Main Menu

WND resurrects two-citizen parent eligibility issue

Aaron Klein, in a WND article yesterday, “Impeach Obama? Presidency Likely Illegal,” suggests that impeaching Obama for allegedly ignoring the Constitution is to ignore the basic problem:

According to correspondence from the original framers of the Constitution as well as Supreme Court rulings, the legal writings that helped establish the principles of the Constitution and even a Senate resolution affirmed by Obama himself, Obama likely does not qualify for the constitutional requirement that stipulates only a “natural born” citizen can serve as U.S. president.

The statement is, of course, blatantly false and it’s beating a dead horse as nearly a dozen birther lawsuit filers could tell you. If you enjoy hacking and slashing birthers, there’s easy pickings in the comments section of that article.

,

65 Responses to WND resurrects two-citizen parent eligibility issue

  1. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG July 16, 2014 at 3:17 pm #

    It baffles me when they try to reanimate a dead and debunked angle like this.
    If it didn’t work the last time they tried it, what makes them think it will succeed this time?

  2. avatar
    JPotter July 16, 2014 at 3:18 pm #

    They come back …. they allllllwaaaaaayssssss come baaaaaaaack ….

  3. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 16, 2014 at 3:37 pm #

    The topic always generates vigorous commenting wherever it appears. Comments suggest controversy; controversy means web traffic; web traffic means advertising revenue. I think the motive is rather straightforward.

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: If it didn’t work the last time they tried it, what makes them think it will succeed this time?

  4. avatar
    wrecking ball July 16, 2014 at 3:43 pm #

    note that there is no mention of ted cruz in the article.

    it completely baffles me that farrah would go on a high profile rant stating that cruz is eligible….. then publish an article stating he isn’t.

  5. avatar
    Loren July 16, 2014 at 3:51 pm #

    Y’know why this “News Analysis” from Klein feels like such a throwback?

    Because it’s cribbed, almost word-for-word, from pp. 65-70 of Klein’s 2010 book “The Manchurian President.”

  6. avatar
    CarlOrcas July 16, 2014 at 4:26 pm #

    Andrew Vrba, PmG:
    It baffles me when they try to reanimate a dead and debunked angle like this.
    If it didn’t work the last time they tried it, what makes them think it will succeed this time?

    They probably don’t. The more likely explanation is that sales of Klein’s book from last year have slipped and this is just a ham handed effort to bolster them.

    Notice the link between the fourth and fifth paragraphs of today’s story:

    Get “Impeachable Offenses: The Case to Remove Barack Obama from Office,” autographed, at WND’s Superstore

    Today’s discount price is $9.36…down from $27.95. But…..wait…..there’s more…..order now and you also get a free “Impeach Obama” bumper sticker.

    Any day now!

  7. avatar
    CarlOrcas July 16, 2014 at 4:29 pm #

    Loren:
    Y’know why this “News Analysis” from Klein feels like such a throwback?

    Because it’s cribbed, almost word-for-word, from pp. 65-70 of Klein’s 2010 book “The Manchurian President.”

    Hmmm. Crazy and lazy. Now there’s a combination.

  8. avatar
    Benji Franklin July 16, 2014 at 4:40 pm #

    These folks will restart a debunked claim FOREVER. They are not constrained by the reality of their failure to unseat Obama. On the contrary, their unreachable power comes precisely from ignoring the logical conclusions of all of their movement’s failures, both in court and in the wider public arena of politics.

    A single phrase, which WND and most of the other Klown-Kar Birthers have used, FROM THE VERY BEGINNING, embodies their creepy source of eternal strength and avoidance of summary failure. It also empowers them ongoingly, in the moment to arbitrarily persist in engaging in obnoxious behaviors which they know irritate the sane and rational defenders of the President.

    They simply say, in the face of any event, discovery, or legal conclusion which demonstrates their charges are unfounded or false, “This is not going away.”

    A time warp could deliver all the founders and Vattel to WND’s offices to declare that the 2 parent theory is crap and that Obama is eligible, and Farah would emerge vowing, “This is not going away.”

    No newly discovered Founding Era documentation of Birther wrongness would reverse the course of their banner-carrying nut-bags.

    And that would be true, even if they (the Birthers) acknowledged the legitimacy of the documentation, and took autographs from the time-traveling Founders.

    Birthers are PROFOUNDLY not the prisoners of logical reality, in the sense that that reflects sanity or indicates a willingness to engage in constructive and serious discourse.

    For example, could Birdboy at BR find anything to be prouder of, than to somehow find out, that one of his descendants a thousand years from now, will be endlessly filing lawsuits to have Obama’s Presidency declared to be, after the fact, constitutionally illegitimate based on Article Two eligibility?

    The same phrase also consoles the Birther faithful who are disappointed that the big reveal evidence from Zullo has not happened yet, just as, ironically, it will console them after it falls flat.

    I think Birthers imagine that if the Universe collapses to a singularity, every thing will exist in that one informationless point, except for a post-em note setting any eventual intelligent beings who evolve in the following expanding Universe, towards their only prime directive task, which would be declaring the former Universe’s Obama Presidency “null and “void”.

  9. avatar
    CarlOrcas July 16, 2014 at 5:16 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I think the motive is rather straightforward.

    You mean they’re not doing this to save the Republic?

    I need to go lay down now.

  10. avatar
    Arthur July 16, 2014 at 5:17 pm #

    Benji Franklin: These folks will restart a debunked claim FOREVER.

    Indeed. This is another phenomenon predicted by quantum birtherism, To wit: thoroughly discredited arguments that have been set aside and forgotten, will suddenly and inexplicably reappear and be treated as entirely new and eminently powerful. This is called birther fluctuation.

