Well, She Did Go To The Park To Feed The Squirrels
Here is parody song that I dedicate to Mario Apuzzo, Esq., and Leo Donofrio, who both push the ridiculous theory that the case of Minor v. Happersett 1875, a voting rights case, defined the term natural born citizen. There are three sentences of that case which clearly states there were doubts about children of aliens which the court did not need to resolve at that time. These DOUBTS were resolved 23 years later in Wong Kim Ark. Here is the language from the Minor v. Happersett case, with bolding by me:
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.
Here is my parody song, based on What Part Of No Don’t You Understand, by country singer, Lorrie Morgan. There is a youtube video below in case you do not know the tune. Start crying in your beer, boys:
What Part of Doubts Don’t You Understand???
by Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter
Sir, if you ask me, I think that you’re a crank.
You’re trying to rewrite the past just , like a mountebank.
Your little hands are writing checks, that you can never cash
And this mumbo jumbo legal stuff is, pure balderdash
What part of “Doubts,” don’t you understand?
This Minor v. Happersett stuff’s, getting out of hand.
They left the issue open, let’s put out these flames you’ve fanned.
What part of “Doubts” don’t you understand?
I appreciate your audience, wants a miracle.
But your logic is so screwy. . . (Is it satirical???)
You need a good scrubbing because you got unclean hands.
What part of “Doubts” don’t you understand?
What part of “Doubts,” don’t you understand?
And if you try this stuff in court, expect a reprimand.
If you were playing poker, you’d be bluffing with this hand.
What part of “Doubts” don’t you understand?
Expect a judge to tell you, that “You lose!” and “Go, pound sand!”
What part of “Doubts” don’t you understand?
Yeah, what part of “Doubts” don’t you understand?
Tee Hee Haw,
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Note 1: Here is a youtube version of the song this parody is based on, What Part Of No Don’t You Understand, made popular by Lorrie Morgan:
Note 2: Here are the guitar chords and lyrics to:
What Part of No Don’t You Understand
C …………………………………………G
Sir if you don’t mind, I rather be alone
………………………………………………………..F……………..G……… C
From the moment I walked in tonight, you’ve been comin’ on
…………………………………………………………F
If I told you once, I told you twice, I’m just here to unwind
…………G…………………………………..F…………G……….C
I’m not interested in romance or what you have in mind
CHORUS
C…………………………………………….F
What part of NO don’t you understand
..G…………………………………………..F……G………….C
I put it plain and simple, I’m not in to one night stands
………………………………………………F
I’ll be glad to explain it, if its too hard to comprehend
G…………………………………………..C
What part of NO don’t you understand.
Instrumental———- Bb
Verse (2)
C………………………………………… G
I appreciate the drink and the rose was nice of you
…………………………………………………….F…………G……..C
I don’t mean to be so bleak, I don’t think I’m gettin’ thru
C………………………………………..F
I don’t need no company and I don’t want to dance
G…………………………………………….C
What part of NO don’t you understand.
CHORUS & TAG TWICE
Note 3: Terms.
Unclean Hands, wiki says:
Unclean hands, sometimes called the clean hands doctrine or the dirty hands doctrine,is an equitable defense in which the defendant argues that the plaintiff is not entitled to obtain an equitable remedy on account of the fact that the plaintiff is acting unethically or has acted in bad faith with respect to the subject of the Compaint–that is, with “unclean hands”. The defendant has the burden of proof to show the plaintiff is not acting in good faith. The doctrine is often stated as “those seeking equity must do equity” or “equity must come with clean hands”.
A defendant’s unclean hands can also be claimed and proven by the plaintiff to claim other equitable remedies and to prevent that defendant from asserting equitable affirmative defenses. In other words, ‘unclean hands’ can be used offensively by the plaintiff as well as defensively by the defendant. Historically, the doctrine of unclean hands can be traced as far back as the Fourth Lateran Council.
A Mountebank is defined as:
Noun:
1. A person who deceives others, esp. in order to trick them out of their money; a charlatan.
2. A person who sold patent medicines in public places.
3. A boastful unscrupulous pretenderSynonyms:
charlatan – quack – impostor
Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who unshakably holds a belief that most of his or her contemporaries consider to be false.
