Tag Archives: Birthers

A Black Night For Team Arpaio???

blacknight

He Must Have Gotten Some Strange Kicks From Denial???

Team Arpaio and the Cold Case Posse aren’t exactly having the best of times lately.  They can’t get a real, live prosecutor interested in their silly report that concludes Obama’s online image of his long form birth certificate is a forgery.  After a year and half, they can’t even release the report to the public for fear of ridicule.  On a good day, Republican congressmen merely ignore them. On most days, which are not good days, the congressmen cancel out meetings with them as soon as they find out what kind of idiot with whom they accidentally scheduled a meeting. Nightly, they pray for Alzheimers to strike Republican leaders so they will finally find someone to agree with them.

Human beings are proving a huge obstacle, and now, the mean old Obots, particularly the blogger, NBC,  have gone and made things worse by uncovering the source of the online birth certificate anomalies – – -A Xerox Workcentre machine which does all the strange and weird things that so discomfort the Birthers.  RC, of the RC Radio Blog, has many articles up on this issue, including a hilarious video:

http://rcradioblog.wordpress.com/2013/08/24/mike-zullo-finds-out-about-the-xerox-evidence/

There are several more articles at the link which explain in simple terms how the online anomalies occurred. It looks convincing to me! The Obots have not been silent about their discovery! After sneaking their way onto Gallups’ radio show, the cat is out of the bag in the Birther world. Finally, Carl Gallups and Mike Zullo had to address the issues about the Xerox 7655. Sooo, how did they handle it???

DENIAL!

Deputy Mike “The Arizona Kid” Zullo recently appeared on Gallups radio show, and here is a transcript of their remarks, from the first part of the show:

Gallups: What’s your response to these Obots?

(3:54)  Mike Zullo: I think they’re delusional. I think they’re deluded that they are some vessel of authority somewhere. I don’t know in what stratosphere.  But I don’t owe them anything. I have never engaged them in two years. I don’t really pay a lot of attention to them. And what little I do know of them, aside from the identities of a few, and one that I am intently focused on now. It really just seems to me to be nothing more than a big disinformation campaign. It goes beyond even misinformation. It is disinformation. And for a definition, it’s false information that is deliberately, and a lot of times covertly spread, in order to influence public opinion, or to obscure the truth. And that to me, is about what it is, so to even deal with them as far as I’m concerned is brain damage. I don’t see any reason to do it.

(5:22) Carl Gallups: They are absolutely ever-loving out of their delusional minds. I mean they are absolutely mentally challenged.

http://ppsimmons.blogspot.com/2013/08/i-think-theyre-delusional-mike-zullo-on.html

They went on to discuss the Xerox Workcentre and characterized it as not relevant to the investigation, and stated that the investigation had moved well beyond that point. Which only casts more suspicions on the underlying Cold Case Posse report. If it is that great, why is it still secret after a year and a half? Why don’t any prosecutors seem interested in it? Why is it that Deputy Zullo has to go to Washington D.C. and beg the VIPs and congressman to do something about it? Why does he keep getting rejected?

If Deputy Zullo has any legitimate questions why this is happening, perhaps he needs to do something he has refused to do for two years- and engage with the Obots and anti-Birthers.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image. This is from the 1975 film, Monty Python and the Holy Grail. This particular scene occurs when the King meets the Black Knight.  Here is a youtube video of this particular scene:


Kangaroos On Mars!!! Are They Naturally Born???

Captain-Kangaroo-cast-jpg_172503

The Crew Of The Ten Year Long Mars Explorer Mission Weren’t Sure How Their Kids Would Be Received Back On Earth

Adrian Nash, of the h2ooflife Blog, and frequent commenter here, has written a new post, and here are a few excerpts:

Martians, Koreans, Kangaroos, and Natural Citizens

No animal or human that ever lived was born as a member of its parents’ group and species because of where it was born.  It’s nature and membership are, and always have been, organic and automatic by the immutable laws of life.

An example is the Kangaroo.  Is an infant kangaroo a member of the kangaroo family because it was born in Australia?  But all kangaroos are born in Australia so that fact must be central in determining its species, right? That couldn’t be more absurd.  Where kangaroos are born is merely incidental to the concurrent fact that they are the product of kangaroo parents.  Two facts: one is determinative and the other is irrelevant.  But some argue that the law of natural membership doesn’t exist, or doesn’t apply in a sociological & political relationship fashion as it does with humans in regard to their family membership.

If the Mars crew was composed of Americans, and some of the women were impregnated by Martian men, what would be the nature of their off-spring if born in the United States after returning to Earth?  Would they be natural born Earthlings?  Would they be natural born humans?  Would they be natural born Americans?  Or something else…-something different?

Barack Obama is just such an alien-like child.  His father was not a North American.  He was not an American citizen.  He was not an America immigrant.  He was a non-immigrant alien, and as such, even if one considers his off-spring to be blessed with U.S. citizenship thanks to the 14th Amendment, one cannot defend nor logically propose the idea that such a person could father a wholly natural member of American society, and a wholly natural born citizen of the United States anymore than Earthlings could give birth to natural Martians or Martians could give birth to natural humans.

If a Martian couple, with the female pregnant, were to come to Earth with the crew, and she gave birth in America, would her child be a natural born American citizen, or something else?  According to our insane national policy it would an American citizen, but that would not make it a natural citizen because that is something that law can’t produce.

Only nature can do that via parents who are members of the country and nation when their child is born. Only the Law of natural membership can produce natural members, -not human law.  All it can do is produce legal members, and that is all that Obama is.

http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/2013/08/15/martians-koreans-natural-citizens/

What Mr. Nash argues for is a more logical basis for citizenship than place of birth.  That isn’t necessarily a bad argument, but it is simply not the current state of American law. Almost two years ago I wrote a post which directly addressed this point and which cited an 1898 American Law Review article written shortly after the Wong Kim Ark case was decided. To make it easier to copy and paste,  I have transcribed most of page 8 into text:

But the error the dissent apparently falls into is that it does not recognize that the United States, as a sovereign power, has the right to adopt any rule of citizenship it may see fit, and that the rule of international law does not furnish, ex proprie vigore [of its own force], the sole and exclusive test of citizenship of the United States, however superior it may be deemed to the rule of the common law. It further does not give sufficient weight, in interpreting the 14th Amendment, to the doctrine which was prevalent in the country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution and of the amendment in question, which was undoubtedly that of the common law, and not of international law.

With respect to the superiority of the international law doctrine over that of the common law, it may be conceded that while the rule of international law, that the political status of children follows that of the father, and of the mother, when the child is illegitimate, may be more logical and satisfactory than that of the common law, which makes the mere accidental place of birth the test, still if the Fourteenth Amendment is declaratory of the common law doctrine, it is difficult to see what valid objection can be raised thereto, nor how the subject of citizenship of the United States can be deemed to be governed by the rule of international law in the absence of an express adoption of that rule, any more than it could be governed by the law of France, or of China.

It was only an eight page article, and it is reproduced in image form here:

https://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2011/10/21/remember-the-maine-battleship-remember-the-wong-kim-ark/

The author of that article, Marshall B. Woodworth, actually agreed with Mr. Nash that using parentage was preferable to using place of birth. However, unlike Mr. Nash and all the other two citizen parent Birthers, Woodworth also recognized the actual state of the law. And, in these lines from above,

the doctrine which was prevalent in the country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution and of the amendment in question, which was undoubtedly that of the common law, and not of international law.

Woodworth also recognized that common law controlled the question, not something like Vattel’s The Law of Nations. And what was that common law??? From 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, 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.