  11. avatar
    Notorial Dissent July 16, 2014 at 5:54 pm #

    Slow news day/week/year!!!???

    Says a lot I think about both the short and long term memory functions of the rank and file in Birferstan, none of it good.

  12. avatar
    Bob July 16, 2014 at 6:17 pm #

    Their barrel has no bottom.

  13. avatar
    Yoda July 16, 2014 at 8:43 pm #

    The BC issue has all but been forgotten so they resurrect Vattel until that runs its inevitable course, just in time to resurrect the BC again.

  14. avatar
    Lupin July 17, 2014 at 3:33 am #

    Yesterday I sent the following email to Mr Klein:

    Dear Mr. Klein:

    I read with great interest your article “Impeach Obama…” on WND Politics, which a friend forwarded to me.

    [LINK]

    To briefly introduce myself, I am a 60-year-old French attorney who has more than a passing knowledge of Emerich de Vattel since I actually edited some English translations of his works.

    The purpose of this e-mail was to briefly comment on a few points you raised:

    You are correct when you quote Vattel, Book 1, Chapter 19, saying: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. … In order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

    I’m not sure however that it is legitimate to follow this with:

    “So by Vattel’s standards, Obama arguably would not be eligible to serve as president.”

    I am not qualified to determine whether Vattel’s LE DROIT DES GENS or his translation THE LAW OF NATIONS had an impact, and if so which one, on the framers of your Constitution. I will leave that to you and others more qualified than I to discuss.

    But I will risk the opinion that I am not 100% confident that it is proper to equate Vattel’s terms “naturel” and “indigene” with your term “natural-born citizen” despite the fact that some scholars & translators have done so. IMHO this is debatable, but I’ll also ignore this point as not germane to what follows.

    As you correctly outlined, Vattel does what most writers often do: first, establish a general principle; then detail the particulars. The general principle here is that citizenship is transmitted through blood. He expresses that in the sentence: “Les naturels ou indigenes sont ceux qui sont nés dans le pays de parens citoyens.” This is often mistranslated to mean that both parents must be citizens. Not so. The mistranslation comes from ignoring that the word “parens” doesn’t just mean father & mother, but all blood relatives, and “citoyens” is a group plural. What Vattel is saying in simple English is: citizenship is transmitted through blood relations; the very essence of the principle of jus sanquinis.

    Then, Vattel goes on in the next sentence, to specify which parent exactly is the prime transmitter of citizenship: the father. As you rightly pointed out. “…ces enfants y suivent naturellement la condition de leur père” (the children follow the condition of their fathers, or more colloquially, inherit the status if their fathers). Because Vattel is the kind of writer who likes to repeat the same things twice to emphasize his point, he adds in the next sentence “la patrie des pères est donc celle des enfants” (fathers’ homeland shall be that of their children) and again “Je dis que pour être d’un pays, il faut être né d’un père citoyen”(I say that you belong to a country, one must have been born from a father who was a citizen [of that country’).

    A proper Vattelist argument against Obama would therefore rely on three foundation stones: (1) His father was British; (2) a “naturel” or “indigene” is a “natural-born citizen” and (3) Vattel’s 1758 dicta would apply to the US Constitution & Presidency. If you wish to make this argument, I will support you as regards its accuracy and authenticity, but this was only true in 1758!

    In France (which, under Napoleon, adopted the Vattelist principles), the 1758 text was expanded to specify that a child born out of wedlock, would inherit his mother’s citizenship. What you need to do is look for the 1863 edition of Emer de Vattel’s DROIT DES GENS edited by Pierre-Paul Royer-Collard . Don’t confuse it with the 1830-35 edition which offers relatively little new insights. You will find a pdf copy here:
    http://books.google.fr/books?id=2iie98wAuX0C&…

    Article 212 and the footnote(s) in question are on pages 500-501. In fact the footnote in question starts at the very bottom of page 500 and continues on page 501.

    The most famous case was writer Emile Zola who was born of an Italian father and a French mother, and therefore only acquired French citizenship, automatically upon demand, at age 21. But since we have no exclusionary clause, that did not prevent him from seeing political office. Ultimately, in the 20th century, father and mother were made equal before the law, which presumably would be the same in the US if, like France, they had initially followed Vattel’s principle in the 18th century.

    In summary, it seems highly debatable (though technically and narrowly correct) to use Vattel’s 1758 model to discuss a 21st century eligibility case.

    As regards your earlier quote:

    “Jay discussed the concern of dual-loyalty of the president, writing: “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.””

    There certainly is ample evidence of the INTENTION of your Founding Fathers to ward off foreign influence; I do not dispute this. That said, the REALITY of foreign influence on your Presidency through the mechanism of Dual Citizenship is a precedent you cannot ignore.

    It is not that widely known but James Madison (as well as Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton and Payne) were offered French citizenship by the Assembly of the French Revolution in 1792 as an acknowledgement of their contributions for the cause of liberty. AFAIK, we have no documents recording either Washington or Hamilton’s answers, but we do have a rather enthusiastic letter from Madison gladly accepting such an offer and (I’m paraphrasing) saying that every enlightened person had two homelands: his own, and France.

    These were not “honorary citizenship”, because we have no such thing in France (unlike the US which has indeed conferred Honorary Citizenship upon many worthy people including, I believe, Mother Teresa.) Therefore, there would have been no need or any requirement for any of these people to travel to France and swear an oath. If you read French, the full text of the decree of the Legislative Assembly conferring citizenship upon these great Americans on 26 August 1792 is here on French wiki: http://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/D%C3%A9cret_du_26_a

    The reply letters from Jefferson and Madison on the topic can be accessed through here: http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/

    The letter by Madison to Jean Marie Roland de La Platière, French Minister of the Interior, dated April 1793, gratefully accepting the French citizenship conferred on him and avowing his wishes for the prosperity and glory of the French nation, and the victory of liberty over the minds of its opponents, constitutes express consent to the grant of citizenship.