Pound Sand, is defined by The Urban Dictionary:
“The origin of the expression go pound sand is from a longer expression, not to know (have enough sense to) pound sand down a rathole. Filling rat holes with sand is menial work, and telling someone to pound sand down a hole is like telling them to go fly a kite. The expression dates to at least 1912 and is common in the midwestern United States.”
To order someone to go away or “get lost.” This is a widely used term that has no vulgar connotations.
A term used when annoyed with a person.
To tell someone to f*ck off
To stick it where the sun don’t shine.
Note 4: Miscellaneous: Scrubbing is a reference to Leo Donofrio’s claims that Justia scrubbed the Minor v. Happersett links prior to the 2008 Presidential election. Which is silly considering the case has little significance to natural born citizenship, and even sillier considering Donofrio’s attempt to rewrite history himself, which is an example of unclean hands.
The poker reference also relates to Donofrio, who has played in tournaments, and won money. Should you get a chance to bet against his legal challenges with Minor v. Happersett as precedent, go all in.
Note 5: The image is “Doubt” by Henrietta Rae, and was done in 1886.
The Birther Think Tank 
November 9th, 2011 at 11:55 pm
The doubts you clearly misrepresent were whether children born to aliens were even citizens, as the Court clearly stated that there was no doubt as to those born in the country to citizen parents being natural born citizens. In the opinion of the Court, it was not necessary to resolve those doubts (about whether children born to aliens were even citizens) because Virginia Minor was, by their definition, a natural born citizen. Your ilk has a really difficult time differentiating “citizen” from “natural born citizen.” You highlighted the very verbiage that shows you to be lying. Very swift move!
November 10th, 2011 at 2:01 am
Dean H:
You said, “there was no doubt as to those born in the country to citizen parents being natural born citizens.”
But this same court also referred to them as just “citizens”, not natural born citizens. The language:
“it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.”
Then that same court called them natives and natural born citizens, thus using two more terms for the same group, the children born to citizens. The language:
. . .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. . .
This puts the skids to your strict parsing of the language approach to interpretation. The very court you are quoting isn’t using the words in a strict sense.
The words read just what they seem to read. Some authorities include the kids of aliens in the NBC group, some don’t. There are doubts. The court isn’t resolving the doubts. But, Wong Kim Ark will resolve the doubts in just 23 years.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
November 10th, 2011 at 10:37 am
You are making a blatant misinterpretation; and Wonk Kim Ark did no such thing, as Wong Kim Ark never construed anything about who is a natural born citizen.
November 10th, 2011 at 11:07 am
Dean H:
Sure it did. From Section II and the start of Section III:
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, 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.
From Section III:
In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:
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 [p663] 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.
1 Abbott (U.S.) 28, 40, 41.
and:
The Supreme Court of North Carolina, speaking by Mr; Justice Gaston, said:
Before our Revolution, all free persons born within the dominions of the King of Great Britain, whatever their color or complexion, were native-born British subjects; those born out of his allegiance were aliens. . . . Upon the Revolution, no other change took place in the law of North Carolina than was consequent upon the transition from a colony dependent on an European King to a free and sovereign [p664] State; . . . British subjects in North Carolina became North Carolina freemen; . . . and all free persons born within the State are born citizens of the State. . . . The term “citizen,” as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term “subject” in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a “subject of the king” is now “a citizen of the State.”
State v. Manuel (1838), 4 Dev. & Bat. 20, 24-26.
And from still from Section III:
And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King’s obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.
2 Kent Com. 258, note.
Then from Section V:
The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, [with the exceptions, etc.] Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 6a, “strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;” and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, “if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.”
================
Now, all that being said, what you Vattle Birthers do is to ignore all that and take the last sentence:
“is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen”
and do weird sentence construction and play silly sophistry games of “Oh, but they didn’t explicitly say “is as much a natural born citizen as the natural born citizen of a citizen”
while ignoring the clear lead in part of the sentence:
“strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject”
Sooo, what I think is that you should probably start reading Wong Kim Ark without pre-conceived notions, and then you would understand it better, like the Ankeny v. Governor judges:
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.”15
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
November 10th, 2011 at 11:35 am
Hey Haskins: Don’t you have some truth to uncover?
