Main Menu

Racist ballot challenge in Alaska

Photo of iceberg with "Where's the Birth Certificate" billboardAfter reading the February 21 ballot challenge filed by Gordon Epperly in Alaska, I don’t think anyone will challenge my headline. In addition to the content of the Challenge, the web site registered by Mr. Epperly and referenced in document hyperlinks is U.S.A.  The Republic, a site with substantial racist and anti-Semitic material, including “The Protocols  of the Elders of Zion,” a fraudulent tract purporting to depict a Jewish plot to take over the world.

Epperly files his Nomination Petition Objection with the Office of Director for Divisions of Elections under Alaska Statute 15.25.042 (Eligibility of a Candidate) and the Alaska Administrative Code 6 AAC 25.260 (Complaints regarding eligibility of a candidate).

Epperly presents racial information about Barack Obama’s parents as evidence that he “has the race status of of being a ‘Mulatto.’”  Citing Dred Scott v Sanford in support of a claim that Obama would be no citizen of any kind except for the Fourteenth Amendment, Epperly then argues:

As Barack Hussein Obama is of the “Mulatto” race, his status of citizenship is founded upon the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Before the [purported] ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, the race of “Negro” or “Mulatto” had no standing to be citizens of the United States under the United States Constitution.

As the Fourteenth Amendment is only a grant of “Civil Rights” and not a grant of “Political Rights,” Barack Hussein Obama II does not have any “Political Rights” under any provision of the United States Constitution to hold any Public Office of the United States government. Furthermore, there is considerable debate within the enclosed supporting documents that shows Barack Hussein Obama II was not born on the soil of the United States and that he was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of his birth. …

That is, he argues, no one who is black or half-black is eligible to serve in any elected office in the United States requiring US citizenship.

Epperly also raises the issue of the 2008 nominating certifications. He shows a photocopy of the Democratic National Committee’s “Official Certification of Nomination” filed with the State of Hawaii that contains a statement that Obama is “legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution” and a similar document that Epperly claims was filed in 49 other states lacking the eligibility statement. It is not entirely clear whether the photocopied Certification letter is actually from Alaska, or whether he is making an inference that it is what is on file in Alaska because it was sent to 49 states. The 49-state claim as far as I can tell has never been substantiated. In any case Epperly reasons that since this 2008 letter is  the only document on file in the State of Alaska, Obama isn’t qualified to be on the ballot.

Epperly tackles the authority of the oft-cited Ankeny v Governor in a strangely worded section stating:

The United States Department of Law is misrepresenting this case of Steve Ankeny et.al. v. Governor of State of Indiana, No. 49A02-0904-CV-353 as a Stare decisis  case which all the States of the Union may rely upon to dismiss any Complaints questioning the qualifications of Barack Hussein Obama II when in fact the case is nothing more a very poor “dicta” case that is copied from the “dicta” case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649. The cases of United States v. Wong Kim Ark and Steve Ankeny v. Governor of State of Indiana have nothing to do with the citizenship status of Barack Hussein Obama II. If there are to be controlling cases, they would have to be the U.S. Supreme Court case of Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168 and the case of Perkins v. Elg, 207 U.S. 325, 327 (1939) [sic] …

Based on these two cases, Epperly concludes (using the logical fallacy of denying the antecedent) that two citizen parents are required of “natural born citizens.”

Epperly claims that a candidate’s responsibility is to “prove” to the Alaska Director of Elections, the facts of his birth and his parents’ allegiance under the Fourteenth Amendment (even though he previously argued that the Fourteenth Amendment did not apply).

To supplement his objection, Epperly submitted a copy of a letter that he sent to the State of Georgia claiming error in its ballot challenge decision and one sent to Indiana that raise various birther issues.

Alaska Epperly v Obama – Nomination Petition Objection by Doctor Conspiracy

Mr. Epperly also believes that women may not hold office. He wrote:

The “Proclamation” shows that the U.S. Congress has never made provisions in the U.S. Constitution for women or non-white citizens to hold public office.

, , ,

104 Responses to Racist ballot challenge in Alaska

  1. avatar
    bovril February 23, 2012 at 8:07 am #

    Oh his rant gets even better…

    Although there appears to be no Alaska State Statutes declaring the qualifications to be filed with the Alaska Division of Elections for the Office of President for the United States of America, the cited Alaska Statutes must apply as it would be an absurdity in law that the Director of Elections may allow anyone to appear on the Alaska Election Ballots as a Candidate for the Office of President of the United States which may include those who are not “natural born citizens” of the United States.

    In true “Orly Law” manner he first admits that there are in fact no statutes for him to bring a case then majukally “cites” said non existent statutes must be applied……

    Birfer FAIL is EPIC FAIL…. 😎

  2. avatar
    Lupin February 23, 2012 at 8:12 am #

    You have to give him points for honesty, though. He’s not hiding the bedsheets and the cowl in the closet.

    Mario could take a few pointers from this guy.

  3. avatar
    Tarrant February 23, 2012 at 8:20 am #

    This guy is an equal-opportunity douchebag, as he isn’t just racist, he’s sexist too (and one probably only needs 3 guesses to wonder what his opinions are on the whole homosexual issue).

    In his screed he talks about how Hillary Clinton is “usurping” the office on Secretary of State as well, despite zero Constitutional restrictions on said office, for the same reason – that te 14th Amendment didn’t grant any “political” rights to women.

  4. avatar
    bovril February 23, 2012 at 8:22 am #

    Wonder if he raised a similar objection to Squealin Sarah…?

  5. avatar
    El Diablo Negro February 23, 2012 at 8:28 am #

    The etymology of the term [Mulatto] may derive from the Spanish and Portuguese word mulato, which is itself derived from mula (from old Galician-Portuguese, from Latin mūlus), meaning mule, the hybrid offspring of a horse and a donkey.

    Last I checked, Mules are sterile. Humans are…Human, there is only one species of human and they stay fertile regardless of size and skin pigmentation.

  6. avatar
    red-diaper baby 1942 February 23, 2012 at 8:31 am #

    I thought we’d already seen every possible perversion and distortion of reality from the birthers and other conspiracy theorists… This guy is simply unbelievable.

  7. avatar
    Lupin February 23, 2012 at 8:36 am #

    Tarrant: In his screed he talks about how Hillary Clinton is “usurping” the office on Secretary of State as well, despite zero Constitutional restrictions on said office, for the same reason – that te 14th Amendment didn’t grant any “political” rights to women.

    SANTORUM, WARLORD OF GOR, coming soon to a church near you.

    (That one might be for the old nerds only.)

