Main Menu

How 2 vet a President

Birthers seem to be always fudging their requirements for presidential eligibility and vetting candidates. Whatever the President does, they find something else they want.

Gerry Nance7-point program

However, one birther has given a simple, innovative 7-step checklist for vetting a President. I think this list from Gerry Nance (pictured right) that I found at the Tri-Valley Central, Arizona, web site is going to be hard to top:

  1. To vet a presidential candidate requires examination of the Long Form Birth Certificate or other records to confirm native birth in a State of the Union adopted under Article IV Section 3 of the US Constitution.
  2. Next we examine the mother’s documents to establish maternity. Adopted children are not natural born. Children of surrogate mothers or artificial methods are not legitimate births.
  3. Next we need to look at the father’s documents to establish paternity and preferably a legitimated birth. Children of surrogate mothers or artificial methods are not legitimate births.
  4. Next we need to look at immigration and naturalization of the mother to establish if prior to the birth of the child, the mother, was born or naturalized a US Citizen before the child was born. This point establishes the child is a US Citizen.
  5. Next we need to look at immigration and naturalization of the father to establish if prior to the birth of the child, the father, was born or naturalized a US Citizen before the child was born. This point establishes the child is a US Citizen.
  6. The child can only be considered a natural born citizen, if it can be proven both parents were born or naturalized US Citizens before the child was born. This may require looking at the grandparent’s birth and naturalization dates.
  7. Failing the two-parents being US Citizens before the birth of the child, then the child is only born or naturalized a US Citizen, and not constitutionally eligible to serve as a US President.

,

175 Responses to How 2 vet a President

  1. avatar
    Thrifty March 17, 2012 at 10:34 pm #

    Seems awfully complicated. If I may suggest a simpler method.

    1) Candidate must submit a current photograph.
    2) If the photograph shows a white face, no further investigation is needed.
    3) If the photograph shows a non-white face, the candidate must submit a birth certificate, a long form birth certificate, allow forensic document examiners to view the original vault birth certificate, submit all records from every school the candidate ever attended, and prove that he is not a Democrat.

  2. avatar
    Thomas Brown March 17, 2012 at 10:45 pm #

    Uh, Gerry… When did these rules start? Because not only have they never before been applied, but about 3/4 of American Presidents would fail the test.

    Another racist moron bites the dust.

  3. avatar
    misha March 17, 2012 at 10:52 pm #

    Thrifty: 2) If the photograph shows a white face, no further investigation is needed.

    Just like George Romney. At least he didn’t tie a dog to the roof of his car, for 12 hours.

    He did inflict the Gremlin and the Pacer on the public, which is almost as bad as the dog on the roof.

  4. avatar
    Sef March 17, 2012 at 10:55 pm #

    As I mentioned earlier, this is all recursive idiocy.

  5. avatar
    G March 17, 2012 at 11:00 pm #

    Agreed.

    Sef: As I mentioned earlier, this is all recursive idiocy.

  6. avatar
    arrrogantlyignorant March 17, 2012 at 11:15 pm #

    Interesting. I thought borderraven disappeared. Early on in the debate on youtube I corned him on where he got the “2 citizen parents” definition of natural born citizen. He said his undeniable source was “government issued text books in high school”.. Um yeah ok, Jerry.

  7. avatar
    nbc March 17, 2012 at 11:49 pm #

    Gerry has been struggling with the realization that children born on soil to (illegal) immigrants are not only born US citizens but by virtue of their birth on soil, natural born citizens as well.

    He is still pondering the ridicule he will be facing the next time he attends an immigration rally.

  8. avatar
    AnotherBird March 18, 2012 at 12:23 am #

    I am surprised he didn’t think of any other medical procedure to exclude others from being natural born citizens. His absurdness knows no bounds. Maybe he should for once actually read the law.

  9. avatar
    nbc March 18, 2012 at 12:41 am #

    Well, there are c-section births which are obviously not natural born…

  10. avatar
    Steve March 18, 2012 at 12:55 am #

    8). If the candidate meets the all the other requirements and we don’t like him, we make up other requirements.

  11. avatar
    misha March 18, 2012 at 1:00 am #

    nbc:
    Well, there are c-section births which are obviously not natural born…

    Be bloody, bold, and resolute; laugh to scorn
    The power of man, for none of woman born
    Shall harm Macbeth.

    Despair thy charm,
    And let the angel whom thou still hast served
    Tell thee, Macduff was from his mother’s womb
    Untimely ripp’d.

  12. avatar
    brygenon March 18, 2012 at 1:08 am #

    Darn! Not having been born in a State of the Union, I’m not a natural-born citizen. I had always thought I was, but now I see that I fail point number one of the program. I have difficulty fathoming why those of us born in our nation’s capital have to be disqualified, but I don’t make the rules. Someone should tell Al Gore.

    Ever get the impression birthers don’t really think things trough?

  13. avatar
    Paper March 18, 2012 at 1:11 am #

    I don’t know why we stop with the mediate birth parents. Grandparents, too, need to be U.S. citizens. Just see Gertrude Stein’s treatise The Making of Americans. Of course, the truth of natural law she reveals is that Americans are made, not born. One can only conclude, therefore, that the only Americans eligible to be president are Native Americans. It’s right in the name, you see. Calling them American Indians was always part of the conspiracy to keep them from receiving acknowledgement of their native natural born status.

  14. avatar
    John Woodman March 18, 2012 at 1:21 am #

    WHAAAAA???

    Gerry’s a SLACKER. My goodness. What about the paternity test to ensure that the candidate’s claimed father was the actual sperm donor?

    If paternity can’t be proven, then obviously the real dad could’ve been Vladimir Pootin, Mao Zedung, Adolph Hitler. Or a Joo.

    Good grief. What kind of slackers are they turning out these days?

  15. avatar
    John Woodman March 18, 2012 at 1:25 am #

    Paper:
    One can only conclude, therefore, that the only Americans eligible to be president are Native Americans.It’s right in the name, you see.Calling them American Indians was always part of the conspiracy to keep them from receiving acknowledgement of their native natural born status.

    No, no. NATIVE Americans are not eligible. Only NATURAL Americans.

  16. avatar
    gorefan March 18, 2012 at 2:35 am #

    John Woodman: Only NATURAL Americans.

    But in the late 1700’s natural also meant illegitmate as in this discussion from John Adams diary,

    “M. Marbois asked, are natural children admitted in America to all privileges like children born in wedlock ? I answered, They are not admitted to the rights of inheritance; but their fathers may give them estates by testament, and they are not excluded from other advantages. ” In France,” said M. Marbois, ” they are not admitted into the army nor any office in government.” I said, they were not excluded from commissions in the army, navy, or state, but they were always attended with a mark of disgrace. M. Marbois said this, no doubt, in allusion to Mr. F.’s natural son, and natural son of a natural son.”

    So maybe only illegitmate children can be President.

  17. avatar
    TheEuropean March 18, 2012 at 2:56 am #

    nbc:
    Well, there are c-section births which are obviously not natural born…

    This way only Caesars, Emperors and Zcars are born …..

  18. avatar
    TheEuropean March 18, 2012 at 3:04 am #

    Before it is forgotten:

    Borderraven / Gerry Nance is much better in taking pictures of underage girls on the beach than in Constitutional Law. The season for this is just starting ….

  19. avatar
    Lupin March 18, 2012 at 3:50 am #

    Shorter version: No n*gg**s.

  20. avatar
    DP March 18, 2012 at 3:58 am #

    That someone would even go to the trouble to write drivel like that down is depressing.

  21. avatar
    Lupin March 18, 2012 at 3:59 am #

    I;m going to repost this because that’s where the problem lies:

    http://www.thegrio.com/politics/picture-of-anti–obama-campaign-bumper-sticker-goes-viral.php

  22. avatar
    Expelliarmus March 18, 2012 at 4:00 am #

    gorefan: So maybe only illegitmate children can be President.

    Well that settles it then. It’s a good thing for Barack Obama that his father was a bigamist (thus nullifying his mother’s marriage).

  23. avatar
    misha March 18, 2012 at 4:54 am #

    Gerry Nance: When are you going to demand this of Willard Mitt Romney? His father was born in Mexico, purportedly to US citizens.

    I’m waiting.

  24. avatar
    Wolf March 18, 2012 at 5:46 am #

    8. Long form birth certificates must be authenticated by sheriff Arpaio’s posse and World Net Daily

  25. avatar
    RuhRoh March 18, 2012 at 7:45 am #

    There are obviously many problems with this list, but I’m fascinated by this idea of being born by artificial means.

    Is he saying that children produced as a result of any sort of fertility treatment are ineligible for natural-born citizenship? What about children who survived a difficult/dangerous pregnancy through excellent medical intervention, as if things had been left to nature mother and/or mother and child would have died? Are they also “born of artificial means”?

  26. avatar
    Raphael March 18, 2012 at 7:52 am #

    Did long-form birth certificates exist when the Constitution was written?

  27. avatar
    Scientist March 18, 2012 at 7:53 am #

    misha: Gerry Nance: When are you going to demand this of Willard Mitt Romney? His father was born in Mexico, purportedly to US citizens.
    I’m waiting.

    Not only that, Mitt’s purported birthplace is within a few minutes drive by bridge or tunnel of a foreign country. No passport was needed in those days; just a driver”s license. Unlike Sarah Palin seeing Russia from her house, you really could see Canada from Mitt’s.

  28. avatar
    Scientist March 18, 2012 at 7:54 am #

    Raphael: Did long-form birth certificates exist when the Constitution was written?

    No, only computer-generatted abstracts…

  29. avatar
    Majority Will March 18, 2012 at 8:02 am #

    RuhRoh:
    There are obviously many problems with this list, but I’m fascinated by this idea of being born by artificial means.

    Is he saying that children produced as a result of any sort of fertility treatment are ineligible for natural-born citizenship?What about children who survived a difficult/dangerous pregnancy through excellent medical intervention, as if things had been left to nature mother and/or mother and child would have died? Are they also “born of artificial means”?

    Millions of Americans are the result of alcohol and poor judgement.

  30. avatar
    Tarrant March 18, 2012 at 8:33 am #

    I wonder if he knows that Newt Gingrich is adopted.

