Birthers seem to be always fudging their requirements for presidential eligibility and vetting candidates. Whatever the President does, they find something else they want.
7-point program
However, one birther has given a simple, innovative 7-step checklist for vetting a President. I think this list from Gerry Nance (pictured right) that I found at the Tri-Valley Central, Arizona, web site is going to be hard to top:
- To vet a presidential candidate requires examination of the Long Form Birth Certificate or other records to confirm native birth in a State of the Union adopted under Article IV Section 3 of the US Constitution.
- Next we examine the mother’s documents to establish maternity. Adopted children are not natural born. Children of surrogate mothers or artificial methods are not legitimate births.
- Next we need to look at the father’s documents to establish paternity and preferably a legitimated birth. Children of surrogate mothers or artificial methods are not legitimate births.
- Next we need to look at immigration and naturalization of the mother to establish if prior to the birth of the child, the mother, was born or naturalized a US Citizen before the child was born. This point establishes the child is a US Citizen.
- Next we need to look at immigration and naturalization of the father to establish if prior to the birth of the child, the father, was born or naturalized a US Citizen before the child was born. This point establishes the child is a US Citizen.
- The child can only be considered a natural born citizen, if it can be proven both parents were born or naturalized US Citizens before the child was born. This may require looking at the grandparent’s birth and naturalization dates.
- Failing the two-parents being US Citizens before the birth of the child, then the child is only born or naturalized a US Citizen, and not constitutionally eligible to serve as a US President.
Seems awfully complicated. If I may suggest a simpler method.
1) Candidate must submit a current photograph.
2) If the photograph shows a white face, no further investigation is needed.
3) If the photograph shows a non-white face, the candidate must submit a birth certificate, a long form birth certificate, allow forensic document examiners to view the original vault birth certificate, submit all records from every school the candidate ever attended, and prove that he is not a Democrat.
Uh, Gerry… When did these rules start? Because not only have they never before been applied, but about 3/4 of American Presidents would fail the test.
Another racist moron bites the dust.
Just like George Romney. At least he didn’t tie a dog to the roof of his car, for 12 hours.
He did inflict the Gremlin and the Pacer on the public, which is almost as bad as the dog on the roof.
As I mentioned earlier, this is all recursive idiocy.
Agreed.
Interesting. I thought borderraven disappeared. Early on in the debate on youtube I corned him on where he got the “2 citizen parents” definition of natural born citizen. He said his undeniable source was “government issued text books in high school”.. Um yeah ok, Jerry.
Gerry has been struggling with the realization that children born on soil to (illegal) immigrants are not only born US citizens but by virtue of their birth on soil, natural born citizens as well.
He is still pondering the ridicule he will be facing the next time he attends an immigration rally.
I am surprised he didn’t think of any other medical procedure to exclude others from being natural born citizens. His absurdness knows no bounds. Maybe he should for once actually read the law.
Well, there are c-section births which are obviously not natural born…
8). If the candidate meets the all the other requirements and we don’t like him, we make up other requirements.
Be bloody, bold, and resolute; laugh to scorn
The power of man, for none of woman born
Shall harm Macbeth.
Despair thy charm,
And let the angel whom thou still hast served
Tell thee, Macduff was from his mother’s womb
Untimely ripp’d.
Darn! Not having been born in a State of the Union, I’m not a natural-born citizen. I had always thought I was, but now I see that I fail point number one of the program. I have difficulty fathoming why those of us born in our nation’s capital have to be disqualified, but I don’t make the rules. Someone should tell Al Gore.
Ever get the impression birthers don’t really think things trough?
I don’t know why we stop with the mediate birth parents. Grandparents, too, need to be U.S. citizens. Just see Gertrude Stein’s treatise The Making of Americans. Of course, the truth of natural law she reveals is that Americans are made, not born. One can only conclude, therefore, that the only Americans eligible to be president are Native Americans. It’s right in the name, you see. Calling them American Indians was always part of the conspiracy to keep them from receiving acknowledgement of their native natural born status.
WHAAAAA???
Gerry’s a SLACKER. My goodness. What about the paternity test to ensure that the candidate’s claimed father was the actual sperm donor?
If paternity can’t be proven, then obviously the real dad could’ve been Vladimir Pootin, Mao Zedung, Adolph Hitler. Or a Joo.
Good grief. What kind of slackers are they turning out these days?
No, no. NATIVE Americans are not eligible. Only NATURAL Americans.
But in the late 1700’s natural also meant illegitmate as in this discussion from John Adams diary,
“M. Marbois asked, are natural children admitted in America to all privileges like children born in wedlock ? I answered, They are not admitted to the rights of inheritance; but their fathers may give them estates by testament, and they are not excluded from other advantages. ” In France,” said M. Marbois, ” they are not admitted into the army nor any office in government.” I said, they were not excluded from commissions in the army, navy, or state, but they were always attended with a mark of disgrace. M. Marbois said this, no doubt, in allusion to Mr. F.’s natural son, and natural son of a natural son.”
So maybe only illegitmate children can be President.
This way only Caesars, Emperors and Zcars are born …..
Before it is forgotten:
Borderraven / Gerry Nance is much better in taking pictures of underage girls on the beach than in Constitutional Law. The season for this is just starting ….
Shorter version: No n*gg**s.
That someone would even go to the trouble to write drivel like that down is depressing.
I;m going to repost this because that’s where the problem lies:
http://www.thegrio.com/politics/picture-of-anti–obama-campaign-bumper-sticker-goes-viral.php
Well that settles it then. It’s a good thing for Barack Obama that his father was a bigamist (thus nullifying his mother’s marriage).
Gerry Nance: When are you going to demand this of Willard Mitt Romney? His father was born in Mexico, purportedly to US citizens.
I’m waiting.
8. Long form birth certificates must be authenticated by sheriff Arpaio’s posse and World Net Daily
There are obviously many problems with this list, but I’m fascinated by this idea of being born by artificial means.
