken from all over the world, where ice can build up long enough to leave these traces of the past. This extends our knowledge of climate at a yearly level back HUNDREDS of thousands of years. In fact, the latest ice core drilling in the Antartic is allowing us to go back over 600-800 thousand years back in time!
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/11/650000-years-of-greenhouse-gas-concentrations/
Other sources are coral (both existing structure and fossil records) and then broader prehistoric periods can be gleaned by studying various pollens, isotopes, and the types of plants animals and plankton in the fossil records and trapped within fossilized amber.
There are 5 known “Ice Age” periods that we’ve discovered in earth’s history, the last of which takes place during our time and which has been going on for the past 2.5 million years. We are currently living during an “interglacial” period in the cycle of this 5th “Ice Age”, which is overall called the Quaternary. The prior four all took place long before that. In fact, the last prior ice age period ended long before the age of dinosaurs and spanned a 100 million years of time. That doesn’t mean that was in the throws of an ice age climate during that whole period either – it too would have been full of cycles, punctuated by long warmer interglacial cycles too.
What really seems to be the primary driver of the “Ice Age” periods is the earth’s “circulatory” system through the ocean streams of warmer & colder water, which is very much impacted by the movement of plate tectonics.
Here’s a basic primer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_glaciation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation
G:
Thank you!!! I already knew about the tree rings and ice cores because I watched a few TV shows about them. (Which is why I picked 5,000,000 BC in my example. LOL!!!) I do watch more than just vampire movies, sooo I also watched one that was about the Sahara desert and some big lake coming and going as the Earth tipped around or whatever, the thing that happens in the 26,000 year Mayan thingy.
I appreciate the linky thingies and I will try to read them in the next few days. I am not somebody who disbelieves AGW, as much as a undecided. Which I think is a smart way to be on a lot of things because sooo much of what you read and hear is really about somebody’s agenda. Like I found when checking out footnotes in the pseudolaw Internet Articles, this is a quote that I found at a place called ADL, which makes sense:
“Some people believe with great fervor preposterous things that just happen to coincide with their self-interest.” Judge Frank Easterbrook, Coleman v. CIR (7th Cir 1986) 791 F2d 68 at 69 [and quoted in several subsequent court decisions].
Which, you could just substitute “agenda” for “self interest” and it would still fit. I plan on using this quote in a Squeekonomics Internet Article about how a lot of stuff you hear on the news about economics is “agenda driven.” First, I am studying something called “capital gains” more so I will make more sense.
The Head Researcher
This begins to touch on a communication problem that I think allows climate change deniers space to sow their seeds of FUD. “Climate change” is essentially unquantifiable to the layman – its too easily confused with weather. It is difficult for the average layman to notice that plants are maturing earlier all over the world. Likewise, “Global warming” is scientifically accurate, but again is too easily confused with weather and cold ‘storms’ that are clearly setting records for cold weather.
I find the description “energy retention” is probably better than either of those terms. Even if it is more clumsy, it may actually be easier to explain the consequences.
The increasing greenhouse gas (mainly CO2) blanket causes retention of energy, the most measurable consequence being a general warming, the most unmeasurable consequence being climate change.
On the other hand, when described as increased energy in the system, it is easier to understand how that results in not only increased numbers and strength of storms. droughts, floods, and other phenomenon that are relatively easily associated in the layman’s mind with ‘warming’, but also snow storms and oceanic changes that are more difficult to reconcile with ‘warming’.
More energy => higher highs and lower lows => more ferocity => more expression of energy imbalances in general. If there is more energy in the system, there is more energy available to hurricanes and cyclones and other storms of all kinds; simple as that. You can’t say ‘Cyclone Yasi’ or ‘Hurricane Katrina’ were specifically CAUSED by climate change or global warming. But you can definitely say that they had more energy available to them and the other seasonal storms, which could only result in stronger storms and higher numbers of storms.
It seems to me that a lot of the motivation behind the “global warming is a conspiracy” peeps is simply “I want to keep doing what I like, screw the world and the future, I’m living here and now”.