  8. avatar
    Northland10 February 23, 2012 at 8:46 am #

    So, is he challenging as his corporate person or his real person? His filling is missing the colon in his name.

    Funny that he argues the 14th amendment since at other times he claims it was not ratified.

  9. avatar
    bovril February 23, 2012 at 8:49 am #

    Ahh that takes me back……soft core porn masking as Sci-Fi… 😎

  10. avatar
    ASK Esq February 23, 2012 at 9:12 am #

    It will be interesting to see if the rest of the birthers embrace this challenge without knowing how vile it is. If so, it would be even more interesting to see if they try to distance themselves from it after it is brought to their attention.

  11. avatar
    Lupin February 23, 2012 at 9:20 am #

    ASK Esq: It will be interesting to see if the rest of the birthers embrace this challenge without knowing how vile it is.

    Arguably, Mario has been saying the same thing as this guy for years, just using nicer words.

  12. avatar
    Lupin February 23, 2012 at 9:21 am #

    bovril: Ahh that takes me back……soft core porn masking as Sci-Fi… 😎

    We’re both too old and we know too much sh*t. 🙂

  13. avatar
    Keith February 23, 2012 at 9:28 am #

    Hoooooo Kay!
    Lets look at some of the crazy with Mr. Epperly.

    Interestingly, I was expecting to find that he was a member of the Alaskan Independence Party but didn’t find any evidence of that off hand. He has left enough droppings to draw up a pretty picture though.

    Memorandum of Law on the Name
    Names spelled in all caps => strawman – a devious legal trick to do something or other.
    Declaration of Sovereignty (post and email)
    => Rejects the Constitution in favor of the Articles of Confederation
    => Sovereignist
    => claims to speak for everyone in Alaska
    PROCLAMATION: U.S. Constitution 14th Amendment: Amendment declared ‘void’ and without effect
    => Nothing after the 13th amendment counts
    Citizen to U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice: Obama Has “No Constitutional Qualifications”
    => Writes “personal” correspondence to the Supreme Court Chief Justice
    => forwards copies of that “personal” correspondence to Barrack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, John McCain Nancy Pelosi, and Alice Germond
    => tells Chief Justice how to do his job
    => thinks that the Justice’s clerk is obstructing the mail and performing a criminal act when he/she reviews the mail
    => refuses to vote because he isn’t allowed to use his Christian Name, but must use his strawman name (all caps) on the voter registration according to some Judge or other (huh)
    => claims to speak for all Alaskans again
    => is a Natural Born Citizen of the California Republic, but now resided in the Alaska Republic
    Objection to Certification of Election (of Senator Lisa Murkowski, usurper)
    => Women have no Constitutional eligibility to hold any Federal office.
    => People of Color have no Constitutional eligibility to hold any Federal office

  14. avatar
    JPotter February 23, 2012 at 9:40 am #

    That’s some hardcore neolithic birthin’.Fundamental, old school, taking it back to the roots. From the frozen north Birfo Neanderthalensis speaks! Epperly the Birfarian has no time for wishy-washy, PC sentimentality, just get on with it and birf a birf for Birf, Birf Lord of Bigotry.

  15. avatar
    Thrifty February 23, 2012 at 10:24 am #

    Keith: PROCLAMATION: U.S. Constitution 14th Amendment: Amendment declared ‘void’ and without effect

    That part was particularly weird. He’s saying that because Maryland rejected the 14th amendment, its ratification is invalid. Okay… it’s true that Maryland rejected the amendment, but amendments only have to be approved by 3/4 of the states.

  16. avatar
    Sarina February 23, 2012 at 10:38 am #

    We are going to see Orly in Alaska.. pretty soon!

  17. avatar
    sactosintolerant February 23, 2012 at 10:43 am #

    With criteria birthers have been pushing, such as the allegiance of a newborn US child (I don’t remember feeling allegiance to the US when I was born)… and now apparently not one drop of non-white blood, I wonder if they realize the logistical nightmare determining eligibility would be. Seems like it’d be easier to just let voters decide…

    The more they twist and turn to try to MAKE Obama ineligible, the more they show they show this is nothing more than their undemocratic attempt to remove him from office. Defenders of the Constiution my ass. Do they not know there’s an election coming up? THERE is your chance to get him out!

  18. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny February 23, 2012 at 10:46 am #

    For years, this guy sued the US Congress and its archivist to change the record of how the states ratified the 14th amendment, and then scrap it from its books.

    Being turned down, he now seems to think that the US constitution no longer exists and has been replaced by the Articles of Confederation.

    This nice description of his fantasies is at his own site (still), but well, it beats Justia, since you do not need to subscribe:

    http://www.14th-amendment.com/Court_Documents/Case_No._1-07-CV-00011-JWS/Respondent/Motion_to_Dismiss.pdf

    I particularly like page 5 where he “demanded to be informed under what authority
    Congress passed laws granting “Colored People” the right to vote and participate
    in the political process. Epperly v. United States Congress, No. 1:06-cv-00008-
    JWS (D. Alaska April 14, 2006).”

    It seems the guy gave up when the other side asked for sanctions to the tune of at least 10,000 dollars. Having been sanctioned for 2,500 before, he finally took the hint.

  19. avatar
    sactosintolerant February 23, 2012 at 10:51 am #

    Thrifty: That part was particularly weird.He’s saying that because Maryland rejected the 14th amendment, its ratification is invalid.Okay… it’s true that Maryland rejected the amendment, but amendments only have to be approved by 3/4 of the states.

    Do we need to start an Article V PAC?

  20. avatar
    RuhRoh February 23, 2012 at 11:16 am #

    Northland10: So, is he challenging as his corporate person or his real person? His filling is missing the colon in his name. Funny that he argues the 14th amendment since at other times he claims it was not ratified.

    Bingo–he appears to be a hardcore SovCit. They’re not that unusual in the Birther world.

  21. avatar
    The Magic M February 23, 2012 at 11:47 am #

    Paul Pieniezny: Being turned down, he now seems to think that the US constitution no longer exists and has been replaced by the Articles of Confederation.

    He can join the Neo-Nazis in my country who claim our Constitution became void in 1990 and that the Weimar Constitution is back in effect since then. Same sh*t, different country.
    At least our cranks are making a contrived argument why not having an area of application codified in the Constitution (as is the case since reunification with the GDR) means it cannot be applied anywhere. Always fun to read. 🙂

    As for Epperly, I always find it ironic how someone can argue in court along the lines of “the Constitution isn’t valid law, but nevertheless I claim at the same time that I should win my case because the Constitution requires…”. Isn’t there a legal term for that which bars such arguments from being entertained? Laches, estoppel, venire contra factum proprium… Oh, I need to refresh my (very limited) knowlegde of US legal terms, badly. I can take it up with any lawyer in my country, but for US law, even those elementary things escape me…

  22. avatar
    JPotter February 23, 2012 at 11:49 am #

    Thrifty: That part was particularly weird. He’s saying that because Maryland rejected the 14th amendment, its ratification is invalid. Okay… it’s true that Maryland rejected the amendment, but amendments only have to be approved by 3/4 of the states.

