Main Menu

The occasional open thread: Pop! goes the birther

Place your Obama Conspiracy comments not related to the current articles here. This thread will close in two weeks.

47 Responses to The occasional open thread: Pop! goes the birther

  1. avatar
    J.D. Sue December 23, 2014 at 2:43 pm #

    This probably belongs in an open thread, but I couldn’t find one, and this kinda relates to birther-meets-government.

    I note from Taitz’s site that she has made a criminal complaint to the Brooklyn DA’s office, demanding that Al Sharpton be charged with incitement to violence/murder. She alleges that Al Sharpton led a “Kill the cops” rally.

    Meanwhile, a Faux News affiliate just apologized for falsely claiming that protestors at the rally were chanting “kill a cop”, when they were really chanting “We won’t stop, we can’t stop, ’til killer cops, are in cell blocks.” http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/12/fox-station-apologizes-to-black-lives-matter-protester-for-editing-chant-to-say-kill-a-cop/

    Interestingly, Salon has an article today comparing Guiliani’s recent accusation–that President Obama has encouraged people to hate the police–to birtherism. http://www.salon.com/2014/12/23/rudy_giuliani_crosses_line_on_race_why_gop_must_finally_push_back_on_his_recklessness/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow From this article:

    “When we think of the ways in which Obama’s most virulent enemies have sought to delegitimize him, to depict him not only as wrong on various issues as well as lacking in character but as fundamentally deceitful and un-American, we conjure up images of the birthers. We think of claims that he’s actually from Kenya and/or Indonesia, that he’s lying about his Christianity and/or as his name. But even though the Democrats, the mainstream media and elements of the Republican establishment have managed to push the birthers to the fringes of the GOP, there’s little reason to think Giuliani, Erickson and others who make arguments like theirs will be ostracized from polite society. That’s a great injustice — because what they’re doing now and what the birthers do is, fundamentally, the same.

    Granted, alleging President Obama is on a decades-long mission, which began at the time of his birth, to destroy the United States from within is much more superficially outlandish than alleging that he encourages the murder of police. But both claims, at their essence, depict the president as alien from the rest of American society, as an interloper with nefarious designs. For the birthers, Obama is a secret Muslim or Marxist or lizard (or a combination of all three) who wants to weaken the U.S. in order to implement some shadowy scheme. And for Giuliani and Erickson, he’s a secret radical, a crypto-black nationalist, the New Black Panther Party’s best friend in D.C. He’s not a milquetoast liberal technocrat reformer, but an extremist in camouflage, inciting a race war and the murder of police.

    These wild, bigoted fever dreams are dangerous accusations for anyone to excuse or ignore, no matter the target. But they’re especially unacceptable when the accused is the first African-American president of the United States. . . . “

  2. avatar
    J.D. Sue December 23, 2014 at 4:42 pm #

    J.D. Sue: I note from Taitz’s site that she has made a criminal complaint to the Brooklyn DA’s office, demanding that Al Sharpton be charged with incitement to violence/murder. She alleges that Al Sharpton led a “Kill the cops” rally.

    In follow up, one of Taitz’s genius-commenters says about Al Sharpton: “How anyone as Racist and anti American as he can remain within Our Congress just goes to show the type of morally bankrupt and utterly stupid electorate within His District.”

    Hmmm. I wonder what/who this commenter is really talking about. What electorate? What/Where is “His District”? Sharpton is not a member of Congress; not an elected official at all.

    Sounds to me like the commenter is having (what Salon has called), “wild, bigoted fever dreams [that] are dangerous accusations for anyone to excuse or ignore, no matter the target.”

  3. avatar
    Keith December 24, 2014 at 7:14 pm #

    Happy Holidays and have a Great New Year everyone!

  4. avatar
    donna December 25, 2014 at 9:46 am #

    i recently (re)researched ann dunham on this site and (re)noticed:

    misha marinsky October 23, 2012 at 10:50 am #

    The Magic M: That’s a leap back to the Dark Ages of phrenology.