Is he saying that children produced as a result of any sort of fertility treatment are ineligible for natural-born citizenship? What about children who survived a difficult/dangerous pregnancy through excellent medical intervention, as if things had been left to nature mother and/or mother and child would have died? Are they also “born of artificial means”?
Did long-form birth certificates exist when the Constitution was written?
Not only that, Mitt’s purported birthplace is within a few minutes drive by bridge or tunnel of a foreign country. No passport was needed in those days; just a driver”s license. Unlike Sarah Palin seeing Russia from her house, you really could see Canada from Mitt’s.
No, only computer-generatted abstracts…
Millions of Americans are the result of alcohol and poor judgement.
I wonder if he knows that Newt Gingrich is adopted.
But he’s white, so there’s probably an exception somewhere.
And Gerald Ford and Bill Clinton.
i found an interesting link from the usma regarding citizenship of military children born “abroad” and some to foreign mothers/fathers
have the birthers addressed this scenario?
one line from the section entitled: “Children born overseas to one American parent, one foreign citizen” is
“In most cases, the U.S. citizen parent can simply go to the nearest American embassy or consulate and apply for a U.S. passport for the child.”
under “Children born overseas to two American parents”:
Additionally, if your son or daughter was born on a military post overseas, it might still be possible for him or her to become President of the United States. The Constitution requires the President to be a “natural born citizen” of the United States, but the Supreme Court has never decided the precise meaning of that term.
http://www.usma.edu/PublicAffairs/PV/020419/MLaw.htm
Gerry probably could use the 12 point program, more thann the 7 point one.
“The child can only be considered a natural born citizen, if it can be proven both parents were born or naturalized US Citizens before the child was born. This may require looking at the grandparent’s birth and naturalization dates.
Failing the two-parents being US Citizens before the birth of the child, then the child is only born or naturalized a US Citizen, and not constitutionally eligible to serve as a US President.”
What a complete load of BS!
Page not found.
He left off the part about needing a Y chomosome. Jedi Pauly will not be pleased.
Wow, until I read the comments here, I assumed this was a satire piece. This is Borderraven? What a piece of work.
made me laugh.
other than chester arthur can you name 2
Curly, Larry and Moe.
Here’s a quick refutation for his #2 (pun intended).
“2. Next we examine the mother’s documents to establish maternity. Adopted children are not natural born. Children of surrogate mothers or artificial methods are not legitimate births.”
Gerald Ford and Bill Clinton
Aren’t about 50% of births outside of marriage these days? Can you imagine the colossal stupidity of the endless discussions involved if it were accepted that legitimate children were the “preferred” choice when picking a president?
All Presidents so far fail Gerry’s test, because none ever proved where they were born or whether their parents were citizens. Obama comes closest as he has proven #1-4. As far as the rest of them, they proved zip.
They changed the url for some reason:
http://www.thegrio.com/politics/picture-of-anti–obama-campaign-bumper-sticker-goes-viral.php
Fortunately for the country, GN doesn’t make the the rules either.
right, i was just thinking about the 2 citizen parent rule
I believe that we should go back to the only definition of natural Born citizen ever given in law. Birth abroard to 2 citizen parents, as given in the 1790 naturalisation act.
Therefore, John McCain is the only legal president we have ever had,after the grandfather clause. Aside from Thomas Jefferson, who is still living as a vampire and was the real President for 200 years. Damn french and their unholy deseases. Ah well at least he sparkles in the sunlight.
The 2 citizen parent rule of Leo Donofrio, the self-proclaimed authority of all U.S. laws?
Given that in general birth certificates were not generally kept as state records until 1900 or so, I’d say for the first hundred years of this nation’s existence, none of the Presidents save those covered by the “…at the time of the adoption of the Constitution” clause fail the first part of the test.
There have also been a number of adopted Presidents.
The fact of the matter is, the birther issue is the thin end of the wedge used by white racist as part of a larger effort to prevent the growing non-white minorities from voting.
I understand there are now new voter suppression law in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas which specifically targets Hispanics.
The Justice Department is trying to block the new Texas law, but Texas is fighting back, not only challenging the Justice Department on the merits of its decision, but arguing that its action is an unconstitutional infringement on states’ rights.
Jonathan Chait, in a recent New York magazine piece entitled “2012 or Never,” wrote, “the nonwhite proportion of the electorate grows by about half a percentage point—meaning that in every presidential election, the minority share of the vote increases by 2 percent, a huge amount in a closely divided country. (…) By 2020, nonwhite voters should rise from a quarter of the 2008 electorate to one third. In 30 years, nonwhites will outnumber whites.”
The bitrher “logic” is at the core of this movement, trying to justify the following equation:
All voters are Americans
No Hispanics are Americans
No voter is Hispanic
QED.
This IMHO is the larger context which explains Apuzzo, Donofrio et al.
Have you been smoking Minor v Happersett again?
Suranis: I believe that we should go back to the only definition of natural Born citizen ever given in law. Birth abroard to 2 citizen parents, as given in the 1790 naturalisation act.
WOW
so wong ISN’T precedent?
remember that on march 7th, judge gordon (APPOINTED by REPUBLICAN governor jan brewer in ARPAIO’S arizona) ruled that
1) Barack Obama is a natural born citizen.
2) US v Wong Kim Ark is binding precedent.
3) Minor v Happersett is irrelevant to the president’s status as a natural born citizen.
he even mentioned ankeny v REPUBLICAN governor mitch daniels (who wrote a memorandum)
Judge Gordon ordered:
“But even assuming that the current challenge falls within this Court’s purview to decide, there are indispensible parties, most notably Arizona’s Secretary of State, who has not been named in the lawsuit. See A.R.S. 16-344(A), (B). Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co., 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986 (1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. See United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702-03 (1898) (addressing U. S. Const. amend. XIV); Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678, 684-88 (Ind. App. 2010) (addressing the precise issue). Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”
perhaps we should go BACK to what Epperly said in ak ….. WOMEN are NOT eligible to hold ANY office –
12/20/2010 Quote:
It appears that Lisa Murkowski has received the majority of votes cast, but there is a problem — Lisa Murkowski is not qualified for the Office of U.S. Senator as she is not a citizen of the United States under Article I of the Constitution for the United States.
