New Jersey Court Finds Obama “Natural Born Citizen,” Chastises Apuzzo for His Common-Law Claim

New Jersey Judge Jeff Masin

New Jersey Judge Jeff Masin: Two Citizen Parents Not Required

A New Jersey court has ruled against another ballot challenge filed on the basis that it supposedly takes two citizen parents to be a “natural born citizen,” specifically taking birther lawyer Mario Apuzzo to task for making the claim that the common law rule for natural born citizenship did not apply on the national level.

Here are quotes from the ruling by Judge Jeff Masin in the case of Purpura & Moran v Obama:

While there are several decisions that could be cited, the decision issued by the Court of Appeals of Indiana in 2009 in Ankeny v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), is representative of the position taken by courts and other agencies who have considered the merits of the issue. As the court therein noted, and as the petitioners here have contended, the thrust of the argument against Obama’s status as natural born is that there is a “clear distinction between being a ‘citizen of the United states’ and a ‘natural born Citizen.’” Id. at 685. The decision notes that the petitioner therein, as here, cites to an eighteenth century treatise by Emmerich de Vattel, “The Law of Nations” and to various early sources for support for their argument that one who is the child of a non-citizen cannot be natural born even if born in the United States. But the Ankeny court, relying upon the decision of the United States Supreme Court in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S.649, 18 S. Ct. 456, 42 L. Ed. 890 (1898), rejected that position.

In Wong Kim Ark, Justice Gray wrote at great length about the understanding of the term “natural born” and its common law meaning, probing English authorities and concluding that [by] the “law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, . . . every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established. ”This position as to the common law meaning is in accord with Justice Joseph Story’s statement, concurring in Inglis v. Trustees of Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. (3 Pet.) 99,7 L. Ed. 617 (1830), “Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children, even of aliens, born in a country, while the parents reside there under the protection of the government, and owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth.” See Wong Kim Ark, 160 U.S. at 660, 18 S. Ct. at 461. In Wong Kim Ark, the Court also cited Justice Swayne’s comment in United States v. Rhodes, 1 Abbott 26,40, 41 (1860).

All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.

The Wong Kim Ark Court then stated

We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions [children of ambassadors, etc.], since as before the Revolution.

[Wong Kim Ark, supra, at 169 U.S. 662-663, 18 S. Ct. at462].

[T]he Wong Kim Ark ruling certainly goes very far in defining the term ['natural born citizen'] and its meaning in this country. And the decision does not suggest that the common law rule identified therein only applied at the state level and not on a national basis, as counsel here claims.

The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr.Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a “natural born Citizen” regardless of the status of his father.

Based upon the above I CONCLUDE that the petitioners have failed to meet their burden to establish that Barak Obama failed in any obligation to prove to the Secretary of State that he is qualified to hold the Presidency[,] and that he is a “natural born Citizen” of the United States of America, as required by the United States Constitution. The petitions challenging his petitions are DISMISSED.

Not surprisingly, it didn’t take long for a “birther” to label Judge Masin a “traitor.”

One starts to get the feeling it must be a bummer to live in a world with so few “patriots” and so very many “traitors.”

This entry was posted in Natural Born Citizen, What's Happening. Bookmark the permalink.

63 Responses to New Jersey Court Finds Obama “Natural Born Citizen,” Chastises Apuzzo for His Common-Law Claim

  1. ehancock says:

    I believe that this is now four state courts–Indiana, Georgia, Arizona and now New Jersey. And one federal court.

    Or have I lost count?

  2. ehancock says:

    It would be good to post a link to the ruling. I cannot find it.

  3. ehancock says:

    Many thanks for the link. I have bookmarked it.

  4. There was actually a third petitioner in NJ, one Patrick Galasso. He failed to show up for the hearing and had no representative there but Judge Masin said since Galasso’s challenge raised the same issues he would handle them together. The ruling shows the other case. I guess we could technically count that as two wins but why be greedy.

    • John Woodman says:

      Why be greedy indeed, when we have at least 10 courts, including the US Supreme Court, that have either plainly ruled that it doesn’t take two citizen parents to make a natural-born citizen, or that have simply, clearly referred to persons with non-citizen parents as natural-born citizens?

      And when not a single court in the history of the United States has ever stated that two citizen parents are required.

  5. John Woodman,

    Why not present the words of any court that has actually addressed my arguments rather than just avoid my arguments by simply citing Wong Kim Ark and missrepresenting what it held.

    • John Woodman says:

      Hi, Mario.

      First of all, I note your use of the classic technique I’ve seen now from “birthers” time and time again:

      Baldly assert falsehoods, completely without any supporting evidence whatsoever.

      In this case, the first falsehood you assert is that I have supposedly “misrepresented” the holding of US v Wong Kim Ark.

      The claim, of course, is absolutely false. It is shown to be false by the clear words of the Court in that case, presented here. You have not and can not refute those clear words of the Court.

      The best you can do at this point is keep insisting on the sameolddebunkedfalsehoods.

      The second false assertion is that I “avoid your arguments.” I wouldn’t call this “avoiding your arguments.” In fact, I seem to recall that you were the one who fled from that debate.

      The third falsehood (three falsehoods in barely three lines — you’re certainly a very prolific prevaricator, aren’t you?) is that I don’t “present the words of any court that has actually addressed [your] arguments.”

      But I did so in this very article!

      In fact, virtually the entire article is a presentation of the words of a court that listened attentively to what you had to say — You were there, in person, remember? You were the actual lawyer pleading the case for Obama’s ineligibility before the court, remember? — who then ruled directly and specifically against you.

      In case you somehow missed any of those words above, I will repeat the bit that contains the judge’s reference to you personally:

      [T]he Wong Kim Ark ruling certainly goes very far in defining the term ['natural born citizen'] and its meaning in this country. And the decision does not suggest that the common law rule identified therein only applied at the state level and not on a national basis, as counsel [Mario Apuzzo] here claims.

      I’ve also presented elsewhere the exact words of the Arizona court who ruled directly against your position, but who, by reason of geographical distance and your lack of direct involvement in that case, missed out on being able to chastise you in person:

      “Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution… and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President… Contrary to Plaintiff’s [and Mario Apuzzo's] assertion, Minor v. Happersett… does not hold otherwise.“

      Incidentally, I wrote an entire post on that Arizona ruling as well, noting what an official judicial slap that was for anyone who makes the frivolous Minor v Happersett claim that you make.