    By contrast Washington and Hamilton never replied, and you might rightly argue that by doing so, they might have turned town an offer of citizenship. But you can’t do that with Jefferson and Madison.

    What’s interesting about Jefferson’s and Madison’s cases is that, this took place before they ran for the office of President in your country. Their opponents raised the issue of his dual citizenship during the campaign (at least, Madison’s did); however, it proved to have no traction (as we might say today) and didn’t prevent them from being elected.

    If you remember, the Louisiana Purchase was effected in 1803 while Jefferson was President and Madison was Secretary of State, before his being elected in 1809; by today’s standards, there certainly would have been a HUGE conflict of interest in having two dual US/French citizens being in charge of such a transaction. That certainly would have raised eyebrows today.

    Clearly, neither Jefferson not Madison were BORN dual citizens, but they were offered and accepted such dual citizenship. If the intention of the Founders was to protect the Presidency from “foreign influence”, certainly they would have turned the offer down, or risk being barred from office, especially during the tricky negotiations that led to the Louisiana Purchase.

    My point here is that, during one of the most momentous event in your entire history,the acquisition of over 800,000 square miles for 68 million francs, both your President and Secretary of the Interior were dual citizens of the two nations buying and selling this huge tract of land.

    You cannot conceive of a greater conflict of interest. You are certainly aware that at the time, many thought that the Purchase was unconstitutional, and it was Jefferson who argued otherwise — and won. Was his judgment affected by the fact that his second homeland, France, desperately needed the money at the time? Should he have tried to strike a harsher bargain?

    We will never know, of course, but if Jefferson and Madison, two of your Founding Fathers, were known to be dual citizens when they were elected to public office, at the very moment when they brokered such a major deal between their two homelands, surely the notion of the Founders being worried about “foreign influence” does not seem too convincing?

    I’m sure Jefferson and Madison thought of themselves as 100% Americans and whatever they did, they did it for the good of the US of A, not France. But legally, you cannot argue that they were not French and indeed they are still honored in France (as well as FDR) to this day — there is Square Thomas Jefferson in Paris, for instance.

    I’ll grant you that this has no bearings at all with the notion of “NATURAL-BORN citizen” which is another kettle of fish altogether as we have seen, but it does create two enormous and hard-to-ignore precedents when it comes to the issue of whether or not your President could be a dual citizen.

    Best regards,

    Jean-Marc Lofficier

    To which, very promptly, I received the following reply:

    Thanks for this thoughtful letter. I will review.

    We shall see. I’m not holding my breath.

  15. avatar
    The Magic M July 17, 2014 at 4:20 am #

    Benji Franklin: A time warp could deliver all the founders and Vattel to WND’s offices to declare that the 2 parent theory is crap and that Obama is eligible, and Farah would emerge vowing, “This is not going away.”

    Old news. I think it was more than 2 years ago that I’ve seen the first examples of birthers throwing the founders under the bus, if only for their failure to forever bar blacks from becoming President, or to give angry white guys a legal option to remove the duly elected President “because we don’t like him”.

    Benji Franklin: No newly discovered Founding Era documentation of Birther wrongness would reverse the course of their banner-carrying nut-bags.

    If anything, it would mean birthers will claim the founders were at best dumb and at worst part of a conspiracy to destroy the country they just founded.
    (Don’t forget the claim that many founders were Illuminati is anything but new.)

    George Washington: “Yes, we definitely intended someone like Obama to be eligible for the presidency.”
    Birther: “STFU you gay Nazi Muslim commie, I know what you intended, and it wasn’t that!”
    George Washington: “Did I write the Constitution or you?”
    Birther: “You are just afraid blacks will riot and remove your face from Mt. Rushmore!”
    George Washington: “Would you like my friend Thomas Jefferson to confirm it?”
    Birther: “This is not going away!

  16. avatar
    Reality Check July 17, 2014 at 8:02 am #

    I would recommend Lupin’s comment/letter be linked on Doc’s “Featured comments” page. It is excellent research and completely debunks the “dual citizens” aren’t eligible” nonsense.

  17. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 17, 2014 at 8:07 am #

    Pearls before swine, Lupin. Pearls before swine.

    Lupin: Thanks for this thoughtful letter. I will review.

  18. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 17, 2014 at 8:40 am #

    I concur.

    Reality Check: I would recommend Lupin’s comment/letter be linked on Doc’s “Featured comments” page.

  19. avatar
    alg July 17, 2014 at 8:47 am #

    The various lawsuits aside, what Klein totally ignores is the fact that the U.S. Congress has now twice unanimously certified Mr. Obama’s election to the Presidency. They did that knowing full well who his parents were. If members of Congress had any question about Mr. Obama’s eligibility they had an opportunity to raise objections when they acted on the certification of the electoral college votes. No such objection was raised.

  20. avatar
    Lupin July 17, 2014 at 9:10 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Pearls before swine, Lupin. Pearls before swine.

    Sadly, I’m forced to agree. So far, crickets.

  21. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 17, 2014 at 12:29 pm #

    Used copies of “The Manchurian President” are selling for 1 cent on Amazon.

    Loren: Because it’s cribbed, almost word-for-word, from pp. 65-70 of Klein’s 2010 book “The Manchurian President.”