Enclosed is a “Proclamation” declaring the political privileges of candidates to hold public offices of the United States. The “Proclamation” shows that U.S. Congress has never made provisions in the U.S. Constitution for women or non-white citizens to hold public offices.
I’m sowwy Doc. *shamefaced*
Donna, I was joking. That act was overruled in 1795. Their intent was to confer NBC status to the children born abroad, but they realised that they had accidently fixed it so that only people born outside the US to 2 citizen parents, and nopoby born on US soil could be president at all. So they overruled the decision.
Dont tell me I’ve started another stupid birther meme…
Oh and the precident was actually the 1610 Calvins case. The 14th amendment was just declatory of existing law as said at the time. As minor said “In common law, which the framers were familiar…” That means that MInor said they used english comon law. 3 guesses what english common law said?
lol
SORRY!!!
3 guesses and the 1st 2 DON’T COUNT?
Does that mean we need to exhume Ron Paul’s Parents? And Newt’s?
Do we need to dig up Newt’s Step Dad too?
“2. Next we examine the mother’s documents to establish maternity…Adopted children are not natural born.”
As explained here: http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/2009/06/famous-willards.html
Unfortunately, yes. Birthers want to be consistent, right?
misha: Birthers want to be consistent, right?
gee i WOULD HOPE SO
but i don’t see it
SOME have said that after the convention the birthers will look into the gop candidate
for consistency, there were all of these ballot challenges to keep obama off the ballot BEFORE the convention
the gop convention is on 8/30 before the 11/6 election
when would there be time (in birtherstan) to select another (natural born) candidate?
it is IMPOSSIBLE to think of any reason, other than the OBVIOUS, why there is NO CONSISTENCY
a photo of obama points to the ONLY OBVIOUS reason
They’re only consistent in bigotry.
Mr. Nance’s “natural born citizen” standards are analogous to the Nazi standards used to determine Aryan ancestry and hence qualified to enter all kinds of fun organizations such as the S.S. I always wanted the United States to be more like Nazi Germany. Our leaders should be required to prove beyond doubt the purity of their “Americanism” for at least two generations just as Mr. Nance suggests. Hey – maybe we can have the proven “pure americans” carry a certificate whereas all us “not natural borns” should have to wear some kind of insignia on their clothes – or better yet a tattoo on their arms. After all, we can’t be too careful.
I guess not entirely. He did let the borderraven.com domain expire.
Gerry Nance looks exactly like the South Park kids when they stayed up for weeks playing World of Warcraft and got all greasy, pimply and bloated.
I bet when he looks in the mirror, though, he sees the Scion of the Master Race.
Every President who had no Birth Certificate and whose parents had no documentation. Easily 3/4 of US Presidents.
Thanks for playing.
Epic South Park reference, and one of their best episodes.
That list was hysterical………..it was really very funny, cause this guy is joking, right? I mean, he has to be…..nothing else regarding that list makes an ounce of sense!
Post of the month!!!!
Another great post……
…you people are killing me!!!
Hey Doc,
A necessary premise for one Birther theory of Natural Born Citizenship, (of that status being incompatible with having a Father who at the time of a usurper’s birth, was judged a citizen of another nation,) is that the forbidden “contamination” arises because we must honor the letter and calculus of that other nation’s laws in declaring the usurper’s father is in fact their citizen as the usurper emerges from the womb.
Under this theory, the detailed history of every allegedly “naturalized” father of a President would have to be meticulously checked for verifiable, verifying proof that each said father not only satisfied the requirements for United States naturalization before his usurper-to-be son was born, but that said father had also met the specific legal requirements established by his original nation for officially losing that previous citizenship, whatever those laws might require BEYOND SIMPLY RENOUNCING SAID PRIOR CITIZENSHIP as part of a required United States legal ceremony.
Not all nations have always had laws declaring that simply achieving naturalization in another country legally cancels ones citizenship from said nation. Indeed, that is the current U.S. position; like some other nations, a U.S. Citizen does not automatically lose their citizenship by being naturalized elsewhere – no matter what sort of personal renunciation of U.S Citizenship the other nation’s naturalizing procedures require. An American citizen must appear before an American Consul in a foreign country and renounce his American Citizenship by our legal procedure, or he’s still an American Citizen.
Thus, “respect” for the power of another nation’s citizenship declaring laws must include respect for that nation’s right to say by what legal process such citizenship ends, just as “respect” for that foreign nation’s citizenship declaring laws argues such foreign countries statutes determine when such citizenship begins.
So Birthers, let’s see proof every naturalized father of an American President legally satisfied his original nation’s requirements for losing their citizenship (beyond the US naturalization’s requirement of personal renunciation), BEFORE the President was born!
Benji Franklin
I could be wrong, but that appears to be a confederate flag behind Gerry.
I guess we should consider the fact that in some countries, the grandchildren of citizens are considered citizens. That means even in the case of a completely naturalized father, purged of all foreign citizenship, the child could still be a citizen of another country and tainted by a “foreign influence” so strong as to make him ineligible for the presidency.
Birthers are hypersensitive to such thing.
Satire will have the “fiction” tag at the end (assuming of course that it’s not me that has been punked).
I’ve only been able to find the cropped version of that photo. It might not even be a flag at all.
You forgot a step, how about including a look at the actual state-issue birth certificate? Why even think about looking at the original when you haven’t even been given proof that a copy actually exists? Where’s the hardcopy? Nowhere. It does not exist. Only print-outs of the counterfeit.
