Tag Archives: eligible

The Great Freeper Birther Purge Of 2013 (Too Little, Too Late???)

Purge 2

They Were Each Sentenced To Ten Years Of Cleaning Up Steaming Piles Of Vattel

Following up on a story of a few days ago (see Note 2 below), Jim Robinson, the Eugene H. Krabs of the Free Republic Krusty Krab, is threatening to purge the place of any two-citizen parents Birthers who say mean things about either Ted Cruz or Mark Levin, Esq. Robinson has put up his own post based on the Cato Institute report which opined that Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen. There is a link below, but the actual story ran here a few days ago. What is fun is the comments! Here are a representative few:

Jim Robinson Comment# 1: As I’ve stated elsewhere on this forum many times, I have infinitely more confidence in Mark Levin and the CATO Institute than I do in legions of internet sea lawyers and bloggers.

If Ted Cruz decides to run for the Presidency and he appears to be the strongest conservative running, I will support him to the hilt. He’s one of the few conservatives in the Senate who actually has the balls to stand up for conservatism and against Obama and the GOP-e RINOs. This is a battle for the survival of America as a free nation. If we allow the democrats and the GOP-e statists to select our next opposition candidate for us, ie, Chris Christie or Jeb Bush, this nation is kaput.

We stand united or we fall. We cannot afford to destroy our best candidates or to split our conservative vote to the point that the likes of Christy or Bush gets the nod and someone like Hillary waltzes into the White House.

Supporting the “electable” Dole, McCain and Romney gave us Clinton and Obama. Supporting the crazy conservative gave us President Reagan.

and, in support of the author of the Cato Institute Piece:

Jim Robinson at Comment#  56: Looks like he’s a natural born citizen according to this author and I like his credentials as opposed to the usual internet blogger. Mark Levin likes him too. And I have much more faith in Mark Levin than your average anonymous sea lawyer/blogger.

CATO’s Ilya Shapiro: [long list of Shapiro’s qualifications omitted]

and, in response to the usual Birther “But, but, but . . . what about the Constitution?” crap, he says in six different comments:

B/S

Give us a break. No one but you is good enough for you.

Cruz is a natural born citizen. Get over it.

So those of us who support the grassroots tea party conservative and probably strongest conservative in the senate if not the entire Republican party are now considered to be moderates by birthers? Don’t look now, but I’m beginning to think the people who say birthers are nutcases aren’t that far off base. You people are imploding. Best rethink your strategy.

I’m not implying any such thing. I’m stating that if you post another slanderous attack on Mark Levin or Ted Cruz like you did earlier today, your ass is zot. If you wish to attack good conservatives, start your own damned website and have at it. You’re not going to do it here. Good luck with that. [this was to Cold Case Posse Supporter]

Either give it a rest or go somewhere else to post. I’m not interested in your slander of two great conservatives (Levin and Cruz). Drop it or begone!!

Robinson has a lot more to say, but you can read the thread yourself if you  are interested. It is still going on:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3060736/posts

In his usual subtle and understated way, Robinson also put a separate link up on the Forum, in Big Red Letters. The arrow and the box around the link are mine:

Free Republic Cruz Link

(Click on Image Once or Twice to Make It Larger.)

What I find interesting is that Robinson is only rehashing the same arguments that many people there, including me, made before we were zotted.  He does not appear to be well versed in the topic, and just bases his opinion on Levin and the Cato Institute Report. Here is what I predict is going to happen.

First, the “birth certificate” Birthers will continue posting as usual because the basis of their belief is simply suspicions about Obama’s roots, and not the Vattel stuff. Meantime, the two citizen parents Birthers will simply continue to peddle their nonsense against Obama, while laying off of Ted Cruz and Mark Levin.  I look for them to escalate their efforts to make up for the fact that they have to STFU about Cruz. Either Jim Robinson will get the fact that a Birther Mack Truck is driving through his living room, or he won’t.