    Actually, phrenology was regarded as legitimate in the States until 1865 – the Civil War’s end. Phrenology had a resurgence in Germany, 1933-45.

    True story: After my aneurysm and stroke, I had a CAT scan of my head. When the neurologist put the x-ray on the viewer, I said “If this was Germany, that would be labeled “cross section of a Jewish skull.”

    He was laughing so much, he had to pause.

    misha has not appeared here for a long while and, while i hope he is well, his long absence suggests otherwise

    Keith: Happy Holidays and have a Great New Year everyone!

    ditto for me!!!!!

  5. avatar
    Lupin December 25, 2014 at 12:15 pm #

    May i join others in wishing everyone here a merry Xmas, a Fantastic Festivus and a Happy New year!

  6. avatar
    Rickey December 25, 2014 at 12:52 pm #

    I was out for dinner last night with my brother, sister, brother-in-law and niece. When we came out of the restaurant around 9:00 p.m. it was 57 degrees – in Danbury, Connecticut. I’m sure there is snow somewhere this Christmas, but not around here!

    I hope that everyone else (and that includes you, John) is having a terrific holiday.

  7. avatar
    gorefan December 29, 2014 at 1:05 am #

    Over at the Fogbow, a poster who many believe is TJ McCann said this about Virginia’s 1779 Citizenship law.

    “That was not a law, that was a bill that never became law. It was specifically written by Jefferson to serve as a general template for any state. ”

    “Virginia came the closest of any state to having citizenship from mere birth on the state’s soil, but did not convey the citizenship upon birth. Citizenship was only recognized for native born children (those born on Virgina soil) of aliens, if offspring had demonstrated good character, and only received that citizenship upon reaching the age of consent, and after having taken an oath to Virginia.”

    http://thefogbow.com/forum/topic/7503-lima-bravo-and-the-fake-imaginary-two-citizen-parents-rule/?p=606938

    Completely ignoring the fact that Hening’s Statutes at Large lists the act as one of the 1779 laws of Virginia.

    http://tinyurl.com/oewfj4q

    This act was one of the 127 revised bills that Jefferson and the Committee of Revisors submitted to the Virginia Assembly. It was passed on June 26th, 1779 as Jefferson noted in his biography:

    “Early in the session of May 79. I prepared, and obtained leave to bring in a bill, declaring who should be deemed citizens, asserting the natural right of expatriation, and prescribing the mode of exercising it. This, when I withdrew from the House, on the 1st of June following, I left in the hands of George Mason and it was passed on the 26th of that month”

    http://founders.archives.gov/?q=Ancestor%3ATSJN-01-02-02-0132&s=1511311111&r=58#TSJN-01-02-0197-fn-0001

    I seem to remember TJ McCann from John Woodman’s site. He wasn’t very bright then either.

  8. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 29, 2014 at 10:04 am #

    Those laws were discussed here back in 2009:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/05/madison-v-madison/

    gorefan: Completely ignoring the fact that Hening’s Statutes at Large lists the act as one of the 1779 laws of Virginia.

  9. avatar
    gorefan December 29, 2014 at 12:07 pm #

    And he doubles down on his stupidity in his response to you:

    “OF note, at this point, that Virginia October 1783 Act only recognized citizenship of those born on American soil whose fathers or mothers were citizens.”

    “Quite obviously, by this above fact alone, those aliens merely born on American Soil could not possibly have been recognized as “natural born citizens””

    http://thefogbow.com/forum/topic/7503-lima-bravo-and-the-fake-imaginary-two-citizen-parents-rule/?p=607038

    There were four citizenship laws passed by the Virginia legislature between 1779 and 1792. There was a preamble added in 1783:

    “I. WHEREAS it is the policy of all infant states to encourage population, among other means, by an easy mode for the admission of foreigners to the rights of citizenship; yet wisdom and safety suggest the propriety of guarding against the introduction of secret enemies, and of keeping the offices of government in the hands of citizens intimately acquainted with the spirit of the constitution and the genius of the people, as well as permanently attached to the common interest:”,/I>