Nothing there about any two-citizen parents requirement. Which all leads back to questions I once posed to Mario Apuzzo, Esq. Why don’t you just admit that Obama was and is legally eligible for the office? Why don’t you just admit that there currently is no two-citizen parent requirement? Then, why don’t you work to change the law?

I submit the same questions to Mr. Nash.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image. This is the cast of Captain Kangaroo, about which Wiki says:

Captain Kangaroo was an American children’s television series which aired weekday mornings on the American television network CBS for nearly 30 years, from October 3, 1955 until December 8, 1984, making it the longest-running nationally broadcast children’s television program of its day. In 1986, the American Program Service (now American Public Television, Boston) integrated some newly produced segments into reruns of past episodes, distributing the newer version of the series until 1993.

The show was conceived and the title character played by Bob Keeshan, who based the show on “the warm relationship between grandparents and children.” Keeshan had portrayed the original Clarabell the Clown on The Howdy Doody Show when it aired on NBC. Captain Kangaroo had a loose structure, built around life in the “Treasure House” where the Captain (the name “kangaroo” came from the big pockets in his coat) would tell stories, meet guests, and indulge in silly stunts with regular characters, both humans and puppets.

This show was before my time, but I think I must have had some videotapes, because the Dancing Bear really seems familiar. And for all the Birthers, I present:

Note 2. The Image Easter Egg. For ESLs, Mr. Green Jeans was a regular character on the show, and Martians are often presented as Little Green Men, sooo it was just a silly word play about the alleged Martian children in the Image.


When Will The Birthers Use Sex???

loulou-1929-14-g

Rep. Tex “Tubby” Thompson Didn’t Know It Yet, But He Was About To Become A Birther!

The Birthers are nothing if not persistent, and one can not help but wonder exactly how far they will go to get a congressman to introduce Team Arpaio’s foolishness and call for an investigation into Obama’s eligibility. They have tried some marches and demonstrations here and there, but hardly anybody shows up. Some are hanging off of overpasses with signs. That’s no fun in the summer heat. And dangerous to boot.

They have taken to showing up on radio shows as unannounced callers, and popping into Town Hall meetings like Princess Miki Booth did the other day to embarrass or intimidate their representatives.  I wouldn’t be surprised to see them roll in some little kid in a wheelchair that they promised a new bike and X-box to if he would shave his head and hold out a copy of Zullo’s Affidavit to “the nice congressman.” But I also wonder why they haven’t just resorted to the oldest trick in the book and used the “Honeypot.” About which Wiki says:

Love, honeypots, and recruitment

U.S. intelligence services, for example, are concerned when their own personnel could be subject to sexual blackmail. This applied to any homosexual relationship until the mid-1990s, and also applied to heterosexual relationships with most foreign nationals. See honeypots in espionage fiction for fictional examples. In some cases, especially when the national was a citizen of a friendly nation, the relationship needed to be reported. Failure to do so, even with a friendly nation, could result in dismissal.

One former CIA officer said that while sexual entrapment wasn’t generally a good tool to recruit a foreign official, it was sometimes employed successfully to solve short-term problems. Seduction is a classic technique; “swallow” was the KGB tradecraft term for women, and “raven” the term for men, trained to seduce intelligence targets.

During the Cold War, the KGB (and allied services, including the East German Stasi under Markus Wolf, and the Cuban Intelligence Directorate (formerly known as Dirección General de Inteligencia or DGI)) frequently sought to entrap CIA officers. The KGB believed that Americans were sex-obsessed materialists, and that U.S. spies could easily be entrapped by sexual lures. The best-known incident, however, was of Clayton Lonetree, a Marine guard supervisor at the Moscow embassy, who was seduced by a “swallow” who was a translator at the Embassy of the United States in Moscow. Once the seduction took place, she put him in touch with a KGB handler. The espionage continued after his transfer to Vienna, although he eventually turned himself in.

The Soviets used sex not only for direct recruitment, but as a contingency where an American officer might need to be compromised in the future. The CIA itself made limited use of sexual recruitment against foreign intelligence services. “Coercive recruitment generally didn’t work. We found that offers of money and freedom worked better”. If the Agency found a Soviet intelligence officer had a girlfriend, they would try to recruit the girlfriend as an access agent. Once the CIA personnel had access to the Soviet officer, they might attempt to double him.

Clandestine_HUMINT_asset_recruitinghoneypots and_recruitment

Surely there are some hot little Birther chicks who would take one for the team, so  to speak.  Seduce a congressman from a Bible Belt state, and take pictures. The kinkier the better. And there are professionals who would do it for money. It isn’t like your average congressman has a lot of morals to begin with. Once snared, I bet you would see a call for an investigation quicker than you could say junket!

Sooo, I wonder when the Birthers will think of this??? They certainly have the money, and they certainly have the desire.  And, they are not above doing extra-legal things, like applying for someone else’s social security number information. All the necessary elements are in place. Therefore, I think this is just a matter of WHEN, not IF.

Remember, you heard it here first!

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image. This is Louise Brooks, from the 1929 film, Pandora’s Box. This is a great film!


Princess Miki Throws A Royal Fit!!!

black-adder

Making It Even Worse, She Had Been So Certain That She Had Him Collared

Well, Princess Miki Booth threw a Royal Birther fit during a meeting with Rep. Markwayne Muller of Oklahoma. Here is the video:

And here is what Josh Feldman of Mediaite said about the encounter:

That birther issue just won’t die. The latest Republican congressman to deal with the fringest of fringe issues is Markwayne Mullin, a first-termer from Oklahoma, who was confronted by a self-described “birther princess” during a town hall. After Mullin dismissed it as a “dead issue,” the woman approached him and insisted he needs to take this seriously. In response, Mullin told her, “Honestly, I don’t even give a shit.”

Mullin continuously told the crowd, “We lost that argument,” and ThinkProgress, which caught the exchange, interpreted that to mean Mullin is a birther. Mullin’s communications director responded that Mullin did no such thing, and in addition, didn’t say “I don’t even give a shit,” but rather said, “Don’t even give it to me.”

http://www.mediaite.com/online/what-prompted-gop-rep-to-tell-town-hall-i-dont-give-a-sht/

Princess Miki began by describing herself as a Birther Princess, which is actually a title I gave her! (See Note 2 below.) I am glad to see that she reads The Birther Think Tank, and hope she reads it some more. Maybe one day she will actually learn something. Like, how dumb she has been to believe Zullo and Team Arpaio.  In the meantime, she is too busy hamming it up to listen to anybody. Here is a link to her blog, so you can see her take on this:

http://mikibooth.com/2013/08/12/birther-princess-a-k-a-miki-booth-vs-oklahoma-congressman/

On the bright side, another Republican congressman has told the Birthers to FOAD. This is the fourth one in the past few weeks. And, nobody in the crowd was giving her any love either. The Birthers haven’t yet caught on to the fact that most people think they are nuts. Even people who don’t put it past Obama and his crew to dummy up the records, seem to have grown tired of the whole “no evidence” thing. Some of the two citizen parents Birthers are also toning it down in case Ted Cruz, Marc Rubio, or Bobby Jindal run for office. I guess they figure “The Constitution” owes them one.

Meanwhile, the Birthers keep trying to embarrass Republican congressman with something that isn’t embarrassing to them.  It is like the Birthers are trying to blackmail them with, “Pssst! I have some photos of you and your wife going to Sunday School!”  While that might work in some extremist Democratic districts, that kind of stuff usually doesn’t play well in the real world. The Birthers need something juicier than, “He wasn’t crazy enough to buy into our conspiracy theory!”

So, to paraphrase Lord Blackadder,  The eyes are open, the mouth moves, but Mrs. Brain has long since departed, hasn’t he, Miki?