Either way, the damage is already mostly done. Over the last five years, the idiots have been busy promulgating the two citizen parent crap at Free Republic, and from there little piles of the doo-doo have been spread to blogs and forums all across the Conservative blogosphere.  And from thence, thousands of poisonous mushrooms have blossomed. I wonder if Jim Robinson understands that what is wrong with the two citizen parents theory isn’t that it hurts Ted Cruz, but that it is nothing but a stupid lie, and never was anything but that.

Like Edmund Burke said, “Sin has many tools, but a lie is the handle which fits them all.”

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image. This is a photograph from the Soviet purges under Stalin. I was not able to determine its origin.

Note 2. Previous Posts: Here is the link to the previous Free Republic story:

https://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2013/08/28/jim-robinson-fires-cruz-missile-at-free-republic-birthers/

And here is the link to the Cato Institute Story:

https://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2013/08/28/cato-institute-busts-birthers-chops/

Note 3. For ESLs. The Image Easter Egg is a word play on seersucker, a type of cotton fabric often used in robes and sheer sucker, one who is utterly and completely fooled.

Note 4. Photographs of Free Republic Birthers. I have to admit that I LMAO every time I read this post, with its photographs of the Freeper Birthers. I know, I’m vain. Please forgive me.

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

Note 5.  Let A Hundred Flowers Bloom. This is the phrase behind the thousand poisonous mushrooms term I used.  It has to do with purges, or ideological cleansing. Wiki notes:

The first part of the phrase is often remembered in the West as “let a hundred flowers bloom”. It is used to refer to an orchestrated campaign to flush out dissidents by encouraging them to show themselves as critical of the regime, and then subsequently imprison them.

This view is supported by authors Clive James and Jung Chang, who posit that the campaign was, from the start, a ruse intended to expose rightists and counter-revolutionaries, and that Mao Zedong persecuted those whose views were different from the party’s.

Advertisements

Jim Robinson Fires Cruz Missile At Free Republic Birthers!!!

USS Jim Robinson 2

It May Have Looked Like A Destroyer, But It Was Really A Cruz Ship

The Free Republic Birthers got a wake up call yesterday from Jim Robinson, the crusty owner of the website.  On a thread about the individual who made a Birther out of himself at a Mark Levin book signing,  Judge Robinson settled the Ted Cruz eligibility question for the Freepers:

Jim Robinson at Comment 43: Ted Cruz was born to an American mother. He’s a natural born citizen and patriot in every sense of the word and I will support him to the hilt if he decides to run and is the strongest conservative running!! In fact, if that happens, FR will be Cruz Country!!

Go, TED, GO!!

FU Tokyo Rove, Chris Cristy, Jeb Bush, McCain, McBoehner, McGrahammesty, McFlake, McConnell and ALL GOP-e RINOS!!

The tea party rebellion is on!!

Anyone can’t live with that (as the say in Russia) tough shitski!!

and, when hit with the typical Birther ” But we’re just constitutionalists!” claims:

Jim Robinson at Comment 89: I’m upholding my oath. Cruz is a natural born citizen despite any claims to the contrary from the legions of internet “sea lawyers!”

and again, when asked, “Do you intend to ban those Conservatives that disagree with you on this matter”

Jim Robinson at Comment 91: Depends on the degree of nastiness. Don’t get nasty against our freepers or our conservative candidates.

and, when pushed some more:

Jim Robinson at 126: I said if Cruz is the strongest conservative running. But neither Cruz or Palin have declared. We’ll have to wait and see. And as far as I’m concerned, I’ll go with Levin and others who say Cruz is a natural born citizen.

Robinson had more to say, but I just wanted to provide enough to get across the gist of what happened. Here is a link to the thread.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3059395/posts

I was once a Freeper, but when I jumped on the two citizen parents Birthers there, I got the ZOT! There is a link in Note 1 below to the article I wrote in response, which has some undercover photos of the Freeper Birthers in full whine mode.  Jim Robinson has several problems on his hands, and not easy ones to solve. He has flatly decreed, and correctly, that Ted Cruz is eligible. Yet, he has not come right out and told the Birthers to knock off all the “two citizen parents” stuff.