    After which the language is essentially the same:

    1779
    “Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth and all who have resided therein two years next before the passing of this act, and all who shall hereafter migrate into the same; and shall before any court of record give satisfactory proof by their own oath or affirmation, that they intend to reside therein, and moreover shall give assurance of fidelity to the commonwealth; and all infants wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was, a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner as herein after expressed”

    http://vagenweb.org/hening/vol10-06.htm

    1783
    “Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, That all free persons, born within the territory of this Commonwealth ; all persons, not being natives, who have obtained a right to citizenship under the Act, intituled, ” An Act declaring who shall be deemed citizens of this Commonwealth;” and also all children, wheresoever born, whose fathers or mothers are or were citizens at the time of the birth of such children, shall be deemed citizens of this Commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner herein after mentioned”

    http://vagenweb.org/hening/vol11-16.htm

    1786
    “II. Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, That all free persons, born within the territory of this commonwealth, all persons, not being natives, who have obtained a right to citizenship under the act, intituled “An act declaring who shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth;” and also all children wheresoever born, whose fathers or mothers are, or were, citizens at the time of the birth of such children, shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character, in manner herein after-mentioned; and that all persons, other than alien enemies, who shall migrate into this state, and shall before some court of record, give satisfactory proof by oath (or being quakers or menonists, by affirmation) that they intend to reside therein, and also take the legal oath or affirmation, for giving assurance of fidelity to the commonwealth (which oaths or affirmations, the clerk of the court shall enter on record, and give a certificate thereof to the person taking the same, and shall on or before the first day of October annually, transmit to the executive a list of the persons who shall have taken the said oaths or affirmations, reciting their nation and occupation, (if any) to be by them entered in a book to be kept for that purpose, for which he shall receive the fee of one dollar;) shall be entitled to all the rights, privileges, and advantages of citizens, except, that they shall not be capable of election or appointment to any office, legislative, executive, or judiciary, until an actual residence in the state of five years from the time of taking such oaths, or affirmations, aforesaid, nor until they shall have evinced a permanent attachment to the state, by having intermarried with a citizen of this commonwealth, or a citizen of any other of the United States, or purchased lands to the value of one hundred pounds therein.”

    http://vagenweb.org/hening/vol12-12.htm

    1792
    “Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That all free persons born within the territory of this Commonwealth, all persons not being natives, who have obtained a right to citizenship under former laws, and all children wheresoever born, whose fathers or mothers are or were citizens at the time of the birth of such children, shall be deemed citizens of this Commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in the manner hereinafter mentioned.”

    http://tinyurl.com/q5dljvj

    The Act of 1792 did not have the preamble.

  10. avatar
    bgansel9 December 30, 2014 at 12:18 am #

    I’m just curious, now that speculation 2016 is officially under way, whether the Birthers are going to hold Ted Cruz to the same Law of Nations standard they scoped out for Barack Obama (de Vattel’s two parent citizen poppycock) and if so, will they protest Cruz’s electioneering or not? I don’t expect them to play by the same rules that they expected Obama to play under (and honestly, Cruz is as much of an eligible citizen as Obama is) but, since the Birthers made such a big stink about Obama, they should do the same for Cruz, yes? Your opinion? Will we see a thread on this in the future?

  11. avatar
    RanTalbott December 31, 2014 at 10:02 am #

    There are some already going after Cruz. Vattelists are only a subset of the birthers, and it’s hard to tell how big a subset they are, because many of them suffer from multiple delusions.

    There’ll be some noise made about him, but it won’t be nearly so loud, and more likely to be marginalized, because he’s not a Democrat, and not as obviously “non-white” as Obama.

  12. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 31, 2014 at 11:29 am #

    I think virtually all birthers are Vattelists with only a few notable exceptions, such as Gary Kreep and Phil Berg.

    RanTalbott: There are some already going after Cruz. Vattelists are only a subset of the birthers, and it’s hard to tell how big a subset they are, because many of them suffer from multiple delusions.