Because all these conspiracies (there is no global warming, there is an almost unlimited supply of oil) boil down to “anything that means I would have stop doing what I like does not exist”.
Just like birtherism boils down to “any politician I don’t like is not eligible and a criminal”.
And like anti-science in general boils down to “anything I don’t understand is a hoax”.
Excellent summary of how it works.
However, I feel that “more energy”, even though correct, is a also a description beyond the grasp of the layman to link thinking energy = weather / climate.
Agreed.
The Head Squeeky: ““Some people believe with great fervor preposterous things that just happen to coincide with their self-interest.” Judge Frank Easterbrook, Coleman v. CIR (7th Cir 1986) 791 F2d 68 at 69 [and quoted in several subsequent court decisions].”
You should apply that quote to the global warming deniers and scientists funded by energy companies…
This has always been one of my favorite quotes (going back to may days of arguing with tax protesters, and sovereign citizen nuts)
Hi!!! I have been reading a lot about these people because after I found out about them, at a ADL thingy, I noticed that the Vattle Birthers and the Militia Sovereign people BOTH have a weird fixation on the 14th Amendment creating a special kind of citizen. There seems to be a lot of similarities in their “Belief System”, which even crazy people have although it is usually pretty flawed, or they would NOT be “crazy.”
Sooo, I am going to do a lot more very good, exciting Internet Articles about them, like this one:
http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2011/10/14/vattel-birthers-the-militia-movement-in-sheeps-clothing/
If you are a lawyer, did you ever go to court with them, and if so, is there some website or book that is where all their 14th Amendment crazy stuff got started??? Because now since I am fighting the Vattle Birthers, too, I want to know all about them sooo I can understand them and debate them better. Although I think I am clobbering them pretty good right now. And Mario Apuzzo, Esq., too.
The Head Researcher
Squeeky, enjoyed the article. Loved the wolf in sheep’s clothing art clip & both its easter egg & subtitle (“There Is A Good Reason They Don’t Put Wolves In Petting Zoos” – great line… I’m going to have to remember that one!)
In your article you said, “My bet is they just don’t understand it because they don’t want to.” I think you are on to something there and that probably is the real reason for a vast majority of them.
You also said: “I am still investigating and studying this link between the Idiot Legal Arguments of the Militia Movement and the Idiot Legal Arguments of the Vattle Birthers (my sarcastic name for the Vattel Birthers), but this obvious similarity between them concerning whether the 14th Amendment replaces the common law on an issue is very troubling. ”
I agree. There seems to be a huge and disturbing trend between the two…and a lot of the disturbing parts also connect to various racist movements and/or “pro-Confederacy” movements that seem to be a common underlier lurking beneath the surface.
Lastly, I didn’t know you owned a machete! Interesting tid bit, indeed. I actually own a real katana sword, myself.
Never actually went to court with them (but I am a lawyer). Just argued with them on assorted message boards. A good website discussing the legal arguments for the sovereign citizen 14th Amendment nuts (and tax protesters in general) is:
http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#sovereigncitizens
That takes you to just the section on the 14th amendment….you can scroll to the top of the document to see the table of contents for the rest of the fun stuff (and I think Coleman citation appears somewhere in there as well).
G:
Thank you!!! I am glad you liked it. Yes, I have a machete, which you sometimes need to hit the stalky weed thingies with. Plus, if a snake attacks you, which one hasn’t yet probably because I am running too fast the other way. But a lot of people use them on zombies in the movies, sooo who knows. (LOL!!!)
If the sword is a wooden one, then I may have one that I forgot to put one in the garbage bags of stuff I threw out in the yard belonging to the last grunty little malebeast I let stay here. I am NOT admitting to anything over the Internet, but I seem to recall that he had one which would be just perfect for a Girl Reporter to defend herself with and would hurt a lot more than a broomstick but not major injure somebody like the softball bat would. Like it Goldilocks story, it would be just right! That is, if I forgot to put it out.which I am almost sure I didn’t forget. (Tee Hee!)
Jo Zeppy:
Thank you for the website linky thingy!!! I know I have a lot more research to do, and I can hardly wait for the When Law Risks Madness thing.
One thing is, this Vattle Birther stuff is sure a lot easier to write about than Obama, since he finally coughed the long form up. I mean, there are only sooo many Internet Articles you can write about “He shudda coughed it up sooner” and you just start to bore yourself to death. But, with this Vattle Birther stuff, you get to read law cases, and psychology, and conspiracy theory stuff, etc. Sooo, now I am glad they made me mad.
The Head Researcher
If you enjoy good Zombie fun, I recommend to you (& everyone) to check out The Walking Dead on AMC.
They are running the first season marathon (6 episodes) starting around 2pm this Sunday, followed by the 2nd Season premiere, which will be an hour & a half long.
No, my samuri sword is real steel. Full heavy metal and designed for actual combat, not as a prop. Quite heavy, but well weighted for a smooth grip and swing. Got a sweet scabbard for it too. The blade could use some sharpening, but I purposely like leaving it dull. Both to not injure myself & because I’m not some psycho that needs to shed blood. Real skilled swordplay (I’m not skilled) is quite athletic & good excerise and even meditation. Someday, when I find the time, I’ll get back to practice with it, just to get back in shape. If I ever had to defend myself from an intruder in the home, there’s a lot I could do to subdue them with the blade without ever having to cut at all, and I prefer it that way. I also have a tonfa, some nunchucks (and I think a Sai somewhere) and a baseball bat if it ever came to that; which would also do the trick. But I consider them more an eastern traditional method of holistic excercise than worrying about needing them for defense.
G: Oh thank you, I loved that series. I did not know the second season was coming on. I will watch that. For home defense, the first line is my 5 shot 38 I keep in my purse. Plus, my father taught me to fight dirty because I was sooo small so I just pity whoever tries to hurt me. Because I am NOT going quietly to some shallow grave somewhere. I will bite plugs out of somebody.
Oh, I have to stop tonight, but I just kicked out another Internet Article that started out as a Frootloop Vattle Birther one, but ended up being a Loop Guru one, which is better since Halloween is coming up.
http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2011/10/14/vattel-birthers-the-new-loop-gurus/
The Head Researcher
Another enjoyable read. My favorite part was the illustrative example conversation between the Birther and the Rational Person. Very realistic, entertaining and a good way of making the point while retaining the reader’s attention. Kudos.
blockquote cite=”comment-135746″>
Head Researcher: G: Oh thank you, I loved that series. I did not know the second season was coming on. I will watch that. For home defense, the first line is my 5 shot 38 I keep in my purse. Plus, my father taught me to fight dirty because I was sooo small so I just pity whoever tries to hurt me. Because I am NOT going quietly to some shallow grave somewhere. I will bite plugs out of somebody.Oh, I have to stop tonight, but I just kicked out another Internet Article that started out as a Frootloop Vattle Birther one, but ended up being a Loop Guru one, which is better since Halloween is coming up. http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2011/10/14/vattel-birthers-the-new-loop-gurus/The Head Researcher
G: Thank you!!1 I am glad you liked it. But I gave IMPORTANT BREAKING NEWS for everybody about the Vattle Birthers. I have found the ORIGINAL SOURCE of their stupid theory, and I want everybody to know about it, because you just never know when a earthquake or tornado will strike, and WHOOOSH!, there you are just gone in a second. Plus, it is hurricane season, too. Anyway, I did not want anything like that to happen, and me not have told people where this was.
It is a 1844 case called Lynch v. Clarke and I have copied and pasted it, but I still have to read it some more, and make it cleaner to read, BUT: and this is important, it looks like most every argument, except the 14th Amendment ones were made by the LOSING side in that case. All the Snug Harbor, and Shanks Dupont stuff, and the 1790 Naturalization Act, and the hysterics stuff about foreigners was in there, too.
Sooo, I am going to do some Internet Articles, and one I am going to call Vattle Birthers Party Like It’s. . . 1844!!!, but it might be a day or two before I finish it. Sooo, anyway, this is important because people should know that Vattle Birthers are recycling the Losing side of a 167 year old case for their arguments, while ignoring all the cases afterward. The decision is a fun one to read, because the judge is very understandable, once you understand what “public law” is, which I think is maybe either Vattel or stuff that is passed like statutes and things.