By the very nature of things, it is not the “birth certificate” Birthers who have a problem with Cruz, unless they are also “two citizen parents” type Birthers.  And frankly, the two citizen parents Birthers are beyond reasoning with. They have repeatedly lost in court, and are not fazed.  Their argument is nonsensical to begin with. What person with a functioning brain really believes that Emer de Vattel is the source of American citizenship law??? Yet, they persist in the silliness.

What reasonably intelligent person can’t read the Wong Kim Ark (WKA) case a half dozen times and get the point, that the 14th Amendment put natural born citizenship for those born inside the country into the Constitution, where it would be safe from both either state and Congressional tinkering? It make take several readings, but goodness, two of the seven sections are dedicated to natural born subjects and natural born citizens. Another section is dedicated to showing how the 14th Amendment affirms and incorporates that previous law into itself. And still, the two citizen parents birthers are out there trying to defeat an 1898 SCOTUS holding with a 1758 legal treatise by a Swiss guy. Or some legal dictionary they found at a garage sale. Or, some case prior to 1898, which even if they were reading it correctly, would be reversed by WKA.

To paraphrase John Donne, from his Love’s Alchemy poem, “Hope not for mind [reason] in Birthers!” And to make it worse, it is not as if the Obots and Anti-Birthers aren’t doing their best to educate the poor addled two citizen parents birthers.  We write words enough to stretch to Pluto and back, and they still ignore us.  Jim Robinson is delusional if he thinks anything short of banning them or completely censoring them for preaching their nonsense is going to stop them.

That is where his second problem comes in. Because the longer they preach the “two citizen parents” nonsense, the more it sinks into the minds of low information voters. It will not matter to many of them that the nonsense is being presented against Obama, and not against conservative candidates. They will repeat the nonsense as if they know what they are talking about, and then refuse to vote for people like Bobby Jindal, Marc Rubio, or Ted Cruz. If he cares about his conservative causes, Robinson must tell them to knock off all the two citizen parents nonsense period, or get banned.  He has already let this nonsense go on for too long, and the longer it goes on, the worse it gets for Cruz and others.

Finally, he has the problem of how to go about banning or zotting them with a straight face.  He had no problem setting forth restrictions on rampant paranoia like Alex Jones’ Prison Planet, and overtly sovereign citizen theories. He didn’t let that stuff ever take hold at his website. It is different with the Birthers because he shares responsibility for letting them get to this point. At Free Republic they formed a clique and went around screaming Troll! and Obot! at people who disagreed with them.  Some of us got zotted. Free Republic became Birther friendly territory.

And fertile ground it was. Some of the dumbest Birthers I ever met  took root and grew at Free Republic, including but not limited to: Edge919, DiogenesLamp, and Butterdezillion. Robinson should have put his foot down a long time ago, the same as he would have if a group was telling Freepers they didn’t have to pay income taxes. But he didn’t,  and now the place is full of them.

In summary, half measures won’t work, the Birthers continue to do damage to the conservative cause, and they are in large enough numbers that it will hurt the website to ZOT! them all.  The best alternative I can see is for him to resort to outright censorship. He needs to flatly state that the two citizen parent stuff is complete bullsh*t,  and anybody who preaches it, and misleads other conservatives, even if it is in relation to Obama, is going to get the ZOT!.

It should be interesting to watch.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1.  Squeeky’s Free Republic ZOT!: Like I said above, there are photographs of the Birthers!

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


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


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


Dear Miki Booth – TMI Is NOT Your Friend!!!

In A Happier Time, Being A Space Cadet Was A Good Thing

Dear Miki,

How are you? Fine I hope. I was reading your letter about your book, and I have some unsolicited advice for you. Let me give you an analogy.  Suppose for a moment you are the editor, and it is your money that will be used to publish books. Then suppose that someone writes you a letter which says:

Dear Editor,

My book,  How To Make Safe 25% Returns Per Year On Your Stock Market Picks, has received outstanding reviews from members of  The Young Investors Club of New York.  I have been called “The Warren Buffet of Greater Sandusky” in a newspaper article for developing this safe and sure-fire method to earn these high returns.

