Monday, June 6, 2011

Michelle Goldberg Blatantly Lies About Jerome Corsi’s New Book On Obama’s Ineligibility to Be President


Not only is she a big fat liar, but accuses Corsi of being racist when it is actually her that insults African Americans by her astonishing lack of understanding of the difference between the Natural Born Citizen clause and the 14th amendment

by Larry Simons
June 6, 2011

Author and Daily Beast contributor Michelle Goldberg is a colossal liar. Her May 31 article titled, “Why Birthers Won’t Die” [or maybe she meant to say “Birtherism”, unless she really wants people who do not believe Obama is eligible to be President to literally die] is chock full of lies, distortions, racist remarks and just plain stupidity.

In her article, she sets out to condemn and disprove author Jerome Corsi’s new book, “Where’s the Birth Certificate? The Case That Barack Obama Is Not Eligible to Be President”, a book that debuted last week on the New York Times Bestseller list [and peaked] at #6. Instead, she not only proves that she has no understanding of Corsi’s points on the subject matter of Obama’s ineligibility to be President, but also has no understanding of the Constitution.

The first of her many colossal lies comes early in the article when she writes:

“If you read between the lines, Where's the Birth Certificate? doesn't just argue that Obama is ineligible to hold the office. It implies that all children of immigrants, and perhaps all people of color, are as well.”

The book does no such thing. Corsi makes very clear the point that any candidate is eligible for the presidency if they are a natural born citizen and meet all other requirements under the Constitution. Nowhere in the book does Corsi say, or even imply, that if a presidential candidate meets ALL requirements under the Constitution to be president, they still might not be eligible if they are the child of an immigrant or a person of color. This is simply what Goldberg wants her readers to believe Corsi says in the book.

Goldberg continues:

“Much of Where's the Birth Certificate? rehashes old, debunked stories meant to cast doubt on Obama's birth in Hawaii.”

Corsi includes 125 exhibits in the center of the book, consisting of documents, articles and screen shots of web pages…none of which he made up. Here are two of the web pages that Corsi provides in his book as screen shots that “cast doubt on Obama’s birth in Hawaii”……which have never been debunked by the way. In fact, I do not even believe they have been discussed in the media…ever.

Here is a screen shot from the Sunday Standard, a publication in Kenya. This 2004 article is titled, “Kenyan-born Obama all set for US Senate”. [click both, below, to enlarge]


Here is a screen shot from the Nigerian Observer from 2008. The article states, “The Kenyan-born Senator will, however, face a stiff competition from his Republican counterpart, John McCain…


Goldberg claims these Kenyan-born references have been debunked, but naturally, fails to provide evidence of it.

Goldberg continues:

“But the book also claims that even if Obama was born in the United States, he still might not be a "natural-born citizen" because of his father's foreign citizenship, which would make him ineligible for the presidency.”

Here is where Goldberg displays that she is unaware of the distinction between a “citizen” of the United States and “natural born citizen” of the United States. The founders were crystal clear that one has to be a “natural born” citizen to be eligible for the presidency, which holds very distinctive requirements: Reside in the U.S. at least 14 years, be at least 35 years old and be a natural born citizen.

Also, it is clear that the founders never intended a dual citizen to be a natural born citizen. A person who has dual citizenship may have loyalties to another country in addition to loyalties to the United States. The founders required potential presidential candidates to place their loyalty solely with the United States. Barack Obama’s father [B. Obama, Sr.] was born in Kenya in 1936 and in 1961 [the year Obama Jr. was born] Kenya was a commonwealth country of Great Britain, making Obama, Sr. a British subject. The British Nationality Act of 1948 states in Part II, Section 5:

“Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth”

Barack Obama, Jr. was born “after the commencement of this act” [in 1961]. That means Obama “shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent of his father if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.”

Obama, Sr. never became an American citizen. At best, Obama Jr. was a dual citizen at the time of his birth in Hawaii in 1961. This is exactly why the founders required that those running for president be “natural born citizens” as opposed to simply “U.S. citizens”. The founders did not want any potential president to have dual citizenship and therefore have loyalties to another country.

In fact, because Obama was a British subject at the time of his birth, it is irrelevant whether or not he was born in Hawaii. His birth in Hawaii does not supercede the fact the he was a British subject at birth. Nothing would change this fact. Nothing Obama would/could do later would change the fact that he was a British subject at birth. The framers of the Constitution were very clear that the requirement they established for presidential eligibility, to be natural born, only applies AT THE TIME OF BIRTH.

The fact that he was a British subject at birth in and of itself makes Obama ineligible to be President. Nothing else matters. A birth certificate doesn’t matter. Being born in Hawaii doesn’t matter. In fact, this may be the only problem I have with Corsi’s book: His book is titled, “Where’s the Birth Certificate?”, as if Obama having a genuine birth certificate matters. It doesn’t. Obama was a British subject at his birth. End of story.

Goldberg continues:

“To make this argument, Corsi dredges up a constitutional theory popular in white supremacist and anti-immigrant circles, making an invidious distinction between those granted citizenship by the 14th Amendment and those who were citizens under the Constitution as originally written.”

Complete bullshit, and Goldberg knows it. What Goldberg is doing here, is attempting to convey to her readers that citizenship granted under the 14th amendment and “natural born citizenship” should even be spoken in the same breath. Corsi is never referring to ordinary native born citizenship when he makes his case for Obama’s ineligibility to be President. Corsi is speaking about “natural born” citizenship, which is a subset of citizen. There is a very distinctive difference between being “natural born” and being simply a native born citizen [born within the U.S.]. If there were no difference at all, there would have been no point or relevance in the founders to use the specific term “natural born”. All they would have been required to say was, “All U.S. citizens are eligible to be President”.

Goldberg continues:

“Corsi's ideas about a lesser sort of 14th Amendment citizenship have deep roots on the far right. Ratified in 1868, the amendment banished the whites-only version of citizenship affirmed in the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision.”

Then she cites the text of Section 1 of the 14th amendment, which states:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

Goldberg has completely lost her mind. First of all, not only does she imply that Corsi is even referring to the 14th amendment in his book concerning Obama [he’s not, because the 14th amendment was passed to include black people as American citizens in lieu of the Dred Scott decision of 1857 which held that blacks could not be U.S. citizens. It has nothing whatsoever to do with “natural born” citizens], but she implies that the 14th amendment nullifies Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution which states:

“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

The two portions of the Constitution are night and day. Where one is referring to presidential eligibility requirements, the other refers to general U.S. citizenship of anyone that is either born in the United States or goes through the naturalization process. But, Goldberg wants us to believe that the 14th amendment, which speaks of general U.S. citizenship, nullifies Article 2, Section 1, which speaks of presidential eligibility requirements. Holy shitballs. And they call birthers crazy? Whew!

Goldberg continues [and here is where her insanity peaks]:

“But Corsi's ideas about the 14th Amendment, if taken seriously, wouldn't just affect the children of immigrants—they could disqualify all black people from the presidency. "Obama defenders who want to define him as a natural-born citizen because he is native-born and a citizen under the 14th Amendment are engaged in an effort to redefine Article 2, Section 1, away from its original natural law meaning," Corsi writes. The original meaning, of course, did not encompass black people. That's why we needed the 14th Amendment in the first place.”

Earth to Goldberg: Corsi is NOT saying the 14th amendment bars ANYONE from the presidency! Corsi is simply saying that people who call Obama a NATURAL BORN citizen [which you MUST be to become President] when he is only a U.S. citizen [defined as being either born within the U.S. OR born to American parents] are attempting to rewrite Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution to now mean the only requirement to be eligible for the presidency is just to be a U.S. citizen . For Christ’s sake, a first grader could understand that!

Corsi is clearly admitting in the above quote that Obama IS native born AND a U.S. citizen, but he is not a NATURAL BORN citizen, which you must be to be eligible for the presidency. How could Corsi’s views bar children of immigrants or black people from the presidency unless they did not meet the eligibility requirements stated by the founders under Article 2, Section 1? The 14th amendment has nothing to do with presidential eligibility requirements, but that simple fact does not stop Goldberg’s racist exploitation of immigrant offspring and black people, does it?

Goldberg’s racist rant seems to be nothing more than a clear case of Freudian Projection [where one hides their own feelings about something only to ascribe them, or project them, to someone else]. Obviously Goldberg is the real racist here and to hide behind it, she accuses Corsi of being racist, where no racism exists on his part.

