Main Menu

Archive | April, 2010

Faux commentary

You may have seen various comments here that seem odd in that they repeat comments that have already appeared made by different people. These are spam. They attempt to appear to belong by making seemingly on-topic remarks copied from existing content.

If you see a comment by a stranger, whose NAME has a hyperlink to web site, it’s probably spam and will be deleted shortly.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.

John McCain’s fake birth certificate

I’ve written about this before, and I thought I had put it to rest. The “birth certificate” filed by Fred Hollander in the Hollander v. McCain lawsuit is a fake. It is not only a fake, but it is an obvious fake. Anybody can see that is a fake just by looking at it.

Just so everybody, “WTF?” and “Scott Brown” included will see this issue put to rest about there being a John McCain birth certificate, look and see. When you click on the image it will appear larger in your browser but the image is likely bigger than your screen. Use your browser’s magnification tool to make it full size.

McCain fake birth certificate showing obvious flaws. Click to enlarge.

Fake McCain birth certificate highlighting all the additions. Click to enlarge.

Understanding “natural born citizen”

Dr. Conspiracy

It’s one thing to dump a list of citations to try to prove a point with proof texts. I’d done some of that on this blog, but in my mind I have sincerely tried to understand what the founders of our country really thought. I read Kettner’s book, which was very helpful as well as everything I could find on the Internet. Let me share a few of my conclusions:

There has never been any distinction made between the phrase “natural born citizen” and “born a citizen” in American law or politics.

I come to this conclusion first from simply not finding any such distinction and affirmatively from language in several court cases where citizens are divided into two exclusive classes: natural born and naturalized.

And from Sugarman v. Dougall, 413 U. S. 634 (1973):

I do not believe that it is irrational for New York to require this class of civil servants to be citizens, either natural born or naturalized.

“Foreigner” doesn’t apply to someone born in the United States.

There was a good deal of “sorting out” of citizenship during and after the Revolutionary War. Continue Reading →

Mario Apuzzo’s new blog?

Mario Apuzzo

I’m sure that most readers here are familiar with Mario Apuzzo’s blog: A Place to Ask Questions to Get the Right Answers at the web address That blog is a closely controlled discussion where it has been difficult to get a critical comment through moderation. (I haven’t tried lately.)

However there appears to be another blog with the same name: A Place to Ask Questions to Get the Right Answers at the web address This blog contains articles signed “Mario Apuzzo” and articles signed “Charles Kerchner” with familiar Obama denialist content. The difference: this blog is not moderated. Continue Reading →

The Jay letter

John Jay

One of the earliest historical documents to surface in the modern discussion of the meaning of the constitutional phrase “natural born citizen” was a letter from John Jay, who would become chief justice of the US Supreme Court, to George Washington, delegate to the Constitutional Convention, who would become the first president of the United States. The letter said:

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.

Now the question is: did Jay intend to exclude George Washington himself? It hardly seems credible that Jay intended to include the very man who was the commander of the American Continental Army. Therefore, it must be the case that John Jay included George Washington among the natural born citizens.

George Washington was born in Virginia, a colony that became part of the United States. The Treaty of Paris 1783 (signed by the way by John Jay), used the concept “real British subjects” to distinguish the Loyalists from those who would become American citizens. Clearly George Washington made his choice to cast his lot with the Americans through his deeds during the war. Washington was born into Virginia society and remained with it when Virginia declared its independence and joined the United States.

What about George Washington’s father? Augustine Washington, like his son, was also a Virginia planter. When Virginia signed the Declaration of Independence, Augustine Washington signed no oath of loyalty to the new government, he did not support the war, and he did not cast his lot with the Americans. No, he had died decades before in 1743. Augustine Washington lived and died a British Subject.

So in summary: John Jay, first chief justice of the US Supreme Court, most likely considered George Washington, son of a British Subject, to be a natural born citizen of the United States. Continue Reading →

2010 Webby Awards

No, I wasn’t nominated, but (last year’s winner) was.

If you share my view that is the best political site on the web (or at least better than the other nominees), visit the Webby awards web site and vote. FactCheck is nominated under the “Politics” category.

They don’t require you to show a birth certificate, but a valid email address is required to register.