    Doubly weird because Maryland ratified the amendment in 1959. Birther retro-fail!

    It took until 2003, but after New Jersey and Ohio finally ratified it, all 37 states extant in 1868 had ratified the amendment.

    South Carolin was the 28th state to ratify, putting the amendment into effect in 1868, after 2 years. Some states tried to rescind, but Congress said so sorry, no take-backs.

  23. avatar
    JPotter February 23, 2012 at 11:49 am #

    RuhRoh: Bingo–he appears to be a hardcore SovCit. They’re not that unusual in the Birther world.

    Crazy is like puh-tata chips, can’t have just one.

  24. avatar
    RuhRoh February 23, 2012 at 11:51 am #

    Keith: Hoooooo Kay!Lets look at some of the crazy with Mr. Epperly.Interestingly, I was expecting to find that he was a member of the Alaskan Independence Party but didn’t find any evidence of that off hand. He has left enough droppings to draw up a pretty picture though.

    Sorry I didn’t repost your entire comment (as it was great!) but it was pretty lengthy.

    Just wanted to note that just about everything Epperly espouses is straight out of the SovCit handbook, and to thank you for compiling it into a single comment for easy reference.

    Maybe Dr. C should add a Sovereign Citizen tag to this post?

  25. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny February 23, 2012 at 2:34 pm #

    Paul Pieniezny: this guy sued the US Congress and its archivist

    No, I got misled by his own ramblings elsewhere. Of course, he sued the United States and its (he would probably write: their) archivist. One of the reasons why his suits got dismissed was the political question: you cannot force the executive branch to do or undo something that was decided by the legislative.

  26. avatar
    JoZeppy February 23, 2012 at 2:54 pm #

    Keith: Hoooooo Kay!
    Lets look at some of the crazy with Mr. Epperly.

    The crazy runs deep win Mr. Epperly….but at his core, he’s a sovereign citizen nut.

    Going back to his challenge….what exactly is “the United States Department of Law”? Or for that matter, what is a “dicta case”? I must have been sleeping when they discussed “dicta cases” in law school.

    I never understood why some people feel so compelled to prove their stupdity to as wide an audience as possible.

  27. avatar
    DP February 23, 2012 at 3:18 pm #

    I actually found this suit a refreshing change of pace. It’s nice to see them drop all the pretense and just come right out of the closet with the blatant racism behind all of this.

  28. avatar
    justlw February 23, 2012 at 3:25 pm #

    Paul Pieniezny: I particularly like page 5 where he “demanded to be informed under what authority
    Congress passed laws granting “Colored People” the right to vote and participate
    in the political process. Epperly v. United States Congress,

    Epperly v. Uppity

  29. avatar
    jayHG February 23, 2012 at 3:33 pm #

    Are we sure this isn’t bushpilot1 who got banned from free republic (of all places) for saying that black people are not supposed to be president, only white people????….cause this sounds like him.

  30. avatar
    RuhRoh February 23, 2012 at 3:46 pm #

    Doc,

    The website Epperly references is actually registered to him. http://www.networksolutions.com/whois-search/usa-the-republic.com

  31. avatar
    jayHG February 23, 2012 at 3:49 pm #

    DP: I actually found this suit a refreshing change of pace. It’s nice to see them drop all the pretense and just come right out of the closet with the blatant racism behind all of this.

    I agree. I’m going to go over to free republic later and watch them say how this is not racist, he’s just [fill in the blank with whatever nonsense you can think of, like he doesn’t say he is so there!}.

    After bushpilot1 said this same stuff and got banned (shock cause he’d been saying it forever and finally got banned cause he came right out with it), they were all over the place saying “he’s not REALLY racist.” To be fair, there were one or two on there saying that yes he was and was doing a disservice to conservatives, but when I say one or two, I mean that literally……there were two folks who said bushpilot1 deserved to be banned.

    Can’t wait to see how they spin to make this guy sane and a true patriot!

  32. avatar
    Squeeky Fromm February 23, 2012 at 3:52 pm #

    I have starting calling them Sovereign Sitizens, because they “sit at their keyboards and burn them up writing silly legal treatises, penning letters of outrage to editors, and filing numerous silly lawsuits. Plus, they so often seem to lack standing.” I just finished a Internet Article on this.

    http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2012/02/23/yukon-jerk-says-mush-or-the-best-dang-birther-lawsuit-evah/

    I think it is the Best Dang Birther Lawsuit EVAH!!!

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  33. avatar
    G February 23, 2012 at 4:15 pm #

    LMAO! Another good one! Yeah, definitely “off the charts” on the Rictal Scale. 😉

    Also – love your idea of calling them Sitizens and your explanation for why! I’m going to “steal” that one… 😉

    Squeeky Fromm: I have starting calling them Sovereign Sitizens, because they “sit at their keyboards and burn them up writing silly legal treatises, penning letters of outrage to editors, and filing numerous silly lawsuits. Plus, they so often seem to lack standing.” I just finished a Internet Article on this.http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2012/02/23/yukon-jerk-says-mush-or-the-best-dang-birther-lawsuit-evah/I think it is the Best Dang Birther Lawsuit EVAH!!!Squeeky FrommGirl Reporter

  34. avatar
    Rowena February 23, 2012 at 4:22 pm #

    The federal constitution, art 1, 8, gives congress the power to establish rules for naturalization.

    We have the 14th Amendment that naturalized the freed slaves if they met the subject to jurisdiction.

    Natural born citizens do not require the 14th Amendment..

    It seems the AK ballot challenge states Obama was born an alien and the 14th Amendment naturalizes him if he meets the subject to jurisdiction clause.

    Does Obama birth record pass the clause? Was his father a permanent resident at his birth?

    WKA defined the subject to jurisdiction clause, both parents must have permanent residency at the birth of the child.

    Obama’s INS records indicate he was a transient alien student. He was not an immigrant.

    This establishes strike 2, A P. Morse defining naturels and indigenes as natural born was strike 1.

    Wonder what will be strike 3.

  35. avatar
    US Citizen February 23, 2012 at 5:18 pm #

    I’m curious what Epperly thought of Condi Rice.

  36. avatar
    G February 23, 2012 at 5:25 pm #

    Wow, utter nonsense from you. What a surprise…not!