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image. This is Queenie and Edmund from the British television series, Blackadder, Series 2. Wiki says:

Blackadder II is set in England during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I (1558–1603), played by Miranda Richardson. The principal character is Edmund (Rowan Atkinson), Lord Blackadder, the great-grandson of the original Black Adder. During the series, he often comes into contact with the Queen, her obsequious Lord Chamberlain Lord Melchett (Stephen Fry) with whom he has a rivalry, and the Queen’s demented former nanny Nursie (Patsy Byrne).

Following the BBC’s request for improvements (and a severe budget reduction), several changes were made. The second series was the first to establish the familiar Blackadder character: cunning, shrewd and witty, in sharp contrast to the bumbling Prince Edmund of the first series. To make the show more cost-effective, it was also shot with virtually no outdoor scenes (in contrast to the first series which was shot largely on location) and several frequently used indoor sets, such as the Queen’s throne room and Blackadder’s front room.

A quote from this series ranked number three in a list of the top 25 television “put downs” of the last 40 years by the Radio Times magazine. It was the following insult directed at Lord Percy by Edmund Blackadder: “The eyes are open, the mouth moves, but Mr. Brain has long since departed, hasn’t he, Percy?”

Here is a link to more hilarious dialogue:

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Blackadder

Note 2. Here are links to some previous Miki Booth stories:

https://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2012/03/06/the-princess-miki-syndrome/

https://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2012/03/15/while-princess-miki-ducks-and-covers/

https://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2012/08/13/princess-miki-dodges-the-microphone-of-doom/

https://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2012/08/16/princess-miki-gets-a-commitment-but-dont-cheer-just-yet/

https://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2012/09/12/princess-miki-haz-a-mad-or-she-goes-some-more-a-raving/

https://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2012/02/16/dear-miki-booth-tmi-is-not-your-friend/


Time Enough At Last??? (Or, Prof. Jacobson Enters The Birther Zone!!!)

jacobson 2

Prof. Jacobson Wins His Place In The Guinness Book Of World Records After Successfully Dodging 1,749 Copies Of  Vattel’s The Law Of Nations!

There is a fifth dimension beyond that which is known to man. It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man’s fears and the summit of his knowledge. This is the dimension of imagination. It is an area which we call the Birther Zone.

Professor William Jacobson, a Cornell law professor, is finally ready to take on the question of whether Mark Rubio and Ted Cruz are eligible for the Presidency. Here are a few excerpts from an August 13, 2013 article:

Ted and Marco Eligibility – I Can’t Put It Off Any Longer

The analysis of the Natural Born Citizen clause in the Constitution as it applies to Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio.

I promised to do this long ago, and did the research with the assistance of a former student, but couldn’t bring myself to actually write it up for multiple reasons:

(1) it’s a subject which brings out the most vitriolic commenters and e-mailers (hey, why don’t we talk about a non-controversial subject instead, like Islam or Gay Marriage?) and I haven’t been in the mood;
(2) views on the subject have become like religion, incapable of disproving;
(3) I’ve generally been distracted, with each week bringing some new “crisis” to write about;
(4) I’m lazy by nature;
(5) the process of relocating from RI to NY started in March and continued through July, and sapped what little free time I had;
(6) this isn’t actually my job,
(7) I’m lazy by nature (but I repeat myself); and
(8) bullet-proofing the analysis against the inevitable criticisms requires more painstaking drafting than normally takes place on the internet.

But it can’t be ignored anymore.

http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/08/ted-and-marco-eligibility-i-cant-put-this-off-any-longer/#comments

The links there to a previous article in, February 2013,  reveal some of what he has been going through:

The nature of the hostility directed at me has changed over the years.

In 2008-2010, it was mostly Obama supporters upset that someone who taught at an Ivy League law school would dissent.  I guess they figured their love letters weren’t working, so that has mostly (but not completely) stopped.

The most unhinged of late are Elizabeth Warren supporters.  (More on that, perhaps, in a later post.)

But along that road, there has been a consistent allegation that I was part of some vast conspiracy to conceal Obama’s alleged lack of constitutional qualification, first on birth place grounds and then on “natural born citizen” grounds.

That, even though I was one of the few people to defend the right of anyone to question the constitutional qualifications of any presidential candidate, so long as the challenge was not based on conspiracy theories and making stuff up.  I never accepted the Barack Obama birthplace conspiracy theories any more than I accepted the Trig Palin birth mother conspiracy theories.

I, almost alone, delved into the history of constitutional challenges, dating back to Chester Arthur on through George Romney and John McCain, with others along the way, to show that challenging constitutional qualification was not inherently racist and did not begin with Barack Obama.  No one pushed back against the abuse of the “Birther Card” more than I did.  (On the flip side of the coin, some left-wingers accused me of being a “Birther” because I refused to buy into the race card use.)

He then goes on to discuss the hostility in more detail. There are a lot of good comments at both stories. I read his blog regularly, although I usually don’t comment very much. Two of his excuses for putting this off will strike a chord with both Obots and Anti-Birthers, to wit:

(2) views on the subject have become like religion, incapable of disproving;

(8) bullet-proofing the analysis against the inevitable criticisms requires more painstaking drafting than normally takes place on the internet.

Those two items lead me to suspect that he has had a whole lot more run-ins with the Birthers than I ever expected. Personally, I am curious what verbal canards the Birthers will lob at him and whether they will also chunk physical copies of The Law of Nations at him, in the manner of Arabs throwing shoes. I can hardly wait to read his analysis, which I suspect is not going to make Birthers very happy.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image. This is from the TV series, The Twilight Zone. This episode is called “Time Enough At Last.” About which Wiki Says:

It was adapted from a short story by Lyn Venable (Marilyn Venable), which had been published in the January 1953 edition of the science fiction magazine If: Worlds of Science Fiction. “Time Enough at Last” became one of the most famous episodes of the original Twilight Zone, and has been frequently parodied since. It is “the story of a man who seeks salvation in the rubble of a ruined world” and tells of Henry Bemis /ˈbiːmɪs/, played by Burgess Meredith, who loves books, yet is surrounded by those who would prevent him from reading them. The episode follows Bemis through the post apocalyptic world, touching on such social issues as anti-intellectualism, the dangers of reliance upon technology, and the difference between aloneness (solitude) and loneliness.

There is more here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Enough_at_Last


The Fuller Brush Off, Man!!!

skelton-blair-fuller-brush-man

There Was A Whole Lot Of Bristling Going On!!!

Well, another congressman has given Deputy Mike “The Arizona Kid” Zullo the brush off. This time Jeff Fuller of Florida backed out of a planned meeting. The Birthers are trying to make something sinister out of it. I first read the story at Market Ticker, where we find this excerpt:

Gallups indicated that his first reaction was utter shock. “I was flabbergasted,” Gallups said. “I had been on the phone and sending and receiving emails for days – directly from the Congressman’s office and then the Chief of Staff calls me and says something to the effect of ‘we don’t remember any such arrangements.’ It was utterly astounding. I reminded the Chief of Staff that I possessed the entire email trail, including emails from him. The phone went silent. I don’t think he had thought of that. The whole conversation was surreal. I told him that it was surreal. The Chief of Staff never relented on his story – he continually insisted that no such meeting was ever arranged. He would not address the fact that I was in possession of the email chain.”

Gallups (pictured at left) said, “This is the very kind of political shenanigans that Washington does not need. The voters in this Congressman’s district need to know the dishonesty of his office and his highly unethical political dealings. The nation needs to know. If the Congressman had simply been forthright and called me up and explained that he had changed his mind and would rather not meet with Zullo and me – I would have not said a public word about it. That would have been his absolute prerogative. I no desire to ‘strong-arm’ anyone to meet with us. The problem stems from the fact that the Congressman apparently had his Chief of Staff call me and basically call me a ‘liar.’ I felt as though he was questioning my ‘sanity.’ That is where he crossed the line with me. I will not be strong-armed either. Nor will I will be told that a conversation never took place that was witnessed by Lt. Zullo, the Congressman, the Chief of Staff and myself and also recorded in official government email and phone conversations.”