November 10th, 2011 at 1:23 pm
I am on the road doing just that, bob. This person continues to misrepresent these cases. I’ll correct him/her no more on this page, as I am leaving to travel another 1000 miles for additional meetings about the truth that has been uncovered.
November 10th, 2011 at 1:43 pm
Did you pack your novelty-sized check? Your cardboard cutout of President Obama and an extra shoe to throw at it?
November 10th, 2011 at 1:58 pm
Dean – Squeeky isn’t the only one who is “misrepresenting” the Minor case;
Charles Gordon, ‘Who Can be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma” 1968, Maryland Law Review
“The only question in the latter [Minor v. Happersett] case was whether a state could validly restrict voting to male citizens of the United States. The answer, since expunged by the nineteenth amendment, was that women could be denied the vote. In his generalized discussion, Chief Justice Waite observed that “new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.” The court mentioned the presidential qualification clause and stated that it unquestionably included children born in this country of citizen parents, who “were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
“While this language appears to equate natives and natural-born, the Court specified that it was not purporting to resolve any issues not before it.”
J. Michael Medina, 1987, “The Presidential Qualification Clause in this Bicentennial Year: The Need to Eliminate the Natural Born Citizen Requirement” 1986 Oklahoma City University Law Review
“Who is a Natural Born Citizen?”
“The answer to the above question is, quite simply, we do not know. “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizen. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.”[Minor v. Happersett] Because no case squarely on point has arisen, resort must be had to the basic federal scheme of citizenship. It is only clear that naturalized citizens are not natural born.”
Court of Appeals of Indiana, Ankeny and Kruse, vs. Governor of the State of Indiana,
“The United States Supreme Court has read these two provisions in tandem and held that “[t]hus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 (21 Wall.) U.S. 162, 167 (1874). In Minor, written only six years after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, the Court observed that:
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. Id. at 167-168. Thus, the Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen.”
So how about providing some legal authorities who say that the Minor decision defined the Constitutional term “natural born”.
November 10th, 2011 at 2:57 pm
Dean H:
I am glad that you stopped by, and hope you continue to do so. Because if you don’t stop all this Vattle Birther stuff, you are going to spend a lot of time chasing around after wild gooses and unicorns. The stuff I put here on this website is just simple and down-to-Earth doses of Reality.
Those quotes that I gave you from Wong Kim Ark are real, and the law is based on them, and neither is going to go away simply because you and others don’t want to face up to them.
You are on a dead end road to nowhere, and you are encouraging other people to travel with you. What will the day be like when you reach the end of that dead end road, and there is a bunch of garbage and old beat up mattresses, dirty diapers, and empty milk jugs piled up there???
You don’t get all your wasted time back. Stop this nonsense and do something good and useful for a change.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
November 10th, 2011 at 3:01 pm
History will judge the value of what we are doing, not a silly website manned (or girled) by someone hiding behind a pseudonym.
November 10th, 2011 at 3:07 pm
“Journalism is the first rough draft of history.”
And journalism dismisses birthers as crazy.
November 10th, 2011 at 3:24 pm
Well, of course I am a girl, which is why I protect my identity. I am not sure what sex the Obots who pretend to be me are. I am pretty sure Monkey Boy and HST are males, and I am pretty sure they are two of the “Squeeky” imposters.
But really, you need to address the things you said about Wong Kim Ark, because the things I presented have to have some impact on your belief system.
One person said that it was “me” that was beating you, but really it is just the “facts” that are beating you. Your legal theory is flawed, and as long as you stick with your theory, you are not going anywhere but down that dead end road I warned you about.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
November 10th, 2011 at 6:57 pm
Dean H.
And one more thing. You called The Birther Think Tank a “silly website” and I will admit that I do my best to make these Internet Articles interesting and fun to read. But that does not mean that I don’t work very hard to include all the relevant law and stuff. Or, that I don’t do some really good thinking about this stuff.
Back before Obama coughed up the long form, I had the best and most logical reasons to be a regular Common Sense Suspicious Birther, the KISS Matrix. Which is why the Obots could not stand me. If the other Birthers had listened to me and what I was trying to tell them, they would not have had to run to Vattle Birtherism as Plan B, to stay relevant.