You missed the significance of your own post. A child who is “natural” is one whose relationship to his father is outside of human legal approval. He needs no law, no statute, no permission to be what he is because he is one’s son by nature, without the need of law to make it so. Similarly, to be eligible to be President one must be a natural American without any law officially legitimizing his citizenship because it is by nature and not by law, nor Act, nor Amendment. He is not adopted by law, nor legitimized by law but he is the natural off-spring via the natural principle of an inherited blood connection.
Also, “the rights of inheritance” do not refer to legal rights via a will, but to natural rights of inheritance which require no will, only a legal blood connection of the proper nature.
Barack Obama is not a natural son of America but is one by adoption, by permission, by law, by administrative policy, but not by nature. Without law behind his citizenship it would not exist because he is not a natural son of American parents and in need of no law to make him a citizen.
Anyone who wants to read the preeminent list of facts that determine one’s U.S. citizenship status needs to read my simple Citizenship Primer A-Z It’s literally A thru Z -26 points.
THE SIMPLE FACTS OF CITIZENSHIP from A to Z pdf
The only problem here is that your list is an opinion, not a fact.
The fact is: it doesn’t matter who your parents are if you are born in the US.
You may not agree with me, but all those conservative chief justices do.
Maybe you should educate them on US law?
What have you been smoking? The 1790 Act never used the word “only” in regard to the Americans born abroad being natural born citizens. It didn’t declare them to be the only NBCs. It’s purpose was to rectify the oversight in the Constitution of failing to clarity the status of Americans born abroad. So not being able to just whip-up a constitutionaly amendment to fix it, they simply stuck language into the Act so that the boneheads in the immigation service would know that they must not be treated as foreigners, and at the same time they should be recognized as being ofn no different nature than their brethren born in the homeland.
simple < 26 points
this is simple.
Man have you ever fallen into a fantasy of your own mind’s making. The citizenship of a foreign father is most probably going to be natural citizenship via natural law and doesn’t need there to be any law bestowing it anymore than there is in the United States. It is automatic because it’s by nature.
The only way to sever the connection to their foreign national baggage is through naturalization, -whereby one must take the Oath of Allegiance and Renunciation, thereby ending their natural allegiance and obedience to their homeland’s government. The position of the homeland government, visa a vi the immigrant’s citizenship is irrelevant to the U.S. government, like it doesn’t exist. It is not even in the picture.
Having dual citizenship is not a problem for the naturalized citizen in regard to presidential eligibility because they are already ineligible, or did you forget that fact? And it matters not to their children who are eligible because having American parents is all that’s required to be a natural American.
So without your realizing it, you were too clever by half. Your cleverness outwitted your accuracy about the facts.
So you can read minds now? You know what “all those conservative justices” think? Absurd. And I should educate them but not on U.S. law. The zillions of word that I’ve penned on natural citizenship would help to educate them about that which they’ve never had to seriously study nor contemplate, but I’ve done it for them. How? Not by studying U.S. law because it is not related to U.S. law, not now, and not back then before U.S. law was even written because there was no Congress nor any Supreme Court, nor any Constitution. Natural citizenship pre-dates the United States because it’s based on a principle that is over a billion years old, namely the law of natural membership. see A MAN CALLED “HORSE” & A MAN CALLED “PRESIDENT” http://h2ooflife.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/a-man-called-president.pdf
Not so, the only taint of foreigness is through direct blood connection, meaning in particular, a foreign father, NOT grandparents. They are not a direct connection. They are therefore irrelevant. People are not raised by their grandfathers anyway (with certain exceptions) so their national allegiance is not a direct influence especially if it’s to a foreign nation.
But I take exception to “completely naturalized father” since there is no such thing as a partially naturalized father, and even naturalization does not “purge” one of foreign citizenship, nor roots in a foreign nation. But the children of naturalized immigrants have only American roots and are therefore eligible to be President.
Barack Obama would be such an exception, raised by his grandparents largely and by his father not at all.
I think this above says it all. 😉
FIFY.
. . . are bizarre, irrelevant fantasies and vile, xenophobic bigotry.
Can you cite any publications in human genetics that show that genes are not passed down in a direct ancestral line from grandparents and earlier generations? In fact, all humans directly trace their DNA to a founder population of perhaps a few thousand invidviduals who arose in East Africa around 30,000 years ago and spread throughout Eurasia and Australia, and, during the last ice age, when sea levels fell, across the Bering Straight land bridge and into the Americas.
All humans are one race and one citzenship. The lines on the map that delineate countries are pure human constructs under the laws of nature. In nature, there are no “Americans” or “Kenyans” or “Chinese”, but simply humans who happen by accident to inhabit one or another place.
Be careful.
You’re going to blow Nash’s mind who will then crap a trillion more useless racist rants into a blog and then cite them endlessly as authority.
There is a tiny flaw in your otherwise compelling argument. You see, Adrien Nash probably believes in the Archbishop of Armagh, James Ussher, who calculated that the Earth was created in 4004 BC.
It used to be traditional in some places for children to be rasied by their grandparents who were too old to work while the parents went out and worked. And grandparents would take the kids off the mother hands, would act as babysitters etc.worldwide.
My grandmother (mother’s side) took care of me and my younger sister till she passed. She was VERY strict. (spare the rod, spoil the child)
Whooped both of us into shape (no pun intended).
“…I should educate them but not on U.S. law. The zillions of word that I’ve penned on natural citizenship would help to educate them…” –Adruen Nash
OK. That does it. That is the single most conceited, egotistical thing I have ever read. Mr. Nash, knowing no Law at all, is going to “educate” the SCOTUS.
OMG doesn’t even cover it.
Don’t worry… Gerry’s wearing Confederate Flag Depends.
The Birth Certificate vault copy exists. It’s your brain that doesn’t.
Majority, I’m waiting for your book
FIFY Sense:
My Life in Comments
It will be an e-book with easy line drawings for coloring.