      Do we need to delve into the words of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which threatened to slap you with significant monetary sanctions for your frivolous claims ?

      I didn’t think it was necessary for me to document that, since your 95 pages of attempting to defend your nonsense and groveling before the court is available elsewhere. But I suppose we can explore that too if you really want to.

      Again, I do regret your having painted yourself into this corner by making all of these false claims in the first place. At this point (since you didn’t take my good and frankly kindly-intentioned advice two and a half months ago) whatever you do, those claims will remain a permanent stain upon your reputation.

      It is fortunate for you that stains do eventually tend to fade a bit over time. But in the near term, there’s no place for you to go except fishing.

      Which would, in fact, be an excellent idea for all of us.

      • John Woodman,

        Your rhetoric does nothing to convince anyone who engages in critical thinking on the meaning of a “natural born Citizen.” You fail to quote anything from any court which specifically addresses my evidence that the Founders and Framers obtained their definition of a “natural born Citizen” from the law of nations and not from the English common law. The only thing that you and the courts you cite to can use is Wong Kim Ark and misrespresent with more general rhetoric what it says.

        Your lies are quite evident from how you quote what ALJ said about Wong, having to insert “natural born citizen” into the quoted language by use of your famous brackets. This is your scholarly representation: “‘[T]he Wong Kim Ark ruling certainly goes very far in defining the term ['natural born citizen'] and its meaning in this country.’” You see, Mr. Goodman, your brackets are nothing more than what you wish the decision would have said.

        You lie in saying ALJ Masin “chastised” me for my common-law claim. He did no such thing.

        You also lie in saying that the Third Circuit wanted to “sanction” me about my argument concerning the meaning of a “natural born Citizen.”

        • John Woodman says:

          Mario,

          Your rhetoric does nothing to convince anyone who engages in critical thinking on the meaning of a “natural born Citizen.”

          Rhetoric may not, but I have no doubt that any honest, reasonably unbiased person who does engage in critical thinking, and who bothers to investigate your claims will come to much the same conclusions that I have.

          You fail to quote anything from any court which specifically addresses my evidence that the Founders and Framers obtained their definition of a “natural born Citizen” from the law of nations and not from the English common law.

          Totally bogus, for at least two reasons. First, as you well know, lower courts are bound by law to follow the precedents set by higher courts. So all that most of the courts really need to do is cite that higher precedent and tell you to get out of their courtroom.

          In fact, about all they really need to do is cite US v Wong Kim Ark, where the entire past history and intention of the Founding Fathers and Framers regarding citizenship — including the term “natural born citizen” — was explored over more than 50 pages of research and discussion.

          Secondly, your “evidence” is anything but. Anyone only needs to consult our previous debate to begin to get a sense for how many of your sources actually refute you. Your writings are also full of statements like “the Founding Fathers would have believed…” and “therefore, the Framers would have used…” It’s all woulda, coulda, shoulda.

          And why is it that way? Because you can’t produce one single direct statement from any really notable figure in all of history, from medieval times in England through the American colonial period, through the Revolution, through the Framing of the Constitution, the 1800s including the post-Civil-War era when citizenship was discussed for months in both Houses of Congress, the Wong Kim Ark era, or the 1900s up until today, in which such a person ever maintained that it takes two citizen parents to make a natural born citizen.

          That in itself is plenty of evidence that the history of our nation says no such thing.

          The only thing that you and the courts you cite to can use is Wong Kim Ark and misrespresent with more general rhetoric what it says.

          As noted before, you have not and can not refute the plain words of the Supreme Court in US v Wong Kim Ark.

          But there’s another point I’d like to make here, while I’m on the topic:

          It’s the absolute — I hate to say this, but “idiocy” is honestly simply not a strong enough word for it — “mind-blowing, insane ludicrousness” might be better? of you claiming that more than 50 pages of carefully reasoned history and discussion in the later, overriding case of Wong Kim Ark counts for nothing… but a two-sentence complete and utter side comment in the prior case of Minor v Happersett, which doesn’t even say what you claim it says, somehow counts for everything.

          Your lies are quite evident from how you quote what ALJ said about Wong, having to insert “natural born citizen” into the quoted language by use of your famous brackets.

          Obviously, I inserted the phrase simply to make it clear what specific term the Judge was referring to, as he himself said simply, “the term.” It is absolutely clear from the context what term he was referring to, and my clarification for those who don’t have the full passage in front of them is absolutely truthful.

          Unlike with so many of your writings, readers can go and check out the source for themselves, and discover that I have accurately represented it.

          This is your scholarly representation: “‘[T]he Wong Kim Ark ruling certainly goes very far in defining the term ['natural born citizen'] and its meaning in this country.’”

          The exact statement, minus my clarification of which term the Judge was referring to, is a verbatim quote from him.

          You see, Mr. Goodman, your brackets are nothing more than what you wish the decision would have said.

          Mario, you already appear to most honest observers to be completely lacking either in competence or in honesty, or in both.

          You probably don’t really want to compound their perception of lack of competence by getting the last name of someone you’ve corresponded with for months wrong, especially in the same post in which you’ve previously gotten it right.

          You lie in saying ALJ Masin “chastised” me for my common-law claim. He did no such thing.

          Looked like a chastisement to me.

          You also lie in saying that the Third Circuit wanted to “sanction” me about my argument concerning the meaning of a “natural born Citizen.”

          I stated that they “threatened to slap you with significant monetary sanctions for your frivolous claims.” Their exact words are posted below, and anybody can see that in addition to the many other false claims you’ve made, you add one more in falsely charging me with lying.

          • Mr. Woodman,

            You said: “As noted before, you have not and can not refute the plain words of the Supreme Court in US v Wong Kim Ark.”

            Here is your big chance. Why do you not share with us all those “plain words of the Supreme Court in U.S. v Wong Kim Ark” which show that the Court held that Wong was a “natural born Citizen.”

            And please do not tell me about how the Court wrote over 50 pages talking about the English common law. By the way, I did not see that the Court mentioned anything about the Founders and Framers in those 50 pages on the English common law.

            • John Woodman says:

              Why do you not share with us all those “plain words of the Supreme Court in U.S. v Wong Kim Ark” which show that the Court held that Wong was a “natural born Citizen.”

