Are The Vattle Birthers An Internet Cult??? Yes!!! (A White Paper)

Squeeky, Preparing to Bopp The Hale Out Of The Vattle Cultists

There are two kinds of Birthers,  the smart ones who just have a healthy skepticism about government and documents, and the stupid ones who think it takes two citizen parents to be a natural born citizen.  I call the second kind Vattle Birthers because of their worship of Emerich Vattel, a 300 year old dead Swiss guy, who they say the Constitution based it’s natural born citizen language on.

Now, most people are familiar with cults, and there are a lot of websites that tell you how to identify them. But, in the past these cults had to exist on an in-person level. Cults had their own little camp or compound, and they could just whisk somebody away and brainwash them in person.  This website has a lot of information on your average run-of-the-mill cult:

http://www.howcultswork.com/

With the Internet, however, there is no longer a need to actually physically recruit or manage cult members. Now it can all be done online. As far as I know, this is the first Internet Article to deal with Internet Cults, and the changes in how to identify this new kind of cult. For example, cults no longer have to physically  isolate its members from their families.  The cult can do the same thing by occupying the cult member’s time in the pursuit of whatever the cult objective is.   One objective I think the website above either omitted, or did not identify better,  is the desire of the cult leader and his inner circle to get some R-E-S-P-E-C-T. . .RESPECT, that is, to be recognized as some sort of great leader or authority on something.

Before the Internet, a cult leader would do better if he had some kind of physical presence or physical charisma. After the Internet, a cult leader has the ability to sit home in his or her underwear at a keyboard and move mountains so to speak. But the problem is, how do you identify a Internet Cult as something distinct and different from just motivated activists???  It can’t just be contrarianism.  For example, anti-Global Warming adherents are not a cult. They just don’t believe the case for global warning and concentrate on science and research. On the other hand, Moon Landing Deniers probably skate pretty close to, or over, the edge of being a cult.  But what is the difference???  By the Internet’s very anonymous and impersonal nature you lose a lot of the signs and indicators listed in the above Internet Article. I believe the key is to concentrate on three factors:

1. The Information Control aspects inherent the subject belief system;

2. The degree of irrationality and refusal to face facts in the subject belief system;

3. The degree of conspiracy necessary for the subject belief to be to true.

The above website discusses Mind Control:

Those who control the information control the person. In a mind control cult any information from outside the cult is considered evil, especially if it is opposing the cult. Members are told not to read it or believe it. Only information supplied by the cult is true. One cult labels any information against it as “persecution” or “spiritual pornography”, another cult calls it “apostate literature” and will expel you from the group if you are caught with it. Cults train their members to instantly destroy any critical information given to them, and to not even entertain the thought that the information could be true.

Common sense tells us that a person who does not consider all information may make an unbalanced decision. Filtering the information available or trying to discredit it not on the basis of how true it is, but rather on the basis of how it supports the party line, is a common control method used throughout history.


Now, I can tell you from debating Vattle Birthers, they score very high in this first factor. Anybody who disagrees with them is automatically a Obot, even me, who was a dedicated Common Sense Suspicious Birther. According to them, they alone possess the knowledge of the meaning of the term natural born citizen, in spite of the fact that the courts have defined it differently.

Several Vattle Birthers took their case to a Indiana Court, saying that it took two citizen parents to be a natural born citizen. They lost.  The Indiana court people said:

Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, [A U.S. Supreme Court Case!!!] we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.

Now, you would expect a Vattle Birther to disagree with this, but the ones I was debating just called the Indiana Court people, “Hillbilly Hoosiers” and disregarded it. Plus the U.S. Supreme Court case it was quoting!!! Here is the whole Indiana thingy in case you want to read it for yourself, which is NOT what a cult member would ever want you to do!!!

http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/ankeny-v-gov-of-indiana-natural-born-defined-born-on-us-soil-regardless-of-citizenship-parents/

Moving on, the Vattle Birthers also score very high in the second factor, the degree of irrationality and refusal to face facts in the subject belief system. For example, the Vattle Birthers will tell you that the case of Minor versus Happersatt, another U.S. Supreme Court case about women’s right to vote,  is their most important case of all and proves that it takes two citizen parents to be a natural born citizen.  In fact, the Minor case does NOT discuss whether somebody born in America who has foreign born parents is a natural born citizen or not. Oh how, you might ask, do we know this??? Because the Minor case says so!!! Here:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.