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=223608

The story was also carried at Poo Poo Simmons, and ObamaReleaseYourRecords. My GUESS is, that after making the appointment, somebody in Fuller’s office realized that Zullo and Team Arpaio were a complete bunch of nuts, and decided to bail out. Plus, who wants to listen to 16 hours of blather about pixels and mysterious postage dating stamps from the 1980s.  I suspect that people in Washington have been getting bombarded by all kinds of flaky Birthers and are just fed up with them. Hopefully, this is what all the FEMA Camps are for, emergency mass institutionalization of mentally ill Birthers. However, I am not sure they can be treated.

Anyway, the Birthers are bristling at the snub. I have no sympathy for them. They have brought this disrespect down on their own heads with their stupidly stubborn pursuit of nonsense, and their absolute refusal to accept the reasoned decisions of various courts out of deference to a 250+ year old European legal treatise.

Kark Denninger, the guy who runs Market Ticker, is a very intelligent person who sadly flirted with the two citizen parents nonsense. I am not sure if he is still of that persuasion, or if he maybe wised up after a few more courts threw the nonsense out. I told him that it was crap, and got “DQ’ed” for it, which is about the same thing as a ZOT! over at Free Republic.  I did an article here when it happened.

At one point, he was convinced that the long form image had been manipulated, but did not go so far as to call it a forgery. He did some kind of radio discussion with Deputy Jerome Corsi, and either Butterdezillion or Mara Zebest (I forget which) versus John Woodman.  He did make this comment at the above link:

If you remember at CPAC in May there was a bit of a political stir when Mike Zullo and crew (Sheriff Arapio’s “Cold Case Posse”) got a sitting Congressman (who they didn’t name) to agree to meet with them to present the case against Obama and his birth certificate (along with the at least as serious selective service record anomalies.)

Sooo, I am not sure how much he is still flirting with Birtherism. He does not yet stoop to calling any of the documents “forgeries,” and is content to simply label certain things as “anomalies.”  I just try not to think about all that, and still read his website daily. He makes some good common sense observations about the economy, and politics.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image. This is from the 1948 Red Skelton movie, The Fuller Brush Man. The actress is Janet Blair. Back in the olden days, Fuller Brush salesmen went door to door salesmen. Started in 1906, the company seems to still be in business.

http://www.fuller.com/

Here is a more in depth historical report by CNN if anyone is interested:

http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2012/02/26/the-fuller-brush-co-fortune-1938/


Scat Scratch Fever??? (Or, Ted Nugent Goes Out On A Limb!!!)

tarzan leopard woman

He Didn’t Need To Worry . . . She Was DEFINITELY Doing It For Free

Well, Ted Nugent done went and fell onto the Birther Turnip Truck.  Here is a piece of his latest rant from World Net Daily:

And with all due respect, your holy phoniness, who can’t see the terminal phoniness of wasting more tax dollars with more phony charges against George Zimmerman in defiance of your own FBI investigation and the same exhaustive evidence that proved his obvious innocence to the jury of his peers and everyone paying attention who was not blinded by your phony racism?

And we mustn’t forget your phony Nobel Peace Prize, or your phony real estate scammaster ripoff artist Tony Rezko, or your phony claims that your phony “Affordable Healthcare” scam will make our healthcare system cheaper and better when just the opposite is guaranteed.

And let’s all be honest here; more of us believe in the American hero Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s thorough investigation into your phony birth certificate and phony history than the phony media’s smoke and mirrors.

http://www.wnd.com/2013/07/the-greatest-phony-americas-ever-known/

This is a shame, because Ted was on a great rant, most of which I agree with. Then, he had to go into Birther LaLa Land with the idiotic Cold Case Posse stuff. This is another case of what I call Pixel Pox, where the amount of technobabble overwhelms the senses. People tend to believe the phony report about forgery, because they do not have the time, inclination, or expertise to unravel the volume of silliness. Ted Nugent is a smart person, with good sense, and I am pretty sure that if he actually understood what is in the alleged report, and the fact that it means absolutely squat, then he would change his mind.

Sooo, Ted, if you are listening, here’s the skinny. There wasn’t any evidence of forgery. The Cold Case Posse just couldn’t duplicate the manner in which a copy of Obama’s long form was uploaded to the net. They have not proven that any piece of information on the form is false, or materially altered. In Deputy Zullo’s own words:

There is not enough evidence to convict him on jaywalking … let alone anything else.”

Please Ted, consider me the “doctor”, and consider this “the cure.”

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image. This is from the exciting 1946 film, Tarzan and the Leopard Woman. As Wiki notes:

Tarzan and the Leopard Woman was a 1946 action film based on the Tarzan character created by Edgar Rice Burroughs and portrayed by Johnny Weissmuller. Travelers near Zambezi are being killed, apparently by leopards. Tarzan immediately doubts that leopards are the problem. At the same time, Tarzan, Jane, and Boy take in Kimba, a boy who claims to have become lost in the jungle. Kimba (Tommy Cook) is the brother of Queen Lea, leader of a leopard cult.

Kimba has a goal of his own: to take the heart of Jane (Brenda Joyce) a deed that would make him a warrior in the eyes of the cult. The Leopard Men wear leopard skins that form a cowl and cape, with iron claws attached to the back of each hand. Queen Lea (Acquanetta) wears a headband, wrist bands, ankle bands, halter top and miniskirt made of leopard skin. As “Variety” put it: “She displays plenty of what it takes to stir male interest and handles her acting chores adequately.”  The plot is summed up by these lines spoken by Tarzan (about Cheeta):

                           “If an animal can act like a man, why not a man like an animal?”

There is even an Arizona car dealer connection and some questionable birth issues!

The actress is Acquanetta (July 17, 1921 – August 16, 2004), nicknamed “The Venezuelan Volcano,” was a B-movie actress known for her exotic beauty. Although accounts differ, Acquanetta claimed she was born Burnu Acquanetta in Ozone, Wyoming. Orphaned by her Arapaho parents at the age of 2, she lived briefly with another family before being taken in by an artistic couple with whom she remained until she made the choice to live independently at the age of 15.

Acquanetta started her career as a model in New York City with Harry Conover. She signed with Universal Studios in 1942 and acted mostly in B-movies, including Tarzan and the Leopard Woman, Arabian Nights, The Sword of Monte Cristo, and Captive Wild Woman, in which Universal attempted to create a female monster movie franchise with Acquanetta as an ape.

She retired from movies in the 1950s after marrying Jack Ross, a car dealer. They settled in Mesa, Arizona, and she returned to a degree of celebrity by appearing with Ross in his local television advertisements,[4] and also by hosting a local television show called Acqua’s Corner that accompanied the Friday late-night movies. She and Ross had four children, and divorced in the 1980s.

Acquanetta also authored a book of poetry, The Audible Silence, illustrated by Emilie Touraine (Flagstaff, AZ): Northland Press, 1974. In 1987, the all-girl band The Aquanettas adopted (and adapted) their name from hers.

