Horace Binney Directly Refutes the Mario Apuzzo/ Leo Donofrio Lie that it Takes Two Citizen Parents to Make a Natural Born Citizen

Horace Binney Was a Prominent American Lawyer Who Became a United States Representative and Commentator on the Constitution

Prominent American Lawyer and US Representative Horace Binney Was Quoted by the Supreme Court in US v Wong Kim Ark

I have announced that I am stepping back from my involvement in research and writing regarding the “birther” claims, but this particular item arose in correspondence with a fairly prominent birther, and having done the research, it’s just too easy to go ahead and write it up. Besides, it seems to be an item that hasn’t been that much commented on by others.

My correspondent wrote:

One item in your work that I picked up on right away – you claim that Leo Donofrio tells a “bald-faced lie,” which are strong words in a matter of interpreting the law, and you quote Justice Gray in Ark:

“as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, “if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…”

Does that not indicate a distinction between the “citizen” Ark and a “natural born citizen,” the same distinction made in Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of the Constitution? Is Donofrio really lying or even incorrect in his assertion?

First, a note: I did use the words “bald-faced lie” — although I didn’t state it quite as definitively as that, saying that Donofrio “appears, at least, to bald-faced lie about what Wong Kim Ark says.”

That characterization, by the way, is factual and accurate, as you will see — due to the precise words that Mr. Donofrio surgically deleted from his quote before he paraded it in front of the public.

My reply — to the question “Does [Horace Binney's quote] not indicate a distinction between the ‘citizen’ Ark and a ‘natural born citizen’?” — was as follows:

This is a very good question. The answer is: Not really.

Stating that the child born in the country of two non-citizen parents is “as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen” does not necessarily logically imply that he isn’t also a natural born citizen.

Take a look at what Leo Donofrio has very specifically cut out of the quote — the clause immediately before it.

Here’s the way that Donofrio quotes the passage at his blog:

“Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate… and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…’

Here’s the actual passage, from US v Wong Kim Ark:

“Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a, ‘strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’; and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…”

The sentence that Donofrio deletes — and the deletion can not simply be accidental — says:

“and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a, ‘strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’;”

While the Court used the phrase “natural born subject” rather than “natural born citizen” — due to the fact that they were quoting the historical precedent from English Lord Coke in 1607, note the context:

“His allegiance TO THE UNITED STATES.”

So while they use Lord Coke’s historical quote, they’re talking very specifically about the status of foreign citizens domiciled in our country, and their children born here.

And they very specifically include:

“if he [the foreign citizen] hath issue [that is, a child] here, that issue is a natural-born subject’;”

And they state this as an “irresistible” “conclusion.”

[Additional editorial note: Let me totally spell this out. The Court is saying (because while they are quoting Lord Coke and his term 'natural born subject', they are doing so completely in the context of the situation here in the United States) that any child born on US soil of foreign citizen parents who are domiciled here is a natural-born citizen.]

There’s also another place in US v Wong Kim Ark where the Court makes clear that the same rule has applied for centuries, first in England, then in the colonies, then in the US both after independence and after establishment of the Constitution. And that rule is that all children born on the soil, of whatever parentage, are natural born citizens/ subjects. (By the way, the two terms were used interchangeably in our country’s early history; more info on that in the following link).

For more on those two passages of US v Wong Kim Ark, see here.

Having written that email, I then went and read Horace Binney’s actual essay on the matter.

Horace Binney Told Us Clearly What Makes a Natural Born Citizen

The Alienigenae of the United States Under the Present Naturalization Laws, by Horace BinneyWhile it took a bit of hunting to track down Horace Binney’s 1853 essay “The Alienigenae [that is, the Foreign-Born Children] of the United States Under the Present Naturalization Laws,” I finally found a full and readable copy of the essay in its first edition thanks to Harvard university.

Then I located a copy of the apparently third and final version, published in the American Law Register in February 1854.

And finally, none other than Mario Apuzzo has found for us a copy of the second edition. Take your pick — where it really counts, they all say exactly the same thing, in exactly the same words.

Here’s a passage from Binney (beginning on page 25 in the first edition, 26 in the second edition, or 206 in the American Law Register) that very clearly reveals Mr. Binney’s understanding of the United States law in regards to natural-born citizenship. The passage is absolutely identical in all three versions of the essay.

“But the law of France rejects the principle of the English law, and of our own laws, that birth within the limits and jurisdiction of France, makes a Frenchman, or a natural-born citizen or subject of France, absolutely, and provides only for the acquisition of that character by the child so born, on his complying with certain formalities in the course of the year that ensues his arrival at the epoch of his majority.

‘Tout individu né en France d’un étranger pourra, dans l’année qui suivra l’èpoque [sic: "l'époque"] de sa majorité, réclamer la qualité de Français, pourvuque [sic: "pourvu que"], dans le cas où il résiderait en France, il dèclare [sic: "déclare"] que son intention est d’y fixer son domicile, et que, dans le cas où il résiderait en pays étranger, il fasse sa soumission de fixer en France son domicile, et qu’il l’y établisse dans l’annèe [sic: "l'année] à compter de l’acte de soumission.’ Chap. 1, Liv. 1, Art. 9.

[My translation: "Any individual born in France of a foreigner shall be able, in the year after reaching the age of majority, to claim the character of a Frenchman, provided that, in the event that he is residing in France, he declares his intention to fix his domicile there; and that in the event that he is residing abroad, he makes application to fix his domicile in France, and establishes such domicile in France within one year of making such application." The passage as quoted in both original versions contains three minor spelling errors -- the wrong accent marks are placed on some of the e's -- and runs together the words "provided that" (e.g., "providedthat"). I have noted the proper French spellings in brackets.]

Until he makes his declaration after attaining his majority, and fixes his domicil in France, he is not a French citizen or subject; and if he omits to comply with the formalities within the time prescribed, he loses even his contingent title. If he is the child of an American father, what is he under these circumstances? Not a citizen or subject of any country whatever.”

So Horace Binney clearly stated what the law was in both the United States and England, in order to contrast this with the law in France.

It is abundantly clear that he is talking about the child born on the soil of whichever country, of parents who are not citizens of the country in which the child is born.

And Binney quite clearly states that in the case of the United States and England, “birth within the limits and jurisdiction” of those countries makes “a natural born citizen or subject” “absolutely.”

In France, there are additional conditions required for the child of a foreigner, born in France, to be a French citizen.

But in the United States and England, there are no such conditions, and such a child is “a natural-born citizen or subject,” “absolutely.”

Note specifically the inclusion of the words “NATURAL BORN.”

Like so many of the authorities that Leo Donofrio and Mario Apuzzo quote as supposedly being in support of their bogus claim that natural born citizenship requires two citizen parents (e.g., James Madison, St. George Tucker, Charles Gordon, Frederick Van Dyne, John Bingham, and Lyman Trumbull) — Horace Binney directly refutes them.

For more information on some of the many authorities that refute Apuzzo and Donofrio, see my posts in this debate with Mario Apuzzo. See also my email to Helen Tansey regarding John Bingham, another US historical figure misrepresented by these people, here.

For my overall conclusions regarding the claims of the birther movement, see here.

And for my “wrapup” post, see here.

Update 1: I would encourage all readers to also read the intelligent question asked below by a reader named Stan, and my response to his question. I think this will shed some further light for some on the origin and meaning of the term “natural born citizen.”

Update 2: Mario Apuzzo has written a sort-of-response to this article, over here.

The reason I call it a “sort-of-response” is that Apuzzo of course ducks the entire point of this article, which is that it’s total nonsense for him to claim, on the very flimsiest of supposed evidence, that Horace Binney says a child born on US soil to non-citizen parents is NOT a natural-born citizen, when the exact same Horace Binney, in the exact same essay, tells us quite clearly that such a child IS a natural-born citizen.

It’s all more of the smoke and mirrors that discerning regular readers of Mr. Apuzzo’s writings have come to expect.

Here’s some more of Apuzzo’s smoke and mirrors. He actually claims that I hide the following quote by Binney from the public, by not posting a link to the second edition of Binney’s paper — even though I’ve posted links to both the first and third editions. Thanks to his efforts in finding the second edition, though, we now know where a copy is, so I will add it to the links above.

We now have an entire jolly collection of the various versions of Binney’s essay, from the beginning through to its apparently final form.

Here’s the quote that Apuzzo claims I am nefariously hiding:

“The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law, or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.”

I think it would be entirely reasonable to take the charge that I “hid” this quote as — I hate to say it — a deliberate falsehood on Mario’s part, since I very clearly begin this entire post with the only part of that exact quote that can even be (mis)interpreted to support his position!

Does the first sentence support his position? I don’t think so. It is a statement that the right of citizenship does not “descend” from a father to his son. In other words, according to Binney, citizenship is not automatically transmitted in the common law solely by a built-in “jus sanguinis” (“right of blood”) principle. The second sentence explains this: It is either “incident to birth in the country” (again, this doesn’t support Apuzzo’s claim; it goes against it!). Or, “it is given personally by statute” — in the case of foreign-born children of US citizens overseas.

Neither of the sentences that I didn’t include are helpful to Apuzzo. In fact, both of them are actually harmful to his theory, because they both deny the operation in American law of any automatic principle to transmit citizenship by parentage!

I am in fact grateful to Mr. Apuzzo for prompting me to include those sentences, as they are simply a couple more coals to heap onto the ashes of his burned-down false claims.

As for the third and final sentence, I began this article with it! So the claim that I am “hiding” any part of this quote is just cuckoo.

Or disingenuous.

Or both.

So what does Apuzzo have to say about the actual content of this article? What does he have to say about the fact that Horace Binney clearly stated that the principle at work in both English and American law is that the child born in the country of non-citizen parents is always, “absolutely,” a natural born subject or citizen?

First, he gives a very brief summary of the article. Then here’s his entire answer to this article’s central point:

“Note that John Woodman does not tell us that France actually used the clause ‘natural born citizen’ which Mr. Binney assumes it did when he says France would once those additional conditions were met give ‘that character’ to a person born ‘within the limits and jurisdiction’ of France. If France uses a class of ‘citizen’ other than a ‘natural-born citizen’ which describes the national character that attached to the person described by Mr. Binney (i.e., attached to a child simply born in France, regardless of the citizenship of his or her parents), then we can conclude that Mr. Binney meant to refer to that other class of ‘citizen’ rather than to ‘natural-born citizen.’”

Ummm… okay.

Update 3: I’d like to also note that Leo Donofrio has played some significant hocus-pocus with Mr. Binney’s essay as well. Once again (unfortunately) Donofrio makes so many points that are clearly and egregiously false that it would not be unreasonable to conclude that the false statements are not merely “mistakes.”

I don’t want to take up too much space here, so I will post my commentary on Donofrio’s article as a comment below.

This entry was posted in Conclusions, Natural Born Citizen, New Information. Bookmark the permalink.

170 Responses to Horace Binney Directly Refutes the Mario Apuzzo/ Leo Donofrio Lie that it Takes Two Citizen Parents to Make a Natural Born Citizen

  1. John Woodman says:

    Here’s a small update.

    The “fairly prominent birther” I was corresponding with (whose question kicked off my reading of Binney’s essay and this article) started out cordially, but gradually became more abusive as time went on. Here’s his final (hopefully) email to me:

    Sorry John, you are just not worth the effort. You add paranthetical [sic] statements into a quote and make extrapolations that are not supported by all else Binney wrote. You have your opinions. That is all. I disagree with your opinions. Let’s leave it at that because you are as Corsi noted only argumentative and really tiresome. Yeah, like calling Donofrio a liar is not name calling. You really are a self-righteous arrogant prick. Do not waste my time and do not write to me anymore. If you do, I will consider it harassment and inform your service provider.

    Wow. Reckon I might have somehow touched a nerve?

    I should mention at this point that the conversation had been two-way, and reasonably cordial. I hadn’t called Mr. Birther any names, although he had already called me some. Was carrying on a two-way conversation with him, when he was also replying to my emails as well, and when he was the only one of us engaging in any name-calling, “harassment?”

    My experience with birthers is that they really don’t like to be told the truth. If someone is honest with them, and does not support their delusions — and especially if they speak with the confidence that comes from having pretty much comprehensively researched the issue — then that person is an “arrogant prick.”

    Here was my previous email to Mr. Birther, that he was replying to:

    Wow.

    Now there’s the birther vitriol, name-calling, and denial of plain
    evidence that I’ve come to know and love.

    [He had just called me an "arrogant prick" and "dishonest" in his previous email, and stated, "If it was not so pathetic it would be laughable."]

    You state that the passages I cite are accurate, but the conclusions are not. Please state exactly where I’m wrong on that, and why.

    I’ll help you: Here’s the statement by Mr. Binney:

    But the law of France rejects the principle of the English law, and of our own laws, that birth within the limits and jurisdiction of France [or of whatever country referenced,] makes a Frenchman [or Englishman, or American,] or a natural-born citizen or subject of France [or England, or America,] absolutely, and provides only for the acquisition of that character by the child so born, on his complying with certain formalities in the course of the year that ensues his arrival at the epoch of his majority.

    If you can actually demonstrate that I’m incorrect, then I will of course correct the article.

    I will be waiting for your explanation, [name deleted].

    Best wishes,

    John W

    I put in the parenthetical comments because I thought it was just possible he really didn’t understand what Binney was saying.

    I guess that was a mistake?? ;-)

    • Suranis says:

      How dare you engage someone with the dreaded Alynsky weapons of providing context, full quotes and reminding someone when they are not telling the truth. How dare you, sirrah! I shall have the Marshals out to drag you to the ICC in the Hauge forthwith!

      • John Woodman says:

        I know, I know [hangs head in shame]. ;-)

      • John Woodman says:

        Tracy,

        Debate of the facts has always been allowed here. We’ve had numerous birthers post and debate here, and I’ve found it necessary to add restrictions only a few times.

        1. MichaelN is the only person ever to be banned from posting at this site. This happened because he kept endlessly reposting the same thoroughly debunked arguments — usually with a real attitude — without ever having any answer to make to the debunking.

        2. JS03 is on permanent moderation because he kept posting false accusations that I had told numerous bald-faced lies, cherry-picked facts, etc. He was asked to stop posting false accusations, but persisted.

        I therefore told him he could not post again until and unless he produced some evidence to back up his accusations. I asked him to find even one instance in which he could factually show that I had done anything like what he accused me of. He promptly failed to produce any evidence whatsoever to back up his claims, so no further posts from JS03 have appeared here.

        3. Mario Apuzzo was asked to please stop falsely referring to me as an “Obot” (I in fact voted for Sarah Palin in the last election and oppose Mr. Obama’s reelection) and to please stop using the term altogether here due to its false connotations, but refused to do so. Therefore all posts with the word “Obot” in the go into moderation, and may not appear at all.

        Mr. Apuzzo remains otherwise completely free to post here and is not otherwise moderated; his posts appear instantly.

        Oh — and yes, I did vote for John McCain as well. But pretty much only because of his running mate.

        4. You’ve been placed on moderation because of excessive use of huge numbers of one-liner posts with no real content (things like insults and false claims that Reality Check is Richard Rockwell) and profanity. In fact, I count well over 30 posts from you today that are essentially contentless one-liners.