Two comments left under Goldberg’s article capture my view perfectly.

Xrated” said:

“So basically what this author is claiming is that article 2 section 1 of constitution is meaningless. Ms. Goldberg claims that the 14th amendment nullified that part of the constitution. My question is, where in the 14th amendment does it change the requirement from "natural born" citizen to simply citizen in order to be president? Why would the drafters of the constitution use the specific qualification of "natural born" citizen when listing the requirements to be eligible to hold the office of president if they meant for all citizens to be eligible? The definition of "natural born" was understood by the drafters to mean a person whose parents are BOTH citizens of the nation. I defy anyone to prove differently. The "natural born" qualification was put in place to prevent the possibility of someone with dual loyalties (as Obama has with Kenya) from being the Commander in Chief of the armed forces.

I beg the author of this racist article to explain how adhering to article 2 section 1 of the constitution could disqualify any black person, whose parents are both U.S. citizens, from running for or holding the presidency. Come on Michelle Goldberg, explain what logic (or lack there of) lead you to that brilliant conclusion. The constant cries of racism the progressives are engaged in has only succeeded in diminishing the impact of the accusation to less than zero. Especially where Obama is concerned. They seem to forget that Obama is 1/2 white”

Another comment sums this issue up brilliantly.

IQ al Rassooli” states:

“Of course - with great (but extremely subtle) irony it is Michelle Goldberg and NOT Jerome Corsi who is expressing racial bias.

For Corsi race does not come into it - he really couldn't care less what colour (if indeed any) Obama is, has or claims. Instead Corsi is concerned only with specific well researched and carefully expressed technical arguments concerning legal and constitutional matters and of course truth verses lies and misinformation.

By stark contrast Goldberg (presumably being yet another self-loathing white person desperate to endlessly prove his "politically correct" lack of racial bias) introduces the completely irrelevant topic of race where it was not previously even considered by Corsi. Goldberg states that "The original meaning, of course, did not encompass black people" and whilst there may be a grain of truth in that it is erased by the fact that the original meaning (and still current) of Article 2, Section 1 (clause 5, incidentally) doesn't encompass white people either! It simply makes clear that one of a tiny number of crucial qualifications for a person (irrespective of race or gender or any other factors) to be considered eligible to become the president is that he (or she) should at least be a "natural born" citizen. This is not asking too much and it most certainly does NOT exclude black people; anyone who is born on US soil becomes a "native born" citizen and anyone born to TWO parents who are BOTH American citizens (by virtue of their own place of birth or any other qualifying reason) at the time of birth can be a "Natural Born" citizen (provided a number of other perfectly reasonable conditions are also met, such as that they do not for any reason have dual nationality at the time of their birth).

The "natural born" qualification is a very specific technicality that rarely has any importance EXCEPT if you'd like to run for the White House, therefore few people have generally given it any thought prior to Obama (and his army of supporters) trying to run rings round (and blow holes through) the constitution they should instead be diligently and tirelessly defending. Most people (especially Obama's supports) are confused about the subtle difference between "natural" and "native".”

I couldn’t have said it better.

Here is a clip of Dr. Corsi on WSAU News/Talk Radio 550 on May 19, where he humiliates one of the radio hosts about the 14th amendment. It is found at 8:56 into the clip

81 comments:

the_last_name_left said...

3 cheers for Obama's 2nd term.

Fuck Jerome Corsi - wanker.

Larry said...

EXCELLENT refutation!!!

I see you're following rule #1 from The Dipshit's Guide to Debating Handbook to a T:

When you can't debunk one word of a story or a claim, just cuss them out.

Your response couldn't be more obvious that you agree with every word of my story than if you would have said "Amen Larry"

And you call ME the kook? LOL.

Thanks for validating my story, peckweed.

Anonymous said...

ALL US citizens who were born in the USA are Natural Born Citizens. The only US citizens who are NOT Natural Born Citizens are naturalized citizens.

The meaning of Natural Born in Natural Born Citizen at the time that the US Constitution was written always referred to citizenship due to the place of bith. It was never used by American (not Swiss) leaders to refer to the parents of the citizen.


“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President ..."---- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

“Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition

“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)--Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT).

"Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration. ...St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803)

"Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity."---William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)

Larry said...

I guess you didn't read my article, huh?

English common law has nothing to do with US law. If birthplace was the ONLY issue, the founders would have had no need to use the words "natural born". Plus, my article is not about the definition of "natural born" per se [you'd know that if you READ it], it's about the fact that Obama was a DUAL citizen at BIRTH---making him NOT natural born.

I'm guessng you're going to respond with a bunch of quotes from the 1800's from people saying natural born also means DUAL citizenship as well??

The main point of my story is how Goldberg LIES and tells people that the 14th amendment redefines natural born citizen. It does not. Corsi is not even REFERRING to the 14th amendment when discussing Obama's ineligibility!

Do NOT respond until you READ THE ARTICLE.

Anonymous said...

Re: "English common law has nothing to do with US law. If birthplace was the ONLY issue, the founders would have had no need to use the words "natural born".

Baloney. The common law is referred to in the Federalist Papers about TWENTY TIMES, and Vattel is not mentioned even once. John Jay, the same guy who wrote the letter to Washington, write the first Constitution of the state of New York (1777), and it specifically includes the common law--saying that it would remain the law of New York State unless and until revised by New York statute.

Meese is right, and you are wrong:


“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President ..."---- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

mr vet said...

larry, you have once again proven your point and continue your smarts over the queenie. you own these guys larry. they have refuted nor debunked anything as usual. this women is just another neocon spoutting thier bullshit. larry you win yet another, hands down.

Anonymous said...

Re: "larry you win yet another, hands down."

Answer: You are entitled to your opinion.

But this is the opinion of the man who was the attorney general to Ronald Reagan:

“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President ..."---- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

That, by the way is one reason that the US Congress confirmed Obama's election UNANIMOUSLY. Because not one member in the 100 senators and 435 in the House believed that Obama was either born outside of the USA or that the citizenship of his father affects Obama's Natural Born Citizen status.

Larry said...

"“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth."

Yes, CITIZENS...CITIZENS...CITIZENS. I said IN MY ARTICLE that people born inside the US are CITIZENS, and even Corsi admits that Obama is a CITIZEN...but NOT a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. "natural born" is a subset of a citizen. I don't give a fuck what Edwin Meese said.

Did you READ my article?

Did you READ my article?

Did you READ my article?

If YOU are correct, then why did McCain go through an investigation in 2008 where they questioned his citizenship? And OBAMA co-sponsored the bill they passed agreeing that it was because McCain had TWO American parent US citizens, and that's why he was voted eligible---yet Obama failed to put himself through the same vetting process DESPITE the fact that he does NOT have two American citizen parents!

Here's the article about it:

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2008/05/01/clinton-obama
-sponsor-mccain-citizenship
-bill/

Can you name for me ONE president throughout history that did not have TWO American citizen parents and was born inside the US?

You can't name ONE. {I can...Obama]

Larry said...

"That, by the way is one reason that the US Congress confirmed Obama's election UNANIMOUSLY. Because not one member in the 100 senators and 435 in the House believed that Obama was either born outside of the USA or that the citizenship of his father affects Obama's Natural Born Citizen status."

You're using how senators and congressmen VOTE as your litmus test for truth??? LOL. So, if they all vote for bailouts for banks, they're right??? If they all vote for the PATRIOT Act, they're right?? If they all vote for war, they're right???

Please tell me that was a joke, and you have something BETTER to use for evidence besides how politicians vote and quotes from old attorney generals. LOL

Larry said...

So, the fact that evey single president in our history [besides Obama] had two American citizen parents is just a big fucking coincidence to you?

the_last_name_left said...

Jerome Corsi is a Member of the Board of Regents (and Honorary Gold Medallion Holders) of Koinonia Institute.


"Welcome to the Koinonia Institute, a “thinktank” for serious Christians

This is not for everyone. It is designed for those who are truly committed to becoming Ambassadors for the Coming King. Here you will find flexible paths of achievement without any straight-jackets of presumption or tradition. We are non-denominational,but decidedly fundamental.
"

KOINONIA BOARD OF REGENTS _ INCLUDING JEROME CORSI ON PG 78

-----------------------

Fuck Jerome Corsi.