Note 2. The Title and Caption. This is based on lyrics from Ted Nugent’s hit, Cat Scratch Fever. As is the last sentence of the article. Scat is a nice word for “poop.” Here are the lyrics:

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/tednugent/catscratchfever.html

Note 3. Pixel Pox. See here for the first article about this condition:

https://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2013/07/08/grace-vuoto-falls-for-a-crock-and-catches-the-pixel-pox/


The Notorious Doctor Fibs Rises Again???

phibes final

He Was Surprised To Find Out Somebody Else Was Putting Words In His Electronic Voice Box

Well darned if the Birthers aren’t up to their old “Everybody Is A Birther!!!” trick once again. Now, the poor target is Michael Savage, or Doctor Savage of radio fame. ORYR has this little headline up:

 
Dr. Savage: Obama’s Birth Certificate 
Fabricated: His Whole Story Is Fraudulent

As usual, there is another dumb video/audio you are supposed to listen to, and I almost didn’t waste my time because this isn’t my first Birther Rodeo. And these things have a remarkable tendency to not say what the headline says. But, it was only 3:36, so I said, “What the heck?”, put on my headphones, and grabbed the barf bag, just in case. Here is a transcript of the relevant part:

At :56

As far as him being killed ten years before, I find that bizarre, I don’t believe it. But you know, given the fact that there were issues about Obama’s friends, and Obama’s birth certificate, which was eliminated by the fabrication, or whatever you want to call it. . . many people say that’s not an issue. So he’ll go past the issue. The issue of his college records being sealed . . . the whole story is fraudulent. I want to go back to my main point, and then I’ll move on again with the Obama thing.

He’s president now for what 4 ½ years. How long is it already that we have suffered under this man. I will say it again because I think it’s the most salient point of all with regard to this man. Had he applied for a position as an FBI Agent, he could not have gotten clearance to become an FBI agent. If Obama had applied to become a secret service agent to protect the president, because of his past associations, he could not have become a secret service agent, That’s all you have to remember, I mean the rest is just spurious, or you know things that people make up. He could not have qualified to become a FBI agent or a secret service agent owing to his friendships, his sitting in a church for twenty years listening to hate America speeches by Rev. Wright. And many other things that were in his past. Say, Well what do I care about that, I don’t know, don’t care about it. It’s too late to care about it anyway. As they say in the vernacular, the house is out of the barn, so what’s the point.

It seems apparent to me that Savage was answering some stupid caller, with some stupid conspiracy theory about Obama having been killed ten years earlier. It looked to me like Savage was categorizing the birth certificate as a “fabrication” for purposes of argument and then saying that anything about Obama’s past outside of his conduct and associations was irrelevant. Once again, a whole lot different than the headline. But, I wasn’t positive of my conclusion. It seems like ORYR was a little spooky, too, because after the video,  he wrote:

Listen to Savage’s many comments about Obama’s ID Fraud

There was a link to a June 2010 audio/video where Savage goes on a dual allegiance and British citizenship rant. But, that was three years ago. A lot of really really wonderful people were Birthers back then. That doesn’t mean that they stayed Birthers.  Heck, the long form came out less than a year after that, and there were numerous court decisions on the two citizen parent stuff. Sooo, I found a later  video from Savage, from April 26, 2011, which was already transcribed:

Here’s the problem with the Birther issue. It’s irrelevant where he was born in one sense but quite relevant in another. It’s relevant because if he wasn’t born here then he’s not qualified to be president. However, even if it turns out to be true that Barack was not born here, it’s too late to impeach him for that in the sense that it would take two years to get an impeachment or any other hearing going with this congress at which point he’d be out of business anyway. That’s Number One.

But to link all of your criticisms about this Marxist president to this birth issue is a disastrous error for two reasons. Firstly, because his biggest crimes and misdemeanors are not about where he was born, but about his social policies, most particularly his economic policies, which are classic Das Kapital Marxism.

Secondly, there’s another major problem with this which is that I believe he’s probably going to pull out an authentic birth certificate — or facsimile thereof — just around the time of the debates during the next election when he faces his Republican opponent. If he does that, it’s the end of the road for the Republicans if they’ve linked themselves to this issue, but even if they haven’t linked themselves to this issue, they’re finished. Why?

Let’s say the candidate is a middle of the road guy like Romney who has never linked himself to the Birther issue. Obama’s going to show his real birth certificate. And if Romney should, God forbid, accuse him truthfully of being a Marxist socialist on the economic level — which I doubt he would have the guts to do anyway — Obama’s going to pull out the real birth certificate, smirk and say, “You know, Mitt, here’s the problem with your argument. Your crackpot extremist Republican Party accused me of not even being an American. And yet here’s my birth certificate. Now you’re going out of your way as an extremist to say I’m a Marxist when, in fact, I’m a centrist trying to help the most number of people.” That’s the end of the Republican party as we know it.

And that’s why the Birther controversy is a disastrous issue on which to hang all our criticism of this Marxist President. Remember who you’re dealing with here. You’re dealing with a Chicago gangster regime that is printing money based upon nothing. They have the printing presses. And if they can print money and they can print bonds that have no value whatsoever, why do you assume they couldn’t forge an “original birth certificate” at the end of the road and use this instrument to foist this charlatan upon America again.

That’s my position on the birther issue.

http://radiopatriot.wordpress.com/2011/04/26/michael-savage-heres-the-problem-with-the-birther-issue/

That seems to kind of dovetail with what Savage said in the latest ORYR post, that ” That’s all you have to remember, I mean the rest is just spurious, or you know things that people make up.”

Yes, kind of like ObamaReleaseYourRecords does.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image. This is from one of the fantastic  Dr. Phibes movies, about which Wiki says:

The Abominable Dr. Phibes is a 1971 horror film starring Vincent Price and Joseph Cotten. Its art deco sets, dark humour and performance by Price have made the film and its sequel Dr. Phibes Rises Again cult classics. Dr. Phibes is inspired for his murderous spree by the Ten plagues of Egypt from the Old Testament.

These really are some cool movies, and the artwork is magnificent. The caption is a reference to the fact that Dr. Phibes:

After each murder, the twisted zombie doctor (who cannot move his lips but speaks through an electronic voice box disguised as a phonograph) melts down a waxen image of the dead doctor with a blow torch and plans his next attack — a sly homage to Price’s trademark 1953 horror classic House of Wax .

For ESL’s The Image Easter Egg is a wordplay on High Fives. Here is a good review of the movie:

http://voices.yahoo.com/robert-fuests-abominable-dr-phibes-1971-8073518.html

Note 2. Rise/Rises. Yes, it should read “Rise” in the title because here, “Doctor” is an adjective modifying “Fibs”, and NOT part of a compound noun “Doctor Fibs.” But, it just looks and sounds funny because the tendency is to read is as a compound noun.


Mario Apuzzo, Esq. Is All Wet!!! (Part II, On Cruz Control???)

witch trial

Fabia Sheen, Esq. And Squeeky Fromm Could Handle This With One Hand Behind Their Back

This is Part II of my response to Mario Apuzzo, Esq. and his latest critique of me, the Artsy-Fartsy Girl Reporter:

The Constitution, the Rule of Law, and the “Natural Born Citizen” Clause:  A Response to Artsy Fartsy Squeeky Fromm Girl Reporter

Artsy Fartsy Squeeky Fromm Girl Reporter (“Squeeky Fromm”) continues in vain to try to persuade the public that she has refuted my position that an Article II “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the country to parents who were its “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth.

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-constitution-rule-of-law-and.html

In Part I of my response, I covered the syllogistic aspects of Apuzzo’s argument, and the inapplicability of logical syllogisms to the question of whether or not a citizen at birth is the legal equivalent of a natural born citizen.  This article will deal with Apuzzo’s alleged substantive arguments found in Section III of his post,  which includes, but is not limited to the Minor v. Happersett, Wong Kim Ark, and Rhodes v. U.S. cases,  his interpretation of the 14th Amendment, and the writings of Emer de Vattel. Because of length, I will probably have to write a separate post to cover his claims in Section IV of his argument.