        Please do not post these; and please do not repost things that you have already posted. If your post has not shown up, that’s because either 1) I haven’t seen it yet, or 2) I’ve seen it and it either has no real content or contains known falsehoods (such as accusing Reality Check of being Richard Rockwell) or can not be posted on a family-friendly site. Posting the same thing five times will not cause it to appear any sooner; and if you keen doing it, it may in fact earn you the banning that you earlier (quite literally) asked for.

        5. As I recall, I did also moderate some spamming posts from Winston Court.

        That’s pretty much the entire history of banning and moderation at this blog. Every birther who has shown up and debated politely, not made false accusations, and not spammed endlessly or kept simply asserting the same debunked nonsense has allowed to speak here, and to do so without even being moderated. Only those who’ve earned their moderation through ill behavior have received it.

        • KenyanBornObama says:

          Yes, that’s very rare to find, Obama supporters, letting the truth stay!

          • Suranis says:

            Well you could try posting the truth sometime and seeing if it stays.

            Oh, and by the way all your posts are still on the Fogbow. And Doctor Conspiracy Et al. So you’re lying about that too.

            • KenyanBornObama says:

              Waste of time, you guys hate truth and don’t believe facts!

              Later fools and that’s just because you are allowing yourself to be fooled!

            • Thomas Brown says:

              To insufferable liar KBO:

              Posterity always sees more clearly than the living.

              Early in our history here was a huge struggle between abolitionists and pro-slavery forces. Abolitionists prevailed, but just barely. Today it is virtually unanimously believed that slavery was an abomination, and I can’t remember hearing anyone advocate for bringing it back.

              Posterity will record President Obama as either an average or good President, but certainly as legimately elected and Constitutionally eligible to serve. You, on the other hand, will be remembered as a delusional racist buffoon so desperate to damage BHO’s Presidency that you would squander valuable public resources on an idiotic and doomed partisan quasi-crusade, and for embarrasing your country’s allies and thrilling her detractors.

              You will not be remembered as a defender of the Constitution and the rule of law; you will be remembered as a seditionist traitor trying to thwart them.
              We, whom you deride as Obots, Koolade-drinkers, Fools, Socialists, etc. (plus sane Conservatives like John Woodman) will go down in history as the true patriots, defending our founding documents and institutions from you!

              There were surely fleas on sabre-tooth tigers. Posterity is fascinated by the formidable graceful giant cats; nobody gives a rat’s ass about the fleas.

              President Obama is the tiger. You are one the fleas.

              Nobody important cares what you think. Most people on your side of the aisle think you are nut-cases destroying their credibility. Republican politicos will use waffle words to make you think they’re with you, but they’re not; they just need your vote. They know the President, and any future candidate who has one or more non-citizen parents (or whose parentage cannot be determined) are, and will be, rightly and legally, Natural Born Citizens eligible to run and serve if they were born Americans… exactly as John Woodman and every other sane American has repeatedly said.

              Let’s say you, you personally, are disovered by your GP to have a dangerous but operable tumor. You look up an Oncologist; but alas, he is precisely as good a Doctor as Orly is a Lawyer. He sits you down and tells you to go home and drink pomegranate juice, and explains that ‘cancer’ is a big hoax, a conspiracy foisted on the public by sneaky Socialist European drug companies.

              Do you say to yourself “Well, that sounds reasonable”? Do you follow his advice? No you do not. You say “That guy’s a dangerous lunatic. I’m not trusting my life to him. I want a Doctor who works with reproducible science and objective facts.”

              Welcome to our world.

              The Courts are unanimously on our side. The Evidence is on our side. Reason is on our side.

              Posterity will be too. Barack Obama will have an aircraft carrier named after him. You will be an embarrassment to your family for generations. Why? Because you are not only completely wrong, but moreover obnoxious, arrogant and litigious. A bully with no pulpit.

              So you should maybe re-think your ludicrous insults, your infantile slurs, your preposterous imaginary conspiracies, your claims that we are deluded and you alone are a sacred brave patriotic vessel of the truth.

              Because you aren’t. You are an insignificant morsel of oblivion.

            • KenyanBornObama says:

              Awww, tommy can’t handle the truth, pooo wittle obot!

              You have nothing but lies, I have the proof, from Congressional records and supreme court precedent, so you FAIL!

        • KenyanBornObama says:

          Let’s debate this John:

          1866 Civil Rights Act
          14 Stat. 27-30, April 9, 1866 A.D.
          CHAP. XXXI.
          An Act to protect all Persons in the United States in their Civil Rights, and furnish the Means of their Vindication.

          “Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States AND NOT SUBJECT TO ANY FOREIGN POWER, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States;”

          TELL ME WHAT THAT MEANS…

    • KenyanBornObama says:

      Step away from the Fool-aid!
      Keep your head in the sand, that way no one has to look at your face!

  2. John

    I thought you were done? ;) I had to say that; the >:) made me do it.

    • John Woodman says:

      Just tryin’ to wrap things up well. ;-)

    • KenyanBornObama says:

      What’s up Richard C. Rockwell from UCONN! Are you still out here harassing people? Are you still teaching Alinsky?

      • John Woodman says:

        Tracy,

        I’ve observed that many birthers have a tendency to spout off publicly and proclaim things as “fact” when they really don’t know what they’re talking about.

        I’m assuming at this point that many of the false claims and accusations you make are innocent. That’s probably a wrong assumption, but if you can indulge my optimism even for a bit, I’d be grateful.

        As for Reality Check, I happen to have discovered enough about him to know for a fact that he is not anybody in Connecticut. So the claim you have publicly made about him (and about the person you named, as well) is false.

        • I am actually James A. Johnson and I used to be the big dog at the Fannie Mae. Now I control a vast army of thousands of Obots.

          • John Woodman says:

            I wasn’t going to blow your cover, Jim.

            ;-)

            • John Woodman says:

              I shouldn’t say that. Somebody will believe me (rolls eyes).

            • John Woodman says:

              And it’ll probably be Tracy!

            • Actually, it would be a privilege to be either one of those guys. It is sad to see the vitriol she spouts at a very successful college professor whom I do not know personally but from his writings seems to be a wonderful and intelligent person. Maybe John could enlighten us on why some conservatives have such a seething hatred for people in education.

            • JW, could you please fix the typo in the first line?

            • John Woodman says:

              Done.

              I don’t have a good explanation for the behavior of some of these people, RC.

              I can only say that it’s been a disappointment to me to see people who call themselves conservatives “standing up for” falsehood and twisting of our Constitution and laws.

            • Thanks, John.

              It appears Tracy is done with her drive-by commenting here. I would love to have read her defense of the Nairobi fake birth certificate.

            • John Woodman says:

              That certainly was an instance of drive-by commenting, wasn’t it?

              She posted 23 comments on this blog in less than an hour. And the majority of those were basically taunting-type comments devoid of any real content, similar to the one above.

              Pretty birtherish behavior, if you ask me.

          • KenyanBornObama says:

            I know exactly who you are Tricky Dick!

            • John Woodman says:

              Tracy,

              You’ve been informed at least three times now that Reality Check is not who you claimed he is. And I know this for a fact. I know where he lives, what his name is, and have spoken to him on the phone now numerous times. He is simply not Richard Rockwell. If he was, I certainly would not say that he isn’t. I would probably not comment on the matter at all.

              Please do not keep tiresomely reasserting things known to be false, or I may grant your earlier request to ban you.

      • That’s Tracy’s style. She will probably go to another blog and claim she was banned here. Did anyone break the news to her that the Maryland primary already was held and President Obama won?

        • John Woodman says:

          She certainly hasn’t been banned here. She has been asked to behave like an adult, though.

        • KenyanBornObama says:

          What up Professor Richard C. Rockwell from UCONN!

          • John Woodman says:

            Tracy, about the time you were posting this comment here, I was posting a comment over at Mario Apuzzo’s blog, noting that I figured out months ago precisely who Reality Check is, and that he most definitely is not Professor Richard C Rockwell of Connecticut.

            Thanks for reminding me, though, that I already mentioned that fact in this thread, two months ago. I had actually forgotten about that.

        • KenyanBornObama says:

          My case is against the Board of Elections and the SOS, for not following the Constitution and for dereliction of duty, among other things…so the Primary is irrelevant!

    • KenyanBornObama says:

      [Editor's note: I've received a dozen posts from Ms. Tracy Fair, all unpleasant, and several of them essentially identical to this one:]

      BITE ME YOU [extreme expletive deleted] IDIOT!

      BAN ME PLEASE YOU LYING [expletive deleted] LOSER!

      [Since I've set Tracy's posts to go into moderation anyway (learned from past experience) there's really not an actual need to ban her. I'm content enough with being able to stop her profanity and ugliness before it reaches the public. But since she said "please," I will.]

      [Update: Before I could post this and comply with Tracy's request, I received an additional comment in which she says:

      I didn't realize that this was a board I was on before where you didn't delete comments and we can have an actual debate...I thought you were gonna ban me no matter what I typed so, I cussed...but promise I will not anymore...

      So... at Tracy's request, I will leave her unbanned. But given past history, she stays on moderation.]

  3. Pingback: The US Supreme Court Established a Binding Precedent as to Who Is a Natural Born Citizen in United States v. Wong Kim Ark | Investigating the Obama Birth Certificate Mystery

  4. Doctor Conspiracy brought up a very interesting point on RC Radio last week that I had not thought about much. In both Dred Scott v Sandford and United States v Wong Kim Ark the United States government was arguing for what we might call the “Birther” side. I am using the term broadly to mean that they were arguing to limit citizenship based on racial or ethnic origin. The United States prevailed in Scott v Sandford and had the ruling not been overturned by Constitutional amendments later the black former slaves and their descendants could never become citizens. It is shocking to go back and read the blatantly racist and xenophobic arguments that attorneys representing the United States made in both cases. For example, in the Wong Kim Ark case the US hired an attorney named George D. Collins. Collins wrote this:

    “For the most persuasive reasons we have refused citizenship to Chinese subjects; and yet, as to their offspring, who are just as obnoxious, and to whom the same reasons for exclusion apply with equal force, we are told that we must accept them as fellow-citizens, and that, too, because of the mere accident of birth. There certainly should be some honor and dignity in American citizenship that would be sacred from the foul and corrupting taint of a debasing alienage. Are Chinese children born in this country to share with the descendants of the patriots of the American Revolution the exalted qualification of being eligible to the Presidency of the nation, conferred by the Constitution in recognition of the importance aud dignity of citizenship by birth? If so, then verily there has been a most degenerate departure from the patriotic ideals of our forefathers; and surely in that case American citizenship is not worth having.”

    (Collins later ran afoul of the law and was convicted of perjury and bigamy.)

    The point the Birthers of today miss, but that both sides were well aware in both of the cases mentioned, is that if Dred Scott and Wong Kim Ark were citizens they must be natural born citizens. The only question in both cases was “Who are natural born citizens?” As a matter of fact the entire debate from Scott v Sandford through the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the 14th Amendment, to Wong Kim Ark was about that very question. The dissent by Justice Fuller in Wong Kim Ark makes this very clear:

    “Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that “natural-born citizen” applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.”

    Fuller clearly understood what the case was about. He understood that the court was ruling on whether Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen and disagreed with the conclusion reached by the majority that he was.

    • John Woodman says:

      You’re absolutely right. Fuller did understand that.

      So did our Members of Congress in the debates during and after the Civil War.

      There’s quite a bit more info on all of this in my posts on Wong Kim Ark and on the misquoting of Rep. John Bingham. I wish I had plenty of time to write about folks such as Senator Lyman Trumbull as well, who sponsored the legislation on the Senate side. But all of these people say the same thing.

      Even the racists who argued before Congress that black people were not citizens, said the same thing. Anyone born on US soil, whether or not his or her parents were citizens, was a natural born citizen — just as long as their parents were white folks from some place like Sweden, Ireland, Germany, or France.

      • John

        I see you had quoted the same passage from Fuller’s dissent in your latest article yesterday. Sorry for the duplication. I found it at NBC’s blog. That one is a really tough one for the Birthers to explain. Normally, one would not cite a dissent affirmatively. In this case however it is illustrative of what the justices thought the issue was before them. The majority opinion stands alone though.

        @Stan

        You are making what I call “if one of these is good two is better” argument. Why not go further and require the grandparents to be citizens? Then you could really be sure of the child’s allegiance, right? I wish I could remember the source for this but did you know that when John Jay wrote the letter to General Washington in the summer of 1787 that Birthers love to quote that the concept that the president would also be the commander in chief of the army hadn’t been determined for sure? The concept of the presidency was evolving in this time period the exact powers and the method of election definitely had not been fixed at the time of Jay’s letter. There was even a proposal that the executive would be ruled by a board of three persons. We know that the president under the old Articles of Confederation was not the commander in chief. A some point by September 1787 the delegates settled on the concept of the electoral college and a single head of the executive who was also the civilian head of the army.

    • KenyanBornObama says:

      Dr. Conspiracy is nothing but a LIAR and a CENSORER because he can’t handle the truth!

      • John Woodman says:

        Tracy,

        I don’t agree with Mr. Davidson’s politics. But I have never, ever known him to say anything that wasn’t true.

        You contend that Kevin Davidson (“Dr. Conspiracy”) is a “LIAR” exactly… why?

        Hint: If you’re going to back up your accusation, you need to in response produce a documented falsehood that has been publicly stated by Mr. Davidson. (For an example of this, see my documentation of specific, verifiable, repeated false statements made by Leo Donofrio and Mario Apuzzo.)

        If you fail to produce such documentation of at least one verifiable falsehood on Mr. Davidson’s part, it will become clear that you (not Mr. Davidson) are the liar, and a false accuser.

        • nbc says:

          KBOA: If you fail to produce such documentation of at least one verifiable falsehood on Mr. Davidson’s part, it will become clear that you (not Mr. Davidson) are the liar, and a false accuser.

          Indeed, but KBOA is not interested in facts or documenting her fears and ignorant claims. She is just an angry ‘lady’ who cannot accept that President Obama is in the Whitehouse.

      • Tracy

        I am sure if Doc C banned you it was earned. You are a vulgar spammer and don’t add anything to any discussion. You are also a poor researcher but I think that is quite obvious to everyone.

        • KenyanBornObama says:

          Usually when I comment on Doc’s post, it’s to alert him of some new evidence or video or something and MOST of the time, he writes and article with my info, isn’t that true Doc?

          He loves my research, don’t cha Doc?

          Not calling you Doc, Richard…but I know he’s watching or will be eventually, so he’ll see it!

    • KenyanBornObama says:

      Hey, delete this and my other cussing comments up there…I didn’t realize that this was a board I was on before where you didn’t delete comments and we can have an actual debate…I thought you were gonna ban me no matter what I typed so, I cussed…but promise I will not anymore…

      Delete this and please take off the moderation.

      • John Woodman says:

        Tracy,

        I’ve only ever banned one person in the history of this blog — and believe me, he deserved it.

        Given our past experience, however, your posts must be moderated.

