The Original Birther Makes the Rounds at CPAC

By
Friday, February 19, 2010 at 5:45 pm

It’s been almost exactly 18 months since Philip J. Berg, a Pennsylvania lawyer and Hillary Clinton supporter, filed a lawsuit demanding that his state keep Barack Obama off the presidential ballot until he provided satisfactory proof that he was born in America — something Berg said Obama couldn’t do. Today Berg appeared at CPAC, handing out a leaflet promoting his ObamaCrimes website (it argues that the president is a “citizen of Indonesia”) and seeking out reporters to promote his case.

I stumbled upon Berg as a Belgian TV station gave him a pretty polite and short interview — anyone’s guess whether they were genuinely curious or whether they were humoring him so they could move on. But as he spoke, Berg drew some more onlookers, including another reporter who taped the interview and gushed about what a fan he was of Berg’s work.

“These are people who really support this particular issue,” said Berg of the CPAC crowd. “This issue transcends party lines.”

Follow David Weigel on Twitter


Categories & Tags: | | |

Comments

43 Comments

mepmep09
Comment posted February 19, 2010 @ 5:58 pm

From Twitter:

@brianbeutler – This Fark tag offered w/o comment: “Coup succeeds in detaining Niger president, exciting teabaggers who misread the headline”


uberVU - social comments
Trackback posted February 19, 2010 @ 6:00 pm

Social comments and analytics for this post…

This post was mentioned on Twitter by TWI_news: The Original Birther Makes the Rounds at CPAC http://bit.ly/cVefRu...


mepmep09
Comment posted February 19, 2010 @ 6:16 pm

On the other hand, crowd boos homophobic asshole at podium.

Credit where due…


chrisjay
Comment posted February 19, 2010 @ 6:23 pm

This headline is a Rorschach test to identify Berfers, teabaggers & racists


strangely_enough
Comment posted February 19, 2010 @ 6:50 pm

“Berg's final claim that the District Court violated his due process rights by dismissing his case is equally frivolous.”
Possibly the awesomest judicial Birther smackdown ever.


mepmep09
Comment posted February 19, 2010 @ 6:53 pm

Whose filings do lawyers find the most entertaining – this guy's, or Orly Taitz's?


Steve_X
Comment posted February 19, 2010 @ 8:20 pm

Berg is a hoot and a half but Judge Land, in his order to Orly, had to remind her that she'd been fired by her own client prior to filing her motion of reconsideration. In a shocking twist that rocked the birther world (and no one else), Taitz's motion was denied.


mepmep09
Comment posted February 19, 2010 @ 9:23 pm

Hahaha!
Thanks, kinda what I figured.


24AheadDotCom
Comment posted February 19, 2010 @ 11:38 pm

Weigel is, of course, just a Soros hack.

Over 16 months ago I took a look at Berg's initial demands. There wasn't anything in there all that onerous; he wanted the basic documentation that other presidents have made available such as college records and the like. Weigel is in effect paid to keep people from asking difficult questions about non-controversial documentation like school records.

Weigel is like a fireman from Fahr. 419: he's paid to cover things up, not to uncover the truth.


JohnC
Comment posted February 19, 2010 @ 11:52 pm

“Weigel is in effect paid to keep people from asking difficult questions about non-controversial documentation like school records.”

This is a free country. You can ask any questions you like. And Weigel has a right to report on it.


Anthony
Comment posted February 20, 2010 @ 12:57 am

Only one president in recent memory has released his birth certificate to the public. Only one. He has releasing in such a way that an American can view it any time of day, and at any place that has computer access.

The State of Hawaii has explicitly stated that they in fact have Obama's original birth records, that he is a natural born citizen.

You have every right to ask questions about the legitimacy of anything. However, it is expected that you listen to the answers. As a journalist it is critical to report on the facts. Berg like many other refuse to accept the answers, and this what Mr. Weigel is reporting on.

The irony is that Ms. Clinton has accepted the facts and has found a way to represent American interests.


monkey99
Comment posted February 20, 2010 @ 1:35 am

It's Fahrenheit 451.

Can't even get a film title straight. It's why birferism is imploding. The truth was the first casualty with them, and remains so.

You folk need to clean house, too. there's some pretty sick mental cases among you.


Palin4Prez
Comment posted February 20, 2010 @ 4:56 am

The Indonesian citizenship law was designed to prevent apatride (stateless) or bipatride (dual) citizenship. Indonesian regulations recognized neither apatride nor bipatride (stateless or dual) citizenship. Since Indonesia did not allow dual citizenship; neither did the United States (since the United States only permitted dual citizenship when 'both' countries agree); and since Obama/Soetoro was a “natural” citizen of Indonesia, the United States would not step in or interfere with the laws of Indonesia. Hague Convention of 1930. As a result of Soetoro/Obama’s Indonesian “natural” citizenship status, Soetoro/Obama could never regain U.S. “natural born” status, if he in fact he ever held such, which we doubt. Soetoro/Obama could have only become “naturalized” if the proper paperwork were filed with the U.S. State Department, after going through U.S. Immigration upon his return to the United States; in which case, Soetoro/Obama would have received a Certification of Citizenship indicating “naturalized.”
We are informed, believe and thereon allege Obama/Soetoro was never naturalized in the United States after his return. Soetoro/Obama was ten (10) years old when he returned to Hawaii to live with his grandparents. Soetoro/Obama’s mother did not return with him. Therefore, it appears that she did not apply for citizenship for Soetoro/Obama in the United States. If citizenship for Soetoro/Obama had been applied for in 1971, Soetoro/Obama would have a Certification of Citizenship. If Soetoro/Obama returned in 1971 to Hawaii without going through U.S. Immigration, today he would be an “illegal alien” — and obviously not able to serve as president, but also his term as a United States Senator from Illinois for nearly four (4) years was illegal.