For a brief history, this whole episode began when Apuzzo weighed in with his opinion that Ted Cruz is not a natural born citizen.  My substantive counter-attack was written in the form of a hypothetical judicial opinion rendered 7 years hence, in the year 2020, occasioned by  Apuzzo challenging Cruz for the Republican nomination.  Doing things in this fashion forced me to think about the specific legal nature of the Birther challenge. And have no fear,  if Cruz  runs, there will be Birther challenges, and to obtain legal standing,  Birthers will file to be placed on the ballot.

This method also forced me to go ahead and craft a judicial response. This was necessary because current case law does not directly provide an answer as to whether or not Cruz is a natural born citizen. However, the case law does give a pretty good indication how a court will rule. In addition to Ted Cruz, Jack Maskell also believes this, writing:

[T]he weight of scholarly legal and historical opinion appears to support the notion that ‘natural born citizen’ means one who is entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States to U.S. citizenship ‘at birth’ or ‘by birth,’ including any child born ‘in’ the United States (other than to foreign diplomats serving their country), the children of United States citizens born abroad of one citizen parent who has met U.S. residency requirements.

Sooo, I am in good company. A copy of Maskell’s Congressional Research Memo may be found above, in the header under “Natural Born Citizenship.”

https://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/natural-born-citizenship/

Now, here was my original substantive response, the hypothetical Order, in pdf form, which I will recap a little:

Apuzzo Order

My GUESS, as to the form of the Birther challenge was:

1. Sen. Ted Cruz is not a natural born citizen as required by the U.S. Constitution because he does not have two citizen parents.

2. Sen. Ted Cruz is not a natural born citizen as required by the U.S. Constitution because he was born in Canada, outside the boundaries of the United States, thus necessitating naturalization to make him a citizen.

I dealt with the first objection in the same way as the various courts who have heard the issue have dealt with it, that is, with a good whopping strong dose of Wong Kim Ark. There is no need to repeat it here since it is in the Order above. The second argument is more difficult, because the courts haven’t directly ruled on this point. My arguments were:

1.   From, 8 USC § 1401(g), only one parent is required for someone born outside the country t0 be a citizen at birth, so that if a citizen-at-birth is legally equivalent to a natural born citizen, it clearly doesn’t take two citizen parents;

2. From Wong Kim Ark (WKA), a nation has the right to make it’s own citizenship laws;

3. From WKA,  the Court recognized, without objection, that in the Naturalization Act of 1790, Congress provided that Americans born abroad  were natural born citizens;

4. From WKA, Congress was recognized to have broad authority to bestow citizenship on those born abroad;

5. From Book 1, The Law of Nations, § 214. Naturalization, Emer de Vattel recognized that countries may grant citizenship to those born abroad in varying degrees;

6. Apart from any judicial recognition or notice, The 1st United States Congress itself, in The Naturalization Act of 1790, believed it possessed the authority to grant natural born citizenship status to certain children born outside the United States;

7. The USCIS does not believe that granting the status of citizen-at-birth, is the same as naturalization, to wit:

Note: You may already be a U.S. citizen and not need to apply for naturalization if your biological or adoptive parent(s) became a U.S. citizen before you reached the age of 18. For more information, visit our Citizenship Through Parents page;

8. [A]s a matter of statutory construction,  Congress is presumed to act with awareness of relevant judicial decisions, and knowledgeable about existing law pertinent to the legislation it enacts; and

9. With No. 8 in mind, through the provisions of 8 USC § 1401(a), numerous classes of persons are listed who are citizens at birth. The first of these is:

a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

Therefore, when Congress lumped all other citizens-at-birth into the same class with these persons, it must be presumed

i.  To have known that these persons were natural born citizens through the provisions of the 1th Amendment, and judicial holdings such as WKA; and

ii.  By so including them, without restriction or limitation, therefore  intended the other described classes were also natural born citizens.

Here is a link to 8 USC § 1401 et.seq.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401

All of the above are factors which I believe will mitigate in favor of Crus being found a natural born citizen. I put them in list form here to better compare them with Apuzzo’s reasoning.  Rather than recognize that Cruz’s status as a natural born citizen is a question more subject to statutory construction, Congressional intent, and previous cases on natural born citizenship,  he continues to thump hard and fast on the same definitions he has utilized to dispute Obama’s eligibility. Here is his first bad step:

She [Squeeky] attempts to dismiss Minor as being irrelevant to the issue of both Obama and Cruz’s eligibility, arguing that Minor did not define or deal with children born inside the United States to alien parents. This is incorrect.

Duh! And how does Minor have anything significant to do with a person born in Canada and made a citizen at birth by statute??? Minor was an 1875 female voting rights case out of Missouri. The Minor Court didn’t even find it necessary to deal with doubts about the children of aliens and foreigners born inside the country, much less those born outside the country. Supposedly, Apuzzo finds Minor relevant because he wants to establish that common law does not cover people born outside the country.  Well, why not use Wong Kim Ark (1898)???  Not only is it a later case, it contains much more information about naturalization than Minor.

If his over emphasis on Minor was a bad step, his next argument is like falling off a mountain top, and tumbling about 2 miles down the hill, wrapped up in a big snow ball:

She states that the clause “natural born citizen” “was discussed at length in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.” This is false. Wong Kim Ark discussed at length the English common law and an English “natural born subject.” The English common law defined neither a “citizen” nor a “natural born citizen.”  Justice Swayne in United States v. Rhodes, 27 F. Cas. 785 (Cir.Ct. D. Ky. 1866) (No. 16,151), told us that neither a “citizen” nor a “natural born citizen” were defined by the English common law. The court said that “British jurisprudence, whence so much of our own is drawn, throws little light upon the subject.  . . . Blackstone and Tomlin contain nothing upon the subject. ”  Id. at 788.  So, Wong Kim Ark, which spent much time on analyzing the English common law, could not have been analyzing the meaning of a “natural born citizen” which clause was not even found in that law. 

Huh??? Is Apuzzo trying to be tricky, or is he really confused? Of course English common law did not cover natural born CITIZENS. It covered natural born SUBJECTS. Which the WKA Court, and others before it, found to be similar concepts. The entire “II Section” of WKA was about natural born subjects, followed by Section III which set forth the American version, natural born citizens:

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.

And, Mr. Justice Swayne, in the Rhodes case mentioned above by Apuzzo:

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

So, in those two brief excerpts, you get a definition of natural born citizen, good until the passage of the 14th Amendment in 1868. Namely, someone born in the country, under its allegiance, meaning neither a diplomat, or hostile invader. WKA took it a step further, and held in Section V, that the 14th Amendment was just an affirmation of this principle:

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 [three exceptions omitted]  The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. 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.”

How does Apuzzo read this?

Hence, that the Fourteenth Amendment or a Congressional Act might declare someone born either in the United States or out of it to be a “citizen at birth” does not prove that that person is a “natural born citizen.”

Uh, Mario, the WKA Court just said that it did. The Courts who have addressed the two-citizen parents think it does. That “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 [three exceptions omitted]” and “those children are natural born. And those exceptions are diplomats, hostile invaders, and wild Indians NOT. . . children without two citizen parents.

If natural born citizenship did actually require two citizen parents, then WKA should be the case where that alleged requirement would show up. But WKA goes far beyond that and flatly comes right out and states that the citizenship of the parents is irrelevant for children born here. The Birther refusal to recognize this simple fact is what guaranteed every loss they have experienced in court, and will continue to guarantee future losses.