      • You didn’t know what board you were posting yet you have figured out Obama is not a natural born citizen and I am from Connecticut? Wow…

        Ironically, Connecticut is one of the very few states that I have never actually even driven or flown through. Don’t they grow nutmeg or something there? I wonder if they have eggnog to go with it? I like a little bourbon or brandy in my eggnog. Fresh ground nutmeg is preferred. Also, I would politely suggest that everyone refer to me as Dr. Check hereafter.

        • KenyanBornObama says:

          Dude, I’ve posted on thousands of boards all over the place for over 3 years. I clicked a link from google because I was looking for something and I commented and had no idea who’s blog it was, nor did I know it was John’s the last time I posted here.

          I’ve had many emails with John and do know that he allows the truth to stay and I know he at least looks at the facts, even though they go in one ear and out the other, so that is why I apologized…I thought it was one of you’s obot’s boards!

          • Thomas Brown says:

            Always the sign of a thoughtful commenter when you use “who’s” instead of “whose,” and the word “you’s,” ever.

            • KenyanBornObama says:

              Is that the best debunking you can come up with? Pathetic!
              Nothing but a keyboard cop!

              I’ll take that as an “I have no argument with your facts, so I have to divert”!

              NEXT!

      • I have never seen KBOA complain about moderation at Mario’s blog. He moderates every comment and has the annoying CAPCHA too.

        • kenyanbornobama says:

          I don’t frequent Mario’s blog very often, so it’s not an issue for me, however…after posting there the other day and noticing that, he got about 5 emails from me about releasing the comments and taking off moderation…ASK HIM if he did not get complaints from me, ASSUMER!

  5. Stan says:

    John,

    I see that you’re ‘closing down’ on this subject, but in terms of responding to this blog, may I ask one question:
    What is your counter-argument to the argument that John Jay & Co. knew precisely why they recommended that the NBC qualification be included in the Constitution for that particular office: to make sure that the Commander in Chief of the new nation’s military forces did not have dual loyalties/allegiances (and ESPECIALLY not to Britain, with whom the fledgling republic had just fought a war of independence)? That is, the argument that the Founders were following not English Common Law but Natural Law; and thus, that that outcome – needing to be born of two citizen parents – was the whole point of the exercise?

    • John Woodman says:

      Stan,

      It’s a really good question, and I’m glad you’ve asked it.

      First of all, I don’t think the Founding Fathers and Framers were in the least bit afraid of some child born here in America, of immigrants, rising to become President, and of having his mother or father pressure him to act in some way beneficial to their own homeland. I just don’t think that’s what they were at all worried about.

      I think what they were worried about was the kind of intrigues that had gone on for centuries in Europe, where people from some other kingdom, using power and authority and money and title, would worm their way across borders and gain control of our government and military.

      One example that comes to mind is what happened to England less than 200 years before the founding of the United States. The entire country of England was taken over, instantly, without a single shot being fired, by the King of Scotland. And that was a good thing at the time. But it happened. And it happened because the King of Scotland was royalty, was related to Elizabeth I, and because England was fresh out of their own royalty at the time. It thus served as an example of how royalty in one country could take control of another — especially if there was some relationship between the two nations.

      I honestly think the chief fear was that some member of British royalty, with the help of Loyalists remaining here in America, would worm his way into a takeover that would eventually undo the entire Revolution.

      Here’s a quote from someone else, written back in 2003, that may provide a bit of additional insight:

      “There were rumors that members of Britain’s royal family might have designs on the presidency. It also sent shivers down the spines of the new Americans to witness how Austria, Prussia and Russia infiltrated Poland and carved up that country for themselves. Delegates to the Constitutional Convention discussed the need for what John Jay termed ‘a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government…’

      “As the fragile new country began to flourish, it caught the eye of ambitious leaders abroad. Napoleon responded to defeat by asking the British to transfer him to the United States. Had they agreed, only the Constitution would have stood in the way of his seeking executive power here.”

      And Napoleon was certainly ambitious. The man was the very definition of the word, and he was highly skilled in his ambition as well. Can you imagine the Emperor Napoleon loose in America in 1815, with no Constitutional barrier to his assuming the Presidency?

      Secondly, it’s clear that in spite of the desire to provide “a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government,” they certainly never intended for that “strong check” to be absolute. (And let me just note in passing: “foreigners” means foreigners, not folks born and raised here in the USA).

      Why do I say this? Just look at the qualifications for President, as they wrote them.

      The President has to be a natural born citizen (unless a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution), at least 35 years of age, and has to have lived in the United States for 14 years.

      ANY person from Italy or France or Sweden — or even recently imported from Britain — who had already been naturalized as a US citizen at the time the Constitution was adopted, would have been eligible to become President. So they don’t seem to have been that afraid of the naturalized citizens who were already in their midst. They seem to have been afraid of some future naturalized citizen.

      And the qualifications as written would allow any natural-born US citizen to spend most of his life overseas — all except for 14 years — and still be elected President. Even if a Presidential candidate was only the minimum age — 35 years old — the eligibility clause allows for him to have spent 21 years, or his entire formative life, living in England or France or Russia — and still be eligible for the Presidency. And that allowance only goes up for the far more typical older Presidential candidate.

      Third, Alexander Hamilton came up with a draft that used the words, “No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.”

      Some “birthers” have claimed that the Founding Fathers explicitly rejected Hamilton’s wording, “born a Citizen,” in favor of the supposedly more restrictive wording, “natural born citizen.”

      But there are just three great big huge problems with that.

      The first problem is that Hamilton never presented his draft to the Convention.

      The second problem is that we have no record of any debate whatsoever on the natural-born citizen clause or its language. NONE. There appears to have been no controversy about it at all.

      And the third problem is that we have no historical figure EVER stating that there was any really significant difference whatsoever between the phrases “born a citizen” and “natural born citizen.”

      On the contrary, we have historical figures like John Bingham indicating very clearly that they understood phrases like “citizens by birth” and “natural born citizens” to mean exactly the same thing.

      So I don’t think there was the slightest conflict whatsoever between what Hamilton was asking for, and what John Jay was asking for. If there HAD been any such conflict, we would have been told about it. It would have been in the records of the Convention debates. It would have said, “Alexander Hamilton proposed making the President ‘born a citizen.’ But so-and-so said, ‘No, that won’t do.’” We have no such record at all. Therefore, the only reasonable conclusion seems to me that Alexander Hamilton and John Jay were proposing the same thing.

      Finally, you ask about some potential conflict between English common law and “natural law.” Again, there is no such conflict. In fact, the English common law understanding of “natural born subject (or citizen)” includes the word “natural” because it is rooted in the distinctly English understanding of natural law that is a part of our OWN heritage.

      I will end this post with an excerpt from an email I wrote to Herb Titus last week:

      Yes, the term “natural born” has reference to an understanding of natural law. But it was never the natural law understanding of Swiss philosopher Vattel; it was the natural law understanding of our own distinctly English heritage. That goes back to Calvin’s Case in England in the year 1607 and beyond; and it ultimately derives a good deal, as far as I can tell, from the Biblical idea that one should be subject to the governing authorities, for these have been ordained by God (see Romans 13:1 and 1 Peter 2:13).

      Under this concept of natural (and divine) law, a person is considered a natural member of the kingdom or realm in which he or she is born. Thus birth within a realm brings with it certain natural obligations and privileges. The person born within the authority of a particular kingdom or country owes God-ordained allegiance to that kingdom or country (which includes such things as paying taxes); and by the same token, the king or other authority, operating under God, owes certain things, such as protection, to the members of that kingdom or country.

      This understanding of natural law is contrasted with the idea that “it takes two leopards to make a leopard.” The latter is almost Darwinian in comparison.

      Aside from that proper understanding of natural law, the entire weight of history, legal precedent, scholarly opinion, and virtually everything that has ever been written on the subject supports the view that the traditional understanding of “natural born citizen” — that any kid born in America can grow up to be President — is entirely correct.

    • KenyanBornObama says:

      Why close down the subject when it’s just starting to pick up steam and ready to get blown WIDE OPEN?

  6. Joe Smith says:

    The child of one U.S. citizen only is called a “statutory citizen” – which isn’t a “natural born citizen” by any stretch.

    Our founders despised English common law – the basis of your argument – and followed “natural law” in determining the meaning of “natural born citizen.”

    Clearly they wanted to avoid a candidate, like the one we have now, who has divided loyalties – and was a dual citizen at birth. He can never be eligible for POTUS, no matter how you try to spin it.

    Born on U.S. soil or territory…to TWO U.S. citizens at his birth.

    Barry Soetoro – not eligible… a usurper who should be arrested, jailed, and charge with federal crimes. Don’t you ever feel cheated? You should.

    • John Woodman says:

      The child of one U.S. citizen only is called a “statutory citizen” – which isn’t a “natural born citizen” by any stretch.

      Sorry, Joe, but no less an authority than the United States Supreme Court very clearly tells us that children born on US soil, even if neither of their parents is a US citizen at the time of birth, and with only a few rare exceptions, are “natural born.”

      So your statement is simply untrue.

      Our founders despised English common law – the basis of your argument – and followed “natural law” in determining the meaning of “natural born citizen.”

      The first part of this statement is also untrue. Most of our Founders were lawyers, ALL of whom were highly versed in the English common law. We know for a fact that training in the English common law was the FOUNDATION of American legal training. Blackstone’s Commentaries on the English common law is known to have been the central textbook for our nation’s first law school. And we know for a FACT that the Founding Fathers, in their writings, quoted Blackstone, the authority on the English common law, SIXTEEN TIMES as often as they quoted the foreign Swiss birther god Vattel. That analysis has been done.

      As for natural law, that’s precisely where the English common law principle came from, and it’s where the English common law term ‘natural born citizen’ ALSO came from. Those words never came to us from Vattel at all, and were only FIRST specifically applied to his idea of citizenship ten years after the Presidential eligibility clause was written.

      I would refer you to the brief discussion regarding these things in my response to Stan’s question above. Based on the wording and tone of your assertions to me, I frankly doubt that it’s going to do you much good. But I’m sure there are other readers of this blog who can gain understanding from the discussion.

    • KenyanBornObama says:

      No, a citizen (naturalized or natural born) must have full allegiance. There is no such thing as a 14th amendment citizen or a birthright citizen! The founders did not recognize dual citizenship!

    • nbc says:

      The child of one U.S. citizen only is called a “statutory citizen” – which isn’t a “natural born citizen” by any stretch.

      That’s only if the child is born on foreign soil. Sigh… Even a child born to two use citizen parents is a statutory citizen, and some have suggested that such children may very well not be natural born.

  7. John Woodman says:

    A couple of Apuzzo groupies have posted comments over at his “response” to this article. I shouldn’t even bother answering any of this stuff, but I’ll do a couple, at least. I certainly won’t do it at Mario’s heavily-moderated blog, though.

    MichaelN writes:

    John Woodman can’t face the truth. Whenever he is confronted with truth, he runs and hides.

    Um… yeah. As in here, here, and here.

    John Woodman, who claims that Article II “natural born” means native-born, has still yet to come out of hiding to explain why the US Congress and Senate in 1790 (some of whom were party to the construction of the US Constitution) defined a child born NON-NATIVE to US citizen parents as a “natural born citizen”.

    Answer: Because they feared that children born overseas of citizen parents might be left out of the understood, common-law definition of natural born citizens — which definitely included all children born in the country, of both citizen and non-citizen parents, but which was shaky on the children born abroad of citizens.

    And I don’t claim that “natural born” and “native born” are identical, although they’ve often been used in pretty much that way historically. I claim that native-born children — with the usual exceptions of children of foreign royalty and ambassadors, and of members of an occupying foreign army — are natural born. And I believe that the children born abroad of citizen parents are natural born as well. There are thus two routes to natural born citizen status: being born a citizen by birth in the USA, and being born a citizen by birth to citizen parents.

    Robert says:

    To argue that the terms “citizen”, “naturalized citizen”, and “natural born citizen” are the same is to deny that adjectives have meanings.

    Smokescreen. I have never argued that.

  8. That was a very good rebuttal of Mario Apuzzo. I find the Birthers do that kind of stuff a lot – take a case and ignore 99% of it, then quibble with one sentence and think they have performed an act of insightful legal analysis. The best example has to be Wong Kim Ark, where they ignore most of the 19,464 words and say, “But the Court didn’t say Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen. . .”

    Very frustrating when you encounter that degree of obliviousness.

    Plus, I am sad to see that you are backing off blogging. I hope it is only temporary.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    • John Woodman says:

      Thanks, Squeeky.

      You’re right about US v Wong Kim Ark, and I’m afraid I haven’t made the point very well that the entire long discussion (I believe someone said it was 53 pages) all supports the conclusion that Wong Kim Ark was a natural-born citizen. Instead, I’ve homed in on a couple of places where it was clear and undeniable… except of course by those who would deny it even if all nine Justices slapped them in the face with a fresh-caught mackerel from the North Atlantic, and told them so.

      As for leaving, the plan is for retirement from this issue. I consider my contribution pretty well made.

      I did what I understood last year that many people were wanting — for someone to really and truly and honestly investigate the questions around Mr. Obama’s birth certificate, and whether it might be a forgery. And then I went beyond that original intention, and delved into the meaning of “natural born citizen” as well.

      While there’s always more I could do, my journey led me to what I consider “conclusive” conclusions that from a factual point of view, there’s nothing at all to either birther claim.

      And I hope that, along with the work of others such as yourself, I’ve been able to present enough evidence that any rational and honest person who really looks into the matter ought to be able to come to the exact same conclusions without having to spend the amount of time that I did.

      Of course, the birthers will try to come out with some new stuff. I don’t think they’ll be able to come up with anything that will change the results. If they do — as I said to Doug Vogt in an email earlier today — more power to ‘em. I honestly wasn’t in this game to defend Mr. Obama. I was in it to defend the truth, and because I don’t like seeing the American public being fed a pack of falsehoods, and because — unlike the birthers who claim to defend the Constitution while simultaneously attacking it — I do place a high value on our Constitution and our laws.

      Squeeky, I love your blog and will miss reading it. I’m sure you won’t hurt for an audience, though — you have a way of adding entertainment value to this whole issue that nobody else has.

      I wish you all the best. ;-)

      • KenyanBornObama says:

        The WKA opinion was given by Horace Gray, an illegally appointed Judge by Chester Arthur, the original usurper! So once we prove Obama ineligible, then Chester along with his oppintment of Gray, not to mention WKA will be VOID!

        Funny how you all hang you hats on an illegal case, but would we expect anything less…lolol

        • KenyanBornObama says:

          oops, Imeant “appointment”!
          Don’t want the lefty internet cops coming after my spelling!

        • John Woodman says:

          And exactly how was Horace Gray “illegally appointed?”

          I can guess what you’re going to say: That Chester A Arthur, the President who appointed Gray, was illegally serving as President.

          I could write an entire post on Arthur as well. It turns out that there was indeed a bit of a public scandal about Arthur’s possible ineligibility.

          But guess what? The scandal had nothing at all to do with the idea that he might have been born on US soil with a non-citizen parent. In fact, because of Arthur’s eligibility scandal, we know for a FACT that NOBODY was concerned about the idea that Arthur might have been born on US soil with a non-citizen parent.