  13. avatar
    Jim December 31, 2014 at 11:55 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I think virtually all birthers are Vattelists with only a few notable exceptions, such as Gary Kreep and Phil Berg.

    If you consider being an anti-Obama as being a Vattelist, then you’re probably right. Otherwise, they’d never heard of him.

  14. avatar
    Lupin January 1, 2015 at 3:59 am #

    The so-called “Vattelists” are deranged, clinging to an obviously and patently false interpretation that no other scholar has ever endorsed.

    Your Congressional Research service tackled the issue very adequately in their 2010 report on the topic and its author wrote exactly the same thing (but better styled) than what I’ve been saying.

    So in the “real world” (as opposed to Birtheristan), the Vattelist argument is a non-starter.

    The one argument that I have raised here and that I haven’t seen (re)used by regular media or credible scholars is James Madison’s French citizenship, to the extent that it creates a precedent showing that dual citizen can be elected President of the US.

  15. avatar
    RanTalbott January 1, 2015 at 4:58 am #

    Lupin: that no other scholar has ever endorsed

    Leaving aside the silliness about him being the originator of the English term “NBC”, he was very much a believer in jus sanguinis, even going so far as to refer to English birthright citizenship for children of aliens/immigrants as a type of “naturalization”. I suspect that, even if he didn’t agree with the fetish for his translator’s terminology, he’d agree with the notion that you need to have established familial roots in the country to be a “born” citizen.

    The Madison example may not get used much because it’d be hard sell with birthers, partly because so many of them are among the worst offenders in our demi-deification of the Founders, and partly because all they’d need is one example of contemporaries bemoaning “French influence” to convince themselves that he must have been widely despised, and probably got into office through election fraud. As U=Im sure yku’ve noticed, we’re no dealing with rational people.

  16. avatar
    Jim January 1, 2015 at 5:21 pm #

    Awwwww, Arpaio/Zullo’s “Universe-Shattering” mistakigation didn’t even make the top 10 for the year. Their great white hope, however, is well-represented. Did anyone make any bets for 2015 being the year Arpaio goes to jail before the President does? 😀

    http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2014/12/top_10_phoenix_news_stories_of_2014.php

  17. avatar
    Rickey January 1, 2015 at 7:26 pm #

    Jim: If you consider being an anti-Obama as being a Vattelist, then you’re probably right.Otherwise, they’d never heard of him.

    I have several books on Constitutional Law and a highly-praised history of American Law, not to mention biographies of most of the Founders, and I never heard of Vattel before the birthers came along.

  18. avatar
    wrecking ball January 1, 2015 at 10:35 pm #

    lucas smith is at it again:

    http://www.birtherreport.com/2015/01/report-licensed-print-experts-examine.html

  19. avatar
    RanTalbott January 1, 2015 at 11:18 pm #

    wrecking ball: lucas smith is at it again:

    The most comical part is that the last sentence of the report from his expert (about 5% up from the bottom of the Scribd file) says that identification “should not be attempted” because there’s no ridge detail.

    But it appears that he’s intent on pulling an Irey by trying to press ahead despite warnings from real experts that his methodology is nonsense and his results will be crap.

    Although, given his track record, the odds of his actually doing are very high…

  20. avatar
    RanTalbott January 1, 2015 at 11:55 pm #

    Some birfoon on another site brought up Hawaii’s “Act 96”, and I discovered that the link on the “Debunkers Guide” page is broken. Probably a casualty of the Fogbow forum change, so there may be others.

    Just FYI. And thanks, yet again, for making it so easy to find that sort of thing. Usually 😉

  21. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 2, 2015 at 12:59 pm #

    Thank you for the report. The link is fixed now. There are only 2 Fogbow links in the Debunker’s Guide, and the other one was OK.

    RanTalbott: Some birfoon on another site brought up Hawaii’s “Act 96″, and I discovered that the link on the “Debunkers Guide” page is broken. Probably a casualty of the Fogbow forum change, so there may be others.