  22. avatar
    john July 17, 2014 at 12:38 pm #

    I believe the birther’s claim is that “Natural Born Citizen” is acquired at the INSTANT of one’s birth. Madison and Jefferson were NOT “Natural Born Citizens” but they were grandfathered in at the time the Constitution was adopted and therefore, any contention of dual loyalty was basically irrelevent since thy deemed eligible at the adoption of the US Constitution and of course future persons after the grandfather clause ran out had to be NBCs at the instant of their birth.

  23. avatar
    HistorianDude July 17, 2014 at 12:46 pm #

    Lupin: These were not “honorary citizenship”, because we have no such thing in France (unlike the US which has indeed conferred Honorary Citizenship upon many worthy people including, I believe, Mother Teresa.) Therefore, there would have been no need or any requirement for any of these people to travel to France and swear an oath. If you read French, the full text of the decree of the Legislative Assembly conferring citizenship upon these great Americans on 26 August 1792 is here on French wiki: http://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/D%C3%A9cret_du_26_a…

    The reply letters from Jefferson and Madison on the topic can be accessed through here: http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/…

    These two links appear truncated and do not work. Could we get the complete URLs? They would be very valuable!

    Thanks

  24. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 17, 2014 at 12:48 pm #

    Generally, it is understood that persons like Madison and Jefferson (and Washington) were natural born citizens because they were born in the country (albeit a country that changed government). It was persons like the foreign-born Hamilton that were the targets of the exception. Historian George Bancroft writes of that motivation:

    In the convention, it was, says Mr. Bancroft,

    “objected that no number of years could properly prepare a foreigner for that place; but as men of other lands had spilled their blood in the cause of the United States, and had assisted at every stage of the formation of their institutions, on the seventh of September, it was unanimously settled that foreign-born residents of fourteen years who should be citizens at the time of the formation of the Constitution are eligible to the office of President.”

    2 Bancroft Hist. U.S. Const. 193.

    john: I believe the birther’s claim is that “Natural Born Citizen” is acquired at the INSTANT of one’s birth. Madison and Jefferson were NOT “Natural Born Citizens” but they were grandfathered in at the time the Constitution was adopted

  25. avatar
    HistorianDude July 17, 2014 at 12:52 pm #

    john:
    I believe the birther’s claim is that “Natural Born Citizen” is acquired at the INSTANT of one’s birth.Madison and Jefferson were NOT “Natural Born Citizens” but they were grandfathered in at the time the Constitution was adopted and therefore, any contention of dual loyalty was basically irrelevent since thy deemed eligible at the adoption of the US Constitution and of course future persons after the grandfather clause ran out had to be NBCs at the instant of their birth.

    As usual, you completely miss the instant point.

    If the Founders and Framers objected to dual citizens being president, or were of the opinion that divided loyalties were a disqualifying characteristic for Presidents, they had direct, immediate and obvious opportunities to act on those opinions with both Jefferson and Madison. The grandfather clause may have made them eligible but the rest of the Congress did not have to vote for them if they felt their French citizenship was an issue. Yet the Founding generation elected Jefferson three times (once VP, twice President) and Madison twice.

    In fact, while Jefferson was VP we were even in an undeclared war with his adopted country. And nobody in Congress objected to his divided loyalty.

  26. avatar
    gorefan July 17, 2014 at 1:23 pm #

    john: they were grandfathered in at the time the Constitution was adopted

    Justice Joseph Story wrote that the grandfather clause was so foreign born citizens would be eligible for high office.

    “It is indispensable, too, that the president should be a natural born citizen of the United States; or a citizen at the adoption of the constitution, and for fourteen years before his election. This permission of a naturalized citizen to become president is an exception from the great fundamental policy of all governments, to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils and duties. It was doubtless introduced (for it has now become by lapse of time merely nominal, and will soon become wholly extinct) out of respect to those distinguished revolutionary patriots, who were born in a foreign land, and yet had entitled themselves to high honours in their adopted country. A positive exclusion of them from the office would have been unjust to their merits, and painful to their sensibilities. But the general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners, in common cases, will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesman.” Commentaries on the Constitution

    http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a2_1_5s2.html

  27. avatar
    ballantine July 17, 2014 at 1:34 pm #

    There is little actual evidence on what the grandfather clause was intended to mean. However, there does not appear to be any early authority suggesting that anyone but foreign born persons were intended to be covered by such clause. I suppose such comes from the Convention notes where James Wilson was clearly insulted that limitations on foreign born persons like himself to serve in Congress were being discussed. It was in this context that a grandfather clause was first mentioned.

  28. avatar
    3Fiddy6 July 17, 2014 at 3:10 pm #

    I believe Obama published his Memoir “Dreams from my Father” in 1995. In it, Obama’s father’s Kenyan citizenship was revealed.

    In other words, Obama himself disclosed the nationality of his father, 13 years before the start of his first term.

    How is THAT slipping through the Cracks, or not being “Vetted’?

  29. avatar
    Steve July 17, 2014 at 3:14 pm #

    Arthur: Indeed. This is another phenomenon predicted by quantum birtherism, To wit: thoroughly discredited arguments that have been set aside and forgotten, will suddenly and inexplicably reappear and be treated as entirely new and eminently powerful. This is called birther fluctuation.

    Are they just sort of counting on a new group of people who haven’t been paying attention?

  30. avatar
    Arthur July 17, 2014 at 4:45 pm #

    Steve: Are they just sort of counting on a new group of people who haven’t been paying attention?

    I don’t believe so. I say this because the regulars who comment at B.R. have been paying attention for years, and they still respond to recycled b.s. with new enthusiasm.