          There were people trying to get some traction and get Arthur found ineligible. And if they could’ve gotten any traction by pointing out he had been born on US soil with a non-citizen parent, they undoubtedly would have.

          But they couldn’t. Why not? Because everybody knew that you only had to be born on US soil to be a natural born citizen.

          So the scandal they stirred up had nothing to do with that at all. Arthur’s eligibility scandal had to do with rumors that he possibly had been born across the border, in Canada, rather than in Vermont.

  9. John Woodman says:

    Mick writes, at Apuzzo’s blog:

    It is a fact that A2S1C5 gas NEVER been amended. Likewise, it is also a fact that in 1790, 1795, 1802, 1835 and 1855, those born to an alien father, and US citizen mother, in America, were considered Aliens, until the father naturalized during the child’s minority. Therefore Obama, born of a foreign father, can never be a natural born Citizen today— LOGIC was never a strong suit of the Obama apologists.

    This combines two of the most popular birther techniques: Bald assertion of a birther claim as “fact,” on the basis of no evidence whatsoever — and in fact against all available evidence — and name-calling.

    Anybody who disagrees with the birther lie is an “Obama apologist” (even if they like myself are politically opposed to Obama), and they are also guilty of a “lack of logic.”

    This is claimed in spite of the facts that:

    • the birther commentator presents no arguments at all;
    • the person accused has a degree in mathematics;
    • no one has identified any specific, valid errors in logic committed by the person accused;
    • the person accused has written an entire series of articles with extensive additional commentary on the subject — plus engaged in a full debate in which he identifies literally a dozen provably false claims by the “expert” the birther admires… including pretty much every major claim made by the birther “expert”;
    • and the person accused has consistently backed up his own claims with clear, valid, verifiable evidence.

    As always, I encourage people to look at both sides of an issue objectively, know how to tell good arguments from bad, follow the reasoning, verify the claims that are made, and keep track of who’s presenting verifiably true information and who’s presenting invalid or untrue information. I’m convinced that anyone who does this will reach the same conclusions I have.

  10. John Woodman says:

    Update 3: I’d like to also note that Leo Donofrio has played some significant hocus-pocus with Mr. Binney’s essay as well. Once again (unfortunately) Donofrio makes so many points that are clearly and egregiously false that it would not be unreasonable to conclude that the false statements are not merely “mistakes.” I will show you precisely why this is the case. You can look up the actual papers from the links in my article above, and you can verify everything I say for yourself.

    This comment actually deserves to be a whole article, but since I’m not writing any more articles, I’ll publish it as a comment.

    Donofrio’s article, titled “The Mr. Binney Funeral Humiliates The Reputation Of The United States Supreme Court,” is a rambling, painful-to-read piece that Leo wrote back in February of this year.

    Leo’s claims are at least a bit different from Mario’s. They’re long enough and complicated. I’ll try to summarize the core of his article as briefly and as accurately as I can.

    Here’s a bare-bones summary of Leo’s claims:

    1) That Justice Gray was “subversively” defending President Chester A Arthur, who had appointed him to the bench. Donofrio claims that President Arthur was secretly ineligible to the Presidency, because his father was not a citizen at the time of his birth.

    2) That the first edition of Binney’s paper contained an error in its description of our Congress’ first Naturalization Act (TRUE).

    3) That Binney’s paper included some wrong analysis based on this misquote (FALSE).

    4) That Binney created a footnote in the second edition to attempt to correct his mis-analysis, which he somehow still left in the paper itself (doesn’t make sense, and FALSE).

    5) That the footnote itself is therefore incorrect (FALSE)

    6) That Justice Gray (who wrote the Opinion in Wong Kim Ark) made Binney’s wrong analysis and/ or on some wrong statement in the footnote a foundation of the decision in Wong Kim Ark . (FALSE).

    7) And finally, that a key part of Gray’s evil plot to pervert the Constitution was to include the exact footnote quote from the second edition of Binney’s paper that Mario falsely claims I am HIDING! (Yes, really!)

    Let’s look at these one by one. I’ll try to keep it as brief as possible.

    1) That Justice Gray was “subversively” defending President Chester A Arthur, who had appointed him to the bench. Donofrio claims that President Arthur was secretly ineligible to the Presidency, because his father was not a citizen at the time of his birth.

    No one has produced any historical evidence at all to suggest that having a non-citizen parent was ever raised by anyone as a potential issue in any Presidential campaign

    First of all, Chester A Arthur had been dead for a dozen years. This would be about like a Supreme Court Justice today writing a ruling just for the purpose of “covering for” Ronald Reagan, who died 8 years ago.

    Secondly, if Chester A Arthur had fooled everyone into electing him President by keeping his father’s nationality a secret, it presumably would’ve still been a secret in 1898!

    And third… what about the other FIVE Justices who fully agreed with Justice Gray on this case? Were they defending Chester A Arthur, too? Not one of them had been nominated to the Court by President Arthur.

    The claim is simply cracked.

    2) That the first edition of Binney’s paper contained an error in its description of our Congress’ first Naturalization Act (TRUE).

    This claim by Donofrio is absolutely true.

    The first edition said that our original Nationalization Act (in 1790) stated out the children born abroad of US citizens should be considered as natural-born citizens — “with a proviso, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons who had never been resident in the United States.”

    What this description of the 1790 Naturalization Act should have said is that the “proviso” was “that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers had never been resident in the United States.”

    Binney notes that the same clauses were re-enacted in 1795, and “were not repealed by the next naturalization Act, of 18th June, 1798…”

    He then goes on to re-state the clauses from the Act of 1798, including:

    “…provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never resided within the United States.”

    So Binney restates the provision, even in the first edition of his paper, and gets it correct the second time.

    The second edition, by the way, contained the exact same erroneous wording on the 1790 Act.

    3) That Binney’s paper included some wrong analysis based on this misquote (FALSE).

    Donofrio claims that the paragraph that follows the misquote is flawed analysis, because it’s based on the misquote.

    The reason he can get away with this is that Binney’s next paragraph is a bit complicated, poorly worded, and not immediately clear in its exact meaning. And also because the last thing most people will want to do is spend more time looking up the sources and verifying Donofrio’s “analysis.”

    It turns out, however, that the next paragraph really doesn’t refer to that phrase at all. It’s mostly a discussion of what things were like for people naturalized as citizens while physically residing in the United States, and for their children. It simply does not attempt to further analyze the status of the children the phrase refers to. Nor does this discussion introduce any flawed conclusion into the status of other people. So Donofrio’s claim is simply false.

    4) That Binney created a footnote in the second edition to attempt to correct his mis-analysis, which he somehow still left in the paper itself (doesn’t make sense, and FALSE).

    Binney created a footnote in the second edition to make further comments on that passage. And it is clear from the footnote that he understands what the Act actually said, even if he had misquoted it in the paper!

    By the way, the “analysis” that follows the passage is ABSOLUTELY IDENTICAL in all three versions of the essay. If there had been any mis-analysis (as Donofrio claims), it would’ve been corrected in the third edition along with the error in wording itself.

    5) That the footnote itself is therefore incorrect (FALSE)

    Again, Binney shows EVERY sign of having understood what the law actually said when he wrote the footnote that appears in the second edition (and in an edited form in the third edition), even though the law itself had been slightly misquoted above.

    And someone creating a footnote to correct something, and therefore the footnote itself is incorrect…??? One frankly wonders what Donofrio was smoking.

    6) That Justice Gray (who wrote the Opinion in Wong Kim Ark) made Binney’s wrong analysis and/ or on some wrong statement in the footnote a foundation of the decision in Wong Kim Ark . (FALSE).

    While Justice Gray did use the language of this footnote in part of his summing up, he relied on many, many other sources over the more than 50 pages of the ruling. Donofrio’s claim is kind of like saying that if Ford Motor Company should go bankrupt, American society will slowly grind to a halt as automobiles wear out, because Americans will no longer have cars to drive.

    7) And finally, that a key part of Gray’s evil plot to pervert the Constitution was to include the exact footnote quote from the second edition of Binney’s paper that Mario falsely claims that I am HIDING! (Yes, really!)

    Because Justice Gray included a quote from Binney’s footnote in his summing up before the final pronouncement, and because that quote states that the child of an alien, “if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle,” Donofrio claims that the ruling in United States v Wong Kim Ark is “the second worst piece of stinky refuse the Court has ever passed wind upon.”

    But the statement in Binney’s quote did not in any way depend upon the small misquote above.

    So let me summarize this, so that you can understand it clearly.

    Horace Binney accidentally left two words out of his description of the 1790 Naturalization Act.

    He incorrectly stated that it said children born overseas could not be US citizens if they had never lived in the United States (which doesn’t even make sense reading it).

    Donofrio falsely claims that Binney based further analysis on this wrong statement, and that he therefore supposedly came to some wrong conclusions.

    He then claims that in trying to correct those wrong conclusions, Binney wrote a footnote for the second edition, that was wrong as well (which again is false, and doesn’t even make sense.)

    He claims that Binney’s statement on US-born children — which appears in the footnote but does not in any way depend on the incorrect quote — is therefore wrong, too.

    He then falsely claims that Justice Gray used Binney’s (correct) statement — which in no way depends on Donofrio’s nonexistent “wrong conclusions” — which are in turn based on the nonexistent wrong analysis, as practically the foundation of his entire ruling in Wong Kim Ark.

    He claims this even though Binney is only quoted a couple of times (including in the summing up leading to the final conclusion) out of a total of more than 50 pages of analysis.

    Finally, I’d like to note the contradiction here. Leo Donofrio falsely claims that Justice Gray based pretty much his entire ruling in US v Wong Kim Ark on a single comment from Horace Binney. Having done that, he tries to show that comment was somehow corrupted by the fact that it was made in a footnote to a passage in which Binney accidentally left out two words while quoting a law.

    And both Mario Apuzzo and Donofrio take the exact same quote that Donofrio says should’ve been left out of Wong Kim Ark (because it goes against his position as a birther) and then twist it into a birther position to try and make it justify their positions as birthers.

    Apuzzo then falsely claims that I’m hiding the same passage that Donofrio claims should never have put into the ruling in the first place!

    And both of them somehow magically miss the passage I covered in my article above, which clearly states that Horace Binney understood that all children born on US soil, even if their parents were non-US-citizens, were natural born citizens of the USA.

    Such contradictions in their claims — both internally against other birther claims (sometimes even their own!) and externally against the actual evidence — don’t seem to bother the birthers.

    But then, they were never really that concerned about the facts, or truth, to begin with.

    • KenyanBornObama says:

      Everyone can see through your twisted lies!

      • John Woodman says:

        Perhaps you can help me out here.

        You say that I have put forth some “twisted lies.”

        Maybe you can be more specific. What exactly do you find to be untruthful?

        Remember that you have to document the falsity of the claim.

        Let me give you an example or two here, Tracy.

        In the post above, I’ve documented a series of false statements put forth by Leo Donofrio. Mr. Donofrio made (by my count) 7 relevant claims in that one particular post. At least 4 of those are false, and can be verified to be false. 1 of them is absolutely true (which I noted).

        I personally think the remaining 2 are false, but the evidence isn’t really conclusive one way or another, so I gave him a pass on those.

        I’ve also documented how Mr. Donofrio somehow happened to delete the very exact, specific phrase in a quote he produced from US v Wong Kim Ark that just happens to directly contradict the claim that he made about the passage. He then wrote an entire article that directly contradicted the one statement that he deleted from his quote. Now most people would call that a “bald-faced lie,” and you have come out in agreement with the same person that most folks would identify as a “bald-faced liar.”

        Separately, I’ve documented 12 separate false claims made by Mr. Mario Apuzzo.

        Anybody can look these things up for themselves, and verify that both Mr. Donofrio and Mr. Apuzzo have a habit of making a LOT of claims that are clearly and verifiably false.

        So I would suggest you proceed along those lines. If you want to accuse me of “twisted lies,” then produce a statement I’ve made that is verifiably false. Actually, since you’ve accused me of “lies,” then you really need to produce multiple statements I’ve made that are verifiably false. And it would help if you can show such things aren’t just innocent mistakes. Hint: If I make an entire SERIES of verifiably false claims, or particularly egregious false claims (as in the examples from Mr. Donofrio and Mr. Apuzzo above), then one might reasonably assume that the claims are not just innocent mistakes, but are more likely to be deliberate lies.

        Note that mere allegations won’t do. You need to produce things that are really false, and can be seen to actually be so.

        And if you can’t actually do that, then you might just want to admit that like a number of other people, you’ve been duped by Misters Donofrio and Apuzzo.

        By the way, though: The things that Donofrio and Apuzzo have said that are known to be false ought to have already given you a clue. Are you able to convincingly refute my statements that those specific claims are false? If you aren’t able to do that, then if I were you, I would seriously reexamine my making claims based on their false teachings.

    • At Apuzzo’s article about you on his blog MichaelN offered to help do “Internet research” for Mario to help with his New Jersey ballot challenge. I had a chuckle when I read that. I hope Mario accepts the offer.

      Also, I finally fixed the link to my blog and spelled WORDPRESS correctly!

  11. Pingback: Past the Birther Issue – Does Nationality at Birth Really Matter?

  12. WeroInNM says:

    Wake Up America!

    On or about March 20, 2012, it was revealed that, on or about 2008, Hollywood film producer Bettina Viviano had been directly told by former President Bill Clinton that the then Presidential candidate Obama was not Constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States. This supposedly transpired while she was assisting in the production of a documentary regarding voter fraud in the Democratic Primary, which was initiated after then Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s campaign had launched serious allegations against the Obama campaign for caucus fraud. This alarming information was initially revealed on or about November of 2011.

    Sources:
    Video: Hollywood Producer: Bill Clinton Directly Told Me Barack Obama Not Eligible!
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxGFmWtykqg&feature=player_embedded

    Alert: Hollywood Producer Speaks Out Against Massive Obama and DNC Corruption!-Posted on Canada Free Press-By Sher Zieve-On November 20, 2011:
    http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/42552

    On or about April 1, 2012, it was revealed that Hollywood film producer Bettina Viviano was interviewed regarding this issue and again confirmed that she had been directly told by former President Bill Clinton that the then Presidential candidate Obama was not Constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States, along with revealing that Obama’s 2008 campaign violated Democratic Party rules and engaged in improper and possibly illegal actions to steal the 2008 Democratic Party presidential nomination from Hillary Clinton. She also revealed that those Hillary Clinton supporters that resisted Obama’s campaign were made targets of intimidation, which included, but was not limited to, receiving ‘death threats’ from Obama’s people, along with being astounded that the media was not interested in covering the alleged abuses.

    Source:
    Hollywood Producer Heard Bill Clinton Say Obama Ineligible!-Posted on WND.com-By Jerome R. Corsi-On April 1, 2012:
    http://www.wnd.com/2012/04/hollywood-producer-heard-bill-clinton-say-obama-ineligible/

    On or about April 4, 2012, it was revealed that Hollywood-based digital photographer Michele Thomas was interviewed and during the conduct of her interview stated that Obama’s 2008 campaign had violated Democratic Party rules and engaged in improper and possibly illegal actions to steal the 2008 Democratic Party presidential nomination from Hillary Clinton. She also revealed that her resistance to the Obama campaign made her a target of intimidation that included, but was not limited to, receiving death threats from Obama’s people, along with being astounded that the media was not interested in covering the alleged abuses.