Shrub is having his autobiography signing at Toys Я Us. It’s a pop-up book.
Where do I preorder?
8. The candidate must allow his teenaged daughters to be filmed by Gerry Nance. Gerry must be allowed to post the videos on youtube and keep multiple copies.
With the precogs, of course.
That was in step 3, right after the first comma. Barack Obama produced a state issued birth certificate because he was black; no other president ever did.
I am amused of Birthers like Adrien treating foreignness as some sort of disease. No, that’s not racist, not at all. And if you say it is, you’re calling someone a racist for disagreeing with Obama.
It’s just “natural,” you know.
Adrien Nash: Narcissistic, aren’t we? .”And I should educate them ( the Supreme Court justices) but not on U.S. law. The zillions of word that I’ve penned on natural citizenship would help to educate them about that which they’ve never had to seriously study nor contemplate, but I’ve done it for them.”
This collection of nine justces, most of whom graduated at or near the top of their elite law schools, and made law review, should be educated by YOU? First off, they’d
never give you a moment’s attention for your out-of-this-world “scholarship.”
And second, why should they?
Reread Robert Burns’ To a Louse:
“O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!”
Now that is an antidote to birtherism. If taken with a glass of water, for a birther. If not, for the rest of us to et a breath of fresh air! One of my favorite quotes, by the way. Thanks.
Only I doubt Nash will understand what the quote is saying, since he clearly cannot understand the basic “born on US soil = natural born citizen” rule.
So, by birther logic, every law that was signed by those Presidents is Null & Void?
Gingrich was born Newton McPherson, Ford was born Leslie Lynch King, Jr., and Clinton was born William Blythe. It’s all explained here:
http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/2009/06/famous-willards.html
Since the Constitution was ratified, deciding which principles determine the Constitutional meaning of “Natural Born Citizenship” is a power reserved for the judiciary normally, and on certain occasions by the Congress when certifying the results of a Presidential election.
A private citizen who announces that the legal and authoritative interpretation of Article 2 must conform to his own notion of imaginary and transcending rules said by him to predate the Constitution and over-ride the judiciary’s disagreeing lawful interpretation of Article Two, is simply trying to usurp the Constitutional authority of the judiciary. The Framers did not intend, nor will We The People stand for any self-appointed genius dictating to us what the Constitution must mean and how that meaning must then be applied to have a legal effect which disenfranchises our right to have such matters decided Constitutionally by the Judiciary.
Your entire premise is contradictory because you want a matter of Constitutional law to be determined unconstitutionally – not just by anyone according to any premise – but by YOU! You make the Sovereign Citizen movement look tame – you imagine you ARE a sovereign Nation.
Well, you’re not our sovereign nation! We’re a republic. One-person nations like you can only be a democracy.
Benji Franklin
Thomas Brown:
The brain that’s missing is the one that can’t comprehend what it reads. I didn’t even address the archive document. How’d you misconstrue the point that no “COPY” exists? I didn’t address any original. If even a copy doesn’t exist and can’t be shown to any inquiring mind, then it’s very logical that a counterfeit was produced because no original exists. When one says “state-issued” it is in reference to a state-issued copy. Originals are not issued, they’re produced, -produced if one’s birth is in a hospital, which wasn’t the case with Obama. No one knows where he was born. He might not even know but that would be rather unlikely.
Like most of your drivel, that’s a lie. You have no shame.
I still prefer Borderraven’s wheels-within-wheels approach. Crazy is alway better when it requires 3D viewing. And all those concentric spheres make such beautiful music. Like a symphony of birther screeches!
Your statement is a lie, sir, I was personally present at Barack Obama’s birth at Kapiolani Hospital in Honolulu. He was a very cute baby and I knew he would be someone special.
Adrien Nash is a liar.
As I’ve unsuccessfully pointed out to you, U.S. federal law didn’t exist when “natural born citizen” was placed into the Constitution, so you can take it all and flush it down the toilet when it comes to understanding that term. Understanding it is not dependent on U.S. law but on an understanding of the English language and the natural order of things. THE THINGS OF NATURE & THE NATURE OF THINGS pdf
And for those who appreciate poetry, here’s something that you’ve never seen before, nor has any one else for that matter: verses 15-18: The Fate That You Make
You make mistakes and wisdom comes after,
-you don’t even think about what’s in store.
You fail to ask yourself “What am I doing
and are there warnings I should not ignore?”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You’re shaping your life by your choices today
and suff’ring follows when there’s pipers to pay.
So notice the things that you ought to discern
to avoid the lessons you ought to not learn,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Peace…or pain are in the courses you take.
Life…or death are in the choices you make.
So always think twice, and always be smart,
-think with your head, -not just your heart.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For better or worse…for bitter or sweet,
consider the future and all that’s at stake.
Blessing or curse…success or defeat
are the lasting result of the fate that you make.
by adrien nash copyright april 2010
Idiotic drivel.
Your amusement should be directed not to anyone living today but to the authors of the Constitution and their concerns about the son of a loyalist becoming Commander-in-Chief. Everything written about foreigness is strictly an expression of their concerns, not the concerns of today. But it’s like time is not a continum in your mind, -yesterday, -today,…what’s the difference? Apparently you aren’t very adept at recognizing that all that matters is what they thought because they wrote the Constitution, not you nor I.
I have better things to do than to respond to someone who can’t tell the difference between racism and ethno-centrism. That level of obliviousness belongs to 7 year olds, not adults.
Umm.. actually, it’s not the “English language and the natural order of things” that’s dependent on understanding the term. It’s the “English common law” that you need to understand it. Look up “Blackstone’s Commentaries” for a hint as to what the founders were saying when they put that in the Constitution.
Obviously not and your inane fantasies over who can be a natural born citizen is nothing more than poorly disguised racism.
Adrien,
Since the presidency isn’t a natural occurrence, natural law doesn’t matter here.
Just like your self-written rules.
The plain fact is that what you consider truth is all in your head.
