Fifty Shades Of Stupid!!! (Or, Spanking Another Freeper Birther)

By The 89th Shade, They Were Really Having To Strain For Material

OMG!!! I stumbled across this little bit of SHEER TOTAL STUPIDITY while browsing the Free Republic Birther threads. There is sooo much Birther idiocy there that I could churn out 10 Internet Articles per day easily just by pointing out their legal mistakes, absurdities, and logical fallacies. It would be the equivalent of shooting very stupid fish in a very tiny barrel. Sooo, usually I just giggle and move on to something else. But this piece of nuttiness by Freeper Diogeneslamp was just too dumb to pass up.

Down below in the notes you can find links, and a screen capture of the idiocy.  Now, on with the story. The Freeper Birthers are all babbling and drooling and stuff, and Freeper Diogeneslamp pops out his little copy of John Adam’s personal Law book of English Common law, published in 1736. Which says:

All those are natural born Subjects whose Parents, at the Time of their Birth, were under the actual Obedience of our King, and whose Place of Birth was within his Dominions.

and to the side of that the margin note says:

In Calvins Case those which were born in Normandy, Gascon, while under actual Obedience to the Kings of England, were Subjects born. And this by the Statute is declared to have been the Common Law; but those born there now are Aliens, those places not being in the actual Possession of our King.

Now, I debated Diogeneslamp on numerous occasisons before the Freeper Birthers got tired of me kicking their butts and got me banned. He knows about Wong Kim Ark, and argues mightily that it doesn’t provide precedent on natural born citizenship passing to those born inside the United States regardless of the citizenship of the parents. And he knows, from that same case, that natural born citizenship passes to those born outside the country to American parent(s) by statutory law.

In short, Diogeneslamp is fully aware of this excerpt from Wong Kim Ark via the Ankeny Court:

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.

Lookie!!! The Courts say the same thing as the book. “Within the Obedience” doesn’t mean “citizen.”  It means within the physical jurisdiction of the King.  Clearly, it is the place of birth which controls natural born citizenship for those born inside the country. But, to actually read from John Adams’ book and recognize that fact means you have to quit being a two citizen-parent Birther. Because you to have to face the fact that the citizenship of the parents has NOTHING to do with those born INSIDE the country. Criminy, if the country’s possession reverts, there goes the citizenship, parents notwithstanding. What, does your parentage change if the country changes hands??? This is not just my opinion.

Here it is again, in Ankeny, citing Wong Kim Ark:

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.

Diogeneslamp has been exposed to all this before. Numerous times. There is no excuse for him not recognizing it.  So, how does he handle this clear conflict between his own evidence and his own beliefs??? Simple. He ignores it and tries to pass it off as the same as Vattel’s definition. Like this:

A. English Common law says if you are born here, you’re NBC, and your PARENTS’ citizenship is irrelevant.

and

B. Vattel says NBC only occurs when both PARENTS are citizens.

equals

C. They must be the same thing as what Vattel says, because they both mention the word PARENTS.

I don’t think stupid is too harsh a word  to use. Here it is in his own words:

Hmm… It mentions that a person’s Parents must be in Actual Obedience to the King, and it mentions this BEFORE it says anything about where such a subject should be born, establishing the first requirement as the more important of the two, in my opinion.

Wow. This definition of “Natural-born Subject” sounds very much like the Vattel definition of “natural born citizen”! The first thing both definitions mention is “parents.” Loyal Parents. If “parents” aren’t important, why would they be mentioned? This law book was also subsequently owned by John Adam’s son, John Quincy Adams. (Who also became President.)

But, being the legal whiz that he is, Diogeneslamp must realize that the link to Vattel is a little weak. Sooo, how are we supposed to know that John Adams ascribes to the Vattel definition???  Simple. Because Adams stayed with Vattel’s published in France during the Revolutionary War.

Sooo, that is pretty stupid. Ignoring the Wong Kim Ark and the Ankeny Court saying the same thing as is found in John Adams’ book is pretty stupid. Trying to cobble Vattel onto the book in spite of the clearly opposite meaning is pretty stupid. Ignoring your own evidence is pretty stupid. Trying to convince us that Adam’s staying with the publisher is proof of anything is pretty stupid. But you know what is the stupidest thing of all that Diogeneslamp does???

He forgets to check the publishing date of Adams’ personal book on English Common Law – – – which proves to be 1736, or 22 years BEFORE the first publication of Vattel’s Law Of Nations in 1758.  Yes, Diogeneslamp believes, and expects us to believe, that Adams’ book is parroting a definition of citizenship that won’t be written for another 22 years. I could go on.

If somebody made a career of studying Diogeneslamp’s stupidity, I am pretty sure they would need a title like 1000 Shades of Stupid.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. Screen Capture: Here is a screen capture of Diogeneslamp’s dribble. You can click on it to make it larger:

Note 2: Here is a link to it. Just scroll down to comment #224:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2913011/posts?q=1&;page=201;;comment=224

Note 3. Here’s a link to the 1736 book:

http://www.archive.org/stream/newabridgementof01baco#page/n5/mode/1up

Note 4. the Free Republic ban. Here is a link, with photos, of when the Free Republic Birthers wussied out and ran in panic stricken terror from me:

https://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2012/02/09/zot-free-republic-birthers-run-in-panic-stricken-terror-from-the-truth/

Note 5: The Image.  This is a 1947 photo of Salvador Dali using a model as a desk.   Photograph by Bob Sandberg, Museum of the City of New York, The LOOK Collection.”  It is rumored that IKEA is working on reproductions.