    Source:
    HILLARY SUPPORTER’S UNTOLD OBAMA HORROR STORIES: ‘Allegations of intimidation, manipulation, sudden death!’-Posted on WND-By Jerome R. Corsi-On April 4, 2012:
    http://www.wnd.com/2012/04/hillary-supporters-untold-obama-horror-stories/

    On or about April 3, 2012, it was revealed that Sheriff Arpaio was expanding his investigative probe into President Obama’s allegedly forged documents to then Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s supporters, an action that was initiated after Hollywood film producer Bettina Viviano and Hollywood-based digital photographer Michele Thomas provided Sheriff Arpaio’s investigators with the names of dozens of Hillary Clinton supporters that were willing to come forward with evidence and affidavits to substantiate the allegations initially made by Ms. Viviano regarding President Obama’s ineligibility, along with the circumstances surrounding the alleged voter and/or caucus fraud that occurred in the 2008 Democratic Primary.

    Source:
    Sheriff Arpaio Expands Obama Probe To Hillary Clinton Supporters: ‘Obama campaign, DNC accused of voter fraud in 2008!’-Posted on WND.com-By Jerome R. Corsi-On April 3, 2012:
    http://www.wnd.com/2012/04/sheriff-joe-expands-obama-probe-to-hillary-supporters/

    Continue Reading:
    http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2011/06/20/the-greatest-fraud-perpetrated-in-american-history/
    http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2010/10/25/massive-voter-fraud-again/

    “Food For Thought”

    God Bless WND, Sheriff Arpaio & His Cold Case Posse-God Bless the U.S.A.!
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q65KZIqay4E&feature=related

    Semper Fi!

    • John Woodman says:

      First of all, this has nothing whatsoever to do with Binney. And it has nothing to do with the Constitutional understanding of “natural born citizen,” either.

      But I tend to be pretty tolerant, so we’ll roll with it.

      Now there’s an authority for you.

      A female Hollywood producer that virtually no one has ever heard of before now alleges that Bill Clinton (boy, there’s a trustworthy figure for you), whose wife was defeated for the Democratic nomination for President by Barack Obama, told her that Obama is “ineligible.”

      And Bill knows this exactly how? Did Mr. Obama confide in him? And is Bill Clinton prepared to produce a tape recording of Mr. Obama telling him this?

      Meanwhile, back in the real world of actual, verifiable evidence: As far as I can tell, every single testable claim that has ever been made by birthers has been utterly bogus.

      We’ve been treated to a steady and ongoing deluge of junk theories, misguided suppositions, obviously faked “Kenyan birth certificates,” blatant historical and legal fact-and-word-twisting, and outright lies.

      I’m not talking about one or two false claims here. I’m talking about literally DOZENS of them.

      Undoubtedly more than 3 dozen false claims in regard to the birth certificate alone. Probably at least 2 dozen in regard to the natural born citizen issue. Throw in at least another dozen in terms of fake “Kenyan birth certificates” and allegations of Obama being born in Kenya, or Canada, and a few miscellaneous bits, and we’ve got probably at least 70 KNOWN, FALSE claims of “proof” or “evidence” that Obama is ineligible to be President.

      And now we’re supposed to believe — on the word of some obscure Hollywood producer with no connection to the Obama family — supposedly quoting someone who is a verified liar, and was in no position to know anyway, that Obama is ineligible.

      If the testable claims are all — UNIVERSALLY — complete and total nonsense, then please explain to me why we ought to believe the completely untestable, hearsay ones?

      Like every single other claim that has ever been produced, this claim has no value as any real evidence whatsover. It’s at least double hearsay.

      That’s plenty good enough, though, for birthers.

      Because in the birther world — if somebody, somewhere, alleges it, and if it’s what they want to hear — then by golly, it must be true.

      PS: I forget to mention that former President George W Bush told me over dinner in February of last year, in a meeting down in San Antonio, that WeroInNM is secretly a relative of Hillary Clinton — who is trying to undermine Obama and get Hillary the 2012 nomination.

      PPS: Not really. But I think you get the point.

      • KenyanBornObama says:

        Oh, ok…you want Constitutional understanding of “natural born citizen”? Let me help you out!

        Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884)
        The main object of the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this Court, as to the citizenship of free negroes Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughterhouse Cases,16 Wall. 36, 83 U.S. 73;Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303,100 U.S. 306 .

        This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.
        ————————–
        The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 (1814)
        “Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says, ‘the citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”

        • The material you quote from The Venus is not from majority opinion delivered by Associate Justice Bushrod Washington. It is from a dissenting opinion delivered by Chief Justice John Marshall. Dissenting opinions are not law. The [lack of] quality of your research is showing.

          • KenyanBornObama says:

            So, when you all lose the obamacare case and there is a dissenting opinion from the losers, won’t that be what YOU believe, the dissenting opinion or will you be for the decision that’s it unconstitutional?

            Will that be justice served for you, as it will be for me!

            • Northland10 says:

              I seriously doubt that John supports the ACA (Affordable Care Act, aka, what you call ObamaCare). That being said, if SCOTUS were to rule it unconstitutional, then, for the time being that would be the law of the land. There have been rulings that people disagree with, such as Citizens United and Roe v. Wade. Those who disagree either find ways to rewrite the law to make it Constitutional, amend the Constitution, or bide their time until they are able to get a Supreme Court that will agree with them. It is not a perfect system, but it was we have and has stood the test of time of protecting our liberty for over 200 years.

              History has proven that, bad rulings eventually find themselves in the dustbin of history (Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson, etc.). However, you may notice that Wong Kim Ark has lasted over 100 years and does not appear to be in any danger of being reversed. If you do not like that ruling, your job is not to tell everybody they are wrong but find a way to convince the courts your interpretation is correct. In that task, Mario, yourself and others have been found wanting.

            • John Woodman says:

              Hear, hear.

            • KenyanbornObama says:

              There have been rulings that have been reversed, so everyone knows judges aren’t perfect and once we get the truth out about citizen and NBC, Wong Kim Ark will need to be oeverturned, because it’s unconstitutional!

      • KenyanBornObama says:

        AND MORE:

        When the Civil Rights Act went over to the House, Representative John Bingham of Ohio, father of the future 14th amendment, confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866 and addressing Trumbull’s amendment to the bill:
        “I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen”
        (1866 Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 39th Congress, 1st Session, pg 1291)

      • KenyanBornObama says:

        MORE evidence:

        1862, Representative John Bingham:
        “All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.”
        (Congressional Globe, House of Representatives 37th Congress, 2nd Session, pg 1639)

        • KenyanBornObama says:

          The Civil Rights Act of 1866 which had just recently passed and states:
          “Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States;”
          Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27.

        • John Woodman says:

          I’ve already dealt with the twisting/ cherry-picking/ removal from context of Representative Bingham’s quotes, over here.

          There’s no one, apparently, whose words you guys won’t twist.

      • KenyanBornObama says:

        Everyone seems to forget the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, in the 14th amendment, which is why the law/amendment went astray.

        The Congressional records of the 14th amendment debates, give us Trumbull’s exact definition of the intent of Howard’s Citizenship Clause amendment to the bill. Senator Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment:
        “The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”
        (Congressional Globe, Senate, 39th Congress, 1st Session, pg 2893)

        • John Woodman says:

          Just as Bingham’s words have been removed from their context and twisted, so too have Lyman Trumbull’s.

          Trumbull’s point was that he believed Indians living in separate tribes were “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.” These Indian tribes were treated as separate nations on US territory, with whom the United States government made treaties, and in whose internal affairs the US government did not meddle.

          It is clear from elsewhere throughout those debates that Lyman Trumbull NEVER, EVER contended that Chinese citizens, or ANY other persons who were not US citizens, but who were nonetheless on our soil and participating in normal United States society rather than being members of separate Indian nations were not “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”

          In fact, several Senators contended that even Indians on reservations were “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,” and would be declared citizens by the 14th Amendment.

          NOT ONCE, in the entire history of the Congressional debates on the Civil Rights Act of 1866 OR the 14th Amendment — NOT ONCE!!! — and the Civil Rights Act took up at least 4 weeks of Congressional time, and a transcript of the 14th Amendment debates runs to FOUR HUNDRED PAGES —

          NOT ONCE did ANYBODY EVER contend that the child of white European immigrants, born on US soil, was NOT a natural born US citizen.

          NOT ONCE.

          And in fact, the exact opposite was asserted NUMEROUS times in both Houses.

          I know, because I have now been quite thoroughly through the entire debates on both subjects.

          But you, and others of your ilk, will continue to twist the history and laws of the United States by claiming that which is absolutely false.

      • KenyanBornObama says:

        June 18th, 1787- Alexander Hamilton’s draft for the Constitution suggests in ArticleIX, Section 1 that:
        “No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.”
        (Works of Alexander Hamilton: Miscellanies, 1774-1789, page 407).

        July 25, 1787 (~5 weeks later) – John Jay writes a letter to General Washington (President of the Constitutional Convention):
        “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.” [the word born is underlined in Jay's letter which signifies the importance of allegiance from birth.]
        (Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 [Farrand's Records, Volume 3] LXVIII, page 61. John Jay to George Washington)

        September 2nd, 1787 George Washington pens a letter to John Jay. The last line reads:”I thank you for the hints contained in your letter”
        (Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 [Farrand's Records, Volume 3] pae 76.)

        September 4th, 1787 (~6 weeks after Jay’s letter and just 2 days after Washington wrote back to Jay) – The “Natural Born Citizen” requirement is now found in their drafts.
        (Madison’s notes of the Convention – September 4th, 1787) .

        The proposal passed unanimously without debate.

        • John Woodman says:

          And the key thing in your whole post on this point is:

          The proposal passed unanimously without debate.

          And yet you, and others, contend that there was this conflict between what Hamilton proposed, and what Jay proposed.

          You also ignore the fact that Jay underlined the word “born” and NOT the word “natural” — not that it would have made any difference, for under the English concept of natural law that we were heirs to, it was NATURAL that a person born in a dominion should be attached to that dominion as a natural born subject or (later) citizen.

          The Constitutional Convention records absolutely no debate at all on the term “natural born citizen.”

          It is therefore clear that:

          1) Everybody understood exactly what it meant, and it didn’t come from Vattel, whose term wasn’t even translated with that phrase until 10 years later.

          2) The definition was the one that had always been understood, for centuries. It came from the common law, and it included ALL persons born on the soil, except children of ambassadors and invading armies.

          3) There wasn’t the slightest conflict at all between Hamilton’s term, and Jay’s. They meant the exact same thing.

          • KenyanbornObama says:

            DOH, you obviously didn;t even read the rest. Pathetic!

            That’s why you guys are worthless to debate, you twist and turn everything and try to dilute it’s meaning, where any normal person can see the facts and evidence as damning!

  13. Pingback: Could the President’s newly released COLB be a forgery? « A Nation ADrift-Why?

  14. KenyanBornObama says:

    My Maryland ballot challenge has the proof that Obama is illegal. Perhaps you should read it and get educated! All sourced by Congressional Records, the Founder’s writings and Supreme Court precedent!

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/86426592/Maryland-Ballot-Challenge-Petition-to-remove-Obama-from-the-ballot

    • Thomas Brown says:

      I read it. It’s just a wad of debunked recycled Birfer bullguano.

      We already have a nice Moët-Chandon chilling for when your pseudo-legal swill is laughed out of court in our fair State. Which, like every other racist lunatic Birther filing so far, it will be. Most of the Maryland Dorseys I know are thick-headed drug-addled pinheads, though, so I guess it comes as no surprise.

      • KenyanBornObama says:

        Nothing in my petition has been debunked. Just because you want to SAY it has, doesn’t make it true!

        Way to try and use your alinsky tactics, but sorry…they don’t work on me!

        FAIL!

        • John Woodman says:

          Actually, most of what you say — both in your petition and in your comments here — has in fact already been debunked. Not all of it, but most of it.

          And the rest is certainly debunkable.

          I may well make a further reply to your points, when I get the time to do so.

          • KenyanbornObama says:

            Okay then, debunk this:

            1814 Supreme Court Case, The Venus, Chief Justice Marshall cites Vattel in saying:
            “The whole system of decisions applicable to this subject rests on the law of nations as its base. It is therefore of some importance to inquire how far the writers on that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside.

            Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says:”
            “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”
            http://supreme.justia.com/us/12/253/case.html
            ORIG: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llfr&fileName=003/llfr003.db&recNum=632&itemLink=D?hlaw:1:./temp/~ammem_dtRA::%230030633&linkText=1

      • John Woodman says:

        “A wad of debunked recycled Birfer bullguano” is the technically accurate description.

        I’ve read through the thing twice now. Literally the ONLY thing in the entire 40 pages that hasn’t already been SHOWN to be “bullguano” is the claim regarding Chester A. Arthur’s speech.

        THAT’S IT.

        And I’ve just blown that one out of the water, here.

        I think pretty much everything else is addressed either on this site, or in the debate I was in with Mario Apuzzo. Although some of the Civil Rights Act debate stuff may not yet be publicly debunked. I have plenty of information that debunks that as well, I just haven’t gotten around to publishing it. I may get around to doing that. I have good notes from the Congressional debates, and don’t think it would take that much extra work.

        I loved this whopper of a statement:

        “We believe the facts show that the term Natural Born Citizen is not based uponEnglish Common Law, but rather on Vattel’s definition written in his legal treatise of 1758 titled, The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law.”

        And yet:

        • It is well known that the term “natural born subject” was used literally for CENTURIES prior to the writing of the Presidential eligibility clause.
        • it is proven that the terms “citizen” and “subject” were considered “precisely analagous” and were used interchangeably in our nation’s early history (see my article on the Wong Kim Ark case)
        • it is also proven that the Founding Fathers quoted Blackstone and the English common law 16 times as often as they quoted Vattel
        • and it is also well known that there is no evidence whatsoever that Vattel’s term “indigenes” was ever even translated as “natural born citizens” until 10 years after the Presidential eligibility clause was written

        The other thing that’s just jaw-droppingly idiotic is that fact that Tracy has apparently filed a known and confirmed fraudulent document with the court, claiming that it “may” be a copy of Obama’s original birth certificate.

        But the original of the “King George VI hospital” birth certificate (I’ve confirmed this) is the one that says in the background, in Dutch, “This is not a valid government document. It’s political commentary. He is President for at least three and a half more years. Get used to it. It isn’t going to change.”

        I have corresponded some now with Tracy. She has repeatedly referred to things I’ve said as “lies.” At least 3 times I have very directly challenged her to produce ONE statement — just ONE — from among the literally dozens of articles I’ve written, plus the entire long debate with Mario Apuzzo, that she can verify to be in any way false.

        Tracy has proven remarkably resistant to backing up her claim with any actual evidence.

        My personal conclusion is that Tracy is not just an innocent deluded soul. I think she knows that what we’ve said here is the truth. And if she knows that what we’ve said is the truth, then as far as I can see, she has to also have some inkling that what she’s peddling isn’t.