No one follows your rules because you really don’t matter.
Life goes on without you… naturally.
More charismatic racists than you have put words in the mouths of the Founding Fathers to suit their needs. It’s awfully convenient that they (the Founding Fathers) are all too dead to defend themselves. I guess we’ll just have to rely on the still alive judges and lawyers with real law degrees and years of experience.
Dear PhoxarRed, once again you distort the facts as you always have by claiming that I’m claiming that what I’ve written has the force of law. That is patently false, as is evident to anyone who can read and comprehend.
“A private citizen who announces that the legal and authoritative interpretation of Article 2 must conform to his own notion …”
Let’s be clear in order to expose your ulterior motive in this matter, I’ve never announced anything as being “the legal & authoritative interpretation”. I’ve asserted quite clearly what the correct interpretation is, but never asserted that it had any legally binding or judicial authority backing it. The authority that backs it is the rule of of the meaning of words, and what they relate to, and what their origins are.
No one has ever disputed the facts I’ve pointed out in that regard because you can’t dispute facts.
But I know that you just can’t resist setting up that straw man so you can righteously knock it down and feel good about yourself for appearing to be defending the Constitution when in fact you only care about protecting your “precious” interpretation of what NBC means in your fertile imagination.
There is no Constitution in Nature. Nor a United States. They are pure human inventions. Fictions.
Does a moose need a passport to cross from Maine into New Brunswick? Simple question. Requires yes or no. Adriien can’t answer it…
Adrien Nash: You claim to like poetry, but yours is frankly the worst drivel I have ever read (and that’s saying something). Try this:
Imagine there’s no countries
It isn’t hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people living life in peace
You, you may say
I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one
I hope some day you’ll join us
And the world will be as one
John Lennon, RIP
Not only have I seen all of this before, it’s bad poetry. My diagnosis is that it is made worse, like most if not all of your writing and thinking, by your ego.
If you just use that Google search bar (or whichever company’s search bar), you’ll find endless versions of these ideas, much better said, with much healthier intent. You could also just go to a church, synagogue or mosque to find these sentiments. Aesop’s fables even.
Do you have anyone in your life who can help you, stand up to you, hold you accountable to human relationship? I would urge you to reach out. You are not unique, and you are not alone.
Your ego deserves no quarter, but your humanity is begging you to “notice the things that you ought to discern” and “all that’s at stake.”
Q.E.D. I rest my case; you have adequately and definitively demonstrated your brainlessness.
That’s correct. We are not a democracy; we are a republic.
Just like a thousand inane responses before that one, if my life depended on finding the slightest glimmer of fact or principle that you’ve presented to rebut anything I’ve written, then I’d surely be dead. All empty words, -like smoke that can’t be attacked head-on because it’s just a vapor. But in your case I’ll call it more than a vapor, it’s more like halitosis. It’s offensive but it’s not a fist of counter-logic, nor counter-opinion, nor counter-facts. It’s just a stinky foul wind that comes out of one or more of your orifices.
(now that was a pleasure to write and laugh over, so I have you to thank for inspiring it. Thanx, no one ever gets a chance to actually talk like that but this medium makes it possible to write that way.)
How about you answer my question about the moose? I’m very persistent and won’t stop insisting.
Here’s a hint: I once canoed from Miinnesota into Ontario and back. Same forest, same lakes, same blackflies, same moose…
I don’t understand. It seems that Adrien Nash is equating the laws of what constitutes a natural born citizen for purposes of who is eligible to be President of the United States with the laws of science and nature itself. As if defining a natural born citizen through legislation is as impossible as defining which direction objects move when you drop them.
I want to repeat for emphasis: I was a kibbutznik. Take religion out of the ME, and watch what happens. Settlers steal from Arabs, egged on by evangelicals.
Orly Taitz does not believe in democracy, and neither does her soulmate Lieberman.
It’s xenophobia on parade. There’s no cure.
For better or worse…for bitter or sweet,
consider the future and all that’s at stake.
Blessing or curse…success or defeat
are the lasting result of the fate that you make.
by adrien nash copyright april 2010
When Adrien Nash starts his squawking
A ventriloquist’s dummy is talking
Up his rear is a hand
And his head’s full of sand
But it’s second-hand nonsense he’s hawking
Yes:
http://www.livingabroad.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Yellow_moose_cover-copy-232×300.jpg
The Pernicious “Natural Born” Clause of the Constitution:
Why Immigrants Like Governors Schwarzenegger and Granholm Ought to be Able to Become Presidents
By JOHN W. DEAN
Friday, Oct. 08, 2004
(excerpt) It’s High Time to Amend The Natural Born Clause
The fact that public servants like Henry Kissinger, and Madeline Albright can serve as Secretary of State, but not President of the United States, is inane. And the fact that Governors like Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jennifer Granholm can’t run for president is outrageous.
It will never be known how many potentially great presidents have never even aspired to the office because of the constitutional prohibition. Show me a person who believes that the natural born qualification clause should remain in the Constitution, and I will show you a bigot, pure and simple.
What is most remarkable about this provision is that it has taken so long to remove it. There is hope, however.
This week the Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings on a constitutional amendment that would remove the naturalborn qualification. On July 10, 2003, Senator Orrin Hatch (R. UT) introduced the proposed amendment as Senate Joint Resolution 15.
His proposal did get a day of hearings (which are available online at the Judiciary Committee’s site, and include a statement by FindLaw columnist Akhil Reed Amar). It is not clear how seriously this matter – which has been raised in a rump session – is being taken. But even having the amendment considered is encouraging.
The Hatch proposal is very simple:
SECTION 1. A person who is a citizen of the United States, who has been for 20 years a citizen of the United States, and who is otherwise eligible to the Office of President, is not ineligible to that Office by reason of not being a native born citizen of the United States.
SECTION 2. This article shall not take effect unless it has been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States not later than 7 years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.