              I already did.

              Granted, I don’t think I made the case quite as thoroughly and effectively as is possible. I’m sure there’s more in those 50-plus pages of discussion that could be commented on.

              But the points already presented should be enough to establish that the Supreme Court clearly found that Wong Kim Ark was not only “a citizen,” he was also “natural born.”

              And if he was both “natural born” and “a citizen,” it is certainty that he was a natural born citizen.

    • John Woodman says:

      Actually, since we’re on the topic — and since you have specifically asked me to “present the words of any court that has actually addressed [your] arguments,” let’s go ahead with a quote from that Third District Court of Appeals in the matter of Kerchner v Obama:

      Examination of this precedent would have made it “obvious to a reasonable attorney [i.e., someone other than Mario Apuzzo, Esq.] that an appeal from the District Court’s order was frivolous, [as no] law or facts . . . support a conclusion that the District Court judge had erred.” Beam, 383 F.3d at 109.

      Moreover, other courts have imposed sanctions for similar reasons. See Hollister v. Soetero, 258 F.R.D. 1, 2-5 (D.D.C. 2009) (reprimanding an attorney under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b)(2) for signing and filing a complaint alleging that President Obama was ineligible to serve as president because he is not a “natural born Citizen”)

      In the past, “we cautioned counsel [that is, Mario Apuzzo, Esq.] that a finding by a District Court that a lawsuit is frivolous should serve as notice to the parties and their attorney to exercise caution, pause, and devote additional examination to the legal validity and factual merit of his contentions.” Beam, 383 F.3d at 109 (quotation omitted).

      Although the District Court did not explicitly state that Appellants’ claims were frivolous, the finding of other district courts that plaintiffs who filed complaints based on similar legal theories violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 should have served as meaningful notice that the appeal here would be frivolous.

      We therefore will order Appellants’ counsel [that is, Mario Apuzzo, Esq.] to show cause why he should not pay just damages and costs for having filed a frivolous appeal.

      • Your are some great liar, Mr. Woodman. What you quote from the Third Circuit has nothing to do with the meaning of a “natural born Citizen.” The issue there was whether I it was reasonable for me to appeal to the Third Circuit on the issue of standing. The Court asked to hear from me on the issue of appealing on the issue of standing. I explained to the Court that appealing on standing in the Article II “natural born Citizen” context had no guidance from the U.S. Supreme Court. I explained that standing is a very nebulous concept, with court spliting 5-4 on it. I cited and discussed the many decision that I researched on the issue of standing. I also explained that the Kerchner case was the only one of its kind in terms of the claims made and the timing of its filing. The Court was satisfied with my answer and they did not impose any defense costs against me.

        By the way, you really have gotten desperate.

        • John Woodman says:

          You know what? I’m going to do something that I have no doubt that you yourself would never do, and that to my recollection, I’ve never, ever actually seen you do.

          I’m going to grant you a point here.

          Going back and really reading their judgment, I will certainly agree with you that that particular court dismissed the case on the issue of standing.

          And I will also absolutely agree that they threatened you with sanctions for a frivolous appeal based not on the merits of your “natural born citizen” arguments (or lack thereof), but on the fact that you ought to have had better sense regarding the issue of whether the plaintiffs had standing, than to appeal the case.

          That doesn’t change the fact that your actual arguments are also frivolous. It doesn’t change the fact that a couple of your specific positions were slapped down by the other two courts. And it doesn’t change the fact that when one traces down your claims, there always seems to be less there than was advertised.

          By the way, you really have gotten desperate.

          I’m not the person whose claims have been shown to be false again and again and again.

          I’m not the one against whose basic position at least 10 federal and state courts have ruled, and for whose basic position no court has ever ruled.

          And I’m not the one who has painted himself into a corner with falsehood after falsehood and now sees no way out.

  6. Ed says:

    Mr. Woodman,

    You’ve “debunked” many of the birther claims on this site…yet I looked around and see nothing that debunks the claims that Obama is using someone else’s Social security number and a fake Selective service card…care to “debunk” those?

    • John Woodman says:

      Ed,

      I don’t have access to the Social Security records, so I don’t think there’s a great deal I can add to the conversation on that. I will only comment here that I haven’t personally found the claims that Obama is using someone else’s Social Security number to be convincing. And that’s simply a personal opinion.

      As for the fake Selective Service card, as far as I’m aware those claims seemed to be based upon a supposedly fake postmark. Mr. Kevin Davidson of ObamaConspiracy.org managed to clearly debunk that notion within days of when it was produced by Arpaio’s posse, by showing that their claim that someone had taken a 2008 postmark stamp and altered it couldn’t possibly be true, since the postmark stamp on the application says “USPO” and not “USPS.”

      One other small comment: I would think that if we were able to get all of the various different “birther claims,” large and small, together in one place, they would probably exceed 100. Even the reasonably significant ones are going to number more than 50.

      A very great many of the claims have been conclusively shown to be completely and absolutely false. And not one of the claims that have any significance at all has ever been proven to be true.

      And that’s a track record. Every verifiable claim that I’ve ever looked into has turned out to be false or unsupported by the evidence. Every single one.

      So what we have is a great huge mass of allegations, none of it supported by any good evidence. This is true both on the place-of-birth-plus-forgery allegations, and regarding the two-citizen-parents allegations. And of course you have the few miscellaneous bits like the Social Security and Secret Service stuff. But it’s all allegations. And there’s no good evidence — at least none at all that I have been able to uncover in an entire year of research — to support any of it.

      In other words, it all shows every imaginable sign of being just a great big huge mountain of absolute rubbish.

      Is there a multi-billion-dollar treasure chest from Captain Kidd hidden somewhere in the trash dump, in the midst of all the rotten leftovers from fast-food restaurants, and the plastic bags and the rain-soaked junk mail and crumpled milk cartons and shredded hospital paperwork?

      Can’t say that it’s totally impossible.

      But I very, very seriously doubt it.

      • gorefan says:

        “Obama is using someone else’s Social Security number to be convincing. ”

        Really, what evidence has been presented to suggest that?

  7. You said: “But the points already presented should be enough to establish that the Supreme Court clearly found that Wong Kim Ark was not only “a citizen,” he was also ‘natural born.’”