  22. avatar
    Northland10 January 2, 2015 at 8:07 pm #

    Lupin: The so-called “Vattelists” are deranged, clinging to an obviously and patently false interpretation that no other scholar has ever endorsed.

    Your Congressional Research service tackled the issue very adequately in their 2010 report on the topic and its author wrote exactly the same thing (but better styled) than what I’ve been saying.

    The recent exchange with McCann on Fogbow (not to mention in other places previously)shows it is obvious that they cling to anything that reinforces their dislike of Obama and immigrants. If it even hints at supporting them they will use it, ignoring that it might actually be the dissenting opinion or, require removing the sentence before their quote.

    What I have found the most absurd is the claim that the founders changed citizenship tojus sanguinis but did not mention it anywhere because they did not cause problems for the new nation.

  23. avatar
    Janny January 3, 2015 at 7:13 pm #

    Off topic sort of, but did you see that Orley has asked Amal Clooney to investigate Obamas forged papers? She never ceases to amaze me. And not in a good way.

  24. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 4, 2015 at 1:52 am #

    I’ve had an intestinal bug the last few days that has kept me indoors, and this is the reason for the unusual number of stories on the blog as all I had to do to fight off the boredom was to get on the Internet. It’s also why I’ve been at Birther Report.

    I think I’m over it now.

  25. avatar
    RanTalbott January 4, 2015 at 2:51 am #

    Janny: did you see that Orley has asked Amal Clooney to investigate Obamas forged papers?

    Not until you mentioned it. And it is, indeed, “amazing”.

    in her press release, Orly calls Clooney “a failure” for not getting Assange and Timoshenko released. Which, aside from being analogous to calling a paralympic wheelchair marathon medalist a “loser” for not also medalling in the high jump, is downright obscene coming from someone who biggest accomplishment in her legal career has been dodging a few well-deserved sanctions in her unbroken string of losses.

    Then Orly closes her release with this:

    Regardless of what Amal Clooney does, it is a win -win situation for us. If she chooses to investigate Obama’s usurpation of the US presidency with bogus IDs, it is great, we might get closer to removal from office and criminal investigation of Obama. If she does nothing, we’ll expose yet another liberal phony.

    Which, perversely, is kind of a positive: it’ll give us an insight into Clooney’s character, based on whether her response includes a suggestion that Orly sodomize herself with a Garden Weazel™

  26. avatar
    Lupin January 4, 2015 at 3:12 am #

    Northland10: What I have found the most absurd is the claim that the founders changed citizenship tojus sanguinis but did not mention it anywhere because they did not cause problems for the new nation.

    It’s never entirely one or the other, is it? A child born of an American parent abroad can still obtain US citizenship, after all, correct?

    When you boil it down, Vattel wrote that citizenship was inherited or transmitted by blood, which is not false; where the birthers fail is that (a) he did not rule out jus soli (quite the contrary since he mentions it explicitly in connection with England), and he didn’t say one had to have TWO parents citizens, a ridiculous, made up misinterpretation of an otherwise fairly plain sentence.

  27. avatar
    RanTalbott January 4, 2015 at 3:37 am #

    Lupin: he did not rule out jus soli (quite the contrary since he mentions it explicitly in connection with England)

    The English translations I’ve read refer to that as “naturalised”, and puts it in a paragraph with examples that would be considered a “grant” of citizenship, rather than a “birthright”.

    I’m sure my French was never even a tenth as good as yours, even when I was using it regularly, so I can’t speak to his “original intent”. But it seems like he thought jus sanguinis was the “natural law”, and the English standard was an inferior “man-made law”.

    On that subject of interpretations, would it be correct to infer that his reference to “parens citoyens” should really be interpreted as “citizen stock” or “citizen family roots” in English idiom?

  28. avatar
    Lupin January 4, 2015 at 5:36 am #

    RanTalbott: The English translations I’ve read refer to that as “naturalised”, and puts it in a paragraph with examples that would be considered a “grant” of citizenship, rather than a “birthright”.