Sometimes, what the Vattle Birthers do is just ignore the part that I have bolded and italicized and try to sneak it past people. But somebody always catches them and then they start lying and misreading stuff all over the place to try to say it doesn’t say that at all. Well, this is just obviously IRRATIONAL and a REFUSAL TO FACE FACTS. But this is not the only place the Vattle Birthers do this. No, in fact they are sooo trying to avoid American law, that they dig up a dead Swiss guy named Emerich Vattel, to try to make him say it takes two citizen parents when he wasn’t even talking about America and what he said didn’t even apply to old English cases. This kind of stuff just goes on day and night with the Vattle Birthers!!!

Finally, on the third factor, the degree of conspiracy necessary for the subject belief to be to true, the Vattle Birthers are just OFF THE CHART!!! Way before the election, everybody knew that Obama’s father was some guy from Kenya who was here as a student and was not a U. S. citizen. But nobody important objected to Obama running for office, because the law says that if you are born in America, and are not a diplomat’s kid, or a invading soldier, then you are a natural born citizen. You don’t have to get naturalized or anything. Sooo, if Obama was ineligible, then every Republican or conservative lawyer, every Republican or conservative judge, and Hillary Clinton’s lawyers and judges would have had to ignore what the Vattle Birthers say is the law. And must continue to ignore it. This is just total BS!!!  It didn’t happen that way, and the Vattle Birthers are just plain wrong.

Sooo, under this new type of cult, The Internet Cult, I think I have proven that the Vattle Birthers are cultists. There is probably a lot more academic work that has to be done on this topic I have invented, but this kind of stuff  is what you are supposed to do when you have a Think Tank- – – – THINK!!!

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Advertisements

About Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter

Hi!!! I am a Girl Reporter on the Internet. I am 31. Plus I am a INTP. I have a Major in Human Kinetics, and a Minor in English. I have 2 cats, and a new kitten! I write poetry, and plus I am trying to learn how to play guitar. I think that is all??? Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter View all posts by Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter

34 responses to “Are The Vattle Birthers An Internet Cult??? Yes!!! (A White Paper)

  • Squeeky Fromm - Girl Reporter

    Well, at least I try. I have been watching the Vattle Birthers just get creamed by the Obots for years. I have read the arguments and it is just not the law about the two citizen parent stuff. While Vattle Birthers were getting clobbered in debates, Common Sense Suspicious Birthers were slowly but surely convincing up to 58% of the country to have doubts where Obama was born and helping SHELLACK Obama last November. It is hard to argue with success.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  • Dean C. Haskins

    So, rather than being guided by the truth, you believe that only what works should be pursued? You have believed a purposed deception in the Article II debate, and are dismissing those who have studied the issue intently, simply because you perceive the constitutional subverts to have “won the debate”? You have presented scant evidence of such, and appear not to even understand the historic foundation and true evidence of NBC being one who is born in this country to citizen parents.

    If what you purport about the Minor case were true, then that would mean that buy into the notion that “natural born Citizen” and “natural born subject” are identical. If that were true, why would the court have stated, “Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first”? There was never any doubt about a natural born subject being a citizen simply by virtue of his birthPLACE. Obviously, the court didn’t equate the two.

    Also, just curious, why the (intentional) misspelling of Vattel?

    • Squeeky Fromm - Girl Reporter

      The mis-spelling is my way of teasing the Two Citizen Parent Birthers, and it rhymes with “prattle”, that way. Plus, most people have never even heard of Vattel, and even I thought he was French for a very long time.

      AND, a natural born citizen and natural born subject are the same thing. There is a whole bunch of court stuff that says that. Including the Ankeny versus Governor case of Indiana which says:

      Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.”

      In the Minor case, the important part is not that there might have been some doubts but that the court did not try to resolve those doubts. BECAUSE, it is pretty hard for a case to prove your point when it doesn’t resolve the doubts the way you say it does.

      Which, all of this is why I get sooo mad at the Vattle Birthers, because this is just intentional misleading of people when you say a case says something and it clearly DOES NOT.It is hard enough to convince people that something is really fishy about Obama and we have a uphill battle as it is. The last thing we need to do is screw up how we read cases which are in PLAIN ENGLISH.