Now so far, so good, right? The writer has your attention and you are interested.  Heck, you’re even thinking about hocking your jewelry so you can invest. Now for paragraph 2:

I was taught this method by aliens from the Galaxy, Grokk 7, located 3,000 light years from Earth. I was abducted from the weekly Moon Landing Deniers meeting  (of which I am the local coordinator) and taken to the Uranus Space Base, where I was probed every which way but loose.  Afterward, while sharing a drink, one of the Aliens, named Brizzibbit, showed me how to use superior Alien technology to psychically forecast moves in the Stock Market.

Now, somewhere in paragraph 2, I am betting the writer lost you. Probably before you could get to the Uranus Space Base. The reason is that the writer revealed herself to be a crank. Because only cranks believe stuff like this. This is a classic example of TMIToo Much Information.

This is probably why your book is not doing so well. Now, let’s look at your letter.

[Miki Booth

… February 15, 2012

Dear Editor,

My book, Memoirs of a Community Organizer from Hawai’i, debuted on Thursday, February 9 at CPAC the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, DC, to outstanding reviews. My work is the product of three years of investigating and documenting corruption and cover-up of Obama’s illegal election and the lengths his handlers have gone through to keep the truth from seeing the light of day. Obama has stated that his administration would be the most transparent in history but it should be clear by now to everyone that transparency was never his intention.

Now, up to this point  conservatives are probably salivating and waiting to read the juicy details about  Obama’s crimes against Humanity. But now you are about to lose them.  Here is your foray into the world of TMI, with BOLDED notes by me, so that you can gauge the degree to which you are chasing away your audience,  in comparison with the example above.

Obama has all the money and power in the world to silence people like me who challenge his eligibility [I was taught this method by aliens] to serve as President and Commander in Chief of the American Army as mandated by Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of the Constitution. The Democrat Socialist Party and the ruling elite may have succeeded in duping Americans the first time around claiming that Obama is a natural born Citizen [from the Galaxy, Grokk 7, located 3,000 light years from Earth.] but it won’t work for them again if the voices of the ‘silent majority’ are allowed to be heard.

The requirement and term, “Natural born Citizen[I was abducted from the weekly Moon Landing Deniers meeting] apply only to the two highest positions in our federal government. The reason is simply to ensure no outside or foreign interest would breach our national sovereignty and security. “Natural born Citizen[(of which I am the local coordinator)] and “native born[ and taken to the Uranus Space Base, ] are not the same kind of citizen. [where I was probed every which way but loose.] Obama, Sr., was a British national in the colony of Kenya [Afterward, while sharing a drink, one of the Aliens, named Brizzibbit, ] when Obama was born so he was not and can never be a natural born Citizen [showed me how to use superior Alien technology] and is illegally occupying the White House.[to  psychically forecast moves in the Stock Market. ]

Left-wing enablers continue to cover up the truth. Why just today the only bookstore in my area, Chapters in Miami, OK, owned by Ann Neal, has just banned my book.

Miki Booth
[address and phone number redacted]

You see, the plain fact is that outside of the Birther Echo Chambers, people just think Birthers are crazy.  Particularly people who are smart enough to be editors. Birther legal theories don’t make any sense, Birther cases get thrown out of the courts left and right, and frankly, you pretty much have to a 4+ rolling conspiracy theorist to believe the Birther stuff.

As a practical matter, I would at least remove all the Birther references from you letter. I am not saying this to be mean to you. Writing a book is something to be very proud of.  But, I hope you start thinking about these issues, and maybe start spending more time with sane people who do not believe this delusional Birther nonsense.  It will give you a better perspective on Reality.

Good luck,

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1: This is my second “advice” Internet Article in one day.  Am I turning into Dear Abby or something??? Will I start taking in stray cats??? OMG, is my biological clock starting to tick???