    I’m sure my French was never even a tenth as good as yours, even when I was using it regularly, so I can’t speak to his “original intent”. But it seems like he thought jus sanguinis was the “natural law”, and the English standard was an inferior “man-made law”.

    On that subject of interpretations, would it be correct to infer that his reference to “parens citoyens” should really be interpreted as “citizen stock” or “citizen family roots” in English idiom?

    Regarding point #1, personally, I don’t think so. It’s more as if Vattel was saying: “for the record, our neighbors over there do things that way and it works well for them”.

    Yes, there is a sort of implied notion that it should be followed by “but of course our way is better,” but I think that saying that Vattel wactually SAID or MEANT that is going a step too far.

    Vattel wasn’t shy of expressing and hammering his opinions, so if he truly felt that the British jus soli way was inferior, I think he would have said it. He certainly didn’t shrink away from making far more controversial statements (in re slavery for instance).

    So if he didn’t, I’m reluctant to mind read what he thought, although I’m inclined to think you’re probably correct as to his personal beliefs, but in fine,he merely recorded the existence of the British jus soli system, admitted that it was valid where it was in force, and made no further comments.

    Re the grant of citizenship/naturalization process as opposed to birthright. First, let’s remember that Vattel used jus soliu as it was applied in countries like France and Germany; he wasn’t trying to describe how it functioned in England. So his analysis is only relevant for Napoleonic law-type countries, not common law ones.

    Second, in our countries, the grant of citizenship based on jus soli was automatic if one applied for it upon reaching majority, unless of course the applicant was a criminal, etc. So yes it wasn’t a birthright in that sense, but it was arguably still pretty automatic.

    Re the often debated translation of “parens” which as both your Congressional Research Office and I pointed out means “family” and not just biological parents” — your transition is certainly accurate; what Vattel summarizes in that short sentence is the essence of jus sanguinis: citizenship is transmitted by “blood”, in this instance, as you correctly put it: “citizen stock” or “citizen family roots”.

    The indisputable reason why Vattel did NOT and could NOT mean “both parents”, (other than the clearcut grammatical use of the plural), is that he then proceeds to tell us twice that, out of the family, it is the father first who transmits citizenship. The Birthers’ idiotic interpretation is contradicted by Vattel himself in that very same article!

  29. avatar
    Notorial Dissent January 4, 2015 at 6:18 am #

    Expecting, or believing, that birfers could parse, let alone read and and comprehend French, and archaic Swiss French at that, is laughable at the very least, when you consider that most of them cannot read or comprehend basic English.

  30. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 4, 2015 at 12:48 pm #

    What do you get when you cross a birther and a truther? Someone that believes Obama is responsible for 9/11.

    In my opinion, Obama is somehow connected to 9-11.

    — Falcon
    Comment at Birther Report

    Yes, the birthers go full bore birther-truther in that thread, following Falcon’s lead.

  31. avatar
    roadburner January 4, 2015 at 3:46 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    What do you get when you cross a birther and a truther? Someone that believes Obama is responsible for 9/11.

    In my opinion, Obama is somehow connected to 9-11.

    — Falcon
    Comment at Birther Report

    Yes, the birthers go full bore birther-truther in that thread, following Falcon’s lead.

    i saw that, and just couldn’t believe what i was reading.

    obama derangement syndrome in the extreme.

    scary to think that someone that mentally unstable is allowed to posses firearms

  32. avatar
    John Reilly January 4, 2015 at 4:25 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    What do you get when you cross a birther and a truther? Someone that believes Obama is responsible for 9/11.

    In my opinion, Obama is somehow connected to 9-11.

    — Falcon
    Comment at Birther Report

    Yes, the birthers go full bore birther-truther in that thread, following Falcon’s lead.

    Pretty outrageous. I thought Obama lived in Kenya or Indonesia in 2001 according to Falcon.

  33. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG January 4, 2015 at 7:56 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:

    Yes, the birthers go full bore birther-truther in that thread, following Falcon’s lead.