He's happy to go on racist radio.

Fuck Jerome Corsi. His agenda is clear.

And he's a Christian fundamentalist - with some bunch of nutters connected to far-right Scaife Foundation money.

And you're their willing mouthpiece, Larry.

the_last_name_left said...

L: I don't give a fuck what Edwin Meese said.
---------

You don't give a fuck about what ***anybody*** whom disagrees with you says.

You only care for anything which confirms what you wish to believe, and you grant people authority only ***if*** they agree with you.

-------------

Your insistence that the popularly elected head of state is illegitimate opens an interesting question - would you seek to remove an elected president on such a technicality?

Larry "voice of the people" Simons wants to remove the democratically elected President because of such a dubious technicality?

Does it not matter that people chose him?

Real Truth Online said...

"Fuck Jerome Corsi."

BRILLIANT! You refuted Corsi superbly!

"He's happy to go on racist radio."

Despite there being NO racist remarks in his book? Goldberg, on the other hand, actually SAID racist things, but you IGNORE that! LOL

"And he's a Christian fundamentalist - with some bunch of nutters connected to far-right Scaife Foundation money."

So, he's a Christian...that means he can NEVER say ANYTHING truthful? My favorite author is CHRISTIAN David Ray Griffin....and you have NEVER EVER refuted him. EVER. That must make your blood boil.

"And you're their willing mouthpiece, Larry."

I'm a mouthpiece for the truth, no matter where it comes from.

"You don't give a fuck about what ***anybody*** whom disagrees with you says."

It's not ME who Meese is disagreeing with, it's the Constitution he's disagreeing with! Asslicker.

"You only care for anything which confirms what you wish to believe, and you grant people authority only ***if*** they agree with you."

If that were true, it would be mindblowingly EASY to refute me on a consistent basis---and you haven't done it ONCE.

"Your insistence that the popularly elected head of state is illegitimate opens an interesting question - would you seek to remove an elected president on such a technicality?"

You call IGNORING a HUGE part of the Constitution a "technicality"? You're a buffoon.

Let me ask you this: How many presidents has our country had that did NOT have TWO American parents and NOT natural born citizens? [besides Obama]

Hmmm? Answer please.

What vetting process do presidents go through that VERIFY they meet all qualifications? I will tell you.....NONE.

Isn't it funny that you IGNORED the two screen shots I posted from 2004 and 2008 that say Obama was KENYAN-BORN. Hmmmmmm. Typical you'd ignore something COLOSSAL.

Dickweed.

Real Truth Online said...

You IGNORED this too, shit stain:

"If YOU are correct, then why did McCain go through an investigation in 2008 where they questioned his citizenship? And OBAMA co-sponsored the bill they passed agreeing that it was because McCain had TWO American parent US citizens, and that's why he was voted eligible---yet Obama failed to put himself through the same vetting process DESPITE the fact that he does NOT have two American citizen parents!"

Like I said many times before, I pay more attention to the things you IGNORE than the things you ADDRESS.

Real Truth Online said...

Isn't it also funny how you say NOTHING about Goldberg's CRYSTAL CLEAR misunderstanding and misusage of the 14th amendment. You must AGREE with her on that...which makes you the biggest ass dick on the planet!

Anonymous said...

Re: "If YOU are correct, then why did McCain go through an investigation in 2008 where they questioned his citizenship? And OBAMA co-sponsored the bill they passed agreeing that it was because McCain had TWO American parent US citizens, and that's why he was voted eligible---yet Obama failed to put himself through the same vetting process DESPITE the fact that he does NOT have two American citizen parents!"

Answer: Obama did not have to go through a similar process because, duh, there was NO question that he was a Natural Born Citizen due to his birth in Hawaii. And received every single vote that he won in the general election at the Electoral College. In other words, not a single elector thought that Obama was born outside of the USA or that Obama's father has any effect on his Natural Born Citizen status, and that is also the reason that the US Congress voted to confirm Obama's election UNANIMOUSLY.

THE situation with McCain and Obama is based on the word "OR" in the following:

“Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition

Obama was eligible due to the first criterion, birth in the jurisdiction. McCain falls under the second, birth abroad to citizen parents. Although you CAN be both of those, there is no requirement. The requirement is to be one of them.

The one that is clearest, and historically the original definition without any subsequent legislation affecting it, is birth in the jurisdiction.

That is why Meese says:

“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President ..."---- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

Meese and the Electoral College and the US Congress are right, and you are wrong.

Anonymous said...

Re: The Kenya allegation.

Obama was NOT born in Kenya. He was born in Hawaii, as his official birth certificate, long-form birth certificate, the confirmation of THREE Republican officials and the notices of his birth in the Hawaii newspapers in 1961 prove.

Those notices were NOT ads. Hawaii newspapers did not run birth announcement ads in 1961. They only took their notices from the government of Hawaii, which did not send out the notices for births outside of Hawaii--and which insisted on witness statements whenever there was a claim of a birth outside of a hospital.

Also, it should be obvious that a child born outside of the USA requires either a US visa on a foreign passport or to be entered on the mother’s US passport to get to the USA. Those documents or the applications for them would still exist and would have been found easily IF Obama was born outside of the USA. But no such document has been found. (Neither Corsi nor WND has ever even tried to discuss this.)


So Obama's parents would have had to have:

(1) traveled to Kenya or some other country late in pregnancy at high risk and high expense (particularly to Kenya);

(2) got the child back to the USA without either a visa or his being entered on his mother's US passport or somehow had the files of the document and the applications for the document all sealed;

(3) lied about the place of birth (which is also unlikely because when you have done something interesting like give birth in a foreign country you generally boast about it. And it is also unnecessary to lie since for all purposes but the presidency a naturalized child is as good as a natural born one);

(4) gotten away with the lie despite evidence that Hawaii demanded witness statements whenever there was a claim of a birth outside of a hospital;

(5) got three Republican officials in Hawaii to lie about the fact that the original birth certificate in Obama's files verified that he was born in Hawaii.

ALL of that would have had to have happened for Obama to have been born outside of the USA.

No wonder Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly all call birthers crazy.

Larry said...

"Obama did not have to go through a similar process because, duh, there was NO question that he was a Natural Born Citizen due to his birth in Hawaii."

He is a CITIZEN due to his birth in Hawaii, not a NATURAL BORN citizen. A NATURAL born citizen requires birth WITHIN the United States AND to TWO American citizen parents.


The investigation into McCain's birth resulted in them deciding that McCain was a natural born citizen because he was born in the Canal Zone which they deemed American territory [which I disagree with] and that he had TWO American citize parents.

I can't believe you're determining the definition to Natural Born from a DICTIONARY...LOL. That is based on COMMON LAW, and our founders did not base "natural born" from common law.

Funny how you post this incredibly long post that means absolutely NOTHING since you failed to answer any of my questions:

How many presidents has our country had that did NOT have TWO American parents and NOT natural born citizens? [besides Obama]

So, the fact that evey single president in our history [besides Obama] had two American citizen parents is just a big fucking coincidence to you?

Hmmm? Answer please.

Isn't it funny that you IGNORED the two screen shots I posted from 2004 and 2008 that say Obama was KENYAN-BORN. Hmmmmmm. Typical you'd ignore something COLOSSAL.

Larry said...

"No wonder Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly all call birthers crazy."

Because birtherism is a hot potato issue that neither liberal or conservative will touch or they will be considered laughing stocks and run out of their job on a rail...just like 9/11 truth. They won't get access to the White House if they touch it and will be called "crazy". It would be professional and political assassination. It has nothing to do with getting to the truth.

the_last_name_left said...

@ anon

thanks. I've been through this with Larry before - he doesn't get it. He doesn't want to get it.

Larry would rather indulge the far-right for his own narrow political reasons than see sense and drop this silliness.

Jerome Corsi? Seriously?

Larry said...

TLNL...I will repeat these questions until you address them. IGNORING is the # sign you are afraid of facts.

Let me ask you this: How many presidents has our country had that did NOT have TWO American parents and NOT natural born citizens? [besides Obama]

Isn't it funny that you IGNORED the two screen shots I posted from 2004 and 2008 that say Obama was KENYAN-BORN? Hmmmmmm. Typical you'd ignore something COLOSSAL.

Larry said...

"Larry would rather indulge the far-right for his own narrow political reasons than see sense and drop this silliness.

Jerome Corsi? Seriously?"

TLNL, if ad hominem attacks and mindless posts like the one above were actual refutations of my posts, then you'd be kicking my ass on a daily basis.

Oh, another thing you IGNORED....this:

"Isn't it also funny how you say NOTHING about Goldberg's CRYSTAL CLEAR misunderstanding and misusage of the 14th amendment. You must AGREE with her on that...which makes you the biggest ass dick on the planet!"

Anonymous said...

Re: "IGNORED the two screen shots I posted from 2004 and 2008 that say Obama was KENYAN-BORN. Hmmmmmm. Typical you'd ignore something COLOSSAL."

Answer: Obama was not born in Kenya. He was born in Hawaii, as his official birth certificate and he confirmation of three Republican officials and the notices in the Hawaii newspapers in 1961 (which were not ads, but only came from the government, which only sent them out for births IN Hawaii and which demanded witness statements whenever there was a claim of a birth outside of a hospital.)

Obama's parents would have had to have:

(1) traveled to Kenya or some other country late in pregnancy at high risk and high expense (particularly to Kenya);

(2) got the child back to the USA without either a visa or his being entered on his mother's US passport or somehow had the files of the document and the applications for the document all sealed;

(3) lied about the place of birth (which is also unlikely because when you have done something interesting like give birth in a foreign country you generally boast about it. And it is also unnecessary to lie since for all purposes but the presidency a naturalized child is as good as a natural born one);

(4) gotten away with the lie despite evidence that Hawaii demanded witness statements whenever there was a claim of a birth outside of a hospital;

(5) got three Republican officials in Hawaii to lie about the fact that the original birth certificate in Obama's files verified that he was born in Hawaii.

ALL of that would have had to have happened for Obama to have been born outside of the USA.

No wonder Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly all call birthers crazy.

Anonymous said...

Re the allegation that all US presidents before Obama had US citizen parents.

Andrew Jackson, one of our greatest presidents, and TWO parents who were both foreign citizens.

Birthers claim that this was due to Andrew Jackson being eligible due to the Grandfather Clause.

But Jackson clearly falls under this definition of Natural Born Citizen that was used at about the time that the Constitution was written:

"Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration. ...St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803)

And this one:

"Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity."---William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)

Also, it is a CONSIDERABLE stretch to define Woodrow Wilson's and Herbert Hoover's mothers as US citizens. They were only because there was a law that automatically made women citizens when they married US men. They never swore an oath or took a test as in modern naturalization.

Larry said...

Hey asshole. I saw that first post the FIRST time you posted it. It answered NOTHING.

"Andrew Jackson, one of our greatest presidents, and TWO parents who were both foreign citizens.

Birthers claim that this was due to Andrew Jackson being eligible due to the Grandfather Clause."

He WAS eligible due to the grandfather clause, because he was born in 1767, BEFORE the adoption of the Constitution.

Did you ever READ the grandfather clause?? Article 2, section 1 states:

"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

Jackson was born BEFORE the adoption of the Constitution, so he is grandfathered in, period.

Now, back to my question that was NEVER answered:

How many presidents has our country had that did NOT have TWO American parents and NOT natural born citizens? [besides Obama]

Still waiting on the answer.

Real Truth Online said...

Hey anonymous the wingnut, let's go with YOUR definition that natural born refers to English common law. This is what wikipedia says about that:

"It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore 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"

Obama was born a DUAL citizen because his father was a BRITISH subject. In the common law stated above, it clearly says:

".....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"

UNLESS the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state. UNLESS...UNLESS...UNLESS.

Did you read that? So, even under YOUR definition and YOUR view, Obama is NOT a natural born citizen under common law.

Time to give up now?

I'm just wondering how many times I will have to say this until you address it.

Anonymous said...

Re grandfather clause:

So you are saying that if Andrew Jackson ran for president today, he would not be allowed to run because his two parents were foreigners, despite the fact that Jackson was born in South (or was it North) Carolina.

Well, there is no evidence for it. He fell under the Tucker definition, and the Meese definition. He would have been eligible under both of them. There would be no reason to not have one of our greatest presidents simply because a CRAZY definition holds that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen requires two US citizen parents.

That definition is crazy because the meaning of Natural Born in America at the time referred only to the place of birth. No American writer at the time ever used it in the Vattel sense or to mean "two citizen parents."

Meese is right, and you are wrong.

Anonymous said...

Re: "UNLESS the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state. "

Answer: Obama's father was not a diplomat.

Larry said...

"So you are saying that if Andrew Jackson ran for president today, he would not be allowed to run because his two parents were foreigners, despite the fact that Jackson was born in South (or was it North) Carolina."

Well, in Jackson's case, his parents WERE American citizens because they emigrated to America in 1765, 11 years before the country FORMED. Anyone who was living in America automatically was a citizen at the time of the founding. Jackson's father died weeks before Jackson was born, so he was an automatic citizen of the territories since there was no "United States of America" as a country yet.

So, your question is based on the premise that Jackson's parents were not citizens. They were. So, I really don't understand the logic behind the question.

"That definition is crazy because the meaning of Natural Born in America at the time referred only to the place of birth."

Answer a question dickhead:

If the founders meant that just CITIZENS in general was enough to be President, then WHY did they show a DISTINCTION between NATURAL BORN CITIZEN and "citizen at the time of the adoption of this Constitution" when they wrote:

"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President"

Why the need to SEPERATE "natural born citizen" with "citizen of the US at the time of the adoption of this constitution" when BOTH groups of people were citizens?

I know what you're going to say. You're going to say so that it grandfathered those in who were not born here. Newsflash: None of the presidents born BEFORE the adoption of the Constitution were born OUTSIDE of the American colonies....so Einstein, tell me, what was the reason they made that distinction?

By the way, good job ignoring my last post about the British common law. Odd that you would IGNORE that since you claimed you believed our system is based on that. And by that system, Obama is NOT eligible.

Larry said...

Obama Sr. was a senior economist in the Kenyan Ministry of Finance----diplomatic agents serve as economists.

Anonymous said...

Re: "Anyone who was living in America automatically was a citizen at the time of the founding."

Who told you that? It is wrong.

They had to be naturalized to become citizens, as Alexander Hamilton was, and they weren't.

Anonymous said...

Re: "If the founders meant that just CITIZENS in general was enough to be President, then WHY did they show a DISTINCTION between NATURAL BORN CITIZEN and "citizen at the time of the adoption of this Constitution" when they wrote:"

Answer" Since the meaning of Natural Born was born in the country, the distinction is between a citizen at birth and one who had been naturalized, as Alexander Hamilton was.

Some people respond: "Why did they say Natural Born and not Native Born, since the meaning was 'born in the country' and that is what Native Born means."

The answer to that is that Natural Born was the common phrase at the time, and Native Born was rarely used. And, as I said, the meaning of Natural Born at the time always referred to birth in the country, just as Native Born does now.

Anonymous said...

Re: "Obama Sr. was a senior economist in the Kenyan Ministry of Finance----diplomatic agents serve as economists."

Answer: Not at the time that he was in the USA he wasn't. He was a student.

Anonymous said...

Re: "None of the presidents born BEFORE the adoption of the Constitution were born OUTSIDE of the American colonies....so Einstein, tell me, what was the reason they made that distinction?"

They made the distinction to allow one very prominent American leader who was not born in the 13 colonies to run for president. He was Alexander Hamilton. Some others included James Wilson, born in Scotland.

Both Hamilton and Wilson were naturalized by their states. Neither was born in the 13 colonies.

Neither became president, in Hamilton's case mainly because of a duel, but the reason for the clause was to make them eligible, which it did.

Larry said...

"Answer: Not at the time that he was in the USA he wasn't. He was a student."

Doesnt matter, because English common law has nothing to do with US law.

"Answer" Since the meaning of Natural Born was born in the country, the distinction is between a citizen at birth and one who had been naturalized, as Alexander Hamilton was."

Naturalized to what?? A country that wasn't FOUNDED yet? Hamilton was born in the 1750's. There was no country yet. PLUS, he was grandfathered in since he was born "BEFORE the adoption of this constitution". So, are you trying to say that NATURALIZATION makes you eligible to be president? Are you??? Answer that.