      Sooo, why don’t you quit being a Vattle Birther and just be a Common Sense Suspicious Birther, and you will convince a whole lot more people, and have more fun to boot, because the Obots won’t be just clobbering you in debates all the time. Instead, you will get to clobber them!!!

      Which, I have clobbered a bunch of Obots, WITH LOGIC, and it is very satisfying!!!

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

      • Dean C. Haskins

        Again, if natural born Citizen and natural born subject are the same thing, how could there have been any doubts in the Minor case??? One is a natural born subject simply because of birthplace–without regard to the parents’ citizenship. The court said there were doubts about the citizenship of children born to foreign parents–if there were doubts, then subject and citizen cannot be equivalents. So, you are obviously wrong about Minor–which, if I were really interested in investing the time (I’m not), I would show how you are wrong about every other case as well (if you know any). BTW, you didn’t answer this question, other than to misinterpret Minor–which we all see right through. I understand how proud you are of your position, but being proud about being wrong is pitiful.

  • Kandy Ricotta

    Strangely enough, you have described those you call Obots to a T. For as long as Obama’s NBC issue has been discussed, I have found that those who believe he is NOT a natural born citizen have intensely reviewed all the laws and evidence, understand what was written and meant by our Founding Fathers, and determined Obama does not fulfill that Constitutional requirement. These men and women have never run away from a debate about Obama’s eligibility, and are always ready with factual evidence to support their claims. Can you say the same is true of those on the other side of this issue? The Obots, and those denying that there even IS an issue, refuse to look at and consider the truth. They run when confronted, or resort to name calling and untruths. If they were actually willing to take a good hard look at the facts, they would more than likely believe what we believe. I suggest you read the blogsite of Mario Apuzzo, Esq, a renowned Natural Born Citizen expert ( http://puzo1.blogspot.com ). You really might learn some information to report that might make reading your column worthwhile.
    BTW, maybe you have forgotten (since your English minor days) that you need an “n” after the ‘a’ before a word beginning with a vowel. It’s ‘an’ internet, not ‘a’ internet.

    • Squeeky Fromm - Girl Reporter

      I used to read Mr. Apuzzo’s website, and on my vault website, I even have a Internet Article based on one of his posts. He seems like a very nice and smart person, but I think he is just plain wrong on the law stuff. But not on some of the other things he wrote about.

      As far as the Obots, it seems to me like they have the same mindset as the Vattle Birthers and I even did a Internet Article here on it. That is probably why they are always fighting each other because you are right that the Obots are not very logical and call names a whole lot. In fact, that is their big weakness. The Obots are what I call “little picture” thinkers and maybe that is why they concentrate so hard on what the court cases say because that is easier than doing original thinking. All they have to do is quote somebody, and that is right up their alley. But that does not make the Vattle Birther stuff right.

      I am sorry about the “A” versus “An” thingy, and I do it a lot. It is because I always pronounce “a” as “uh” and I don’t pick up on the boo boo until it is too late to change it. Because once I do a post, I try real hard not to change it up in case the Obots try to jump on me about it.

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

  • skepticismrocks

    I’m not sure I agree with your first categorization of “birthers.” What about those who claim he was born in Kenya and ignore all the other evidence? What about those who say they are 100% sure that Obama is not a natural born citizen?

    I think there is three or four categorizations of “birthers,” and some share characteristics from some or all categories. There very well may be sub-categories. Plus, not all of them are smart.

  • The Obama Timeline author

    In 1862, Congressman John Bingham—the “father of the 14th Amendment”—stated, “All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.”

    In 1866 Bingham stated, “Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” Bingham’s definition was not disputed by other Congressmen.(Obama supporters—including attorneys filing briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court—have omitted the words “of parents” when quoting Bingham’s statement, in a shameful and intentional effort to mislead.)

    In Minor v. Happersett (1875) Chief Justice of the Supreme Court C. J. Waite wrote, “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.” (In other words, THERE ARE LEGAL DOUBTS as to whether someone like Obama could be considered a natural born citizen.)

    Those who claim that the term natural born citizen has the same meaning as native born citizen need to explain why those two terms exist. They also need to explain the need for the “grandfather clause” in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution – which serves no purpose if natural born citizen means nothing more than having been born on U.S. soil.

    Many of us have argued from the day Obama announced his candidacy that he was not a natural born citizen. The issue has nothing to do with race or religion, as we argue for the same reasons that Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal cannot serve as President or Vice President – even though we may find more agreement with them on political issues than with Obama.