        • KenyanbornObama says:

          Debunk this:

          What exactly did “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” mean to the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment? Luckily we have Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment, and the one who inserted the citizenship clause amendment to the bill along with Senator Jacob Howard, so I think they knew what THEY meant:

          “The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ NOT OWING ALLEGIANCE TO ANYBODY ELSE. That is what it means.”
          http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=14

          So this proves that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means the same exact thing as “not subject to any foreign power”

          Senator Howard (author of the clause) concurs with Trumbull’s construction:
          “I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word “jurisdiction,” as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.”
          http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=16

    • I love Exhibit 9″ “Possibly Obama’s real birth certificate from Nairobi, which needs validating.” :lol: The exhibit is not included but if it is the same one that Tracy includes in her funny videos it is an obvious fake.

      The security background apparently says in Dutch

      “DIT IS GEEN GELDIG DOCUMENT VAN DE OVERHEID. DIT IS POLITIEKE COMMENTAAR. HIJ IS VOORZITTER VOOR MINSTENS DRIE EN EEN HALF VAN MEER JAREN. KEUR HET GOED. DIT ZAL NIET VERANDEREN.”

      This translates to:

      “This is no valid document from government. This is political comment. He is chairman for at least three and a half of more years. Agree to it. This will not change.”

      Also, the paper is crinkled but the form, watermark text, and the document text is perfectly straight. So there you go. It is verified – as a fake. You can thank me later KBO. Nothing says “I am a lunatic” to the court like submitting something like that.

      • Thomas Brown says:

        And yet too few rasters in a single letter in Hawaii’s authenticated LFBC means it’s an obvious forgery.

        Gotta love Birfer logic.

        • John Woodman says:

          Birthers regularly strain at gnats and swallow camels.

          • KenyanBornObama says:

            Give it up, humor does not work with you!

            • John Woodman says:

              That wasn’t humor.

              It was an analogy that in fact comes from the Bible.

              Actually, the wording I used was more King James version, and wasn’t an accurate idiom of today. More accurate for us would be:

              Birthers strain out gnats but swallow camels.

              The idea here is of someone who gets all in a mighty uproar over the tiniest of things (“There’s a gnat in my soup!”) when the issue does not favor them or when they can gain some kind of points by making a big deal of it, but is fully prepared to ignore the enormous and unignorable (quietly swallowing a camel) when the issue is of their own making, or when it’s in their favor.

            • Thomas Brown says:

              That’s OK. With you around, we have plenty to laugh at.

      • John Woodman says:

        Let’s colloquialize the translation a bit:

        “This is not a valid government document. It’s political commentary. He is President for at least three and a half more years. Get used to it. It isn’t going to change.”

        • KenyanBornObama says:

          hahaha, you really think we are going to stand for another term? You are friggin crazy! If Usurper Obama is re-elected there will be a revolution!

          You obots are way outnumbered!

          • John Woodman says:

            Okay. You’ve stated that you want to stage an armed revolution. What are you planning? To assassinate a legally-elected President?

            Do we have to suggest to the Secret Service that they might need to pay a visit to Tracy A. Fair, of Sykesville, MD?

            • KenyanBornObama says:

              Thanks but I’ve already talked to them!

              LOLOL and I was asked all the questions that Rudy was asked but I didn’t answer them!

              They told me not to talk about or make video about the SCOTUS being corrupt but said they didn’t care if I made video about Obama. Their issue was the SCOTUS, because I wrote an email that the judge took wrong. All was cleared up and they got my info, so phooey on youey…His name was Mr. Kim.

      • KenyanBornObama says:

        Like I am going to listen to what you think…someone who teaches Alinksy in class! You are nothing but a traitor Richard Rockwell!

        • Tracy, why don’t we stick to the facts instead of name calling. Is what I said about the fake birth certificate you proffered to the court correct or not? Should we take someone’s opinion seriously when they submit a laughably fake document to a court?

      • KenyanbornObama says:

        hahaha, you copied that from the obot database. That is not what it says because I have looked up the words.

  15. Neil Turner says:

    Mr. Woodman;

    I have read your detailed, laborious, and amateur diatribes at trying to derail the efforts of patriotic American to ascertain that only a natural born Citizen be seated in the Office of President.

    You are a joke – although a dangerous one, to be sure. Please take your stupid arguments and treasonous responses elsewhere.

    • John Woodman says:

      This is what I love about birthers.

      ONLY THEY are “patriotic Americans.”

      Any person who stands up for the American Constitution as it is, for the Founding Fathers as they actually spoke — not as the birthers imagined they spoke — and for the laws of the United States as they have always been, and as they have always been interpreted by our courts — including the US Supreme Court — is “amateur,” “not patriotic,” “dangerous,” “a joke,” “stupid,” and “treasonous.”

      You’re the one twisting the history of our nation, Neil. You’re the one twisting the rulings of our courts. You the one attempting to make our Founding Fathers say things they never said.

      And if the harsh judgment you seek is to be applied, then it is you, sir, who is the traitor.

      You call names. You post with an eagle for your image — as if that makes you patriotic. But there’s one thing that I notice you don’t do.

      You don’t refute the words of our historical figures of the past. Neither do you refute any of the analysis at this site.

      And why not?

      Because you can’t. Because it’s the truth.

      So you’re an enemy of the truth. You’re an enemy of the history and heritage of our nation — whether you’re clothed with an eagle or a flag or not.

      But you can’t stand up and refute that history and heritage, because it is the truth.

      All you can do is sit there and call names.

      • KenyanBornObama says:

        You are a traitor and should be tried for treason!

        What a disgrace!

        • John Woodman says:

          Tracy,

          First of all, I’d like to remind you that you’re a guest at this blog. This blog is my home on the web. And I’ve welcomed you here.

          Is it your usual practice to accuse someone who welcomes you of being a “traitor,” and of stating that they “should be tried for treason?”

          Is this the kind of behavior I ought to expect if I were to have you over for lunch?

          Secondly, perhaps you can explain why you think I’m a “traitor.” Which of my specific behaviors do you find “treasonous?”

          Is it insisting on the truth, rather than misconceptions, errors, and lies?

          Is it standing up for the Constitution and laws as they are, rather than as someone wishes for them to be?

          Perhaps you can explain exactly what you find “treasonous.”

    • John Woodman says:

      For quite a while, I’ve thought about writing an article on conservatives who betray conservative and American values.

      These conservatives value the truth — well, if the truth says what they want it to say.

      Otherwise, they’re totally prepared to claim that the truth is a lie, and a lie is the truth.

      They value the Constitution, too — if it says what they want it to say.

      They value the rule of law — as long as the laws are the ones they themselves want. Otherwise, it’s just about time for an armed revolution.

      They value our political system — as long as it produces, right now, the results that they personally want. If not, they’re prepared to bend or break its rules.

      And they value patriotism — as long as it fits their mold.

      If not, they’re prepared in a heartbeat to call people who stand up for America and the truth and the Founding Fathers, and the Constitution and law as it really actually is “traitors.”

      • Thomas Brown says:

        I might have added that these traits are seen far more frequently in Modern Conservatives, what I call the Limbaugh-Rove faction. They toss around lies and insults that would have nauseated the level-headed conservatives of my Grandfather’s generation.

        • KenyanBornObama says:

          lolol, everyone knows that the lefts lies constantly, that’s the only was they can stay in the argument!

          LIE LIE LIE = lefty liberals!

  16. WeroInNM says:

    Americans are waking up!

    Thanks again to WND, Sheriff Arpaio and his Cold Case Posse for their unwavering commitment and fortitude to continue the fight.

    Americans across the country are starting to wake up to the fact that President Obama is constitutionally ineligible to hold the office of President, as substantiated by his newly released long-form Certificate of Live Birth, which shows that his father was in fact born in Kenya in 1936. At the time, Kenya was a British colony. Therefore Obama Senior was a British subject by birth (due to the fact that he was born within British-controlled territory). When President Obama was born in 1961, he acquired British nationality by descent, because his father was a British subject by birth. When Kenya gained its independence from Great Britain in 1963, President Obama became a citizen of the newly-formed nation.

    Sources:
    http://www.wnd.com/2011/12/375625/#f2cd597738

    http://constitutionalreset.ning.com/video/atty-dr-herb-titus-obama-not-a-natural-born-citizen

    http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm

    http://obamaballotchallenge.com/natural-born-citizenship-and-history-timeline

    Additionally, Several new organizations, to include active websites, were established to educate and mobilize the American public on the significance of “natural born Citizen” and the 2012 Election, along with an initiative to assist ordinary registered voting citizens wishing to challenge President Obama’s constitutional eligibility and name placement on their state’s 2012 primary presidential ballot. The team that established and maintains this website is currently compiling election laws from all 50 states and in the near future will be providing forms, along with sample letters that registered voters can use to file a complaint. Also included is pertinent information regarding those lawsuits and/or complaints that have been filed by state, to include my own.

    Sources:
    http://obamaballotchallenge.com/superpac-founder-explains-mission-of-natural-born-citizen-pac

    http://obamaballotchallenge.com/obama-ballot-challenge-founder-interviewed-by-post-email

    http://obamaballotchallenge.com/request-that-president-obama-be-removed-from-the-new-mexico-2012-presidential-primary-election-ballot

    http://obamaballotchallenge.com/nm-former-marine-writes-senator-to-demand-arpaio-cold-case-posse-findings-investigation

    Word of Caution: Although its great that many Americans are now beginning to wake up and are actively taking some action to have President Obama taken off the 2012 Presidential Election Ballots we need to keep in mind that those individuals with unlimited sources and/or resources, to include the deep pockets of anti-American George Soros, our own local and national elected officials and others, with the help of the MSM, who have spent years planning and successively perpetrating what I now believe could be the greatest fraud in American history are not going to go down without a fight and thus, as a result, I also believe that now more than ever we need to stick together as Americans (it’s no longer Democrat or Republican) at this crucial time when our country and/or Republic needs us more than ever to see this thru. A Republic for which so many Americans have and continue to give their all to uphold and defend.

    So the question is: Are you going to be part of the problem by continuing to keep your head in the sand hoping this issue goes away by itself or are you going to be part of the solution by stepping up to the plate and doing what ever it takes to uphold and defend our Republic before its too late?-You Decide.

    Continue Reading:
    http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2011/06/20/the-greatest-fraud-perpetrated-in-american-history/

    http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2010/10/25/massive-voter-fraud-again/

    “Food For Thought”

    God Bless WND, Sheriff Arpaio & His Cold Case Posse-God Bless the U.S.A.!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q65KZIqay4E&feature=related

    Semper Fi!

    • John Woodman says:

      First off, Wero, I’m done with your posting a ton of birther propaganda links to this site. Your posts are arguably just spam.

      There’s a little bit of point to them, though, which is why I’ve let them through so far.

      A couple of comments:

      Americans across the country are starting to wake up to the fact that President Obama is constitutionally ineligible to hold the office of President, as substantiated by his newly released long-form Certificate of Live Birth, which shows that his father was in fact born in Kenya in 1936.

      Actually, from my perspective, some Americans who’ve been fooled by the false birther propaganda that it takes two citizen parents to make a natural born citizen are starting to wake up to the fact that they’ve been duped.

      You speak of “the greatest fraud in American history.”

      I don’t know about the “greatest fraud in American history,” but my research has increasingly led me to conclude that a lot of the birther propaganda being put out there, if it doesn’t constitute actual fraud, comes really, really close.

      There are two bodies of information that are, for the most part, simply false. And they are verifiably false.

      I identified (to this point, without exhausting the issue or even trying very hard!) 12 different false claims by Mario Apuzzo and Leo Donofrio. And they’re verifiably false. I would refer readers to my recent debate with Mr. Apuzzo, in which 12 different known falsehoods claimed by him were identified.

      I also identified (last year) 23 different claims of “proof” or “good evidence” of forgery put forth or publicly supported by Jerome Corsi. I identified a known 100% false statement that Corsi made to the public, that he based an entire forgery theory on. Corsi has never retracted his known false claim. He’s never retracted the theory based on it — which was eventually fully disproven by information that he himself leaked onto the web! And finally, neither he nor WorldNetDaily have ever retracted or disavowed any of the many false claims of proof or good evidence of forgery that Corsi has promoted to the public.

      Not one of them.

      And all of these things are verifiable by anyone who takes the time and effort. Some of it may take understanding of some technical details.

      I have never presented just one side of the issue (unlike Donofrio, Apuzzo, Corsi, Sheriff Arpaio’s “Cold Case Posse,” etc.) On the contrary, from the beginning I’ve taken an in-depth look at the claims made by the birthers, and the possibilities they might be right, and evaluated both sides. I’ve documented almost everything I’ve written, so that people can look up original sources for themselves.

      And I’ve always been confident that anyone who does so, who consults original sources thoroughly, who understands the details, and is a logical thinker, honest and reasonably objective, will come to the same conclusions I have over the past year.

      Because when all the facts are known, as far as I can see, those are the only conclusions that a reasonable person can actually come to.

      • KenyanBornObama says:

        hahaha, it’s funny how when you obots can’t handle the facts, you call our posts spam, when you know damn well that they are facts!

        It’s just your way of censorship!

        WAH WAH WAH, I can’t handle the truth!

        • John Woodman says:

          Um… yes. And because of this “censorship,” I allow you to keep posting here, giving you full opportunity to present facts that prove your points — if you can actually come up with any? Is that your point?

          • KenyanbornObama says:

            Why is it everything factual we post is nothing but your stuff that is really nothing has meaning? hahaha, you are twisted!

    • Thomas Brown says:

      Your Messiah Joe”Pink Panties” Arpaio is more like a Judas. He is totally without honor, without loyalty to everything America stands for, and since he enthusiastically embraces bearing false witness, is no Christian. He is a lying, scheming tin-horn tyrant, and he will be removed from his office long before the President is removed from his. Why do you think Arpaio and Zebest and Zullo and Apuzzo refuse to testify under oath? Because they know it’s all crap. Everything you think is iron-clad proof is swamp gas. You’ve been had.

      I offered Mark Gillar a $1000 bet that no one will be indicted for forgery of BHO’s documents before the end of this year. He slunk away with his tail between his legs. Why? Because, even though he insisted NUMEROUS people would go to jail because of Arpaio’s Clown Posse ‘Investigation,’ even HE really knows the score. It’s nonsense.

      Furthermore, John Woodman is more of a Patriot than you’ll ever be. He believes in objective facts and the rule of law. If your brand of self-serving partisan treachery and deceit had long prevailed, America would have fizzled long ago. And even though I am a moderate/liberal, and admire President Obama, I come to John’s defense because he is a loyal and intelligent American.

      • KenyanBornObama says:

        Sorry you can’t handle the facts! Your messiah is going down!

        • Thomas Brown says:

          So… You taking the bet? You got $1000 says anyone will be jailed for forging BHO’s documents? I live in Baltimore, so it’ll be easy.

          You delusional freaks have yourselves convinced of a bunch of fairy tales. But really, you are helping re-elect Mr. Obama, because sane independent voters look at you lunatics and realize that turning the country over to conspiracy-theory nutballs is a bad idea.