The Head Researcher
Lynch v. Clarke has been mentioned many times on this site and referenced by the Doc in his articles.
You searched here first, right?
Up top there is a bookmarks menu. Select Lawsuits from there to go to a page that lists various historical lawsuits and links to them. Lynch is there.
Also lower right under Quick Reference there is a link to The Great Mother of all Natural Born Citizenship Quotation Pages. Lynch is there too.
Lynch v Clarke is a very important case because it expresses the consensus of the time and provides a sweeping historical survey of the question. It covers both Calvin’s Case and Vattel’s Law of Nations.
MW:
No, I have run across the case before debating the Vattle Birthers, and I think I even saw a short little thingy on the decision, like a few sentences or something. But I was researching the cases BEFORE the 14th Amendment, and I found the whole decision maybe on a place called Natural Born Citizen. When I read through the stuff there, it was clear the judge was answering questions like what I had been debating Vattle Birthers about.
Which led me think, WHY COME??? It must have been that somebody in the case made the same stupid arguments as the Vattle Birthers today, like that Snug harbor stuff, and the 1790 act stuff. Sooo, I found the book online that the person at NatBC had used, and I found the original document where the grunty little malebeasts sued the poor woman and tried to screw her out of her property, and now I have it, too. (The NatBC place had some of the back and forth between the lawyers on it, but I didn’t see the first thing that did the suing.)
Sooo, what this adds, and why this is sooo important, is NOT just that there is a case which says if you are born here then you are NBC, BUT that the Vattle Birthers are going back 167 years to a LOSING side of a case to try to fool people today, which is SHAMEFUL!!! Because even people who don’t understand law stuff as good as I do, and who might fall for the pages of legal gibberish, are still not the kind of people that like other people making monkeys of them and trying to slip stuff past them. Which using a 167 year old losing case is doing.
Plus, a lot of debate is psychological, not just rational, because believe it or not, most of what happens in life is NOT rational, unless maybe you are a INTP like me. Or maybe even the INTJ’s or whatever. Most stuff is a combination of feelings and rationality. Sooo, if you are in a debate and you can tell the people who are listening that the other side is trying to pull a fast one, then that goes a long way toward winning.
The Head Researcher
Squeeks, may I suggest this article:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/05/natural-born-citizenship-primer
I’ve said before that birthers don’t just want a “do over” on the 2008 election, they want a “do over” of the Civil War. While generally it is the losers in the important lawsuits that birthers rely on, it is also the slaveholders and the nativists. The case most in line with birther thinking is Dred Scott.
The tension between those who embrace the “different” and those who reject it is an essential part of human culture and it is at the core of the birther discussion of natural born citizenship.
Dr. C:
Thank you!!! The judge in that case wrote on and on forever, and I saw the Rawle person in what he wrote, too. I have some excerpts, I have already pulled out, but I have to study it more to make sure I am not messing up stuff. Oh plus BEFORE that, I saw a Vattle Birther on the link you gave me blabbering about Minor, which so is Mario Apuzzo, Esq., and I am working on a Internet Article called where “Hoisting Mario Apouzzo, Esq. On His Own Petard” , where I am going to make him just eat something he said and it is going to taste like crow to him!!! Anyway, here is something real vicious I said about them and Minor when I wrote the “Contributing to the Delinquency of Minor and Happersett” Internet Article. You might like it:
Now, to most people, it reads like the Minor Judges did not make any ruling on whether or not children of foreigners were natural born citizens if born here. And, to the rest of The Free World, when a court says in a particular case that “it is not necessary to solve these doubts” , well, uh. . . it means they are not going to solve the doubts. BUT, the Vattle Birthers have a little reading comprehension problem caused by the fact that later court cases, like Wong Kim Ark , in 1898, do go on to resolve these doubts, and NOT in a way the Vattle Birthers like. Sooo, Minor vs. Happersett 1874 is like a retreat to the womb for the Vattle Birthers. It is a place to be warm, and safe, and not have to deal with that troublesome Big Kid known as REALITY. They can lay there, all comfy cozy in a fetal position, thumbs in their mouths, and pretend away those bolded words above.