    The only one getting strikes here is you:

    Strike 1 – freed slaves were not “naturalized” by the 14th Amendment. It made clear that they were just as entitled to the rights of NBC as everyone else born here.

    Strike 2 – The AK ballot challenge is the flimsiest and craziest piece of pure Sov Cit and racist dreck yet. That you back it or believe any of its ludicrous claims says more about you than anything else.

    Strike 3 – There are NO records that either claim nor insinuate that Obama was a “transient alient student”. Utter BS.

    Three quick whiffs and you are easily OUT, Rowena.

    Rowena: The federal constitution, art 1, 8, gives congress the power to establish rules for naturalization.We have the 14th Amendment that naturalized the freed slaves if they met the subject to jurisdiction.Natural born citizens do not require the 14th Amendment.. It seems the AK ballot challenge states Obama was born an alien and the 14th Amendment naturalizes him if he meets the subject to jurisdiction clause. Does Obama birth record pass the clause? Was his father a permanent resident at his birth?WKA defined the subject to jurisdiction clause, both parents must have permanent residency at the birth of the child. Obama’s INS records indicate he was a transient alien student. He was not an immigrant. This establishes strike 2, A P. Morse defining naturels and indigenes as natural born was strike 1. Wonder what will be strike 3.

  37. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 23, 2012 at 5:27 pm #

    I’m not sure if you are recognizing that amendments to the Constitution are part of the Constitution and not acts of Congress. Indeed if naturalization were the intent, there would be no need for the 14th Amendment because, as you note, the Congress already has the power to naturalize. The reason that the 14th Amendment exists is that there was concern that the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which does something similar to the 14th Amendment was unconstitutional because the Congress only had the power to naturalize.

    If the 14th Amendment is understood as its framers did, namely that it was only declarative of the law as it had been since the country’s founding, and whose purpose was to erase a bad Supreme Court decision in Dred Scott, then it would not be correct to say that the 14th Amendment naturalized the former slaves and their descendents; it only recognized that they were already natural born citizens. If, on the other hand, you want to say that the 14th Amendment actually changed the status of the former slaves and their descendents, you might use the word “naturalized” (I wouldn’t) but that would only be a usage applicable to persons born between Dred Scott and the 14th Amendment.

    I would agree that natural-born citizens do not need the 14th Amendment, but at the same time I would argue that Barack Obama doesn’t need the 14th Amendment either.

    Morse is an individual writer with an opinion. He doesn’t count as a strike. The AK challenge is legal nonsense. If you want a strike, you need to find a court that buys any of this legal crankery. So far, you’re batting zero.

    Rowena:
    The federal constitution, art 1, 8, gives congress the power to establish rules fornaturalization.

    We have the 14th Amendment that naturalized the freed slaves if they met the subject to jurisdiction.

    Natural born citizens do not require the 14th Amendment..

    It seems the AK ballot challenge states Obama was born an alien and the 14th Amendment naturalizes him if he meets the subject to jurisdiction clause.

    Does Obama birth record pass the clause? Was his father a permanent resident at his birth?

    WKA defined the subject to jurisdiction clause, both parents must have permanent residency at the birth of the child.

    Obama’s INS records indicate he was a transient alien student. He was not an immigrant.

    This establishes strike 2, A P. Morse defining naturels and indigenes as natural born was strike 1.

    Wonder what will be strike 3.

  38. avatar
    Ballantine February 23, 2012 at 5:33 pm #

    Rowena: The federal constitution, art 1, 8, gives congress the power to establish rules for naturalization.We have the 14th Amendment that naturalized the freed slaves if they met the subject to jurisdiction.Natural born citizens do not require the 14th Amendment.. It seems the AK ballot challenge states Obama was born an alien and the 14th Amendment naturalizes him if he meets the subject to jurisdiction clause. Does Obama birth record pass the clause? Was his father a permanent resident at his birth?WKA defined the subject to jurisdiction clause, both parents must have permanent residency at the birth of the child. Obama’s INS records indicate he was a transient alien student. He was not an immigrant. This establishes strike 2, A P. Morse defining naturels and indigenes as natural born was strike 1. Wonder what will be strike 3.

    Wrong again. You are keeping your record perfect. One reason we have the Amendment was that the 39th Congress understood the courts had said that native born persons could not be naturalized. Thus, no authority for a mere statute making them citizens under the Civil rights Act. For example:

    “I maintain that a negro can not be made a citizen by Congress ; he can not be made a citizen by any naturalization laws, because the naturalization laws apply to foreigners alone. No man can shake the legal truth of that position. They apply to foreigners alone; and a negro, an Indian, or any other person born within the United States, not being a foreigner, can not be naturalized; therefore they can not be made citizens by the uniform rule established by Congress under the Constitution, and there is no other rule. Congress has no power, as I said before, to naturalize a citizen. They could not be made citizens by treaty. If they arc made so at all, it is by their birth, and the locality of their birth, and the general operation and effect of our Constitution.” Sen. Davis, quoted in History of the thirty-ninth Congress of the United States, William Horatio Barnes, pg. 208, (1868).

    The only judicial interpretation of the Civil Rights Act agreed:

    “But what is naturalization? It is the removal of the disabilities of alienage… Congress has power ” to establish an uniform rule of naturalization….An alien naturalized is “to all intents and purposes a natural born subject…The power is applicable only to those of foreign birth. Alienage is an indispensable element in the process. To make one of domestic birth a citizen, is not naturalization, and cannot be brought within the exercise of that power. There is an universal agreement of opinion upon this subject.” United States v. Rhodes, 1 Abbott, US 28 (Cir. Ct. Ky 1866)

    No court or legal authority would say persons made citizens under the 14th Amendment are naturalized.

    “WKA defined the subject to jurisdiction clause, both parents must have permanent residency at the birth of the child.”

    The Court said no such thing. It said the only persons excluded by such clause were childern of aliens and invading enemies. It says it was delcaratory of the common law which included, but was not limited to, children of permenant residents. Are you being dishonest or just incapable of understanding case law? Keep trying, you might get something right one day.

  39. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 23, 2012 at 5:37 pm #

    Thanks. I’ll update the article.

    RuhRoh: The website Epperly references is actually registered to him.

  40. avatar
    Ballantine February 23, 2012 at 5:38 pm #

    “A P. Morse defining naturels and indigenes as natural born was strike 1.”

    Exactly why does the opinion of someone whose arguments were rejected by the Supreme Court matter? Are you slow?

  41. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 23, 2012 at 5:45 pm #

    If you have not done so, you might want to hover your mouse pointer over the image in the article.