          Birfeloons have been saying “the trith will come out & Obama will be impeached ANY DAY NOW for pver three years. Hilarious! You have zero actual evidence of Obama’s “ineligibility” and everyone who counts (and you aren’t one of them) knows it.

          It’s really going to be fun spending your money if you take my bet. Almost as much fun as looking back 5 years from now on the public knowledge that Birthers were as ignorant as the Alchemists!

        • John Woodman says:

          Tracy,

          I’d take Mr. Brown up on the bet. Easy way to make a thousand dollars, isn’t it?

          And he’s local to you. So if he doesn’t pay up, you can easily take him to court.

          • OK, Tracy. You know the old saying. Time to put up or …. So are you just all talk or will you back your words? (That is what one would call a rhetorical question. I think she is made from the same cloth as Mark Gillar. )

            • KenyanbornObama says:

              I’ve backed my words all over the place and facts and truth are on my side. You might as well pay up now!

          • Thomas Brown says:

            I’ll even put my $1000 in an escrow account.

            The documents are not forgeries, and no Prosecutor is stupid enough to indict someone for forging them.

            Period.

            • John Woodman says:

              Are you having some trouble getting a response from Tracy on that? I suppose she must not be reading her email.

              Just a word of advice, though: I’d have her put her $1000 into an escrow account, too.

            • KenyanbornObama says:

              Yes, the documents are proven forgeries, go look at Arpaio’s investigstion!

  17. Neil Turner says:

    First I would ask, how can anyone who considers themselves to be a true American, living under the blessings and privileges afforded by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, – give legitimacy and respect to someone like Obama/Soetoro/AKA???, who shows such disrespect for the people, the Office, and the Constitution that he refuses to disclose his origins and his accomplishments, and uses forged and stolen documents* to obtain and/or maintain employment in our Government? By what authority (Quo Warranto) does he command your ‘respect’? Poisoned Kool-Ade? Have you lost your senses? Are you out of your mind?

    * Forged Certificate of Live Birth; forged Selective Service Registration; stolen SS # 042-68-4425, etc.

    Second, for a proper and short analysis of the definition and meaning of natural born Citizen, as envisioned by the founders and ruled on by SCOTUS, please see an ‘Executive Summary Re NBC Defined in Constitution Plus 4 SCOTUS Cases’ (www.TinyURL.com/3efjkc3) .

    Words, convoluted arguments, and ellipses will not change the fact that we have, known by a preponderance of the evidence, a Foreign National Criminal Illegal Alien occupying the Office of President and Commander in Chief!

    Get your WANTED posters here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/88392156

    • John Woodman says:

      Where did I ever say that I respect or support Mr. Obama?

      I respect and support the Constitution and the laws of the United States, facts, evidence, understanding, and the truth.

      Second, for a proper and short analysis of the definition and meaning of natural born Citizen, as envisioned by the founders and ruled on by SCOTUS, please see an ‘Executive Summary Re NBC Defined in Constitution Plus 4 SCOTUS Cases’

      You’ve been duped, Neil. You’ve been played for a fool, sold a bill of fake goods, and you bought it — hook, line, and sinker.

      And you’ve apparently been duped by a possibly-pseudonymous blogger who doesn’t even have any known legal credentials.

      Did I say any legal credentials? Fact is, we don’t know anything about the guy.

      John Charlton, “founder” of the Post & Email.

      Is he a lawyer? We don’t even know that. The guy’s a ghost, a vapor, a mist. A shadow in the shadows.

      He could be a North Korean agent for all we know.

      The domain of the site he’s founded gives up no information as to the owner at all. It’s anonymous. Does “John Charlton” actually exist?

      Supposedly the Post & Email was incorporated in Wyoming.

      A search for public records seems to reveal no phone number, no address, no public records information for a “John Charlton” anywhere in the state.

      You’ve been duped into becoming a tool, spreading false information created by people you don’t know.

      Do you want to know whether it’s true or not? Or do you care?

      Do YOU respect and support the Constitution and the laws of the United States, facts, evidence, understanding, and the truth?

      If so, you may want to stop spreading false claims.

      And if you still doubt that they ARE false claims that you are spreading, then keep reading at this site. Read everything I’ve written on the subject here. Go and read the debate with Mario Apuzzo. Go and verify all the facts for yourself.

      The choice is yours, Neil: Stand up for the truth, or stand up for lies.

    • John Woodman says:

      Oh — and as far as the “forged” birth certificate is concerned. That’s… well, let’s just say that that is “less than factual” as well.

      I spent a total of three months, full-time, carefully examining the forgery claims. Not one of them stands up to scrutiny.

      Not one.

      I wrote an entire 221-page book on the subject, detailing my findings, and exactly why.

      In regard to that, I suggest you refer to this post.

      • Neil Turner says:

        John;

        It was that ‘post’ that moved me to write my first comment in this blog on April 6, in which I called it a ‘detailed, laborious, and amateur diatribe’.

        Your response that I have been ‘duped’ with my Executive Summary concerning SCOTUS and the definition of natural born Citizen was nothing but a diversionary rant, diatribe, and attack on John Charlton, the founder of The Post & Email, now retired. (You should read it regularly, to get some ideas for some really good exposes of the usurper. Sharon Rondeau, who purchased ThePostEmail.com from Mr. Charlton, does a fantastic job of continuing John’s legacy).

        I have read your ‘debate’ with Mario, and frankly I am amazed at the patience of Mr. Apuzzo to give you and your ‘arguments’ the time of day.

        Finally, I would say that your herculean efforts to legitimize the usurpation of the Office of President by a virtual ‘ghost’ would indicate that you do ‘respect and support Mr. Obama’, a man who disrespects you, the people, the Office and the Constitution so much. In view of what we all know that we ‘don’t know’ about the usurper, I would say that anyone who gives him legitimacy must have been duped, consumed the poisoned Kool-Ade, or be out of their mind.

        In Liberty and In Truth.

        Neil Turner
        Citizens for the Constitution

        • John Woodman says:

          I love it how birthers say “in truth,” when posting falsehoods.

          I’m most likely going to respond more fully to your frankly stupid post. Quite a bit more fully. Stay tuned.

          In the meantime, let me give you a hint.

          The most important post at my blog, in regard to the natural born citizen issue, is the recent one on Wong Kim Ark.

          You disdainfully describe my writings as “arguments” — using parentheses to snidely indicate that they are not arguments at all, but nonsense.

          Okay. I’m sure you’ll have no problem shredding my comments on my most important post on the natural born citizen issue.

          So I am inviting you to convincingly refute that post, and show that the Court, in US v Wong Kim Ark, DID NOT find Wong Kim Ark to be “natural born,” as I claim.

          I’ll be looking forward to your response.

          And when you’ve done that one, I’ve got other writings for you to actually, factually refute.

        • John Woodman says:

          Neil,

          I’ve given a bit of response to your comment by organizing my thoughts regarding Minor v Happersett and putting them into 5 posts on the issue.

          Again, you seem to think my points, in which I certainly believed I had pinpointed some dozen claims made by Mr. Apuzzo that are false, are invalid. If that’s the case, I would appreciate you showing me the error of my ways, and demonstrating exactly why, in each of those 12 or so cases, I am wrong about Mr. Apuzzo making false claims.

          You might also point out the errors in my analyses of Minor v Happersett and US v Wong Kim Ark.

          Thanks,

          John W

    • Thomas Brown says:

      You know what disgusts me about you pseudo-patriots? The way you think all “real Americans” or anyone who loves this country would think like you. Or rather, hallucinate like you do. And I doubt you’d have the guts to show up at my wood shop, that I started from nothing, and accuse me of the things you’re so big and bad about spouting off here.

      I am as much of a good hard-working tax-paying American as anyone you know.

      My first American ancestor fought with the goddamn Green Mountain Boys and served as a Congressman from two states, and my great Uncle Admiral Frank Lyon signed the surrender papers with the Japanese aboard the Missouri. Instead of investing in stocks, I have been assembling collections of American Historical Artifacts. My library has publications I will leave in my will to the University of Virginia because they don’t own a copy.

      But people like you just can’t stand the fact that liberal Democrats who voted for Obama, and will again, and are too smart to buy into the Birther propaganda, could be just as good and loyal Americans as you. Well, we are. We love America and would die for her, pal. So you can take your accusations that we are supporting a usurper and stuff it where the sun don’t shine.

      You know what the real embarrassing part is for you? I am willing to state that I believe YOU love your country, as deluded about the current topic as you may be, but you aren’t willing to say the same about me. And your derision of John Woodman is worse: he’s a conservative Republican voter, but just because he realizes the truth that Barack Obama is eligible to serve, he deserves your scorn.

      That’s truly reprehensible. And when you drag this country down based on baseless rumor, absurd conjecture, and vapid speculation, you are a detriment to your country; a parasite on the body politic, not a patriot. But go ahead and spout your borrowed borderline-psychotic nonsense about our President, the man who directed the killing of Osama bin Laden… you have that right. Just be aware that when you accuse people like me of not being loyal to this country, that’s treading on thin ice. We do not take it lightly.

  18. KenyanBornObama says:

    This is the loser that you Obots follow:

    what a disgrace…

    Obama is such an embarrassment to this Country ~ All countries are close allies! BROKEN RECORD: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzMjynmcJMk

  19. KenyanBornObama says:

    2012 Vetting Obama ~ Kenyan Parliament ADMITS Obama is NOT a Native American: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_8PC3oKAvA

    • Thomas Brown says:

      Right. That figures. You believe an unsourced YouTube video of African politicians before the American State of Hawaii. Guess what that says about you?

      • KenyanBornObama says:

        Oh, you want US stuff, SURE!

        1862 Representative John Bingham, author of the 14th Amendment (Cong. Globe, 37th Congress, 2nd Session, pg 1639):
        “All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.”
        http://memory.loc.gov/ll/llcg/059/0600/06811639.gif

        The Civil Rights Act of 1866 failed to pass in the Senate until Lyman Trumbull proposed an amendment to the bill adding the words “That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States;”
        http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/reconstruction/section4/section4_civrightsact1.html

        The bill then went to the House where Representative John Bingham (author of the “future” 14th amendment), confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866, in regards to Trumbull’s amendment to the bill:
        “I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of PARENTS NOT OWING ALLEGIANCE TO ANY FOREIGN SOVEREIGNTY is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN”
        MIDDLE COLUMN 3RD PARAGRAPH:
        http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=071/llcg071.db&recNum=332

        The 14th amendment was introduced to render the Civil Rights act constitutional and amend it to the Constitution. It passed in the House, but failed in the Senate until Senator Jacob Howard’s amendment to the bill (the citizenship clause) was introduced. In 1866 while while introducing bill H.R. 127 (14th Amendment) Jacob M. Howard (Author of the Citizenship clause) states:
        “This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States.”
        http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11

        MEANING that they changed NOTHING with the 14th Amendment, only that they were declaring what was already the law. The LAW he was referring to, was the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which had just recently passed and again states:
        “Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States;”
        http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/reconstruction/section4/section4_civrightsact1.html

        Everyone seems to forget the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, which is why the law/amendment went astray. If you look at the congressional records, while they were debating the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th Amendment, you will find the truth and see the 14th Amendment has been 100% perverted!

        What exactly did “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” mean to the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment? Luckily we have Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment, and the one who inserted the citizenship clause amendment to the bill, so I think he knew what HE meant::
        “The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ NOT OWING ALLEGIANCE TO ANYBODY ELSE. That is what it means.”
        http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=14

        So this proves that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means the same exact thing as “not subject to any foreign power”

        Senator Howard concurs with Trumbull’s construction:
        “I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word “jurisdiction,” as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.”
        http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=16

        1814 Supreme Court Case, The Venus, Chief Justice Marshall cites Vattel in saying:
        “The whole system of decisions applicable to this subject rests on the law of nations as its base. It is therefore of some importance to inquire how far the writerson that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside. Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says:”
        “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”
        http://supreme.justia.com/us/12/253/case.html
        ORIG: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llfr&fileName=003/llfr003.db&recNum=632&itemLink=D?hlaw:1:./temp/~ammem_dtRA::%230030633&linkText=1

        Supreme Court Minor V. Happerset:
        “At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
        http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=88&invol=162
        _____________________________

        NBC in the Constitutional drafts:

        June 18th, 1787 – Alexander Hamilton suggests that the requirement be added, as: “No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.”
        http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llfr&fileName=003/llfr003.db&recNum=632&itemLink=D?hlaw:1:./temp/~ammem_7RJR::%230030633&linkText=1

        July 25, 1787 (~5 weeks later) – John Jay writes a letter to General Washington (president of the Constitutional Convention): “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.” [the word born is underlined in Jay's letter which signifies the importance of allegiance from birth.]
        http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28fr00379%29%29:

        September 2nd, 1787 George Washington pens a letter to John Jay. The last line reads: “I thank you for the hints contained in your letter”
        http://books.google.com/books?id=z0oWAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA76&dq=%22I+thank+you+for+the+hints+contained+in+your+letter%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yDs0T82yEOLm0QHclt2zAg&ved=0CEkQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=%22I%20thank%20you%20for%20the%20hints%20contained%20in%20your%20letter%22&f=false

        September 4th, 1787 (~6 weeks after Jay’s letter and just 2 days after Washington wrote back to Jay) – The “Natural Born Citizen” requirement is now found in their drafts.
        Madison’s notes of the Convention.
        http://www.nhccs.org/dfc-0904.txt

        • Northland10 says:

          If you want to be taken more seriously, do not just post a list of claims and links but explain you claims in context of the actual article where you are leaving your comment (that would be Horace Binney directly refutes…). Unlike a a video, as an example, commenting on a blog assumes a discussion of the topic and not a list of talking points. If you read through John’s work here, you would find he has already discussed many of your “bullet points.”

          • John Woodman says:

            I’ve actually addressed quite a few of her links and quotes here in the comments of this very thread, a couple of months ago.

            In the debates on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and on the Fourteenth Amendment, when our Senators and Congressmen used the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” or “not owing allegiance to anybody else,” they were — almost exclusively — discussing what to do with the Native Americans (Indians) in the context of tribal governments.

            They were NEVER proposing to exclude from citizenship — natural-born or otherwise — all children born to non-citizen immigrant parents within the United States. (A few of our Congressmen proposed to exclude the children of “Gypsies,” or of “Chinese” or “the Mongolian race,” but NOBODY ever proposed to exclude the children of white European immigrants.)

            Birthers even selectively edit the quotes in order to downplay or hide this fact. Let’s take a representative example from the links above:

            Senator Lyman Trumbull, as quoted:

            “The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ NOT OWING ALLEGIANCE TO ANYBODY ELSE. That is what it means.”