    Why do you not give us an exact quote from Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark in which as you say he said that Wong was “natural born.”

    Please do not answer my question by providing some link. Your previous use of that technique shows clearly that you have nothing to back up your pompous pronouncements.

    • John Woodman says:

      Apparently, the fact that I’ve already written a clear and detailed full article on the subject isn’t “good enough” for you.

      You demand that I reduce an entire detailed analysis of some 2,300 words that I have previously written on the subject to a single sound bite — and you further imply that if I can’t, or won’t, accede to your demand, then what I’ve said in the course of that 2,300 word analysis is somehow not valid.

      The demand is bogus. It’s not sincere. You know, and I know, that the Court clearly found that any person in Wong Kim Ark’s exact situation was both “natural born” and “a citizen.”

      You know, and I know, that the Court clearly stated that the exact same rule had always applied, in the United States as well as England; that under that rule the children born on the soil of the country, even of alien parents — which precisely and perfectly describes Wong Kim Ark — were always “natural born;” and that that rule had never been changed.

      The fact that you’re completely unwilling to meet all of the points made in the article referenced head-on, and attempt to answer them, shows that you can’t.

      But we knew that already.

      • I guess Mr. Woodman cannot point to any part of the Wong Kim Ark decision in which the Court said that Wong was “natural born.”

        • John Woodman says:

          I refer readers to the full article, which establishes clearly that they found Mr. Wong to be “natural born.”

          And I also refer readers to Mr. Apuzzo’s absolute and repeated refusal to deal with the actual points made in that article.

          Facts regarding US v Wong Kim Ark < -> Mario Apuzzo.
          Water < -> Cat.
          Garlic < -> Vampire.

    • John Woodman says:

      PS – It’s actually a bit entertaining to watch you continually dig yourself deeper and deeper into the hole.

      You might imagine that if you keep digging long enough, you will eventually be able to reach China and dig yourself out. But I think you are rather naive on that point.

  8. john says:

    The court’s ruling in Wong Kim Ark is a contradiction about the meaning of Natural Born Citizen. Judge Marin cites the contradiction and actually proves that Obama is not an NBC. Why? The courts have evaded the most fundamental and important remark that says Obama is NOT an NBC. What is it? The fact that Wong Kim Ark court held that Wong Kim Ark was a “Citizen” BUT they did not rule Wong Kim Ark a “Natural Born Citizen”. This is the most important fact that can be taken from the Wong Kim Ark case which proves Obama is NOT an NBC. Judge Marin’s and the other courts’ ruling stating that Wong Kim Ark defined NBC is a CONTRADICTION. It is impossible for the Wong Kim Ark case to have defined Natural Born Citizen because if they had the would have ruled Wong Kim Ark a “Natural Born Citizen”. This is further supported by the Obot claim that there are only 2 types of citizens – Naturalized and Natural Born. We know Wong Kim Ark wasn’t a naturalized…ergo Wong Kim Ark must have been Natural Born…Wrong. The court never ruled Wong Kim Ark a Natural Born Citizen. Mario is absolutely right to suggest that Wong Kim Ark court had created the 3rd class of citizens – The 14th Admendment Citizen which was what Wong Kim Ark was. So there we have it…3 classes of citizens: Naturalized, Natural Born, and 14th Admendment Citizens.

  9. john says:

    Here is the Contradiction that Judge Marin makes which proves Obama is NOT a “Natural Born Citizen”.

    “…..shall be natural-born citizens” there were “some authorities” who held that “children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents” were citizens. The Court concludes that itwas not necessary to decide that issue in Minor. Wong Kim Ark more directly addresses the issue of whois “natural-born” although it is acknowledged that neither of these cases involved the use of the term inconnection with a presidential candidate and the unique Constitutional requirements for holding that office.Nevertheless, the Wong Kim Ark ruling certainly goes very far in defining the term and its meaning in thiscountry. And the decision does not suggest that the common law rule identified therein only applied at thestate level and not on a national basis, as counsel here claims”

    Exactly right. The court never ruled Wong Kim Ark Natural Born even though Obots claim Wong Kim Ark could only be Naturalized or be Natural Born. The claim that Wong Kim Ark was not running or president is nonsensical since numerous other court cases have mentioned the term “Natural Born Citizen” which had not nothing to with the person running for POTUS.

    Wong Kim Ark was ruled a “Citizen of the United States at Birth” by virtue of the 14th admendment and hence represents the 3rd class of citizenship.

    If the Wong Kim Ark case had defined the meaning of “Natural Born” citizenship, then they would have ruled Wong Kim Ark a “Natural Born” Citizen. They didn’t.

    • John Woodman says:

      john, I think ballantine has quite adequately addressed your posts in his comments below.

      Nonetheless:

      I have clearly addressed both Minor v Happersett (in a 5-part series) and US v Wong Kim Ark in other articles on this site. The former established no precedent, and the latter did, quite clearly finding Wong Kim Ark to be both a citizen and “natural born.”

      Based on the known facts, I personally don’t see any way that the information presented in these articles is refutable.

      There’s really only one thing I would add — a comment on a statement by this court, which said:

      Wong Kim Ark more directly addresses the issue of who is “natural-born” although it is acknowledged that neither of these cases involved the use of the term in connection with a presidential candidate and the unique Constitutional requirements for holding that office.

      That is true, but the court might well have also noted that both courts noted the importance of the phrase in the Presidential eligibility clause.

  10. ballantine says:

    Astounding that people who have no understanding of law continue to post on these issues. Whether or not Justice Gray called Wong Kim Ark a “natural born citizen” is not relevant to whether the court’s definition of natural born citizen by the English common law is precedent. The holding is not limited to the disposition, but also includes the rationale and all necessary legal propositions for such disposition. The disposition of the case was that Wong Kim Ark was a “citizen,” it didn’t say 14th Amendment citizen. This disposition was preceded by 21 pages that said he would have been a citizen under the original Constitution because the English common law was incorporated into the definition of natural born citizen and such included children of aliens. The court then spent 19 pages saying the 14th amendment re-stated the same English common law rule clarifying that the rule was color blind. It is astounding that anyone would say that NBC means something different from the 14th Amendment when the basis of the entire decision is they mean the same thing. Is it dishonesty or stupidity? And the definition of “natural born” is not dicta as such is the basis of citizenship by birth both before and after the Amendment. Even if the dispostion related only to 14th amendment citizenship, it would not be dicta since the 14th Amendment was deemed to only be declaratory and affirmative of pre-existing law and it would have been necessary to define pre-existing law under the original Constitution. Do all birthers have their minds go blank when they read the provisions of WKA saying NBC should be defined by the English common law and the 5 or so pages saying NBC means the same thing as natural born subject which obviously includes children of aliens? Again, is it dishonesty or ignorance?