Joseph Farah Goes “Over The Edge”

When You Stare Into The Lemmings, The Lemmings Also Stare Into You.

Joseph Farah, Founder, Editor, and CEO of World Net Daily, recently took the plunge into full bore two citizen-parent Birtherism in all of its insane glory. In a recent appearance on Sean Hannity’s show, we find:

The panel thought Florida Senator Marco Rubio would be the appropriate choice. However, Joseph Farah of World Net Daily disagreed.

“Rubio’s not eligible,” Farah said.

“What do you mean?” host Sean Hannity asked.

“You’re going to lose 10% of the Republican vote because he is not a natural born citizen. We’ve been through this with Obama now for four years,” Farah explained.

“I don’t believe that. I don’t think that’s going to work,” Hannity said.

farah_rubio_not_eligible_to_be_vice_president_not_a_natural_born_citizen.html

Then, Farah doubled-down on dumb over to the World Net Daily (WND), saying:

Obama is not eligible. And to not challenge him is, in effect, to dumb down a critically important constitutional requirement for being president of the United States – another nail in the coffin of the ingenious document carefully crafted to guide our nation through the future.

And, just as I suspected might happen back then, today the Republicans seem hellbent on nominating for vice president a delightful, engaging, inspiring candidate who is also not eligible.

Jeffrey Scott, and presumably Breitbart, is of the persuasion that one simply needs to be born in the U.S. under any circumstances, notwithstanding parentage issues, to be a “natural born citizen” and eligible to be president.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/its-not-a-winning-issue/

It is sad when someone of Joseph Farah’s status joins the two citizen-parent lemmings in their crazy  Stampede Off The Cliff Of Sanity. Mr. Farah has no excuse. Farah worked for six years as executive news editor at the Los Angeles Herald Examiner and then  became editor of the Sacremento Union. The man has a college education and has written 13 books, all of which evidences some acquaintance with the English language.  He is smart enough that people  ask him to be on their TV shows.  He even has access to Jerome Corsi, PhD., who wrote Obama Nation in 2008 and throughout 304 pages never mentions the alleged two citizen parent disqualification.

It is my understanding that Farah began by questioning the birth certificate and then sort of morphed over to the two citizen-parent side of Birtherism. In his WND article he cites an article by Jeffrey Scott Shapiro, and states, in a mis-characterization:

Even the former Kerry legal eagle attacking me and WND for raising the eligibility issue in Rubio’s case now admits in his Breitbart piece that we had a good point about Obama’s eligibility. Welcome to the party, Mr. Scott. But you’re about four years too late with your epiphany.

Here is a link to Shapiro’s Internet Article:

http://biggovernment.com/jsshapiro/2012/02/06/wnds-birther-case-against-rubio-relies-on-repealed-slavery-law/

What Shapiro actually admitted had nothing to do with the two citizen parent silliness:

The birther movement had some credibility in its scrutiny of President Barack Obama–not because his father was Kenyan born and because his mother voluntarily moved him to Indonesia, but because of his own actions refusing to release his long-form Hawaiian birth certificate. President Obama’s actions, not his ancestry, rightfully cast suspicion on his citizenship. When he finally released his long-form birth certificate last year, that suspicion dramatically diminished. To suggest that Miami-born Marco Rubio or any other person born within the United States with citizen or alien parents is not a natural born American citizen because their parents’ national origin governs their citizenship is foolish, for there is no constitutional provision, statutory law, or case law that has ever suggested that inference is true.

I am not being picky, but when an ex-editor gets the name of a writer wrong (incorrectly calling him Jeffrey Scott three times, instead of Jeffrey Scott Shapiro) and slides over the nature of the admission, Farah’s credibility is further strained.

Farah candidly states that:

Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe I misread the founders. Maybe my interpretation of the Constitution is too strict – too literal. I have little doubt the U.S. Supreme Court in 2012 would find I misconstrue history and the facts – in the unlikely event the justices even had the courage to hear such a case. But maybe – just maybe – we’re long overdue for a rational, open public debate on this issue, without the invective and the derision and the ad hominem attacks.