LaLee
Comment posted February 20, 2010 @ 6:18 am

Is your comment serious of tongue in cheek?

Do you seriously doubt Obama's NBC status?

BTW it doesn't matter what Indonesian citizenship law said because what matters is what US CONSTITUTIONAL LAW said.

And according to 14th Amendment (As applied to US vs Wong Kim Ark) anyone born on US soil is a natural born citizen no matter what foreign country he/she went as a child and regardless of the citizenship of his/her parents (Both WKA parents are Chinese).


Anthony
Comment posted February 20, 2010 @ 7:26 am

A great misrepresentation of Indonesian law. According to American law a child can't lose their citizenship through the act of their parents. You also misrepresent American law on dual citizenship.

You must of worked on your nonsense for a couple of days. Couldn't you have found something more productive to do with your time?


katahdin
Comment posted February 20, 2010 @ 9:52 am

I'm really only typing this to top the pernicious idiot below. I'll try to keep it simple so he /she/it can understand:
Obama natural born citizen
Obama smarter than you
Obama black
Obama good-looking man
Obama president
Obama sign laws which you must obey
Birther suck on it


monkey99
Comment posted February 20, 2010 @ 1:44 pm

Their “evidence” and “proof” are pretty selective. Your example of case law shows this to be true. For them it's just so….Inconvenient? Or maybe it's the crap they “select” that's the only parts they can actually believe.

There's another one on the earlier blog spouting “natural law”. It's a hoot.


bb
Comment posted February 21, 2010 @ 6:07 pm

Berg is a plant! to be used to misinform and distract from the truth!

“It is in nature, using Logic and reflective thought that man finds the one truth!”

To fully understand the issue of Obama’s eligibility, a person must understand the concept of “Natural Law” in regards to the founding principles upon which the government of The United States of America was actually founded.

To get a full understanding; one must study John Locke: John Locke – a noted British Philosopher, who lived from 1632-1704 – is said to be the most influential philosopher as it is virtually undeniable that his theories of Natural Law and it’s appropriate use in both the formation and operation Government, as he is almost quoted in many cases exactly by our countries founders.

A summary of John Locke’s views are provided below: as taken from

http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Biographies/P…

One must understand the following; Notes!

1. The Constitution can only be changed by an Amendment and requires ratification by ¾ or 38 of the states legislatures!
2. No Amendment has been approved that changes or includes a definition of the use of the word (“Natural” or “Natural Born”) as contained in Article 2, section 1 of the Constitution as quoted below!

With the understanding above, I present the following facts and arguments:

1. That our country was founded by the authority of Natural Law, as stated in our countries first founding document: The Declaration of Independence. As evidenced; by the following Quotes; along with the source of this theory, as accredited to John Locke 1632 -1704.

a. “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

b. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

c. So given that we were founded under the principles of Natural Law and as per that time there was no known legal definition of Natural, Natural Born! As at that time, their was no Society/Country explicitly founded on Natural Law. That in fact is what is unique about the United States.

2. Now let’s address the Constitution: Specifically Article 11, Section 1, as quoted below and provide evidence and arguments as stated below.

US Constitution, Article II, Section I – “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution”

First much is made of the words Natural Born: I argue the following! To draw proper conclusion by the following facts and questions:

1. Is Native Born and Natural Born the same?
2. Previous Societies passed Citizenship by:
a. Via the Blood (Jus sanguinis (Latin: right of blood)) Fact!
b. Via Land (Jus soli (Latin: law of ground)) Fact!
3. Britain does both, blood based on farther only, and if born on British soil: Fact!
4. First U.S. European Settlements began in 1620: Stated as fact!
5. First Seven Presidents were Native Born to the land, as shown below: So Native Born!
a. George Washington – was Born in Virginia! Fact!
b. John Adams – was born in Massachusetts! Fact!
c. Thomas Jefferson – Was Born in Virginia! Fact!
d. James Madison – Was Born in Virginia! Fact!
e. James Monroe – Was Born in Virginia! Fact!
f. John Quincy Adams – was born in Massachusetts! Fact!
g. Andrew Jackson – was born in South Carolina! Fact! Note: last to serve the in Revolution!

b. Now we must consider why the clause? “or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution”is made?. Which brings the following questions?

1. If Native Born is the same as Natural Born, What is the need for this clause?
2. If Native Born is not the same as Natural Born what does it mean? and why?

I argue the following: If Native Born is the same as Natural Born, and given the fact that the first European settlements began in 1620. It is obvious the colonies had many people born to the Land or Native Born. Next; I argue that if “Natural Born” was intended to be the same, then clearly the Clause “or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution” Would not be needed! So it must be that Natural born is not the same! This is evidenced also by the fact that our first seven presidents were all Born native to the land and were in-fact Native Born! Certainly, it must be self evident: Those Presidents have proven birth records as no other country is known to be better at record keeping than Great Britain. So, again they would have had little problem proving Native Birth! So Natural Born is not the same as Native Born!

2. I submit that: The Clause can only be interpreted as a grandfather Clause, to mean that they were exempting the Natural Born Clause, to allow those who fought; “The American Revolutionary War” the opportunity to become President, as they had participated and fought for their freedoms and rightfully, obtained them, via the assertion of their natural rights as claimed under, Natural Law, as a Divine right, given by their Creator (Nature’s God)! Per the Declaration Of Independence of these United States!

3. Now, we must ask?

a. Why Natural Born? – To adequately address this question must be taken in the context of the fact that they were constructing a new form of Government, and that it was to founded on Natural Law! That since this is true per there own writing the definition must come from the Understanding They certainly had, that Natural Law was Supreme to Man’s Law! As Let’s face it, that is exactly what they told the King of England!
b. What defines Natural Born? So, one can now conclude that it is to be defined by the rule of Natural Law or per what is Natural! I refer to the Merriam Webster Dictionary! Which offers this definition of the word “Natural – 11 a : being in a state of nature without spiritual enlightenment : UNREGENERATE <natural man> b : living in or as if in a state of nature untouched by the influences of civilization and society”
c. What does it mean? I would argue that given this definition one can conclude; The founders intent! That the Office of President was to only be held by someone who’s birth and Allegiance, could not be questioned by Man, or Man’s Law! That this high standard was adopted to ensure who ever ascended to the Office of President, could not have their allegiance result from a determination or question of Man’s law, and as such; would have a natural allegiance to our society based solely on Natural Law!

4. Per the Term Natural Born, I provided the following evidence and arguments;

a.. It is also, just as Clear, that they did not intend even their own children and or decedents to be anything but, Natural born Citizens, by the mere inclusion of the Clause Natural Born as stated per US Constitution, Article II, Section I – “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution”

b. As evidenced in the writings of John Jay to George Washington, John Jay, was the Presiding Officer of the Convention on July 25, 1787. Per this quote: “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

Note: John Jay was President of the Continental Congress from 1778 to 1779 and, from 1789 to 1795, the first Chief Justice of the United States. During and after the American Revolution! It should be self evident that he and the rest of the founders involved New the principles they founded our nation on (Natural Law), that they also, clearly understood the definition of the word “Natural” as it is reported to have been defined since the 14th century or 1300’s, Per the Merriam Webster Dictionary. That if it were to be defined by anything other than the vernacular Definition, he certainly would have done that given his status as the Chief Justice! As to assume otherwise, would be to accuse him of incompetence!

c. I argue, the following concerning the clause “Natural Born” as recorded in history: Which, as it was obviously included! I submit; the intent is both Self Evident and Undeniable! To Place a strong check to the admission of Foreigners’, as it should be obvious! That as the people knew, who their patriots of the war were, they had no cause for concern at the time, as they, themselves, would be electing the men who would go into the Office of President! However, they understood that both they and what was commonly understood, at that time would likely be lost to future generations, through their own demise. So, to place the strong check as recommended by John Jay; was placed to both protect the Office of The President, from Foreigners, and to ensure there were no questions of allegiance, for future generations.

d. The Naturalization Act of 1790, also passed by this congress, declared as quoted below”

“And the children of citizens of the US shall be considered as natural born, provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been a resident of the US.”

Note: This is a direct quote and it states Children of Citizens (Plural: meaning both!) Obama has admitted his father was not a citizen, and in fact his father would likely have been a British Citizen. This should be sufficient evidence alone showing he is not eligible!

It should also be noted, that this provides that under British Law or (Man’s Law), Obama had a choice to be either British or American: As, under British Law Citizenship may be acquired by virtue of his father; by Blood! I would argue this is exactly what the stated clause was for; and it appears self evident that it has resulted in both his eligibility and thus his allegiance to be put into question!
I agree, some arguments are being made, that do not have sufficient evidence. I also note, that it’s undeniable that an honorable man who has the ability to prove his birth, his school records, his Passport travel information having nothing to hide would be expected to produce them, just as the many other Presidents have before him.

e. I provide the following historically recorded quote of John Bingham, as recorded in history. When asked to define “natural born citizen”; John Bingham, the author of the 14th amendment which extended the bill of rights to former slaves, stated,

“Any human born to parents who are US citizens, and are under no other jurisdiction or authority.”

Note: Some may argue that, neither of these definitions, one from US law, mentions birthplace, only the parents’ citizenship. But given the statement “under no other jurisdiction or authority” they must, be born in or on U.S Soil or Legal Jurisdiction to have that statement apply, especially; given the vernacular definition of Natural as applied in the context of Natural Law.

f. I would argue that given his definition, the fact that nothing is evidenced in the now passed and ratified 14th amendment and as there is no written or adopted language to change or alter the Natural Born statement in anyway than that stated in the U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1, as stated and quoted above: can only be interpreted to mean that no one dissented, from the definition as recorded to history and provided by John Bingham, the author of the 14th Amendment.

g. I refer to the vernacular meaning of the word Natural, as per the Merriam Webster Dictionary: Click here for complete definition

1 : based on an inherent sense of right and wrong <natural justice>
2 a : being in accordance with or determined by nature b : having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature
8 a : occurring in conformity with the ordinary course of nature : not marvelous or supernatural <natural causes> b : formulated by human reason alone rather than revelation <natural religion> <natural rights> c : having a normal or usual character <events followed their natural course>
9 : possessing or exhibiting the higher qualities (as kindliness and affection) of human nature
10 a : growing without human care; also : not cultivated <natural prairie unbroken by the plow> b : existing in or produced by nature : not artificial <natural turf> <natural curiosities> c : relating to or being natural food
11 a : being in a state of nature without spiritual enlightenment : UNREGENERATE <natural man> b : living in or as if in a state of nature untouched by the influences of civilization and society
12 a : having a physical or real existence as contrasted with one that is spiritual, intellectual, or fictitious
b : of, relating to, or operating in the physical as opposed to the spiritual world <natural laws describe phenomena of the physical universe>
13 a : closely resembling an original : true to nature b : marked by easy simplicity and freedom from artificiality, affectation, or constraint c : having a form or appearance found in nature.

So, I would argue; that based on the preponderance of the evidence and arguments the Definitions of the word natural, which dates to the 14th century. Showing the inherent link to Natural Law, The writings of John Jay to George Washington, The Naturalization Act of 1790, The writings of John Bingham, The lack of any change being made to the requirement in the approved and ratified 14th Amendment! That President Obama Cannot be considered Natural Born by either Natural Law or The Constitution of the United States and that as there is know amendment that provides for a change of definition from Article II, Section 1, That Obama should be rightfully disqualified and removed from office per the laws of Nature and of our land!

I pointed out that Obama himself has admitted that his father was Kenyan born and not a citizen of United States!

Should you believe I am introducing a Sophism:

I then provide: You with evidence of my own that; it is not I perpetuating a Sophism!

I would also, like to point out that the extreme arguments concerning Obama’s Eligibility, Citizenship and Birth Place were first brought out by Philip Berg A life long Democrat and professional lawyer! So, I think anyone should question a once highly respected Lawyer’s motivation, when he obviously chooses to make outlandish arguments, for which he knows he has no factual evidence. This would go for Orly Taitz as well! Disinformation is a common form of deception.

Blacks Law Dictionary First Edition 1891: No Definition! Of the word: Natural!

Blacks law Dictionary Second Edition 1910: As Follows:

Natural – The juristic Meaning of this term does not differ from the vernacular, except in cases where it is used in opposition to the term “legal;” and then it means proceeding from or determined by Physical Causes or conditions, as distinguished from positive enactments of law, or attributable to the nature of man rather than to commands of law, or based upon moral rather than legal considerations or sanctions.

Definition of Natural Law from Find Law:

natural law
: a body of law or a specific principle of law that is held to be derived from nature and binding upon human society in the absence of or in addition to positive law
Note: While natural law, based on a notion of timeless order, does not receive as much credence as it did formerly, it was an important influence on the enumeration of natural rights by Thomas Jefferson and others.

So lets see if some one is trying a Sophism as you may think, I would argue that it would be Our Honorable (or perhaps not so Honorable) Member’s of our Political, Justice and legal system that now operates our private, for profit prison system! Who also seam to have unequivocally failed to uphold their oaths of office!

But hey! You’re entitled to your opinion; just as those who argued the world was flat because the church and their kings told them so!

Personally, it’s not about Obama it’s about the rule of Law! As without it, there results only Anarchy!

P.S. You might want to stay away from Government buildings though, because I don’t think the crazies, as some may call them, have even got started yet! Also, it would seem that some; in authority may even actually want it to happen! As they seem to be preparing in everyway for a major event on the homeland, It’s not the average citizen signing the executive orders, it’s not the average citizen, who set up the for profit prison system and it’s not the average citizen, who is reaping the profits in our current economy, It’s not the citizen controlling and operating our fictitious monetary system based solely on Promises! and it is most certainly not this citizen using sophism’s to deceive. They, aren’t hiding it! They do it right in front of you! Just as the founding fathers warned and stated!

But again! You’re entitled to your opinion; just as those who argued the world was flat because the religious leaders and their kings told them so and as stated by our founding Fathers below:

“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

It certainly, seems that many are reaching the level of Despotism they describe, as some are throwing away their life itself, just to make their point!

Just remember; this citizen did his duty! I have tried to give you the truth! I wish you all the best! Enjoy your ignorance! While you can! As you allow history to perhaps repeat itself! Please, make sure you adequately plan for your children as well! Should you have any? Because, without an ethical legal system you will eventually have Anarchy!