            Here’s some of the actual context, and a more accurate representation of what Senator Trumbull actually said. I have boldfaced the words representing the “quote” above. Notice what has been edited out here:

            Mr. Doolittle: I moved this amendment because it seems to me very clear that there is a large mass of the Indian population who are clearly subject to the jurisdiction of the United States who ought not to be included as citizens of the United States. All the Indians upon reservations within the several States are most clearly subject to our jurisdiction, both civil and military…

            And yet by a constitutional amendment you propose to declare the Utes, the Tabahuaches, and all those wild Indians to be citizens of the United States, the great Republic of the world, whose citizenship should be a title as proud as that of king, and whose danger is that you may degrade that citizenship…

            Our fathers certainly did not act in this way, for in the Constitution as they adopted it they excluded the Indians who are not taxed; did not enumerate them… much less did they make them citizens of the United States…

            Mr. Trumbull: …it is very clear to me that there is nothing whatever in the suggestions of the Senator from Wisconsin [Senator Doolittle]. The provision is, that “all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” That means “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.” Now, does the Senator from Wisconsin pretend to say that the Navajoe Indians are subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? What do we mean by “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?” Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means. Can you sue a Navajoe Indian in court? Are they in any sense subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? By no means. We make treaties with them, and therefore they are not subject to our jurisdiction. If they were, we would not make treaties with them. If we want to control the Navajoes, or any other Indians of which the Senator from Wisconsin has spoken, how do we do it? Do we pass a law to control them? Are they subject to our jurisdiction in that sense? Is it not understood that if we want to make arrangements with with Indians to whom he refers we do it by means of a treaty? The Senator himself has brought before us a great many treaties this session in order to get control of those people…

            Does the Government of the United States pretend to take jurisdiction of murders and robberies and other crimes committed by one Indian upon another? Are they subject to our jurisdiction in any just sense? They are not subject to our jurisdiction. We do not exercise jurisdiction over them. It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens.

            It’s clear from the quote — IN CONTEXT — that Senator Trumbull regarded people as being “subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States” if they were subject to our laws — “and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens.”

            Clearly, both non-citizen immigrants and their children fall into that category. It is therefore clear that Trumbull was NOT referring to such persons when he said “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” and “not owing allegiance to anybody else.”

          • Northland10 says:

            I am not sure about KBOA but sometimes I wonder if others do not actually understand the peculiar relationship between tribal governments and the United States Government or if they are intentionally ignoring it. Having grown up in Michigan and having spent some time on the subject, I may automatically assume everybody realizes the different relationship.

            On a side note to allegiance, some time ago, I recall reading the syllabus to a Supreme Court ruling. In it, it quoted part of a brief that discussed the concept of allegiance. In short, the writer of the brief was showing how allegiance was something a person owed to a sovereign. So we, who are collectively the sovereign and have no monarchy, no longer have the historical sense of allegiance but instead, now only have jurisdiction. Since the discussion was not part of the holding or even the opinion, I did not pursue it further at the time. Now, I do not even remember which case it was in. I mention it here only for a side note to Tracy’s comments.

            • KenyanBornObama says:

              lolololol, that’s the funniest thing I’ve heard yet!

              So why isn’t it called the “Pledge of Jurisdiction” instead of the “Pledge of Allegiance”?

              hahaha, that made me laugh so hard!

      • KenyanBornObama says:

        What do you mean unsourced? It’s MY video and the sources are all there. What do you need sorced that isn’t, I will get the source!

        • John Woodman says:

          Tracy,

          Please don’t post the same comment multiple times. They all go into the moderation queue and then I have to deal with the same comment several times when once would do.

          Okay? Thanks.

  20. KenyanbornObama says:

    Thanks, but I’ll stick with the intent by the author’s of the citizenship clauses in the Civil Rights Act & 14th amendment. I think they would know best, since they are the authors! They explain their intent in the debates leading up to the 14th amendment passage, which would not have passed with out their amendment!

    Senator Lyman Trumbull (author of Civil Rights Act citizenship clause amendment)”
    “The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ NOT OWING ALLEGIANCE TO ANYBODY ELSE. That is what it means.”
    http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=14

    This proves that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means the same exact thing as “not subject to any foreign power”

    Senator Howard (author of 14th amendment citizenship clause) concurs with Trumbull’s construction:
    “I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word “jurisdiction,” as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.”
    http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=16

    Any questions?

  21. KenyanbornObama says:

    Whatever chumps, you are the ones getting fooled, not us.

    Don’t hate us later when we say “I TOLD YOU SO!” lolol

  22. KenyanBornObama says:

    Screw this. I hate this moderation crap, waste of time!

    Unscurbe me please, BOOOORINGGGG!

    Later chumps!

  23. KenyanBornObama says:

    Wrong, you can ask Doc himself, he does not post my comments, although he writes articles about themand if you look at the fogbow forum thread, you guys banned me for nothing but posting facts and the reason for being banned says “Troll”, that’s it just TROLL. Then at the end of the thread, you posted my personal info and changed my avatar to a picture of a baby.

    Anyone who looks at the 42 page thread, can see that my facts are all there and you all bashed me for trying to debate. You told me you were all lawyers and that I couldn’t be as smart as you and didn’t stand a chance, and all kinds of other stuff. You called me fat and stupid and ugly loads of others things and it’s all stll there as evidence to prove it.
    link to 42 page thread:
    http://www.thefogbow.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=5226&sid=1150257a4f95ccbe7f19d033b8260e13

    • Suranis says:

      Firstly. you were put under Moderation at Docs because you were insistently spamming the board and insulting everyone, and would not stop when asked nicely.

      Secondly, you “Yes, that’s very rare to find, Obama supporters, letting the truth stay!” when by your own admission, right now, no-one has deleted your crap. And you even provided the link. How helpful

      Third, you it was explained to you IN DEPTH why you were banned at fogbow. This included

      Spamming – you posted incessantly, non stop, for 36 hours. I’d have shut you down after 12.

      Insulting- You were insulting people from your third post on that thread. And never stopped through the 48 pages. See your link. That’s against the rules of the board.

      Threats – You relayed a law suit threat against foggy from other people. That’s against the rules of the Board

      More threats – You threatened to reveal real life information about people and subsequently did so, even if you got most of the information completely wrong. That’s against the rules of the Board.

      Lying – you lied repeatedly about what people replied to you in posts to you and when called on it you lied some more. You know, like you just did in the post you just replied to, which I just supplied the quote from.

      The fact is babe you have been banned from more blogs than I have had breakfasts, Obot or not. How do I know that? Well, for example, here’s a reply I got from allvoices when I reported one of your posts there.

      Your abuse report has been approved.

      Hi Suranis,

      Thank you for flagging the comment titled “@dwight sullivan regarding Fogbow comment:
      “I happen to live in Anne Arundel County, Maryland, which is the county in which Tracy intends to bring her suit. (I even did an election law case in Anne Arundel County Circuit Court in my ACLU days, prevailing in a case to cancel a referendum on a gay rights statute because the State had improperly determined that the statute’s challengers had provided the required number of valid signatures.) I’ll be more than happy to acquire whatever papers are filed in the case.”

      The Circuit Court is such a cute little building, isn’t it Mr. Sulivan? But then you get inside and it’s really long. I saw you at the Lakin trial, so I know exactly what you look like and Mari too, I’ll keep an eye out for the two of you.

      It hasn’t been scheduled yet, but don’t worry, I will be announcing it all over!

      ,”. We’re writing to let you know that our team agrees with you and has removed the comment from our site.

      Oh but you will say that’s just an isolated example!! Wrong.

      Your abuse report has been approved.

      Hi Suranis,

      Thank you for flagging the comment titled “hahahaha you just posted this yourself, proving yourself WRONG!

      TOO FUNNY!

      “it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also”

      BORN IN A COUNTRY OF PARENTS(Plural) who were it’s citizens!
      OBAMA’S FATHER WAS NOT A CITIZEN!

      What a FOOL! LOLOLOLOL You should have stayed over at the fogbow, cause you sure ain’t helping them out any here!

      OMG that is so funny!”. We’re writing to let you know that our team agrees with you and has removed the comment from our site.

      And I’m sure I was not the only one reporting your crap. And yes I have more.

      So, by your standards its not just the “Obots” that delete your comments. Everyone does, “Obot” or not. And people delete your comments because they contain threats and they are offensive. Hell even that twit David Farrar manages to keep things civil while he is lying his ass off, so he doesn’t get his crap banned. When everyone in the world is banning you and deleting your posts, it’s not because the world is wrong, its generally because you are. You are just not a very nice person, Tracy, and that’s why no-one likes you. That’s nothing to do with Obama, that’s all on you. Even the birthers are sick of you and ignore you, because you’re not even useful for research as everything you pull up is obviously bollox, which means you are just not worth the annoyance of keeping you around.

      Hell, lets be honest, your 12 year old style howling on comment threads has probably gained more votes for Obama than any one of his speeches.

      • KenyanBornObama says:

        YAAAWWWNNNN!
        BLAH BLAH BLAH, who cares [detracted]
        LOL, what an [detracted]
        I’m glad you wasted all that time to write all those lies, but I will do what you do with facts and IGNOOOORE it.

        You act as if I care that I am banned from that lowlife site, hahaha, I have been banned from a couple dozen sites for posting the truth and I wear those bannings as a badge of honor, to be able to get those sites to shut down the truth, it only shows what kind of people they are, which are not patriotic Americans.

        You all can live in your little cespools of lies and pretend that you mean something, when we all know you are nothing but traitors and you will be the first ones named, when we start listing the aiders & abetters that covered up for this fraud that’s in our White House!

        PATHETIC people you obots are, [detracted]!

        • Northland10 says:

          Hmm, naming those that disagree with you as “aiders and abetters” when you “win.” Stalin would be so proud. It is not all that surprising since “birds of a paranoid feather…”

          Apparently, you still do not understand what it means to have a civil discussion. You have not been banned from other blogs not due to the content of your arguments, such as they are, but for you childish name calling and language.

          As an example, John nicely asked you to not use the “O” word here. Since the use of that work brings nothing to the argument you are making, it seems like a reasonable request, yet you persist in using it.

          It is not what you believe that causes your banning but how you are behaving.

          • KenyanBornObama says:

            Yet it’s fine and dandy to call us BIRTHERS, which has nothing at all do to with our couse.

            The reason people attack you is because you ignore the facts and act like they aren’t even there, when they are clearly 100% reliable facts.

            I couldn’t care less how you THINK my behavior should be. You will see in the end why we are so angry, because the truth has been hidden for so long. Once the truth is PROVEN TO YOU, then you will realize why we behave the way we do!

            You will be proven wrong, mark my words!

            Later Obots!

            • John Woodman says:

              Yet it’s fine and dandy to call us BIRTHERS, which has nothing at all do to with our couse.

              It has “nothing to do with your cause?”

              You claim that the current President is ineligible to the office because his BIRTH CERTIFICATE is supposedly “forged.”

              You claim that the current President is ineligible because he was supposedly BORN in some other country.

              You claim that the current President is ineligible because he was not BORN to two parents who were both citizens at the time of his BIRTH.

              The truth seems to be entirely irrelevant to you. You, like all the rest of your ilk, are completely prepared to throw the truth under the bus.

              Our Constitution seems to be entirely irrelevant to you. You, like all the rest of your ilk, are completely prepared to twist our Constitution to try and MAKE it say that President Obama is ineligible, because of whatever circumstance you can find having to do with his BIRTH, regardless of what it actually DOES say.

              Our history seems to be completely irrelevant to you as well. You’re completely prepared to throw our American history under the bus in order to find the current President ineligible due to circumstances of his BIRTH.

              And our legal precedent seems to be entirely irrelevant, too. Doesn’t matter what the Supreme Court actually ruled — you’re perfectly happy to claim that they created a binding precedent for the definition of “natural born citizen” in Minor v Happersett, or that they “only” found Wong Kim Ark to be a “citizen” and not a natural born citizen — neither of which are true — in order to push your agenda of finding the current President ineligible due to the circumstances of his BIRTH.

              In fact, you care NOTHING about our Constitution, our laws, our history, or the truth — all you care about is finding Obama ineligible due to his BIRTH.

              Now I’ll allow that for you and your ilk it’s not entirely about Obama’s birth. I’ll admit that if you could find some other pretense on which to find the man ineligible to his office, you would. So perhaps you are not, at the core, “birthers” at all — but Obama hate fanatics, who really aren’t that concerned about the American values of truth, the Constitution, and the rule of law.

              In fact, I suppose we could accurately and factually describe you as Unamerican Obama Hate Fanatics (UOHFs).

              But aside from the terms “birther” and UOHF, I can’t really think of any other accurate and descriptive term to call you.

              You tell me: which would you prefer to be referred to as? A Birther, or an Unamerican Obama Hate Fanatic?

              The reason people attack you is because you ignore the facts and act like they aren’t even there, when they are clearly 100% reliable facts.

              I have frankly WASTED an entire YEAR of my life running down and taking seriously more than 60 different FALSE claims of proof of forgery, evidence that “natural born citizen” requires two citizen parents and other absolute FALSEHOODS and doing justice to the idea that against all odds, there just MIGHT be something to some claim made by birthers by yourself — only to be accused at the end of expending tens of thousands of dollars worth of personal effort, at my own personal expense, of doing far more justice to birther claims than they EVER deserved, of “ignoring the facts and acting like they aren’t even there.” That false accusation is frankly far more than enough reason to ban you from this site forever.

              I couldn’t care less how you THINK my behavior should be. You will see in the end why we are so angry, because the truth has been hidden for so long. Once the truth is PROVEN TO YOU, then you will realize why we behave the way we do!

              Even if you were correct in any of your claims (which you aren’t) it still would not justify your behavior toward others.

              Later Obots!

              I could repeat the obvious fact that I’m politically opposed to Mr. Obama, but what would be the point? Once again you illustrate what you’re made of, and how you are prepared to defame and otherwise mistreat others in your quest to push your demonstrated false claims.

            • Suranis says:

              I wish I could do more to compensate you for your time and effort than simply buying your book, John. :S

            • John Woodman says:

              Thanks for the good wishes, Suranis. I appreciate them! :-D

          • KenyanBornObama says:

            NO, my claim is that Obama is not eligible because he is not a natural born citizen as required by the Constitution, NO MATTER WHERE HE WAS BIRTHED!

            NOTHING ELSE MATTERS!

  24. BrianH says:

    Re: KenyanBornObama’s comment:

    “There have been rulings that have been reversed, so everyone knows judges aren’t perfect and once we get the truth out about citizen and NBC, Wong Kim Ark will need to be oeverturned (sic), because it’s unconstitutional!”

    This is the first time I’ve observed a Birther actually state the obvious: that the Wong Kim Ark court’s analysis of “natural born citizen,” undertaken in the context of a case involving a person born in the U.S. of alien parents, leads clearly to the conclusion that Mr. Wong (and hence President Obama) is a “natural born citizen” (i.e., that Justice Fuller in dissent was correct in his assessment of the implications of the majority opinion as to Presidential eligibility of a person such as Mr. Wong).

    In the midst of rant, sometimes tantalizing intrusions of reality shine through.

    • John Woodman says:

      I think it’s probably the first time I’ve heard a birther acknowledge the obvious truth about US v Wong Kim Ark as well.

      • BrianH says:

        To be precise, I should say first time as to a “Vattelist” Birther There are Certificate Birthers like “Squeeky Fromm Girl Reporter” who recognize that WKA turns the “2-citizen parent” argument into bovine caca.

        • John Woodman says:

          Squeeky hung up her birther hat. You should read her blog lately; she’s always very entertaining.

Comments are closed.