    They do tend to follow Falcon’s lead, so it stands to reason that if he ever pulls a “Obama got away with it! I have nothing left to live for!” move, he’ll have plenty of company.

  34. avatar
    Dragging Canoe January 4, 2015 at 8:18 pm #

    1. “The Founders cannot read French”

    2, “Native cannot possibly mean Natural”

    3. “Vattel’s Droit des Gens (law of Nations) played no role drafting Constitution”

    4. “Naturels cannot possibly mean natural born”

    5. “Obama is a natural born citizen”

    6. “Obama is a citizen”

    7. “the law of nations is Intrrnational law not US Law”

  35. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 4, 2015 at 11:35 pm #

    Top 7 Birther Straw men?

    1. Some could and some couldn’t.
    2. Ask someone who speaks 18th century French
    3. It played some role, but it was never cited in the Convention on the subject of citizenship.
    4. Ask someone who speaks 18th century French
    5. For sure. 11 Courts agree.
    6. For sure.
    7. “The Law of Nations” has multiple meanings. It can be international law. It can be a system of laws based on somebody’s notion of what everybody agrees with. It can be a book by Vattel. None of those is in general the law of the United States. In our history before there was applicable law and before things were settled in the courts, various writers and principles were sought to resolve disputes, and those included all three senses of the “law of nations.” The Constitution makes one reference to it in the sense of international law regarding piracy.

    Dragging Canoe:
    1. “The Founders cannot read French”

    2, “Native cannot possibly mean Natural”

    3. “Vattel’s Droit des Gens (law of Nations) played no role drafting Constitution”

    4. “Naturels cannot possibly mean natural born”

    5. “Obama is a natural born citizen”

    6. “Obama is a citizen”

    7. “the law of nations is Intrrnational law not US Law”

  36. avatar
    Notorial Dissent January 5, 2015 at 9:23 am #

    French and English share a lot of words in common, thanks largely to the Normans and language drift and acquisition. There are also a lot of false cognates, that mean one thing in French and something wholly different in English. 18th C French is considerably enough different from modern French, just coincidentally as is 18th C English and modern English to be making rash statements about what a term in an 18th C Franco-Suisse Enlightenment era philosophical tract means if you aren’t conversant in the language of that era.

  37. avatar
    Lupin January 5, 2015 at 11:39 am #

    Notorial Dissent: French and English share a lot of words in common, thanks largely to the Normans and language drift and acquisition.

    One might very well consider English as a patois of French. 🙂

    [taking cover]

    Seriously now, I have yet to see a rally convincing argument that Vattel’s terms “naturels” are equivalent to your own “natural-born” despite the apparent similarities. Both Rousseau and Vattel harp a great deal on droit naturel, loi naturelle, obligations naturelles, etc, etc, by which they mean inalienable concepts that predate human society and would have spring forth from God (or Nature) virtually in the Garden of Eden.

    Is there such a thing as a Droit Naturel or inalienable rights we have from birth? It is something for philosophers to discuss, but it has little to do with the notion of “natural-born” as mentioned in your Constitution, which is a man-made construct.

    This is why even the birthers obviously incorrect interpretation of Vattel was correct, i remain unconvinced that it applies to the interpretation of your Constitution.

  38. avatar
    Jim January 5, 2015 at 12:07 pm #

    If you like conspiracy theories…

    On Thursday, Arpaio appears before Judge Murray Snow to answer to the possible contempt charges. Also on Thursday, the President will be in Phoenix to push his agenda. Who will go to jail first, Arpaio or the President? Will Falcon be there to support Arpaio, or will he be a chicken instead?

    Of course, the President may just be there to make sure Judge Snow gets it right. 😆

    You’d think that the minions at Gerbil Report would realize that this is the perfect storm they’ve been waiting 6 long years for. The President is there, Arpaio is there, Zullo surely is somewhere nearby, and the world waiting on the release of the “universe-shattering” evidence. They’ll have international media, all the deputies they could possibly need, and an audience that will be all fired up and ready for the Sheriff to take down the President. It’s now or never birthers, this is it. It’s time for A/Z to put up or shut up. If they decide to go silent now and not pursue the president, then they know they have nothing and never did. The MOMENT OF TRUTH IS UPON THEM!