Remember – “It is in nature, using Logic and reflective thought that man finds the one truth!:”
Just go walk off a high Building, you will find the one truth about; gravity!
Dump hot coffee in your lap and you will find the truth of temperature!


Anthony
Comment posted February 21, 2010 @ 8:46 pm

He is back. He could have at least taken the time to write something original. Do you know what “absolutely nothing about nothing” means. You wasted your time typing irrelevant information. There are times that I honestly don't even believe that you are old enough to drive a car, as you don't even know how to formulate an idea.


ellid
Comment posted February 21, 2010 @ 9:48 pm

Didn't I see this on a bottle of Magic Peppermint Soap a little while ago?


ellid
Comment posted February 21, 2010 @ 9:49 pm

*rolls eyes*

Your web site still sucks, you're still wrong about the President, and you clearly are still obsessed with a reporter you have never met.

LOSER.


Anthony
Comment posted February 21, 2010 @ 10:35 pm

I don't understand. Someone make a ludicrous request and then another person thinks it reasonable. I don't remember any presidential candidate before making his birth record available to the entire world. Entire word in the sense of anyone who has access to a computer. I understand Berg's position, but doesn't he realize that Ms. Clinton has moved on. More specifically, doesn't he realize that Ms. Clinton and her legal advises have found that Obama's birth certificate is genuine.


monkey99
Comment posted February 21, 2010 @ 10:41 pm

Static central is back again!

You really ARE a recalcitrant masochist, aren't you? Self-flagellation isn't enough?

Your “theory” of “natural law” doesn't stand the light of day.

Natural law: The abhorrence of aberration. When an organism strays from convention, ie; those characteristics that define it within a species, The community of said species have two options.

1) To attempt to return aberrant organism to convention.

2) Eliminate said aberration.

Number two is reserved only when all other previous methods fail.

Get it now, REMF?

Quit licking poisonous frogs.


monkey99
Comment posted February 21, 2010 @ 11:12 pm

Well, at least he “somewhat” stuck to the blog. There were two sentences in that boiling cauldron of confusion in reference to Berg.


Anthony
Comment posted February 21, 2010 @ 11:18 pm

When will they understand that their dismissing of facts and the inclusion of irrelevant material just shows how irrational they are? Well at least “static central” could have correct the error in his comment format.


monkey99
Comment posted February 21, 2010 @ 11:24 pm

He even infers that Berg and Taitz aren't relevant to the “quest” anymore. The headless monster. No wonder they make no sense (not that they ever did).


Anthony
Comment posted February 21, 2010 @ 11:29 pm

Berg a disappointed Clinton supporter. Thanks for pointing the two confusion references out. I remember RedGraham blabbering about Judge Carter writing a order to dismiss to air tight that Obama's lawyers would be able to appeal it. I honestly think that they mine statements that are designed to be purposely contradictory.


monkey99
Comment posted February 22, 2010 @ 12:16 am

They're not thinking that far ahead. Never have. I mean, when you take on a fallacy with a time limit, there's only so much that can be done before it becomes an exercise in futility.

I'm curious now as to what tactic they'll dream up next.


Anthony
Comment posted February 22, 2010 @ 2:24 am

Funny that you mention that. Having some going back to 1700 or earlier for there arguments is another irony. Many they may use Russian civil law.


JohnC
Comment posted February 22, 2010 @ 2:44 pm

“Berg is a plant! to be used to misinform and distract from the truth!”

One can judge the soundness of a proposition by how many conspiracies are necessary to make the theory work. The number and extent of conspiracies is inversely proportional to how viable the argument is.

On top of all the purported conspiracies by state officials, the president and his relatives and employees, presidential electors, the media, and the Supreme Court, we now find that even birthers themselves are part of the conspiracy!

“So given that we were founded under the principles of Natural Law and as per that time there was no known legal definition of Natural, Natural Born!”

If there was no known legal definition for “natural born citizen” back in 1787, I'm sure several state legislatures which had already been using the term would be a little surprised to find that out after the fact.

“First much is made of the words Natural Born: I argue the following! To draw proper conclusion by the following facts and questions:

1. Is Native Born and Natural Born the same?”

In the context of U.S. citizenship, most likely, yes.

“2. Previous Societies passed Citizenship by:
a. Via the Blood (Jus sanguinis (Latin: right of blood)) Fact!”

True.

“b. Via Land (Jus soli (Latin: law of ground)) Fact!”"

“3. Britain does both, blood based on farther only, and if born on British soil: Fact!”

Yes. And so does the United States.

“4. First U.S. European Settlements began in 1620: Stated as fact!”

Actually, not true. The first European settlement in the U.S. was on Roanoke Island in 1585.

“5. First Seven Presidents were Native Born to the land, as shown below: So Native Born!”

You should be a little more clear: They were natural born/native born subjects of the British crown.

“a. George Washington – was Born in Virginia! Fact!
b. John Adams – was born in Massachusetts! Fact!
c. Thomas Jefferson – Was Born in Virginia! Fact!
d. James Madison – Was Born in Virginia! Fact!
e. James Monroe – Was Born in Virginia! Fact!
f. John Quincy Adams – was born in Massachusetts! Fact!
g. Andrew Jackson – was born in South Carolina! Fact! Note: last to serve the in Revolution!”

“b. Now we must consider why the clause? “or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution”is made?. Which brings the following questions?

1. If Native Born is the same as Natural Born, What is the need for this clause?”

Because they were natural born/native born subjects of Britain, not natural born/native born citizens of the United States.

If the Constitution only permitted “natural born citizens” of the United States to serve as president, no person could serve as President until a person born after 1776 was able to meet the other constitutional eligibility requirements. That would have meant we would have gone without a president for the first four to five decades of this country's history.

I submit to you that outcome would have been a wee bit absurd. Hence the “citizens at the time of adoption clause.”

“2. If Native Born is not the same as Natural Born what does it mean? and why?”

See above.

Your arguments are very elaborate, and you've obviously given this a lot of thought. In fact, I would argue you've thought about this far more than the Founding Fathers ever did or would have cared to. The fact is, there is no historical evidence that the Founders attached such complicated meanings to words denoting what in essence are basic concepts: a person is a natural born/native born citizen if he had an attachment to the United States at birth, an attachment which is defined as either being born in the territory, or born out of the territory to parents who are able to convey their U.S. citizenship to the child.

Don't give yourself a mental hernia trying to overthink this one.


Steve_X
Comment posted February 22, 2010 @ 11:51 pm

Shorter BB: “OMFG darkies!”

*jumps out of third story window*


ellid
Comment posted February 23, 2010 @ 7:06 am

What kind of plant? A succulent? Deciduous? Tropical? I'm curious.


bb
Comment posted February 23, 2010 @ 8:55 pm

John at least you maybe trying! In your argument you are assumeing that native born is the same as natural born; prior to every attempt in your arguement. I do not, I am quit sure they our Founder's, put far more thought than I have, After all my life is certainly not on the line! I'm all so just as certain their lives were, It was they that wrote the Declaration, not I! I make know assumtions, I simply draw conclusion based on the facts as documented:

1. Natural Law Theory John Locke and The founders own writings!
2. The Venacular definition of the word Natural,
3. Which it becomes obvious that as the convergance of The Natural Law theory and the Definition of the word Natural: “b : living in or as if in a state of nature untouched by the influences of civilization and society:”
4. I reach one truth! This truth meets the natural law requirement and the definition inculded for the word Natural”

5. A person born of two U.S. Citizens and In the land of the U.S. would meet the exact definition of both. The one Truth!
No man's Law to question! as only this person provides the highest check on the position of POTUS!.

This meets any and all arguments regarding John Jay's letter and John Bingham's stated definition when during discussions concerning the 14th ammendment. So one who's loyalty has no ethical challenge! The highest limitation against foreign influence!

To state otherwise defeats your arguement as you make it, How exaclty did they get a sronger check on office under your argument? Per John Jay

You also seem to forget that the U.S. also was the first country two require a two year residancy for Naturalization, and then increased it to five years.

You say they were British, I agree. But they were born native to the land so by the law of land they would already have a legal claim among nations by showing birth based on the law of land. A name change doesn't change the land of birth! Again your arguement looses! To the law of land! We need again only study history, the Romans conquered many lands and allowed citizenship to those who could show birth by Law of Land! They gave Roman citizens after their conquest! So that would not be new!

You'll try to reference court cases: Please tell me what case you are referencing which include the POTUS!
If they don't then they are irrelevent due to the sole fact that the only position that requires Natural Born is the office of the President! So any case must directly include a charge or damand on the office to be given merrit.

Another Legal point you miss or want to avoid is Congress has the right to change legal Naturalization Policy. They due not have any authority to change the requirements of the President as listed in the constitution. Without ammending the constitution. This is the biggest whole in your arguments.

Only an ammendement can change it, passed by congress and ratified by 3/4 or 38 states legislatures, can alter the requirments to ascend to the office of president.

Then you also have to explain this!

Naturalization act of 1790: Clearly states Natural Born!
“And the children of citizens of the US shall be considered as natural born, provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been a resident of the US.”

So: Please explain how you find Obama Eligible as the act most certainly states citizens (as Pural meaning both), as well as the Father must have been a residident.

Obama; has admitted his father was Kenyan born and was hear as student! Not a resident! Dreams of my father!


JohnC
Comment posted February 24, 2010 @ 2:35 am

“You say they were British, I agree. But they were born native to the land so by the law of land they would already have a legal claim among nations by showing birth based on the law of land.”

I think you're confusing “native born” in terms of citizenship, which has a political and legal meaning, and “native born,” which is nothing but an informal way of saying a person was born in the local geographic area.

“A name change doesn't change the land of birth!”

I doubt the Founding Fathers would agree that they fought for a mere name change. Having said that, while the physical land surrounding the place of your birth is by definition the land of your birth, you can't be born a citizen of a country that doesn't exist.

“You'll try to reference court cases: Please tell me what case you are referencing which include the POTUS!”

The Supreme Court has never discussed what you're talking about because they obviously don't view it is relevant to citizenship or presidential eligibility. So by definition there's nothing to cite.

I also can't cite Supreme Court opinions opining on the constitutionality of spinning coke bottles.

“Another Legal point you miss or want to avoid is Congress has the right to change legal Naturalization Policy. They due not have any authority to change the requirements of the President as listed in the constitution. Without ammending the constitution. This is the biggest whole in your arguments.”

I don't disagree with you on your set-up. But obviously I completely disagree with you as to what the Constitution provides in the first place.

“Naturalization act of 1790: Clearly states Natural Born!
“And the children of citizens of the US shall be considered as natural born, provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been a resident of the US.”

What you don't seem to realize is that that very law was only concerned with children born outside the United States, which cuts against your natural law argument about birth on the land.

“So: Please explain how you find Obama Eligible as the act most certainly states citizens (as Pural meaning both), as well as the Father must have been a residident.”

First of all, “citizens” is ambiguous in that context. The statute doesn't speak of “a child of citizens” – it refers to “children of citizens.” We can't tell whether “citizens” means multiple citizens with respect to each child, or at least one for each child.

Second, that law was changed in 1795 so that “natural born” was dropped from the language. We don't know why that was. The term “natural born citizen” has never again appeared in any federal law.

Third, you yourself just said that Congress can't change what's in the Constitution. And that is correct – federal law has no effect on whether a person born in the United States is a citizen or a natural born citizen. So an outdated and expired law from 1790 would have absolutely no bearing on whether a person born in the United States like President Obama is a natural born citizen.

President Obama was born in Hawaii. Neither of his parents were diplomats of a foreign power. Neither of his parents were citizens of a hostile occupying force. That qualifies him as a U.S. citizen by birth by the language of the Fourteenth Amendment, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark. That same Supreme Court decision also stands quite clearly for the proposition that he is also a natural born citizen by the same token. Any federal law is of absolutely no effect given the foregoing. Period.

“Obama; has admitted his father was Kenyan born and was hear as student! Not a resident!”

You can proclaim this fact as enthusiastically as you wish, but it is absolutely irrelevant to whether Obama is a natural born citizen of the United States. Sorry.


bb
Comment posted February 24, 2010 @ 7:17 am

1. So, you propose to think that they just set up a country by declaring the authority of Natural Law and by mistake chose to add the word natural.

2. You think, They didn't know the definition of “Natural” when they used it in the constitution!

3. They didn't put much thought too it! I mean the King was just going to walk away!.

4. The only Law, the Act of 1790 attempts a definition but it is irrelevent. I can occur their but it only stands that it was pulled because it was not complete and actually far more simple. Look up the word Natural Jack asses.

5. The first 6 President were all Natural Born per both the definition of the word and Law! Parents and child born of the land.
So clearly they had citizens who could meet the definitions per Natural Law and the word Natural!

6. Andrew jackson – would be the exception as his father parents had immigrated from Northern Ireland.

7. “Naturalization act of 1790: Clearly states Natural Born!
“And the children of citizens of the US shall be considered as natural born, provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been a resident of the US.”

What you don't seem to realize is that that very law was only concerned with children born outside the United States, which cuts against your natural law argument about birth on the land.

7. You now agree that federal law is silent on this, with the exception of the 1790 Act! That it would take an Ammendement to change the requirments to enter office. So you would give credit to the son of an immigrant than two U.S. Citizens. I agree it was a mistake and it was repealed for a very simple explaination they Said ” Look up the meaning of the word natural! So no need to mention it as there is no question of it!

Like I said you are a flatlander! The earth is round you have done nothing but prove my arguement!

Your arguments are becoming unraveled!


Conservatives Attack Tea Party Movement - Political Forum
Pingback posted February 27, 2010 @ 6:24 pm

[...] [...]


aaron
Comment posted March 1, 2010 @ 12:16 pm

monkey99: You are the very definition of the overly educated idiot. The more of this sort of misguided claptrap you learn, the less you know, regardless of how many $20 words you throw in to give yourself the appearence of intellectual legitimacy.

How does human political history have anything to do with your drivel? There is a clear historical record of what is considered “natural law”, and your three fold “handbook” for the would-be propagandist (trying to keep the easily controlled status quo alive and well), isn't it.

In fact, your slimey, self assured excretion sounds more like a veiled death threat than anything. Who's the extremist? Methinks it's you. Everything I've heard called “extremist” in the media spin-cycle on both sides of the political spectrum seems much more mundane than the actual extremist views of the mainstream of both parties. On one end you have literal ape-men who sing the praises of reducing mankind into less than an unenlightened beast rife with self hatred and displaced guilt about the harm of inanimate objects, while literally worshipping a rare species of bird. On the other end, you have war mongering psychopaths who believe that mass-murder is a novel concept for a political position in a civilized society. Both are the sort of demented nerosis that rivals the likes of Adolf Hitler or Charles Manson. Compared to these functional psychopaths wearing fancy suits, it's extremist to question where a President was born, or to question the socio-political convention of the decade? I must have missed that meeting. Your lack of relevent understanding of the nature of law would say that since the opposition of slavery went against the political convention of the time that it was unnatural to have been overturned, even though it was abhorent to nature in it's very existence. Again, what about that extremist thing?

Considering that Convention in America would be based on purely libertarian virtues, (while nothing is perfect, it is what it is) what exactly would you say is the illegitimate group of whackos who “lick poisonous frogs” in this equation?

Given that you don't fully understand the concepts that you try to apply to social constructs for organizing civil societies, I guess it never occured to you the possibility that social convention has the potential to threaten the species, which points out the utter stupidity of applying the concepts of biology to social sciences governing the activities of conscious individual beings. Wouldn't the proper response to a social construct that runs contrary to the betterment of the species be the ones that requires routing? It can be said, for example that the socio-political convention of Adolf Hitler was contrary to the survival of the species as it served the needs of the State rather than natural evolution. Your sort of demented thinking would have kept such stains on humanity alive and well.

But then, what do I know? There is no reality beyond corporate media spin-doctors and political rhetoricians, right? Don't worry. The more they spin, the more people see things for what they are, and the more they discredit themselves amongst anyone with a capacity to think (which thankfully seems to be a larger and larger segment of the population these days). The grandest joke of all is the media spin-cycle does all the work for the would-be activist any more without it's meaning to, with how obviously over the top it is. At any rate, the unemployment offices grow ever closer! Back to fairy-tale land.


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted March 1, 2010 @ 2:46 pm

“You are the very definition of the overly educated idiot,”
says the pompous, self important, babbling, delusional prick with more spare time than common sense.


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted March 1, 2010 @ 3:38 pm

Wow. You had to give yourself a “Like” rating because everyone else (i.e., sane people) despises you and knows you're a lunatic. Interesting psychosis you have there.

And your rambling, incoherent babbling is just as wrong and idiotic as always. At least you're consistent in your deranged stupidity.


aaron
Comment posted March 1, 2010 @ 5:16 pm

monkey99: You are the very definition of the overly educated idiot. The more of this sort of misguided claptrap you learn, the less you know, regardless of how many $20 words you throw in to give yourself the appearence of intellectual legitimacy.

How does human political history have anything to do with your drivel? There is a clear historical record of what is considered “natural law”, and your three fold “handbook” for the would-be propagandist (trying to keep the easily controlled status quo alive and well), isn't it.

In fact, your slimey, self assured excretion sounds more like a veiled death threat than anything. Who's the extremist? Methinks it's you. Everything I've heard called “extremist” in the media spin-cycle on both sides of the political spectrum seems much more mundane than the actual extremist views of the mainstream of both parties. On one end you have literal ape-men who sing the praises of reducing mankind into less than an unenlightened beast rife with self hatred and displaced guilt about the harm of inanimate objects, while literally worshipping a rare species of bird. On the other end, you have war mongering psychopaths who believe that mass-murder is a novel concept for a political position in a civilized society. Both are the sort of demented nerosis that rivals the likes of Adolf Hitler or Charles Manson. Compared to these functional psychopaths wearing fancy suits, it's extremist to question where a President was born, or to question the socio-political convention of the decade? I must have missed that meeting. Your lack of relevent understanding of the nature of law would say that since the opposition of slavery went against the political convention of the time that it was unnatural to have been overturned, even though it was abhorent to nature in it's very existence. Again, what about that extremist thing?

Considering that Convention in America would be based on purely libertarian virtues, (while nothing is perfect, it is what it is) what exactly would you say is the illegitimate group of whackos who “lick poisonous frogs” in this equation?

Given that you don't fully understand the concepts that you try to apply to social constructs for organizing civil societies, I guess it never occured to you the possibility that social convention has the potential to threaten the species, which points out the utter stupidity of applying the concepts of biology to social sciences governing the activities of conscious individual beings. Wouldn't the proper response to a social construct that runs contrary to the betterment of the species be the ones that requires routing? It can be said, for example that the socio-political convention of Adolf Hitler was contrary to the survival of the species as it served the needs of the State rather than natural evolution. Your sort of demented thinking would have kept such stains on humanity alive and well.

But then, what do I know? There is no reality beyond corporate media spin-doctors and political rhetoricians, right? Don't worry. The more they spin, the more people see things for what they are, and the more they discredit themselves amongst anyone with a capacity to think (which thankfully seems to be a larger and larger segment of the population these days). The grandest joke of all is the media spin-cycle does all the work for the would-be activist any more without it's meaning to, with how obviously over the top it is. At any rate, the unemployment offices grow ever closer! Back to fairy-tale land.


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted March 1, 2010 @ 7:46 pm

“You are the very definition of the overly educated idiot,”
says the pompous, self important, babbling, delusional prick with more spare time than common sense.


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted March 1, 2010 @ 8:38 pm

Wow. You had to give yourself a “Like” rating because everyone else (i.e., sane people) despises you and knows you're a lunatic. Interesting psychosis you have there.

And your rambling, incoherent babbling is just as wrong and idiotic as always. At least you're consistent in your deranged stupidity.


Conservatives target their own fringe
Pingback posted March 2, 2010 @ 11:42 am

[...] while conference organizers nixed a panel on Obama’s citizenship, a birther contingent still made its presence felt, as did the Oath Keepers, who co-sponsored the [...]


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.