  42. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 23, 2012 at 5:47 pm #

    Samuel Alexander Porter Morse is so obscure, he doesn’t even have a Wikipedia article ❗

    Ballantine: Exactly why does the opinion of someone whose arguments were rejected by the Supreme Court matter? Are you slow?

  43. avatar
    Ballantine February 23, 2012 at 5:55 pm #

    I read his 1903 article on natural born citizenship and it is really a shabby piece of work. He simply makes birther-like assertions without citing authority or legal argument. Many of the assertions are simply wrong on their face which might explain the lack of effort to provide support. He does recognize that it would seem from the Court’s ruling that Wong Kim Ark would be eligible to be President, though he seemed more disturbed by the implication that children of citizens born outside the US would not be. Really no reason to cite the man other than to note that his somewhat fringe theories were rejected by the Court long ago.

  44. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 23, 2012 at 5:59 pm #

    I should mention that there was a curious thing about the Epperly PDF file. It was password protected with security settings that prevented text from being copied. The setting also prevented it from being uploaded to Scribd.

    So I removed the password 👿

  45. avatar
    jayHG February 23, 2012 at 6:24 pm #

    Why does the pleading have all those blanks in it?

  46. avatar
    y_p_w February 23, 2012 at 6:35 pm #

    In all this talk about naturalization, I would note that it is possible for non-citizen US nationals to be naturalized. It’s a little bit more complicated, and USCIS doesn’t make the rules clear on this. Currently it could be possible to be a non-citizen US national if born in American Samoa or Swains Island without at least one US citizen parent. Previously this would apply in a similar manner in the Panama Canal Zone.

    I understand that they consider residency in American Samoa to be equivalent to the five years’ residence in the US required for naturalization. However, one has to become a resident of a state to apply for naturalization, but for an adult that would typically mean the residency requirement is usually met.

    It does get a little bit more complicated since the State Dept won’t issue a Consular Report of Birth Abroad (which is a citizenship document) for those born in any US territory – including the ones where jus soli citizenship don’t apply. I’m not sure how one establishes US citizenship per se if born in American Samoa as a US citizen unless the birth certificate (currently issued by the US Dept of Homeland Security) has an entry for that. One would have to be a citizen in order to vote when moving to one of the 50 states, although free movement and work authorization in the US is the right for non-citizen US nationals.

  47. avatar
    Keith February 23, 2012 at 6:41 pm #

    JPotter: Doubly weird because Maryland ratified the amendment in 1959. Birther retro-fail!

    It took until 2003, but after New Jersey and Ohio finally ratified it, all 37 states extant in 1868 had ratified the amendment.

    South Carolin was the 28th state to ratify, putting the amendment into effect in 1868, after 2 years. Some states tried to rescind, but Congress said so sorry, no take-backs.

    Even counting the take backs as take backs, and leaving out Ohio, enough states had ratified it before it was declared law.

  48. avatar
    Keith February 23, 2012 at 6:46 pm #

    Sarina:
    We are going to see Orly in Alaska.. pretty soon!

    I don’t think women are Mr. Epperly’s ‘thing’ (in political situations anyway).

  49. avatar
    Keith February 23, 2012 at 6:52 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I’m not sure if you are recognizing that amendments to the Constitution are part of the Constitution and not acts of Congress.

    I had that argument with Sov Sitizen on ATS a couple of years ago. It dragged on for weeks, kept saying that the 14th amendment was in violation of the Constitution. He/She refused to acknowledge that a part of the Constitution could not be unconstitutional. And he/she kept quoting the Articles of Confederation as binding.

    He/She was also fond of talking about the 10th amendment, but had never heard of the 9th.

    It was fun for a while, but like the saying goes so is throwing a ball against a wall, problem is that you get tired before the wall does.

  50. avatar
    Keith February 23, 2012 at 6:56 pm #

    Paul Pieniezny: It seems the guy gave up when the other side asked for sanctions to the tune of at least 10,000 dollars. Having been sanctioned for 2,500 before, he finally took the hint.

    Why would that bother him? Couldn’t he just get his strawman account to pay for it?

  51. avatar
    Keith February 23, 2012 at 6:58 pm #

    RuhRoh: Sorry I didn’t repost your entire comment (as it was great!) but it was pretty lengthy.

    No need to apologize. That is the correct way to post a reference. If only more people were as thoughtful as you.

  52. avatar
    justlw February 23, 2012 at 7:01 pm #

    A bug in the article: if I’m reading teh WP correctly, “denying the consequent” is not a logical fallacy.

    It looks like “affirming the consequent” is what he (and all the Minorites) are doing.

  53. avatar
    Keith February 23, 2012 at 7:04 pm #

    y_p_w: One would have to be a citizen in order to vote when moving to one of the 50 states, although free movement and work authorization in the US is the right for non-citizen US nationals.

    And lots of Samo’ans go to university in the U.S., even high school. Many of them play football and the Haka is becoming a traditional part of the pregame activities for many schools.

  54. avatar
    JPotter February 23, 2012 at 7:16 pm #

    Keith: Even counting the take backs as take backs, and leaving out Ohio, enough states had ratified it before it was declared law.

    Keith, yes, I know, SC was the 28th in 1868, which clinched it. Mentioned the rest because 1. It took 135 yrs for all states to get over it 2. States tried to reverse themselves, and 3. Congress said nope 4. northern states were the longest holdouts; without Reconstruction, the Amendment would have gone nowhere, unless Southern states were ignored…and 5. Saying Maryland had ratified it, despite whatever whoever said. And of course, once ratified, it applies to all states regardless. Such a multi-level fail the Maryland meme was!

  55. avatar
    JPotter February 23, 2012 at 7:18 pm #

    Keith: He/She was also fond of talking about the 10th amendment, but had never heard of the 9th.

    Sounds like yet another nut who had swallowed someone else’e interpretation, brainwashed themselves with it, rather than risk disappointment by reading the sources for themselves!

  56. avatar
    JPotter February 23, 2012 at 7:22 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I should mention that there was a curious thing about the Epperly PDF file. It was password protected with security settings that prevented text from being copied

    Not so curious, just something no one uses, as it isn’t secure against anyone with a PDF editor, and merely a pain for everyone else. Heck, you could always print it or screen capture it. I deal with some purchase order PDFs that will only print as blank pages, w/o removing hidden layers. Again, questionable security only for the unequipped, and a pain for the intended recipient.

  57. avatar
    y_p_w February 23, 2012 at 7:33 pm #

    Keith: And lots of Samo’ans go to university in the U.S., even high school. Many of them play football and the Haka is becoming a traditional part of the pregame activities for many schools.