"Some people respond: "Why did they say Natural Born and not Native Born, since the meaning was 'born in the country' and that is what Native Born means.""

No, my question to YOU is: why didn't they just say US CITIZENS? I will tell you why. Because being a US CITIZEN is not enough

Larry said...

"Both Hamilton and Wilson were naturalized by their states"

Tell me what state NATURALIZED Hamilton? What state? What year?

Do you even realize how foolish you look?

Anonymous said...

Re: "Doesnt matter, because English common law has nothing to do with US law."

Doesn't matter because he wasn't a diplomat.

Anonymous said...

Hamilton was a naturalized citizen of New York State. As to the date, I am not sure. But he was certainly a citizen and certainly not natural born.

Anonymous said...

Re: "No, my question to YOU is: why didn't they just say US CITIZENS? I will tell you why. Because being a US CITIZEN is not enough.."

We are in complete agreement. Being just a citizen is not enough. There are two kinds of citizens, naturalized and natural born. It is not sufficient to be a naturalized citizen, you have to be a Natural Born Citizen.

That is the rule.

There is not a shred of evidence that the writers of the US Constitution considered that the US-born children of foreigners were not citizens or not Natural Born. If the writers of the Constitution had meant to exclude the US-born children of foreigners, they would have told us.

Anonymous said...

Re: "So, are you trying to say that NATURALIZATION makes you eligible to be president? "

Answer, only under the grandfather clause. That has now expired, and the meaning of Natural Born EXCLUDES naturalized citizens. However, all natural born citizens are eligible, and the meaning of Natural Born at the time that the constitution was written referred only to the place of birth.

Larry said...

"Hamilton was a naturalized citizen of New York State. As to the date, I am not sure."

LOL. The DATE is the most crucial to know of the two. The DATE means everything. If you have NO CLUE what the date is, how do you know he was naturalized? Oh and by the way, you IGNORED my question:

Naturalized to what?? A country that wasn't FOUNDED yet? Hamilton was born in the 1750's. There was no country yet. PLUS, he was grandfathered in since he was born "BEFORE the adoption of this constitution".

I love how you cherry-pick what to respond to and what to IGNORE.

What EXACTLY was Hamilton naturalized TO? A country NOT formed yet??

"If the writers of the Constitution had meant to exclude the US-born children of foreigners, they would have told us."

So, it's just COINCIDENCE that EVERY single president we've had had two American citizen parents? That's an amazing occurance. By the way, are you EVER going to answer my question:

How many presidents has our country had that did NOT have TWO American parents and NOT natural born citizens? [besides Obama]

"However, all natural born citizens are eligible, and the meaning of Natural Born at the time that the constitution was written referred only to the place of birth."

Does that meaning also include DUAL citizenship? YES or NO? Do not say ANYTHING other than YES or NO to that question.

Anonymous said...

After the Declaration of Independence, New York wrote its own Constitution in 1777. After that, it naturalized Hamilton.

Re Dual Citizen.

Dual Citizenship had no effect on Natural Born Citizen status. Thomas Jefferson actually was a dual citizen of the USA and France when he was president, having been made a full (not honorary) citizen of France by the French legislature during the French Revolution.

Woodrow Wilson and Herbert Hoover may have been dual citizens at birth due to their mothers.

Since the writers of the Constitution did not say "no dual citizens" nor did they say "a Natural Born Citizen excludes dual citizens"--there is no evidence that they intended to bar dual citizens, much less persons who were once dual citizens but who no longer are.

Larry said...

"Dual Citizenship had no effect on Natural Born Citizen status. Thomas Jefferson actually was a dual citizen of the USA and France when he was president, having been made a full (not honorary) citizen of France by the French legislature during the French Revolution."

Even if that is TRUE, that has nothing to do with status AT BIRTH, which is what this ENTIRE issue is about.....BIRTH status. You're doing the EXACT same thing Goldberg did in her article. She couldn't win an argument with RELATED FACTS, so she had to bring the 14th amendment into it, which had NOTHING TO DO with anything Corsi talked about concerning Obama.

"Since the writers of the Constitution did not say "no dual citizens" nor did they say "a Natural Born Citizen excludes dual citizens"--there is no evidence that they intended to bar dual citizens, much less persons who were once dual citizens but who no longer are."

Please tell me that was a joke. We had just fought a fucking war to gain independence from England--do you think the founders were going to turn around and ALLOW someone to be its president that had loyalties to ANOTHER country??

You are the biggest dumbass on Earth.

They didn't say aliens from another planet could be eligible for the presidency EITHER, does that mean they can???

By the way, from what EXACT source/link did you get this from?:

"After the Declaration of Independence, New York wrote its own Constitution in 1777. After that, it naturalized Hamilton."

Anonymous said...

Re: "How many presidents has our country had that did NOT have TWO American parents and NOT natural born citizens? [besides Obama]"

Six presidents before Obama, including Andrew Jackson, who had two foreign parents. The most recent before Obama were Herbert Hoover and Woodrow Wilson. Their mothers only became US citizens under a law that made women who married US citizens US citizens. BUT they were never naturalized, never swore an oath, and remained citizens of the countries that they came from.

Anonymous said...

Re: "Do you think the founders were going to turn around and ALLOW someone to be its president that had loyalties to ANOTHER country??"

Answer: YES. The evidence is that the writers of the US Constitution allowed the US voters to decide that matter.

By the way, criminals and former criminals are eligible to be president. Why did the founders allow criminals to be eligible. Because they trusted the voters.

In any case, they did not say "no dual nationals" or "no dual nationals at birth."

It is crazy to believe that if they allowed dual nationals when a person was an adult they barred dual nationals at birth. The logic of this loony theory is that by magic a foreign law has an influence on the loyalty of a child that lasts throughout her or his life.

That is like saying "If you are born a baptist, you must stay a baptist forever." If the writers of the US Constitution had believed that there was a mystical effect of foreign citizenship laws on US-born children, they would have told us.

To be sure, the criterion of birth in the USA is also somewhat mystical. There is no evidence that a child born in the USA is necessarily more loyal than one born out of the USA. BUT the difference is that we have EVIDENCE that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen when the framers wrote referred to the place of birth.

the_last_name_left said...

Elsewhere LArry has written:

------
Whether you believe that “natural born citizen” simply means being born in the United States or being born in the United States while having two American citizen parents, you must ask yourself why the founders chose not to make this a simplistic issue and state that any American-born citizen is eligible.
-------

They did - they said nobody but citizens by birth can be President.....*plus* those who were grandfathered in - a clause which would obviously lapse.

So it *is* simple.

Especially considering what "natural born" was understood to mean at the time of the writing of Const.

L: They didn't say aliens from another planet could be eligible for the presidency EITHER, does that mean they can???
----

If they were born in USA, they wouldn't be "aliens from another planet".

They're not explicitly barred, so why not?

[This points to one of the problems with written, monolithic constitution]

Larry said...

"Six presidents before Obama, including Andrew Jackson, who had two foreign parents. The most recent before Obama were Herbert Hoover and Woodrow Wilson. Their mothers only became US citizens under a law that made women who married US citizens US citizens. BUT they were never naturalized, never swore an oath, and remained citizens of the countries that they came from."

Those parents were ALL American citizens. Notice I NEVER said the parents had to be NATURAL BORN citizens, just citizens....they all WERE. It didnt matter how the parents become citizens---as long as the were.

"YES. The evidence is that the writers of the US Constitution allowed the US voters to decide that matter."

Based on the fact that they be NATURAL BORN citizens---meaning NO loyalties to another country.

"That is like saying "If you are born a baptist, you must stay a baptist forever." If the writers of the US Constitution had believed that there was a mystical effect of foreign citizenship laws on US-born children, they would have told us."

Oh brotherrrrrrrrrr---what a STUPID analogy. Being a certain religion is not achieved through BIRTH. Natural born citizenship IS. It's not an issue of mysticism, it's an issue of LOYALTY.

TLNL wrote:

"Elsewhere LArry has written:

------
"Whether you believe that “natural born citizen” simply means being born in the United States or being born in the United States while having two American citizen parents, you must ask yourself why the founders chose not to make this a simplistic issue and state that any American-born citizen is eligible."


Thanks!! That actually SUPPORTS what Ive been saying ALL along!