    But he’s white, so there’s probably an exception somewhere.

  31. avatar
    Majority Will March 18, 2012 at 8:42 am #

    Tarrant:
    I wonder if he knows that Newt Gingrich is adopted.

    But he’s white, so there’s probably an exception somewhere.

    And Gerald Ford and Bill Clinton.

  32. avatar
    donna March 18, 2012 at 8:45 am #

    i found an interesting link from the usma regarding citizenship of military children born “abroad” and some to foreign mothers/fathers

    have the birthers addressed this scenario?

    one line from the section entitled: “Children born overseas to one American parent, one foreign citizen” is

    “In most cases, the U.S. citizen parent can simply go to the nearest American embassy or consulate and apply for a U.S. passport for the child.”

    under “Children born overseas to two American parents”:

    Additionally, if your son or daughter was born on a military post overseas, it might still be possible for him or her to become President of the United States. The Constitution requires the President to be a “natural born citizen” of the United States, but the Supreme Court has never decided the precise meaning of that term.

    http://www.usma.edu/PublicAffairs/PV/020419/MLaw.htm

  33. avatar
    Scientist March 18, 2012 at 9:06 am #

    Gerry probably could use the 12 point program, more thann the 7 point one.

  34. avatar
    Horus March 18, 2012 at 10:32 am #

    “The child can only be considered a natural born citizen, if it can be proven both parents were born or naturalized US Citizens before the child was born. This may require looking at the grandparent’s birth and naturalization dates.
    Failing the two-parents being US Citizens before the birth of the child, then the child is only born or naturalized a US Citizen, and not constitutionally eligible to serve as a US President.”

    What a complete load of BS!

  35. avatar
    Horus March 18, 2012 at 10:43 am #

    Lupin: I;m going to repost this because that’s where the problem lies:

    http://www.thegrio.com/politics/picture-of-anti–obama-campaign-bumper-sticker-goes-viral.php

    Page not found.

  36. avatar
    ASK Esq March 18, 2012 at 11:07 am #

    He left off the part about needing a Y chomosome. Jedi Pauly will not be pleased.

  37. avatar
    Mitch March 18, 2012 at 11:17 am #

    Wow, until I read the comments here, I assumed this was a satire piece. This is Borderraven? What a piece of work.

  38. avatar
    veritas March 18, 2012 at 11:45 am #

    Thrifty: Seems awfully complicated. If I may suggest a simpler method.1) Candidate must submit a current photograph.2) If the photograph shows a white face, no further investigation is needed.3) If the photograph shows a non-white face, the candidate must submit a birth certificate, a long form birth certificate, allow forensic document examiners to view the original vault birth certificate, submit all records from every school the candidate ever attended, and prove that he is not a Democrat.

    made me laugh.

  39. avatar
    veritas March 18, 2012 at 11:49 am #

    Thomas Brown: Uh, Gerry… When did these rules start? Because not only have they never before been applied, but about 3/4 of American Presidents would fail the test.Another racist moron bites the dust.

    other than chester arthur can you name 2

  40. avatar
    misha March 18, 2012 at 11:52 am #

    veritas: other than chester arthur can you name 2

    Curly, Larry and Moe.

  41. avatar
    Majority Will March 18, 2012 at 11:56 am #

    other than chester arthur can you name 2

    Here’s a quick refutation for his #2 (pun intended).

    “2. Next we examine the mother’s documents to establish maternity. Adopted children are not natural born. Children of surrogate mothers or artificial methods are not legitimate births.”

    Gerald Ford and Bill Clinton

  42. avatar
    Bob March 18, 2012 at 11:57 am #

    Aren’t about 50% of births outside of marriage these days? Can you imagine the colossal stupidity of the endless discussions involved if it were accepted that legitimate children were the “preferred” choice when picking a president?

  43. avatar
    Scientist March 18, 2012 at 11:59 am #

    veritas: other than chester arthur can you name 2

    All Presidents so far fail Gerry’s test, because none ever proved where they were born or whether their parents were citizens. Obama comes closest as he has proven #1-4. As far as the rest of them, they proved zip.

  44. avatar
    Lupin March 18, 2012 at 12:17 pm #

    Horus: Lupin

    They changed the url for some reason:

    http://www.thegrio.com/politics/picture-of-anti–obama-campaign-bumper-sticker-goes-viral.php

  45. avatar
    y_p_w March 18, 2012 at 12:18 pm #

    brygenon: Darn! Not having been born in a State of the Union, I’m not a natural-born citizen. I had always thought I was, but now I see that I fail point number one of the program. I have difficulty fathoming why those of us born in our nation’s capital have to be disqualified, but I don’t make the rules.

    Fortunately for the country, GN doesn’t make the the rules either.

  46. avatar
    veritas March 18, 2012 at 12:21 pm #

    Majority Will: Here’s a quick refutation for his #2 (pun intended).“2. Next we examine the mother’s documents to establish maternity. Adopted children are not natural born. Children of surrogate mothers or artificial methods are not legitimate births.”Gerald Ford and Bill Clinton

    right, i was just thinking about the 2 citizen parent rule

  47. avatar
    Suranis March 18, 2012 at 12:31 pm #

    I believe that we should go back to the only definition of natural Born citizen ever given in law. Birth abroard to 2 citizen parents, as given in the 1790 naturalisation act.

    Therefore, John McCain is the only legal president we have ever had,after the grandfather clause. Aside from Thomas Jefferson, who is still living as a vampire and was the real President for 200 years. Damn french and their unholy deseases. Ah well at least he sparkles in the sunlight.

  48. avatar
    Majority Will March 18, 2012 at 12:32 pm #

    veritas: the 2 citizen parent rule

    The 2 citizen parent rule of Leo Donofrio, the self-proclaimed authority of all U.S. laws?

  49. avatar
    Tarrant March 18, 2012 at 12:37 pm #

    veritas: other than chester arthur can you name 2

    Given that in general birth certificates were not generally kept as state records until 1900 or so, I’d say for the first hundred years of this nation’s existence, none of the Presidents save those covered by the “…at the time of the adoption of the Constitution” clause fail the first part of the test.

    There have also been a number of adopted Presidents.

  50. avatar
    Lupin March 18, 2012 at 12:50 pm #

    The fact of the matter is, the birther issue is the thin end of the wedge used by white racist as part of a larger effort to prevent the growing non-white minorities from voting.

    I understand there are now new voter suppression law in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas which specifically targets Hispanics.

    The Justice Department is trying to block the new Texas law, but Texas is fighting back, not only challenging the Justice Department on the merits of its decision, but arguing that its action is an unconstitutional infringement on states’ rights.

    Jonathan Chait, in a recent New York magazine piece entitled “2012 or Never,” wrote, “the nonwhite proportion of the electorate grows by about half a percentage point—meaning that in every presidential election, the minority share of the vote increases by 2 percent, a huge amount in a closely divided country. (…) By 2020, nonwhite voters should rise from a quarter of the 2008 electorate to one third. In 30 years, nonwhites will outnumber whites.”

    The bitrher “logic” is at the core of this movement, trying to justify the following equation:

    All voters are Americans
    No Hispanics are Americans
    No voter is Hispanic
    QED.

    This IMHO is the larger context which explains Apuzzo, Donofrio et al.

  51. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 18, 2012 at 1:27 pm #

    Have you been smoking Minor v Happersett again?

    Suranis: I believe that we should go back to the only definition of natural Born citizen ever given in law. Birth abroard to 2 citizen parents, as given in the 1790 naturalisation act.

  52. avatar
    donna March 18, 2012 at 2:49 pm #

    Suranis: I believe that we should go back to the only definition of natural Born citizen ever given in law. Birth abroard to 2 citizen parents, as given in the 1790 naturalisation act.

    WOW

    so wong ISN’T precedent?

    remember that on march 7th, judge gordon (APPOINTED by REPUBLICAN governor jan brewer in ARPAIO’S arizona) ruled that

    1) Barack Obama is a natural born citizen.
    2) US v Wong Kim Ark is binding precedent.
    3) Minor v Happersett is irrelevant to the president’s status as a natural born citizen.

    he even mentioned ankeny v REPUBLICAN governor mitch daniels (who wrote a memorandum)

    Judge Gordon ordered:

    “But even assuming that the current challenge falls within this Court’s purview to decide, there are indispensible parties, most notably Arizona’s Secretary of State, who has not been named in the lawsuit. See A.R.S. 16-344(A), (B). Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co., 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986 (1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. See United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702-03 (1898) (addressing U. S. Const. amend. XIV); Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678, 684-88 (Ind. App. 2010) (addressing the precise issue). Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”

    perhaps we should go BACK to what Epperly said in ak ….. WOMEN are NOT eligible to hold ANY office –

    12/20/2010 Quote:
    It appears that Lisa Murkowski has received the majority of votes cast, but there is a problem — Lisa Murkowski is not qualified for the Office of U.S. Senator as she is not a citizen of the United States under Article I of the Constitution for the United States.

    Enclosed is a “Proclamation” declaring the political privileges of candidates to hold public offices of the United States. The “Proclamation” shows that U.S. Congress has never made provisions in the U.S. Constitution for women or non-white citizens to hold public offices.

  53. avatar
    Suranis March 18, 2012 at 2:50 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Have you been smoking Minor v Happersett again?

    I’m sowwy Doc. *shamefaced*

  54. avatar
    Suranis March 18, 2012 at 2:54 pm #

    donna: WOW

    so wong ISN’T precedent?

    Donna, I was joking. That act was overruled in 1795. Their intent was to confer NBC status to the children born abroad, but they realised that they had accidently fixed it so that only people born outside the US to 2 citizen parents, and nopoby born on US soil could be president at all. So they overruled the decision.

    Dont tell me I’ve started another stupid birther meme…

  55. avatar
    Suranis March 18, 2012 at 2:56 pm #

    Oh and the precident was actually the 1610 Calvins case. The 14th amendment was just declatory of existing law as said at the time. As minor said “In common law, which the framers were familiar…” That means that MInor said they used english comon law. 3 guesses what english common law said?

  56. avatar
    donna March 18, 2012 at 3:25 pm #

    lol

    SORRY!!!

    3 guesses and the 1st 2 DON’T COUNT?

  57. avatar
    Wilson March 18, 2012 at 3:39 pm #

    Does that mean we need to exhume Ron Paul’s Parents? And Newt’s?
    Do we need to dig up Newt’s Step Dad too?

  58. avatar
    misha March 18, 2012 at 4:53 pm #

    “2. Next we examine the mother’s documents to establish maternity…Adopted children are not natural born.”

    Majority Will: Gerald Ford and Bill Clinton

    As explained here: http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/2009/06/famous-willards.html

  59. avatar
    misha March 18, 2012 at 4:55 pm #

    Wilson: Does that mean we need to exhume Ron Paul’s Parents? And Newt’s? Do we need to dig up Newt’s Step Dad too?

    Unfortunately, yes. Birthers want to be consistent, right?

  60. avatar
    donna March 18, 2012 at 5:42 pm #

    misha: Birthers want to be consistent, right?

    gee i WOULD HOPE SO

    but i don’t see it

    SOME have said that after the convention the birthers will look into the gop candidate

    for consistency, there were all of these ballot challenges to keep obama off the ballot BEFORE the convention

    the gop convention is on 8/30 before the 11/6 election

    when would there be time (in birtherstan) to select another (natural born) candidate?

    it is IMPOSSIBLE to think of any reason, other than the OBVIOUS, why there is NO CONSISTENCY

    a photo of obama points to the ONLY OBVIOUS reason

  61. avatar
    RuhRoh March 18, 2012 at 5:49 pm #

    misha: Unfortunately, yes. Birthers want to be consistent, right?

    They’re only consistent in bigotry.

  62. avatar
    Zachary Bravos March 18, 2012 at 7:38 pm #

    Mr. Nance’s “natural born citizen” standards are analogous to the Nazi standards used to determine Aryan ancestry and hence qualified to enter all kinds of fun organizations such as the S.S. I always wanted the United States to be more like Nazi Germany. Our leaders should be required to prove beyond doubt the purity of their “Americanism” for at least two generations just as Mr. Nance suggests. Hey – maybe we can have the proven “pure americans” carry a certificate whereas all us “not natural borns” should have to wear some kind of insignia on their clothes – or better yet a tattoo on their arms. After all, we can’t be too careful.

  63. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 18, 2012 at 9:19 pm #

    I guess not entirely. He did let the borderraven.com domain expire.

    arrrogantlyignorant: Interesting. I thought borderraven disappeared.

  64. avatar
    Thomas Brown March 18, 2012 at 9:33 pm #

    Gerry Nance looks exactly like the South Park kids when they stayed up for weeks playing World of Warcraft and got all greasy, pimply and bloated.

    I bet when he looks in the mirror, though, he sees the Scion of the Master Race.

  65. avatar
    Thomas Brown March 18, 2012 at 9:38 pm #

    veritas: other than chester arthur can you name 2

    Every President who had no Birth Certificate and whose parents had no documentation. Easily 3/4 of US Presidents.

    Thanks for playing.

  66. avatar
    Arthur March 18, 2012 at 10:25 pm #

    Thomas Brown: Gerry Nance looks exactly like the South Park kids when they stayed up for weeks playing World of Warcraft and got all greasy, pimply and bloated.

    Epic South Park reference, and one of their best episodes.

  67. avatar
    jayhg March 19, 2012 at 12:32 am #

    That list was hysterical………..it was really very funny, cause this guy is joking, right? I mean, he has to be…..nothing else regarding that list makes an ounce of sense!

  68. avatar
    jayhg March 19, 2012 at 12:32 am #

    Thrifty:
    Seems awfully complicated.If I may suggest a simpler method.

    1) Candidate must submit a current photograph.
    2) If the photograph shows a white face, no further investigation is needed.
    3) If the photograph shows a non-white face, the candidate must submit a birth certificate, a long form birth certificate, allow forensic document examiners to view the original vault birth certificate, submit all records from every school the candidate ever attended, and prove that he is not a Democrat.

    Post of the month!!!!

  69. avatar
    jayhg March 19, 2012 at 12:37 am #

    Steve:
    8). If the candidate meets the all the other requirements and we don’t like him, we make up other requirements.

    Another great post……

  70. avatar
    jayhg March 19, 2012 at 12:37 am #

    Lupin:
    Shorter version: No n*gg**s.

    …you people are killing me!!!

  71. avatar
    Benji Franklin March 19, 2012 at 1:12 am #

    Hey Doc,

    A necessary premise for one Birther theory of Natural Born Citizenship, (of that status being incompatible with having a Father who at the time of a usurper’s birth, was judged a citizen of another nation,) is that the forbidden “contamination” arises because we must honor the letter and calculus of that other nation’s laws in declaring the usurper’s father is in fact their citizen as the usurper emerges from the womb.

    Under this theory, the detailed history of every allegedly “naturalized” father of a President would have to be meticulously checked for verifiable, verifying proof that each said father not only satisfied the requirements for United States naturalization before his usurper-to-be son was born, but that said father had also met the specific legal requirements established by his original nation for officially losing that previous citizenship, whatever those laws might require BEYOND SIMPLY RENOUNCING SAID PRIOR CITIZENSHIP as part of a required United States legal ceremony.

    Not all nations have always had laws declaring that simply achieving naturalization in another country legally cancels ones citizenship from said nation. Indeed, that is the current U.S. position; like some other nations, a U.S. Citizen does not automatically lose their citizenship by being naturalized elsewhere – no matter what sort of personal renunciation of U.S Citizenship the other nation’s naturalizing procedures require. An American citizen must appear before an American Consul in a foreign country and renounce his American Citizenship by our legal procedure, or he’s still an American Citizen.

    Thus, “respect” for the power of another nation’s citizenship declaring laws must include respect for that nation’s right to say by what legal process such citizenship ends, just as “respect” for that foreign nation’s citizenship declaring laws argues such foreign countries statutes determine when such citizenship begins.

    So Birthers, let’s see proof every naturalized father of an American President legally satisfied his original nation’s requirements for losing their citizenship (beyond the US naturalization’s requirement of personal renunciation), BEFORE the President was born!

    Benji Franklin

  72. avatar
    US Citizen March 19, 2012 at 1:38 am #

    I could be wrong, but that appears to be a confederate flag behind Gerry.

  73. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 19, 2012 at 1:54 am #

    I guess we should consider the fact that in some countries, the grandchildren of citizens are considered citizens. That means even in the case of a completely naturalized father, purged of all foreign citizenship, the child could still be a citizen of another country and tainted by a “foreign influence” so strong as to make him ineligible for the presidency.

    Birthers are hypersensitive to such thing.

    Benji Franklin: Under this theory, the detailed history of every allegedly “naturalized” father of a President would have to be meticulously checked for verifiable, verifying proof that each said father not only satisfied the requirements for United States naturalization before his usurper-to-be son was born, but that said father had also met the specific legal requirements established by his original nation for officially losing that previous citizenship, whatever those laws might require BEYOND SIMPLY RENOUNCING SAID PRIOR CITIZENSHIP as part of a required United States legal ceremony.

  74. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 19, 2012 at 2:09 am #

    Satire will have the “fiction” tag at the end (assuming of course that it’s not me that has been punked).

    Mitch: Wow, until I read the comments here, I assumed this was a satire piece. This is Borderraven? What a piece of work.

  75. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 19, 2012 at 2:10 am #

    I’ve only been able to find the cropped version of that photo. It might not even be a flag at all.

    US Citizen: I could be wrong, but that appears to be a confederate flag behind Gerry.

  76. avatar
    Adrien Nash March 19, 2012 at 6:08 am #

    Thrifty:
    Seems awfully complicated.If I may suggest a simpler method.

    1) Candidate must submit a current photograph.
    2) If the photograph shows a white face, no further investigation is needed.
    3) If the photograph shows a non-white face, the candidate must submit a birth certificate, a long form birth certificate, allow forensic document examiners to view the original vault birth certificate, submit all records from every school the candidate ever attended, and prove that he is not a Democrat.

    You forgot a step, how about including a look at the actual state-issue birth certificate? Why even think about looking at the original when you haven’t even been given proof that a copy actually exists? Where’s the hardcopy? Nowhere. It does not exist. Only print-outs of the counterfeit.

  77. avatar
    Adrien Nash March 19, 2012 at 6:39 am #

    gorefan: But in the late 1700′s natural also meant illegitmate as in this discussion from John Adams diary,

    “M. Marbois asked, are natural children admitted in America to all privileges like children born in wedlock ? I answered, They are not admitted to the rights of inheritance; but their fathers may give them estates by testament, and they are not excluded from other advantages. ” In France,” said M. Marbois, ” they are not admitted into the army nor any office in government.” I said, they were not excluded from commissions in the army, navy, or state, but they were always attended with a mark of disgrace. M. Marbois said this, no doubt, in allusion to Mr. F.’s natural son, and natural son of a natural son.”

    So maybe only illegitmate children can be President.

    You missed the significance of your own post. A child who is “natural” is one whose relationship to his father is outside of human legal approval. He needs no law, no statute, no permission to be what he is because he is one’s son by nature, without the need of law to make it so. Similarly, to be eligible to be President one must be a natural American without any law officially legitimizing his citizenship because it is by nature and not by law, nor Act, nor Amendment. He is not adopted by law, nor legitimized by law but he is the natural off-spring via the natural principle of an inherited blood connection.

    Also, “the rights of inheritance” do not refer to legal rights via a will, but to natural rights of inheritance which require no will, only a legal blood connection of the proper nature.

    Barack Obama is not a natural son of America but is one by adoption, by permission, by law, by administrative policy, but not by nature. Without law behind his citizenship it would not exist because he is not a natural son of American parents and in need of no law to make him a citizen.
    Anyone who wants to read the preeminent list of facts that determine one’s U.S. citizenship status needs to read my simple Citizenship Primer A-Z It’s literally A thru Z -26 points.
    THE SIMPLE FACTS OF CITIZENSHIP from A to Z pdf

  78. avatar
    US Citizen March 19, 2012 at 6:53 am #

    Adrien Nash: Anyone who wants to read the preeminent list of facts that determine one’s U.S. citizenship status needs to read my simple Citizenship Primer A-Z It’s literally A thru Z -26 points.

    The only problem here is that your list is an opinion, not a fact.
    The fact is: it doesn’t matter who your parents are if you are born in the US.
    You may not agree with me, but all those conservative chief justices do.
    Maybe you should educate them on US law?

  79. avatar
    Adrien Nash March 19, 2012 at 7:00 am #

    Suranis: gorefan March 18, 2012 at 2:35 am (Quote) #

    John Woodman: Only NATURAL Americans.

    But in the late 1700′s natural also meant illegitmate as in this discussion from John Adams diary,

    “M. Marbois asked, are natural children admitted in America to all privileges like children born in wedlock ? I answered, They are not admitted to the rights of inheritance; but their fathers may give them estates by testament, and they are not excluded from other advantages. ” In France,” said M. Marbois, ” they are not admitted into the army nor any office in government.” I said, they were not excluded from commissions in the army, navy, or state, but they were always attended with a mark of disgrace. M. Marbois said this, no doubt, in allusion to Mr. F.’s natural son, and natural son of a natural son.”

    So maybe only illegitmate children can be President.

    What have you been smoking? The 1790 Act never used the word “only” in regard to the Americans born abroad being natural born citizens. It didn’t declare them to be the only NBCs. It’s purpose was to rectify the oversight in the Constitution of failing to clarity the status of Americans born abroad. So not being able to just whip-up a constitutionaly amendment to fix it, they simply stuck language into the Act so that the boneheads in the immigation service would know that they must not be treated as foreigners, and at the same time they should be recognized as being ofn no different nature than their brethren born in the homeland.

  80. avatar
    aarrgghh March 19, 2012 at 7:20 am #

    Adrien Nash: … read my simple Citizenship Primer A-ZIt’s literally A thru Z -26 points.

    simple < 26 points

  81. avatar
    aarrgghh March 19, 2012 at 7:23 am #

    this is simple.

  82. avatar
    Adrien Nash March 19, 2012 at 7:26 am #

    Benji Franklin:
    Hey Doc,

    A necessary premise for one Birther theory of Natural Born Citizenship, (of that status being incompatible with having a Father who at the time of a usurper’s birth, was judged a citizen of another nation,) is that the forbidden “contamination” arises because we must honor the letter and calculus of that other nation’s laws in declaring the usurper’s father is in fact their citizen as the usurper emerges from the womb.

    Under this theory, the detailed history of every allegedly “naturalized” father of a President would have to be meticulously checked for verifiable, verifying proof that each said father not only satisfied the requirements for United States naturalization before his usurper-to-be son was born, but that said father had also met the specific legal requirements established by his original nation for officially losing that previous citizenship, whatever those laws might require BEYOND SIMPLY RENOUNCING SAID PRIOR CITIZENSHIP as part of a required United States legal ceremony.

    Not all nations have always had laws declaring that simply achieving naturalization in another country legally cancels ones citizenship from said nation. Indeed, that is the current U.S. position; like some other nations, a U.S. Citizen does not automatically lose their citizenship by being naturalized elsewhere – no matter what sort of personal renunciation of U.S Citizenship the other nation’s naturalizing procedures require. An American citizen must appear before an American Consul in a foreign country and renounce his American Citizenship by our legal procedure, or he’s still an American Citizen.

    Thus, “respect” for the power of another nation’s citizenship declaring laws must include respect for that nation’s right to say by what legal process such citizenship ends, just as “respect” for that foreign nation’s citizenship declaring laws argues such foreign countries statutes determine when such citizenship begins.

    So Birthers, let’s see proof every naturalized father of an American President legally satisfied his original nation’s requirements for losing their citizenship (beyond the US naturalization’s requirement of personal renunciation), BEFORE the President was born!

    Benji Franklin

    Man have you ever fallen into a fantasy of your own mind’s making. The citizenship of a foreign father is most probably going to be natural citizenship via natural law and doesn’t need there to be any law bestowing it anymore than there is in the United States. It is automatic because it’s by nature.
    The only way to sever the connection to their foreign national baggage is through naturalization, -whereby one must take the Oath of Allegiance and Renunciation, thereby ending their natural allegiance and obedience to their homeland’s government. The position of the homeland government, visa a vi the immigrant’s citizenship is irrelevant to the U.S. government, like it doesn’t exist. It is not even in the picture.

    Having dual citizenship is not a problem for the naturalized citizen in regard to presidential eligibility because they are already ineligible, or did you forget that fact? And it matters not to their children who are eligible because having American parents is all that’s required to be a natural American.
    So without your realizing it, you were too clever by half. Your cleverness outwitted your accuracy about the facts.

  83. avatar
    Adrien Nash March 19, 2012 at 7:35 am #

    US Citizen: The only problem here is that your list is an opinion, not a fact.
    The fact is: it doesn’t matter who your parents are if you are born in the US.
    You may not agree with me, but all those conservative chief justices do.
    Maybe you should educate them on US law?

    So you can read minds now? You know what “all those conservative justices” think? Absurd. And I should educate them but not on U.S. law. The zillions of word that I’ve penned on natural citizenship would help to educate them about that which they’ve never had to seriously study nor contemplate, but I’ve done it for them. How? Not by studying U.S. law because it is not related to U.S. law, not now, and not back then before U.S. law was even written because there was no Congress nor any Supreme Court, nor any Constitution. Natural citizenship pre-dates the United States because it’s based on a principle that is over a billion years old, namely the law of natural membership. see A MAN CALLED “HORSE” & A MAN CALLED “PRESIDENT” http://h2ooflife.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/a-man-called-president.pdf

  84. avatar
    Adrien Nash March 19, 2012 at 7:48 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I guess we should consider the fact that in some countries, the grandchildren of citizens are considered citizens. That means even in the case of a completely naturalized father, purged of all foreign citizenship, the child could still be a citizen of another country and tainted by a “foreign influence” so strong as to make him ineligible for the presidency.

    Birthers are hypersensitive to such thing.

    Not so, the only taint of foreigness is through direct blood connection, meaning in particular, a foreign father, NOT grandparents. They are not a direct connection. They are therefore irrelevant. People are not raised by their grandfathers anyway (with certain exceptions) so their national allegiance is not a direct influence especially if it’s to a foreign nation.
    But I take exception to “completely naturalized father” since there is no such thing as a partially naturalized father, and even naturalization does not “purge” one of foreign citizenship, nor roots in a foreign nation. But the children of naturalized immigrants have only American roots and are therefore eligible to be President.

  85. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 19, 2012 at 7:55 am #

    Barack Obama would be such an exception, raised by his grandparents largely and by his father not at all.

    Adrien Nash: People are not raised by their grandfathers anyway (with certain exceptions) so their national allegiance is not a direct influence especially if it’s to a foreign nation.

  86. avatar
    US Citizen March 19, 2012 at 7:57 am #

    Adrien Nash: ? Not by studying U.S. law because it is not related to U.S. law

    I think this above says it all. 😉

  87. avatar
    Majority Will March 19, 2012 at 8:00 am #

    Adrien Nash: Man have I ever fallen into a fantasy of my own mind’s making.

    FIFY.

  88. avatar
    Majority Will March 19, 2012 at 8:03 am #

    Adrien Nash: The zillions of word that I’ve penned on natural citizenship

    . . . are bizarre, irrelevant fantasies and vile, xenophobic bigotry.

  89. avatar
    Scientist March 19, 2012 at 8:14 am #

    Adrien Nash: Not so, the only taint of foreigness is through direct blood connection, meaning in particular, a foreign father, NOT grandparents. They are not a direct connection. They are therefore irrelevant.

    Can you cite any publications in human genetics that show that genes are not passed down in a direct ancestral line from grandparents and earlier generations? In fact, all humans directly trace their DNA to a founder population of perhaps a few thousand invidviduals who arose in East Africa around 30,000 years ago and spread throughout Eurasia and Australia, and, during the last ice age, when sea levels fell, across the Bering Straight land bridge and into the Americas.

    All humans are one race and one citzenship. The lines on the map that delineate countries are pure human constructs under the laws of nature. In nature, there are no “Americans” or “Kenyans” or “Chinese”, but simply humans who happen by accident to inhabit one or another place.

  90. avatar
    Majority Will March 19, 2012 at 8:18 am #

    Scientist: Can you cite any publications in human genetics that show that genes are not passed down in a direct ancestral line from grandparents and earlier generations?In fact, all humans directly trace their DNA to a founder population of perhaps a few thousand invidviduals who arose in East Africa around 30,000 years ago and spread throughout Eurasia and Australia, and, during the last ice age, when sea levels fell, across the Bering Straight land bridge and into the Americas.

    All humans are one race and one citzenship.The lines on the map that delineate countries are pure human constructs under the laws of nature. In nature, there are no “Americans” or “Kenyans” or “Chinese”, but simply humans who happen by accident to inhabit one or another place.

    Be careful.

    You’re going to blow Nash’s mind who will then crap a trillion more useless racist rants into a blog and then cite them endlessly as authority.

  91. avatar
    Lupin March 19, 2012 at 9:09 am #

    Scientist: Can you cite any publications in human genetics that show that genes are not passed down in a direct ancestral line from grandparents and earlier generations? In fact, all humans directly trace their DNA to a founder population of perhaps a few thousand invidviduals who arose in East Africa around 30,000 years ago and spread throughout Eurasia and Australia, and, during the last ice age, when sea levels fell, across the Bering Straight land bridge and into the Americas.

    There is a tiny flaw in your otherwise compelling argument. You see, Adrien Nash probably believes in the Archbishop of Armagh, James Ussher, who calculated that the Earth was created in 4004 BC.

  92. avatar
    Suranis March 19, 2012 at 10:05 am #

    Adrien Nash: People are not raised by their grandfathers anyway (with certain exceptions) so their national allegiance is not a direct influence especially if it’s to a foreign nation.

    It used to be traditional in some places for children to be rasied by their grandparents who were too old to work while the parents went out and worked. And grandparents would take the kids off the mother hands, would act as babysitters etc.worldwide.

  93. avatar
    El Diablo Negro March 19, 2012 at 10:18 am #

    Suranis: It used to be traditional in some places for children to be rasied by their grandparents who were too old to work while the parents went out and worked

    My grandmother (mother’s side) took care of me and my younger sister till she passed. She was VERY strict. (spare the rod, spoil the child)

    Whooped both of us into shape (no pun intended).

  94. avatar
    Thomas Brown March 19, 2012 at 10:27 am #

    “…I should educate them but not on U.S. law. The zillions of word that I’ve penned on natural citizenship would help to educate them…” –Adruen Nash

    OK. That does it. That is the single most conceited, egotistical thing I have ever read. Mr. Nash, knowing no Law at all, is going to “educate” the SCOTUS.

    OMG doesn’t even cover it.

  95. avatar
    Thomas Brown March 19, 2012 at 10:33 am #

    US Citizen:
    I could be wrong, but that appears to be a confederate flag behind Gerry.

    Don’t worry… Gerry’s wearing Confederate Flag Depends.

  96. avatar
    Thomas Brown March 19, 2012 at 10:35 am #

    Adrien Nash: You forgot a step, how about including a look at the actual state-issue birth certificate?Why even think about looking at the original when you haven’t even been given proof that a copy actually exists?Where’s the hardcopy?Nowhere.It does not exist.Only print-outs of the counterfeit.

    The Birth Certificate vault copy exists. It’s your brain that doesn’t.

  97. avatar
    Paper March 19, 2012 at 11:05 am #

    Majority, I’m waiting for your book

    FIFY Sense:
    My Life in Comments

  98. avatar
    Majority Will March 19, 2012 at 11:16 am #

    Paper:
    Majority, I’m waiting for your book

    FIFY Sense:
    My Life in Comments

    It will be an e-book with easy line drawings for coloring.

  99. avatar
    misha March 19, 2012 at 11:28 am #

    Paper: Majority, I’m waiting for your book

    Majority Will: It will be an e-book with easy line drawings for coloring.

    Shrub is having his autobiography signing at Toys Я Us. It’s a pop-up book.

  100. avatar
    Paper March 19, 2012 at 11:48 am #

    Where do I preorder?

    Majority Will: It will be an e-book with easy line drawings for coloring.

  101. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) March 19, 2012 at 11:49 am #

    8. The candidate must allow his teenaged daughters to be filmed by Gerry Nance. Gerry must be allowed to post the videos on youtube and keep multiple copies.

  102. avatar
    Majority Will March 19, 2012 at 12:03 pm #

    Paper:
    Where do I preorder?

    With the precogs, of course.

  103. avatar
    Thrifty March 19, 2012 at 12:41 pm #

    That was in step 3, right after the first comma. Barack Obama produced a state issued birth certificate because he was black; no other president ever did.

    Adrien Nash: You forgot a step, how about including a look at the actual state-issue birth certificate?

  104. avatar
    Thrifty March 19, 2012 at 1:01 pm #

    I am amused of Birthers like Adrien treating foreignness as some sort of disease. No, that’s not racist, not at all. And if you say it is, you’re calling someone a racist for disagreeing with Obama.

  105. avatar
    Paper March 19, 2012 at 1:37 pm #

    It’s just “natural,” you know.

    Thrifty:
    I am amused of Birthers like Adrien treating foreignness as some sort of disease.No, that’s not racist, not at all.And if you say it is, you’re calling someone a racist for disagreeing with Obama.

  106. avatar
    JD Reed March 19, 2012 at 1:46 pm #

    Adrien Nash: Narcissistic, aren’t we? .”And I should educate them ( the Supreme Court justices) but not on U.S. law. The zillions of word that I’ve penned on natural citizenship would help to educate them about that which they’ve never had to seriously study nor contemplate, but I’ve done it for them.”

    This collection of nine justces, most of whom graduated at or near the top of their elite law schools, and made law review, should be educated by YOU? First off, they’d
    never give you a moment’s attention for your out-of-this-world “scholarship.”

    And second, why should they?
    Reread Robert Burns’ To a Louse:

    “O wad some Power the giftie gie us
    To see oursels as ithers see us!”

  107. avatar
    Paper March 19, 2012 at 1:53 pm #

    Now that is an antidote to birtherism. If taken with a glass of water, for a birther. If not, for the rest of us to et a breath of fresh air! One of my favorite quotes, by the way. Thanks.

    JD Reed: Reread Robert Burns’ To a Louse:

    “O wad some Power the giftie gie us
    To see oursels as ithers see us!”

  108. avatar
    thisoldhippie March 19, 2012 at 2:19 pm #

    JD Reed: Adrien Nash: Narcissistic, aren’t we? .”And I should educate them ( the Supreme Court justices) but not on U.S. law. The zillions of word that I’ve penned on natural citizenship would help to educate them about that which they’ve never had to seriously study nor contemplate, but I’ve done it for them.”This collection of nine justces, most of whom graduated at or near the top of their elite law schools, and made law review, should be educated by YOU? First off, they’dnever give you a moment’s attention for your out-of-this-world “scholarship.”And second, why should they?Reread Robert Burns’ To a Louse:“O wad some Power the giftie gie usTo see oursels as ithers see us!”

    Only I doubt Nash will understand what the quote is saying, since he clearly cannot understand the basic “born on US soil = natural born citizen” rule.

  109. avatar
    Horus March 19, 2012 at 2:31 pm #

    Majority Will: Tarrant:
    I wonder if he knows that Newt Gingrich is adopted.

    But he’s white, so there’s probably an exception somewhere.

    And Gerald Ford and Bill Clinton.

    So, by birther logic, every law that was signed by those Presidents is Null & Void?

  110. avatar
    misha March 19, 2012 at 3:22 pm #

    Tarrant: I wonder if he knows that Newt Gingrich is adopted.

    Majority Will: And Gerald Ford and Bill Clinton.

    Gingrich was born Newton McPherson, Ford was born Leslie Lynch King, Jr., and Clinton was born William Blythe. It’s all explained here:
    http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/2009/06/famous-willards.html

  111. avatar
    Benji Franklin March 19, 2012 at 5:59 pm #

    Adrien Nash: Natural citizenship pre-dates the United States because it’s based on a principle that is over a billion years old, namely the law of natural membership.

    Since the Constitution was ratified, deciding which principles determine the Constitutional meaning of “Natural Born Citizenship” is a power reserved for the judiciary normally, and on certain occasions by the Congress when certifying the results of a Presidential election.

    A private citizen who announces that the legal and authoritative interpretation of Article 2 must conform to his own notion of imaginary and transcending rules said by him to predate the Constitution and over-ride the judiciary’s disagreeing lawful interpretation of Article Two, is simply trying to usurp the Constitutional authority of the judiciary. The Framers did not intend, nor will We The People stand for any self-appointed genius dictating to us what the Constitution must mean and how that meaning must then be applied to have a legal effect which disenfranchises our right to have such matters decided Constitutionally by the Judiciary.

    Your entire premise is contradictory because you want a matter of Constitutional law to be determined unconstitutionally – not just by anyone according to any premise – but by YOU! You make the Sovereign Citizen movement look tame – you imagine you ARE a sovereign Nation.

    Well, you’re not our sovereign nation! We’re a republic. One-person nations like you can only be a democracy.

    Benji Franklin

  112. avatar
    Adrien Nash March 19, 2012 at 6:45 pm #

    Thomas Brown:

    : Adrien Nash: You forgot a step, how about including a look at the actual state-issue birth certificate?Why even think about looking at the original when you haven’t even been given proof that a copy actually exists?Where’s the hardcopy?Nowhere.It does not exist.Only print-outs of the counterfeit.

    The Birth Certificate vault copy exists. It’s your brain that doesn’t.

    The brain that’s missing is the one that can’t comprehend what it reads. I didn’t even address the archive document. How’d you misconstrue the point that no “COPY” exists? I didn’t address any original. If even a copy doesn’t exist and can’t be shown to any inquiring mind, then it’s very logical that a counterfeit was produced because no original exists. When one says “state-issued” it is in reference to a state-issued copy. Originals are not issued, they’re produced, -produced if one’s birth is in a hospital, which wasn’t the case with Obama. No one knows where he was born. He might not even know but that would be rather unlikely.

  113. avatar
    Majority Will March 19, 2012 at 6:53 pm #

    Adrien Nash: No one knows where he was born

    Like most of your drivel, that’s a lie. You have no shame.

  114. avatar
    JPotter March 19, 2012 at 6:55 pm #

    I still prefer Borderraven’s wheels-within-wheels approach. Crazy is alway better when it requires 3D viewing. And all those concentric spheres make such beautiful music. Like a symphony of birther screeches!

  115. avatar
    Scientist March 19, 2012 at 7:03 pm #

    Adrien Nash: Originals are not issued, they’re produced, -produced if one’s birth is in a hospital, which wasn’t the case with Obama. No one knows where he was born.

    Your statement is a lie, sir, I was personally present at Barack Obama’s birth at Kapiolani Hospital in Honolulu. He was a very cute baby and I knew he would be someone special.

  116. avatar
    Arthur March 19, 2012 at 7:03 pm #

    Adrien Nash is a liar.

  117. avatar
    Adrien Nash March 19, 2012 at 7:17 pm #

    JD Reed:
    Adrien Nash…whom graduated at or near the top of their elite law schools, and made law review, should be educated by YOU? First off, they’d never give you a moment’s attention for your out-of-this-world “scholarship.”

    And second, why should they?
    Reread Robert Burns’ To a Louse:

    “O wad some Power the giftie gie us
    To see oursels as ithers see us!”

    As I’ve unsuccessfully pointed out to you, U.S. federal law didn’t exist when “natural born citizen” was placed into the Constitution, so you can take it all and flush it down the toilet when it comes to understanding that term. Understanding it is not dependent on U.S. law but on an understanding of the English language and the natural order of things. THE THINGS OF NATURE & THE NATURE OF THINGS pdf

    And for those who appreciate poetry, here’s something that you’ve never seen before, nor has any one else for that matter: verses 15-18: The Fate That You Make

    You make mistakes and wisdom comes after,
    -you don’t even think about what’s in store.
    You fail to ask yourself “What am I doing
    and are there warnings I should not ignore?”

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    You’re shaping your life by your choices today
    and suff’ring follows when there’s pipers to pay.
    So notice the things that you ought to discern
    to avoid the lessons you ought to not learn,

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Peace…or pain are in the courses you take.
    Life…or death are in the choices you make.
    So always think twice, and always be smart,
    -think with your head, -not just your heart.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    For better or worse…for bitter or sweet,
    consider the future and all that’s at stake.
    Blessing or curse…success or defeat
    are the lasting result of the fate that you make.

    by adrien nash copyright april 2010

  118. avatar
    Majority Will March 19, 2012 at 7:25 pm #

    Adrien Nash: Understanding it is not dependent on U.S. law but on an understanding of the English language and the natural order of things.

    Idiotic drivel.

  119. avatar
    Adrien Nash March 19, 2012 at 7:26 pm #

    Thrifty:
    I am amused of Birthers like Adrien treating foreignness as some sort of disease.No, that’s not racist, not at all.And if you say it is, you’re calling someone a racist for disagreeing with Obama.

    Your amusement should be directed not to anyone living today but to the authors of the Constitution and their concerns about the son of a loyalist becoming Commander-in-Chief. Everything written about foreigness is strictly an expression of their concerns, not the concerns of today. But it’s like time is not a continum in your mind, -yesterday, -today,…what’s the difference? Apparently you aren’t very adept at recognizing that all that matters is what they thought because they wrote the Constitution, not you nor I.
    I have better things to do than to respond to someone who can’t tell the difference between racism and ethno-centrism. That level of obliviousness belongs to 7 year olds, not adults.

  120. avatar
    Norbrook March 19, 2012 at 7:27 pm #

    Adrien Nash: As I’ve unsuccessfully pointed out to you, U.S. federal law didn’t exist when “natural born citizen” was placed into the Constitution, so you can take it all and flush it down the toilet when it comes to understanding that term. Understanding it is not dependent on U.S. law but on an understanding of the English language and the natural order of things.

    Umm.. actually, it’s not the “English language and the natural order of things” that’s dependent on understanding the term. It’s the “English common law” that you need to understand it. Look up “Blackstone’s Commentaries” for a hint as to what the founders were saying when they put that in the Constitution.

  121. avatar
    Majority Will March 19, 2012 at 7:36 pm #

    Adrien Nash: I have better things to do than to respond to someone who can’t tell the difference between racism and ethno-centrism.

    Obviously not and your inane fantasies over who can be a natural born citizen is nothing more than poorly disguised racism.

  122. avatar
    US Citizen March 19, 2012 at 7:37 pm #

    Adrien,
    Since the presidency isn’t a natural occurrence, natural law doesn’t matter here.
    Just like your self-written rules.
    The plain fact is that what you consider truth is all in your head.
    No one follows your rules because you really don’t matter.
    Life goes on without you… naturally.

  123. avatar
    Thrifty March 19, 2012 at 7:39 pm #

    More charismatic racists than you have put words in the mouths of the Founding Fathers to suit their needs. It’s awfully convenient that they (the Founding Fathers) are all too dead to defend themselves. I guess we’ll just have to rely on the still alive judges and lawyers with real law degrees and years of experience.

    Adrien Nash: Your amusement should be directed not to anyone living today but to the authors of the Constitution and their concerns about the son of a loyalist becoming Commander-in-Chief.

  124. avatar
    Adrien Nash March 19, 2012 at 7:42 pm #

    Benji Franklin:
    A private citizen who announces that the legal and authoritative interpretation of Article 2 must conform to his own notion of imaginary and transcending rules said by him to predate the Constitution and over-ride the judiciary’s disagreeing lawful interpretation of Article Two, is simply trying to usurp the Constitutional authority of the judiciary.

    Benji Franklin

    Dear PhoxarRed, once again you distort the facts as you always have by claiming that I’m claiming that what I’ve written has the force of law. That is patently false, as is evident to anyone who can read and comprehend.
    “A private citizen who announces that the legal and authoritative interpretation of Article 2 must conform to his own notion …”
    Let’s be clear in order to expose your ulterior motive in this matter, I’ve never announced anything as being “the legal & authoritative interpretation”. I’ve asserted quite clearly what the correct interpretation is, but never asserted that it had any legally binding or judicial authority backing it. The authority that backs it is the rule of of the meaning of words, and what they relate to, and what their origins are.
    No one has ever disputed the facts I’ve pointed out in that regard because you can’t dispute facts.
    But I know that you just can’t resist setting up that straw man so you can righteously knock it down and feel good about yourself for appearing to be defending the Constitution when in fact you only care about protecting your “precious” interpretation of what NBC means in your fertile imagination.

  125. avatar
    Scientist March 19, 2012 at 7:49 pm #

    Adrien Nash: Your amusement should be directed not to anyone living today but to the authors of the Constitution

    There is no Constitution in Nature. Nor a United States. They are pure human inventions. Fictions.

    Does a moose need a passport to cross from Maine into New Brunswick? Simple question. Requires yes or no. Adriien can’t answer it…

  126. avatar
    Scientist March 19, 2012 at 7:55 pm #

    Adrien Nash: You claim to like poetry, but yours is frankly the worst drivel I have ever read (and that’s saying something). Try this:

    Imagine there’s no countries
    It isn’t hard to do
    Nothing to kill or die for
    And no religion too
    Imagine all the people living life in peace

    You, you may say
    I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one
    I hope some day you’ll join us
    And the world will be as one

    John Lennon, RIP

  127. avatar
    Paper March 19, 2012 at 7:55 pm #

    Not only have I seen all of this before, it’s bad poetry. My diagnosis is that it is made worse, like most if not all of your writing and thinking, by your ego.

    If you just use that Google search bar (or whichever company’s search bar), you’ll find endless versions of these ideas, much better said, with much healthier intent. You could also just go to a church, synagogue or mosque to find these sentiments. Aesop’s fables even.

    Do you have anyone in your life who can help you, stand up to you, hold you accountable to human relationship? I would urge you to reach out. You are not unique, and you are not alone.

    Your ego deserves no quarter, but your humanity is begging you to “notice the things that you ought to discern” and “all that’s at stake.”

    Adrien Nash: And for those who appreciate poetry, here’s something that you’ve never seen before, nor has any one else for that matter: verses 15-18: The Fate That You Make

    You make mistakes and wisdom comes after,
    -you don’t even think about what’s in store.
    You fail to ask yourself “What am I doing
    and are there warnings I should not ignore?”

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    You’re shaping your life by your choices today
    and suff’ring follows when there’s pipers to pay.
    So notice the things that you ought to discern
    to avoid the lessons you ought to not learn,

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Peace…or pain are in the courses you take.
    Life…or death are in the choices you make.
    So always think twice, and always be smart,
    -think with your head, -not just your heart.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    For better or worse…for bitter or sweet,
    consider the future and all that’s at stake.
    Blessing or curse…success or defeat
    are the lasting result of the fate that you make.

    by adrien nash copyright april 2010

  128. avatar
    Thomas Brown March 19, 2012 at 7:56 pm #

    Adrien Nash:
    Thomas Brown:

    The brain that’s missing is the one that can’t comprehend what it reads.I didn’t even address the archive document.How’d you misconstrue the point that no “COPY” exists?I didn’t address any original.If even a copy doesn’t exist and can’t be shown to any inquiring mind, then it’s very logical that a counterfeit was produced because no original exists.When one says “state-issued” it is in reference to a state-issued copy.Originals are not issued, they’re produced, -produced if one’s birth is in a hospital, which wasn’t the case with Obama.No one knows where he was born.He might not even know but that would be rather unlikely.

    Q.E.D. I rest my case; you have adequately and definitively demonstrated your brainlessness.

  129. avatar
    misha March 19, 2012 at 7:57 pm #

    Benji Franklin: We’re a republic.

    That’s correct. We are not a democracy; we are a republic.

  130. avatar
    Adrien Nash March 19, 2012 at 7:58 pm #

    US Citizen:
    Adrien,
    Since the presidency isn’t a natural occurrence, natural law doesn’t matter here.
    Just like your self-written rules.
    The plain fact is that what you consider truth is all in your head.
    No one follows your rules because you really don’t matter.
    Life goes on without you… naturally.

    Just like a thousand inane responses before that one, if my life depended on finding the slightest glimmer of fact or principle that you’ve presented to rebut anything I’ve written, then I’d surely be dead. All empty words, -like smoke that can’t be attacked head-on because it’s just a vapor. But in your case I’ll call it more than a vapor, it’s more like halitosis. It’s offensive but it’s not a fist of counter-logic, nor counter-opinion, nor counter-facts. It’s just a stinky foul wind that comes out of one or more of your orifices.

    (now that was a pleasure to write and laugh over, so I have you to thank for inspiring it. Thanx, no one ever gets a chance to actually talk like that but this medium makes it possible to write that way.)

  131. avatar
    Scientist March 19, 2012 at 8:01 pm #

    Adrien Nash: orifices

    How about you answer my question about the moose? I’m very persistent and won’t stop insisting.

    Here’s a hint: I once canoed from Miinnesota into Ontario and back. Same forest, same lakes, same blackflies, same moose…

  132. avatar
    Thrifty March 19, 2012 at 8:03 pm #

    I don’t understand. It seems that Adrien Nash is equating the laws of what constitutes a natural born citizen for purposes of who is eligible to be President of the United States with the laws of science and nature itself. As if defining a natural born citizen through legislation is as impossible as defining which direction objects move when you drop them.

  133. avatar
    misha March 19, 2012 at 8:11 pm #

    Scientist:
    And no religion too
    Imagine all the people living life in peace

    I want to repeat for emphasis: I was a kibbutznik. Take religion out of the ME, and watch what happens. Settlers steal from Arabs, egged on by evangelicals.

    Orly Taitz does not believe in democracy, and neither does her soulmate Lieberman.

  134. avatar
    misha March 19, 2012 at 8:21 pm #

    Thomas Brown: I rest my case; you have adequately and definitively demonstrated your brainlessness.

    It’s xenophobia on parade. There’s no cure.

  135. avatar
    Thomas Brown March 19, 2012 at 8:25 pm #

    For better or worse…for bitter or sweet,
    consider the future and all that’s at stake.
    Blessing or curse…success or defeat
    are the lasting result of the fate that you make.
    by adrien nash copyright april 2010

    When Adrien Nash starts his squawking
    A ventriloquist’s dummy is talking
    Up his rear is a hand
    And his head’s full of sand
    But it’s second-hand nonsense he’s hawking

  136. avatar
    Arthur March 19, 2012 at 8:28 pm #

    Adrien Nash: by adrien nash is a copyrighted liar april 2010

  137. avatar
    misha March 19, 2012 at 8:29 pm #

    Scientist: Does a moose need a passport to cross from Maine into New Brunswick?

    Yes:
    http://www.livingabroad.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Yellow_moose_cover-copy-232×300.jpg

  138. avatar
    Majority Will March 19, 2012 at 8:39 pm #

    The Pernicious “Natural Born” Clause of the Constitution:
    Why Immigrants Like Governors Schwarzenegger and Granholm Ought to be Able to Become Presidents
    By JOHN W. DEAN

    Friday, Oct. 08, 2004

    (excerpt) It’s High Time to Amend The Natural Born Clause

    The fact that public servants like Henry Kissinger, and Madeline Albright can serve as Secretary of State, but not President of the United States, is inane. And the fact that Governors like Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jennifer Granholm can’t run for president is outrageous.

    It will never be known how many potentially great presidents have never even aspired to the office because of the constitutional prohibition. Show me a person who believes that the natural born qualification clause should remain in the Constitution, and I will show you a bigot, pure and simple.

    What is most remarkable about this provision is that it has taken so long to remove it. There is hope, however.

    This week the Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings on a constitutional amendment that would remove the naturalborn qualification. On July 10, 2003, Senator Orrin Hatch (R. UT) introduced the proposed amendment as Senate Joint Resolution 15.

    His proposal did get a day of hearings (which are available online at the Judiciary Committee’s site, and include a statement by FindLaw columnist Akhil Reed Amar). It is not clear how seriously this matter – which has been raised in a rump session – is being taken. But even having the amendment considered is encouraging.

    The Hatch proposal is very simple:

    SECTION 1. A person who is a citizen of the United States, who has been for 20 years a citizen of the United States, and who is otherwise eligible to the Office of President, is not ineligible to that Office by reason of not being a native born citizen of the United States.

    SECTION 2. This article shall not take effect unless it has been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States not later than 7 years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.

    There is no real opposition to this proposed constitutional amendment. Still, it will be very difficult to get it adopted. There is a reason our constitution has only been amended twenty-seven times.

    But suppose a team like Schwarzenegger, Granholm, Kissinger and Albright joined forces — not for themselves but for others that will follow – in lobbying for this much-needed Amendment. If so, the attention and action necessary to change the law might be mustered.

    It is certainly long past time to remove the “natural born” clause from our Constitution. As long as it persists, our Constitution conflicts with our own Statute of Liberty – which welcomes immigrants wholly, while the Constitution shuns them for our highest office in the land.

    (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20041008.html)

    Note: Secretary of State is fourth in line under the United States presidential line of succession.

  139. avatar
    Arthur March 19, 2012 at 8:39 pm #

    Thomas Brown: When Adrien Nash starts his squawking
    A ventriloquist’s dummy is talking
    Up his rear is a hand
    And his head’s full of sand
    But it’s second-hand nonsense he’s hawking

    Poetry . . . truth that rhymes.

    It takes neither mattock or pryer
    To expose Mr. Nash as a liar.
    Just pick at his words
    And the way that yearns
    To make them mean what they aren’t.
    Adrien Nash is a liar

  140. avatar
    US Citizen March 19, 2012 at 8:40 pm #

    I’m flattered that Adrien choose to use more words than I did to say my post didn’t matter. 🙂

  141. avatar
    misha March 19, 2012 at 8:42 pm #

    Adrien Nash: No one knows where he was born.

    Not true. Obama’s Kenya BC is on the web for everyone to see.

  142. avatar
    Suranis March 19, 2012 at 8:43 pm #

    Adrien Nash: As I’ve unsuccessfully pointed out to you, U.S. federal law didn’t exist when “natural born citizen” was placed into the Constitution, so you can take it all and flush it down the toilet when it comes to understanding that term.

    Who cares about federal law? Havent you read that sentance you cling to from Minor?

    At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.

    That means that the framers looked at English common law for their definition of natural Born Citizen

    No mention of natural law there either.

    So if you are right MINOR is wrong.

  143. avatar
    Suranis March 19, 2012 at 8:46 pm #

    Adrien Nash: Just like a thousand inane responses before that one, if my life depended on finding the slightest glimmer of fact or principle that you’ve presented to rebut anything I’ve written, then I’d surely be dead. All empty words, -like smoke that can’t be attacked head-on because it’s just a vapor. But in your case I’ll call it more than a vapor, it’s more like halitosis.

    Are you talking about the smoke monster in LOST? *confused*

  144. avatar
    Arthur March 19, 2012 at 8:55 pm #

    Some liars are born to be analyzed
    Some liars, born elsewhere, get naturalized.
    Sometimes a liar gets civilized
    And some who tell lies have been cannonized.

    But Addy is none of these types,
    For his lies come to him when he types.
    Thank God, there’s no option for Skype
    Or we’d have to see his rotten, lying face.

    Adrien Nash, is a copyrighted liar.

  145. avatar
    Adrien Nash March 19, 2012 at 8:57 pm #

    Scientist: How about you answer my question about the moose?I’m very persistent and won’t stop insisting.

    Here’s a hint:I once canoed from Miinnesota into Ontario and back.Same forest, same lakes, same blackflies, same moose…

    Maybe you are as clueless as your question but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are asking “tongue-in-check” about a moose and a passport. But I have some serious questions for you and the others here, questions which may alter your zeitgeit if it’s not frozen in place.
    They’re from a new essay I wrote today titled “Tom, Dick & Harry But Not My Son?” It explains the purpose behind the NBC statement in the Naturalization Act of 1790. It opens a window and shines light on that which no one has previously explained adequately. It will open your eyes unless you’re doggedly determine to keep them shut no matter what. These questions conclude the essay:

    The absurdity of the view that American children born to American parents outside of American borders are not natural Americans is illuminated by a simple series of questions which are being asked from the time perspective of 1790 when U.S. law was just beginning to be written.

    1. Is John McCain a U.S. citizen? If so, by what law? U.S. Citizenship Law, Naturalization Law, or Natural Law?

    2. Is Barack Obama a U.S. citizens? If so, by what law? U.S. Citizenship Law, Naturalization Law or Natural Law?

    3. Is John McCain a natural citizen? If so, by what principle?

    4. Is Barack Obama a Born Citizen? If so, by what principle?

    5. Is John McCain a Born Citizen? If so, by what principle?

    6. Is Barack Obama a natural citizen? If so, by what principle?

    7. Can one who is not a natural citizen be a natural born citizen?

    8. Can one who is not a natural citizen be a born citizen?

    The true answers to these questions betray the falsity of the belief that Barack Obama is eligible to be President because they reveal the false logic by which he is proclaimed to be so. The answers will tie your mind in knots if you erroneously base your assumptions on man-made law instead of natural principles.

    I’ll answer the last question for you. The answer is yes, because one who is a born citizen via permission of the government, born to foreign parents, is not a natural citizen because natural citizens are citizens without the permission of the government (which possesses no authority to grant it nor revoke it). [Does anyone dare dispute this fact? Have at it.]…….silence…….

    Tom, Dick & Harry But Not My Son?

    Ask yourself the following question from the time frame of the 1790s, and it will illuminate your mind by the absence of any answer: By what law are you an American citizen? Only those born to foreigners would have an answer. It would be found in a naturalization act , or perhaps in State constitutions. Those born to Americans do not because there is no such thing as “Citizenship Law”. Congress was given no authority to create such law.

    Those who have an answer are not eligible to be President, while those without an answer are eligible because they are “les indigenes ou les naturels” -the natives, i.e. -the natural citizens of the country. Only they are natural born and free of any attachments of subjection to any foreign power. So the answers to the question: “By what law are you an American citizen? ” is: “none”, unless you’re one of the relatively few born to foreign parents, meaning legal immigrants.

    by a.r. nash march 2012 http://obama–nation.com.

    * If your child is not born at home, in your house and under your authority, does that make it not legitimately yours? The question is as absurd as the one regarding the “not at home” referring to being outside of the authority of your government. That changes nothing. Your child is automatically your child and a member of your family even if not born at home. Likewise, your child is automatically a child of America and a member of the American family, -a natural citizen, even if not born in the homeland because one’s national connection is passed via blood connection just like it is with one’s family connection.

    It’s naturally transmitted automatically for natural children as well as naturalized children. As soon as a father is naturalized, his children through him, are also automatically naturalized because he is subject to American federal authority and they are subject to his, so they are indirectly also subject to American authority and are naturalized through their blood connection to him. That is the truth about born citizens and natural born citizens.

  146. avatar
    Arthur March 19, 2012 at 9:03 pm #

    Adrien Nash: They’re from a new essay I wrote today titled “My Two Dads: Harry and Dick?” It explains the purpose of my behind and opens a window and shines light on that which no one has ever wanted to see. It will open your eyes unless you’re doggedly determine to keep them shut no matter what.

    My name is Adrien Nash, and I’ve been lying and talking nonsense since 2009.

  147. avatar
    Scientist March 19, 2012 at 9:03 pm #

    Adrien Nash: But I have some serious questions for you and the others here

    I can answer all of your questions. There are no citizens, since the US does not exist nor do any other nations. They are all fictions under natural law which recognizes only the human species. If a group of humans living in a particular geographic area needs to select a leader to manage day-to-day affairs,they do it by voting for the one they feel is best suited. In nature there are no restictions on who can be chosen as leader.

  148. avatar
    Jim March 19, 2012 at 9:04 pm #

    Well Borderraven, I’ve come up with my own 7 rules that I think I could get everyone to agree to…people caught taking pics of kids’ private parts through their bathing suits and then posting the pics on the web should::
    1) Be stripped of their citizenship
    2) Lose their Naval pension
    3) Not be allowed to collect disability
    4) Not be allowed to live in any town/community where kids reside
    5) Walk around with a big red ‘P’ (Pervert) emblazoned on their forehead
    6) Be horse-whipped 10 times by each parent whose child was violated
    7) Be only allowed to work in city dumps, where they can get their food and drink

    I think I could get these passed a lot easier than you could get your 7!
    Nance is such a loser!!!

  149. avatar
    Scientist March 19, 2012 at 9:05 pm #

    Still no answer about the moose, Adrien. Yes or no? Even someone as foolish as you can type yes or no. Do nations exist?

  150. avatar
    Suranis March 19, 2012 at 9:10 pm #

    MACBETH
         Thou losest labor.
    As easy mayst thou the intrenchant air
    With thy keen sword impress as make me bleed.
    Let fall thy blade on vulnerable crests;
    I bear a charmèd life, which must not yield
    To one of woman born.

    MACDUFF
         Despair thy charm,
    And let the angel whom thou still hast served
    Tell thee, Macduff was from his mother’s womb
    Untimely ripped.

    MACBETH
    Accursèd be that tongue that tells me so,
    For it hath cowed my better part of man!
    And be these juggling fiends no more believed,
    That palter with us in a double sense,
    That keep the word of promise to our ear,
    And break it to our hope. I’ll not fight with thee.

    MACDUFF
    Then yield thee, coward,
    And live to be the show and gaze o’ th’ time.
    We’ll have thee, as our rarer monsters are,
    Painted on a pole, and underwrit,
    “Here may you see the tyrant.”

  151. avatar
    Adrien Nash March 19, 2012 at 9:21 pm #

    The oath Keepers are alienated young men who have known the absoluteness of the U.S. military and are seriously worried that its lock-step obedience to orders may lead it to obey unconstitutional orders which no one else will contest. They are not in touch with the reality of civilian control in American life and have on their mind things like the internment of Japanese American citizens in concentration camps under false pretenses.
    What they don’t realize is that the enemy to fear is not the power of the presidency (which is only invoked in a time of dire national emergency) but the power of Congress, which can do anything it wants in the wake of Wichard v Filburn 1942. Individual Liberty perished with that Supreme Court decision but hardly anyone outside of Congress realized it.
    I understand the young men in the Oath Keepers because I would have been one of them many years back when I marched with other Vietnam Veterans in downtown Los Angeles to protest the Vietnam War, -called to action by a fired-up young patriot by the name of Jane Fonda. She was the only voice of opposition to the war that would not end and I’ll always respect her passion and committment for ending the travesty that had killed 10s of thousands of other young American men for no justifiable nor consitutional purpose.
    http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com

  152. avatar
    Thomas Brown March 19, 2012 at 9:28 pm #

    [Personal attach deleted. Doc]

    Obama will be remembered as long as America stands, and lunatic challenges to his eligibility will moulder, as will you, in the discarded egg-cartons of obscurity. You’re a big fat zero. You won’t even be a foot-note.

    Why do you deserve such scorn? Because of your arrogance; because you claim to be able to “open our eyes,” that you know the Minds of the Founders and the Truth about Natural Law; that the Supreme Court could learn from your Wisdom. Only such overweening conceit, such haughtiness, such dismissiveness, such towering egomania justifies the revulsion otherwise polite beings feel toward you and cannot help but express.

    Hope I cleared that up for ya.

  153. avatar
    G March 19, 2012 at 9:35 pm #

    All ethnocentrism amounts to IS racism wrapped in self-righteous arrogance, with a cover of tribalistic justification as an excuse for claiming superiority.

    Adrien Nash: I have better things to do than to respond to someone who can’t tell the difference between racism and ethno-centrism.

  154. avatar
    By whatever name March 19, 2012 at 10:08 pm #

    Insecurity wrapped in righteousness wrapped inside an ego.

  155. avatar
    Keith March 19, 2012 at 10:11 pm #

    Lupin: There is a tiny flaw in your otherwise compelling argument. You see, Adrien Nash probably believes in the Archbishop of Armagh, James Ussher, who calculated that the Earth was created in 4004 BC.

    I dunno about that, but I believe in Jim Barry Armagh

    And, as it happens, I’m helping a few friends to be knock off a couple of bottles of the 1996 Armagh on Thursday, along with some Grange and some Hill of Grace and other fine Aussie super-premiums.

    Nothing but the best on this day.

  156. avatar
    Arthur March 19, 2012 at 10:21 pm #

    Adrien Nash: I understand the young men in the Oath Keepers because I would have been one of them many years back when I marched with other Vietnam Veterans in downtown Los Angeles to protest the Vietnam War, -called to action by a fired-up young patriot by the name of Jane Fonda.

    I don’t believe you. Cuz you’re a liar.

  157. avatar
    Keith March 19, 2012 at 10:26 pm #

    Suranis: It used to be traditional in some places for children to be rasied by their grandparents who were too old to work while the parents went out and worked. And grandparents would take the kids off the mother hands, would act as babysitters etc.worldwide.

    My grandmother acted in this capacity. To this day I believe she was an acolyte for the Dr. John Kellog Sanitarium ‘cult’ in Battle Creek Michigan. I am really suspicious that my name may have come from W. Keith Kellog, founder of Kellog’s cereal and younger brother of the Dr. Kellog who founded the Sanitarium (my grandmother did have links to Battle Creek). Keith is even my middle name just like W.K.’s.

    W.K. had a falling out with his brother over commercialization of corn flakes (that was invented by the Dr. John) and founded the unrelated, fully commercial company “Kellog’s” to sell corn flakes to the masses. Interesting that in Australia, the 7th Day Adventists own a food products company called “Sanitarium” (tax exempt). One day I’ll have to research what the connection is since the Kellogs too were 7th Day Adventists.

  158. avatar
    Arthur March 19, 2012 at 10:27 pm #

    Keith: And, as it happens, I’m helping a few friends to be knock off a couple of bottles of the 1996 Armagh on Thursday, along with some Grange and some Hill of Grace and other fine Aussie super-premiums.

    Nothing so tasty as a good Aussie Shiraz–even the cheap stuff is delicious.

  159. avatar
    US Citizen March 19, 2012 at 10:30 pm #

    I’m still waiting for Obama to take away everyone’s guns. 😉

  160. avatar
    Keith March 19, 2012 at 10:31 pm #

    Paper:
    Where do I preorder?

    At the Liberty University Science Club Book Fair.

  161. avatar
    Keith March 19, 2012 at 10:32 pm #

    Paper:
    Now that is an antidote to birtherism.If taken with a glass of water, for a birther.If not, for the rest of us to et a breath of fresh air!One of my favorite quotes, by the way.Thanks.

    Drinking water when reading Bobbie Burns? Are you daft man? Do you know what fish do in water?

  162. avatar
    Keith March 19, 2012 at 10:35 pm #

    Benji Franklin: One-person nations like you can only be a dictatorship.

    FIFY

  163. avatar
    Keith March 19, 2012 at 10:46 pm #

    Adrien Nash: I understand the young men in the Oath Keepers because I would have been one of them many years back

    I’m pretty sure I remember you saying that you are an Oathkeeper. Are you now repudiating your oath?

  164. avatar
    G March 19, 2012 at 10:51 pm #

    Agreed.

    By whatever name: Insecurity wrapped in righteousness wrapped inside an ego.

  165. avatar
    Thomas Brown March 19, 2012 at 11:02 pm #

    Keith: I’m pretty sure I remember you saying that you are an Oathkeeper. Are you now repudiating your oath?

    Adrien did indeed claim just that in a previous comment. Doc thinks I went over the top in my first paragraph above heaping scorn on the liar. I don’t see it; I think Adrien earned every word. But it’s Doc’s blog, and I defer without objection to his judgement.

  166. avatar
    Paper March 19, 2012 at 11:08 pm #

    Birthers drink the water. The rest of us drink the single malt.

    Keith: Drinking water when reading Bobbie Burns? Are you daft man? Do you know what fish do in water?

  167. avatar
    Paper March 19, 2012 at 11:09 pm #

    Al Halbert said he was the Oath Keeper.

  168. avatar
    G March 19, 2012 at 11:12 pm #

    Ah yes, yet another spliter-faction of Christianity…and one that came about as a result of the EPIC FAIL events of the Millerite movement and their EOTW predictions.

    They were certainly the Harold Campings of their day…

    Keith: One day I’ll have to research what the connection is since the Kellogs too were 7th Day Adventists.

  169. avatar
    G March 19, 2012 at 11:14 pm #

    Yeah, all these Birther Concern Troll propagandists are starting to blend together to me as well….

    I think Al Halbert was the claimed Oath Keeper. Didn’t he also claim he was in his late seventies? Or am I thinking of one of the other Birfoons out there…?

    Paper: Al Halbert said he was the Oath Keeper.

  170. avatar
    Keith March 19, 2012 at 11:47 pm #

    Paper:
    Al Halbert said he was the Oath Keeper.

    Ahhh. OK.

    G: Yeah, all these Birther Concern Troll propagandists are starting to blend together to me as well….

    Yeah.

  171. avatar
    Thomas Brown March 19, 2012 at 11:53 pm #

    Paper:
    Al Halbert said he was the Oath Keeper.

    You may be right. I was sure Adrien did too, but I can’t find where now.

  172. avatar
    G March 20, 2012 at 2:33 am #

    As I asked above, isn’t OathKeeper Al also the one who claims he is in his late seventies?

    My point here is that we’ve got a lot of geriatric keyboard commandos out there talking tough these days. Barney Fife is more of a credible threat than these delusional jokers…

    Thomas Brown: You may be right. I was sure Adrien did too, but I can’t find where now.

  173. avatar
    carlos March 20, 2012 at 1:42 pm #

    We are not a democracy; we are a republic.>>>

    Actually, a democratic federal republic. Remember, the Constitution begins “We the People”, not “We the representatives of the people”.

  174. avatar
    Benji Franklin March 20, 2012 at 9:13 pm #

    carlos: Actually, (we are ) a democratic federal republic. Remember, the Constitution begins “We the People”, not “We the representatives of the people”.

    Yeah, you’re correct but the word that’s most got to be there is “Republic” – the other two words are modifiers.

    We can’t compromise on “Federal Republican Democracy”.

  175. avatar
    Thrifty March 20, 2012 at 11:00 pm #

    What the Hell does it matter what you call our system of government? You’re just playing semantic games. What’s important is how the government works according to the laws.