    The Haka is a Maori ritual, although it’s taken on a greater role in many Polynesian cultures that find some sort of kinship. I heard of a group of HS football fans in Utah that got pepper sprayed in the stands when the local law enforcement couldn’t figure out what the heck they were doing. They thought it might be the start of a riot, even though others in the crowd said it was alright.

    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/nationnow/2011/12/utah-haka-war-dance-football-game-pepper-spray-police.html

    And I’ve met a few people of Maori ancestry here and there. Mostly when I was in Aukland for a couple days, but once was at the Polynesian Cultural Center in Oahu. It’s a little bit odd seeing a Polynesian speaking with a typical New Zealand speech pattern. At least in Hawaii (or elsewhere) I remember a lot of native Hawaiians who sounded as if they could switch to full-on pidgin in split-second. I ate at a Hawaiian restaurant in Las Vegas, and the guy who took my order forgot what number card (the kind that’s placed on the table) he gave me, He then asked me, “What number dat?”

  58. avatar
    Paper February 23, 2012 at 7:48 pm #

    Perhaps an even more incisive way to state this would be to say that not only did it recognize such, it *ensured* that *everyone* recognize they were already natural born citizens.

    Dr. Conspiracy: then it would not be correct to say that the 14th Amendment naturalized the former slaves and their descendents; it only recognized that they were already natural born citizens.

  59. avatar
    Paper February 23, 2012 at 7:56 pm #

    Strange then that there is any concern these days about “anchor babies.” I’m not sure how they act as anchors, giving their non-permanent-resident/non-citizen parents a better chance at citizenship, if these babies aren’t actually citizens in the first place.

    Rowena: WKA defined the subject to jurisdiction clause, both parents must have permanent residency at the birth of the child.

  60. avatar
    Northland10 February 23, 2012 at 8:12 pm #

    jayHG:
    Are we sure this isn’t bushpilot1 who got banned from free republic (of all places) for saying that black people are not supposed to be president, only white people????….cause this sounds like him.

    In short… not unless Alaska has been hanging out further south and in another country (I will leave it at that, to avoid accidentally breaking the “no outing” rule). And no, stop thinking “For if enemies…”

  61. avatar
    Keith February 23, 2012 at 9:15 pm #

    y_p_w: The Haka is a Maori ritual, although it’s taken on a greater role in many Polynesian cultures that find some sort of kinship.

    Actually, the haka is not just Maori and never has been. The word ‘haka’ has been made popular because of the New Zealand All Blacks version, but virtually all Polynesian Islanders have their own version.

    In Aotearoa(NZ), Tonga, the Marquesas, Raotonga and several others it is ” haka ” or ” ‘aka “; in Hawai’i it is called ” ha’a “; Samo’ans call it ” sa’a “.

  62. avatar
    Rowena February 23, 2012 at 10:49 pm #

    It is my understanding based on emails at FR bp1 claimed citizens whose ancestors came from countries in Southern Europe could not be natural born citizens. This would include Rick Santorum. Is Mr. Santorum is black?

    BP1 claimed natural is a Kind..

  63. avatar
    Squeeky Fromm February 23, 2012 at 11:05 pm #

    Epperly also has problems with women in public office and a host of other causes. I don’t think Epperly is bp1, who seems to be losing it. Plus Epperly has been doing this stuff since at least since 1991 and has his “theory” more developed. bp1 was always hunting for new stuff to build his theory. IMO (which means “in my opinion.”)

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  64. avatar
    Arthur February 23, 2012 at 11:21 pm #

    Squeeky Fromm: IMO (which means “in my opinion.”)

    Squeeky:

    Then what does IMHO mean?

  65. avatar
    Squeeky Fromm February 23, 2012 at 11:40 pm #

    Arthur: Squeeky:

    Then what does IMHO mean?

    In my human opinion???

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  66. avatar
    John Potter February 23, 2012 at 11:43 pm #

    IMHumbleO or IMHonestO or IMHorse$h|O ….

  67. avatar
    Arthur February 23, 2012 at 11:52 pm #

    Squeeky Fromm: In my human opinion???

    You’re very sweet.

  68. avatar
    That Other Mike February 24, 2012 at 12:00 am #

    Keith: Actually, the haka is not just Maori and never has been. The word ‘haka’ has been made popular because of the New Zealand All Blacks version, but virtually all Polynesian Islanders have their own version.

    In Aotearoa(NZ), Tonga, the Marquesas, Raotonga and several others it is ” haka ” or ” aka “; in Hawai’i it is called ” ha’a “; Samo’ans call it ” sa’a “.

    Don’t forget Ka Mate!

  69. avatar
    Thomas Brown February 24, 2012 at 12:07 am #

    I always thought it meant “In my hotsy-totsy opinion.”

  70. avatar
    Squeeky Fromm February 24, 2012 at 12:15 am #

    LOL!!! Oh, you are on a jag right now. So am I.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  71. avatar
    jayhg February 24, 2012 at 12:15 am #

    Rowena: It is my understanding based on emails at FR bp1 claimed citizens whose ancestors came from countries in Southern Europe could not be natural born citizens. This would include Rick Santorum. Is Mr. Santorum is black? BP1 claimed natural is a Kind..

    Yes, he did say not only white folks are supposed to be president, but certain KINDS of white folks………I think that’s what got him banned. He had already said outright that black people aren’t supposed to be president and that didn’t get him banned, just yelled at by two so called freepers.

    Then he backed off that for a while, but finally brought out the hood and sheet in full force with not just white people but certain kinds of white people are supposed to be president and he got banned. He was a member of the klan, no question, and can be found over at stormfront giong full speed ahead with the white supremancy thing.

  72. avatar
    jayhg February 24, 2012 at 12:17 am #

    Arthur: Squeeky:Then what does IMHO mean?

    It means “in my humble opinion.”

  73. avatar
    jayhg February 24, 2012 at 12:20 am #

    Squeeky Fromm: Epperly also has problems with women in public office and a host of other causes. I don’t think Epperly is bp1, who seems to be losing it. Plus Epperly has been doing this stuff since at least since 1991 and has his “theory” more developed. bp1 was always hunting for new stuff to build his theory. IMO (which means “in my opinion.”)Squeeky FrommGirl Reporter

    The no black folks part of his argument seems more prominent that the other parts, so that’s why I thought it my be bushpilot1. But I suppose bp was not alone……..there are others who think that only whites are supposed to be president, so it probablly is just another birther bigot spouting birther bigot nonsense.

  74. avatar
    Keith February 24, 2012 at 2:00 am #

    That Other Mike: Don’t forget Ka Mate!

    That is the famous one, but they have used Kapa o Pango since 2005.