When it comes to Vattle Birtherism, I show in simple and easy ways why that legal theory is just full of poopie. Which is why the Vattle Birthers can not stand me. This stuff really isn’t hard, and I cut through all the Vattle Birther verbiage to show how dumb the concept is. With simple things, like a song called “What Part of Doubts Don’t You Understand???” Or Mother Goose rhymes for the mother of all wild goose chases.
I even make very good videos to explain the legal aspects of this:
Sooo, you can call The Birther Think Tank “silly”, but if it is, it is just silly to make it interesting and fun to read. When it comes to explaining the concepts of what is going on, then it is MOST SERIOUS, and I think it is also very effective.
I am very proud of my website. I think it is the best and most creative website there is on all this stuff.
So There!!!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
November 10th, 2011 at 3:13 pm
Damn Deano, you got your butt kicked by a girl. Capt Moroni (remember him?) would be ashamed of you.
November 11th, 2011 at 1:10 am
Wild Bill
Don’t be so hard on Dina. She has to fly and fleece some idiots for this month’s mortgage payment.
Man, grifting is harder work than punching a 9-5 clock.
Hey, Dina, did you find the identity of the 120 yr-old yet?
November 11th, 2011 at 7:58 am
As I stated, history will decide who was right here–and I am fully confident in what we are doing. Bob, journalism is dead.
November 11th, 2011 at 11:33 am
Dean H:
Journalism is looking up these cases and finding out what the terms mean and then relaying those definitions to the public and to the people mangling the law.
Journalism is trying find out what is behind the the people who deny what the law CLEARLY says, and then writing Internet Articles about it.
Journalism is getting to the bottom of this issue, and there is plenty of that here.
I don’t have any philosophical or moral objections to you digging around in Obama’s past. The April 2011 long form answered my questions, but I can understand why the way the long form was presented with all the layers and stuff did not resolve the issue for other people. I don’t think Obama meant for it to resolve the issue. Which YOU would understand if you had read the very good Internet Article here called, “2012-The Year of the Birther??? (A White Paper).”
BUT, when it comes to what the law is, that is pretty simple and straightforward. This two citizen parent stuff is just stupid nonsense and legal quackery of the highest order and the fact that so many Birthers agree with it is very sad and undermines their credibility, intelligence, and honesty. Which only serves to keep Obama’s past hidden. And not the place of his birth, which is Hawaii, but all the other stuff nobody seems to know.
Plus, we don’t need “history” to see who was right or wrong. We can just read Wong Kim Ark from 1898, and answer that question now. A natural born citizen is simply somebody born here who’s parents aren’t diplomats or invading soldiers. That is “history.”
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
November 11th, 2011 at 11:55 am
Birthers have been denounced and ridiculed in the present, and there’s no indication that will change in the future.
That Haskins thinks his fool’s errand will ever be vindicated is additional proof of his delusions.
November 11th, 2011 at 1:38 pm
Bob, your comments are useless before the fat lady sings. As I stated, based upon my present knowledge of things uncovered in our latest investigation, I am confident of our standing with history . . . and am quite aware of who will end up looking like gullible fools. (hint: find a mirror)
November 11th, 2011 at 2:55 pm
The fat lady has sung, but you are ignoring the aria. And the birther refrain of “any day now” is an old song.
Your latest “investigation” will end like all the other “investigations” of the past four years: With a whimper, and President Obama still in the White House. And you still denying the obvious.
November 11th, 2011 at 10:14 pm
Dina bloviates:
As I stated, based upon my present knowledge of things uncovered in our latest investigation, ….
Hmmm, I wonder if we “wouldn’t believe the stuff he is finding” in this “investigation.” Dina could call Donald Trump to avoid duplication of effort.
November 15th, 2011 at 4:38 pm
Hilarious, Dean! (aka The Bürther Führer)
Any Day now, right? Maybe you’ll be able to get Obama out of office in 2017. Or maybe we’ll work to repeal the twenty-second Amendment…
March 19th, 2012 at 6:16 am
[…] https://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2011/11/09/what-part-of-doubts-dont-you-understand-a-parody-so… […]