Goodness, you're a doofus!

The MAJOR problem with you two's insane beliefs is this example:

Let's say two Mexican parents who were Mexican born and their families lived in Mexico since Mexico began, visited the USA for a week while the mother was pregnant. On their way home, she goes into labor and has to have an emergency childbirth in a Texas town 10 miles from the border to Mexico. After the child is born, they go back to Mexico and live there forever and never come back to the USA ever again.

Are you saying this child is eligible to be President of the United States if he simply resides in the US for 14 years? What if he really doesn't "LIVE" here but just establishes a mailing address here [which MANY Mexicans do by the way].

What possible loyalties would he have to the US?

Larry said...

TLNL, your quote of mine:

"...you must ask yourself why the founders chose not to make this a simplistic issue and state that any American-born citizen is eligible"

You DO realize I was stating that I am not in AGREEMENT with ANY American born being eligible---I was simply making a point to the people that DO think that, that why didn't the founders just say ANY American born citizen is eligible, which I have alread stated on this very thread.

I realize that you have attempted this tactic many times in the past [taking a quote from a LONG story of mine] and trying to make it fit into another discussion when you KNOW that quote was used in a particular context in the original story. Your dishonest tactic does NOT work.

Anyone can see that I was NOT saying I AGREE with ANY citizen being eligible...I was saying it for the people who DO, like you two twits.

I also noticed that you OMITTED the link to the story you got that quote from--AND you OMITTED the paragragh I stated right BEFORE the one you posted. It read:

"In my view, there would have been no need for the founders to include the grandfather clause, stating “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President” if they simply meant that any U.S. citizen was eligible for the Presidency. They could have simply stated, “No person, except a United States citizen, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”

Now, does THAT sound like I AGREE that ANY US citizen is eligible for Prez? Of course not. But you, being the dishonest shitbag you are, do not care about FACTS.

Here is the link to the story you got that from, so ALL can see the ENTIRE story.

http://realtruthonline.
blogspot.com/2010/11/
dave-neiwert-
embarrasses-himself-
by.html

the_last_name_left said...

L: What possible loyalties would he have to the US?
-------------

Good question, perhaps. But nothing to do with the facts of the matter re the legal position.

One might ask what possible loyalties to the US any natural born citizen would necessarily feel.

The whole notion smacks of (old) nationalism and small-world parochialism.

It also betrays how inherently undemocratic America is supposed to be. Why is one person so powerful that her (ha) loyalty must be so unquestionable?

And such unquestionable loyalty is established by the citizenship of her parents? How ridiculous is that?

Larry, imagine two american citizens who are communists and live in N Korea for 20 years - they fly to USA and give birth. Then they return to N Korea.

If the kid ever lives in USA for 14 years, you're fine with their eligibility?

And you know Ron Paul wants to change the automatic right to American citizenship for children born to 'illegals'?

Ron Paul wrote:

---
No other wealthy, western nations grant automatic citizenship to those who simply happen to be born within their borders to non-citizens. These nations recognize that citizenship involves more than the physical location of one's birth; it also involves some measure of cultural connection and allegiance. In most cases this means the parents must be citizens of a nation in order for their newborn children to receive automatic citizenship.
-------

Notice how he says the USA is different, and that in other countries the parents must be citizens before birthright grants citizenship?

Larry seems to stand for there being two classes of American citizen - those that could be President, and those that never can, because of some legal status of their parents.

Isn't that against the spirit of the thing? And isn't Ron Paul's position also against the spirit of the Constitution? What about "Bring me your refugees", or whatever it was?

I don't see any reason to believe the constitution meant to say both parents had to be citizens. It doesn't explicitly say it, so why assume it does? The evidence points the other way - it doesn't mean to say "both parents must be citizens". If it did mean the parents citizenship was so important, it should have said so. It doesn't. [It was never intended to do so....it seems.]

The American Revolution was supposed to be about establishing a republic - overthrowing the principle of monarchy....birthright....automatic privilege etc? no?

The most radical rejection of that principle would be for the new American state to offer citizenship by birth, irrespective of the status of the parents.

I'd like to think America stood for that, rather than the lines Larry and Ron Paul are pursuing which judge a child by its parental legal/judical status.

Seems to me to be a wish to protect the "european" America. Little wonder Corsi's a hit with racists.

the_last_name_left said...

L: Anyone can see that I was NOT saying I AGREE with ANY citizen being eligible..
---------------

Indeed. Anyone can see it....so why do you just assume I didn't? Why not assume I did, and read it like that?

Go and re-read it?

Larry said...

And by the way Anonymous, that same story that The Last Cock Left got my quote from...this one:

http://realtruthonline.
blogspot.com/2010/11/
dave-neiwert-
embarrasses-himself-
by.html

..mentions the 6 presidents whose parents you CLAIM were NOT citizens and refutes you hands down. But I'm sure you won't READ it.

the_last_name_left said...

Hey Lars, what's your view on Dred Scott v. Sandford ?

Is that your 'real' constitution?

Larry said...

"Larry, imagine two american citizens who are communists and live in N Korea for 20 years - they fly to USA and give birth. Then they return to N Korea."

They would have to DENOUNCE their American citizenship to be in N. Korea for 20 years. Jesus Christ you're dumber than I even THOUGHT!

"If the kid ever lives in USA for 14 years, you're fine with their eligibility?"

YOU should answer that! YOU'RE the one who thinks BIRTH WITHIN THE USA ALONE makes you eligible for Prez! That's a question for YOU! You made my point! THANK YOU.

"And you know Ron Paul wants to change the automatic right to American citizenship for children born to 'illegals'?"

Woohoooo!! ANOTHER reason I love him!!

"Notice how he says the USA is different, and that in other countries the parents must be citizens before birthright grants citizenship?"

You keep posting quotes that DEFEND my view! Thanks!

"Larry seems to stand for there being two classes of American citizen - those that could be President, and those that never can, because of some legal status of their parents."

Not EVERYONE can be NATURAL BORN, but ANYONE can be a CITIZEN. Since when is an American citizen DEFINED by whether they can serve as President or not? Only 43 have held that position over a 222 year period. The fact that MANY NEVER CAN be president is not an issue of CLASS of citizen, it's an issue of basic MATH. Dickhead.

The American Dream of just ANYONE becoming President ended about 150 years ago. Now to be President, you need millions and millions of dollars, the support of corporations and corruption. Only the elite qualify for that. You also need to be bought and sold by the establishment, for if you challenge the establishment, you get your head blown off....ask JFK about that.

Larry said...

"Why not assume I did, and read it like that?"

Because there was NO REASON TO POST IT if not for the reason to get anonymous to think I AGREED with that statement and having contradicted myself, you stupid ass shit head.

I know all about Dred Scott. I also know the REAL reason for the 14th amend. being passed---so it gave a GENERALIZED citizenship status to all peple born within the US, so that could overturn Dred Scott which declared that NO BLACK PEOPLE could be US citizens.

The 14th amend. has NOTHING TO DO WITH natural born citizenship and presidential qualifications.

Michelle Goldberg is the one who has NO CLUE what the 14th amend. means!

READ MY STORY ASSHOLE!

the_last_name_left said...

Don't you ever get tired of being so charming, Larry?

You're crazy.

You can't follow an argument. You erroneously (wildly) assume what people mean.

---------

For example, Ron Paul in the quote I gave is clearly saying the USA is different to other countries - BECAUSE OTHER COUNTRIES REQUIRE PARENTS TO BE CITIZENS BEFORE BIRTH CAN CONFER CITIZENSHIP ON PEOPLE BORN IN THE COUNTRY.

AND THE USA IS NOT LIKE THAT.

That's what Ron Paul is saying.

And you agree with him? If you do, then you accept the USA is different to other countries because other countries require parents to be citizens and the USA doesn't).

That's the exact point you have been arguing against. But now you say you agree with it?

Come on Larry, sort yourself out?

rob said...

larry you have destroyed this unamerican fuck again. you own him. hes a waste of time.

Larry said...

"And you agree with him? If you do, then you accept the USA is different to other countries because other countries require parents to be citizens and the USA doesn't)."