Apuzzo does not stop there. Here is his next brush with reality:

Here, she makes the absurd argument that Cruz is a “natural born citizen” by way of a naturalization act of Congress.  Using her logic, the “natural born citizen” clause would have no meaning or limits if Congress could simply naturalize anyone at birth which Squeeky Fromm then considers to be a “natural born citizen.”  She looks to the Naturalization Act of 1790 for support. Regarding whether children born out of the United States to U.S. “citizen” parents are “natural-born citizens,” the Naturalization Act of 1790 does not help Squeeky Fromm because the 1795 Act, with the work of James Madison, repealed it and replaced “natural born citizen” with “citizen of the United States.

But isn’t that the issue at question??? Whether or not Congress can decree a natural born citizen out of someone born overseas to American parent(s)? What Apuzzo does once again is to just argue his conclusion. He doesn’t argue to a conclusion. He just jumps straight to a conclusion. He argues that when Congress did not include the natural born citizen language in its 1795 enactment, it did so because they did not intend for them to be considered natural born citizens. Maybe.  Or maybe it just seemed obvious to the 1795 Congress that those foreign born children to whom they were extending citizenship, were being granted the full spectrum of American rights, including the right to become President. The Constitution itself contemplates the eligibility of  a 35 year old President who has only spent 14 years of his life inside the United States, and the remaining 21 years in a foreign land.

What Apuzzo completely fails to do is present any kind of respectable case that Congress is prohibited from extending natural born citizenship status to children born of American citizens when they are outside the country. I presented 8 or 9 indicia which I think stand for the proposition that Congress has that power, and has exercised it.

That is how non-Birther legal minds work. Examine the law and history, and then reach a conclusion. Birther minds work differently. Pick a conclusion, then ignore anything which conflicts with that conclusion. Here is another exercise in that vein:

Squeeky Fromm also fails to understand this fundamental truth–that one becomes at once a “citizen at birth” and does not need naturalization does not mean that one was not naturalized. See Calvin’s Case (1608) which was decided in England in 1608. That case proves that being a “citizen at birth” can entail having been naturalized at birth which necessarily excludes one from being a true “natural born citizen.

I am not sure what point Apuzzo is trying to make here. Calvin was declared a natural born subject by common law, not naturalization statutes.  In one sense of the word, all people everywhere are naturalized, that is, made a citizen by some statute or law. I don’t think that it is the soil itself which reaches up and coats a baby. If it did, it must be some pretty smart dirt that can tell the difference whether or not a child is the offspring of a diplomat or hostile invader.

More to the point, it is law itself that naturalizes. In some countries, it is by parentage, other countries by place of birth, and quite often some combination of both.  There is no immutable Law of the Universe which dictates that American law must be that  anyone born here, with the two exceptions,  is a natural born citizen and eligible for the Presidency. Neither does the study of physics indicate there is a Vattel Particle which requires two citizen parents lest matter and anti-matter collide and blow us all to smithereens. What each country has is its own laws and legal concepts regarding membership in that country.

Our country sets forth a membership standard which is most usually met by simple birth inside the country.  We also have a form of junior membership called naturalization. And these junior members have freedom of the grounds everywhere except the White House. Our laws also provide membership benefits to those born of our citizen(s) who are overseas at the time. There is not much which indicates that particular membership is of the junior kind, and as detailed above, many indicia that just the opposite is true. Mario Apuzzo has not yet set forth anything substantial to rebut those arguments.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter


Mario Apuzzo, Esq. Is All Wet!!! (Part I, The Witch Test)

witch ski

Apuzzo Suddenly Realized That He Wasn’t On Solid Ground

Well, Mario Apuzzo, Esq. once again takes issue with my assessments of his arguments. Here is a link to his latest broadside at me, the Artsy-Fartsy Girl Reporter:

The Constitution, the Rule of Law, and the “Natural Born Citizen” Clause:  A Response to Artsy Fartsy Squeeky Fromm Girl Reporter

Artsy Fartsy Squeeky Fromm Girl Reporter (“Squeeky Fromm”) continues in vain to try to persuade the public that she has refuted my position that an Article II “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the country to parents who were its “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth.

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-constitution-rule-of-law-and.html

For purposes of space, this article will only discuss his syllogisms, or logical form arguments. Part II will cover his substantive arguments. Before we discuss his arguments, let’s do some analogizing about tests! Back in Ye Olde Witch Hunting Days, there was a test designed to determine if a woman was witch. It was called dunking. The alleged witch would be trussed up, taken to the nearest river or pond, and tossed in. If she floated, she was a witch. If she sank, she was innocent. There was usually a rope attached, and the witches, innocent and otherwise, were pulled back up in the boat. This was a respected, and well established test dating back to the days of Babylon. Personally, I think it was more of an ancient form of the Wet T-Shirt Contest, but I believe a lot of Jungian stuff, so who knows.

Anyway, from a modern perspective, we can see that this test had absolutely nothing to do with proving whether or not the subject was a witch, and a lot more to do with Body Mass Index (BMI). A voluptuous, buxom woman, with ample hips, would be more likely to float, whereas scrawny little Girl Reporters would end up noodling catfish on the bottom. Theoretically, it would be possible to rig these tests. For example, if it was me, and a Mob of Angry Birthers said I was a witch, then I would put on my cast iron chastity belt, and slip some diving weights into my undies. I do not put this kind of thing past people in that day, either.

This may make it easier to understand what I was griping about when I wrote my “stabs.” They were in response to an Apuzzo article critical of Jack Maskell, who had written a 50 page memo for the Congressional Research Service, and Bob Quasius, a blogger at Cafe Con Leche Republicans, who relied on that memo to conclude Ted Cruz was most likely a natural born citizen. A copy of Maskell’s memo, and a pdf of it for easier reading, may be found here:

https://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/natural-born-citizenship/

Apuzzo attacked Maskell by using logical syllogisms.  I counter-attacked Apuzzo by pointing out that syllogisms are basically useless when it is the major premises themselves that are issue. And even more useless when an author plays fast and loose with them. That was the point that I made in my first article on this:

https://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2013/06/08/he-says-apuzzo-i-say-a-pazzo/

Perhaps it is my inherent witchiness, but neither that article nor the subsequent rebuttal article sank in.  So, that is why I am trying this analogy. The Dunking Test is a lot like those Logical Syllogisms. Neither are accurate tests of the truth, and both are subject to being rigged. This was the point that I made in my articles.  That syllogisms are as unreliable in determining the TRUTH of an argument, as tossing a witch into yon pond. Take for example this perfectly logically valid syllogism:

Major Premise:   All dogs can fly
Minor Premise:   Fido is a dog
Conclusion:          Fido can fly

While this passes the logically VALID test, in that its FORM is correct, it does not pass the TRUE test. How do we know that it is not true??? We must go outside the syllogism for that. It is our experience, and our judgement which tell us that dogs can not fly. Therefore, facts outside of the syllogism itself are necessary to determine the truth. That was the point I made to Apuzzo. That his methodology was flawed, and that by using syllogisms he would be unable to shine any light whatsoever on the issue, particularly because it was the major premise itself that was the subject of contention.

In the context of determining whether citizens at birth are legally equivalent to natural born citizens, using syllogisms is like using the Dunking Test.  You will get a result, but that result doesn’t mean anything.  But Apuzzo is not keen on the whole judgement external to the syllogism thingy. He complained:

And even though Squeeky Fromm comes to Maskell’s aid, she also does not present any evidence to show that Maskell’s major premise, as reconstructed by me, would be true. What she does in place of presenting any evidence that the major premise is true is just to say that the premise does not strike her “as being facially incorrect, invalid, or untrue.” From this statement we can see that Squeeky Fromm has very little understanding of informal logic and fallacies. An informal fallacy has the exact facial appeal that she relies upon. But when its underlying truth is tested, it fails

Nope. It is Mario Apuzzo, Esq. who does not understand. As in the Fido Syllogism above, where else could one go if one finds the conclusion that Fido can fly troubling??? And not something you wish to discuss deeply with Mental Health professionals. Here, between the double lines, is what I wrote which prompted that response:

====================

Now, lets assume that Apuzzo is wrong about CABs and NBCs and that they are both exactly the same thing as believed by Maskell and the Great Weight of Legal and Historical Authority. Then let’s put the matter to the logic test in proper logical form:

Major premise:       All NBCs are CABs
Minor premise:      Cruz is an NBC
Conclusion:             Therefore, Cruz is a CAB

Major premise:       All CABs are NBCs
Minor premise:       Cruz is a CAB
Conclusion:              Therefore, Cruz is an NBC.