Which, I am planning one on Vattle Birthers in diapers in a fetal position where I will do psychology on this on them. Anyway, here is the long excerpt, which if it is too long, just erase it if you need to:
The Head Researcher
The Excerpt from Lynch versus Clarke:
6. Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever were the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen. It is surprising that there has been no judicial decision upon this question. None was found by the counsel who argued this cause, and so far as I have been able to ascertain, it never has been expressly decided in any of the courts of the respective states, or of the United States. This circumstance itself, in regard to a point which must have occurred so often in the administration of justice, furnishes a strong inference that there has never been any doubt but that the common law rule was the law of the land. This inference is confirmed, and the position made morally certain, by such legislative, judicial and legal expositions as bear upon the question. Before referring to those, I am bound to say that the general understanding of the legal profession, and the universal impression of the public mind, so far as I have had the opportunity of knowing it, is that birth in this country, does of itself constitute citizenship. Thus when at an election, the inquiry is made whether a person offering to vote is a citizen or an alien, if he answers that he is a native of this country, it is received as conclusive that he is a citizen. No one inquires farther. No one asks whether his parents were citizens or were foreigners. It is enough that he was born here, whatever were the status of his parents. I know that common consent is sometimes only a common error, and that public opinion is not any authority on a point of law. But this is a question which is more important, and more deeply felt, in reference to political rights, than to rights of property. The universality of the public sentiment in this instance, is a part of the historical evidence of the state and progress of the law on the subject. It indicates the strength and depth of the common law principle, and confirms the position that the adoption of the Federal Constitution wrought no change in that principle.
The Minor case, properly read only hurts the birther argument. The court clearly declined to address the citizenship status of children of aliens. However, it did say that “natural born citizen” should be defined by the common law of the founders which is the same thing Wong Kim Ark and Lynch v. Clarke said. However, Wong Kim Ark and Lynch v. Clarke examined all authority on the common law and Minor didn’t. Citizenship in Minor was conceded in the original pleadings and never argued or briefed up tot the Supreme Court. Obviously, if Minor did look into the common law rule it would have alleviated any doubts about children of aliens. Since the whole argument between us and the Vattelites is between the common law vs. the law of nations, it is hard to see how this case helps them.
The claim that Minor was talking about some common law other than the English common law is stupid. The Supreme Court has looked to the common law of the founders a hundred times to interpret the Constitution and has always meant the English common law. The English common law was adopted by all the states in 1787. They actually adopted statutes that said they were adopting the English common law. There was no other common law. For example:
“That the common law of England, as well as so much of the statute law, as have been heretofore practiced in this Colony, shall still remain in force, until they shall be altered by a future law of the Legislature; such parts only excepted, as are repugnant to the rights and privileges contained in this Charter; and that the inestimable right of trial by jury shall remain confirmed as a part of the law of this Colony, without repeal, forever.” New Jersey constitution, 1776
And this convention doth further, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this State, ordain, determine, and declare that such parts of the common law of England, and of the statute law of England and Great Britain, and of the acts of the legislature of the colony of New York, as together did form the law of the said colony on the 19th day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and seventy-five, shall be and continue the law of this State, subject to such alterations and provisions as the legislature of this State shall, from time to time, make concerning the same. New York Constitution, April 22, 1777
The common law of England, as-well as so much of the statute law as has been heretofore adopted in practice in this State, shall remain in force, unless they shall be altered by a future law of the legislature; such parts only excepted as are repugnant to the rights and privileges contained in this constitution, and the declaration of rights, &c., agreed to by this convention. Delaware Constitution, 1776
“That the inhabitants of Maryland are entitled to the common law of England…” Maryland Constitution, November 11, 1776
“The constitution of New York, of 1777, declared that such parts of the common law of England, and of the statute law of England and Great Britain, as, together with the acts of the colonial legislature, formed the law of the colony on the 19th of April, 1775, should continue to be the law of .the state, subject, &c. So the common law and statute law of England were referred to in Missouri by the statute of 14th January, 1816, as part of the known and existing law of the territory, so far as the same was consistent with the law of the territory, and which, in a modified degree, was the Spanish law. The common and statute law of England, prior to the fourth year of James I., and of a general nature, were adopted by the convention of Virginia, in 1776, and in 1795 and 1805, by the government of Ohio ; and such is the substance of the statute law of Arkansas. 2 Ark. 206. But the Ohio statute was repealed in 1806. In the Revised Statutes of Illinois, published in 1829, it was declared that the common law of England, and the English statutes of a general nature made in aid of it, prior to the fourth year of James I., with the exception of those concerning usury, were to be rules of decision until repealed. In 1818, the common law was adopted by statute in the State of Indiana, and in 1835, in Missouri, under the same limitations ; and it is understood that the common law and the statute law of England, down to the year 1776, and applicable to their constitution and circumstances, are the law in the states of Mississippi and Georgia. In the latter state the same was declared to be in force by the statute of February 25, 1784. So the common law of England and the statute law of England, prior to 1760, were adopted by statute in Vermont, so far as they were not repugnant to the constitution or statute law of the state. James Kent, John Melville Gould, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Commentaries on American Law Vol 1 pg. 643-44 (1901).