You said Ron Paul wanted to change the fact that we grant citizenship to children born to illegals-----THATS what i agreed with. I do NOT believe someone should be a citizen of this country if they are born to ILLEGALS. That issue and the natural born issue are night and day. Jesus, you sound like Goldberg! She brought the 14th amendment into the story concerning Corsi's book and the 14th amend. has NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT CORSI IS SAYING ABOUT OBAMA. NOTHING.

I love how you ignore YET AGAIN my post about the fact that you took my quote out of context and you failed to post the previous paragraph I wrote just so you could lead others to think I was contradicting myself by the quote you DID post.

What reason DID you have for posting my quote then, if NOT to make it appear I was contradicting myself??? Hmmmmmmm?????

Hmmmmmmm????

Hmmmmmmm????

Anonymous said...

Re the example of two Mexican citizens who are visiting the USA and give birth in the USA, and the question whether the child will be eligible to be president simply because he was born in the USA.

The answer is YES. Yes, the voters have the right to vote for her or him.

Nothing in the US Constitution says that US voters do not have the right to vote for a person born in the USA. The allegation that the writers of the US Constitution followed Vattel (the Swiss philosopher) is simply not true. There is no evidence for it. NO Americans at the time ever write letters saying "let us follow Vattel," or "two citizen parents are what we need."

Instead, they used the far more common definition of Natural Born that they as lawyers had been familiar with for all their professional lives--the definition from the common law.

The result is simple. Article II bars foreigners from becoming president, because you must be a citizen to be a Natural Born Citizen. And it also bars naturalized citizens from becoming president. But, it does not bar the US-born children of foreigners from becoming president. There is nothing in the Constitution or in the writings of the original framers of the Constitution or the
Americans at that time that indicated that they considered a US-born child of foreigners of a lower grade of citizenship than the US-born child of US citizens, or that that child would be a less reliable citizen than the US-born child of US parents.

smrstrauss said...

Re: "How many presidents has our country had that did NOT have TWO American parents and NOT natural born citizens? [besides Obama]"

Andrew Jackson had two foreign parents. Sure he was born before the US Constitution.

So are you saying that there is a magical situation in which people born before the US Constitution with two foreign parents will be great, but those born after the US Constitution with two foreign parents are security risks?

Do you think that the writers of the US Constitution thought that?

Andrew Jackson had two foreign parents, but he was born in the USA. That makes him eligible BOTH under the grandfather clause and under the original meaning of Natural Born--which simply meant "born in the country."

Turns out that there is NO evidence that James Buchanan's father was ever naturalized. http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/06/was-james-buchanan-a-natural-born-citizen/

And, as I said before, Herbert Hoover's and Woodrow Wilson's mothers were not really naturalized. They simply became citizens due to a law that said that a foreign woman automatically became a US citizen when they married a US citizen. Since they never swore allegiance and never notified their counties of birth that they were no longer citizens, they were still citizens of those countries.

Now, here is what the "parents-naturalized-is-okay" theory implies.

It implies that a child born in the USA one second after his parents have been naturalized is better than a child born in the USA one second before his parents were naturalized.

That is silly, and it is silly to think that the writers of the US Constitution thought any such thing. But, IF they did think such a thing, they certainly would have told us--and they didn't.

Larry said...

"So are you saying that there is a magical situation in which people born before the US Constitution with two foreign parents will be great, but those born after the US Constitution with two foreign parents are security risks?"

Has nothing to do with before/after the Constutution of who will be "great" or not...it's only about ONE thing: Prior to the adoption of the Constitution there were no laws governing our newly formed country, so no one could possibly follow laws that don't exist. Plus, our founders sure as hell weren't going to create laws that EXCLUDED them since they FOUNDED the country. Are you that stupid? If you are excluded AFTER that, well that's too bad---you can never say you were a FOUNDER, can you?

"Andrew Jackson had two foreign parents, but he was born in the USA. That makes him eligible BOTH under the grandfather clause and under the original meaning of Natural Born--which simply meant "born in the country.""

He had two parents that were not BORN in America. Even if they had not been FOREIGN born, they still would not have been born in "America" technically because America was not founded yet when they were born. Plus---and here is the part you KEEP MISSING: I have NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER said that parents of future presidents have to be BORN HERE. The parents do NOT have to be BORN HERE, they only have to be US CITIZENS----whether born HERE or naturalized. But yet, you CONTINUE TO REPEAT that these past presidents did not have parents BORN here. Why do you CONTINUE to PURPOSELY insinuate FALSELY that I am saying the parents have to be BORN HERE for the people to be eligible for Prez?
Is it plain stupidity that makes you do that or just plain dishonesty? or both?

"Turns out that there is NO evidence that James Buchanan's father was ever naturalized."

Doesn't matter, because he became a US citizen when he married Buchanan's mother, Elizabeth Speer. How can you be this stupid?

"And, as I said before, Herbert Hoover's and Woodrow Wilson's mothers were not really naturalized. They simply became citizens due to a law that said that a foreign woman automatically became a US citizen when they married a US citizen"

Yes, and that makes them US citizens!!

"Since they never swore allegiance and never notified their counties of birth that they were no longer citizens, they were still citizens of those countries."

LOL, so you're saying it matters if the PARENTS of presidents are dual citizens but it DOESN'T matter if the Presidential candidate HIMSELF is a dual citizen?

Jesus, you're making my ribs hurt with laughter!

Anonymous said...

the last cock in mouth queenie fraud is defeated again.

Anonymous said...

There is absolutely no evidence that the parents of Andrew Jackson were naturalized.

There is no evidence that the mothers of Woodrow Wilson or Herbert Hoover were naturalized.

That being the case, their parents were foreigners.

You feel that they were not foreigners. That there were laws at the time that made the parents US citizens.

But, whether there were those laws or not, the fact remains that all three presidents were born in the USA and hence were Natural Born US citizens under the definition accepted by Meese.

“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President ..."---- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

Larry said...

"There is absolutely no evidence that the parents of Andrew Jackson were naturalized."

Naturalized to WHAT??? Jackson's parents were living in the territories BEFORE the founding of the country. Are you trying to tell me that although they were on this land BEFORE the founding of the country, they STILL have to be naturalized? If they are in the country at its founding [although Jackson's father was NOT, he died before that], they automatically become citizens upon the country's founding. Jackson was exempt from this anyway. You're a douchebag.

"There is no evidence that the mothers of Woodrow Wilson or Herbert Hoover were naturalized."

EARTH TO DICKHEAD: You AUTOMATICALLY become a US citizen upon MARRIAGE to a US citizen!!! No NATURALIZATION needed, dipshit. I have said this 3 times already! What don't you get???

Here are the questions I asked that you IGNORED--as usual:

"Why do you CONTINUE to PURPOSELY insinuate FALSELY that I am saying the parents have to be BORN HERE for the people to be eligible for Prez?
Is it plain stupidity that makes you do that or just plain dishonesty? or both?"

"LOL, so you're saying it matters if the PARENTS of presidents are dual citizens but it DOESN'T matter if the Presidential candidate HIMSELF is a dual citizen?"

I keep close eye on the things you ignore. They speak volumes.

the_last_name_left said...

Larry, when Obama was born in Hawaii, he was a citizen of which nation?

Larry said...

"Larry, when Obama was born in Hawaii, he was a citizen of which nation?"

USA and Britain [latter because of his father, per British Nationality Act of 1948]

Makes him a dual citizen, therefore NOT natural born.

You don't read very well, do you?

the_last_name_left said...

So, that means the children of illegal immigrants cannot become President, ever, even though they are American citizens at birth?

Intellectually Honest said...

The only thing you were wrong on Larry was that there was ONE OTHER president who was not natural born with two citizen parents: Chester Arthur. You had on your blog that he burned his records, if I remember correctly. But other than that, you are right on everything else. Keep kicking ass, Larry!

Larry said...

"So, that means the children of illegal immigrants cannot become President, ever, even though they are American citizens at birth?"

Obama, Sr was not a US citizen at ALL---and there's no evidence that Obama, Sr an Ann Dunham were even mrried. The answer to your question above is:

How many times do I have to keep fucking repeating that it doesn't matter if the parents are American BORN, they just have to be American CITIZENS, so if they are illegal immigrants and become NATURALIZED, then their child is eligible. If not, they can't. [Of course, anyone born BEFORE 1787 is exempt]

the_last_name_left said...

You don't have to be so obnoxious, Larry, you stupid cunt.