    We understand that we are fighting an uphill battle. Presidents, legislators, and Supreme Court Justices have ignored many parts of the U.S Constitution for more than 150 years. But the difficulty of the fight should not cause anyone to refrain from supporting the Constitution.

    • Squeeky Fromm - Girl Reporter

      Well, I am sure you are right about what Bingham said, but the problem is that several court cases just say the opposite, that citizenship of the parents doe NOT matter. Which for law, you have to go with what the courts say, not what just somebody says outside of court.

      About the uphill battle, I don’t get mad at Vattle Birthers for fighting a uphill battle, and applaud them for guts and stuff. But what you just said above proves my point- – -if the courts have been wrong for 150 years, that means that the law is that parental citizenship does not matter to the courts. Sooo, the Vattle Birthers have to honest and tell people that Obama is legal, but that the law is mixed up. It is just like to me, abortion is wrong. But, the law says it is legal. Therefore, I can not in good conscience tell somebody that abortion is ILLEGAL–because it isn’t. I can just tell them that it is wrong and should be illegal.

      In the same way, Vattle Birthers ought to tell people that citizenship of parents does not matter and Jindle and Rubio can legally run—but that they should not be able to run and the law is screwed up. That way, everybody is being honest. Plus, you can concentrate better on what you want to do, which is change the law.

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

      • Dean C. Haskins

        The law is NOT “screwed up.” The law is the law. There has been only one court to hear the merits of any of this, and it was a STATE, not a federal court . . . and, according to ALL OTHER FEDERAL CASES in which this definition was even peripherally considered, that (Indiana) court was dead wrong–but that court, again, is a state court, and does not set federal law. Stating that all courts for 150 years have defined NBC the way you mistakenly understand it is an outright lie. Your understanding is a contemporary aberration, and is not historically accurate.

  • Squeeky Fromm - Girl Reporter

    To Dean Haskins:

    On the Minor Case, it says there were DOUBTS about people being citizens if they were ” born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.” That was written in 1874. BUT, time passes on. It is no longer 1874. Twenty four years later, in 1898, The SCOTUS had the Wong Kim Ark case, and guess what??? They answered the doubts!!! You can not just stay stuck in 1874.

    For a BIG EXAMPLE, in 1874 there were doubts whether people would ever be able to fly or not. Whether heavier than air machines could get off the ground. Well, guess what again—in 1903 those doubts got answered!!! Yes, people could fly as proven by the Wright Brothers!!!

    Sooo, just because there were doubts in 1874 about something, it doesn’t mean you have to stay stuck in doubts forever.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  • Dean C. Haskins

    Wong Kim Ark addressed ONLY generic citizenship by construing the 14th Amendment. Nowhere in Ark was he determined to be a “natural born Citizen, as those of your deceptive circles try to maintain. Ark did not supersede Minor, as Minor did not construe the 14th Amendment, but Article II, Section 1. The only doubt on which I am currently stuck is in your ability to discern truth.

    • Squeeky Fromm - Girl Reporter

      Well, I worry about me being able to discern the TRUTH, too. That is why I read stuff and think about stuff to be on the safe side. Fortunately, there is a court decision which tells me I am right when I say that Wong Kim Ark says that the citizenship of the parents does not matter for a person to be a natural born citizen. That case is Ankeny versus Governor, and once again, it says:

      “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.”

      Sooo, a real, live court with more than one judge on it says that I have discerned the truth pretty good on this issue. Plus, I noticed that you dodged the whole “doubt” stuff and the passage of time. Nostalgia is a fun thing, but maybe you should NOT party like it is 1874.

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

  • Dean C. Haskins

    So, by your fanciful logic, Christopher Hitchens’ beliefs supersede the Bible, rendering it completely false, simply because the Bible was written before Hitchens wrote his opinions about it. Something’s age does not determine its veracity. By the same token, some state judges, who determine nothing about federal law, cannot, through their mistaken decision, change any precedent set by the Supreme Court–regardless of when the precedent was set.

    One could defend the fact that he is an atheist simply because Hitchens agrees with his godless worldview, but that will not make that godless worldview correct.