Small clarification. I think your sentence should read:
Emerich never claims that the two parent stricture applies to England, in fact he specifically says that it does not. Any interpretation claiming differently is perverse on the face of it.
I was wrong. The website “Natural and Native Born Citizenship Explored” DID have the original COMPLAINT. I think it is the whole thing.
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/08/30/lynch-v-clarke-1-sand-ch-583-1884-mackay-for-the-complainant/
The Head Researcher
For those who choose to open their eyes, there is nothing new under the sun.
Echo what G said. Squeeky, I like that you tied to the two movements together. I’ve no doubt that both are rooted in the same fear and hatred of minorities and immigrants.
GeorgeJD:
Thank you!!! Plus, I went out on a limb and am predicting 2012 stuff with a new exciting Internet Article:
http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2011/10/17/2012-the-year-of-the-birther-a-white-paper/
But do not worry when you read this. I have a whole lot more to write about the Vattle Birthers and when I am through with them, they will wish they had NEVER heard of me. Because I am just getting warmed up, and the more of this legal stuff I am reading, the smarter I am getting. Plus, I think they really are part of the Sovereign Citizens. I read a Internet Article today on another Birther website and it was really far out there in “revolution” land. Whew!!!
The Head Researcher
The Head Researcher
I of course expect an at least attempted “uptick” in Birtherism next year, due to the election and certain folks desperate need to cling to any hope against hope that they can derail his re-election efforts.
To that end, I expect we’ll see a whole new slew of frivolous lawsuit attempts and state legislative efforts to try to remove him from the ballot. As his docs are legit and the birther’s entire stew of arguments have no basis of support in actual law, all those attempts will simply amount to the same level of total failure as all that have come before.
I laugh at your use of “common sense” birthers. Common sense is one of those terms that is pretty much meaningless and thrown around by anyone to justify reactionary actions based on their butt hurt emotional feelings instead of anything approaching being senisble at all.
Sorry, but the whole “layers” nonsense is a load of crap. There is nothing that unusual about how the document was scanned or the result from doing so. The “artifiacts” and “layers” stuff you are seeing are the normal results of using that type of software and doing that type of scan, as many have demonstrated who were able to replicate such things with other basic documents.
Nor is there anything to the completely moronic SSN argument.
If anything, those two are a perfect Rorschach Test for folks suffering from simple irrational and emotional ODS, who simply see things that aren’t there and have suspicicious in the mundane, merely because they have a deep-seated emotional desire for such a result.
Sorry to disappoint you, but there are no monsters or bogeymen under your bed or in your closet. You are seeing things and hearing noises and concluding there must be monsters, because that is what you desperately cling to wishing to believe. It is all in your head and in your imagination. That is all.
I don’t. The chance for that was this year. If anyone tries it next year, they will face a barrage of “it’s an anti-Obama law” that they probably will not risk.
Don’t forget “TXE” and “smiley face”. These fit the Rorschach analogy much better.