    • Thomas Brown says:

      “Is it dishonesty or stupidity? ”

      This is Birfers we’re talking about. Dishonest stupidity? Stupid dishonesty?

      And more. The sky’s the limit.

      • John Magurn says:

        I think it’s pretty clear by now that nobody is going to prove that Obama is not a “natural born citize” , nor will they be able to prove he was not born in Hawaii. I believe the fact that his eligibility has been contested so vigorously, and that evidence proving his eligibility conclusively has not been forthcoming tends to to create some doubt. And that doubt is further strengthened by the curious enrollment of this “natural born citizen” as a FOREIGN STUDENT. Are supporters of Obama’s eligibility who ignore this evidence to the contrary stupid or dishonest? I’m going with dishonest.

    • ballantine,

      You maintain that Wong Kim Ark defined what a “natural born Citizen” is. Can you provide for us where in Wong Kim Ark there is any discussion by the Court about what the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” was to the Founders and Framers, including discussion of what transpired during the Constitutional convention regarding the clause, what the Court believed to be the reason the Founders and Framers included the clause in the Constitution, what the early Congresses believed the clause to mean, and what any Founder and Framer at or about the time the Constitution was adopted said about the clause.

      • John Woodman says:

        I’m sure ballantine will be quite happy to write that extensive treatise once you’ve provided one single quote from any Founder or Framer that states either that they relied on Vattel for the meaning of “natural born citizen,” or that being such required two citizen parents.

      • ballantine says:

        Why? Do you think those are requirements for the decision to be binding? Gray and the Court understood that undefined terms in the Constitution are English legal terms and he goes on to cite a multitude of early authority to support our adoption of the English common law. It is true he could have cited much more, but he made his point. He could have pointed out that “natural born” didn’t exist outside the common law in 1787. He could have pointed out that no one in the Convention mentioned Vattel or parentage when discussing eligibilty and that the only thing discussed was a native birth requirement. He could have pointed out that Madison himself made clear we adopted the English rule rejecting the self-serving argument of sore loser Ramsey who tried pushing a theory to disqualify the man who beat him. He could have pointed out that it is simply an historical fact that “natural born subject” and “natural born citizen” were conflated for decades by the courts and legislatures. He could have cited at least a dozen more early scholars supporting his view. However, he clearly made his point.

        There is no definative historical record on exactly why the provision was adopted. The court does not speculate about such things and is not going to speculate that they would have wanted a parentage requirement when no framer said anything to support such notion.

    • John Woodman says:

      Is it dishonesty or stupidity?

      In the case of “john,” I’m willing to go with the lesser charge, as long as it includes an understanding of willful neglect.

      But when it comes to Mr. Apuzzo, he is a lawyer, and he is expected both to understand the law and to represent it accurately. He also makes detailed and what we might call “skilled” arguments, even if they involve logical fallacies and techniques such as use of the “straw man.”

      In Mr. Apuzzo’s case, for these reasons, I personally find a belief in the lesser charge to be a very difficult proposition.

      • ballantine says:

        Well, maybe my language was a little harsh. I shouldn’t say they are “stupid.” I think the vast majority of birthers have never read these cases carefully and merely repeat what they read on blogs. It isn’t rocket science but takes some effort to understand these long opinions. Holding-dicta is a more difficult subject that requires some research to understand and, in fact, even scholars often argue about. I have seen little evidence of birthers educating themselves to understand this subject. And clearly one doesn’t need to be lawyer to understand this stuff as I think most of the best informed anti-birthers are not lawyers. They put in the effort. So I think most birthers honestly believe they are right. They simply haven’t educated themselves.

        What drives me nuts is when people are shown unambiguous language and refuse to admit what plain english means instead twisting, parsing and re-defining the words to claim up is down and black is white. This is plain dishonesty. I can understand that even lawyers have trouble understanding Calvin’s Case (Madison almost quite law due to his difficulty trying to understand Coke). I can’t understand twisting plain english to claim something says the opposite of what it actually says.

        • John Woodman says:

          Well, maybe my language was a little harsh. I shouldn’t say they are “stupid.” I think the vast majority of birthers have never read these cases carefully and merely repeat what they read on blogs.

          And I largely agree with you. I see something of a problem with some of them, though, like “john,” who have interacted a lot on non-birther sites. (I’m pretty sure “john” will be the same “john” I’ve seen in discussions on ObamaConspiracy.org).

          Some of these folks have been told the truth so many times that they don’t really have a good excuse for not doing due diligence and discovering the truth, and they really don’t have a good excuse for continuing to make claims that they’ve already been shown to be false.

          And yes, I know that some of these folks aren’t quite astute enough, or open-minded enough, to grasp that they’re being told the truth. But it seems to me that they ought to be able to say to themselves, “You know, even if I’m not convinced, there’s actually some legitimate doubt here, so I shouldn’t repeat things I don’t know to be true.”

          It isn’t rocket science but takes some effort to understand these long opinions.

          Especially when you’re just starting out.

          Holding-dicta is a more difficult subject that requires some research to understand and, in fact, even scholars often argue about. I have seen little evidence of birthers educating themselves to understand this subject.

          I have meant to thank you, first for stopping by and benefiting us with your informed presence here, and secondly for your post that did a good deal to clarify some of the points regarding holdings, dicta, disposition, etc.

          In the defense of non-lawyers, I will say that there seems to be little obviously and readily available in the way of clear guidance for understanding some of these distinctions of the law.

          A question: I would think that it is technically correct to state that the US Supreme Court “held that any child in Wong Kim Ark’s exact situation is a natural born citizen.” They made this statement in two parts, stating that such a person is “natural born,” and in their disposition that Wong Kim Ark was a citizen.