  75. avatar
    Squeeky Fromm February 24, 2012 at 2:13 am #

    jayhg:

    Yes, there was another freeper named edge919 aka KSDB who was on that 14th Amendment doesn’t apply to all Americans kick. He just never came out and said it was for freed slaves only. IIRC (which means “if I recall correctly”).

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  76. avatar
    Rowena February 24, 2012 at 3:04 am #

    One has to wonder why the Founders used natural and not born a citizen. If natural is a Kind. Wonder what would happen.

  77. avatar
    Joe Acerbic February 24, 2012 at 3:17 am #

    Rowena:
    One has to wonder why the Founders used natural and not born a citizen. If natural is a Kind. Wonder what would happen.

    Because they didn’t trust any unnatural born citizens with the Presidency: fairies, leprechauns, succubi etc. They are eligible to any other elected positions though.

  78. avatar
    red-diaper baby 1942 February 24, 2012 at 3:36 am #

    With regard to the “wrong kind of white”, for instance from southern Europe: there was an interesting case in one of the southern states (I think South Carolina, but I’m not sure) sometime in the mid-20th century. I can’t give a reference or link, since I don’t remember the exact details — perhaps someone else on this blog can provide them.
    Anyway, it was a state that had anti-miscegenation laws, especially strict in the case of a black man and a white woman. In this particular case, a black man wanted to marry a woman of Italian ancestry; the court decided that the anti-miscegenation law did not apply, since the woman was “not really white”. I kid you not!
    Of course a lot of other immigrant groups have gone through a process of gradual “social whitening”, starting with the Irish in the 1850s and the Jews in the early 20th century.

  79. avatar
    The Magic M February 24, 2012 at 6:12 am #

    Rowena: One has to wonder why the Founders used natural and not born a citizen.

    Because they obviously didn’t want to restrict “natural born” to “born on the soil”. Remember “born abroad to citizen parents” which legal scholars agree is another way to be an NBC.

  80. avatar
    ballantine February 24, 2012 at 7:20 am #

    Rowena:
    One has to wonder why the Founders used natural and not born a citizen. If natural is a Kind. Wonder what would happen.

    They meant the same thing. In english law, anyone born a subject was called a natural born subject. The latter however, was the legal term of art that was used in statutes and by the courts and the only term considered in the Convention. This really isn’t that hard if you let go of your birther talking points.

  81. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 24, 2012 at 8:39 am #

    Oops. What Epperly is actually doing is denying the antecedent.

    If born in the US with 2 citizen parents, then NBC.
    Not born in the US with 2 citizen parents, therefore not NBC.

    That’s like:

    If someone eats too much ice cream they will get fat.
    Joe doesn’t eat ice cream, therefore he won’t get fat.

    justlw: A bug in the article: if I’m reading teh WP correctly, “denying the consequent” is not a logical fallacy.

    It looks like “affirming the consequent” is what he (and all the Minorites) are doing.

  82. avatar
    justlw February 24, 2012 at 11:16 am #

    Oops for me, too. Thanks for getting where I was heading, rather than where I arrived.

  83. avatar
    debbi February 24, 2012 at 12:08 pm #

    Mittens father was born in Mexico. so the same rule should apply to him. he’s another “half-breed” (need to look up the word for his race) LMAO!!!

  84. avatar
    Whatever4 February 24, 2012 at 5:17 pm #

    Rowena:
    One has to wonder why the Founders used natural and not born a citizen. If natural is a Kind. Wonder what would happen.

    What is “a Kind”?

  85. avatar
    Joey February 24, 2012 at 5:26 pm #

    Whatever4: What is “a Kind”?

    “Kind” is birther-talk for “type.” In the real world of 2012, the founders’ term “natural born citizen” as an 18th and 19th century term of art is now codified in the law of the land as “Citizen of the United States at birth.”
    The original Constitution uses phrases, spellings and grammatical expressions that are archaic in modern day language.
    Rest assured that there are only two “types” or “Kinds” of US citizens: born and naturalized. There is no third “kind” called “natural born citizen.”
    If there was, Barack Hussein Obama II would not be the duly elected 44th President of the United States over the last 3 plus years.

  86. avatar
    Whatever4 February 24, 2012 at 5:49 pm #

    Joey: “Kind” is birther-talk for “type.” In the real world of 2012, the founders’ term “natural born citizen” as an 18th and 19th century term of art is now codified in the law of the land as “Citizen of the United States at birth.”
    The original Constitution uses phrases, spellings and grammatical expressions that are archaic in modern day language.
    Rest assured that there are only two “types” or “Kinds” of US citizens: born and naturalized. There is no third “kind” called “natural born citizen.”
    If there was, Barack Hussein Obama II would not be the duly elected 44th President of the United States over the last 3 plus years.

    Yeah, well, I DO know a bit about birther claims. I’m not exactly new to the topic. 🙂

    My question, which should have been clearer, was really: Rowena, what do you mean by “a Kind” with a capital K? What document did it come from?

    To others:
    Where did this “Kind” with a capital K meme come from? It seem relatively new. I recall someone trolling about what did Shakespeare mean when he said Kind in a specific line. Is Rowena that person using a new sock puppet?

  87. avatar
    G February 24, 2012 at 6:14 pm #

    Oh, I’m sure you will see it used that way on white-supremecist forums…

    Whatever4: To others:
    Where did this “Kind” with a capital K meme come from? It seem relatively new. I recall someone trolling about what did Shakespeare mean when he said Kind in a specific line. Is Rowena that person using a new sock puppet?

  88. avatar
    US Citizen February 24, 2012 at 6:22 pm #

    debbi: US Citi

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicano

  89. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 24, 2012 at 6:22 pm #

    I don’t know but the word has an archaic meaning of Nature or Family, or Lineage.

    Whatever4: Where did this “Kind” with a capital K meme come from?

  90. avatar
    US Citizen February 24, 2012 at 6:23 pm #

    I think I just quoted a post that was deleted while I was posting. Oops.

  91. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 24, 2012 at 6:23 pm #

    Not capitalized, but from StromFront:

    There’s something I’ve been wondering about.

    In The Bible, it says God made the living creature after his kind.

    Is this why we have an automatic dislike for Mexicans and blacks? But around Whites we feel normal and happy and comfortable?

    I notice whenever flowers grow, you see them according to their kind, like red flowers. Or you see a group of purple flowers. Or a group of yellow flowers.

    Does this mean only White people are our own kind?

    G: Oh, I’m sure you will see it used that way on white-supremecist forums

  92. avatar
    G February 24, 2012 at 7:06 pm #

    In terms of how racists view things, it seems to often be a lot more narrow than just “white”. Your prior statement seems more in-line with how I’ve seen some of these extreme bigots use it:

    Dr. Conspiracy: I don’t know but the word has an archaic meaning of Nature or Family, or Lineage.