Yes, I can live with either conclusion. Neither strikes me as being facially incorrect, invalid, or untrue. It would all depend on the truthfulness of the premises. For example, if a court ruled that all CAB are NOT NBC’s, then Cruz may or may not be an NBC. Which brings you to the second big problem with Apuzzo’s whole approach to this thing. Which is, his whole approach to this thing.

====================

Summarizing this point, to determine whether or not a syllogism is TRUE, you have to go outside the syllogism. While outside, if something looks STUPID, then the syllogism is probably neither TRUE  nor SOUND.  Sooo, Fido can fly . . . strike[s] [me]“as being facially incorrect, invalid, or untrue.” With Maskell and Quasius, there were no such vibes.  There might be disagreement from the Birthers, but once again, that is why you don’t use syllogisms in situations like this. They are about as useful as trussing Maskell up, and  chunking him into a river to see if he floats.

Now, to discuss Apuzzo’s initial rigging of Maskell’s Dunking Test. In his original article, Apuzzo characterized Maskell’s take on this as:

All NBCs are CABs.
All persons like Ted Cruz (born in Canada to a U.S “citizen” mother and non-U.S. “citizen” father) are CABs.
Therefore, all persons like Ted Cruz are NBCs.

This is the same FORM, as Apuzzo’s Bubbles the Poodle example:

All poodles are dogs.
Bubbles is a dog.
Therefore, Bubbles is a poodle.

This is  a NOT VALID form, and it is also NOT the manner in which either Maskell, or the blogger Bob Quasius presented the argument. There was no reason to ever present Maskell’s argument in that particular form, except to set up a straw man.  Maskell’s position could be accurately presented by the two proper forms above. Apuzzo simply slipped some floaties on Maskell, tossed him in the drink, and then hollered, “Witch! Witch!” when Maskell floated to the surface.

That was my point. That was also what I said in my first rebuttal response to Apuzzo:

https://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2013/06/12/mario-apuzzo-esq-s-distributed-muddle/

In his latest article, Mario Apuzzo tangentially deals with these criticisms:

Squeeky Fromm tries to persuade that she successfully addressed my criticisms of Congressional Attorney Jack Maskell’s thesis (his major premise) that all born citizens are “natural born citizens.”  From her article we can see that she is starting to understand the world of logic a little better. But she does not admit the blunder that she made with the first part of my logical presentation in which I expose why to argue, that since all “natural born Citizen” are “citizens at birth,” and since Barack Obama is a “citizen at birth,” he is a “natural born Citizen,” is logically invalid.  We have to recognize this argument and show that it is invalid because it is one of the means by which Maskell arrives at his conclusion that Obama is a “natural born citizen.”

Second, Squeeky Fromm, underplays the second part of my logical analysis where I show, by converting Maskell’s invalid argument into a valid argument, that Maskell’s second argument is unsound because the major premises is false.  Maskell’s second argument can only be all “citizens at birth” are “natural born citizens,” and since Obama is a “citizen at birth,” he is a “natural born citizen.”  Maskell’s major premise in this argument would be all “citizens at birth” are “natural born Citizens.” Squeeky Fromm fails to understand the importance of the maneuver of taking someone’s invalid argument and making [it] valid. It is done to show that if the argument is to succeed, then its premises must be true. And it is here that I have shown that Maskell’s major premise is false and therefore also his conclusion that Obama is a “natural born citizen.”

Huh??? Well, if you can wave your hands and, “PRESTO CHANGE O!!!” make the syllogism VALID, why did you ever present the INVALID form??? Because we have already established that the TRUTH of a syllogism comes from outside the syllogism, because the TRUTH of the premises comes from outside the syllogism. Let’s go grab Bubbles, and see how this works:

All poodles are dogs.
Bubbles is a dog.
Therefore, Bubbles is a poodle.

Is Bubbles a poodle??? Who knows. The FORM of the syllogism is INVALID, but that does not mean the conclusion is false. That just means that you can’t get to the truth of the conclusion through the argument. Somebody has to outside, in the yard, and check Bubbles. Who may or may not be a poodle.

Now, let’s do an Apuzzo Abracadabra, and make the form VALID:

All poodles are dogs.
Bubbles is a poodle.
Therefore, Bubbles is a dog.

Now, the FORM is VALID, but is the conclusion TRUE??? Who knows? Is Bubbles a poodle? Perhaps Bubbles is a cat. The point is, you still have to go outside the syllogism to check whether or not the premises are true. Now, as a matter of Advanced Syllogisms,  I will tell you, that even if both premises are TRUEish, and the form VALID, the conclusion could be false. Here is a picture of Bubbles, the poodle. She is on the right:

lackey

[Robert Byrn (Sir Kay, The Seneschal) and Mimi Berry (Bubbles, Hand-maiden to Queen Morgan Le Fay) in the 1943 revivial of A Connecticut Yankee. Creator: Valente, Alfredo — Photographer. Created Date 1943.

Because, a poodle is also a lackey, or a servile person.  So, some poodles are dogs. Some aren’t. This isn’t just nitpicking. Syllogisms come in flavors, or moods. About 256 of them, t0 be precise. Out of that 256 possible moods, only 19 forms are considered VALID. Personally, I haven’t counted them.

http://math.fau.edu/schonbek/mfla/mfla1f01syl.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism

The relevance here is, that there is a very good chance a premise on the Ted Cruz issue would come out as, Some Citizens-at-Birth are natural born citizens. The law is not a real good place for logical FORMS. One reason is that classifications change. Another is that words are often subjective in meaning, or admit to having more than one meaning. For example, is naturalization a statute to be viewed separate and distinct from the Article II natural born citizen characterization, or is naturalization more properly viewed as a process,  complete with citizenship tests. In the law, lines are seldom hard and fast. This is why you have judges and juries. Somebody has to look at laws and decide what the words mean, and how they are to be applied, and to what facts they should be applied.

That was my point to Mario Apuzzo, Esq. Regarding Ted Cruz, the question of whether or not he is a natural born citizen, is open. Most people, myself included, think this will resolve in his favor. But it will not be resolved from presumption and the making of syllogistic premises. It will be decided by going to the law, and trying to decide the meanings of the words, and the intent behind them. If he wishes to be relevant in that process, Mario Apuzzo, Esq. needs to forget Aristotle, and start reading up on case law and statutory construction.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image. This is Alfredo Mendoza, a former water skiing champion.

Alfredo Mendoza was the premier male water skier in the world during the early 1950s and he turned his tournament successes into a professional career as a skiing star at Florida’s Cypress Gardens. Mendoza first learned to water ski at Lake Tequesquitengo southwest of Mexico City in 1949. His fascination with the sport, coupled with his viewing of a film of show skiing at Cypress Gardens, convinced him to change from his earlier ambition of becoming a bullfighter. Mendoza captured the jumping and overall gold medals at the 1953 World Championships in Toronto, Canada. He repeated as jumping and overall champion at the world meet in Beirut, Lebanon two years later and added the slalom gold medal to his victory string.

http://www.iwsf.com/halloffame/89AlfredoMendoza.htm