  31. avatar
    katahdin July 17, 2014 at 8:31 pm #

    3Fiddy6:
    I believe Obama published his Memoir “Dreams from my Father” in 1995.In it, Obama’s father’s Kenyan citizenship was revealed.

    In other words, Obama himself disclosed the nationality of his father, 13 years before the start of his first term.

    How is THAT slipping through the Cracks, or not being “Vetted’?

    He also publicly disclosed his father’s citizenship on television during his keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in 2004. This president clearly sucks at hiding the “facts” that would disqualify him from the presidency.

  32. avatar
    sfjeff July 17, 2014 at 8:46 pm #

    3Fiddy6:
    I believe Obama published his Memoir “Dreams from my Father” in 1995.In it, Obama’s father’s Kenyan citizenship was revealed.

    In other words, Obama himself disclosed the nationality of his father, 13 years before the start of his first term.

    How is THAT slipping through the Cracks, or not being “Vetted’?

    This is the really insurmountable issue that Birthers can’t conceive- among others.

    Americans all grew up knowing who is a natural born citizen.
    Most Americans knew Obama’s father was Kenyan.
    And we voted for Barack Obama- because none of us had any doubt that anyone born in the U.S. is a natural born citizen.

    Essentially the argument Birthers have to make is that they are keepers of the sekrit definition of NBC and everyone else is soooooo stupid that we just didn’t know(except of course when they argue that everyone but themselves knew but were corrupt- and of course blacks knew but voted for Obama because all blacks are racists…….)

  33. avatar
    Keith July 17, 2014 at 9:35 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Used copies of “The Manchurian President” are selling for 1 cent on Amazon.

    Postage free?

  34. avatar
    Keith July 17, 2014 at 9:44 pm #

    Steve: Are they just sort of counting on a new group of people who haven’t been paying attention?

    My thought is that, now after all these years, the regurgitators are just performance artists (a kind word meaning “troll”) trying to keep the ants nest stirred up, or admin sockpuppets trying to keep the click count up.

  35. avatar
    Northland10 July 17, 2014 at 10:18 pm #

    3Fiddy6:
    I believe Obama published his Memoir “Dreams from my Father” in 1995.In it, Obama’s father’s Kenyan citizenship was revealed.

    In other words, Obama himself disclosed the nationality of his father, 13 years before the start of his first term.

    How is THAT slipping through the Cracks, or not being “Vetted’?

    It’s even worse. He was hiding his past as early as 1990 when the New York Times wrote:

    The new president of the Review is Barack Obama, a 28-year-old graduate of Columbia University who spent four years heading a community development program for poor blacks on Chicago’s South Side before enrolling in law school. His late father, Barack Obama, was a finance minister in Kenya and his mother, Ann Dunham, is an American anthropologist now doing fieldwork in Indonesia. Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii.

    Note to self, do not consult President Obama on the best way to hide my past.

  36. avatar
    Sef July 17, 2014 at 10:20 pm #

    Benji Franklin: I think Birthers imagine that if the Universe collapses to a singularity, every thing will exist in that one informationless point, except for a post-em note setting any eventual intelligent beings who evolve in the following expanding Universe, towards their only prime directive task, which would be declaring the former Universe’s Obama Presidency “null and “void”.

    Since the universe is a hologram, all they need to do is find O’s “light bee”, change the “hard-light bee” to a “soft-light bee” and the universe can be reset.

  37. avatar
    Benji Franklin July 17, 2014 at 10:48 pm #

    Karl Gall Oops!: “Okay, Listeners! This is our Cold Case Pussee Investigation of Obama’s Document Fraud July Update Show, and all the lines are open, so if you’re a listener with a question or comment, or a whistle-blower, or anyone who has been elected POTUS, EXCEPT Obama, feel free to call in NOW, right NOW, because the lines are all open.”

    Caller: ” Is this Carberry’s Septic Tank Service?”

    Karl Gall Oops!: “No, switch the last two digits you dialed there and try again – this happens all the time. The lines are all open again, Listeners. Give us a call.”

    New Caller: ” Is this Carberry’s Septic Tank Service?”

    Karl Gall Oops!: “No, but caller, if you hate Obama, why don’t you just stay on the line with me, and I’ll interview you about your breaking news on the Obama document fraud scandal investigation.”

    Caller:”Nah, really, don’t know nothin’ about it.”

    Karl Gall Oops!: “No problem, none of us do. Just make something up. You’re on the air with me right now.”

    Caller:” Wait a minute, is that you, Glen? Am I talkin’ to Glen Carberry? Thought you had me, di’nt you, buddy? Quit actin’ a fool – I got a toilet backed up here to beat the band – you hear that gurglin’? I swear – it’s gonna ruin – (CLICK)

    Karl Gall Oops!:”Well, we lost our caller, Listeners, but the lines are all open. Give us a call.”

    (14 minutes go by with eventually only a faint snoring sound going out across the Birther airwaves)

    Karl Gall Oops!:”Okay, well that’s our update for today, and for the month, and the year, by golly, right here on Free Dumb Fridays. So long everybody!”

  38. avatar
    donna July 17, 2014 at 11:07 pm #

    Northland10: Note to self, do not consult President Obama on the best way to hide my past.

    note to moi-self – don’t consult obama when looking for a forger – comme d’habitude, i will consult with mafia friends in my little rhody – certainly the leader of the free world, with all of his available assets, can’t compete with THEM

  39. avatar
    Lupin July 18, 2014 at 2:30 am #

    HistorianDude: These two links appear truncated and do not work. Could we get the complete URLs? They would be very valuable!

    Thanks

    Of course!

    French decree of 1792 conferring citizenship:
    http://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/D%C3%A9cret_du_26_ao%C3%BBt_1792

    Madison’s acceptance:
    http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-26-02-0129

    Vattel 1863 edition:
    http://books.google.fr/books?id=2iie98wAuX0C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_atb#v=onepage&q&f=false
    (You want pp. 500-501)

  40. avatar
    Lupin July 18, 2014 at 2:33 am #

    john:
    I believe the birther’s claim is that “Natural Born Citizen” is acquired at the INSTANT of one’s birth.Madison and Jefferson were NOT “Natural Born Citizens” but they were grandfathered in at the time the Constitution was adopted and therefore, any contention of dual loyalty was basically irrelevent since thy deemed eligible at the adoption of the US Constitution and of course future persons after the grandfather clause ran out had to be NBCs at the instant of their birth.

    As usual you completely miss the point. In fact, I wrote:

    “I’ll grant you that this has no bearings at all with the notion of “NATURAL-BORN citizen” which is another kettle of fish altogether as we have seen, but it does create two enormous and hard-to-ignore precedents when it comes to the issue of whether or not your President could be a dual citizen.”

    Thanks to Madison and Jefferson it is now established that a dual citizen can be elected President, AND conduct major negotiations with his adopted homeland on behalf of the US, DESPITE the enormous conflict of interest.

    Your entire theories crumble into dust when faced with historical realities.

    Deal with it.

  41. avatar
    Keith July 18, 2014 at 4:09 am #

    Lupin: Thanks to Madison and Jefferson it is now established that a dual citizen can be elected President, AND conduct major negotiations with his adopted homeland on behalf of the US, DESPITE the enormous conflict of interest.

    AND serve as Vice-President – a heart beat away from the Presidency itself – during a time of War between the USA and his adopted country.

    The Quasi-War between Britain, USA, and the Batavian Republic on one side and France and Spain on the other occurred during Jefferson’s Vice-Presidency. The war was triggered, more or less, by America’s refusal to repay Revolutionary War debts to the French Republic, on the grounds that the debt was owed to the former French Crown. Vice-President Jefferson was a staunch anti-war activist – arguing that the U.S. should ignore the Jay Treaty and side with France. President Adams thought otherwise and began rebuilding the Navy.

    Imagine that. President Adams committing the U.S. to war against France, in alliance with Britain, less than twenty years after the Revolutionary War, and Vice-President Jefferson, dual American and French citizen, supporting the war time adversary, France.

    Yet for some reason, nobody thought to challenge Jefferson on the grounds of conflict of foreign interests, and indeed, elected him President shortly thereafter in spite of that dual citizenship.

  42. avatar
    Lupin July 18, 2014 at 4:51 am #

    Keith: AND serve as Vice-President – a heart beat away from the Presidency itself – during a time of War between the USA and his adopted country.

    The Quasi-War between Britain, USA, and the Batavian Republic on one side and France and Spain on the other occurred during Jefferson’s Vice-Presidency. The war was triggered, more or less, by America’s refusal to repay Revolutionary War debts to the French Republic, on the grounds that the debt was owed to the former French Crown. Vice-President Jefferson was a staunch anti-war activist – arguing that the U.S. should ignore the Jay Treaty and side with France. President Adams thought otherwise and began rebuilding the Navy.

    Imagine that. President Adams committing the U.S. to war against France, in alliance with Britain, less than twenty years after the Revolutionary War, and Vice-President Jefferson, dual American and French citizen, supporting the war time adversary, France.

    Yet for some reason, nobody thought to challenge Jefferson on the grounds of conflict of foreign interests, and indeed, elected him President shortly thereafter in spite of that dual citizenship.

    A superlative illustration of my point.

    I focused on the Louisiana Purchase because it was a major event, and unbelievable as it seems now, it really was a hot potato debate in Congress at the time. The mind boggles when trying to imagine how the future of the US would have unfolded without the Purchase. It would make a fine Alternate History novel, I bet.

    I will hazard a guess that, based on available documentation, Jefferson saw it as a win-win: help France out of a tight financial spot, and enlarge the US in one fell swoop at the same time.

    But, my god, the conflict of interest!!! Whatever silly yarn the birthers spin about Obama’s alleged divided loyalties pale in comparison.

  43. avatar
    Lupin July 18, 2014 at 4:53 am #

    Lupin: Sadly, I’m forced to agree. So far, crickets.

    Still no return from Mr. Klein. My remarks must have crossed beyond the Birther event horizon.

  44. avatar
    The Magic M July 18, 2014 at 5:02 am #

    john: had to be NBCs at the instant of their birth

    Tautology? How can you be natural born but not natural born “at the instance of [your] birth”? This is what birfin’ gets you, i.e. totally confused about definitions. You silly American citizen of the United States, male man and birfin’ birfer!

  45. avatar
    Paper July 18, 2014 at 9:56 am #

    Beyond the excellent points others have raised here, the argument you present collapses upon itself, before we even get to those points.

    So, per this argument, any theoretical presidents who were not natural born citizens (by whatever definition you wish to use) could be dual citizens, but bonafide natural born citizens could not and cannot be dual citizens. Because apparently natural born citizens cannot be trusted with dual citizenship? But grandfathered citizens could be?

    In other words, for the purposes of the argument, someone born under whatever definition of natural born citizenship, and thus presumably given the most benefit of the doubt for being free of foreign influence, cannot be a dual citizen? But, at a time when concerns of foreign influence were high enough to generate the natural born requirement in the first place, someone without that natural born presumption *could* be a dual citizen?

    john:
    I believe the birther’s claim is that “Natural Born Citizen” is acquired at the INSTANT of one’s birth.Madison and Jefferson were NOT “Natural Born Citizens” but they were grandfathered in at the time the Constitution was adopted and therefore, any contention of dual loyalty was basically irrelevent since thy deemed eligible at the adoption of the US Constitution and of course future persons after the grandfather clause ran out had to be NBCs at the instant of their birth.

  46. avatar
    Rickey July 18, 2014 at 9:56 am #

    Lupin: Still no return from Mr. Klein. My remarks must have crossed beyond the Birther event horizon.

    I e-mailed Klein yesterday and asked him if he could cite a single Constitutional law, history or civics text which espouses the “two-citizen parent” requirement to be a natural-born citizen. I’ve had no response from him.

    A blogger at WND claims that not only does a natural born citizen need to have two citizen parents, the parents themselves have to have been natural born citizens. I pointed out to him that the fathers of both James Buchanan and Chester A. Arthur were born in Ireland. Buchanan was born after the Constitution was ratified, so he wasn’t covered by the grandfather clause.

  47. avatar
    Lupin July 18, 2014 at 10:02 am #

    Rickey: I e-mailed Klein yesterday and asked him if he could cite a single Constitutional law, history or civics text which espouses the “two-citizen parent” requirement to be a natural-born citizen. I’ve had no response from him.

    The way I read his article, Mr Klein moved beyond the (incorrect Vattelian) two citizen parent to the (correct Vattelian) only father transmits citizenship — but which (in Vattelist countries) only applied between 1752 and arguably 1863.

    Logically, he really can’t have it both way; applying only 1752 Vattel but not 20th century Vattel makes no sense.

  48. avatar
    Bonsall Obot July 18, 2014 at 11:37 am #

    Lupin:

    Logically

    I have diagnosed the problem…

  49. avatar
    ballantine July 18, 2014 at 11:56 am #

    Another interesting point on the grandfather clause can be found in Maine. The Maine Constitution required the Governor to be a natural born citizen with no grandfather clause. Four of their early governors were born before 1776 to English parents. Would be interesting to find out if any had aliens parents.

  50. avatar
    welsh dragon July 18, 2014 at 4:00 pm #

    ballantine:
    Another interesting point on the grandfather clause can be found in Maine.The Maine Constitution required the Governor to be a natural born citizen with no grandfather clause.Four of their early governors were born before 1776 to English parents.Would be interesting to find out if any had aliens parents.

    I looked out of curiosity a while back and while I can’t be 100% there didn’t seem to be any alien parents. For a while Ed Muskie looked a possibility especially since his father’s status was incorrectly shown in the 1940 census. However, digging deeper I eventually found his father’s naturalization papers dated prior to Muskie’s birth. Of course at that time his mother’s citizenship would have followed her husband’s.

    BTW the NBC requirement was removed a few month’s after Muskie took office.

  51. avatar
    Rickey July 18, 2014 at 6:51 pm #

    Lupin: The way I read his article, Mr Klein moved beyond the (incorrect Vattelian) two citizen parent to the (correct Vattelian) only father transmits citizenship — but which (in Vattelist countries) only applied between 1752 and arguably 1863.

    Logically, he really can’t have it both way; applying only 1752 Vattel but not 20th century Vattel makes no sense.

    That puts Klein on a par with that wacko birther from Alaska, Gordon Epperly. Epperly says that women aren’t eligible to hold any political offices.

    And of course the U.S. is not a Vattelist country. I told Klein about a couple of standard histories of American law which make no mention of Vattel, but he obviously has no interest in the truth.

  52. avatar
    Lupin July 19, 2014 at 2:37 am #

    Rickey: And of course the U.S. is not a Vattelist country. I told Klein about a couple of standard histories of American law which make no mention of Vattel, but he obviously has no interest in the truth.

    I fear this is indeed the case.

  53. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) July 21, 2014 at 4:39 am #

    Rickey: A blogger at WND claims that not only does a natural born citizen need to have two citizen parents, the parents themselves have to have been natural born citizens.

    That idiocy squared is only espoused by a handful of birthers, obviously those who weren’t even able to understand basic Vattelism.
    (Besides, the idea would mean anyone wanting to become President would have to prove his ancestry back to 1776, lest even one of his great-great-…parents was only a naturalized citizen or even a foreigner. Sounds a bit like the “Ariernachweis” the Nazis required…)

  54. avatar
    Rickey July 21, 2014 at 6:47 pm #

    The Magic M (not logged in): That idiocy squared is only espoused by a handful of birthers, obviously those who weren’t even able to understand basic Vattelism.
    (Besides, the idea would mean anyone wanting to become President would have to prove his ancestry back to 1776, lest even one of his great-great-…parents was only a naturalized citizen or even a foreigner. Sounds a bit like the “Ariernachweis” the Nazis required…)

    Their primary motivation is to keep all but white males out of the White House. A lot of birthers claimed that they would have voted for Herman Cain, but I doubt that many would have when push came to shove.

  55. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) July 22, 2014 at 6:24 am #

    Rickey: A lot of birthers claimed that they would have voted for Herman Cain, but I doubt that many would have when push came to shove.

    They never had to. Their line of thinking was this:
    “Blacks always vote for the black guy, that’s why Obama won. So if the GOP runs a black guy, he will get at least half of the black vote, therefore GOP landslide.” They probably thought once the GOP is in power again, they will make sure they stay there so they can switch back to only white candidates.
    In other words, they thought the GOP should use a black candidate as a means of regaining power for old white men.

    That’s why the WND crowd kept croaking “Cain/West = nightmare ticket for Democrats” back when Cain was still running. The racist belief that “the more blacks we have running for office, the more blacks will vote for us”.