    • Squeeky Fromm - Girl Reporter

      You are going off on some kind of tangent. Let’s lookit at it closer:

      Bible in Greek and Jewish
      Bible in English
      Book by some Atheist whoever

      See the difference??? Now, let’s look at my stuff:

      1874 Minor SCOTUS Case
      1898 Won Kim Ark SCOTUS case
      2009 Indiana State Case which quotes both Scotus cases.

      Notice how my stuff is pretty much the same kind of thing. With your example, you would have to sort of ask a tangent question even about the English Bible, because it is a translation. With my stuff, they are all court cases. They are in chronological order. And, the second Scotus case resolves the first SCOTUS case’s doubts with language which is quoted again in the state case.

      Now, I doubt that you are a lawyer, and neither am I, but I have watched enough TV to know that you research legal issues by pulling up the applicable cases on stuff. And, the later cases can trump the earlier ones.

      Sooo, spin it however you want, but you are trying to avoid the later cases that don’t agree with your preconceived ideas and agenda. But, you will be sooo happy to know that you are not a pioneer in this. Oh no!!! Lookit at what the state court case said about the people who filed the suit, who sound like Vattle Birthers:

      ““[c]ontrary to the thinking of most People on the subject, there’s a very clear distinction between a „citizen of the United States” and a „natural born Citizen,” and the difference involves having [two] parents of U.S. citizenship, owing no foreign allegiance.” Appellants’ Brief at 23. With regard to President Barack Obama, the Plaintiffs posit that because his father was a citizen of the United Kingdom, President Obama is constitutionally ineligible to assume the Office of the President.

      The bases of the Plaintiffs’ arguments come from such sources as FactCheck.org, The Rocky Mountain News, an eighteenth century treatise by Emmerich de Vattel titled “The Law of Nations,” and various citations to nineteenth century congressional debate.11”

      [SEE: These people are saying the same thing you are, that there is a difference between a citizen and a natural born citizen because of the parent’s citizenship!!!] Continuing, after giving page after page of quotes from Wong Kim Ark which are earlier cases about what the law is, the Indiana people say that these Vattle Birthers did what you are trying to do, which is sneakily avoid the case law you don’t like:

      “The Plaintiffs do not mention the above United States Supreme Court [Wong Kim Ark] authority in their complaint or brief; they primarily rely instead on an eighteenth century treatise and quotations of Members of Congress made during the nineteenth century. To the extent that these authorities conflict with the United States Supreme Court‟s interpretation of what it means to be a natural born citizen, we believe that the Plaintiffs‟ arguments fall under the category of “conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions” that we need not accept as true. . .”

      Sooo, what this means, outside of you just being sooo BUSTED OUT, is that what you say has already been tried and it lost. It lost based on U.S. Supreme Court law that gave case after case after case which shoots down YOUR legal theories.

      Sooo, once again YOU have a decision. You can continue to butt your head against the truth, or just admit you are wrong, and quit being a Vattle Birther. I hope you cross over to the Common Sense Suspicious Birther side of the fence.

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

  • Dean C. Haskins

    I’ve already spent more time on your page than I presently should because of schedule constraints, but you claim that I have avoided Wong Kim Ark, and I have not. I state that Wong Kim Ark actually proves what I have been saying. It did NOT supersede Minor, as it construed the 14th Amendment, and not Article II, Section. That the ONE case you cite was adjudicated by some who chose intellectual dishonesty to fashion a decision doesn’t change what the historical facts are. Again, there has been ONE case (not lots and lots), and those (state, not federal) judges weren’t at all interested in even considering the evidence (and I know that from a firsthand witness). But, your constitutionally subversive beliefs are not all that atypical these days, as the disinformation about this requirement has been vast in an attempt to alter what the Founding Fathers’ clear intent was. Enjoy the Koolaid.

    • Squeeky Fromm - Girl Reporter

      Nope, I am a Franzia White Zinfadel person. Here are some of the cases you say don’t exist, from the Indiana case. BTW (which means By The Way)the “Versus Governor” person in that case is a REPUBLICAN. This is long, but it is the kind of stuff you have to read when you have a Think Tank, sooo I am not complaining:

      Then, in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S. Ct. 456 (1898), the United States Supreme Court confronted the question of “whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who at the time of his birth are subject to the emperor of China . . . becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the fourteenth amendment . . . .” 169 U.S. at 653, 18 S. Ct. at 458. We find this case instructive. The Court in Wong Kim Ark reaffirmed Minor in that the meaning of the words “citizen of the United States” and “natural-born citizen of the United States” “must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the constitution.” Id. at 654, 18 S. Ct. at 459. They noted that “[t]he interpretation of the constitution of the United States