There is no real opposition to this proposed constitutional amendment. Still, it will be very difficult to get it adopted. There is a reason our constitution has only been amended twenty-seven times.
But suppose a team like Schwarzenegger, Granholm, Kissinger and Albright joined forces — not for themselves but for others that will follow – in lobbying for this much-needed Amendment. If so, the attention and action necessary to change the law might be mustered.
It is certainly long past time to remove the “natural born” clause from our Constitution. As long as it persists, our Constitution conflicts with our own Statute of Liberty – which welcomes immigrants wholly, while the Constitution shuns them for our highest office in the land.
(http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20041008.html)
Note: Secretary of State is fourth in line under the United States presidential line of succession.
Poetry . . . truth that rhymes.
It takes neither mattock or pryer
To expose Mr. Nash as a liar.
Just pick at his words
And the way that yearns
To make them mean what they aren’t.
Adrien Nash is a liar
I’m flattered that Adrien choose to use more words than I did to say my post didn’t matter. 🙂
Not true. Obama’s Kenya BC is on the web for everyone to see.
Who cares about federal law? Havent you read that sentance you cling to from Minor?
That means that the framers looked at English common law for their definition of natural Born Citizen
No mention of natural law there either.
So if you are right MINOR is wrong.
Are you talking about the smoke monster in LOST? *confused*
Some liars are born to be analyzed
Some liars, born elsewhere, get naturalized.
Sometimes a liar gets civilized
And some who tell lies have been cannonized.
But Addy is none of these types,
For his lies come to him when he types.
Thank God, there’s no option for Skype
Or we’d have to see his rotten, lying face.
Adrien Nash, is a copyrighted liar.
Maybe you are as clueless as your question but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are asking “tongue-in-check” about a moose and a passport. But I have some serious questions for you and the others here, questions which may alter your zeitgeit if it’s not frozen in place.
They’re from a new essay I wrote today titled “Tom, Dick & Harry But Not My Son?” It explains the purpose behind the NBC statement in the Naturalization Act of 1790. It opens a window and shines light on that which no one has previously explained adequately. It will open your eyes unless you’re doggedly determine to keep them shut no matter what. These questions conclude the essay:
The absurdity of the view that American children born to American parents outside of American borders are not natural Americans is illuminated by a simple series of questions which are being asked from the time perspective of 1790 when U.S. law was just beginning to be written.
1. Is John McCain a U.S. citizen? If so, by what law? U.S. Citizenship Law, Naturalization Law, or Natural Law?
2. Is Barack Obama a U.S. citizens? If so, by what law? U.S. Citizenship Law, Naturalization Law or Natural Law?
3. Is John McCain a natural citizen? If so, by what principle?
4. Is Barack Obama a Born Citizen? If so, by what principle?
5. Is John McCain a Born Citizen? If so, by what principle?
6. Is Barack Obama a natural citizen? If so, by what principle?
7. Can one who is not a natural citizen be a natural born citizen?
8. Can one who is not a natural citizen be a born citizen?
The true answers to these questions betray the falsity of the belief that Barack Obama is eligible to be President because they reveal the false logic by which he is proclaimed to be so. The answers will tie your mind in knots if you erroneously base your assumptions on man-made law instead of natural principles.
I’ll answer the last question for you. The answer is yes, because one who is a born citizen via permission of the government, born to foreign parents, is not a natural citizen because natural citizens are citizens without the permission of the government (which possesses no authority to grant it nor revoke it). [Does anyone dare dispute this fact? Have at it.]…….silence…….
Tom, Dick & Harry But Not My Son?
Ask yourself the following question from the time frame of the 1790s, and it will illuminate your mind by the absence of any answer: By what law are you an American citizen? Only those born to foreigners would have an answer. It would be found in a naturalization act , or perhaps in State constitutions. Those born to Americans do not because there is no such thing as “Citizenship Law”. Congress was given no authority to create such law.
Those who have an answer are not eligible to be President, while those without an answer are eligible because they are “les indigenes ou les naturels” -the natives, i.e. -the natural citizens of the country. Only they are natural born and free of any attachments of subjection to any foreign power. So the answers to the question: “By what law are you an American citizen? ” is: “none”, unless you’re one of the relatively few born to foreign parents, meaning legal immigrants.
by a.r. nash march 2012 http://obama–nation.com.
* If your child is not born at home, in your house and under your authority, does that make it not legitimately yours? The question is as absurd as the one regarding the “not at home” referring to being outside of the authority of your government. That changes nothing. Your child is automatically your child and a member of your family even if not born at home. Likewise, your child is automatically a child of America and a member of the American family, -a natural citizen, even if not born in the homeland because one’s national connection is passed via blood connection just like it is with one’s family connection.
It’s naturally transmitted automatically for natural children as well as naturalized children. As soon as a father is naturalized, his children through him, are also automatically naturalized because he is subject to American federal authority and they are subject to his, so they are indirectly also subject to American authority and are naturalized through their blood connection to him. That is the truth about born citizens and natural born citizens.
My name is Adrien Nash, and I’ve been lying and talking nonsense since 2009.
I can answer all of your questions. There are no citizens, since the US does not exist nor do any other nations. They are all fictions under natural law which recognizes only the human species. If a group of humans living in a particular geographic area needs to select a leader to manage day-to-day affairs,they do it by voting for the one they feel is best suited. In nature there are no restictions on who can be chosen as leader.
Well Borderraven, I’ve come up with my own 7 rules that I think I could get everyone to agree to…people caught taking pics of kids’ private parts through their bathing suits and then posting the pics on the web should::
1) Be stripped of their citizenship
2) Lose their Naval pension
3) Not be allowed to collect disability
4) Not be allowed to live in any town/community where kids reside
5) Walk around with a big red ‘P’ (Pervert) emblazoned on their forehead
6) Be horse-whipped 10 times by each parent whose child was violated
7) Be only allowed to work in city dumps, where they can get their food and drink
I think I could get these passed a lot easier than you could get your 7!