          However, since they didn’t make this statement directly in reference to Wong Kim Ark, but only indirectly, I would think that it wouldn’t be 100% technically correct to state, “the US Supreme Court held Wong Kim Ark to be a natural born citizen.”

          Would that be your understanding? Or would you see it differently?

          What drives me nuts is when people are shown unambiguous language and refuse to admit what plain english means instead twisting, parsing and re-defining the words to claim up is down and black is white. This is plain dishonesty.

          I understand this the least, and have the least patience for it, when it is a lawyer doing it.

        • ballantine says:

          “A question: I would think that it is technically correct to state that the US Supreme Court “held that any child in Wong Kim Ark’s exact situation is a natural born citizen.”

          I think you are right that that is not the best way to frame it. This is confusing in that “held” is used in two different senses. Here is the well know Stearns and Abromowitz article on holding-dicta which calls everything that is not dicta holding.

          http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/fac_pubs/119/

          This includes the dispostition and all necessary and sufficient legal propositions on the road to the disposition. In the Bakke case, I think they list 10 separate holdings. Other people call the specific disposition the holding and the rest of the non-dicta the rationale or the ratio decidendi of the decision. It is largely a matter of sematics as the ratio decidendi is still generally deemed to be precedent though litigants tend to use holding in the broadest sense for cases that help tham and use it in the narrowest sense for cases that hurt them. To avoid confusion, I usually try to write the holding in a manner to clarify what is dispostion and what is rationale. Hence I would say “the Court held that WKA was a citizen since a native born child of aliens was both a natural born citizen under the original Constitution and a citizen by birth under the 14th Amendment.” I think such accurately articulates what the court said. What is clear is that the notion that the detailed discussion of natural born citizenship doesn’t court because the court didn’t call WKA a natural born citizen is just wrong no matter how appealing such argument sounds to unedecated birthers.

          I should add that these discussions are largely academic in that lower courts generally treat supreme court dicta as precedent anyway, particularly well supported dicta. The supreme court sometimes does as well as the court takes so few cases there is often on dicta on aa subject. I doubt we will see any lower court do a holding-dicta analysis as once they read what the court has said, they will follow it.

          • John Woodman says:

            I have to this point refrained from wording it that the Court “held” that Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen. I have usually stated it this way:

            The Court clearly found that Wong Kim Ark was both “natural born” (which they stated as an “irresistible” “conclusion”) and a citizen. Therefore, it is clear that the Supreme Court found Wong Kim Ark to be a natural born citizen.

            That language might go slightly beyond the way you phrased it (which I like), but I think it’s still accurate. It doesn’t bother me that they didn’t put it in the words “Wong Kim Ark is natural born” — they were abundantly clear that any child, born on US soil of parents who were not members of the few excluded groups is and always has been, as far back as one can trace, a “natural born subject” or a “natural born citizen.”

            If you have time, I’d appreciate your having a look at my article on US v Wong Kim Ark and making any comments. The article is fairly bare-bones, I’ve stuck to what I see as the main points and I’m sure there’s a lot more that could be said about the case, but I think what’s there is enough to establish that WKA was a natural born citizen.

            Certainly Mr. Apuzzo hasn’t seemed able to address the points made therein.

  11. Speak2Truth says:

    >> The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr.Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a “natural born Citizen” regardless of the status of his father.

    Sadly, that claim contradicts the WRITTEN LAW DEFINING NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. The US Congress wrote the legal definition of Natural Born Citizen shortly after the Constitution was ratified, to ensure liars like this Judge could be easily spotted.

    “And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens” – Naturalization Act 1790

    Later modified by

    “and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States” – 3rd Congress, 2nd Session

    With the exclusion of those born outside US Jurisdiction, what the LAW states is best summed up as:

    “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.” – Representative John Bingham of Ohio, a principal framer of the Fourteenth Amendment

    Notably, this is the EXACT criteria applied when certifying that John McCain is legally a Natural Born Citizen:

    “Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.” – Senate Resolution 511

    1) Born to parents who are both Citizens. Check

    2) Born under US Jurisdiction. Panama Canal Zone was under US Sovereignty at the time. Check

    This Judge is indeed lying to do Obama a huge favor. The LAW clearly contradicts his ruling. He is, in fact, a traitor helping prolong an illegal occupation of the White House and he either knows it or he is so ignorant of the law he needs to find a new job.

    • John Woodman says:

      You know, the very INSTANT I glanced at this post and saw — before I had read any of the content at all — that it was from a poster with a nickname of “Speak2Truth,” I had virtually no doubt that the post itself would consist of propaganda, and be filled with virtually nothing but false statements.

      It’s so predictable. It’s like cigarette and vodka commercials promising a great time. It’s like the neon lights all over a beer joint.

      Sadly, that claim contradicts the WRITTEN LAW DEFINING NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. The US Congress wrote the legal definition of Natural Born Citizen shortly after the Constitution was ratified, to ensure liars like this Judge could be easily spotted.

      Actually, the statement is in full harmony with the entire past legal and historical precedent of the United States, which was accurately summarized and established as official United States law in the 1898 Supreme Court case of United States v Wong Kim Ark.

      “And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens” – Naturalization Act 1790

      Later modified by

      “and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States” – 3rd Congress, 2nd Session

      This is a typical birther claim: That a law stating that children born abroad of two US citizen parents somehow nullifies or modifies the centuries-established rule that any child, even of alien parents, born on the soil, was a natural born citizen.

      “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.” – Representative John Bingham of Ohio, a principal framer of the Fourteenth Amendment

      Second falsehood. When Bingham used those words, he clearly meant children whose parents were not:

      • Indians attached to tribes — which were a “foreign” sovereignty
      • royalty or ambassadors from other lands
      • members of occupying armies on US soil

      Notably, this is the EXACT criteria applied when certifying that John McCain is legally a Natural Born Citizen:

      “Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.” – Senate Resolution 511

      Which language is not an exclusion of anyone born on US soil, and is akin to Minor v Happersett’s statement that there was “no doubt” Virginia Minor was a natural born citizen.

      This Judge is indeed lying to do Obama a huge favor. The LAW clearly contradicts his ruling. He is, in fact, a traitor helping prolong an illegal occupation of the White House and he either knows it or he is so ignorant of the law he needs to find a new job.

      Third, fourth, and fifth false statements.

      • Thomas Brown says:

        Another perfect example of the classic Birfer trait: arguing from the conclusion.

        To paraphrase:

        “Obama is an ineligible usurper! …therefore there must be something wrong with your statements! …therefore the Judges must not know the Law! …therefore the Birth Certificate must be a forgery! …therefore there must be a Conspiracy to hide the Truth! …therefore the Constitution must have said something that proves BHO ineligible! …therefore the Republicans in Congress must be Corrupt! (and, worst of all) …therefore We the People must Rise Up and Correct this Grievous Injustice, by Force if Necessary!”

        Same tune, different day.

  12. John Magurn says:

    Yadayadayada. Doesn’t really matter what defines a “natural born citizen” since I’m pretty sure a “natural born citizen” cannot enroll in college as a “Foreign Student” as Obams clearly did. Now who’s stupid or dishonest?!

    • MDW says:

      For some people, it’s always April Fools Day. The rest understand that there is no evidence that Obama was a “foreign student”.

      • Thomas Brown says:

        That is, besides the spoof that Mr. Magurn fell for. The spoofer probably figured the article’s byline date of April 1st would adequately identify it as fiction. He may have been surprised to discover that he (or she) had so seriously underestimated the dimness and gullibility of Birthers.

        On the other hand, making fools out of folks like Mr. Magurn may have been the idea. I’d like to think otherwise, as that would be wicked fun indeed.

      • Rambo Ike says:

        MDW: “The rest understand that there is no evidence that Obama was a “foreign student””.

        According to Obama, he held dual-citizenship [USA & Kenya] at the time he attended Occidental College.

        Can you provide conclusive proof showing your dear leader Obama did not attend Occidental as a foreign student?

        • John Woodman says:

          Last I heard, the person making the charges is required to provide the proof.

          But since you prefer a different system…

          Can you provide conclusive proof that you did not rape and murder this woman in north Houston in late 2010?

          Were you anywhere near the area?

          Do you need a lawyer? If you can’t afford one, a public defender can be assigned to you.

          • Thomas Brown says:

            Trying to reason with Ike is like trying to play chess with a corned-beef sandwich.

          • Rambo Ike says:

            This is disturbing. How would you know about this particular crime that is more than a year old?

            Though I don’t relish doing it, I must let my conscience be my guide.

            I have volunteered your name to the “People of Interest” section at Crime Stoppers.

            Don’t worry, after a substantial interrogation you should beable to clear yourself.

            • John Woodman says:

              Good. Now they have your IP address.

              Frankly, I wouldn’t put it past you. You don’t seem to have any problem making spurious accusations against other people.

              Nor do you seem to care what trouble such false accusations might cause to others.

              That, of course, was the entire point. I had hoped to perhaps jar you into some realization that the standard of “guilty until proven innocent” is not only unamerican, it’s not a standard you would like to have applied against you.

              Your reply, however, simply confirms what some might have already suspected: You don’t seem to care about others, or to be able to relate to basic principles of reasonableness or fairness. You seem all too happy to maintain that someone else is guilty until proven innocent.

              In other words, it’s all about you.

  13. Rambo Ike says:

    John, you’ve went way over the top with this line of thinking. My response to you was in jest for your silliness. The only thing you did was contradict what you previously claimed: John Woodman says, April 6, 2012 at 2:18 pm: “As I’ve said before, if you want the honest truth, you’ve come to the right place……………”

    I wasn’t making false accusations nor judging anyone guilty. My reply to MDW was an honest request to see if there’s any documented proof showing that 0bama didn’t attend Occidental as a foreign student. Based on the numerous statements that go back to the start of 0bama’s political career that came from the press, his wife, family members, people in Kenya, and 0bama himself it’s a reasonable question to ask. There is also the fact that one of his law firms [protection racket] blocked another law firm trying to get his Occidental College records released to clear up the controvery over what citizenship he used when he applied for admission.

    Can MDW or you provide the “honest truth” for what I asked? So far you’ve chosen to punt.

    • John Woodman says:

      So now you’ve falsely accused me of lying.

      I never stated you were guilty of the crime committed. I didn’t accuse you of anything. I simply asked a rhetorical question designed to point out that you’re applying a standard of “guilty until proven innocent” to others, and that is presumably something you would not appreciate someone doing to you.

      The reasonableness of your “request” for “conclusive proof” that Obama “did not attend Occidental as a foreign student” can certainly be debated at this point.

      At this point, something in excess of 30 criminal felony accusations have been publicly leveled against Mr. Obama by birthers. At least another 30 or so claims have been publicly leveled by birthers that he’s Constitutionally ineligible. Presumably it ought to be regarded as a crime or fraud of some sort as well to run for President of the United States if you’re Constitutionally eligible.

      And not one of these accusations has turned out to be true.

      I personally think the total number of public accusations that are known to be false or otherwise meritless, if we were to count them up, would easily exceed 100. Since none of these have proven to have any merit, is it reasonable to demand more? I don’t know that it is.

      And it’s not because I care one whit about this particular President. But I do care about the Presidency. I do care about our system, and I do care about truth in the public arena, and I do care that people are not subjected to, frankly, the kind of over-the-top abuse for the sake of politics (and in some instances, personal gain) that has been displayed in this instance.

      I also care about the fact that honest, decent Americans — most of them conservatives — are being lied to and taken advantage of for the sake of politics. I care that there is a systematic effort in place to undermine the truth, the Constitution, and the rule of all — all in the name of “the truth, the Constitution, and the rule of law.”

      And finally, I care that potentially some of the best candidates that conservatives have — Bobby Jindal but in particular Marco Rubio — are being falsely considered by some to be ineligible, when that is not the case.

      • Thomas Brown says:

        Speaking as a Liberal, Mario Rubio is one of the Republicans I would most like to see run for high office. He is bright, reasonable, and—yes—eligible.

        All Americans with an abiding love for their country ought to want the best possible candidates for elected office, regardless of Party affiliation.

  14. MDW says:

    It is undisputed that he attended Punahou School in Hawaii 1971 to 1979. As a graduate of a US high school and US citizen, he was clearly not an international student. (An international student is one who requires a visa to enter the United States). No doubt you will refuse to accept that, or anything else John or I provide, as proof beyond your unreasonable doubts. I’ll remind you again that you have no evidence AT ALL to support the idea that Obama was an international student, nor can you identify any financial aid programs that would make it sensible for an undergraduate to turn down the financial aid available to US residents. And that’s the honest truth.

    • John Woodman says:

      I can’t even imagine how, as someone who graduated from a United States high school, after having gone there for the full four years, and how, not having any foreign address or a foreign visa, he could even possibly have enrolled in any college in the country as a “foreign student.”

      The entire scenario is ludicrous. And yet, here’s Ike, demanding “conclusive proof” that Obama didn’t attend Occidental College as a foreign student.

      It’s really not so far off from demanding conclusive proof from Ike that he didn’t commit the rape and murder referenced, in order to establish his innocence.

      • Rambo Ike says:

        [post by Rambo Ike moved to where it is obviously a reply to]

        It’s easy to imagine if your modus operandi is to be intellectually honest. There will be 10s of thousands of illegal aliens graduating from both our grade & high schools this year alone. It’s been going on for years. They won’t have a foreign address or a foreign visa, and in some cases, including their parents also, will have fake documents. Document forgery is a big business.

        Though I have previously, in this forum, pointed out some of the following , I will include it again with some additional facts: [1] It’s a documented fact that prior to the start of Obama’s campaign for the presidency there were a number of sources that gave conflicting statements as to Dear Leader’s nationality and where he was born. Included in that are National Public Radio, 1/2 sister Maya, wife Mooch, world newspapers, Kenyan government officials, and Kenyan paternal family. [2] Controvery exist over the paper that was released in Apr. 2011 reported to be either a genuine or fake copy of Obama’s LFBC. [3] The alleged hospital of birth in Hawaii has not made a public announcement confirming Obama was born there. [4] According to Obama he was a citizen of Kenya [his home country] all through his grade & high school years, and didn’t renew it at some point during his college years. [5] All his American school records have been sealed from the public by his law firms [protection racket] so the American people cannot find out anything about him.

        Except for some hard core ObOts who are showing signs of cranial malfunctions and have fused their lips to Obama’s keister, it makes perfect sense for Americans to be suspicious and have questions about the Obama Life Story.

        • John Woodman says:

          It’s easy to imagine if your modus operandi is to be intellectually honest.

          No, it’s not easy.

          You’re proposing that Obama faked foreign documents in order to be considered a foreign student? Because he only had to provide his US high school transcript — and it’s crystal clear that he went to high school in the US — in order to gain college admission.

          It’s also crystal clear that the US government found him to be a US citizen when he was a boy, in the 1960s.

          It also seems clear that there’s no advantage to being a foreign student over being a US one.

          So no, it’s not easy to imagine.

          [1] It’s a documented fact that prior to the start of Obama’s campaign for the presidency there were a number of sources that gave conflicting statements as to Dear Leader’s nationality and where he was born. Included in that are National Public Radio, 1/2 sister Maya, wife Mooch, world newspapers, Kenyan government officials, and Kenyan paternal family.

          It’s no surprise whatsoever that some people in Africa believe Obama is “Kenyan-born.” African people believe all kinds of crazy things. Have you ever been to Africa? I have.

          People believe in witch doctors. They believe in juju, and water spirits. They believe that eating candy gives children worms. They believe that having sex with a virgin will cure AIDS — which is why African men with AIDS rape little girls.

          The NPR statement was in connection with a West African correspondent. It’s hardly surprising that such a program, or Kenyan journalists, or even a few Kenyan governent officials, should describe Obama as “Kenyan-born,” especially when his father, who had the exact same name — except for the Junior — actually was Kenyan born.

          As for his sister and wife, one of them might have figuratively referred to him as being something like a “son of Africa” once or twice, but none of them have ever maintained he was born anywhere other than Honolulu. And it seems quite clear to me — and yes, I’ve read all about it — that his step-grandmother never stated he was born anywhere other than Honolulu, either. In fact, some time (I think about a year and a half) before the extremely confused cross-language, lost-in-translation interview that birthers quote, an article ran it which it was stated clearly that she heard about the birth of her grandson in a letter from Hawaii.

          [2] Controvery exist over the paper that was released in Apr. 2011 reported to be either a genuine or fake copy of Obama’s LFBC.

          And the controversy is entirely manufactured. I spent hundreds of hours running down every single allegation regarding that birth certificate, and every single one of them is hogwash.

          And after they were all clearly shown to be hogwash, did birthers accept that? No. Did they refute it? No, they didn’t refute it, either.

          Instead, they simply went out and recruited Sheriff Joe Arpaio to announce, louder and with ostensibly more credibility, the exact same claims that had already been shown to be factually false and invalid.

          There’s no honesty there, Ike.

          [3] The alleged hospital of birth in Hawaii has not made a public announcement confirming Obama was born there.

          Why should they? Do you know any other hospital, where any other President was born, that has ever made a public announcement announcing so-and-so was born here? Did President Clinton’s? Did President Bush’s? Did President Reagan’s?

          [4] According to Obama he was a citizen of Kenya [his home country] all through his grade & high school years, and didn’t renew it at some point during his college years.

          And how much time did he spend in Kenya during his growing up years?

          Zero.

          He first VISITED Kenya at roughly age 25 — when any foreign citizenship extended to him would have already expired.

          By that standard, there’s almost more of a claim that I’m a citizen of Belgium, because I spent 8 entire weeks there when I was 20.

          [5] All his American school records have been sealed from the public by his law firms [protection racket] so the American people cannot find out anything about him.

          I’m not sure how many Presidents have released all of their school records to the public. Nor can I frankly think of any real reason for a President to do so. If I were President, I wouldn’t give an order to release my high school or college transcripts to the public. Would you?

          And I had a pretty good academic record. But in the first place, having your high school or college transcripts released to the public just isn’t something you would do. In the second place, even though my transcript is good, every course I dropped or every C I made (and there were a few — not that many, but a few) would be subject to public criticism. I wouldn’t do it, and I don’t blame anyone else who wouldn’t do it, either.

          Except for some hard core ObOts who are showing signs of cranial malfunctions and have fused their lips to Obama’s keister, it makes perfect sense for Americans to be suspicious and have questions about the Obama Life Story.

          I can understand a few suspicions. I frankly started out with a few good suspicions myself.

          What I don’t understand is people like yourself for whom no amount of evidence ever is, can ever possibly be, enough.

Comments are closed.