      [12] Note that the Court in Minor contemplates only scenarios where both parents are either citizens or aliens, rather in the case of President Obama, whose mother was a U.S. citizen and father was a citizen of the United Kingdom.

      is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.” Id. at 655, 18 S. Ct. at 459 (quoting Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465, 478, 8 S. Ct. 564, 569 (1888)). The Wong Kim Ark Court explained:

      The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance-also called „ligealty,‟ „obedience,‟ „faith,‟ or „power‟-of the king. The principle embraced all persons born within the king‟s allegiance, and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual,-as expressed in the maxim, „Protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem,‟-and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance; but were predicable of aliens in amity, so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the king‟s dominions, were not natural-born subjects, because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the king.
      This fundamental principle, with these qualifications or explanations of it, was clearly, though quaintly, stated in the leading case known as „Calvin‟s Case,‟ or the „Case of the Postnati,‟ decided in 1608, after a hearing in the exchequer chamber before the lord chancellor and all the judges of England, and reported by Lord Coke and by Lord Ellesmere. Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 1, 4b-6a, 18a, 18b; Ellesmere, Postnati, 62-64; s. c. 2 How. St. Tr. 559, 607, 613-617, 639, 640, 659, 679.
      The English authorities ever since are to the like effect. Co. Litt. 8a, 128b; Lord Hale, in Harg. Law Tracts, 210, and in 1 Hale, P. C. 61, 62; 1 Bl. Comm. 366, 369, 370, 374; 4 Bl. Comm. 74, 92; Lord Kenyon, in Doe v. Jones, 4 Term R. 300, 308; Cockb. Nat. 7; Dicey, Confl. Laws, pp. 173-177, 741.
      * * * * *

      Lord Chief Justice Cockburn . . . said: „By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled, or merely temporarily sojourning, in the country, was an English subject, save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent as a source of nationality.‟ Cockb. Nat. 7.
      Mr. Dicey, in his careful and thoughtful Digest of the Law of England with Reference to the Conflict of Laws, published in 1896, states the following propositions, his principal rules being printed below in italics: “British subject’ means any person who owes permanent allegiance to the crown. „Permanent‟ allegiance is used to distinguish the allegiance of a British subject from the allegiance of an alien, who, because he is within the British dominions, owes „temporary‟ allegiance to the crown. „Natural-born British subject’ means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth.’ ‘Subject to the exceptions hereinafter mentioned, any person who (whatever the nationality of his parents) is born within the British dominions is a natural-born British subject. This rule contains the leading principle of English law on the subject of British nationality.‟ The exceptions afterwards mentioned by Mr. Dicey are only these two: „(1) Any person who (his father being an alien enemy) is born in a part of the British dominions, which at the time of such person‟s birth is in hostile occupation, is an alien.‟ „(2) Any person whose father (being an alien) is at the time of such person’s birth an ambassador or other diplomatic agent accredited to the crown by the sovereign of a foreign state is (though born within the British dominions) an alien.‟ And he adds: „The exceptional and unimportant instances in which birth within the British dominions does not of itself confer British nationality are due to the fact that, though at common law nationality or allegiance in substance depended on the place of a person’s birth, it in theory at least depended, not upon the locality of a man‟s birth, but upon his being born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the king of England; and it might occasionally happen that a person was born within the dominions without being born within the allegiance, or, in other words, under the protection and control of the crown.‟ Dicey, Confl. Laws, pp. 173-177, 741.
      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.

      III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.13

      Id. at 655-658, 18 S. Ct. at 459-460.

      Also, as quoted in Wong Kim Ark, Justice Joseph Story once declared in Inglis v. Trustees of Sailors‟ Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. (3 Pet.) 99 (1830), that “Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children, even of aliens, born in a country, while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government, and owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth.” Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 660, 18 S. Ct. at 461 (quoting Inglis, 28 U.S. (3 Pet.) at 164 (Story, J., concurring)). The Court also cited Justice Curtis‟s dissent in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1856):

      The first section of the second article of the constitution uses the language, „a natural-born citizen.‟ It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.

      [13] According to Westlaw, Wong Kim Ark has been cited to in over 1,000 cases.

      Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 662, 18 S. Ct. at 462 (quoting Dred Scott, 60 U.S. (19 How.) at 576 (Curtis, J., dissenting)).

      The Court in Wong Kim Ark also cited authority which notes that:

      All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.

      Id. at 662-663, 18 S. Ct. at 462 (quotations and citations omitted). The Court held that Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States “at the time of his birth.”14 Id. at 705, 18 S. Ct. at 478.

      Sooo, you can go around and tell everybody there are no cases, but that kind of stuff is why I say that Vattle Birthers are cult members. Because you just ignore the reality of things. If you are not careful, you will end up standing besides some poor little starving Korean girl on a street corner selling roses for the cult leader, or shaving your head and putting on a orange robe and dancing around banging on a tambourine thingy and chanting, “Om Mani Padme Hum.”

      I hope you wake up before then and quit being foolish.

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

  • Dean C. Haskins

    You have been well indoctrinated in the conflation of “citizen” and “natural born Citizen.” While you are entirely wrong in the mantras you parrot, I simply have not the time, nor the inclination, to try to convince you any further of your grave constitutional/historical error. Good day.

    • Squeeky Fromm - Girl Reporter

      I resent the use of your word, INDOCTRINATED.What I have done is simply read the cases. Let me once again show you those “magic words”, in which I have NOT noticed any “abracadabras” or “your eyelids are getting heavy” type language:

      “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.”

      Those words are just TWO SENTENCES. Indoctrination is what Vattle Birthers must do to convince other people NOT to read or understand those two sentences. Squeeky don’t play that game.

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

  • Dean C. Haskins

    Nothing but a state court . . . they got it wrong–either through intellectual dishonesty or laziness. Their twaddle is meaningless on the federal level, and does not supersede the binding precedent of Minor v. Happersett. I’m now done with you–as you are more than a waste of time.

    • Squeeky Fromm - Girl Reporter

      Thank you!!! I am glad to hear that I am much more than a waste of time!!! The Indiana case may be a state case, but it quotes SCOTUS cases. I love the way you just BLITHELY assert stuff about the Minor case, which I read several times last week while I was debating Vattle Birthers at Free Republic.

      24 years later, the only thing I saw that the Wong Kim Ark judges said about Minor was:

      The Court in Wong Kim Ark reaffirmed Minor in that the meaning of the words “citizen of the United States” and “natural-born citizen of the United States” “must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the constitution.”

      Sooo, what is common law??? Wiki says it is: “Common law (also known as case law or precedent) is law developed by judges through decisions of courts and similar tribunals rather than through legislative statutes or executive branch action.”

      Which leaves out Binghams, and Vattels, and puts you right back to the cases you keep trying to pretend are not there. If I was you, I would be afraid of anybody weak-minded enough to be indoctrinated or persuaded by your arguments because they are probably mentally dangerous or something. Plus, I would suggest you keep them away from sharp objects and heavy machinery, because they will probably really screw something up.

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

  • skepticismrocks

    I think the Vattel “birthers” are right to be completely honest. But then, I ask myself, is this something people should be focusing on? Would the Supreme Court rule in favor of the Vattel “birther” interpretation? Is it possible to garner enough support in order to influence judges and other people?

    I think the Vattelist argument is important, but I don’t think it should be given that much attention like other issues. Don’t get me wrong, I definitely think SOME attention should be given to the issue, but there’s so many problems when it comes to trying to influence the public. Plus, in the end, you’d have to rely on the judicial system, and we all know how corrupt the judges are in American courts.

    Common sense dictates Obama has committed fraud. This is very easy to understand. Prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt, and the Vattelist argument could easily slide into place to accompany the fraud charges. The victors have the ultimate influence, and they’re the ones who make history, after all.

    Then again, it may be possible to influence the public with the Rubio debate if he runs. My guess is his advisers don’t want him to run (as VP) because of this issue. If he does run, however, I think the Vattelists SHOULD push their agenda to gain publicity.

    -This has been the opinion of an obot/birther. What is an obot/birther? Someone who gets called a bunch of names.-

    *I am EVERYTHING!*

    • Squeeky Fromm - Girl Reporter

      But, I don’t think the Vattle Birthers are being honest.I mean,the cases just say what they do, and they all say if you are born here, then you are a natural born citizen. Which is about as simple as it gets. It is only two sentences in one case, so how can anybody who can read mess that up???