Nance is such a loser!!!
Still no answer about the moose, Adrien. Yes or no? Even someone as foolish as you can type yes or no. Do nations exist?
MACBETH
Thou losest labor.
As easy mayst thou the intrenchant air
With thy keen sword impress as make me bleed.
Let fall thy blade on vulnerable crests;
I bear a charmèd life, which must not yield
To one of woman born.
MACDUFF
Despair thy charm,
And let the angel whom thou still hast served
Tell thee, Macduff was from his mother’s womb
Untimely ripped.
MACBETH
Accursèd be that tongue that tells me so,
For it hath cowed my better part of man!
And be these juggling fiends no more believed,
That palter with us in a double sense,
That keep the word of promise to our ear,
And break it to our hope. I’ll not fight with thee.
MACDUFF
Then yield thee, coward,
And live to be the show and gaze o’ th’ time.
We’ll have thee, as our rarer monsters are,
Painted on a pole, and underwrit,
“Here may you see the tyrant.”
The oath Keepers are alienated young men who have known the absoluteness of the U.S. military and are seriously worried that its lock-step obedience to orders may lead it to obey unconstitutional orders which no one else will contest. They are not in touch with the reality of civilian control in American life and have on their mind things like the internment of Japanese American citizens in concentration camps under false pretenses.
What they don’t realize is that the enemy to fear is not the power of the presidency (which is only invoked in a time of dire national emergency) but the power of Congress, which can do anything it wants in the wake of Wichard v Filburn 1942. Individual Liberty perished with that Supreme Court decision but hardly anyone outside of Congress realized it.
I understand the young men in the Oath Keepers because I would have been one of them many years back when I marched with other Vietnam Veterans in downtown Los Angeles to protest the Vietnam War, -called to action by a fired-up young patriot by the name of Jane Fonda. She was the only voice of opposition to the war that would not end and I’ll always respect her passion and committment for ending the travesty that had killed 10s of thousands of other young American men for no justifiable nor consitutional purpose.
http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com
[Personal attach deleted. Doc]
Obama will be remembered as long as America stands, and lunatic challenges to his eligibility will moulder, as will you, in the discarded egg-cartons of obscurity. You’re a big fat zero. You won’t even be a foot-note.
Why do you deserve such scorn? Because of your arrogance; because you claim to be able to “open our eyes,” that you know the Minds of the Founders and the Truth about Natural Law; that the Supreme Court could learn from your Wisdom. Only such overweening conceit, such haughtiness, such dismissiveness, such towering egomania justifies the revulsion otherwise polite beings feel toward you and cannot help but express.
Hope I cleared that up for ya.
All ethnocentrism amounts to IS racism wrapped in self-righteous arrogance, with a cover of tribalistic justification as an excuse for claiming superiority.
Insecurity wrapped in righteousness wrapped inside an ego.
I dunno about that, but I believe in Jim Barry Armagh
And, as it happens, I’m helping a few friends to be knock off a couple of bottles of the 1996 Armagh on Thursday, along with some Grange and some Hill of Grace and other fine Aussie super-premiums.
Nothing but the best on this day.
I don’t believe you. Cuz you’re a liar.
My grandmother acted in this capacity. To this day I believe she was an acolyte for the Dr. John Kellog Sanitarium ‘cult’ in Battle Creek Michigan. I am really suspicious that my name may have come from W. Keith Kellog, founder of Kellog’s cereal and younger brother of the Dr. Kellog who founded the Sanitarium (my grandmother did have links to Battle Creek). Keith is even my middle name just like W.K.’s.
W.K. had a falling out with his brother over commercialization of corn flakes (that was invented by the Dr. John) and founded the unrelated, fully commercial company “Kellog’s” to sell corn flakes to the masses. Interesting that in Australia, the 7th Day Adventists own a food products company called “Sanitarium” (tax exempt). One day I’ll have to research what the connection is since the Kellogs too were 7th Day Adventists.
Nothing so tasty as a good Aussie Shiraz–even the cheap stuff is delicious.
I’m still waiting for Obama to take away everyone’s guns. 😉
At the Liberty University Science Club Book Fair.
Drinking water when reading Bobbie Burns? Are you daft man? Do you know what fish do in water?
FIFY
I’m pretty sure I remember you saying that you are an Oathkeeper. Are you now repudiating your oath?
Agreed.
Adrien did indeed claim just that in a previous comment. Doc thinks I went over the top in my first paragraph above heaping scorn on the liar. I don’t see it; I think Adrien earned every word. But it’s Doc’s blog, and I defer without objection to his judgement.
Birthers drink the water. The rest of us drink the single malt.
Al Halbert said he was the Oath Keeper.
Ah yes, yet another spliter-faction of Christianity…and one that came about as a result of the EPIC FAIL events of the Millerite movement and their EOTW predictions.
They were certainly the Harold Campings of their day…
Yeah, all these Birther Concern Troll propagandists are starting to blend together to me as well….
I think Al Halbert was the claimed Oath Keeper. Didn’t he also claim he was in his late seventies? Or am I thinking of one of the other Birfoons out there…?
Ahhh. OK.
Yeah.
You may be right. I was sure Adrien did too, but I can’t find where now.
As I asked above, isn’t OathKeeper Al also the one who claims he is in his late seventies?
My point here is that we’ve got a lot of geriatric keyboard commandos out there talking tough these days. Barney Fife is more of a credible threat than these delusional jokers…
We are not a democracy; we are a republic.>>>
Actually, a democratic federal republic. Remember, the Constitution begins “We the People”, not “We the representatives of the people”.
Yeah, you’re correct but the word that’s most got to be there is “Republic” – the other two words are modifiers.
We can’t compromise on “Federal Republican Democracy”.
What the Hell does it matter what you call our system of government? You’re just playing semantic games. What’s important is how the government works according to the laws.