Anyone can play potty-mouth, big boy.

You say

"it doesn't matter if the parents are American BORN, they just have to be American CITIZENS, so if they are illegal immigrants and become NATURALIZED, then their child is eligible. "

Presumably they would need be naturalised before birth?

Or do you mean anytime at all?

Anonymous said...

Re: "Makes him a dual citizen, therefore NOT natural born."

Where does it say in the US Constitution, the Federalist Papers or in any of the writings of the Americans who wrote the US Constitution or any other Americans at the time that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen excludes dual nationals?

Maybe you think that it should? But if it doesn't say it, there is no evidence that the founders meant it. That is why the US Congress voted to confirm Obama's election UNANIMOUSLY. The fact that he was a dual citizen at the time of his birth was well known. Yet not one congressman or senator in the 535 members voted against? Why not?

BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING IN THE Constitution or in any law at the time or in any of the writings of the Americans at the time that said that dual nationals were excluded from the definition of Natural Born Citizen.

There was also nothing written by Americans at the time that excluded the US born children of foreigners. THEY NEVER wrote "let us follow the definition of Vattel," or "two citizen parents are needed."

They simply wrote Natural Born Citizen, and the common meaning of Natural Born came from the common law and referred to citizenship due to the PLACE of birth.

Anonymous said...

Re: "EARTH TO DICKHEAD: You AUTOMATICALLY become a US citizen upon MARRIAGE to a US citizen!!! No NATURALIZATION needed, dipshit. I have said this 3 times already! What don't you get???"

First, that law no longer exists. No foreigner becomes a US citizen due to marriage to a US citizen. Now you have to be naturalized, regardless of who you are married to.

Second, that law applied only to women, not to men.

Third, although the law automatically made the women US citizens, they never swore an oath. They may have considered themselves still the citizens of the countries that they were born in. Those countries continued to consider those women citizens of their countries--since they had never declared that they were abandoning the citizenship of their country.

So, you logic holds that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen required two legal US parents, even though the use of the term at the time said that a Natural Born Citizen was someone who was born in the country.

And, you say that this rule applies even when the woman was simply married to an American man, not naturalized.

How do you explain the effect on the child? If the mother was married to a US man, the child senses at birth that she or he will be a loyal US citizen. But if the mother was not married, that effect does not work?

Supposing that the couple had a religious marriage in the USA but the clerk who registered the marriage license forgot to fill out the form? Would the child still be a Natural Born Citizen?

When the US abolished the law that allowed women to become US citizens automatically when they were married, and required them to be naturalized, does that mean that the children that they had already given birth to in the USA suddenly lost their Natural Born Citizen status?

Anonymous said...

And there is still the example of James Buchanan, who is a Natural Born US citizen under the Meese definition, but probably not under the two parent definition, since there is no evidence that Buchanan's father was ever naturalized.

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/06/was-james-buchanan-a-natural-born-citizen/

der the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President ..."---- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

Anonymous said...

larry has once again destroyed last cock in mouthqueenie fraud name left.

the_last_name_left said...

Indeed, anon.

Larry hasn't answered whether he thinks parents need be naturalised at birth or not.

Clearly, if they were naturalised at birth, they wouldn't be illegal aliens.....so he must mean afterwards.

But that contradicts his own claims that the Constitution's requirements about Natural-born operated *only* at birth.

Hence his refusal to comment, presumably.

If so, it would mean the child could be prevented from becoming a full citizen eligible for Presidency simply because of the death of his parents....for example, before they were naturalised.

And why would the qualification be retroactive - dependent on the later naturalisation of a parent?

I can't believe the framers of the Constitution intended that.

Larry asked why it wasn't "simple" - 'surely the framers intended a simple qualification?', he said.

Larry didn't realise it was his version of the qualification rules that leads to an array of complications......such as the retroactive qualification through naturalisation which he demands for citizens born without American parents to be eligible for President.

The simplest qualification is natural-born.....born in the territory...IRRESPECTIVE OF PARENTAGE.

This is supported by the fact that the Constitution makes no mention of such rules about it. IF they intended it, they should have said. They didn't.

Larry's version is the complicated one. Larry's version is the one that demands all these extra qualifications which aren't ever mentioned in the Const.

The simple fact is, Larry doesn't like Obama - he doesn't like O's politics. Larry likes the free-market fundamentalism of Miseian Ron Paul instead. Larry likes RPs ultranationalism, loathes Obama's liberalism, and much else no doubt.

Just like Corsi.

Larry said...

"So, you logic holds that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen required two legal US parents, even though the use of the term at the time said that a Natural Born Citizen was someone who was born in the country."

So? Im not talking about the PARENTS running for President---but the offspring! The natural born citizen requirement is ONLY for those seeking the PRESIDENCY.

Larry said...

"How do you explain the effect on the child? If the mother was married to a US man, the child senses at birth that she or he will be a loyal US citizen. But if the mother was not married, that effect does not work?

Supposing that the couple had a religious marriage in the USA but the clerk who registered the marriage license forgot to fill out the form? Would the child still be a Natural Born Citizen?"

I have NO CLUE why you keep rambling about the PARENTS. Why so much emphasis on PARENTS? I have stated repeatedly that thy ONLY need to be US citizens----whether BORN here or naturalized. What dont you understand about that??

What does RELIGION have to do with it? The parents have to be US citizens---period, even if they were Satanists. What the fuck is your point??

"When the US abolished the law that allowed women to become US citizens automatically when they were married, and required them to be naturalized, does that mean that the children that they had already given birth to in the USA suddenly lost their Natural Born Citizen status?"

NO, because if the mothers were NATURALIZED, they are still US citizens!!!! Jesus Christ, you are STUPID!!!

I have said OVER AND OVER AND OVER, the PARENTS DONT NEED TO BE NATURAL BORN, the ONE RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT HAS TO! Do you need me to draw PICTURES??

"And there is still the example of James Buchanan, who is a Natural Born US citizen under the Meese definition, but probably not under the two parent definition, since there is no evidence that Buchanan's father was ever naturalized."

HE BECAME A CITIZEN WHEN HE MARRIED BUCHANAN'S MOTHER YOU STUPID IGNORANT FUCK! I'VE ALREADY ADDRESSED THIS!

the_last_name_left said...

You're a real charmer, Larry.

Not sure what your wiki source is on about......

" "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

The Constitution, in Article One, gives to Congress the power "To establish a uniform rule of naturalization.""
---------------------------

Under your scheme, Larry, there would be no possibility of "anchor babies".....nothing for RonPaul to oppose.

How come these so called anchor-babies exist if there's no rule giving them citizenship?

Does the 14th amendment specify natural-born must mean having two american parents?

Does the Constitution anyway specify both parents (or even one) need be citizens?

What if a child's parent dies before birth? Or gets divorced and emigrates? Or gets deported? or deprived of citizenship....

All these complicated issues arise from YOUR definition of "natural-born".

You wanted it simple, and you thought the framers would have made it so.

But your position is anything but simple - it's the opposite, as is becoming clear as we thrash out all these complexities introduced by your peculiar interpretation of "natural-born".

the_last_name_left said...

BTW, I've never refuted Larry?

Sure I have. Most recently here.

Anonymous said...

larry, this guy says hes refuted you and gives a link. but in the post to the link he proves you right. how is proving you right a refute or a debunk? hes a queenie. the welsh wanker is destroyed again. why does last cock in mouth have comment moderation up? larry you own and his site and his puppet sock site.

Anonymous said...

Re: "HE BECAME A CITIZEN WHEN HE MARRIED BUCHANAN'S MOTHER YOU STUPID IGNORANT FUCK! I'VE ALREADY ADDRESSED THIS!"

Answer: You said that you did. But you didn't because there was no law that said that foreign men became citizens when they married American women. Not in any state, and not in the USA after the Constitution.

There simply wasn't such a law.

So there is no proof that Buchanan's father was a US citizen.

But, James Buchanan was a Natural Born US Citizen due to his birth in the USA.

The following was the meaning of Natural Born Citizen in 1803, about the time that the Constitution was written:

"Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration. ...St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803)

As you can see, the meaning of Natural Born Citizen refers to the PLACE of birth, birth in a state. It does not refer to the parents.

Anonymous said...

its over baby. last cock in mouth queenie fraud name left is defeated again.