      As far as something being fishy with Obama, oh HELL YES!!! That is what the KISS thing is all about because anybody who doesn’t cough up a $14 birth certificate for 3 years is pretty mentally disturbed. Like what was the magic number where Obama and his Obots would have thought there was a problem??? 58% of Americans having some degree of doubt where he was born was not high enough???

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

      • skepticismrocks

        “But, I don’t think the Vattle Birthers are being honest.I mean,the cases just say what they do, and they all say if you are born here, then you are a natural born citizen. Which is about as simple as it gets. It is only two sentences in one case, so how can anybody who can read mess that up???”

        Some of them are honest. I agree with Vattelists when it comes to the framers intent. I believe most of the framers of the Constitution meant natural born to mean having two citizen parents.

        “As far as something being fishy with Obama, oh HELL YES!!! That is what the KISS thing is all about because anybody who doesn’t cough up a $14 birth certificate for 3 years is pretty mentally disturbed. Like what was the magic number where Obama and his Obots would have thought there was a problem??? 58% of Americans having some degree of doubt where he was born was not high enough???”

        I’m telling you, it’s actually the SSSIK model!
        ;D

  • Montana

    We won the election and now these sore losers will continue to spew your hate with lies (They hate and can’t debate). The way our court system works is that you get a competent lawyer (Strike One), verifiable facts (Strike Two) and present them to a judge, if the facts are real and not half baked internet lies, then, and only then, you proceed to trial (Strike three). The Birthers seem to be having a problem with their so call facts (internet lies) that they present. Let’s face it no reasonable man or woman will go along with you until you guys win a case, but until then, you will continue to appear dumb, crazy or racist, or maybe all three. You guys are a bunch of sore losers and feeding on your own is still foolish.

    • skepticismrocks

      Sports Team Mentality Syndrome:

      It’s us against them! Everyone from the opposing side all believes the same things! We must delegitimatize them and their arguments at all costs!

      Let’s use phrases such as “you people” to complete our polarization process!

      -This has been the opinion of an obot/birther. What is an obot/birther? Someone who gets called a bunch of names.-

      *I am EVERYTHING!*

  • e.vattel

    So tells us boy reporter pretending to be a gurl…someone that’s 27 is not normally involved in this sorrta thingy..

    To begin…what does natural mean…I donts mean a normal births..what does a natural mean in natural born citizen.

    Pls tell us readers..

    • skepticismrocks

      What does it matter if Squeeky is either a chick, a fat guy in a basement, or even an alien from outer space for that matter. I’m not sure what that has to do with anything =/

      Bonus:
      Squeeky is in fact all three.

      Oh, the wonders of life!

      • Squeeky Fromm - Girl Reporter

        Thank you!!! Actually, I am going to do a Internet Article on why come the Vattle Birthers are always trying to figure out who the people busting them out are, either Obots, Liberals, or what their real name is. I think this is because they are paranoid, conspiracy people, because why does it matter who tells you what the Supreme Court, for example, says??? It should only matter that the quote is accurate.

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

        PLUS: I am starting a new series here “Typical Stupid Lying Vattlel Birther Crap” where I am going to start showing people the stupid lying crap stuff they do.

  • Squeeky Fromm - Girl Reporter

    Well, if you are trying to get a picture of the REAL me, then your little trick is just not going to work!!! Why I am interested in this is all throughout my websites, along with all the other stuff that I am interested in besides this stuff.

    Here is what NATURAL BORN means from the court cases on this website:

    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.

    III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.13

    All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.
    ==============
    Sooo, being born here makes you within the allegiance, and that makes you a natural born citizen, with the exceptions of diplomats’ kids and invading soldiers’ kids. The law also says that kids born to two citizen parents overseas are natural born citizens.

    That is not just me saying it, it is THE LAW saying it.

    Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter

  • e.vattel

    Wrong. Natural is a Kind. Any one not a part of this Kind is a foreigner. This is the genius of the Founders.

  • Squeeky Fromm - Girl Reporter

    Hi e.vattel!!!

    You should see the Internet Article I just did on you, because I figured out what you are!!! Be warned. I have garlic and a silver cross!!!

    https://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2011/10/05/emerich-de-vattel-a-vampire/

    Plus, you ought to check back here in a day or so, because I am doing some new stuff that is really going to get your goat!!!

    Tee Hee! Tee Hee!

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: