- An Easy-to-Find Guide to the Content of This Site
- Epilogue: Confirmed, Confirmed, and Reconfirmed
- “Birther’s Digest:” A List of Obama Ineligibility Claims — With Their Status
- The Arpaio Posse’s Fatally Flawed “Analysis” of Barack Obama’s Birth Certificate
- The “Grandfather Clause” Regarding the “Natural Born Citizen” Requirement of the Constitution — Was It Ever Needed or Used?
- Genuine, World-Class Computer Expert Evaluates Obama’s Birth Certificate PDF
- Exclusive! “Hawaii Girl” Confirms Her Parents’ Race — and I Crack the Actual Entries, Confirming that Arpaio’s Codes Don’t Match the Hawaii Codes, Either.
- Exposed: Sheriff Joe Arpaio Birther Scam — Here’s the Proof that Arpaio’s Posse Fabricated Evidence and Lied to the Nation
Monthly Archives: April 2012
Recently, Mario Apuzzo, the main proponent of the claim that “natural born citizen” means “someone born on US soil of two citizen parents” — has participated in some debate here regarding Swiss philosopher Emer de Vattel’s influence (or lack thereof) … Continue reading
According to a new wave of commentators on the US Constitution — such as “birther” lawyer Mario Apuzzo — the Founding Fathers, when writing that the President was required to be a “natural born citizen,” did not rely on our … Continue reading
A New Jersey court has ruled against another ballot challenge filed on the basis that it supposedly takes two citizen parents to be a “natural born citizen,” specifically taking birther lawyer Mario Apuzzo to task for making the claim that … Continue reading
Tracy Fair (who has a lawsuit going in Maryland challenging Mr. Barack Obama’s eligibility to be President) recently posted a comment here: “My Maryland ballot challenge has the proof that Obama is illegal. Perhaps you should read it and get … Continue reading
At Least One Court Has Very Specifically Ruled that Minor v Happersett Says No Such Thing as What Birthers Claim.
This is Part 5 of a series of articles. In the previous four parts, we ripped the birther claim regarding Minor v Happersett into little tiny pieces, looking at it from the points of view of its merits of legal … Continue reading
The Supreme Court in Minor v Happersett Never Claimed That Citizen Parents Are Required to Make a “Natural Born Citizen.”
Basic Logic Shows the Claim is False. Note: This is Part Four in a series demonstrating the falsehood of the claim that the Supreme Court case Minor v Happersett (1875) created a “binding precedent” that it takes two citizen parents, … Continue reading
Plain English Says the Supreme Court in Minor v Happersett Never Claimed That Citizen Parents Are Required to Make a “Natural Born Citizen.”
This is Part Three in a series of articles on the birther lie, popularized by Leo Donofrio, Mario Apuzzo, and John Charlton (of the news blog ‘The Post & Email’), that Minor v Happersett established that it takes birth on … Continue reading
The claim’s been made that the 1875 Supreme Court case of Minor v Happersett established a “binding precedent” as to the “definition” of “natural born citizen,” and that that definition requires two citizen parents, plus birth on US soil. In … Continue reading
Did Minor v Happersett Set a “Binding Precedent” as to the Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen?” Neil Turner, a visitor to my blog who claims to have founded something called “Citizens for the Constitution,” says that in a recent debate … Continue reading
In US v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court Set a Binding Precedent as to Who Is a Natural Born Citizen
Note: This post is an adaptation (with some additions, mostly for context) of one single post from an entire online debate with “birther” lawyer Mario Apuzzo. (Unfortunately, as an adaptation of an online post in a debate against an unreasonable … Continue reading