    There seems to be quite a few “nordic” and “germanic” only types of sentiments, especially in the neo-Nazi flavors of white supremacy. While you and I would generally consider Eastern Europeans (Poles, Slavs, Romanians, etc.) or Southern Europeans (Italians, Greeks, etc) to be “white”, these folks see them as a different “Kind”.

    To go even further, our nation’s history is rife with a lot of xenophobic anti-immigrant sentiment to specific nationalities of people. Those were particularly hot button issues of their day, when said groups were arriving in large immigrant numbers. Even when my parents were growing up in Cleveland, the different ethnic communities (Greek, Polish, German, Italian, Irish, etc.) would not have self identified as “Caucasian” or all being perceived as “white” back then. No, they were Greeks, Poles, etc. etc. and there was a strong sense of community within and a strong sense of racial tension both between groups and especially from the more settled and established English/French/etc. citizenry.

    So yeah, I do consider all of those intentional references to “Kind” to be clear forms of xenophobic racism & bigotry.

    In the distant past, when the extent of civilization was based on family, tribal and land allegances, struggling and competing to the death for resources and mere survival; such views made sense. However, they simply have little justification or place in the modern world.

    Dr. Conspiracy: Does this mean only White people are our own kind?

  93. avatar
    debbi February 24, 2012 at 7:31 pm #

    JPotter:
    That’s some hardcore neolithic birthin’.Fundamental, old school, taking it back to the roots. From the frozen north Birfo Neanderthalensis speaks! Epperly the Birfarian has no time for wishy-washy, PC sentimentality, just get on with it and birf a birf for Birf, Birf Lord of Bigotry.

    OMG!!! you had me spewing orange juice all over my keyboard. BTW i am going to sue you for that. LOL

  94. avatar
    Stanislaw February 24, 2012 at 7:32 pm #

    Whatever4:

    To others:
    Where did this “Kind” with a capital K meme come from? It seem relatively new. I recall someone trolling about what did Shakespeare mean when he said Kind in a specific line. Is Rowena that person using a new sock puppet?

    That’s my guess. I forget the name of the last birther that rambled extensively about the word “Kind” but the current birther’s writing style (including some strange punctuation) look really familiar to me.

  95. avatar
    Squeeky Fromm February 24, 2012 at 7:36 pm #

    The “Kind” stuff was a freeper named bp1 or bushpilot. I did a whole Internet Article on this particular foolishness:

    http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2011/11/11/cognitive-decompensation-when-vattel-birthers-pay-the-piper-a-case-study/

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  96. avatar
    debbi February 24, 2012 at 7:42 pm #

    US Citizen: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicano

    thank you, but i was trying to facetious about needing to use a race word to omit someone from a ballot 😉

  97. avatar
    Northland10 February 24, 2012 at 7:53 pm #

    Squeeky Fromm: The “Kind” stuff was a freeper named bp1 or bushpilot.

    aka – e. vattel – dancingrabbit – draggincanoe,et al.

  98. avatar
    Northland10 February 24, 2012 at 7:58 pm #

    RuhRoh: Just wanted to note that just about everything Epperly espouses is straight out of the SovCit handbook, and to thank you for compiling it into a single comment for easy reference.

    Most of the current SovCit stuff comes straight from the Posse Comitatus of the 70s and 80s. Instead of explaining further myself, I will let the SPLC explain, by way of their recent Hatewatch article on Epperly’s challenge (note the comment about Sheriffs):

    The 14th Amendment component of Epperly’s challenge stems from an idea promulgated by the Posse Comitatus, a racist and anti-Semitic group that roiled the Midwest in the 1970s and 1980s and believed that the county sheriff is the highest legitimate law enforcement authority. Posse ideologues argued, in effect, that God gave America to the white man and therefore the government cannot abridge most rights of whites unless they submit to a “contract” with that government. Black people were only made citizens by the 14th Amendment, they argued, meaning that they have permanently contracted with the government and therefore must obey all its dictates. Or, put another way, black people were truly second-class citizens, forced to obey government and tax laws that, the Posse argued, apply to white sovereign citizens (the Posse often called them “organic citizens”).

    http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2012/02/24/alaska-birther-launches-sovereign-attack-on-mulatto-obama/

  99. avatar
    gorefan February 24, 2012 at 8:07 pm #

    RuhRoh: Just wanted to note that just about everything Epperly espouses is straight out of the SovCit handbook

    They are getting attention

    http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-terror-cop-killers-20120224,0,5474022.story

  100. avatar
    Whatever4 February 25, 2012 at 12:21 am #

    Squeeky Fromm:
    The “Kind” stuff was a freeper named bp1 or bushpilot. I did a whole Internet Article on this particular foolishness:

    http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2011/11/11/cognitive-decompensation-when-vattel-birthers-pay-the-piper-a-case-study/

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    Ah, the 11/11/11 pot. I missed that one somehow. Thanks, Squeeks!

  101. avatar
    Candi February 25, 2012 at 12:39 am #

    Makes me ashamed of being from Alaska!!!! People like this are a waist of air!!!

  102. avatar
    Thomas Brown February 25, 2012 at 12:53 am #

    Whatever4: Yeah, well, I DO know a bit about birther claims. I’m not exactly new to the topic.

    To others:
    Where did this “Kind” with a capital K meme come from? It seem relatively new. I recall someone trolling about what did Shakespeare mean when he said Kind in a specific line. Is Rowena that person using a new sock puppet?

    Are you thinking of Hamlet’s “A little more than Kin, and a little less than Kind”?

  103. avatar
    debbi February 25, 2012 at 1:25 am #

    Candi:
    Makes me ashamed of being from Alaska!!!! People like this are a waist of air!!!

    “waist of air”? while i understand your shame, the word you might be looking for is “waste”. not only of air, but paper,too 😉

  104. avatar
    Northland10 February 25, 2012 at 11:54 am #

    Candi:
    Makes me ashamed of being from Alaska!!!! People like this are a waist of air!!!

    Back when I lived in Northern Michigan (note: Northern Michigan is the northern part of the Lower Peninsula. The part of Michigan above the bridge is the UP), we had a militia guy there who, having been kicked out of the Michigan Militia for being too radical, started his own group. After a couple of years, he became frustrated with the lack of interest in action by his and other militia folks in Michigan (this is some time before the recent Hutaree folks). In is frustration, he decided to run off to Alaska where he would have more support and less government in his way, or something like that.

    While we were happy to see him move on, I suppose I should feel a little remorse for sending our trash up north to sully the lovely state of Alaska.