  39. avatar
    AGROD January 5, 2015 at 12:24 pm #

    Reading at Gerbil Report, they have a new name now for the investigation: universe shattering / gut wrenching.

    Gut wrenching is causing great mental or emotional pain. I wonder if there is a definition when you do this upon yourself?

  40. avatar
    Krosis January 5, 2015 at 12:31 pm #

    I’ve always been fascinated by the power differential between the two descriptions. Is it going to shatter the universe, or will it only wrench the gut?

  41. avatar
    bovril January 5, 2015 at 1:19 pm #

    Does the universe have a gut and if so can it be wrenched, leading to shattering, implying the Universe is brittle and inflexible…. so whither expansion…….?

  42. avatar
    Notorial Dissent January 5, 2015 at 4:39 pm #

    I think the rodentia are mixing too many metaphors for safety’s sake, they’re going to hurt themselves. Or we may wrench something laughing at them.

  43. avatar
    Nancy R Owens January 5, 2015 at 4:41 pm #

    I just called Snow’s office and they say this info is a month old and has nothing to do with the forged birth certificate.

    Jim:
    If you like conspiracy theories…

    On Thursday, Arpaio appears before Judge Murray Snow to answer to the possible contempt charges.Also on Thursday, the President will be in Phoenix to push his agenda.Who will go to jail first, Arpaio or the President?Will Falcon be there to support Arpaio, or will he be a chicken instead?

    Of course, the President may just be there to make sure Judge Snow gets it right.

    You’d think that the minions at Gerbil Report would realize that this is the perfect storm they’ve been waiting 6 long years for.The President is there, Arpaio is there, Zullo surely is somewhere nearby, and the world waiting on the release of the “universe-shattering” evidence.They’ll have international media, all the deputies they could possibly need, and an audience that will be all fired up and ready for the Sheriff to take down the President.It’s now or never birthers, this is it.It’s time for A/Z to put up or shutup.If they decide to go silent now and not pursue the president, then they know they have nothing and never did.The MOMENT OF TRUTH IS UPON THEM!

  44. avatar
    Jim January 5, 2015 at 7:55 pm #

    Nancy R Owens:
    I just called Snow’s office and they say this info is a month old and has nothing to do with the forged birth certificate.

    BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Nancy, NOTHING Arpaio has done has been about the BC, it’s always been about how Arpaio can profit Arpaio. Haven’t you learned anything yet?

  45. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG January 5, 2015 at 8:33 pm #

    So, I see that Gerbil Report has begun 2014 with a whimper.

  46. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG January 5, 2015 at 8:34 pm #

    Jim: BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!Nancy, NOTHING Arpaio has done has been about the BC, it’s always been about how Arpaio can profit Arpaio.Haven’t you learned anything yet?

    I think that only voices she listens to are the one in her head, sadly.

  47. avatar
    Rickey January 5, 2015 at 10:04 pm #

    The conversation probably went something like this.

    Nancy: Could you tell me if the Joe Arpaio hearing on Thursday is going to look into Obama’s forged birth certificate?

    Judge’s Secretary: Huh? What are you talking about?

    Nancy: Barack Obama’s forged birth certificate. I forged it. Is Judge Snow going to ask Arpaio if Mike Zullo Moore uploaded it to the White House website?

    Judge’s Secretary: You’re a forger?

    Nancy: Yes. And I killed Pablo Escobar. And a bunch of other people. But that’s not why I’m calling.

    Judge’s Secretary: Why are you calling?

    Nancy: I want to know if Obama is coming to Phoenix on Thursday to muzzle Judge Snow from asking Arpaio about the forged birth certificate?

    Judge’s Secretary: The hearing is to determine if Sheriff Arpaio should be held in contempt. it has nothing to do with President Obama’s birth certificate.

    Nancy: Who’s on first?

    Judge’s Secretary: Get some help. Goodbye.