Now at this point, faithful readers of WND will probably need a moment to suppress their gag reflex.  This is kind of absurd when you read Farah’s piece and find the following accusations, false assumptions, projections, smears, mis-characterizations, ad hominem attacks, parades of horribles, and a complete lack of any actual supporting legal analysis:

Obama is not eligible

the Republicans seem hellbent on nominating for vice president a delightful, engaging, inspiring candidate who is also not eligible.

maybe Breitbart, just a few years after leaving liberal-dom behind, still thinks of the Constitution as a “living document”

written, as it were, by the former legal adviser to John Kerry’s ill-fated campaign of 2004

a man who proudly proclaims in his bio that he studied under Gov. Michael Dukakis and interned for President Bill Clinton.

By Scott’s definition, every anchor baby – or the American-born offspring of illegal aliens – would also be a “natural born citizen” and eligible to be president or vice president.

[The Founders] wanted to avoid even the appearance of “divided loyalties” – something lawyers for John Kerry probably wouldn’t care much about.

I have little doubt the U.S. Supreme Court in 2012 would find I misconstrue history and the facts –

in the unlikely event the justices even had the courage to hear such a case.

For my trouble, I was blackballed, vilified, ridiculed and scoffed at by thoughtless people

Some wanted to defend the man in the White House at all costs

Some believed political expediency trumped the Constitution.

They were going to go after a corrupt president based apparently on only “winning issues.”

Even the former Kerry legal eagle attacking me and WND for raising the eligibility issue in Rubio’s case

Now this may seem pretty bad, but actually this is sort of tame for a WND piece.  Contrast this with the Shapiro piece above and notice the difference. Shapiro discusses THE LAW. He doesn’t engage in name-calling and smears. He just states the law. Franky, Mr. Farah, if you have been black-balled it is not by thoughtless people. Oh no, the thoughtless people are the ones lapping up WND’s drivel on the eligibility issue.

Meantime, people who actually have thoughts, are busy reading Wong Kim Ark, Lynch v. Clarke,  the Ankeny decision, and the subsequent legal decisions. You might have some exposure to these thoughtful people if WND was not sooo busy banning and scrubbing them from your website.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. Over The Edge: That idiom is defined:

Idioms & Phrases

over the edge

Insane, as in I think he’s gone over the edge. This expression alludes to the edge of sanity. [1920s]

Note 2. Lemmings:  Wiki says:

Lemmings became the subject of a popular misconception that they commit mass suicide when they migrate. Actually, it is not a mass suicide but the result of their migratory behavior. Driven by strong biological urges, some species of lemmings may migrate in large groups when population density becomes too great. Lemmings can swim and may choose to cross a body of water in search of a new habitat. In such cases, many may drown if the body of water is so wide as to stretch their physical capability to the limit. This fact combined with the unexplained fluctuations in the population of Norwegian lemmings gave rise to the misconception.

The misconception of lemming “mass suicide” is long-standing and has been popularized by a number of factors. In 1955, Disney Studio illustrator Carl Barks drew an Uncle Scrooge adventure comic with the title “The Lemming with the Locket”. This comic, which was inspired by a 1954 American Mercury article, showed massive numbers of lemmings jumping over Norwegian cliffs.Even more influential was the 1958 Disney film White Wilderness, which won an Academy Award For Documentary Feature, in which staged footage was shown with lemmings jumping into certain death after faked scenes of mass migration.A Canadian Broadcasting Corporation documentary, Cruel Camera, found that the lemmings used for White Wilderness were flown from Hudson Bay to Calgary, Alberta, Canada, where they did not jump off the cliff, but were in fact launched off the cliff using a turntable.

Because of their association with this odd behavior, lemming suicide is a frequently used metaphor in reference to people who go along unquestioningly with popular opinion, with potentially dangerous or fatal consequences.