  56. avatar
    Keith July 22, 2014 at 4:37 pm #

    The Magic M (not logged in): They never had to. Their line of thinking was this:
    “Blacks always vote for the black guy, that’s why Obama won. So if the GOP runs a black guy, he will get at least half of the black vote, therefore GOP landslide.” They probably thought once the GOP is in power again, they will make sure they stay there so they can switch back to only white candidates.
    In other words, they thought the GOP should use a black candidate as a means of regaining power for old white men.

    That’s why the WND crowd kept croaking “Cain/West = nightmare ticket for Democrats” back when Cain was still running. The racist belief that “the more blacks we have running for office, the more blacks will vote for us”.

    That sounds a lot like the plot line of the movie “Putney Swope” of which the moral could be characterized as: “Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it in Spades, Honkey”

  57. avatar
    Northland10 July 22, 2014 at 9:54 pm #

    The Magic M (not logged in): They never had to. Their line of thinking was this:
    “Blacks always vote for the black guy, that’s why Obama won. So if the GOP runs a black guy, he will get at least half of the black vote, therefore GOP landslide.”

    Because it worked so well for Alan Keyes’s Senate run in Illinois.

  58. avatar
    Keith July 22, 2014 at 11:07 pm #

    The Magic M (not logged in): (Besides, the idea would mean anyone wanting to become President would have to prove his ancestry back to 1776, lest even one of his great-great-…parents was only a naturalized citizen or even a foreigner. Sounds a bit like the “Ariernachweis” the Nazis required…)

    Well, I can trace my family name male ancestry (that is my father’s father’s father’s… etc) all the way back to 1072 (and possibly beyond). There is a small hiccup around one ancestor that we understand was born in 1806, but since the British burned the town in the war of 1812 the records of his parents has been lost. A good guess at his siblings or his cousins gets us back to the first of our family to settle in America (his younger brother was on the Mayflower but didn’t stay), Cary Latham, who ran the ferry across the Thames river between New London and Groton (Connecticut) for decades.

    Then a jump across the puddle and we have church records back to William the Conquerer when a Saxon turncoat named Dunning let the Normans into town and earned the title Dunning, Earl de Lathom.

    So I’m good.

    I think.

  59. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) July 23, 2014 at 5:27 am #

    Keith: So I’m good.

    I think.

    Only until the wingnuts require you to prove your ancestry back to Jesus unless you want to be marked a Muslim spy. ;-P

  60. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) July 23, 2014 at 5:29 am #

    Keith: That sounds a lot like the plot line of the movie “Putney Swope”

    I’ll check that one out if I can get my hands on it. 🙂

  61. avatar
    Bovril July 23, 2014 at 6:41 am #

    Any time we have tried to do the whole familiy name and ancestry piece the names seems to mysteriously vanish/evaporate after a few generations.

    Based on that I am firmly of the belief that I have a rich and checkered ancestry of assorted sheep/horse/cattle thieves and general ne’er do wells who stayed one step ahead of the law via judicious name changes and assorted proto-identity theft…. 😎

  62. avatar
    Keith July 23, 2014 at 8:40 am #

    Bovril: Any time we have tried to do the whole familiy name and ancestry piece the names seems to mysteriously vanish/evaporate after a few generations.

    Yeah, well the Lathams all seemed to be super-fecund for very long periods of time. Generation after generation had broods of around 10 or more; I can’t figure out why there aren’t many many more than there are; perhaps just too many girls. Anyway our branch of the family seems to be petering out. The last email notice I got for the Latham family reunion was addressed to about 75 people, only two of whom were actually named Latham.

  63. avatar
    Keith July 23, 2014 at 8:45 am #

    The Magic M (not logged in): I’ll check that one out if I can get my hands on it.

    YouTube has the whole movie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZIw4fQTZTM

    I’m not sure if it is available on DVD or not.

  64. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) July 23, 2014 at 8:58 am #

    Keith: YouTube has the whole movie

    Much obliged!
    My favourite *cough* torrent site *cough*, uh, DVD retailer has it, too. 😉

  65. avatar
    James M July 23, 2014 at 2:20 pm #

    Keith: Well, I can trace my family name male ancestry (that is my father’s father’s father’s… etc) all the way back to 1072 (and possibly beyond).

    With some shame and some pride, I want to share this. My maternal grandmother was born in 1898 and lived long enough that I got to know her quite well. She had very lucid memories of ‘the Great War’ and was only too happy to share her oral histories with anyone who would listen. She would not, however, discuss the 1940s or WWII. I always thought this was strange when I was younger, but I think I understand much better now.

    She also would tell stories that came from her mother — who had lived cheek to jowl with families of freed slaves which *her* grandfather had *owned*. I’m sorry to have to say that my own grandmother regarded that history with contempt. She had a deep and dreadful racist streak, to say the least. Some of the things that came out of that old woman’s mouth haunt me to this day.

    But, I’m ashamed to confess, I pretty much ignored this fountain of history in favor of the stories my paternal grandfather, born in 1910 to the son of an Irishman who, via several competing tales all of very questionable veracity, made his way from Castelbar to Galway to Oklahoma in 1879 or 1880. But where I had envisioned a poor hungry Irishman subsisting on nothing for the hope of reaching a land o’ plenty, it turns out that he had plenty of money to begin with, and wasn’t exactly “fleeing Ireland”. And his marriage to the Kiowa woman who was my great-great-grandmother turns out to have been less a matter of a lascivious blackguard taking his helpless quarry, but rather a formal affair including a fancy church wedding and possibly even a dowry. So much for my great novel ;-(